&EPA
EPA/600/R-12/009 | February 2012 | www.epa.gov /nrmrl
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Performance Evaluation
of Innovative Water Main
Rehabilitation Spray-on Lining
Product in Somerville, New Jersey
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory -Water Supply and Water Resources Division
-------
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF INNOVATIVE WATER MAIN REHABILITATION
SPRAY-ON LINING PRODUCT IN SOMERVILLE, NJ
by
John Matthews, Ph.D., Wendy Condit, P.E., Ryan Wensink, and Gary Lewis
Battelle Memorial Institute
Ray Sterling, Ph.D., P.E.
Trenchless Technology Center at Louisiana Tech University
Contract No. EP-C-05-057
Task Order No. 58
Ariamalar Selvakumar, Ph.D., P.E.
Task Order Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Urban Watershed Management Branch
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
2890 Woodbridge Avenue (MS-104)
Edison, NJ 08837
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
February 2012
-------
DISCLAIMER
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and Development,
funded and managed, or partially funded and collaborated in, the research described herein under Task
Order (TO) 0058 of Contract No. EP-C-05-057 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer
and administrative review and has been approved for publication. Any opinions expressed in this report
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, therefore, no official
endorsement should be inferred. Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use. The quality of secondary data referenced in this document was
not independently evaluated by EPA and Battelle.
ABSTRACT
Renewal technologies being used for the repair, replacement and/or rehabilitation of deteriorating water
distribution systems are generally effective, but there is still considerable room for improvement of these
existing technologies and for the development of new technologies. Many utilities and municipalities are
seeking innovative rehabilitation technologies as a way to extend the life of their water distribution
systems; however, information about these emerging technologies is usually not readily available. As
part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Aging Water Infrastructure Research
Program, one of the key areas of research being pursued, in collaboration with water utilities, is a field
demonstration program of emerging and innovative rehabilitation technologies. The purpose of this
program is to (1) gather reliable performance and cost data during the application of these technologies at
selected sites and (2) to make the capabilities of these technologies better known to the industry. This
report outlines the demonstration of the 3M™ Scotchkote™ spray-in-place pipe (SIPP) 269 product
undertaken in Somerville, New Jersey for New Jersey American Water. The product is a polyurea, which
has a faster cure time compared to polyurethane and epoxy linings. The field demonstration allowed an
evaluation of the main benefits claimed and limitations cited by 3M™ for this emerging spray-on lining
technology. The demonstration of the 3M™ Scotchkote™ SIPP 269 product in Somerville, New Jersey
ultimately resulted in a liner failure. The liner failure had a positive effect in discovering the product was
not robust enough for use in typical in situ water main conditions, leading to its removal from the market.
The removal of the product from the market also led the American Water Works Association (AWWA)
Polymeric Lining Standards Subcommittee to put its standard development on hold pending the
development of a product with a reasonable track record of success. 3M™ is currently developing a new
formulation for a semi-structural spray-on lining application.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report has been prepared with input from the research team, which includes Battelle, the Trenchless
Technology Center (TTC) at Louisiana Tech University, and Jason Consultants. The technical direction
and coordination for this project was provided by Dr. Ariamalar Selvakumar of the Urban Watershed
Management Branch. The project team would like to acknowledge several key contributors to this report
in addition to the authors listed on the title page. The demonstration would not have been possible
without the cooperation of New Jersey American Water Project Manager Mike Wolan and Field Inspector
Manny Rodriguez and American Water Infrastructure Engineer David Hughes. Cooperation from 3M™
was also important for this project and the authors would like to thank Chad Carney, Gary Natwig, and
the field crew for their assistance and work throughout this project. The team would also like to
acknowledge the experimental team at TTC including Erez Allouche, Shaurav Alam, and Jadranka
Simicevic as well as Chris Morgan for his assistance with the field work. The authors would like to thank
the stakeholder group members for review of the research (David Hughes of American Water; Peter
Duffy of United Utilities; and Dan Ellison of AECOM).
in
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Many utilities are seeking innovative infrastructure rehabilitation technologies to extend the life and fix
larger portions of their systems with current funding levels. However, information on new technologies is
not always readily available or easy to obtain. To meet these needs, the EPA developed an innovative
technology demonstration program to evaluate rehabilitation technologies that have the potential to
reduce costs and increase the effectiveness of the operation, maintenance, and renewal of aging water
distribution and wastewater conveyance systems. A field demonstration study of emerging and
innovative rehabilitation technologies was conducted in order to make their capabilities better known to
the water and wastewater industry. This report describes the performance evaluation of a spray-on lining
product for water main rehabilitation that was demonstrated in Somerville, New Jersey.
Demonstration Approach
A protocol was developed to provide a consistent approach to plan, coordinate, and perform the
demonstration. Execution of the protocol does not only record the use and provide assessment of the
technology, but it also provides a documented case study of the technology selection process, application
of a consistent design methodology, and application of appropriate quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) procedures. Specific metrics evaluated under this program include technology maturity,
feasibility, complexity, performance, cost, and environmental impact. These metrics were used to
identify five emerging and innovative water main rehabilitation technologies for potential demonstration.
One of the five technologies identified for demonstration was the use of a spray-on polymeric lining,
which has potential as a cost-effective means of rehabilitating water distribution pipes. This report
outlines the demonstration of the 3M™ Scotchkote™ spray-in-place pipe (SIPP) 269 product undertaken
in Somerville, New Jersey for New Jersey American Water. The product is a polyurea, which has a faster
cure time compared to polyurethane and epoxy linings. The field demonstration allowed an evaluation of
the main benefits claimed and limitations cited by 3M™ for this emerging spray-on lining technology.
To ensure that the field demonstration was useful to the user community, several factors had to be
evaluated including: utility commitment; perceived value; regulatory and stakeholder climate;
representativeness of test pipe and site conditions; suitability of test pipe and site conditions to vendor
specifications; and site access and safety considerations. The research team consulted with American
Water to select a representative site, with the Borough of Somerville, NJ being identified as an
appropriate demonstration site based on its need to rehabilitate a section of pipe that met the historical,
operational, and environmental characteristics specified for the technology.
Spray-On Lining Demonstration
Site preparation activities included excavation of access pits, collection of soil and water samples,
installation of bypass piping, baseline hydraulic testing, cutting the test pipe, cleaning and drying of the
test pipe, pre-lining closed-circuit television (CCTV), and placement of a defect pipe segment. Issues
were encountered using the rack feed boring cleaning system, which resulted in two of the three lining
runs being cleaned ultimately with a drag scraper.
The spray-on lining application was completed over 4 days for the rehabilitation of 1,309 ft of a 10 in.
cast iron water main. At the time of installation, ridging (some of which is considered normal) was
observed throughout the test section, along with incomplete coverage of the pipe wall near service
IV
-------
connections. During hydraulic testing the following week, flow rates had decreased substantially
prompting an investigation which revealed that significant portions of the liner had collapsed and other
areas contained blisters and cracks. These defects were not present during the post-lining CCTVs, which
were conducted within 10 to 25 minutes of the lining application. Subsequent to the failure discovery, the
entire test pipe was abandoned in place and a new 12 in. ductile iron pipe was installed.
Demonstration Results
The technology evaluation metrics concluded that the technology was emerging since it had been used at
only eight sites in North America, with difficulties similar to the problems faced in Somerville, NJ
occurring in at least two other locations. The total duration for cleaning, drying, inspecting, and coating a
500 ft section was approximately 11 hours (on average if the bypass and access pits were already in
place). This does not include the additional site preparation time that was required at the Somerville, NJ
site due to cleaning issues that were rectified through the use of a drag scraper.
The technology did not perform in an acceptable manner to act as a Class III semi-structural lining, which
must have sufficient thickness to resist buckling. The QA/QC plan for the demonstration was successful
in discovering the liner failure during hydraulic testing, prompting the utility to request a visual
inspection. Also, laboratory testing revealed that the liner installed in the field did not meet the design
specifications. The cause of the incomplete reaction was hypothesized to be the effect of humidity in the
environment, which led to increased moisture in the compressed air used to drive the spinner head. This
excess moisture is believed to have resulted in a liner material with a shorter polymer chain length and
significantly reduced flexural modulus. 3M™ hypothesized that the excessive moisture caused the base
material to hydrolyze, meaning that water basically blocked the complete reaction from occurring
between the base and activator.
This outcome led to the conclusion that the 3M™ Scotchkote™ SIPP 269 chemistry was not robust
enough for use in typical in situ conditions and subsequent discontinuation of sale and distribution of the
product. The outcome of the technology evaluation is described below:
Technology Maturity Metric
• Emerging technology used at a total of eight sites in North America.
• Limited installation track record with 2 of 3 other utility owners who responded reporting similar
liner failures or defects (such as liner collapse, ridging, blistering).
• NSF 61 certified for use in drinking water applications. A UK Code of Practice is available, but
no ASTM or AWWA standards have been established to independently verify the design and
installation methodologies.
• Short-term performance data are available, but the long-term design life is based on extrapolated
data from other similar materials (not the product itself).
Technology Feasibility Metric
• Suitable to host pipe characteristics as the test run was relatively straight (no vertical bends).
• Marketed as semi-structural, but did not perform up to rehabilitation requirements.
• The material did not maintain its shape or integrity, thereby reducing the hydraulic conditions on
the main.
• Failure modes include material delamination, adhesion failure, blistering, and folding due to the
improper chemical reaction.
-------
Technology Complexity Metric
• If bypass and access pits were in place, a 500 ft section could be cleaned, dried, inspected, and
coated in one 11-hour day with a crew of four.
• Trained installers are required with knowledge of proper material handling procedures and use of
lining rig equipment.
• Site preparation includes excavation pits up to 500 ft apart and bypass installation.
• Traffic was directed along one lane of a two lane road with one traffic officer used as required by
New Jersey state law.
• Pipe cleaning and removal of all debris and standing water is required.
• Problems encountered with the rack feed bore getting lodged in lead found in the pipe and piles
of debris that could not be flushed led to the use of a drag scraper to clean two sections.
• In all, the test pipe was out of service and bypassed for approximately two weeks.
• Service reconnection is not typical, but the post-lining inspection showed one service was
blocked with lining material, which could have been cut out robotically.
Technology Performance Metric
• Field applied results did not meet manufacturer-stated performance for tensile strength, flexural
strength, and hardness.
• QA/QC plan was successful in discovering the failure during post-installation hydraulic testing,
as the failure was not evident during post-installation CCTV inspection.
• Liner thickness varied in the pipe and did not meet minimum requirements in all locations.
• Long-term effectiveness was non-existent due to the failure.
Technology Cost Metric
• The demonstration cost $199,232 for construction and $22,814 for utility labor for a unit cost of
$165.50/lf, which may not be typical since the size of the project was relatively small.
Technology Environmental and Social Metrics
• Social disruption was minimal as traffic was not greatly affected and excavation was limited.
• Flush volumes required for dewatering, cleaning, and disinfection were estimated to be more than
1.2 million gallons, which appeared to be excessive.
• The project contributed an estimated 40,000 Ib of CO2 emissions, which could have been reduced
to 27,000 Ibs if the lining crew had not mobilized from 1,200 miles away. (A similar replacement
project would amount to about 53,500 Ibs of CO2 emissions.)
Conclusions and Recommendations
The demonstration of the 3M™ Scotchkote™ SIPP 269 product in Somerville, NJ ultimately resulted in a
liner failure, but valuable outcomes useful to utility owners were achieved. This includes the
development and implementation of a demonstration protocol that was instrumental in: documenting all
activities; evaluating material performance; and identifying the liner failure. The liner failure had a
positive effect in discovering the product was not robust enough for use in typical in situ water main
conditions, leading to its removal from the market. The removal of the product from the market also led
the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Polymeric Lining Standards Subcommittee to put its
standard development on hold pending the development of a product with a reasonable track record of
success. It is recommended that issues relating to the use of spray-applied semi-structural polymeric
lining materials in water mains such as the effect of ambient conditions on proper resin curing, cleaning
requirements, and installation issues, be studied further to determine the effect each has on the polymeric
formulations and adhesion. It is important to understand the effect these issues have on spray-applied
linings for their use to be fully understood and successfully applied in the future.
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER II
ABSTRACT II
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Ill
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS VII
FIGURES IX
TABLES XI
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS XIII
1.0: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project Background 1
1.2 Project Objectives 2
1.3 Report Outline 2
2.0: DEMONSTRATION APPROACH 3
2.1 Demonstration Protocol Overview 3
2.2 Technology Selection Approach 6
2.2.1 Overview of Innovative Water Rehabilitation Technologies 7
2.2.2 Overview of Semi-Structural Spray-On Lining Rehabilitation 10
2.2.3 Technology Description 11
2.2.4 Design Approach for Semi-Structural Spray-On Linings 13
2.2.5 Installation of Spray-On Linings 14
2.2.6 QA/QC Requirements for Spray-On Linings 15
2.2.7 O&M for Spray-On Linings 17
2.3 Site Selection Approach 17
2.3.1 Site Selection Factors 17
2.3.2 Site Description 20
2.3.3 Operating Characteristics of the Test Pipe 21
3.0: SPRAY-ON LINING DEMONSTRATION 23
3.1 Site Preparation 23
3.1.1 Safety and Logistics 23
3.1.2 Excavation of Pits and Pipe Access 24
.2.1 Soil Sampling 25
.2.2 Water Sampling 27
3.1.3 Hydraulic Testing 28
.3.1 Baseline Data Collection 28
.3.2 Pressure Testing 28
.3.3 Friction Factor Testing 28
3.1.4 Installation of Bypass Piping 30
3.1.5 Cleaning and Drying of Pipe 31
3.1.6 Pipe Inspection 37
3.1.6.1 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #1 37
3.1.6.2 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #2 38
3.1.6.3 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #3 40
3.1.7 Pipe Wall Thickness and Inner Diameter 40
3.1.8 Defect Installation 41
3.2 Technology Application 41
3.2.1 Technology Application Equipment 41
3.2.2 Technology Application Parameters 43
3.2.3 Installation of Liner and Curing 44
3.2.3.1 Lining of Run #1 44
3.2.3.2 Lining of Run #2 46
3.2.3.3 Lining of Run #3 47
vn
-------
3.3 Post-Demonstration Field Verification 48
3.3.1 Post-Lining CCTV 48
3.3.1.1 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #1 48
3.3.1.2 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #2 49
3.3.1.3 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #3 50
3.3.2 Liner Thickness 51
3.4 Defect Sample Collection 52
3.4.1 Lab-Prepared Defect Pipe Segment 52
3.4.2 Field-Prepared Defect Pipe Segment 53
3.4.3 Sampling Logistics 53
3.5 Site Restoration 54
3.5.1 Disinfection 54
3.5.2 Reconnecting the Test Pipe 55
3.5.3 Backfilling and Site Restoration 56
3.6 Post-Demonstration Hydraulic Testing 57
3.6.1 Post-Failure CCTV 57
3.6.2 Liner Abandonment 59
4.0: DEMONSTRATION RESULTS 60
4.1 Technology Evaluation 60
4.1.1 Technology Maturity 60
4.1.2 Technology Feasibility 61
4.1.3 Technology Complexity 63
4.1.4 Technology Performance 66
4.1.4.1 Liner Thickness 66
4.1.4.2 Tensile Testing 68
4.1.4.3 Flexural Testing 70
4.1.4.4 Hardness 72
4.1.4.5 Discussion 73
4.1.5 Technology Cost 73
4.1.6 Technology Environmental and Social Impact 74
4.2 Liner Failure 78
4.2.1 Root Cause Analysis 79
4.2.2 Alternative Testing Approach 79
4.2.3 Discussion 83
5.0: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 84
5.1 Conclusions 84
5.2 Recommendations 85
6.0: REFERENCES 86
APPENDIX A: SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS 89
APPENDIX B: WATER SAMPLE RESULTS 90
APPENDIX C: CCTV LOGS 92
APPENDIX D: DEFECT SECTIONS 100
D.I Field-Prepared Defect Pipe Segment 100
D.2 Lab-Prepared Defect Pipe Segment 100
APPENDIX E: LINING LOG DATA 105
APPENDIX F: INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY TESTING RESULTS 129
F.I Experimental Data 129
APPENDIX G: FIELD TRIAL OF NEW FORMULATION 142
G.I Background 142
G.2 Bar Harbor, Maine Pilot Project 142
G.3 Summary 144
Vlll
-------
FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Historical and Projected Average Age of U.S. Water Systems 7
Figure 2-2. Technology Selection for Water Main Rehabilitation 11
Figure 2-3. General Polyurea Chemical Reaction 11
Figure 2-4. Overview of the Site Selection Process Undertaken to Identify Somerville, NJ 18
Figure 2-5. Map of the Raritan Basin Depicting the Location of the Borough of Somerville 21
Figure 2-6. Map of the Borough of Somerville Depicting the Approximate Demonstration Area 22
Figure 3-1. Access Pit #4 Plated 23
Figure 3-2. Map Detailing the Site Layout and Pit Locations 25
Figure 3 -3. Vertical Distribution of Soil Sample Locations 26
Figure 3-4. Hydrant #2 with Pressure Gauge and Flow Hydrant with Pitot Tube 29
Figure 3-5. Tuberculation Inside of Test Pipe Prior to Cleaning 30
Figure 3-6. Bypass Piping with House Connection and Connection to Hydrant 30
Figure 3 -7. Adj usting Valves to Isolate Lining Run # 1 and Flushing Through a Hydrant 31
Figure 3-8. De-watering Pit #5 to Allow Access for Cutting into Test Pipe 31
Figure 3-9. Cutting into Test Pipe and Removing it with the Backhoe 32
Figure 3-10. Rack Feed Bore Trailer and Cleaning Bore Head being Inserted into the Pipe 32
Figure 3-11. Diagram of the Rack Feed Boring Cleaning Method 32
Figure 3-12. Sediment being Removed and Attaching aNew Rod to the Rod String 33
Figure 3-13. Valve in Pit #4 and the Broken Flange which was Stuck in the Valve 33
Figure 3-14. Flushing of Lining Run #1 and Inside of the Test Pipe After Cleaning 34
Figure 3-15. Normal 10 in. Swab and First Post-Cleaning Swab to Reach Pit #5 34
Figure 3-16. Squeegee being Pulled into Place and Winch System 35
Figure 3-17. Lead Removed from Lining Run #2 During Flushing Operations 35
Figure 3-18. Winch Truck and Series of Scrapers 36
Figure 3-19. Rod Truck Sending a Rod for Attaching to the Winch Cable 36
Figure 3 -20. CCTV Inspection Van and Operator Station 37
Figure 3-21. Lead Pieces at 52.2 meters (left) and 99.9 meters (right) 39
Figure 3-22. Unclean Replacement Section in Pit #3 39
Figure 3-23. Truck Pulling the Lining Rig and 100 Gallon Resin Tanks 41
Figure 3-24. Pumping Control System and Spraying Umbilical 42
Figure 3-25. PLC Computer System on Lining Rig 42
Figure 3-26. Specialized Spray Head with Skids and Application Cone 43
Figure 3-27. Illustration of the SIPP 269 Installation Method 43
Figure 3-28. Part A Base and Part B Activator 44
Figure 3-29. Umbilical being Winched to the Start Pit and Attached to the Spray Head 45
Figure 3-30. 3M™ Workers Preparing to Remove Spray Head from Lining Run #1 45
Figure 3-31. Umbilical being Inserted and Pulled Through Lining Run #2 46
Figure 3-32. Preparation for Lining the Final Section 47
Figure 3-33. Dirty Replacement Section Post-Lining and After being Removed 50
Figure 3-34. Incomplete Coverage Under a Service Connection 51
Figure 3-35. Ridging in Lining Run #3 Near Pit # 1 (left) and Pit #2 (right) 51
Figure 3-36. Removal of Mechanical Fittings and Cutting Liner Material 52
Figure 3-37. Removal of Lab-Prepared Defect Section from Pit #7 and Interior of Pipe 53
Figure 3-38. Cutting Away Field-Prepared Defect Section 53
Figure 3-39. Defect Segments Packed-Up for Shipping 54
-------
Figure 3-40. Removal of Old Hydrant Near Pit #5 and Replacement of Tee Fitting 55
Figure 3-41. Removal and Replacement of Old Valve in Pit #8 56
Figure 3-42. Tamper used for Compacting Soil 56
Figure 3-43. Collapsed Spray-On Liner 57
Figure 3 -44. Same Location within Lining Run #2 Post-Lining (left) and Post-Failure (right) 57
Figure 3 -45. Same Location without (left) and with Large Folds (Post-Failure, right) 58
Figure 3-46. Same Location without (left) and with Small Folds (Post-Failure, right) 58
Figure 3-47. Same Location Post-Lining (left) and Post-Failure (right) 59
Figure 4-1. Material Spanning a 6.5 mm Diameter Hole 62
Figure 4-2. Material Partially Spanning a 6 mm Wide Crack 62
Figure 4-3. Lining through an Abandoned Gate Valve 63
Figure 4-4. Blocked Service Connection 65
Figure 4-5. Location of Thickness Measurements (left) and Micrometer (right) 67
Figure 4-6. Tensile Specimens Before the Test (left) and Following the Test (right) 68
Figure 4-7. Stress-strain Curves from Tensile Testing (Longitudinal Direction) 69
Figure 4-8. Stress-strain Curves from Tensile Testing (Circumferential Direction) 69
Figure 4-9. Samples Prepared for Bending Test (left) and Bending Test (right) 70
Figure 4-10. Load vs. Vertical Displacement Curves 71
Figure 4-11. Stress vs. Vertical Displacement Curves 71
Figure 4-12. Stress vs. Strain Curves 72
Figure 4-13. Results from Shore D Hardness Testing 72
Figure 4-14. Transport Vehicles Required Each Day during Bypass Installation 75
Figure 4-15. Results from E-Calc Showing Impact of Transport Vehicles 76
Figure 4-16. Excavation Equipment Required for Initial Access Pits 76
Figure 4-17. E-Calc Result for Access Pit Excavation 77
Figure 4-18. Pipe 1 Before (left) and After (right) Collection of Sample 1A 80
Figure 4-19. DMA Results Showing Tan Delta vs. Temperature 81
Figure 4-20. Comparison of IR Spectra of Control and Pipe 1A Field Samples 83
Figure C-l. Pre-Lining CCTV Log for Lining Run #1 93
Figure C-2. Post-Lining CCTV Log for Lining Run # 1 94
Figure C-3. Pre-Lining CCTV Log for Lining Run #2 95
Figure C-4. Post-Lining CCTV Log for Lining Run #2 96
Figure C-5. Pre-Lining CCTV Log for Lining Run #3 97
Figure C-6. Post-Lining CCTV Log for Lining Run #3 98
Figure C-7. Post-Lining CCTV Log for Defect Sections 99
Figure D-l. Installation of Field Defects by TTC Technician 100
Figure D-2. Drawings Detailing the Field-Prepared Defect Pipe Design 101
Figure D-3. Drawings Detailing the Lab-Prepared Defect Pipe Design 102
Figure D-4. Pre-Fabricated Joint Defect 103
Figure D-5. Pre-Fabricated Crack Defects 104
Figure D-6. Pre-Fabricated Rink Break 104
Figure E-l. Lining Log for Lining Run #1 106
Figure E-2. Lining Log for Lining Run #2 107
Figure E-3. Lining Log for Lining Run #3 108
Figure F-l. Comparison of Infrared Transmission Spectra of Sample 1A and Control 130
Figure F-2. Comparison of Polymer ATR Spectra in Middle of Coating 131
-------
Figure F-3 . Sample 1 A Pipe Surface, Middle of Cross Section, and Surface Away from Pipe ............. 132
Figure F-4. Sample IB Pipe Surface, Middle of Cross Section, and Surface Away from Pipe ............. 133
Figure F-5 . Sample 2A Pipe Surface, Middle of Cross Section, and Surface Away from Pipe ............. 134
Figure F-6. Sample 2B Pipe Surface, Middle of Cross Section, and Surface Away from Pipe ............. 135
Figure F-7 . Sample 3 A Pipe Surface, Middle of Cross Section, and Surface Away from Pipe ............. 136
Figure F-8 . Sample 3 C Pipe Surface, Middle of Cross Section, and Surface Away from Pipe ............. 137
Figure F-9. Comparison of the Interior Surface of Blisters [[[ 138
Figure F-10. Comparison of Transmission Spectrum of Control with ATR Corrected 1A Spectra ....... 139
Figure F-ll. Comparison of Control Samples withHM #9168 Poly(urea urethane) ............................ 140
Figure F-12. Comparison of Control Samples with HL #347 Urea [[[ 141
Figure G-l. End Section #1 (left) and Water Damaged Section (right) ............................................... 143
Figure G-2. Half Without Ridging (left) and Half With Ridging (right) ............................................. 143
Figure G-3. Two Services Showing Missing Material on Section #3 ................................................. 144
Figure G-4. Clumping of Solid Material Along the Invert [[[ 144
TABLES
Table 2-1. Technology Metrics Used for Evaluation [[[ 5
Table 2-2 . Summary of Innovative Water Main Rehabilitation Technologies ......................................... 9
Table 2-3. Material Properties of SIPP 269 [[[ 13
Table 2-4. Summary of Potential Performance Issues for Spray -On Linings ........................................ 16
Table 2-5 . Site Selection Factors for Innovative Water Main Rehabilitation Technologies .................... 19
Table 2-6. Summary of Typical Water Quality Information for the Raritan Water System .................... 20
Table 2-7. Summary of Test Pipe Characteristics [[[ 22
Table 3-1. Summary of Pit Dimensions after Shoring Installation [[[ 24
Table 3-2. Distances of Each Lining Run [[[ 24
Table 3-3. Summary of Soil Sampling and Analysis [[[ 27
Table 3-4. Summary of Water Sample Analytical Testing [[[ 28
Table 3-5 . Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #1 [[[ 38
Table 3-6. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #2 [[[ 38
Table 3-7. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #3 [[[ 40
Table 3-8 . Thickness Measurements of Host Pipe [[[ 40
Table 3-9. Simulated Defects in the Lab and Filed-Prepared Sections .................................................. 41
Table 3-10. Summary of Specifications for the Application of SIPP 269 ............................................. 44
Table 3-11. Resins Weight Check for Lining Run # 1 [[[ 46
Table 3-12. Resins Weight Check for Lining Run #2 [[[ 47
-------
Table 4-3. Results from Tensile Testing (Longitudinal Direction) 68
Table 4-4. Results from Tensile Testing (Circumferential Direction) 69
Table 4-5. Specimens Used for Bending Testing 70
Table 4-6. Results from Bending Testing 71
Table 4-7. Tensile, Flexural and Hardness Testing Results 73
Table 4-8. Bid Items for Somerville Demonstration 74
Table 4-9. Flush Volumes during Cleaning 75
Table 4-10. Flush Water Volume 75
Table 4-11. Total CO2 Emissions for Each Major Activity 77
Table 4-12. Equipment Specifications 78
Table 4-13. SIPP 269 Robustness Testing 79
Table 4-14. Typical IRBand Assignments for Various Functional Groups 82
Table 5-1. Technology Evaluation Metrics Conclusions 84
Table A-l. Summary of Soil Sample Results 89
Table A-2. Summary of Geochemical Analysis 89
Table B-l. On-Site Water Quality Parameters 90
Table B-2. Lab Measured Water Quality Parameters 90
Table E-l. Lining Log Data for Lining Run #1 109
Table E-2. Lining Log Data for Lining Run #2 113
Table E-3. Lining Log Data for Lining Run #3 121
Table F-1. Functional Group Assignments 129
Table G-l. Material Properties of Renewal Liner 2400 142
Table G-2. Summary of Specifications for Renewal Liner 2400 142
xn
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATR attenuated total reflectance
AW American Water
AWWA American Water Works Association
BPA bisphenol-A
CCTV closed-circuit television
cfm cubic feet per minute
CIPP cured-in-place pipe
CO2 carbon dioxide
DO dissolved oxygen
DMA dynamic mechanical analysis
DSC differential scanning calorimetry
DVD digital video disc
EIA Energy Information Administration
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GPD gallons per day
GPH gallons per hour
GPM gallons per minute
HTH high test hypochlorite
I/I infiltration/inflow
ID inner diameter
IR infrared
MCL maximum contaminant level
MGD million gallons per day
NJAW New Jersey American Water
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
O&M operation and maintenance
PLC Programmable Logic Control
ppm parts per million
psi pounds per square inch
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RCA root cause analysis
SIPP spray-in-place pipe
xin
-------
SEPTA Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
SVOC semi-volatile organic compound
TO task order
TOC total organic carbon
TTC Trenchless Technology Center
UK United Kingdom
VOC volatile organic compound
WRc Water Research Center
xiv
-------
1.0: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
As part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Aging Water Infrastructure Research
Program, research is being conducted, in collaboration with water and wastewater utilities, to improve
and evaluate innovative technologies that can reduce costs and increase the effectiveness of the operation
and maintenance (O&M) and renewal of aging water distribution and wastewater conveyance systems
(EPA, 2007). As part of this research, the EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL) awarded Task Order (TO) No. 58, entitled Rehabilitation of Wastewater Collection and Water
Distribution Systems, under the Scientific, Technical, Research, Engineering, and Modeling Support
Contract No. EP-C-05-057. This research includes field demonstration studies of emerging and
innovative rehabilitation technologies, which is intended to make the capabilities of these technologies
better known to the water and wastewater industry.
Even though the tools available for infrastructure renewal today are much different than 40 years ago and
are generally effective, the average rate of system renewal is not adequate to keep pace with increasing
needs, quality demands, and continually deteriorating systems (EPA, 2009). There is considerable room
for improvement in existing technologies and for the development of new and emerging technologies,
offering opportunities to make more effective investments in renewal. Many utilities are seeking
innovative rehabilitation technologies to extend the life of their systems and fix larger portions of their
systems with current funding levels; however, information on new and emerging technologies is not
always readily available or easy to obtain. Key research needs include improving the understanding of
innovative technology performance and decision-making for selection of the most cost-effective, long-
term rehabilitation methods for water distribution and wastewater collection systems (EPA, 2007).
Several emerging and innovative technologies were identified by the project team based on industry
experience, extensive state-of-technology literature reviews, and stakeholder input at an International
Technology Forum conducted in Edison, NJ in September 2008. It was indicated by stakeholders at the
Forum that technology needs were especially high for water main rehabilitation (EPA, 2009). It has been
found that well documented and publicized demonstration projects by credible independent organizations
can play an important role in accelerating the development, evaluation, and acceptance of new
technologies. The benefits of a technology demonstration program are summarized below:
Benefits to Utilities
• Reduced risk of experimenting with new technologies and new materials on their own
• Increased awareness of innovative and emerging technologies and their capabilities
• Assistance in setting up strategic and tactical rehabilitation plans and programs
• Identification of design and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) issues
• Guidance in preparing proper contract specification to protect the utility
Benefits to Manufacturers/Technology Developers
• Opportunity to advance technology development and commercialization
• Opportunity to accelerate the adoption of new technologies in the U.S.
• Opportunity to lay the groundwork for design standards that may accelerate market penetration
Benefits to Consultants and Service Providers
• Opportunity to compare performance and cost of similar products in a consistent manner
• Access to standards and specifications for new technologies
• Education of best practices on pre- and post-installation procedures and testing
1
-------
This report provides an impartial general assessment of the effectiveness and cost of the demonstrated
technology to assist utilities in better decision-making in selecting rehabilitation technologies for use.
The spray-on lining technology described in this report resulted in a liner failure about a week after
installation, thereby identifying an issue with the lining material's formulation and ultimately resulting in
its removal from the market. Another effect of the demonstration was the American Water Works
Association (AWWA) Polymeric Lining Standards Subcommittee putting its standard development on
hold due to the removal of the product from the market pending the development of a product with a
reasonable track record of success.
This report discusses the activities that led to the discovery of the liner failure and the subsequent analysis
of the potential causes of the failure. Recommendations are made to study important issues such as the
effect of ambient conditions on the resin curing process, cleaning requirements for surface preparation,
and other key issues in order to help to better understand the technology and to avoid future liner failures.
1.2 Project Objectives
The report is intended to meet the following objectives:
• Provide the framework, protocols, metrics, and site selection criteria for the selection of
rehabilitation technologies for subsequent field demonstrations.
• Evaluate, under field conditions, the performance and cost of an innovative, semi-structural,
spray-on coating technology used to rehabilitate a 10 in. cast iron water distribution main in
Somerville, NJ.
• Determine why the spray-on liner failed by performing a failure analysis, which included
examination of field operations, chemical and mechanical testing of the liner, and verification of
vendor reported results.
The report describes data collection, analyses, and project documentation associated with the first of two
field demonstrations of rehabilitation technologies performed under Task 7 of TO 58 in accordance with
EPA NRMRL's Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Requirements for Applied Research Projects
(EPA, 2008).
1.3 Report Outline
The report is organized into the following sections:
2.0: Demonstration Approach
Reviews the innovative rehabilitation technology demonstration program approach including the
technology and site selection criteria.
3.0: Spray-On Lining Demonstration
Documents the field demonstration activities including site preparation, pipe cleaning and liner
installation, QA/QC procedures, sample collection, site restoration, and failure discovery.
4.0: Demonstration Results
Summarizes the demonstration results, assessment of the technology, and the alternate testing plan
that was performed due to the liner failure, providing insight into the failure causes.
5.0: Conclusions and Recommendations
Provides an overview of the demonstration including execution of the demonstration protocol, review
of the technology metrics, and a summary of the liner failure analysis.
-------
2.0: DEMONSTRATION APPROACH
This section outlines the overall approach of the field demonstration protocol, technology selection, and
site selection for field demonstration of innovative rehabilitation technologies. The overall approach is
outlined to provide consistency and guidelines for conducting and documenting water rehabilitation
technology field demonstrations that will encourage acceptance of the results by water utilities.
2.1 Demonstration Protocol Overview
The demonstration of innovative technologies requires clear and repeatable testing criteria if the
technologies are to be understood and accepted. A protocol was developed to provide a consistent
approach and guidelines for conducting demonstrations in a manner that encourages acceptance of the test
results and outcomes by utilities. The demonstration protocol addressed issues involved in gaining the
approval for the use of new technologies by:
• Integrating user input for defining the standards that new technologies must meet before they are
considered acceptable (EPA, 2009).
• Providing for independent verification of the claims of technology manufacturers.
• Sharing information about innovative technologies among peer user groups.
• Supporting utilities and technology developers in testing and bringing new products to a
geographically and organizationally diverse market.
An EPA required QAPP was developed by the Battelle team, which outlined the approach to plan,
coordinate, and execute the field demonstration protocol with the specific objectives of evaluating, under
field conditions, the performance and cost of an innovative, semi-structural, spray-on lining for water
main rehabilitation.
The QAPP described the overall objectives and approach to the EPA field demonstration program, the
technology and site selection factors considered, and the features, capabilities, and limitations of the
selected technology, which are summarized below. The Battelle team executed the demonstration
protocol by completing the following steps:
• Prepared and obtained EPA approval for the QAPP based on the demonstration protocol.
• Gathered technology data for methods meeting the technology and site selection criteria.
• Secured a commitment from New Jersey American Water (NJAW) for the demonstration.
• Secured a commitment from 3M™ to perform the demonstration.
• Documented and managed the field demonstration as outlined in this demonstration protocol.
• Processed and analyzed the results of the field demonstration.
• Prepare a report, peer-reviewed article, and presentation summarizing the results.
This demonstration report does not only record the use of a spray-on lining technology, but also provides
a documented case study of the technology selection process, design, QA/QC metrics, and the preparation
for life-cycle management of the asset. In performing the field demonstration, Battelle followed the
technical and QA/QC procedures specified in the QAPP unless otherwise stated. Any procedure that was
not followed and the rationale for the change is noted in the remaining sections. Special aspects of the
EPA demonstration program which were aimed at adding value to the water and wastewater rehabilitation
industry are described below.
-------
• Demonstrate application of a consistent design methodology. Leadership in the area of design
standards development for trenchless rehabilitation technologies has been slow to evolve in North
America. The design of a liner can be non-structural, semi-structural, or fully structural
depending on the level and type of deterioration in the host pipe. This determination is often
subjective with little guidance provided by the expert community. An important role of the EPA
demonstration project was to identify design parameters and specifications for the selected
technologies and apply a consistent design methodology based on the vendor recommendations or
industry defined standards. The specification employed for this demonstration was the document
In-situ Rapid Setting Polymeric Lining Operational Guidelines and Code of Practice (Warren,
2000) from the UK.
• Demonstrate application of appropriate QA/QC procedures. The success of a rehabilitation
project depends largely on proper installation QC and the inspection and assessment activities
that fall under QA. The level of the qualification testing and QA requirements vary from
technology to technology and in some cases there is no clear industry quality standard. The EPA
demonstration program provided an opportunity to examine the current QA practices and identify
areas for improvement. For technologies lacking an industry quality standard, QA/QC
procedures recommended by the vendor and the utility were reviewed and adopted to the field
demonstration project. The QA/QC procedures (i.e., post-lining hydraulic test) ultimately led to
the discovery of the liner failure when the anticipated flow/pressure was not met during the
flushing of the system. The subsequent CCTV inspection after the failure also suggested that the
contractor may not have been totally successful in removing all debris and sources of flowing
water in the pipe. A more meticulous review of the prelining CCTV would not have prevented
the liner failure, but is a necessary step to a successful project.
• Provide a technology assessment. The EPA demonstration program assesses the short-term
effectiveness and cost of the selected technologies in comparison with the respective vendor
specifications and identifies conditions under which the demonstrated technology can be best
applied. Suggestions on necessary improvements for the technology, the installation procedures,
and QA/QC procedures are also provided. Metrics that were used to evaluate the capabilities and
limitations and document rehabilitation technology application, performance, and cost are
summarized in Table 2-1. The evaluation of the technology versus these metrics is described in
Section 4.
• Demonstrate life-cycle plan for ongoing evaluation. Long-term data regarding the
performance of various rehabilitation systems are scarce and needed. Life-cycle data would
enable decision makers to make fully informed cost-benefit decisions. It was intended for the
demonstration project to lay the groundwork for assisting utilities in developing life-cycle plans
for the ongoing evaluation of rehabilitation technology performance. However, due to the liner
failure, this was not further developed. The EPA demonstration program could be used to collect
baseline data, which would enable comparative evaluation of the technology's deterioration
during subsequent retrospective investigations for successful installations. In addition, long-term
laboratory and/or accelerated aging tests combined with model simulation could be used in
predicting the longevity and long-term performance of technologies and could ultimately assist
utilities in making better asset management planning decisions.
-------
Table 2-1. Technology Metrics Used for Evaluation
Technology Maturity Metrics
• Maturity and status of the technology was assessed as emerging, innovative, or conventional. New
technologies that are commercially available overseas, but not yet widely applied in the U.S. market, were
considered emerging with respect to U.S. applications.
• Interest is in the demonstration of novel and emerging technologies that are commercially available and
represent more than an incremental improvement over conventional methods.
• Availability and strength of supporting performance data (full-scale data carry more weight than pilot-scale
data) and patent citation (if applicable).
• Comments and feedback from utility owners and consultants with experience from previous installations.
Technology Feasibility Metrics
• Determination of the nature of the problem faced in the pipe (e.g., structural, semi-structural, or non-
structural rehabilitation) and the applicability of the technology in meeting the rehabilitation requirements.
• Suitability of the technology to the hydraulic and operating conditions of the pipe, the type of pipe material,
and any challenging pipe configurations (e.g., non-circular pipes, bends, valves, fittings).
• Formal consideration of the anticipated failure modes and documentation of design procedures.
Technology Complexity Metrics
• Adaptability to and widespread benefit for small- to medium-sized utilities.
• Level of training required for the installer.
• Site preparation requirements and needs (including pipe cleaning, number and size of excavations, and
effect on traffic flow).
• Estimated time and labor requirements for the overall rehabilitation project and speed of installation
including documentation of the length of time that the pipe is out of service and/or bypassed.
• Evaluation of the installation process, procedures, and problems encountered.
• Documentation of the efficiency of the connection restoration system for services, end terminations,
branches, and valves.
Technology Performance Metrics
• Evaluation of manufacturer-stated performance versus actual performance.
• Development of a QA/QC plan and documentation of its outcome and adequacy.
• Evaluation of the ability to handle non-ideal conditions and potential damage during installation.
• Expected visual appearance and geometric uniformity after installation including closed-circuit television
(CCTV) inspection to record the presence or absence of installation defects such as air voids, coating
holidays, longitudinal folds, and blisters.
• Ability to achieve rehabilitation design specifications such as: (a) achieving design flexural and tensile
strengths based on laboratory testing of coupon samples; and (b) measuring as-installed liner thickness and
annular gap compared to design values.
• Evaluation of impact on hydraulic/flow properties and friction headless.
• Established procedures for tracking long-term effectiveness, projected longevity, and accelerated testing to
provide evidence of durability.
• Evaluation of the difficulty level for making future repairs, future connections, performing maintenance,
and carrying out future rehabilitation.
Technology Cost Metrics
• Document costs for the demonstration (i.e., design, capital, and O&M); calculate a unit cost estimate; and
determine how likely cost will change when scaled up to a larger project.
• Evaluate general level of social disruption (an estimate of social costs is highly site-specific and beyond the
scope of the demonstration program).
Technology, Environmental, and Social Metrics
• Assess utilization of chemicals or waste byproducts that have an unintended impact on the environment or
water quality.
• Assess quantity of waste byproducts produced (e.g., flush water volume or soil requiring off-site disposal).
• Evaluate the overall "carbon footprint" of a technology compared to open-cut and its ability to reduce net
impacts to the environment and social disruption to the community.
-------
2.2 Technology Selection Approach
Several innovative rehabilitation technologies were identified by the project team based on industry
experience, extensive state-of-technology literature reviews, and input from stakeholder participants at an
International Technology Forum (EPA, 2009). Using this information, rehabilitation technologies that
have the potential for demonstration in the field were identified and recommended. The technology
selection criteria identified by the project team and Forum stakeholders in considering innovative
rehabilitation technologies for inclusion into a field demonstration program follow the six general
guidelines listed below which are based on the evaluation metrics listed in Table 2-1:
• Maturity of the technology. Forum stakeholders indicated that they were primarily interested in
novel and emerging technologies that are commercially available. The technologies should be
truly novel and more than incremental improvements over conventional methods (EPA, 2009).
The level of maturity is evaluated through the date of market entry, the strength of supporting
performance data (full-scale data carry more weight than pilot-scale data), feedback from
previous installation sites, and a patent citation, if applicable.
• Applicability to site conditions. The potential of the innovative technology as a compliance
strategy for the site-specific conditions are identified. The nature of the problem in the pipe (e.g.,
structural, semi-structural, or non-structural rehabilitation) is not typically known; therefore
employing a structural solution at a modest additional cost would be viewed favorably by a
utility. The hydraulic and operating conditions of the pipe, the type of pipe material, and
challenging pipe configurations (e.g., non-circular pipes, bends, valves, fittings) also play a role
in technology selection and its feasibility or applicability to site-specific conditions.
• Complexity of installation. Forum stakeholders were interested in the technology adaptability to
and widespread benefit for small to medium-sized utilities and in measuring the ease of
installation of technologies (EPA, 2009). The complexity of the technology refers to the level of
training required for the installer, pre- and post-installation requirements, and maintenance
requirements. An estimate of the time and labor requirements for installation and maintenance
should be provided and technologies that limit the length of time a pipe is out of service or
bypassed were preferred.
• Performance of the technology. This criterion was evaluated based on the capabilities and
limitations of the technology and investigation of potential advances over existing and competing
technologies. The technology vendor's performance claims were compared to actual
performance in the field. Example criteria for waste water systems include evaluating claims of
I/I reduction and sanitary sewer overflow/combined sewer overflow reduction; and example
criteria for water distribution systems include reducing frequency of breaks for water mains,
restored structural integrity, leakage reduction, and improved maintenance tracking/management.
Third-party evaluations and the collection of appropriate QA/QC information are important
components for the adequate assessment of performance data.
• Direct and indirect costs. A critical factor in the evaluation of technologies is the cost of
installation (direct cost) and cost for periodic inspection and cleaning (indirect cost). Some costs
such as setting up temporary bypasses, excavating access pits, and isolating the system are
common to most pipe rehabilitation methods, but should also be evaluated when comparing with
open cut construction. The typical installation cost on a per-unit basis (i.e., cost per linear foot) is
provided. Warranties or guarantees on performance should be provided. Tracking of social costs
such as the disruption of traffic is highly site specific and beyond the scope of this study.
-------
• Environmental and social factors. Technologies may utilize chemicals or produce waste
byproducts that have an unintended impact on the environment or water quality (e.g., the use of
BPA in epoxies or styrene in CIPP resins). Technology selection took this factor into account.
Forum stakeholders were also interested in technologies that would reduce the overall "carbon
footprint" of a project compared to open cut and/or reduce net impacts to the environment and
indirect costs to the community (EPA, 2009).
Under TO 58, efforts were made to solicit candidate rehabilitation technologies at an international level
through International Technology Forum input, a comprehensive literature search for the state-of-
technology reviews, and through societies such as the North American Society for Trenchless Technology
(NASTT) and the International Society for Trenchless Technology (ISTT). This generated a list of three
wastewater and five water distribution candidate technologies for field demonstration. It was also
indicated by stakeholders at the International Technology Forum that technology needs were especially
high for water main rehabilitation (EPA, 2009). For this reason, the two field demonstrations performed
under TO 58 focused on the gaps and needs for innovative water main rehabilitation technologies.
2.2.1 Overview of Innovative Water Rehabilitation Technologies. Through the course of the
research efforts, it was recognized that very few water utilities in the U.S. have begun to utilize trenchless
rehabilitation technologies other than cement mortar lining. The water infrastructure in North America is
older than the wastewater infrastructure and at the current pace of replacement (less than 1% per year)
and rate of installation of new pipes, the average age of the drinking water infrastructure will gradually
approach the commonly accepted design life of 50 years in 2050 as shown in Figure 2-1 (EPA, 2002).
BfflPI
Figure 2-1. Historical and Projected Average Age of U.S. Water Systems (EPA, 2002)
Many pipes have been known to operate longer than their design life, but the frequency of failures
increases with the age of the infrastructure. This means that unless a more aggressive rehabilitation
-------
program is adopted now by water utilities, communities will eventually encounter significantly increasing
repair costs in the future. Water rates have historically been set at levels that do not truly reflect the value
of this commodity, and there has been a general reluctance to adopt rate structures that would provide for
the necessary funding to make water utilities self-supporting and sustainable (EPA, 2009). The seven key
technical challenges for water main rehabilitation identified as part of the research efforts are outlined
below:
• Variety of pipe materials. There is a wide variety of piping materials in water distribution
systems requiring rehabilitation including challenges associated with appropriate and safe options
for asbestos cement pipes. Ferrous pipes such as cast iron and ductile iron represent over 60% of
the water distribution network in the U.S., so rehabilitation options for these types of pipes are
important (AWWA, 2004).
• Limited inspection options. Effective inspection and condition assessment of water pipes are
generally difficult or costly to carry out. Targeting mains for rehabilitation and replacement is
largely centered on performance assessment such as main break frequency or severity, water
quality problems or poor hydraulic characteristics. Recently, emphasis on structural defects has
shifted to improved leak-detection technologies that seek to reduce the loss of water and quickly
identify faulty pipe to reduce the cost of repair and consequence of failure.
• Need for improved design standards. As new techniques successfully enter the North
American market, design standards development for innovative trenchless replacement
technologies for water mains must follow. The design of a liner can be non-structural, semi-
structural, or fully structural dependent on the level and type of deterioration in the host pipe.
This determination is often subjective with little guidance provided by the expert community.
• Innovation needs in water main rehabilitation technologies. Thinner composite liners that
reduce the amount of cross-section loss would be favored by water utilities. There is also an
emerging trend for the development of "high-build" polymers that can provide structural benefits
to support the operation of deteriorated pipelines. Fully structural (Class IV) liners would be
preferred by utilities, but semi-structural liners such as spray-applied linings are a helpful interim
step. There is also a need to streamline the product approval process as NSF Standard 61
approval is a requirement for the use of new water main rehabilitation technologies. The market
barriers for water main rehabilitation have resulted in a limited number of contractors with water
main rehabilitation experience meaning that utilities are reluctant to try new technologies
especially with inexperienced installers.
• Service disruption during rehabilitation. Water main rehabilitation will continue to lag behind
sewer rehabilitation in the U.S. unless practical solutions can be developed for addressing the
time out of service required and the need for rapid disinfection and return to service to minimize
the bypass requirements. Rehabilitation methods that reduce or eliminate the need for temporary
service lines are viewed favorable for demonstrations.
• Reinstatement of service connections. There is a need for trenchless reinstatement of service
lines without street excavation and to ensure that the trenchless method results in reliable
connections under pressurized conditions. Service connections made using keyhole technologies
would be a need where internal reconnection is not feasible.
• Operation and maintenance issues. Lack of maintenance access to water mains is an issue, due
to the lack of manholes as with wastewater mains. Also, the techniques for the repair of pipes
with liners are not well understood by crews in charge of O&M in a water utility and adding new
unfamiliar materials and technologies is often reluctantly received.
-------
The five water main rehabilitation technologies identified by the research team which met the six general
technology selection criteria, meet the American National Standards Institute/NSF International 61
standard, and address most of the key technical concerns are summarized in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. Summary of Innovative Water Main Rehabilitation Technologies
Technology/
Vendor
AquaPipe81/
Sanexen
AquaLiner/
AquaLiner Ltd.
InsituMain1M/
Insituform
NordiPipe1M/
Norditube
Sekisui
Scotchkote™ 2697
3M™
Market Date/
Status/Size
2005 in U.S./
Innovative/
6 to 12 in.
2008 in Europe;
U.S. distributor
under selection
in 201 1/
Emerging/
8 to 12 in.
2009/
Emerging/
6 to 36 in.
2002 in Europe;
2010 in U.S./
Innovative/
5 to 48 in.
2009/
Emerging/
4 to 12 in.
Description
Composed of two concentric,
tubular, plain woven polyester
jackets with a polymeric
membrane bonded to the interior.
The liner is impregnated with a
specific thermoset epoxy resin.
Hot water cure. Class IV
(AWWA) fully structural liner.
Inserts a glass fiber-reinforced
polypropylene sock into a
deteriorated pipe. After sock
insertion, a silicone rubber
inflation tube pushes a heated pig
through the composite, melting
the sock against the pipe, which
then cools to form a solid glass-
reinforced thermoplastic liner.
Composed of an epoxy composite
layer that is reinforced with
fiberglass and polyester fiber
materials with a polyethylene
(PE) layer on the inside surface.
Composite materials are saturated
with a thermosetting epoxy resin,
which is cured using hot water.
Has a glass fiber-reinforced layer
between two non-woven felt
layers. Tube is impregnated with
epoxy and a coating of PE is on
the interior for potable water
applications. CIPP liner is
installed via inversion, using air
pressure or a water column, and is
cured with steam or hot water.
Rapid-setting polyurea lining 3.5
mm thick. 10 minute cure time
for inspection. Made of 100%
solids after cure and has no
volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Designed for inner
corrosion or as a semi-structural
(AWWA Class III) liner.
Rationale/Benefit for
Demonstration
Most experience to date in
Canada. Higher strength than
standard CIPP. Novel robotic
platform to re-establish service
connections from within host
pipe. Liner designed to stretch
in circumference direction to
eliminate longitudinal folds.
Emerging technology still in
the incubation phase. Solid
glass-reinforced thermoplastic
liner that is fully structural
(Class IV) and results in a thin
liner that minimizes loss of
flow. No mixing of resins so
long shelf life and minimizes
release of chemicals.
An AWWA Class IV fully
structural pressure rated CIPP
technology for water mains.
In 6 in. and larger pipes,
service connections can be
made by robotic remote access
using mechanical sealing
apparatus.
An AWWA Class IV fully
structural pressure rated CIPP
technology for water mains.
Provides for semi-structural
rehabilitation to bridge
gaps/holes in the host pipe;
rapid return to service
minimizes service disruption
and need to maintain bypass.
Minimizes blockage of service
lines, eliminating need for
open-cut service reconnection.
-------
2.2.2 Overview of Semi-Structural Spray-On Lining Rehabilitation. The use of spray-on
linings has potential as a cost-effective means of rehabilitation in water distribution. Cement mortar
linings have been used in water networks for more than 50 years, but the use of organic polymeric linings
is an emerging trend for both water and wastewater pipeline networks. These organic polymers combine
a resin and a hardening agent to form a fast curing thermoset material with a cross-linked molecular
composition. Three organic polymer systems are used in pipeline rehabilitation including epoxies,
polyurethanes, and polyureas and combinations of each. Polyurethanes and polyureas typically cure in
two hours or less compared to a minimum of six hours for most epoxies based linings, making them ideal
materials for "high-build" applications (Ellison et al., 2010).
Cement mortar linings have been applied only for non-structural corrosion and taste control, but new
organic "high-build" polymers applied in single or multiple layers that can provide semi-structural
benefits to support the operation of deteriorated pipelines are emerging in the market. An organic
polymer can be formulated to possess either rigid or elastic material properties depending on the type of
resin and hardening agent selected. The different formulations result in polymer linings that can be used
for either non-structural (AWWA Class I) or semi-structural (AWWA Class II or III) applications
(AWWA, 2001). Non-structural linings (Class I) rely on adhesion to the host pipe for support (Steward et
al., 2009). Class II materials typically rely on adherence to the host pipe for structural support while
Class III materials have sufficient hoop strength to be self supporting though not fully structural as in a
Class IV lining, as summarized below (AWWA, 2001):
• Class I Linings - Non-structural lining that relies on adhesion, such as cement mortar lining.
• Class II Linings - Semi-structural lining that can span holes and gaps. Relies on adhesion and
requires host pipe support.
• Class III Linings - Semi-structural lining that can span holes and gaps. Has sufficient thickness
to resist bucking from external hydrostatic load or vacuum.
• Class IV Linings - Fully-structural lining, which acts as a pipe within a pipe.
Figure 2-2 presents the primary technology selection factors that would be used to select among a fully
structural, semi-structural or non-structural solution for water main rehabilitation.
There are many data needs and gaps for evaluating the use of semi-structural, spray-on linings for water
main rehabilitation. For example, appropriate qualification and long-term performance testing protocols
for polymeric linings have not been established via an AWWA standard. The design of the liner
thickness is often left to the manufacturer's recommendations without verification of appropriate safety
factors. Cleaning and pipe preparation prior to installation is a key issue to ensure adequate curing of the
lining material. Protocols for post-installation inspection to test for coating deficiencies (e.g., holes)
and/or adhesion issues have not been established. Further investigation is also warranted into suitable
maintenance procedures (e.g., emergency repairs, new service line installation) for pipes rehabilitated
with polymeric linings.
As outlined in this report, the first of two demonstrations conducted under TO 58 was undertaken in
Somerville, New Jersey by NJAW using 3M™'s rapid-setting, semi-structural spray-on polyurea liner
known as Scotchkote™ Spray in Place Pipe (SIPP) 269. It is a semi-structural liner intended to form a
composite system with the deteriorated host pipe. The remainder of this section provides background
information on the use of polyurea linings for semi-structural water main rehabilitation and reviews
design, QA/QC, installation, and O&M considerations associated with the technology.
10
-------
Selected Pipe
Replace with larger pipe
Add additional parallel pipe
Structural liner
Replace pipe
Structural liner
Replace pipe
Cathodic protection
Replace with larger pipe
Add additional parallel pipe
Non or Semi-Structural liner
Structural liner
Replace pipe
Semi-Structural liner
Structural liner
Replace pipe
Non or Semi-Structural liner
Structural liner
Replace pipe
Reevaluate pipe
No action necessary
Figure 2-2. Technology Selection for Water Main Rehabilitation
(Adapted from Deb et al., 2002)
2.2.3 Technology Description. Polyurea lining is a novel and emerging technology for the
rehabilitation of water mains. Polyurea uses an isocyanate compound as the pre-polymer, along with
polyamine (an amine [H2N]-ending blend) for the hardening agent. The general chemical reaction for
polyurea is illustrated in Figure 2-3 (Primeaux, 2004). Polyurea linings have a fast cure time compared to
epoxy linings with 80% cure being achieved within 5 minutes and full cure achieved within 24 hours.
This allows rehabilitated structures to be returned to service within 30 to 60 minutes after the application.
Polyurea spray-on lining thicknesses typically vary between 3.5 to 5 mm.
Isocyanate
Prepolymer
NCO + H2N^ ., NH2 *
R'
Polyamine
Figure 2-3. General Polyurea Chemical Reaction (Primeaux, 2004)
11
-------
The Scotchkote™ SIPP 269 lining is a polyurea manufactured by 3M™ and the product characteristics as
set out by 3M™ are outlined below (3M, 2009a; 2009b). The material is considered a polyurea since the
reaction is polyurea based, but the product does contain polyurethanes and polyesters that are not part of
the main reaction. The lining is made from a 1:1 by volume blend of two components (a base component
that is a white thixotropic liquid and an activator component that is a black thixotropic liquid). When
combined and cured, the result is a lining with a grey finish that is hard, glossy, and free of surface tack.
The liquid mixture has a low viscosity for pumping to remote spray head locations. The lining is made of
100% solids after the chemical reaction is complete and contains no VOCs by EPA Method 8260.
The coating is specifically designed for use in water main and sewer force main rehabilitation
applications of 4 to 12 in. (102 to 305 mm) pipe. A lining run is approximately 500 ft (183 m), with
lengths up to 650 ft (198 m) possible. Bends of up to 22.5° are feasible, but straight runs are preferred.
Tees can be lined through, but active valves cannot. Typically, a pit is excavated at the valve and the
valve is removed for lining then replaced. The lining is also meant to minimize the blockage of service
connections, which eliminates the need to use open-cut repair to reconnect service lines to the main. One
coat is required and the typical design target thickness is 3.5 mm (140 mil). The gel time at 68°F is 120
seconds, cure time for CCTV inspection is 10 minutes, and the lined pipe is ready for return to service in
60 minutes. Following lining application, disinfection and a 1-hour flush are required before returning to
service and same day return to service is reported to be possible (3M, 2009a; 2009b).
The field demonstration allowed evaluation of the main benefits claimed and limitations cited by 3M™
which are listed below:
Main benefits of lining claimed
• Resists tuberculation and deposits that contribute to water quality issues.
• Provides a thin liner and smooth surface to maximize flow capacity of the lined pipe.
• Spans corrosion holes and joint gaps to provide pressure tightness and prevent leaks.
• Has a high elasticity and surface hardness that provides long-term abrasion resistance.
• Cures quickly to allow CCTV inspection immediately after application (10 min) and same day
return to service (after 60 min).
• Typically will not plug or block service connections.
• Full bonds along pipe and thus requires no secondary fittings for service connections.
• Allows use of existing pipe rather than exhuming it and is estimated to extend the design life of
the pipe by approximately 50 years.
• Does not vary for different pipe diameters.
• Requires smaller staging area with reduced number of pit excavations compared to open-cut.
• Has smaller carbon footprint that minimizes excavations and disturbance to adjacent utilities and
structures compared to open-cut replacement.
Main limitations cited
• Material property data are all based on short-term testing procedures.
• Material is flexible with low tensile strength compared to other lining materials (EPA, 2010).
• Maximum lining run is approximately 500 ft.
• Elbow, branch tees, and valves must be exhumed with possible exception of elbows <22.5°.
• Risk of liner buckling during installation and/or maintenance activities when the line is
depressurized. (The external hydraulic head from groundwater must not exceed the flexural
strength of the material for Class III linings.)
• Pipe must be free of standing water and water intrusion during the lining and curing process.
Short-term mechanical testing properties have been established for Scotchkote™ SIPP 269 as shown in
Table 2-3. As discussed in Section 2.2.4, the design life of 50 years is extrapolated and scaled from short-
12
-------
term data and long-term studies carried out with PE pipe. Based on the material properties, all of which
are short-term values, this polyurea coating will primarily be suitable as an inner corrosion barrier or a
semi-structural (Class III) lining. The low elastic modulus suggests the liner will generally act as an
interactive liner and be dependent on the host pipe to carry the internal pressure.
Table 2-3. Material Properties of SIPP 269 (3M™, 2009a)
Property
Tensile Strength
Tensile Elongation
Flexural Strength
Flexural Modulus
Hardness
Impact Resistance 120 mil (3 mm thickness)
Abrasion Resistance (CS17 Wheel, 1 kg load)
Glass Transition Temperature
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
Standard
ASTMD638
ASTMD638
ASTM D790
ASTM D790
ASTM D2240
ASTM D2794
ASTM D4060
ASTM D7028
ASTM D696
Value
16MPa
64%
22MPa
720 MPa
65 Shore D
>1 8 Joules
71 milligrams (mg)/1000 cycles
-40°F (-40°C)
116 parts per million (ppm)
2.2.4 Design Approach for Semi-Structural Spray-On Linings. Because spray-on polymeric
linings are relatively new in the U.S., there are no direct American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) design or installation specifications at this time. ASTM F1216 discusses structural capabilities
of CIPP linings and a manufacturer of a polymeric material in Canada (Acuro) has referenced this in
describing their product. An AWWA standard for epoxy spray-on lining was approved in 2007, AWWA
C620 Spray-Applied In-Place Epoxy Lining of Water Pipelines, 3-inch (75 mm) and Larger (AWWA,
2008). This standard is for non-structural lining so it does not specify any long-term performance testing.
In practice, the host pipe for a spray-on lining must have some structural integrity, so the design
calculations in product literature for a spray-on lining may closely resemble the calculations for partially
deteriorated CIPP. The pressure pipe rehabilitation design guide for 3M™ Scotchkote™ SIPP 269 is
used for reference here. The first design equation calculates minimum thickness based on resistance to
buckling under external pressure due to an external groundwater hydraulic head as follows:
where
t
D
K
C
EL
P
Hw
N
v
thickness of the lining (inches)
mean outer lining diameter (inches)
enhancement factor (7 is recommended)
ovality reduction factor
long-term modulus of elasticity for the liner material (psi)
external pressure due to ground water, psi =
height of ground water above pipe (feet)
safety factor (1.5 to 2.0 suggested)
Poisson's ratio (0.3 assumed)
The definitions of the factors are similar to the equation presented for the CIPP partially deteriorated
gravity pipe case under Appendix XI from ASTM F1216. This equation is used as a buckling stability
13
-------
check to determine that the liner will not collapse if the pipe is ever drained, thus removing the internal
pressure. The design equations from 3M™ also present the equation for stress in an oval pipe:
where
o = flexural strength of the liner material (psi)
P = external pressure due to ground water (psi)
N = safety factor (1.5 to 2.0 suggested)
DR = dimension ratio = (D/t)
D = mean diameter of pipe (in.)
t = wall thickness of CIPP (in.)
A =
Again, this is similar to the equation presented for CIPP, except that the vendor is using the short-term
rather than long-term flexural strength to represent short-times when the pipe may be depressurized
during maintenance activities. Consistent with the CIPP design approach, the minimum thickness should
be calculated by both methods and the larger value used.
The equations given by 3M™ for the ability to span a gap are somewhat different from those given in
ASTM F1216 for CIPP pressure pipes. Instead, 3M™ has derived an empirical equation based on studies
of PE 80 pipe to determine the maximum gap size that can be spanned by the lining:
where
Pfso = 50-year failure pressure (bar)
D = mean outer lining diameter (inches)
t = thickness of the lining (inches)
gap = maximum gap size that can be spanned (inches)
In this case, the long-term property is pressure (Pfso), the 50-year failure hoop stress in pressure testing.
3M™ recommends defining the 50-year failure pressure of their product as one-third the short-term
failure pressure based on tests that found a ratio of 2.7:1 from short- to long-term failure pressure in PESO
pipe (3M, 2009a).
2.2.5 Installation of Spray-On Linings. The following is a brief overview of the major steps
involved in the application of a spray-on lining:
• Site preparation including permits, utility locating, traffic control, and bypass setup (including
disinfection and testing)
• Open existing pipe/access pits, isolating valves, and cutting pipe
• Cleaning and drying of pipe
• Pre-lining inspection/CCTV
• Applying spray-on lining
• Post-lining inspection/CCTV
• Flushing and disinfection and testing
• Reconnection of line and flushing of services
• Excavation backfilling/surface restoration
• Site cleanup and disposal of waste
14
-------
The timing and duration of each of these steps were documented during this project to establish the level
of complexity of the spray-on lining installation process. Technologies that limit the length of time a
water main is out of service or bypassed were preferred by water utilities and are an important measure of
technology performance.
2.2.6 QA/QC Requirements for Spray-On Linings. As part of the demonstration protocol,
development of appropriate QA/QC activities (i.e., the steps used to evaluate the performance and proper
application of the spray-on lining) were identified as follows:
• Ensure proper surface preparation. Internal pipe surfaces must be cleaned of all scale,
deposits, and other debris or contaminants. The surfaces must be clean and free of standing water
for the materials to be applied and bonded to the wall surface.
o Clean the interior of the pipeline using the vendor-recommended method.
o Ensure all loose or structurally incompetent wall material has been removed.
o Stop any water intrusion detrimental to the material to be applied.
o Reduce moisture on pipe wall according to the requirements of the material being applied
(some products require a dry wall, others tolerate some moisture).
o Pre-lining CCTV to ensure proper cleaning and absence of standing or flowing water.
o Post-lining adhesion of the polymeric coatings to the existing wall surface can be confirmed
by testing in accordance with ASTM D4541.
• Compare liner thickness to design value. The liner thickness is the key design parameter for
semi-structural spray-on linings. The thickness determines the ability to span voids or gaps in the
host pipe while under pressure. Ultrasonic thickness gauges such as the Olympus Model 37DLP
can be used as a non-destructive means of measuring wall thickness as specified in ASTM E797
Standard Practice for Measuring Thickness by Manual Ultrasonic Pulse-Echo Contact Method
(ASTM, 2005a). Liner thickness can also be measured manually from pipe coupon samples as
was the case with this project.
• Ensure liner is free from major surface defects. After completion of lining operations and
curing, a post-lining CCTV was used to verify that the finished liner is well mixed and
continuous over the entire length between joints, and free from visual defects such as foreign
inclusions, dry spots, blisters, pinholes, and uneven thickness (excessive ridging).
• Ensure leakage free operation and adequate flow capacity. After liner installation, prior to
reinstatement of service, the lined pipe should be pressure-tested for leakage. This is typically
accomplished by maintaining the mean operating pressure within the lined pipe for an hour, and
no significant pressure drop should be observed. Cleaning and spray-on lining of the pipe should
reduce the frictional losses in the pipe. The Hazen-Williams friction factor "C" can be measured
via a flow test to determine the amount of headless caused by friction from flow in the pipe
before and after lining.
• Compare lining samples to manufacturer performance specifications. The flexural strength
provides for the ability of the coating material to span corrosion voids and gaps in the host pipe,
while withstanding external hydraulic head from groundwater when the pipe is depressurized.
The flexural strength and modulus are measured via ASTM D790 (ASTM, 2007). Linings of
pressurized pipes must be able to withstand tensile stresses from the normal operating and surge
pressures within the pipe. Tensile strength is measured by ASTM D638 (ASTM, 2008). A
polyurea coating typically exhibits good abrasion resistance due to a combination of high
elasticity with high surface hardness. Durometer hardness is measured via ASTM D2240
(ASTM, 2005b). The results of laboratory testing on plate or pipe samples were compared to the
manufacturer specifications (see Table 2-3).
15
-------
Another important aspect of a field demonstration protocol which must be understood to adequately
assess technology performance is the potential failure mode and installation issues that may arise and how
to remedy them. These potential issues are summarized in Table 2-4 and can arise from material issues,
installation issues, structural failures or other factors external to the pipe.
Table 2-4. Summary of Potential Performance Issues for Spray-On Linings
Potential
Issue/Failure
Mode
Description
Relevance to Protocol
Installation Issues
Improper
Surface
Preparation
Improper
Curing or
Setting
Finished
Thickness Not
Achieved
Pinholes and
Surface
Defects
Surface preparation is critical to the quality of the liner. If
the surface is not cleaned properly, the lining will adhere
to surface contaminants, resulting in improper curing.
A spray -on lining must cure to become solid and if
improperly cured, it will have reduced performance.
Improper curing can result from inadequate mixing,
mixing the wrong ratio, materials being stored incorrectly,
or not allowing sufficient time and temperature to cure.
Insufficient thickness can occur if the lining material is
formulated or sprayed incorrectly reducing material
properties. Permeability will increase, making leaks and
the probability of pinholes increase. Strength contribution
is reduced and the lining becomes more prone to cracking.
Pinholes have a higher probability of occurring in thin
liners. Defects include a rough surface from particles in
the material, insufficient flow, or defects in the host pipe.
Coatings applied to vertical surfaces also are prone to sag
in which the material flows down the wall before setting.
Proper formulation can reduce this effect.
Pre-lining CCTV to document
surface preparation. Adhesion
not required for this lining.
Recorded parameters will be:
volume/flow rate; mix ratio by
volume and weight; pressure in
hoses; temperature of materials;
and curing time.
Recorded parameters will be:
speed from start to end and
liner thickness will be
measured on pipe samples in
the field and laboratory.
Post-lining CCTV will allow
visual investigation of defects
such as foreign inclusions,
pinholes, and uneven thickness.
Pipe samples will be exhumed
for closer visual examination.
Other Performance Issues
Structural
Failure
Hydraulic
Issues
Liner Leakage
Liner Material
Degradation
Pressurized host pipes and linings can develop cracks and
burst due to the internal pressure from normal operating
conditions in the lined pipe and/or from short-term
pressure surges caused by water hammer. In addition,
during installation and/or maintenance activities when the
line is depressurized, the external hydraulic head from
groundwater should not exceed the flexural strength of the
lining material to avoid the risk of buckling.
Spray -on linings, combined with the pre-cleaning
operations, are expected to improve pipe hydraulic
characteristics by reducing tuberculation and providing a
smooth surface to maximize flow of the lined pipe. The
pipe inner diameter is minimally reduced by the lining.
The spray -on lining may fail to adequately bridge gaps in
pipe joints or hole/defects within the host pipe, which
could cause continued leakage post-rehabilitation.
Material degradation can lead to reduction in properties
over time, such as strength and resistance to permeation.
Material degradation can occur due to chemical reactions
or mechanical stressors occurring over time such as
abrasion from flowing particles.
Mechanical properties tested on
pipe samples including tensile
strength/ modulus; flexural
strength/ modulus; hardness;
and a hydrostatic buckling test.
Varying prepared defects
examined in exhumed pipe
samples and pressure tested.
Pre-and post-lining flow tests
will be performed to determine
any improvements to the
Hazen- Williams "C-Factor."
Post-lining pressure test to
check for leaks, and prepared
defects in an exhumed pipe
sample pressure tested.
Accelerated aging tests were
proposed as an option to
determine factors that impact
long-term lining performance.
16
-------
2.2.7 O&M for Spray-On Linings. No special requirements for O&M of the rehabilitated lining
were specified by 3M™ for Scotchkote™ SIPP 269. Because the liner is reportedly fully bonded along
the pipe, there is no need for secondary fittings at service connections. For one method of disinfection
immediately after lining, the pipe must be disinfected using a maximum of 100 mg/L of chlorine. After
disinfection, the pipe must be flushed for a minimum of one hour at a velocity of 1.6 ft/sec (0.5 m/s) prior
to return to service (3M, 2009b).
2.3 Site Selection Approach
This section outlines site selection factors, provides a description of the demonstration host site, and
reviews the physical and operating characteristics of the test pipe designated for the first of two field
demonstrations conducted under TO 58.
2.3.1 Site Selection Factors. To ensure that the field demonstration results are useful to the user
community, the demonstration site and the condition of the selected test pipe had to be representative of
typical applications for the selected technology. Therefore, the operational conditions (e.g., pipe type,
structural integrity, pipe pressure, etc.) and environmental conditions (i.e., drinking water quality and
subsurface conditions) of a potential host site must be appropriate for the technologies being considered.
Another important consideration in site selection is the utilities' willingness to participate in the study.
Specifically, site selection is largely dependent on the utilities' rehabilitation needs, their understanding of
the condition of pipe assets within their system, the availability of time and resources to contribute to the
study, and a strong motivation to advance the state of innovative technologies. The site selection process
also depends on the willingness of local stakeholders (such as the city, county, neighborhood residents) to
host a field demonstration that may involve surface disruption in their right-of-ways or temporary
bypassing of their utilities. The following factors were considered in the site selection process for the
EPA demonstration program for emerging and innovative rehabilitation technologies:
• Utility commitment. How willing is the utility to use an innovative rehabilitation technology
and to provide the required time and resource commitments to the project?
• Perceived value. What is the number of interested utility participants? Is the technology and test
pipe rehabilitation need of national-scale or regional-scale interest?
• Regulatory and stakeholder climate. How willing are local and state officials to work with the
research team and utility concerning requirements (e.g., NSF 61 approval, etc.) to permit use of
an innovative technique? Will the local stakeholders (city, county, and neighborhood residents)
consent to the potential disruption caused by the construction activities including traffic control
and bypass needs?
• Representativeness of test pipe and site conditions. How typical are the candidate field
demonstration site conditions to problems commonly faced by most utilities?
• Suitability of test pipe and site conditions to vendor specifications. Are the test pipe operating
and environmental site conditions suitable when compared to the technology vendor's stated
application limitations? This includes consideration of the following:
o Pipe size (diameter and length)
o Pipe material and j oint types
o Pipe age
o Operating and surge pressure conditions
o Pipe configurations (e.g., number of service connections, hydrants, bends, shape, etc.)
o Availability of CCTV or other inspection technology reports to determine asset condition.
o Availability of O&M history and understanding of failure modes.
17
-------
• Site and safety. Are site conditions safe for a demonstration, which includes consideration of:
o Site accessibility, including traffic control requirements
o
o
o
o
o
Space requirements and restrictions to access (right-of-way)
Security of testing equipment and availability of support facilities for bypass and flushing
Proximity of site to high-voltage overhead power lines, natural gas pipelines or other utilities.
Proximity of site to contaminants/toxics in the soil or groundwater
Proximity of site to high decibel noise sources
Proximity of site to fault zones or active faults
Closeness to fire and police protection, including fire lines.
Figure 2-4 provides an overview of the site
selection process to identify candidate sites for the
demonstration study. As part of this process, the
Battelle team and American Water (AW) issued
the technology information and site selection
criteria (Table 2-5) to four utility groups within
the AW network of companies.
AW is the largest investor-owned water utility
company in the U.S. with subsidiaries in 19 states.
Four AW subsidiaries were included in the site
selection process including NJAW, Pennsylvania
AW, Missouri AW, and California AW. NJAW
began using cement mortar lining on water mains
in 1993 and currently lines approximately 130,000
ft of pipe every year.
NJAW expressed an interest in demonstrating the
SIPP 269 as an alternative that could provide
semi-structural capabilities. A location in
Somerville, NJ was identified by NJAW as the
candidate demonstration site based on its need to
rehabilitate a section of pipe that met the
conditions specified for the 3M™ SIPP 269 lining.
The overall responsibilities of NJAW were
defined as follows:
The Battelle Team conducted an evaluation of existing
trenchless rehabilitation technologies for water systems
Five novel/emerging candidate technologies'1' were identified
and sent to American Water to be considered for demonstration
American Water provided the list of candidate technologies to
four individual water utilities(2)throughoutthe country
New Jersey American Water expressed an interest in evaluating
3M™ Skotchkote™ Spray in Place Pipe (SIPP) 269 Polyurea
Coating for water pipe rehabilitation
The Borough of Somerville was identified as the candidate site
based on a need to rehabilitate a section of pipe that met the
historical, operational, and environmental characteristics
specified for 3M™ Skotchkote™ SIPP 269 Polyurea Coating
Notes:
(1) InsituMain, Aqualiner, Aqua-Pipe, NordiTube and 3M SIPP 269 Coating were
the candidate technologies identified during the technology selection process
(2) New JerseyAmerican Water, Pennsylvania American Water, Missouri
American Water, and California American Water were the water utilities
considered in the site selection process.
Figure 2-4. Overview of the Site Selection
Process Undertaken to Identify Somerville, NJ
• Provide historic data on the physical and
operating conditions of the test pipe.
• Coordinate use of the test site, ensuring access to the test site by Battelle, EPA, and 3M™.
• Support the field demonstration by providing facilities, needed utilities, and pipe access.
• Ensure safety requirements are communicated to and met by all involved parties.
• Assist Battelle staff and vendors in testing of the rehabilitation technology at the test site.
• Review and provide comments on the draft field demonstration report.
The overall responsibilities of the technology vendor (3M™) were defined as follows:
• Provide vendor specifications and design and installation information for the technology.
• Provide the technology for evaluation during the field demonstration.
• Provide equipment and labor needed for the duration of the demonstration.
• Provide data from the field demonstration to verify performance and cost of the technology.
• Review and provide comments on the draft field demonstration report.
18
-------
Table 2-5. Site Selection Factors for Innovative Water Main Rehabilitation Technologies
Technology
Main
Size
Pipe
Material
Pipe
Condition
Pipe Length/
Configuration
Service
Connections
Space
Needs
Other
Factors
Pressure
Limitations
Downtime
Structural Water Main Rehabilitation
AquaPipe
AquaLiner
InSituMain1M
NordiPipe1M
8 to
12 in.
8 to
12 in.
20 to
36 in.
20 to
36 in.
Unlined
cast iron
Unlined
cast iron
Unlined
cast iron
Unlined
cast iron
Past main breaks
or other evidence
of structural
failure, semi or
fully structural
renovation needed.
Past main breaks
or other evidence
of structural
failure, semi or
fully structural
renovation needed.
Past main breaks
or other evidence
of structural
failure, semi or
fully structural
renovation needed.
Past main breaks
or other evidence
of structural
failure, semi or
fully structural
renovation needed.
Two sections of 250
to 400 ft, bends up to
22.5 degrees, hydrant
tees.
Two sections of 250
to 400 ft, bends up to
22.5 degrees, hydrant
tees.
Two sections of 500
ft (500 ft limit for
pipes of this
diameter), could have
bends up to 45
degrees.
Two sections of 500
ft (500 ft limit for
pipes of this
diameter), could have
bends up to 45
degrees.
At least 3 or 4
for trial.
At least 3 or 4
for trial.
Tee with
hydrant,
bio wo ff main
tie in; small
connections
might be useful
to observe.
Tee with
hydrant,
bio wo ff main
tie in; small
connections
might be useful
to observe.
Requires a
space
about 10
by 200 ft
to lay out
material.
Requires a
space
about 10
by 200 ft
to lay out
material.
Requires a
space
about 10
by 200 ft
to lay out
material.
Requires a
space
about 10
by 200 ft
to lay out
material.
Where excavation
for open-cut is
difficult;
Sufficient valving
and flushing
capability.
Where excavation
for open-cut is
difficult;
Sufficient valving
and flushing
capability.
Where excavation
for open-cut is
difficult;
Sufficient valving
and flushing
capability.
Where excavation
for open-cut is
difficult;
Sufficient valving
and flushing
capability.
Maximum
pressure 150
psi.
Maximum
pressure 150
psi.
Maximum
pressure in the
diameter cited
will be 60 to
75 psi.
Maximum
pressure in the
diameter cited
will be 60 to
75 psi.
Requires taking
line out of service
for 3+ days;
arrangements for
temporary service
required.
Requires taking
line out of service
for 3+ days;
arrangements for
temporary service
required.
Requires taking
line out of service
for 3+ days;
arrangements for
temporary service
required.
Requires taking
line out of service
for 3+ days;
arrangements for
temporary service
required.
Semi-Structural Water Main Rehabilitation
3M™
Scotchkote™
SIPP 269
Coating
8 to
12 in.
Unlined
cast iron
or
ductile
iron
Minor structural
failures (pinholes
or joint leaks);
could also be a
source of poor
water quality or
low C-factor.
Two sections of 250
to 500 ft (Typical
installation rate is
600 ft/day), bends up
to 22.5 degrees,
hydrant tees, straight
run cannot line
through valves
(unless valve is lined
through and
abandoned in place).
At least 3 or 4
for trial.
Requires
two
spaces
about 40
by 10 ft at
either end
of work
Where excavation
for open-cut is
difficult;
Sufficient valving
and flushing
capability.
Maximum
pressure 200
psi (assumes
no structural
defects).
Requires taking
line out of service
for multiple days;
determine if
temporary service
required.
-------
2.3.2 Site Description. Somerville is located in Somerset County, New Jersey, approximately 11
miles west of Edison, New Jersey, and 25 miles southwest of Newark, New Jersey. Based on the census
in 2000, the population of Somerville was estimated to be 12,423, with a population density of 5,262
people per square mile. The Borough of Somerville was originally founded on March 25, 1863 and was
formally incorporated as a borough on April 16, 1909. Somerville is situated within the Middlesex-
Somerset-Hunterdon metropolitan area and is a part of the Raritan Water system of New Jersey American
Water, which supplies an average of 145 million gallons per day (MGD) to various communities within
the Raritan Basin. NJAW provides an estimated 1.75 MGD to approximately 3,518 customers in
Somerville, which primarily receives its water supply from surface water treatment plants located in
Bridgewater and Franklin Townships. The Raritan System supplies water service to homes and
businesses in more than 50 municipalities in six New Jersey counties. Figures 2-5 and 2-6 include a map
of the Raritan Basin (depicting the location of the Borough of Somerville) and a map of the Borough of
Somerville, respectively.
In addition, a summary of typical water quality information for the Raritan Water System is provided in
Table 2-6. Source water for the Raritan Water system is generated from seven intakes on the Raritan
River, Millstone River, Delaware and Raritan Canal, and approximately 129 wells in the Brunswick,
Passaic, Stockton, Glacial Drift, and Basalt Aquifers. The Raritan Basin, which is the watershed for the
Raritan River and its many tributaries, is centrally located in New Jersey and is bounded by the Passaic
River Basin to the north, the Delaware River Basin to the west, the Atlantic Coastal Basin to the South,
and the Hudson River Estuary (including the Arthur Kill area — the Metropolitan Watershed
Management Area) to the northeast.
Table 2-6. Summary of Typical Water Quality Information for the Raritan Water System
Parameter
pH
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sodium
Iron
Manganese
Type of disinfection
Disinfectant residual level leaving
the treatment plant (average)
Disinfectant residual level in the
distribution system
th
Lead [90 percentile result]
di
Copper [90 percentile result]
Nitrate
Arsenic
Average or Range
6.5 to 8.5
76 to 530 mg/L
4.4 to 3 1 grains per gallon
0.8 to 1.2 mg/L
12 to 62 mg/L
< 0.1 mg/L
ND to 0.06 mg/L
Chloramines
1.35 mg/L
0.70 mg/L
10 Mg/L
0.52 mg/L
0.48 to 5. 23 mg/L
ND to 3 (ig/L
Comments
None
Naturally-occurring
Naturally-occurring
Naturally-occurring and water
additive, MCL = 4.0 mg/L
NoMCL
Secondary MCL =
0.3 mg/L
Secondary MCL =
0.05 mg/L
None
None
Max residual disinfectant level
running annual avg. = 4.0 mg/L
Action Level = 15 (ig/L
Action Level =1.3 mg/L
MCL = 6 mg/L
MCL = 10 ng/L
mg/L - milligrams per liter
(ig/L - micrograms per liter
MCL - maximum contaminant level
ND - not detected
20
-------
N
Explanation
D Raritan Basin
• Population Center
— Roadway
Water Area
D County Boundary
Figure 2-5. Map of the Raritan Basin Depicting the Location of the Borough of Somerville
2.3.3 Operating Characteristics of the Test Pipe. As shown in Figure 2-6, the demonstration
study was conducted using a portion of a distribution main (referred to as "the test pipe") running
underneath Davenport Street between Ivanhoe Avenue and Brown Street in the Borough of Somerville.
The test pipe is an unlined, spun cast iron pipe, 1,342 ft long, running north-south underneath Davenport
Street. The test pipe was installed in two phases, with the southern portion of pipe being installed in the
1930s, followed by the northern portion of the test pipe, which was installed in the 1950s. The test pipe
has an inner diameter (ID) of 10 in., an average wall thickness of 0.57 in. (14.4 mm) and a burial depth
approximately 4 ft below ground surface. The test pipe typically operates at pressures between 85 and 90
pounds per square inch (psi), while transmitting approximately 1.75 MOD of flow. Table 2-7
summarizes the historical, operational, and environmental characteristics of the test pipe. As indicated in
Table 2-7, relevant soil parameters, such as moisture, pH, resistivity, redox potential, etc., were not
available for the native soil adjacent to the test pipe, therefore soil samples were collected and analyzed
for general geochemical parameters. Based on the 2009 climate data, the monthly average temperature
for the area around Somerville ranges from 26.0°F in January to 73.1°F in August.
21
-------
••>*•* -
Figure 2-6. Map of the Borough of Somerville Depicting the Approximate Demonstration Area
Table 2-7. Summary of Test Pipe Characteristics
Historical
Pipe Material
Installation Date
Pipe Joint-to -Joint Length (ft)
Pipe Outer Diameter (in.)
Pipe Wall Thickness (in.)
Total Pipe Length (ft)
Burial Depth (ft below ground)
Pipe Internal Lining
Pipe External Coating
Type of Joints
Land Use over Main
Leak History (recorded)
Cast iron
1930s (southern portion); 1950s (northern portion)
18
11.14
0.57
1,342
4.0 (approx.)
None
None
Lead joint and Tyton
Residential traffic
No reported leaks or breaks
Operational
Typical Operating Flow (MOD)
Typical Operating Pressure (psi)
Friction Factor
Water pH (S.U.)
1.75
85 to 90
'C' factor of 71
7.1 to 7.2
Environmental
Soil Parameters (moisture, pH, resistivity, redox
potential, etc.)
Average Monthly Temperature (°F)/
Humidity (%) for 2009(b)
Historical data not available(a)
July 70.3°F/78%
Aug. 73.4°F/84 %
Sep. 63.6°F/78%
(a) Soil characterization was performed before the demonstration (see Section 3.1.2.1).
(b) Based on data obtained from Weather Underground (www.wunderground.com)
22
-------
3.0: SPRAY-ON LINING DEMONSTRATION
The field demonstration of Scotchkote™ SIPP 269 occurred from August 2 through August 6, 2010 in
Somerville, NJ. This section outlines the activities involved with the spray-on lining field demonstration
including site preparation, technology application, post-demonstration field verification, defect sample
collection, site restoration, and post-demonstration hydraulic testing.
3.1 Site Preparation
In order to successfully execute the planned demonstration study, several site preparation activities were
required. These included excavating access pits to expose the test pipe, cutting the test pipe to provide
access for cleaning and drying, the pre-lining inspection with a CCTV camera, and deployment of the
liner spray equipment. In addition, cutting was required to support the recovery and replacement of the
defect pipe segment. Details relating to these site preparation activities are provided in this section.
3.1.1 Safety and Logistics. Throughout the entire demonstration, the east side of Davenport Street
was closed from Brown Street (to the south) to Ivanhoe Avenue (to the north). During some portions of
the demonstration, both lanes of Davenport Street were closed due to the number of observers from
stakeholder groups. NJAW, its subcontractor J. Fletcher Creamer (Creamer), and 3M™ were responsible
for traffic control and rerouting. A traffic police officer was on site for the entire week of the field
demonstration, which is a requirement for construction projects in the state of New Jersey.
The demonstration occurred from Monday, August 2 through Friday, August 6, 2010. A typical day
began around 7:00 a.m. and activities each day went on beyond normal business hours to ensure
completion of the demonstration within the specified week. A local road dig permit was obtained to
conduct the planned excavations in the public right-of-way along Davenport Street. Open pits were
marked with caution tape and Creamer plated all pits at the end of each day to avoid accidents during the
evenings and on weekends as shown in Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1. Access Pit #4 Plated
The Battelle team had at least one staff member on site each day for the preliminary activities leading up
to the demonstration and three staff members on site during the week of the lining demonstration. The
Battelle team maintained coordination with NJAW and its subcontractors throughout the demonstration to
ensure that all field data were collected as planned.
23
-------
Level D personal protective equipment, including hard hats, safety glasses, steel-toed shoes, and safety
vests were required for all site visitors. In addition, all visitors were required to sign in with the Battelle
team representative on site each day.
3.1.2 Excavation of Pits and Pipe Access. Five pits were excavated during the third week of July,
2010 (i.e., July 21-23) to support the demonstration study. A sixth pit was excavated to allow for
replacement of the service leading to the school and two additional pits were required during the course of
the demonstration project for a total of eight pits. The dimensions of the five pits required for the
demonstration study and the one additional pit eventually used for the lab defect section (referred to as Pit
#7) are summarized in Table 3-1. The depth of each pit below the ground surface was needed to provide
access for cleaning and drying of the pipe, pre- and post-lining inspection with a CCTV camera, and
deployment of the liner spray equipment. The total amount of soil requiring off-site disposal is included.
Table 3-1. Summary of Pit Dimensions after Shoring Installation
Pit
#1
#2
#3 (Test Pit)
#4
#5
#6
#7 (Additional Pit)
#8
All Pits
Length, in. (ft)
78 (6.5)
78 (6.5)
156(13.0)
75 (6.25)
76 (6.33)
Width, in. (ft)
66(5.5)
69 (5.75)
60(5.0)
60(5.0)
60(5.0)
Depth, in. (ft)
72 (6.0)
69 (5.75)
63 (5.25)
60(5.0)
60(5.0)
Volume of Soil, cf (cy)
214(7.9)
215 (8.0)
341 (12.6)
156(5.8)
158(5.9)
For replacement of the school service near Pit #2
104 (8.67)
77 (6.42)
70 (5.83)
324 (12.0)
For replacement of a valve near Pit #1
Waste volume of soil requiring off-site disposal
1,810 (67.0)1
Pits #6 and #8 were not measured; therefore, assume volume of 200 cf for each pit.
Figure 3-2 shows the spacing of the pits across the approximate 1,342 ft distance (1,309 ft that was lined
plus 31 ft of sections replaced between lining runs) and Table 3-2 summarizes the lengths of each
associated lining run.
Table 3-2. Distances of Each Lining Run
Lining Run
#3
#2 (includes test sections)
#1
Start Pit
#1
#2
#4
End Pit
#2
#4
#5
Total Length
Length, ft (m)
499(151.5)
525 (160.0)
287 (87.5)
1,309 (399)
The distance of each run was specified because it allowed the rehabilitation of the entire distribution line
running underneath Davenport Street, between Brown Street to the south and Ivanhoe Avenue to the
north, while ensuring that each application run was less than the maximum application length of 675 ft
suggested by 3M™. As shown in Figure 3-2, an additional excavation pit, Pit #3, is located
approximately halfway between Pits #2 and #4. This pit served as the location for the recovery and
replacement of the field defect pipe segment. Originally Pit #3 was intended to serve as the location for
the lab defect pipe segment also, but due to the thickness of the shoring used for the trench box, the
needed length for installation of the 6 ft lab-defect section was not available. Eventually the contractors
24
-------
had to install an additional pit (Pit #7) for removal of lodged cleaning equipment, which subsequently
served as the location for installation of the lab defect section. While the placement location of Pit #3
(i.e., installing the defect pipe in the middle of two access pits) resulted in an additional excavation, it was
determined to be necessary in order to provide a more representative sample than would have been
possible if the defect section was placed at the beginning or end of a rehabilitated section.
Pit #8
Replacement! Pit #6
of Valve I Replacement
Water Samples £
from HSOM-80 &
School Service
Pit #1
Access for
Cleaning &
Rehabilitation
-r - "^
Figure 3-2. Map Detailing the Site Layout and Pit Locations
The three additional excavations necessary during the course of the project included: Pit #6, located
between Pits # 1 and #2 to expose the deteriorated service leading to the school to allow for replacement;
Pit #7, to allow for cleaning of lining run #2 and eventually used for installing the lab-prepared defect
section; and Pit #8, near Pit #1 to expose a deteriorated valve for replacement.
3.1.2.1 Soil Sampling. Several measurable soil properties have been linked to the rates and extent of
cast iron pipe failure in situ as well as in laboratory experiments. These properties are mostly chemical
(pH, sulfide concentration, chloride concentration); however, some are mechanical in nature (shrink/swell
capacity, heterogeneities, and compaction) and still others are chemical, but seen as surrogate
measurements for mechanical properties (cation exchange capacity, for example, can be seen as an
indirect indicator of shrink/swell capacity). All of these measurements taken together are thought to
contribute to the soil corrosivity potential. The long-term performance of semi-structural spray-on liners
will be impacted by the current and future condition of the host pipe and the stressors or aging factors in
its environment. For this reason, several soil parameters were analyzed and discussed below.
Grab samples were collected on Wednesday, July 21, 2010, from six soil sampling locations within Pit
#3: (1) a location immediately below the pavement and subgrade; (2) a location approximately 2 ft below
subgrade; (3) a location approximately 3 ft below subgrade; (4) immediately above the pipe crown
25
-------
approximately 4 ft below subgrade; (5) at the bedding along the spring line; and, (6) at the bedding
immediately below the invert. Figure 3-3 provides a graphical depiction of the vertical distribution of all
soil sampling locations described above. A small hand shovel was used to carefully remove the overlying
native soil samples and the bedding samples surrounding the test pipe during excavation of Pit #3. All
soil and bedding samples were placed into sample containers for analysis.
Pavement Surface at Pit #3
The Test Pipe is
known to be
Approximately
4 ft below grade
SOM-SOIL-01
(Immediately
below pavement
and subgrade)
SOM-SOIL-02
(~2.0 ft below subgrade)
SOM-SOIL-03
(~3 ft below subgrade)
SOM-SOIL-04
(Immediately Above the Crown)
SOM-SOIL-05
(At the Bedding Along the Spring Line)
SOM-SOIL-06
(Immediately Below the Invert)
Figure 3-3. Vertical Distribution of Soil Sample Locations
Soil samples from all six sampling locations were placed into 1-gallon plastic bags and sent for analysis
of particle size distribution according to ASTM D422 (ASTM, 2006). An additional quantity of soil and
bedding was collected from SOM-SOIL-03 and SOM-SOIL-05 and placed in 38 oz glass sample
containers to provide samples for soil geochemical analysis. Table 3-3 describes the parameters that were
analyzed to characterize the geochemistry and the associated corrosivity of native soil and bedding
adjacent to the test pipe. All sample containers were sealed to retain moisture, the cap of the jar wrapped
with Teflon® tape to ensure that a competent seal was achieved, and the entire jar was covered with
aluminum foil to reduce any effects of incidental light contacting the sample.
26
-------
The soil samples were analyzed by TestAmerica and a subcontractor (GeoTesting Express) for the
parameters listed in Table 3-3. Analyses for the particle size distribution, moisture content, and cation
exchange capacity were performed on all six samples. The geochemical analysis was performed on
samples SOM-SOIL-03 and SOM-SOIL-05 only.
Table 3-3. Summary of Soil Sampling and Analysis
Soil Measurement
Particle Size Distribution
Percent Solids/Moisture
Cation Exchange Capacity
Soil Resistivity Analysis
Oxidation Reduction Potential
Chloride
Soil and Waste pH
Sulfate
Acid-Soluble Sulfide
Reference
ASTM D422
SW846 3550C
SW8469081
ASTM G57
ASTMWK12508
MCAWW 300.0A
SW846 9045C
MCAWW 300.0A
SW846 9030B/9034
Samples
All
All
All
SOM-SOIL 3&5
SOM-SOIL 3&5
SOM-SOIL 3&5
SOM-SOIL 3&5
SOM-SOIL 3&5
SOM-SOIL 3&5
Lab
TestAmerica
TestAmerica
TestAmerica
GeoTesting Express
TestAmerica
TestAmerica
TestAmerica
TestAmerica
TestAmerica
The results of the soil sampling are included in Appendix A. Soil sample SOM-SOIL-01, the soil closest
to the pavement surface, was predominantly sand (67%) with some silty-clay (20%) and gravel (13%).
The remaining five samples consisted of mostly reddish brown silty, clay (71%) and sand (26%) with
some gravel (3%). With the exception of one low pH value, the soil at the Somerville site did not appear
to be highly corrosive. The soil pH ranged from 4.8 to 6.5 with a corrosive soil defined as having a pH
less than 5.5. The chloride concentration averaged 129 ppm and sulfate concentration averaged 19 ppm,
with a corrosive soil defined as having chloride concentrations greater than 500 ppm and sulfate
concentrations greater than 2,000 ppm. The resistivity ranged from 1,094 to 1,392 ohm-cm with a
minimum resistivity value for soil less than 1,000 ohm-cm indicating the presence of high quantities of
soluble salts and a higher propensity for corrosion (CalTrans, 2003).
3.1.2.2 Water Sampling. Prior to rehabilitation of the test pipe, the source water quality was
characterized by collecting and analyzing water samples on Monday, July 19, 2010 from two locations
along the test pipe, including one service tap and a fire hydrant. The map of the demonstration area in
Figure 3-2 details each of the sampling locations used to collect water samples to support the
demonstration study. Water samples were collected from: a newly installed fire hydrant located at the
southern end of the test pipe near the intersection of Davenport Street and Brown Street and a service tap
from the high school located on the east side of Davenport Street between Ivanhoe Road and Orchard
Street.
Initially, the research team planned to collect water samples from each location during three separate
sampling efforts: baseline sampling prior to rehabilitation; post-rehabilitation sampling once the pipe was
brought back into service immediately following disinfection; and post-rehabilitation sampling one week
after the test pipe was brought back into service. Due to the liner failure, water sampling was only
performed prior to rehabilitation; therefore, a comparison of pre- and post-rehabilitation water quality
results could not be made. Table 3-4 summarizes the parameters that were measured and analyzed to
assess water quality prior to rehabilitation and the results of the water quality analysis are included in
Appendix B.
27
-------
Table 3-4. Summary of Water Sample Analytical Testing
Measurement
pH, Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen (DO),
ORP, and Free and Total Chlorine (as C12)
pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Chloride,
Fluoride, Nitrate (as NO2), Nitrite (as
NO2), Ammonia (as NH3), Sulfate (SO4),
Silica (as SiO2), Phosphate, Total Dissolved
Solids, Total Suspended Solids, and Total
Organic Carbon (TOC)
Total Metals, Semivolatile Organic
Compounds (SVOCs), VOCs,
Epichlorohydrin, and BPA
Parameter Type
Field Water Quality
Water Quality
Drinking Water Contaminants
Lab/Party
Battelle
American Analytical
American Analytical
3.1.3 Hydraulic Testing. Hydraulic tests (i.e., flow, leak detection survey, pressure and friction
coefficient) were planned to be conducted prior to rehabilitation and once liner installation was
completed. The pre-rehabilitation tests are described below and the post-rehabilitation tests were not
performed except for the flow tests, during which the liner failure was discovered.
3.1.3.1 Baseline Data Collection. In preparation for the demonstration project, NJAW conducted a
baseline hydrant flow test and leak detection survey on the test pipe. The baseline hydrant flow test was
conducted on a portion of the test pipe on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 using two hydrants, HSOM-79 which
was the flow hydrant and HSOM-80 which was the static/residual hydrant. A pitot tube was used to
estimate the flow rate at HSOM-79 and a pressure gauge was positioned at HSOM-80 to determine the
static and residual pressure at the hydrant during the test. The flow test results for the 10 in. test pipe
indicated a static pressure of 67 psi, a residual pressure of 61 psi, and flow rate of 1,186 gallons per
minute (gpm). The baseline hydrant flow test results were to be compared to the hydrant flow test results
conducted after the test pipe was rehabilitated, and the significant reduction in flow is what led to the
discovery of the liner failure as described in Section 3.6.
Additionally, NJAW conducted a leak detection survey during the week of May 17, 2010, using a Flow
Metrix ZCorr digital correlating logger, a commercially available acoustic leak detection system. The
results of the survey indicated that no leaks were detected, however, the field team leader noted that there
was a noticeable draw on the service tap to the high school, which is located on the west side of
Davenport Street between Orchard Street and Ivanhoe Avenue. NJAW indicated that the water draw on
the test pipe from the high school during the leak survey could have masked a potential leak, but it was
determined that a follow up leak detection survey was not necessary.
3.1.3.2 Pressure Testing. Pressure testing was planned to be conducted prior to the rehabilitation
(baseline) and after the rehabilitation had been conducted (post-lining) to evaluate the effectiveness of the
liner to reduce pressure loss and associated water loss within the test pipe. NJAW decided not to put the
test pipe under any additional stress, therefore the pressure test was not conducted.
3.1.3.3 Friction Factor Testing. The Hazen-Williams coefficient of roughness, or "C-Factor", is the
main criteria used for determining the acceptability of a spray-on lining finish in reducing friction losses
and restoring hydraulic capacity to a rehabilitated pipe. NJAW currently assumes a "C-Factor" of 50 for
its unlined cast iron pipes in their original condition prior to lining. The Hazen-Williams friction
coefficient is calculated using the formula below:
28
-------
where
C
Cf
Q
p
D
Hazen-Williams Coefficient of Roughness
Unit Conversion Factor (4.52)
Flow through Test Section, gpm
Friction Loss, psi per foot of pipe (psi/ft)
Internal Diameter of Test Section (in.)
The field test by Higgins Fire Protection was conducted on Tuesday, July 20, 2010, by isolating the 1,342
ft long test pipe between Brown Street and Ivanhoe Avenue underneath Davenport Street. The test used
HSOM-76 (Hydrant #1), HSOM-79 (Hydrant #2), and HSOM-80 as the flow hydrants. In order to
effectively isolate the test pipe, the following valves were closed: VSOM-267, VSOM-252, VSOM-296,
and VSOM-491. Figure 3-4 shows Hydrant #2 with pressure gauge installed and the flow hydrant used to
induce flow and measure flow rate via a pitot tube.
Figure 3-4. Hydrant #2 with Pressure Gauge and Flow Hydrant with Pitot Tube
The frictional headless was determined to be 11.6 psi along 1,000 ft between Hydrants #1 and #2,
therefore P = 0.0116 psi/ft. Q was measured to be 1,284 gpm on average for six tests. Q, P, and an
internal diameter of 10.22 in. were plugged into Equation 4 and the 'C-Factor' was calculated to be 71.06
for the tuberculated pipe, which is shown in Figure 3-5. The spray-on lining was anticipated to decrease
friction losses, thereby resulting in a higher "C-Factor" rating; however, due to the failure, this test could
not be conducted after the rehabilitation had taken place. The manufacturer, 3M™, claims a "C-Factor"
of 135 can be achieved following Scotchkote™ SIPP 269 application. For comparison, AWWA Standard
C620 calls for a minimum "C-Factor" of 115 for a 10 in. smooth pipe after epoxy lining (AWWA, 2008).
29
-------
Figure 3-5. Tuberculation Inside of Test Pipe Prior to Cleaning
3.1.4 Installation of Bypass Piping. Creamer began laying out the bypass piping on Monday, July
19, 2010, and completed hooking up the system, testing for and fixing all leaks the following day, as
shown in Figure 3-6. The bypass system was chlorinated on Tuesday, July 20 and the system was
required to pass two consecutive bacteria tests before being put online, for use by the customers. The first
water samples were taken on Wednesday, July 21, but the samples failed the tests, so the system was
rechlorinated the following day. The second set of water samples was collected on Friday, July 23, but
the samples failed to pass the required tests two consecutive times. The bypass system was rechlorinated
multiple times until the system finally passed bacteria tests the morning the demonstration was set to
begin, Monday, August 2. The contractor connected the remaining six houses and a dentist office to the
bypass system around 8:30 a.m. on August 2, and the bypass system was put online around 10:00 a.m.
Figure 3-6. Bypass Piping with House Connection and Connection to Hydrant
30
-------
3.1.5 Cleaning and Drying of Pipe. In order for proper installation of Scotchkote™ SIPP 269
polyurea coating, effective cleaning is essential. Before each section could be cleaned, water flow had to
be stopped to isolate the test pipe and the section to be cleaned was flushed of all water. For example, in
preparation for cleaning the first section (lining run #1) the entire test pipe was isolated on Monday,
August 2, 2010 once the bypass system was put online, by adjusting valves just north and south of the
section and then the test pipe was flushed out through a hydrant, as shown in Figure 3-7. NJAW began
isolating the test pipe at 10:00 a.m. once the bypass was put online and flushing was completed by 12:00
p.m. Pit #5 was then pumped dry to allow access for cutting into the test pipe in preparation for cleaning.
An 18,000 gallons per hour (GPH) Homelite centrifugal gasoline operated pump was used to de-water Pit
#5 (see Figure 3-8), which took approximately 10 minutes.
Figure 3-7. Adjusting Valves to Isolate Lining Run #1 and Flushing Through a Hydrant
Figure 3-8. De-watering Pit #5 to Allow Access for Cutting into Test Pipe
Once the pit was free of water, the contractor was able to cut into the test pipe to allow access for cleaning
using a conventional cleaning technique known as rack feed boring. The test pipe was cut into using an
Active Partner Saw and the tee fitting that was cut out was removed from the pit by strapping it to the
bucket of a Case 580 Super M Loader/Backhoe, as shown in Figure 3-9. The cutting and removal of the
tee fitting took around 25 minutes to complete.
31
-------
Figure 3-9. Cutting into Test Pipe and Removing it with the Backhoe
The rack feed bore, shown in Figure 3-10, was powered by a CAT C2.2 4-cylinder diesel engine to push
extendable rotating rods with the boring head attached through the test pipe to remove debris for the pipe
water. While the boring head, which has two flail heads attached, was advanced, pressurized water was
fed into the pipe, in the opposite direction of the boring head to carry out the sediments removed
mechanically by the spinning flail heads, as diagrammed in Figure 3-11.
Figure 3-10. Rack Feed Bore Trailer and Cleaning Bore Head being Inserted into the Pipe
Figure 3-11. Diagram of the Rack Feed Boring Cleaning Method (3M™, 2009b)
32
-------
3M™ began cleaning the first test section (known as lining run #1) at 1:10 p.m. and the centrifugal pump
was kept running during the entire process to flush sediment out of the pipe, which lasted about 40
minutes (see Figure 3-12). The advancement rate averaged 2 minutes per 5 m rod (i.e., 1 minute to add a
new rod to the rod string, shown in Figure 3-12, and 1 minute to advance it forward 5 meters).
Figure 3-12. Sediment being Removed and Attaching a New Rod to the Rod String
Once the rack feed boring head reached Pit #4, the flanges on the head got lodged in a valve and one of
the flails was broken, as shown in Figure 3-13. The test pipe was cut into to reverse the flails for back
reaming. The back reaming process again took around 40 minutes and was completed by 3:10 p.m.
Figure 3-13. Valve in Pit #4 and the Broken Flange which was Stuck in the Valve
Once back reaming was completed, the contractor flushed the test section (lining run #1), while
continually pumping out Pits #4 and #5. The cleaning and flushing process removed the tuberculation
from the test pipe, filling the floor of Pit #5 with the dislodged sediments, as shown in Figure 3-14. The
flushing out of the test pipe for lining run #1 took around 40 minutes.
33
-------
Figure 3-14. Flushing of Lining Run #1 and Inside of the Test Pipe After Cleaning
Another aspect of cleaning is line pigging or swabbing, which was conducted on lining run #1 the
following day after the initial CCTV inspection indicated a need to further clean the test pipe prior to
rehabilitation. This process uses compressed air, powered by an Atlas Copco 300 cubic feet per minute
(cfm) diesel compressor, to force a foam 'pig', which is larger than the internal diameter of the host pipe,
through the pipe in the direction of water flow. The foam 'pig' is forced through the pipe using
compressed air to remove standing water, debris and to ensure the line is dry before the rehabilitation is
conducted. Figure 3-15 shows the first of three swabs, which were of 10 in. diameter, but had to be
beefed up with landscape mesh and duct tape in order to effectively scrape the pipe walls through the test
pipe from Pit #4 to Pit #5. The first swab took 20 minutes to reach Pit #5 and it was accompanied by
water and debris which can be seen in the shoring box shown in Figure 3-15.
Figure 3-15. Normal 10 in. Swab and First Post-Cleaning Swab to Reach Pit #5
If upon final inspection after swabbing there is still excess water on the surface of the pipe, a squeegee is
pulled through the pipe to remove any excess moisture. For lining run #1, this was required since the
final CCTV inspection identified three leaking services, which had to be adjusted to ensure there were no
leaks prior to liner installation. 3M™ began pulling the squeegee with a winch attached to a Dodge Ram
2500 pickup truck (shown in Figure 3-16), from Pit #4 to Pit #5 around 12:45 p.m. on Tuesday, August 3,
and the entire pull took around 20 minutes. The squeegee was then pulled through a second time, which
only took around 5 minutes, and then the final CCTV inspection took place.
34
-------
I
Figure 3-16. Squeegee being Pulled into Place and Winch System
All cleaning for lining run #1 was accomplished with the rack feed bore, swabs, and squeegee, but lining
runs #2 and #3 required additional equipment due to buildup of debris in the pipe invert that was not
removed by the flowing water during the boring operation. Rack feed bore operations began on lining run
#2 on Monday, August 2. The bore head was able to make it through the test pipe successfully, but the
head was lodged multiple times. During flushing operations, after the rack bore process was complete,
several pieces of lead were recovered from debris as shown in Figure 3-17. The lead inside the pipe was
apparently the result of a problem with lead poured joints.
Figure 3-17. Lead Removed from Lining Run #2 During Flushing Operations
The next day, 3M™ attempted to swab lining run #2, but the swab was lodged about halfway between Pit
#2 and Pit #4, near Pit #3. 3M™ used Pit #3 to access the lower portion of lining run #2, but while
attempting to squeegee the section, the plunger became stuck in the same location as the swab had earlier
35
-------
in the day. Eventually, this blockage led to the excavation of the aforementioned Pit #7, which was used
to remove the lodged swab and squeegee and subsequently for installation of the lab-defect test section.
After multiple unsuccessful attempts to squeegee the lower portion of lining run #2, a CCTV camera was
deployed on Wednesday, August 3, to locate the trouble area, which was a large pile of lead and debris
that covered more than 80% of the pipe cross-section at the trouble location. To remove the blockage, a
drag scraper was used on Thursday, August 4, which was operated by a GMC Brigadier flat bed truck
with a large winch as shown in Figure 3-18.
Figure 3-18. Winch Truck and Series of Scrapers
The winch pulled a series of five scrapers through lining run #2 and water was pumped from the bypass
into the test pipe behind the scrapers to carry out debris as it became dislodged. The lower portion of
lining run #2 (i.e., Pit #3 to Pit #4) was scraped first with several pieces of lead being pulled from the test
pipe during the 20 minute scraping. The upper portions of lining run #2 and lining run #3 were
subsequently cleaned with the drag scraper as well to complete the removal of lead and debris. The
contractor used a rod truck to send a rod through each section to connect to the winch cable, as shown in
Figure 3-19. The rod truck would then pull the winch cable back to allow the scrapers to be attached and
then cleaning would take place.
Figure 3-19. Rod Truck Sending a Rod for Attaching to the Winch Cable
36
-------
3.1.6 Pipe Inspection. CCTV is commonly used to conduct both pre- and post-lining inspections
and, in this case, a post-failure inspection. Records were maintained to document adverse pipe conditions
or other defects that could limit the performance or affect the application of the SIPP 269 lining on the
test pipe. The pre-lining CCTV inspection provides a visual evaluation of the interior pipe surface prior
to the application of the SIPP 269 lining. In addition to pre- and post-lining CCTV inspections, a post-
failure CCTV inspection was conducted by NJAW to assess the extent of the liner failure and determine
potential causes and modes of action. The CCTV camera was powered by a Honda EU Inverter 2000i
generator and the van, which is shown in Figure 3-20. The results of the CCTV inspections are
documented on digital video discs (DVDs) and copies of the CCTV logs are included in Appendix C.
3.1.6.1 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #1. The pre-lining inspection provides vital information
relating to the degree of cleaning required to prepare the pipe before the start of a lining operation. In
addition, the pre-lining inspection will also reveal whether other pipe preparations are necessary (such as
removing projecting service lateral connections) or whether other conditions exist that would limit the
effectiveness of the liner, including leaking valves and service connections, dropped joints, unexpected
and protruding connections, structural failures (cracks, holes), re-cleaning requirements, debris, and
standing water.
Figure 3-20. CCTV Inspection Van and Operator Station
Lining run #1 (referred to as SM001 on the CCTV videos) was the first section to be inspected and the
initial inspection took place on Tuesday, August 3 around 9:00 a.m. The inspection took around 10
minutes and standing water and debris issues required swabbing as discussed above. The second
inspection took place around 10:50 a.m., and the operator identified three leaking services, which required
each one of those houses to have their water from the bypass be turned off before running the squeegee
through the test pipe and during lining to eliminate back flow into the main. The third inspection of
lining run #1 began around 11:25 a.m. and the test pipe still had surface water that required the use of the
squeegee two more times to dry the pipe properly. The final inspection of lining run #1 began around
1:10 p.m. and was used to conduct the recorded pre-lining inspection, which is detailed in Table 3-5.
After the final inspection, three services were found to be leaking slightly so the squeegee was pulled
through test pipe one more time to ensure that standing water had been removed.
37
-------
Table 3-5. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #1
Item
Pit #5
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Pit #4
Location
N/A
at 12:15
at 11:30
at 03:00
at 12:15
at 12:00
at 12:00
at 12:00
at 10:00
at 12:00
at 12:00
at 02: 15
at 12:00
at 03:00
at 11:00
N/A
Distance (m)
0.0
2.5
2.8
3.6
3.8
16.4
24.9
25.9
38.4
39.1
40.6
40.8
63.3
63.5
78.9
84.5
Comment
Start, 1:19 p.m.
Small Drip
Small Drip
Fast Drip
End, 1:31 p.m.
3.1.6.2 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #2. Lining run #2 (e.g., SM002) was initially inspected in
sections, due to the buildup of lead and debris between Pits #3 and #4, to locate the trouble area. Once
the section was cleaned with a drag scraper, the lower portion of lining run #2 was inspected on Thursday,
August 5, around 10:20 a.m. The inspection took 10 minutes and once the upper section had been
cleaned, 3M™ pulled a squeegee through the entire lining run to dry the pipe in preparation for lining.
The first complete CCTV inspection of lining run #2 took place around 2:15 p.m. and it was determined
that the squeegee should be used one more time before the final inspection. The final inspection of lining
run #2 began at 4:00 p.m. to document the pre-lining inspection which is detailed in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #2
Item
Pit #4
Service
T-Pipe
T-Pipe
T-Pipe
Service
Lead
Service
Lab Defect
End
Field Defect
End
Replacement
End
Lead
Service
Service
Service
Old Valve
Stop
Location
N/A
at 10:30
at 03:00
at 09:00
at 03:00
at 12:00
at 06:00
at 01:00
All
All
All
All
All
All
at 10:00
at 12:00
at 12:00
at 01:00
All
N/A
Distance (m)
0.7
8.8
18.2
18.2
26.2
33.2
52.2
71.1
73.0
74.7
82.8
84.8
84.8
86.2
99.9
101.0
110.9
111.0
112.7
112.9
Comment
Start, 3:57 p.m.
Heavy Tuberculation
Heavy Tuberculation
Heavy Tuberculation
Large Piece of Lead
Dirty Section
Dirty Section
Large Piece of Lead
Unable to Pass
End, 4:20 p.m.
38
-------
After the final inspection, it was noted that a 6 ft replacement section used in Pit #3 was installed without
being cleaned, but since that section was scheduled to be replaced after lining, the installation was ready
to then begin. The inspection revealed corrosion throughout the test pipe and what seemed to be small
pieces of lead on the pipe wall surface.
The CCTV camera was unable to inspect the final 47 m of lining run #2 due to an impassable abandoned
valve, which the robot could not drive over without getting stuck. The four remaining services in the final
47 m were not inspected, but the section up until that point was free of surface water and loose debris.
Two joints located at 52.2 and 99.9 m from Pit #4, respectively, had large pieces of lead on the pipe wall
surface as shown in Figure 3-21, but since the lead was not detached, it was assumed it would not hinder
the lining installation.
Figure 3-21. Lead Pieces at 52.2 meters (left) and 99.9 meters (right)
The 6 ft ductile iron replacement section beginning at 84.8 m from Pit #4 was not properly cleaned prior
to installation as shown in Figure 3-22. This section was used in Pit #3 to replace the pipe that was
removed to allow for cleaning of the test pipe.
Figure 3-22. Unclean Replacement Section in Pit #3
39
-------
3.1.6.3 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #3. Inspection of lining run #3 (i.e., SM003) began on
Thursday, August 5, around 7:40 p.m. The initial inspection revealed a leaking valve producing a
constant stream of flow, which was adjusted to eliminate water flow within the section while the camera
was inside the pipe. Once the valve was closed completely, a swab was put through the section to remove
the surface water and the section was ready for final CCTV inspection. The final inspection of lining run
#3 began at 9:05 p.m. but the details of the inspection are from the initial inspection that was conducted at
7:40 p.m., as shown in Table 3-7. The inspection revealed what appears to be corrosion throughout the
test section and small pieces of lead on the pipe wall surface in some locations.
Table 3-7. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #3
Item
Pit#l
Lead
Service
Restart
Service
Service
Service
T-Pipe
T-Pipe
Service
Service
Service
Service
Pit #2
Location
N/A
at 07:30
at 01:00
N/A
at 12:30
at 01:00
at 01:00
at 02:00
at 02:00
at 01:00
at 01:30
at 01:00
at 01:00
N/A
Distance (m)
0.0
2.1
9.9
13.5
23.9
39.5
55.7
83.0
83.0
99.5
114.5
127.0
140.5
150.0
Comment
Start, 7:42 p.m.
Small Piece of Lead
Camera Restart, 7:50 p.m.
Partially Blocked
Small Piece of Lead
Constant Stream
Flow Stopped
End, 8:33 p.m.
3.1.7 Pipe Wall Thickness and Inner Diameter. The test pipe was assumed to have the ID of a
typical 10 in. spun cast iron pipe. The Battelle field personnel used calipers to measure the wall thickness
of the test pipe at 3, 6, 9, and 12 o'clock positions at each pipe opening exposed within the excavation
pits. The IDs of the pipes were measured with a tape measure and each was typical of the 10 in. as
previously thought. A summary of the thickness measurements is shown in Table 3-8.
Table 3-8. Thickness Measurements of Host Pipe
Pit, End
#1, South
#2, North
#2, South
#3, North
#3, South
#7, North
#7, South
#4, North
#4, South
#5, North
Average
Lining Run
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
Test Pipe
Thickness, mm
12:00
12.41
13.83
13.82
14.81
14.58
14.52
15.86
14.19
14.06
14.17
14.23
3:00
12.40
13.73
13.90
14.60
14.60
14.53
14.76
14.07
14.13
14.18
14.09
6:00
12.34
13.83
13.92
15.90
15.70
15.70
15.38
14.02
14.08
14.15
14.50
9:00
12.56
13.94
13.67
16.65
15.80
15.35
16.20
14.15
14.01
14.11
14.64
Avg.
12.43
13.83
13.83
15.49
15.17
15.03
15.55
14.11
14.07
14.15
14.37
The average thickness of the pipe wall was 14.37 mm or 0.57 in., though this varied from 12.43 mm to
15.49 mm. The thinner walled sections were measured in Pits #1 and #2 (i.e., the northern portion) which
40
-------
was installed in the 1950s, approximately 20 years after the lower portion. The wall of the pipe in the
northern section was 1.5 mm thinner than the older pipe on average which is likely due to the selection of
lower cost thinner walled cast iron pipe over the years.
3.1.8 Defect Installation. The final site preparation activity prior to lining was the installation of
two defect pipe segments. The field-prepared defect section utilized a piece of the cast iron host pipe and
the lab-prepared defect section consisted of 10 in. ductile iron pipe section. In the rehabilitation of a cast
iron water main, a number of through holes, voids, or gaps in joints may be present in a pipe as well as
longitudinal and circumferential cracks, which are a common failure mechanism in cast iron pipes. Table
3-9 outlines a series of simulated defects that were installed in the field and the lab to establish the gap
spanning capability of the semi-structural spray-on lining product.
Table 3-9. Simulated Defects in the Lab and Filed-Prepared Sections
Section
Field-Prepared
Lab-Prepared
Circular Holes
2-6.4 mm
2 -9. 5 mm
3-1 mm& 3-3 mm
1- 12mm& 1- 18mm
Rectangular Holes
2-50 mm x 3 mm
2-50 mmx 6 mm
2 - 25 mm x 100 mm
Ring Break
N/A
1-3 mm
After lining, the defects were visually observed via CCTV and by visual examination in the laboratory to
assess the spray-on lining's ability to span these gaps. Pressure burst tests were scheduled to be
conducted on the defect sections, but were not due to the liner failure. Details about the defects and site
preparation activities are included in Appendix D. The methodology for preparing lab and field induced
defects was successful for this demonstration and would be an important part of future demonstrations.
3.2
Technology Application
The lining of the test section took place in early August 2010 and the lining process required the use of
several pieces of equipment including the lining rig, spraying head, and auxiliary equipment. The process
described for this spray applied polyurea is strikingly similar to the process for non-structural polymeric
and epoxy lining.
3.2.1 Technology Application Equipment. The lining rig is a specialized trailer, pulled by a Ford
F-550 diesel truck, which contains two 100 gallon resin tanks that warm the resins to a temperature of
95°F prior to each lining run, which typically takes around 2 hours (shown in Figure 3-23).
Figure 3-23. Truck Pulling the Lining Rig and 100 Gallon Resin Tanks
41
-------
The lining rig equipment is powered by a Kohler 30 kVA generator, which is mounted to the F-550 and a
125 cfm air compressor, which is mounted under the rear of the truck. The lining rig also contains a
pumping system which supplies the resin material to the spray head by way of the blue umbilical hose,
which is wound on a drum, shown in Figure 3-24. During application, the resin base and activator are fed
from the lining rig through separate hoses within the heated umbilical hose and combined using a static
mixer before the material reaches the spray head. A guidance system controls the umbilical as it is reeled
in to make sure it winds around the drum properly.
The entire lining process is controlled by a Programmable Logic Control (PLC) computer, shown in
Figure 3-25, which continually monitors the spraying application and provides readouts of the activator
and base pressure, mix ratio, flowrate, speed, liner thickness, and tank temperature to ensure the material
is at the proper thickness and between 77°F and 95°F at the application head.
A drive motor is used to power the specialized spray head that applies the polyurea lining. The
installation technique employs skids on the spraying head to ensure proper positioning by centering the
head parallel within the water pipe during each application, shown in Figure 3-26. The spray head also
contains a rotating application cone, detailed in Figure 3-26, and a static mixer for mixing the two-part
resin prior to spraying the material inside the pipe.
Figure 3-24. Pumping Control System and Spraying Umbilical
Figure 3-25. PLC Computer System on Lining Rig
42
-------
Figure 3-26. Specialized Spray Head with Skids and Application Cone
Figure 3-27 provides an illustration of the SIPP 269 installation method used for the demonstration study.
After the application of SIPP 269, the pipe is allowed to cure for a minimum of 10 minutes prior to
initiating the post-installation CCTV inspection.
HOSE
DRUM/WINCH
METERING PUMP
TRANSFER PUMPS
RESERVOIRS
LINING APPLICATION HEAD
CONE
LINING HOSE
(BASE, ACTIVATOR
AND AIR)
LINED PIPE
IN LINE MIXER
AIR COMPRESSOR
& GENERATOR
Figure 3-27. Illustration of the SIPP 269 Installation Method (3M™, 2009b)
3.2.2 Technology Application Parameters. Based on 3M™'s installation manual, the proper
installation of SIPP 269 requires specialized equipment capable of storing, heating, dispensing and
mixing the product in accordance with the product specifications. Table 3-10 provides a summary of all
product specifications for the application of Scotchkote™ SIPP 269 lining. Based on the specification,
the lining rig had to supply adequate heat and pressure and be equipped with monitors and gauges to
ensure that the lining was installed properly. Specifically, the lining rig had to be equipped with flow
meters and pressure monitors capable of dispensing and monitoring the base and activator components
within ±5% of the specified mix ratio. The lining rig was equipped with an audible alarm that would be
activated if the mix ratio departs from ±5% of the specified mix ratio. The lining rig will individually
heat the base and activator components so that the material temperature at the application head is between
77°Fand95°F.
43
-------
Table 3-10. Summary of Specifications for the Application of SIPP 269 (3M™, 2009a)
Parameter
Base Component
Activator Component
Diameter of Pipe
Storage Sealed Container
Mix Ratio By Volume
Mix Ratio By Weight
Cure Time (CCTV)
Cure Time (Return to Service)
Cure Temperature
Target Dry Film Thickness
Variation in Thickness1
Temperature at the Application Head
Material Temperatures in the Tanks
Application Flow Rate for 10 in. Pipe
Description/Specification
White Thixotropic Liquid
Black Thixotropic Liquid
4 in. < D < 12 in.
40°F to 90°F (5°C to 32°C)
1:1
100 (Base): 112. 4 (Activator)
10 minutes
60 minutes
Greater than 37°F(3°C)
140 mil (3. 5 mm)
+20%
77°F to 95°F (25°C to 35°C)
not to exceed 104°F(40°C)
0.66 gal/ft (8.0 L/m)
1 Accounts for variations during the application process.
The base and activator components are supplied separately and contain individual lot numbers. The base
and activator components for this project, shown in their packaging in Figure 3-28, were brought to the
site first by 3M™ on Monday, August 2, with the remainder being delivered to the site the next day.
3M Scotchkote
Spray In Race Pipe 269 Coating
teubrimiento en aersol para tuberia en sitio 269
3M Scotchkote
Spray In Place Pipe 269 Coating
ACTIVATOR (Part B) / ACTIVATEUR (Parte B)
Figure 3-28. Part A Base and Part B Activator
3.2.3 Installation of Liner and Curing. The installation of the SIPP 269 coatings took place from
August 2 through August 5. The details of each lining run are described in the sections below.
3.2.3.1 Lining of Run #1. Once the test pipe was cleaned and inspected, 3M™ began preparing for
installation on lining run #1 around 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, August 3 by heating the resin materials on the
lining rig. Before pullback can be initiated the umbilical has to be pulled through the test pipe via a cable
attached to the truck mounted winch and the two hoses housed inside the umbilical are then attached to
the spray head shown in Figure 3-29.
44
-------
Figure 3-29. Umbilical being Winched to the Start Pit and Attached to the Spray Head
Two 3M™ workers were located in the starting pit (Pit #4) to launch the spray head by hand. A bucket
was used to cover the spray head and shield the polyurea from the workers once it started spinning (spin-
up mode) in the 50 to 60 seconds it takes to launch the head at the beginning of the installation. Fullback
for lining run #1 began around 3:10 p.m. and the 287 ft (87.5 m) test section was completed in around 38
minutes (2.3 meters/min). Once the spray head reached the exit pit (Pit #5), two workers were there to
remove the spray head from the main, again shielding the polyurea with a bucket, shown in Figure 3-30.
Figure 3-30. 3M™ Workers Preparing to Remove Spray Head from Lining Run #1
The batch numbers for the base and activator used for lining run #1 were Lot #N13850 and Lot #N18351,
respectively. A total of 14, 12 liter pails of each component were loaded into the tanks and 148 liters (39
gallons) were used for the lining run. The ambient temperature during installation was 86°F with the
humidity around 60% and the pipe wall temperature was 82°F. Prior to installation, the recirculation
process was conducted for 38 minutes, which involves pumping the base and activator components
through the heated lining rig to: (1) ensure each component is at the proper temperature, and (2) perform
the weight check. The average temperature in the tanks during installation was 93.6°F with a maximum
temperature of 96°F. A weight check of the base and activator components to ensure a mix ratio of
112.4:100, revealed the materials to be within the allowable range as shown in Table 3-11.
45
-------
Table 3-11. Resins Weight Check for Lining Run #1
Test
No.
1
2
3
Weight (g)
Base (A)
479
439
452
Activator (B)
427
388
399
Mix
Ratio
112.2:100
113.1:100
113.3:100
It is recommended that three weight checks in 3 minute increments be performed, with the mix ratio being
within 5% of the recommend value (Ellison et al., 2010). The mix ratio is calculated by dividing Part A
(i.e., the base) by Part B (i.e., the activator) and multiplying by 100. A complete log of the lining rig data
indicated the average thickness to be 3.5 mm, with a maximum of 4.1 mm delivered with an average
flowrate of 6.0 liters/min. The complete lining log for each lining run is included in Appendix E. The
material cured for 25 minutes before the post-lining CCTV inspection took place to ensure proper curing
before deploying the CCTV camera robot. The lining rig, which is equipped with an alarm to signal when
parameters are out of specification during lining, did not sound during any of the lining activities.
3.2.3.2 Lining of Run #2. Once lining run #2 was believed to be cleaned of lead and tuberculation
debris and surface water was removed from the section, the installation began. 3M™ began warming the
resins in preparation for lining and the umbilical was pulled through the test pipe at 4:45 p.m. on
Thursday, August 5 (shown in Figure 3-31). The two 3M™ workers were located in Pit #2 to launch the
spray head with pullback beginning around 5:10 p.m. and the 536 ft (163.4 m) test section was completed
in around 53 minutes (3.1 meters/min) with the spray head reaching Pit #4 around 6:05 p.m.
Figure 3-31. Umbilical being Inserted and Pulled Through Lining Run #2
The batch numbers for the base and activator used for lining run #2 were a combination of Lot #N13850
and #N15135 for the base; and Lot #N18351 and #N15136 for the activator. A total of 22, 12 liter resin
pails of each component were used on the lining run for a total of 264 liters (70 gallons) of each
component. The ambient temperature during installation was 88°F with the humidity around 55% and the
pipe wall temperature was about 83°F. The average temperature in the tanks during installation was
92.8°F with a maximum of 93°F. The weight check took approximately 30 minutes to ensure a proper
mix ratio prior to spin-up mode, shown in Table 3-12. The lining log indicates the average thickness to
be 3.5 mm, with a maximum of 3.7 mm. The material was allowed to cure for 10 minutes before the
post-lining CCTV inspection took place beginning around 6:15 p.m.
46
-------
Table 3-12. Resins Weight Check for Lining Run #2
Test
No.
1
2
3
Weight (g)
Base (A)
453
439
428
Activator (B)
398
388
378
Mix
Ratio
113.8:100
113.1:100
113.2:100
3.2.3.3 Lining of Run #3. The final section to be lined was between Pits #1 and #2 and the umbilical
was pulled through the section around 9:40 p.m. on Thursday, August 5 (Figure 3-32). The spray head
was launched from Pit #2 with pullback beginning around 10:15 p.m. and the 506 ft (154.4 m) test section
was completed in around 46 minutes (3.3 meters/min) with the spray head reaching Pit #1 at 11:00 p.m.
Figure 3-32. Preparation for Lining the Final Section
The batch numbers for the base and activator used for lining run #3 were Lot #N 15135 for the base and
Lot #N15136 for the activator. The total number of pails used was not recorded, but it was estimated to
be around 264 liters (70 gallons) for each component since the length of the lining run was very similar to
lining run #2. The ambient temperature during installation was 80°F with the humidity around 90% and
the pipe wall temperature was about 77°F. The average temperature in the tanks during installation was
86.3°F with a maximum of 87°F. The weight check took approximately 27 minutes to ensure a proper
mix ratio, shown in Table 3-13. The lining log indicates the average thickness to be 3.5 mm, with
maximum of 3.8 mm and the average flowrate as 8.5 liter/min. The material was allowed to cure for 10
minutes before the post-lining CCTV inspection took place beginning around 11:10 p.m.
Table 3-13. Resins Weight Check for Lining Run #3
Test
No.
1
2
3
Weight (g)
Base (A)
450
460
441
Activator (B)
380
400
385
Mix
Ratio
118.4:100
115.0:100
114.5:100
As noted above, the lining rig alarm did not sound during any of the lining activities and the lining rig
data are all within the specifications shown in Table 3-14. The values for each lining run were obtained
by averaging the values on the lining rig data sheets (included in Appendix E). The mix ratio by volume
47
-------
and thickness for each lining run were consistently 1.01:1 and 3.5 mm, respectively. The flow rate of the
material did vary for each lining run, but the thickness remained consistent, based on the lining rig data.
Table 3-14. Installation Parameters versus Design Specifications
Parameter
Mix ratio (volume)
Mix ratio (weight, A:B)
Cure time (CCTV)
Cure temperature
Target dry film thickness
Temperatures in tanks
Flow rate for 10 in. pipe
Design Specification
1:1
100:112.4
10 min
Greater than 3 7°F
3.5 mm (up to 4.2 mm)
not to exceed 104°F
8.0 L/m
Run#l
1.01:1
100:112.8
25 min
82°F
3.5 mm
94°F
6.0 L/m
Run #2
1.01:1
100:113.4
10 min
83°F
3.5 mm
93°F
8.0 L/m
Run #3
1.01:1
100:116.1
10 min
77°F
3.5 mm
86°F
8.5 L/m
3.3
Post-Demonstration Field Verification
Post-demonstration field verification testing conducted to evaluate the performance of the SIPP 269 lining
technology included post-lining inspection with a CCTV camera robot. Other tests included were
ultrasonic thickness measurements to verify the thickness of the lined material. The post-lining Hazen-
Williams testing was canceled due to the liner failure.
3.3.1 Post-Lining CCTV. The post-lining CCTV inspection provided a visual assessment of the
quality of the liner after a 10 minute cure period. The results of the post-lining CCTV inspections are
documented on DVDs and hard copies of the CCTV logs are included in Appendix E. A description of
each post-lining run inspection is described below.
3.3.1.1 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #1. The post-lining inspection of lining run #1 occurred
on Tuesday, August 3, around 4:08 p.m., around 25 minutes after the spray head was removed from the
test section, shown in Table 3-15.
Table 3-15. Post-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #1
Item
Pit #5
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Water
Service
Service
Flip
Service
Service
Service
Service
Joint
Service
Service
Service
Pit #4
Location
N/A
at 12:15
at 11:30
at 03:00
at 12:15
at 12:00
at 06:00
at 12:00
at 12:00
N/A
at 10:00
at 12:00
at 12:00
at 02: 15
360°
at 12:00
at 03:00
at 11:00
N/A
Distance (m)
0.7
3.2
3.5
4.3
4.5
17.1
24.8
25.6
26.6
32.4/37.4
40.5
41.2
42.7
42.9
62.9
65.4
65.6
81.2
87.4
Comment
Start, 4:08 p.m.
Unchecked
Slight Incomplete Coverage/Small Drip
Incomplete Coverage/Small Drip
Slight Incomplete Coverage
Slight Incomplete Coverage/Small Drip
Small Pool
Unchecked
Small Drip
Camera Robot Flipped
Good Coverage
Good Coverage
Good Coverage
Incomplete Coverage
Slight Incomplete Coverage
Slight Incomplete Coverage
Incomplete Coverage/Small Drip/Plugged Service
Slight Incomplete Coverage
End, 4:42 p.m.
48
-------
During the inspection, the camera flipped two different times and each time the camera had to be removed
from the section upside down and redeployed to the previous location. The flipping was due to the robot
tracks slowly guiding the camera robot up the wall without the operator being able to notice before it
tracked too high on the wall and flipped. This led the operator to slow down the inspection and
continuously back track the camera robot to ensure it was driving along the invert of the pipe, which is
impossible to see visually unless something is running along the invert (i.e., rope or water). In all, the
inspection took 35 minutes due to the flipping, although recorded video time is around 20 minutes.
Several of the service locations showed signs of incomplete coverage directly under the service intrusion.
This aspect is called the shadow effect and is discussed in more detail in Section 3.1.3.3.
3.3.1.2 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #2. The post-lining inspection of lining run #2, shown in
Table 3-16, occurred on Thursday, August 5, around 6:09 p.m., from Pit #2, around 5 minutes after the
spray head was removed from the test section through Pit #4.
Table 3-16. Post-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #2
Item
Pit #2
Service
Service
Service
Service
Pipe
Old Valve
Service
Service
Service
Lead
Replacement
End
Field Defect
End
Pipe
Lab Defect
End
Service
Pipe
Lead
Joint
Service
T-Pipe
T-Pipe
T-Pipe
End
Location
N/A
at 02:30
at 10:00
at 02:30
at 01:00
N/A
360°
at 11:00
at 12:00
at 12:00
at 01:00
All
All
All
All
N/A
Out
Out
at 11:00
N/A
at 06:00
360°
at 12:00
at 09:00
at 03:00
at 09:00
N/A
Distance (m)
1.5
2.9
17.7
18.8
35.3
35.4
47.5
48.9
49.0
58.7
59.8
73.8
75.2
75.2
77.2
85.3
85.3
87.5
88.6
88.7
107.4
125.4
126.2
133.4
141.8
141.8
144.2
Comment
Start, 6:09 p.m.
Incomplete Coverage
Large Service (School)
Incomplete Coverage
Gushing Water
Water Flowing Toward Pit #4
Incomplete Coverage
Unchecked
Unchecked
Unchecked
Partial Coverage
Incomplete Coverage (left side)
Incomplete Coverage (left side)
Incomplete Coverage (on defects)
Incomplete Coverage (on defects)
Trace Amount of Water into Pit #3
Removed Prior to Inspection
Removed Prior to Inspection
Unchecked
Trace Amount of Water in Pipe
Incomplete Coverage
Incomplete Coverage
Unchecked
Good Coverage/Water in Pipe
Good Coverage/Water in Pipe
Good Coverage/Water in Pipe
Camera Robot Flipped, 6:45 p.m.
The CCTV camera flipped at 144.2 m from Pit #2, with roughly 18m more to inspect before reaching Pit
#4 and the inspection was discontinued due to concerns about the time available for completing the final
section of relining. The one remaining service on Lining Run #2 was uninspected. Therefore, the
contractor assumed the risk of not completing the post-lining inspection, which is part of standard
procedure. The 6 ft ductile iron replacement section beginning at 73.8 m from Pit #2, which was not
49
-------
properly cleaned prior to installation is shown in Figure 3-33 as an example of the material not being able
to properly cover a dirty pipe section. This section was scheduled to be removed anyway, but it is useful
in providing visual justification for proper cleaning prior to liner installation. Also shown in the figure is
the level of ridging common throughout the section.
Figure 3-33. Dirty Replacement Section Post-Lining and After being Removed
3.3.1.3 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #3. The post-lining inspection of lining run #3, shown in
Table 3-17, occurred on Thursday, August 5, around 11:12 p.m., from Pit #1, around 10 minutes after the
spray head was removed from the test section.
Table 3-17. Post-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #3
Item
Pit#l
Lead
Service
Service
Flip
Service
Service
T-Pipe
Service
Service
Service
Service
Pit #2
Location
N/A
at 07:30
at 01:00
at 12:30
N/A
at 01:00
at 01:00
at 02:00
at 01:00
at 01:30
at 01:00
at 01:00
N/A
Distance
0.0
2.1
9.9
23.9
25.5
39.7
56.1
83.9
100.4
115.4
127.8
141.6
151.1
Comment
Start, 11:12 p.m.
Small Piece of Lead
Incomplete Coverage
Incomplete Coverage/Small Drip
Camera Robot Flipped
Incomplete Coverage/Small Drip
Slight Incomplete Coverage
Trace Amount of Water in Pipe
Incomplete Coverage
Incomplete Coverage
Incomplete Coverage/Small Drip
Incomplete Coverage
End, 11:52 p.m.
The service located at 9.9 m from Pit #1 shown in Figure 3-34 is an example of the lining material's
typical inability to cover the pipe wall around slightly leaking service connections. This appears to be the
results of a very slight water drip that has indented the coating and is washing it out at the 6 o'clock
position. Other defects around services have been referred to as the 'shadow' effect, which is believed to
be due to protruding services blocking the spray and preventing full coverage near the service connection
(Ellison etal., 2010).
50
-------
Figure 3-34. Incomplete Coverage Under a Service Connection
Lining run #3 had a noticeable amount of ridging/ringing due to the pulling of the umbilical as shown in
Figure 3-35. The ridging was more pronounced on the half of the section near Pit #2 than it was on the
half near Pit # 1. This is because as the spray head got closer to the exit pit (Pit # 1) the bungee effect of
the umbilical starting and stopping was reduced, which was the case for all three sections. The minor
pitting seen in the figure is the material following the shape of the cast iron host pipe, which was also
common throughout.
Figure 3-35. Ridging in Lining Run #3 Near Pit #1 (left) and Pit #2 (right)
3.3.2 Liner Thickness. Post-lining thickness verification was intended to be conducted with an
ultrasonic gauge using an Olympus Model 37DLP ultrasonic sensor according to ASTM E797-05
(ASTM, 2005a). However, the gauge was not capable of performing the check despite being calibrated
for the material using plate samples provided by 3M™. The thickness was measured by checking the
entire thickness (i.e., pipe wall plus liner) with calipers at 3, 6, 9, and 12 o'clock positions and subtracting
the pipe wall thickness which was presented in Table 3-7. A summary of the thickness measurements is
shown in Table 3-18 and the average thickness of the liner material was 4.37 mm. The thickest location
on average was the 6 o'clock location, primarily due to two relatively thick coatings (i.e., 10.41 mm and
12.99 mm) in Pit #2 at that location. Variations in thickness are also due to the ridging effect of the lining
51
-------
material and typically each end of the pipe being measured for thickness had a ridge of lining material.
The average liner thickness (i.e., 4.37 mm) was comparable to the laboratory measured liner thickness of
4.17 mm on top of the ridges, which is discussed in Section 4.1.4.1. It should be noted that CCTV can
make ridging look more dramatic than it actually may be. The laboratory measurements showed that the
thicknesses varied on average 1.28 mm (0.05 in.) between the ridges and the valleys between ridges.
Table 3-18. Thickness Measurements of Liner Material
Pit, End
#1, South
#2, North
#2, South
#3, North
#3, South
#7, North
#7, South
#4, North
#4, South
#5, North
Average
Lining
Run
o
3
o
J
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
Test Pipe
Thickness, mm
12:00
3.72
2.56
1.76
6.60
3.84
6.22
4.17
5.17
3.67
3.21
4.09
3:00
4.01
0.90
3.07
4.81
7.11
4.32
3.88
4.53
4.45
3.20
4.03
6:00
1.67
10.41
12.99
4.51
2.98
5.68
5.23
2.93
8.02
3.23
5.77
9:00
3.91
3.93
1.03
4.98
2.31
4.55
3.56
4.05
4.29
3.16
3.58
Avg.
3.33
4.45
4.71
5.23
4.06
5.19
4.21
4.17
5.11
3.20
4.37
3.4
Defect Sample Collection
Upon completion of lining run #2, the pre-fabricated and field-prepared defect sections were exhumed
from the ground. The samples were collected on Thursday, August 5 and subsequently shipped to the
Trenchless Technology Center (TTC) for testing. A support cribbing was built by the shipping company
and sent to site early in the week so that the contractor could pack up the samples for shipping.
3.4.1 Lab-Prepared Defect Pipe Segment. The lab-prepared defect section was removed from the
ground after lining run #2 was completed around 6:25 p.m. on Thursday, August 5. The section was
braced from the bottom with wooden blocks and then the mechanical fittings were removed to allow for
exhumation. Once the fittings were moved, the liner material spanning the small gap between the test
section and defect section was cut away on each side with razor blades, shown in Figure 3-36.
Figure 3-36. Removal of Mechanical Fittings and Cutting Liner Material
52
-------
Tests on this sample were scheduled to include short-term burst tests and connection of a service tap, both
of which were canceled due to the liner failure. Once the lab-prepared defect section was completely
separated from the test pipe, the segment was removed from Pit #7 with the backhoe and placed inside the
supporting crib in which it had been shipped to the site. The defect section showed ridging throughout,
but the liner was completely covering the interior surface of the pipe, as shown in Figure 3-37.
Figure 3-37. Removal of Lab-Prepared Defect Section from Pit #7 and Interior of Pipe
3.4.2 Field-Prepared Defect Pipe Segment. The field-prepared defect section was removed from
Pit #3 around 8:10 p.m. on Thursday, August 5, along with the additional replacement piece that was
installed dirty as mentioned earlier. The section was tied to the backhoe with a strap prior to exhumation,
since the segment required the host pipe to be cut away from the test section. The location where the test
pipe was cut away from the host had to be kept cool with the use of a water hose to avoid heating the liner
material too much, shown in Figure 3-38. If the liner material gets too hot, toxic fumes can be created
which could be hazardous to the construction workers.
Figure 3-38. Cutting Away Field-Prepared Defect Section
3.4.3 Sampling Logistics. Both the lab-prepared and field-prepared defect sections were shipped
the following day to the TTC for testing. The specialized crib for shipping the pipes back to Louisiana is
shown in Figure 3-39.
53
-------
Figure 3-39. Defect Segments Packed-Up for Shipping
3.5 Site Restoration
Site restoration involved disinfecting the system to ensure clean drinking water, reconnecting the test
sections together and back to the system with new ductile iron pipe segments, and backfilling each of the
access pits and patching the pavement with asphalt.
3.5.1 Disinfection. The test pipe had to be disinfected before it was reconnected to the water system
and put into service. The disinfection procedures were based on the AWWA Standard for Disinfecting
Water Mains, C651-92 (AWWA, 1992). The test pipe was flushed to remove any contaminants that had
entered the main and the pipe was chlorinated using the tablet method to maintain the specified chlorine
residual for the required contact time. The disinfection process was conducted on Monday, August 9, by
adding 2.5 Ibs of high test hypochlorite (HTH) dry chlorine to the test pipe. The level of chlorine in the
pipe prior to flushing was between 3.0 and 4.0 mg/L and flushing would be conducted to remove the
heavily chlorinated water from the main until the water reached an appropriate level between 0.3 and 0.8
mg/L. Flushing began at 10:30 a.m. at a flow rate of 400 to 500 gpm for the first 5 minutes and then
down to 300 gpm for the remainder of the flush which lasted until 2:00 p.m. (3.5 hours total). The
chlorine level was measured to be 0.5 mg/L after flushing, which was within limits.
Prior to being put back into service, bacteriological testing was performed to ensure that the disinfection
process was effective. The testing required two total cold samples to pass as well as two consecutive
bacteria tests, which were heated to create a favorable environment for the bacteria. A summary of the
results is shown in Table 3-19, with the test section passing both requirements by Thursday, August 12.
Table 3-19. Disinfection Testing Results
Date
Monday, 8/9/10
Tuesday, 8/10/10
Wednesday, 8/11/10
! Thursday, 8/12/10
Time
2:00 p.m.
ll:24a.m.
10:27 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
Cold Test
Passed
Failed
Passed
Passed
Bacteria Tests
Failed
Passed
Passed
Passed
54
-------
Battelle staff maintained logs during pipe disinfection to estimate the volume of water used during
disinfection and flushing. A summary of the run times and flow rates of water used for this process are
shown in Table 3-20.
Table 3-20. Flushing Volume for Disinfection
Flush Start
10:30 a.m., Monday
10:35 a.m., Monday
8:30 a.m., Tuesday
ll:25a.m., Tuesday
11:25 a.m., Wednesday
ll:25a.m., Thursday
Flush Stop
10:35 a.m., Monday
2:00 p.m., Monday
ll:25a.m, Tuesday
11:25 a.m, Wednesday
ll:25a.m, Thursday
1:00 p.m., Friday
Total
Flowrate (gpm)
450
300
300
200
200
200
Time (min)
5
205
175
1440
1440
1535
4800
Volume (gal)
2,250
61,500
52,500
288,000
288,000
307,000
999,250
3.5.2 Reconnecting the Test Pipe. After lining installation, it was necessary to reconnect the test pipe
to the system including all valves, hydrant, and pipe sections. This included replacement of pipe sections
with segments of new 10 in. ductile iron pipes in Pits #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, and #7; replacement of a valve in
Pit #8; replacement of the service in Pit #6; and replacement of a hydrant near Pit #5. The tee fitting
removed from Pit #5 to allow for installation of lining run #1 was replaced on Wednesday, August 4 and
it included installation of a new hydrant, shown in Figure 3-40. The segments of pipe exhumed for
further examination were replaced with ductile iron immediately after removal, once lining run #2 was
complete and inspected on Thursday, August 5 around 8:00 p.m.
_
Figure 3-40. Removal of Old Hydrant Near Pit #5 and Replacement of Tee Fitting
Replacement of pipe sections in Pits #1, #2 and #4 with new ductile iron pipe were made on Friday,
August 6, once the contractor was able to obtain the proper fittings. The contractor also replaced a valve
in Pit #8 shown in Figure 3-41.
55
-------
Figure 3-41. Removal and Replacement of Old Valve in Pit #8
There were no documented issues or difficulties with reconnecting the lined test pipe to the water system.
It should be noted that when cutting into a section of pipe that has been lined with the SIPP 269 product,
care should be taken not to heat the material to avoid creation of toxic gases. This was accomplished
through the use of a wet saw during sample extraction.
3.5.3 Backfilling and Site Restoration. Backfilling the rehabilitated test pipe was conducted in a
manner that would not overstress the pipe, so that the lining would not be compromised. The purpose of
the backfill is not only to fill an access point, but also to protect the pipe and provide support for valves
and hydrants. The contractor began backfilling all access pits, except for Pit #5 which was completed the
week before, on Friday, August 6 and completed all except Pit #1. Once the shoring was removed for an
access pit, the backfill was compacted in 1-ft lifts using a tamper, shown in Figure 3-42. Pit #1 was
backfilled the following day and the contractor began asphalting all eight access holes. The asphalt
process included placement of a first layer of asphalt (about one inch thick); compaction with a "Jumping
Jack" compactor; placement of the final layer of asphalt up to the road surface; and compaction with an
asphalt flattener.
Figure 3-42. Tamper used for Compacting Soil
Site cleanup included removal of additional pieces of pipe, extra fittings, tools, and incidental materials,
which included debris and excess spoil material and cleaning of all walkways and pavements.
56
-------
3.6 Post-Demonstration Hydraulic Testing
NJAW conducted a hydrant flow test on the test pipe on Monday, August 16, 2010 to compare with the
results of the baseline test conducted back on May 5. The testing indicated that the hydrant flow rate had
decreased from 1,300 gpm to 200 gpm in both directions. Also during the flushing process, small pieces
of the liner were coming out in the flow through the hydrant. This significant decrease in flow led NJAW
and Creamer to cut into the test pipe and discover that significant portions of the liner had collapsed, as
shown in Figure 3-43, and other areas of the test pipe where the liner had not collapsed contained blisters
and cracks.
Figure 3-43. Collapsed Spray-On Liner
3.6.1 Post-Failure CCTV. A CCTV inspection of the entire test section was conducted on
Tuesday and Wednesday, August 17-18 to determine if the liner could be left in place or needed to be
removed. In some locations the liner had folded at the bottom along the invert, shown in Figure 3-44,
with the remainder of the liner being in relatively good shape when compared to post-lining inspection
with exception of bubbles forming in the liner in sizes ranging from 1 to 3 inches in diameter.
Figure 3-44. Same Location within Lining Run #2 Post-Lining (left) and Post-Failure (right)
57
-------
Other locations were impassable with a CCTV camera robot due the size of the folds in the liner which
occurred in the invert and along the springlines in some locations, as shown in Figure 3-45. In the
foreground of Figure 3-45, the fold in the invert of the pipe is likely due to the material slipping down the
pipe wall under the gravity of its own weight, pushing up at the invert. It has not collapsed completely
because there is most likely some ring strength at this location - possibly as a result of the ridging or it
may also be assisted by some adhesion along the left hand side wall. The fold along the springline could
be due to reasonable adhesion at the invert, and therefore the liner slipped until it reaches a point where
the adhesion was sufficient to stop it from going further. Lining run #2 was the section with the most
complete post-failure inspection; even though one portion was impassable, it was inspected to that point
from both directions.
Figure 3-45. Same Location without (left) and with Large Folds (Post-Failure, right)
Of the entire -500 ft of lining run #2, roughly 275 ft along the northern portion of the run did not contain
any lengthy folds. That portion of the run contained various smaller folds and bubbles, 6 in. to 1 ft in
length, every 1 to 2 ft along the pipe, as shown in Figure 3-46.
Figure 3-46. Same Location without (left) and with Small Folds (Post-Failure, right)
58
-------
The southern portion of lining run #2 contained large continuous folds in roughly 94% of the 225 ft
portion of the run. Some sections, which did not contain large folds, looked similar to the post-lining
CCTV results, as shown in Figure 3-47.
Inspection of lining runs #1 and #3 showed similar results to lining run #2 so NJAW and 3M™ decided to
abandon the entire test section in place due to concerns about future failures of the bubbled and folded
sections and difficulties in removing and replacing portions of the liner.
Figure 3-47. Same Location Post-Lining (left) and Post-Failure (right)
3.6.2 Liner Abandonment. The entire test pipe was abandoned in place and Creamer installed
1300+ ft of new 12 in. ductile iron pipe in early September, prior to re-opening of the high school.
NJAW provided Battelle with three additional 6 ft samples of the failed liner inside of the respective
sections of the host pipe in which they were installed for further testing and inspection. The failure of the
liner caused the testing plan to be altered to focus on the reasons for the failure, as discussed in Section 4
which covers the results of the field demonstration and evaluation of the product.
59
-------
4.0: DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
This section presents the results of the demonstration including a detailed evaluation of the technology
based on the metrics defined in Section 2.2. The section also discusses the liner failure and the
subsequent investigation into the cause of the failure.
4.1 Technology Evaluation
A key objective of the demonstration study was to assess the selected technology based on the metrics
outlined in Table 2-1. These metrics included the technology maturity, feasibility, complexity,
performance, and cost. In addition, the environmental impacts (such as waste volumes and carbon
footprint) were also considered. These metrics were used to evaluate and document the results of the
3M™ Scotchkote™ SIPP 269 field demonstration as described below.
4.1.1 Technology Maturity. The 3M™ Scotchkote™ SIPP 269 coating is classified as emerging
in terms of maturity based on its usage and supporting design and performance data. The emerging nature
of this technology was one of the reasons that it was selected for field demonstration as utilities (including
NJAW) had a high interest level in semi-structural lining technologies that represent more than an
incremental improvement over conventional renewal methods for water mains (such as cement mortar
lining or open cut). Because the product was new to the market, only a very limited installation track
record existed as described below. Short-term performance data from laboratory testing was available in
the vendor literature. However, there were no ASTM or AWWA standards applicable to this proprietary
product, so the design and installation approaches were based on the manufacturer's recommendations.
Current standards that utilities can refer to do exist in the UK, IGN 4-02-02 Code of Practice: In Situ
Resin Lining of Water Mains and WIS 4-02-01 Operational Requirements: In Situ Resin Lining of Water
Mains (WRc, 2007 and 2010). These codes superseded the previous codes which covered epoxy and
rapid-setting polymeric materials separately (Warren Associates, 1996 and 2000).
In 2009, 3M™ achieved NSF 61 certification for the first polyurea spray-on lining approved for drinking
water main applications. The product was then introduced in North America in 2009 to 2010 and used at
eight sites including:
• Somerville, NJ
• Baltimore, MD
• Syracuse, NY
• Rochester, NY
• Perkasie, PA
• Charleroi, PA
• Lansdale, PA
• St. John, New Brunswick, Canada
Of these eight utilities, three utilities provided direct information about their experiences with the product
including Syracuse, NY (installed in November 2009), Perkasie, PA (installed in June 2010), and
Lansdale, PA (installed in October 2010). Two of the projects preceded the Somerville, NJ project, which
took place in August 2010.
The project in Syracuse took place in November 2009 and involved lining 2,000 ft of 10 in. cast iron main
(Natwig and Murdock, 2010). The project was considered successful by the project manager, with no
major setbacks reported during the construction process. The test section was not tested for hydraulic
60
-------
flow improvement before and after the installation, so no comment could be made as to the improvement
of hydraulic capacity (personal communication with Eric Murdock, Syracuse Water).
The installation in Perkasie, PA occurred in June 2010 and involved about 800 ft of 6 in. cast iron. The
spray-on lining technology was selected as an alternative to open cut in order to avoid disruption of
landscaped yards in the project vicinity. The project had some difficulties during installation relating to
vertical bends, which were unknown prior to inspection, but access pits on either side allowed for proper
installation. However, the rehabilitated main did break after the liner installation once the water was
turned back on, requiring a point repair at that location. Additionally, 3M™ went back in to inspect the
pipe in September 2010 (subsequent to the failure in Somerville) and the results showed that the liner had
not adhered properly to the pipe causing multiple folds similar to the Somerville project. The section was
not replaced due to the disruption that would be caused by excavating the homeowner's yards. It is
anticipated that the liner will be removed and relined with a newly formulated material once 3M™ has
developed the next generation of product (personal communication with Gary Winton, Perkasie
Authority).
The project for North Penn Water in Lansdale, PA occurred in October 2010 and involved lining about
300 ft of 12 in. cast iron, which crossed under a railroad. One of the difficulties in getting the project set
up was the need for access in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) right-of-
way for one of the installation pits. After the installation, 3M™ went back in to inspect the pipe in
November 2010 and the liner was beginning to fail in a similar fashion to the Perkasie and Somerville
sites. The section is not a candidate for open cut replacement due to the railroad and SEPTA access
issues. The liner is scheduled for removal in April 2011 and the owner is considering rehabilitating the
structurally sound pipe with cement mortar lining (personal communication with Dan Preston, North
Penn Water).
The other four utilities did not respond to inquiries about the status of their liners.
The availability of design methodologies and performance data is another key factor in assessing the
maturity of a technology. Short-term performance data are available in the design and installation guides,
which are located on the 3M™ water infrastructure Web site (www. 3mwaterinfrastructure.com). The
design guide contains material property specifications (for parameters such as tensile strength, flexural
strength, hardness, etc.) based on tests conducted at the University of Texas at Arlington. However, there
is limited information on the long-term life of the product, which is claimed at 50 years by 3M™ through
the extrapolation of study data carried out with a similar polymeric coating. The long-term property cited
is pressure (Peo), the 50-year failure hoop stress in pressure testing. 3M™ recommends defining the 50-
year failure pressure of the liner as one-third the short-term failure pressure based on tests that found a
ratio of 2.7:1 from short to long-term failure pressure in PESO pipe.
4.1.2 Technology Feasibility. The SIPP 269 product is marketed as a Class III semi-structural
liner applicable to the renewal of mains that have: aggressive water; excessive leakage; and in some
situations corrosion holes, former ferrule tapping holes, circumferential gaps (e.g., pulled joints,
circumferential fractures); and other similar features, subject to certain design limits. The test section in
Somerville was in good working condition, with no recorded break history, but due to its age was selected
for demonstrating the liner. As part of the field demonstration, two defect sections were attached to the
test section in order to observe and test the liner's ability to span simulated corrosion holes,
circumferential cracks, separated joints, etc. as described in Section 3.1.8. Due to the failure, these
defects were not tested under any loads, but visible observations were made to determine the product's
ability to span the defects. Defect holes ranging from 1 mm in diameter up to 18 mm were successfully
spanned including the 6.5 mm circular defect shown in Figure 4-1.
61
-------
Figure 4-1. Material Spanning a 6.5 mm Diameter Hole
In addition to circular holes, various cracks in both longitudinal and circumferential directions were cut
into the defect sections to test the spanning capability of the materials. The cracks ranged from 3 mm to 6
mm in width. The material was able to span parts of the small cracks and the larger cracks were only
partially spanned as shown in Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-2. Material Partially Spanning a 6 mm Wide Crack
The host pipe conditions were routine including a straight run (no vertical bends were encountered) and a
round host pipe. The coating was applied through one abandoned valve, shown in Figure 4-3, but
typically valves would be replaced and used as access locations.
62
-------
Figure 4-3. Lining through an Abandoned Gate Valve
A determination of the applicability of the technology to host pipe conditions can only be partly assessed
due to the liner failure. The specific product used in the demonstration did not perform in an acceptable
manner to act as a Class III structural lining for the pipe. Another observation noted in Section 3 was the
inability of the material to properly cover the pipe wall near leaking service lines, as shown in Figure 3-
34.
The cause of the delamination, blistering, and folding of the liner within the host pipe was attributed by
the vendor to an improper chemical reaction of the base components. While conducting a root cause
analysis (RCA) on the liner failure, the vendor hypothesized that the air used to spray the materials onto
the pipe wall had an elevated moisture content, which did not allow for a complete chemical reaction.
This hypothesis was tested by 3M™ by adding varying amounts of water to the base components and
spraying new samples in the lab to compare with samples retrieved from the demonstration site. These
samples were evaluated to determine if similar chemical reactions occurred and were then tested for their
mechanical properties. Although the full details of the RCA, which is discussed in Section 4.2.1, were
not released due to proprietary concerns, the results of the mechanical tests were provided and have been
compared with physical testing conducted by the TTC, which is discussed in Section 4.1.4.
Once the test pipe was inspected, 3M™ decided to replace the entire section of pipe with new 12 in.
ductile iron pipe to satisfy the needs of NJAW and the installation was completed in a timely fashion
before the school on Davenport Street was back in session. The outcome of this metric showed that the
chemistry was not robust enough to perform in high humidity situations, which led to the removal of this
specific product, Scotchkote™ SIPP 269, from the market by 3M™. Also, the need to stop all leaking
services was made clear by the inability of the liner material to cover the areas near the services. The new
formulation will need to be designed to be robust enough to handle the varied site conditions that may
occur in the field in order to eliminate the potential for future failed installations.
4.1.3 Technology Complexity. The complexity of the technology was evaluated based on the
resource requirements, time out of service, site preparation requirements, cleaning requirements, and the
ability to successfully achieve service reconnections.
63
-------
The time and labor for each of the major installation functions is provided in Table 4-1 to outline the
overall resource commitments for a typical installation. The labor is identified as: S, contractor
superintendent; F, contractor foreman; L, laborers; O, backhoe operator; T, truck driver; R, rig operator;
and RT, rig technician. The crew size varied from 4 personnel during lining operations up to 7 personnel
during pit excavation. Because several activities (i.e., cleaning) were performed multiple times, a
projected estimate for atypical section is provided in Table 4-1, along with the actual recorded time
periods for each lining run. It could be estimated that if bypass and pits were already in place, one typical
section of 500 ft could be cleaned, dried, inspected, and coated in less than 11 hours (i.e., 4 hrs for
cleaning, 4 hrs for drying and pre-installation CCTV, and 2.5 hrs for lining and post-installation CCTV).
Table 4-1. Estimate of Time and Labor Requirements for Major Activities
Activity
Bypass Piping
(1,350 ft test section)
Pit Excavation (2 pits
per day for 3 days)
Test Section Cleaning
(rack feed bore)
Test Section Cleaning
(drag scraper)
Test Section Drying
and Pre-CCTV
Lining and Post-
CCTV
Labor
Required
S, F and
3L
S, F, 3L, O
and T
2Rand
2RT
F and 3L
2Rand
2RT
2Rand
2RT
Estimated Time
Required
1 8 hrs each (2 days)
24 hrs each (3 days)
4.5 hrs each
(average section)
4 hrs each
(average section)
4 hrs each
(average section)
2.5 hrs each
(average section)
Lining
Runl
Lining
Run 2
Lining
Run 3
1 8 hrs each (2 days)
8
2
N/A
4
2.67
8
5.5
4
6
2.25
8
6.25
4
2
2.25
The test pipe was never fully placed back into service due to the liner failure. Therefore, the length of
time that the pipe would be out of service was also estimated. The test pipe was taken out of service on
Monday, August 2, 2010 at 10 a.m. and the test pipe passed bacteria tests and was ready to be put back
online if the hydraulic test had been successful on Monday, August 16, 2010 around the same time that
day (i.e., 10 a.m.). Therefore, the test pipe was out of service and bypassed for approximately two weeks.
This is significantly longer than the timeframe initially claimed with a potential for a same day return to
service. Reasons for the significantly increased time required to return to service were due to the
difficulties associated with cleaning the main and reconnection activities after liner installation. Lining
Run #1, which was cleaned with the use of the rack feed bore only, was cleaned, inspected, and lined in
roughly 9 hours over the course of two days. Had this been the only lining run, it is reasonable to assume
that if pits and bypass were already in place, the lining run could have been returned to service in roughly
2 days including cleaning, lining, successful reconnection, and completion of bacteria testing, which takes
a minimum of two days if adhering to the AWWA standard.
The site preparation activities included the excavation of access pits at intervals of 500 ft on average;
installation of bypass piping to allow for the main to be cut into and rehabilitated; and cleaning of the
main with either a rack feed boring system or drag scraper. Several issues were encountered with the
cleaning operations including: (1) one pipe section that had a drop in elevation that accumulated debris
and became difficult to clean, (2) lead from poured joints that had accumulated inside the pipe, and (3) at
least two services with some flow of water that was difficult to stop. Issues were encountered during the
originally specified rack feed boring cleaning process, as noted in Section 3, which led to use of a drag
scraper on lining runs 2 and 3. Therefore, the four hours required to drag scrape lining runs 2 and 3 do
64
-------
not include the time required for partially unsuccessful rack feed boring. An additional pit was also
required to retrieve lodged cleaning equipment in an area with a large build-up of debris.
Although service reconnection was not necessary on the test pipe once it was abandoned, the post-
installation CCTV inspection revealed what appeared to be one blocked service connection, which was
covered with the lining material as shown in Figure 4-4. This service could have been reinstated
robotically had the test section been put back into service, although the blockage was not noted during the
inspection process by the operator and only noticed during video reviews at a later date. No active valves
were lined through.
Figure 4-4. Blocked Service Connection
Overall, the technology requires highly trained installers with an in-depth knowledge of the specialized
rig equipment and proper material handling procedures. While only a few access pits were required due to
the trenchless nature of the technology, the cleaning operations were quite involved and required repeated
attempts to properly prepare the pipe surface (with removal of all debris and standing water required).
The disruption to traffic during the operations was minimal and involved the reduction of traffic from a
two-lane to one-lane road, with a traffic cop used to direct traffic around the areas in which activity was
occurring (i.e., pit excavation, cleaning, etc.).
Several issues would need to be addressed before this technology could be adaptable to small- and
medium-sized utilities in need of alternatives for open cut water main replacement. Due to the
complexity and proprietary nature of the process and lack of ASTM/AWWA standards, NJAW had
proactively introduced performance specifications for this emerging technology into their contract for the
project, which protected them in the event of a failure of the installed technology. This is an important
practice for small- and medium-sized utilities when implementing emerging or innovative technologies
with a limited track record of successful installations.
Several issues would need to be addressed before this technology could be adaptable to small- and
medium-sized utilities in need of alternatives for open cut water main replacement. NJAW was able to
employ the UK guidance document (Warren, 2000) and incorporate that performance specification into
their specifications, which provided them with the confidence to move forward. It is deemed important
65
-------
that AWWA have a standard to encourage wider use of polymeric linings. This is an important practice
for small- and medium-sized utilities when implementing emerging or innovative technologies with a
limited track record of successful installations.
4.1.4 Technology Performance. The liner was not able to perform under the field demonstration
conditions, thereby exposing a limitation with the technology and ultimately resulting in removal of the
formulation from the market by 3M™. 3M™ is currently developing a new formulation for a semi-
structural spray-on lining application.
Since the demonstration in Somerville resulted in a failed liner, full evaluation of the manufacturer-stated
performance claims could not be conducted. The technology performance evaluation was carried out by
testing the liner thickness, tensile strength, flexural strength, and hardness in order to compare it to the
manufacturer's specifications. This data was useful in determining the basis of the failure as the material
only achieved 36% to 64% of the design tensile strength and 3.6% to 40% of the design flexural strength.
Originally, burst tests were scheduled to be performed on pre-installed defect segments to determine the
ability of the material to span various gaps and holes, while holding pressure. The plans for these more
detailed tests were discontinued due to the liner failure. However, visual determinations were made of the
product's gap spanning ability as described in Section 4.1.2.
The QA/QC plan developed for the demonstration was successful in terms of the fact that the liner failure
was discovered during post-installation hydraulic testing. There is some concern that the contractor may
have compromised good pre-lining cleaning in order to meet self-imposed time constraints. The
hydraulic test showed a flow of around 200 GPM, which was less than 20% of the nearly 1,200 GPM
measured prior to lining installation. The CCTV inspection of the liner immediately after installation was
also useful in identifying one service connection that appeared to be covered and several locations below
service connections that did not have complete coverage, thereby exposing the host pipe.
The results from the laboratory tests are described in the following sections. These tests did not include
adhesion testing because the manufacturer indicated that adhesion was not considered a key performance
parameter as the liner was designed to have its own inherent ring stiffness (i.e., AWWA Class III). The
liner failure did include the material folding and pulling away from the pipe wall in multiple locations, so
any adhesion was not sufficient to compensate for the low compression and flexural properties of the off-
specification liner. The role of liner adhesion in technology performance is an issue that needs careful
evaluation in the future for structural and semi-structural spray-on liners (Ellison et al., 2010).
4.1.4.1 Liner Thickness. Achieving the design liner thickness is a key technology performance
parameter for spray-on lining technologies. If the final thickness of the liner is lower than the specified
value, several critical properties are reduced. For example, the permeability increases, making leaks more
likely. The contract specifications did provide that if thickness was not sufficient, an overlining would
have normally been required. This is because the probability of a pinhole leak increases when the
thickness drops, any strength contribution is reduced, and the lining becomes more prone to cracking
under external stresses.
A summary of all of the thickness measurements is given in Table 4-2 including the estimated thickness
from the spray-on lining rig log, laboratory measurements, and field measurements. The recommended
design thickness for the Scotchkote™ SIPP 269 liner was 3.5 mm. The liner was sprayed in such a way
that ridges were created and the liner did not have a uniform thickness throughout, as shown in Figure 3-
35. The low spots in the ridges were found to be below the design standard, potentially impacting the
liner's semi-structural performance. The ridging effect was more pronounced near the start of a lining
run. This is probably because as the spray head got closer to the exit pit, the bungee effect of the
umbilical starting and stopping was reduced, which was the case for all three lining runs. This issue
should be addressed if the applied thickness is to fall within the design specification in the future.
66
-------
Table 4-2. Summary of Liner Thickness Measurements
Measurement Location, Method
Lining Run #1, Lining Rig Calculation
Lining Run #2, Lining Rig Calculation
Lining Run #3, Lining Rig Calculation
Avg.
(mm)
3.50
3.50
3.50
Min.
(mm)
3.28
3.08
2.98
Max.
(mm)
4.09
3.71
3.77
Standard
Deviation
0.08
0.07
0.08
Lining Run #1, Calipers on Ridges (Field)
Lining Run #2, Calipers on Ridges (Field)
Lining Run #3, Calipers on Ridges (Field)
All Lining Runs, Calipers on Ridges (Field)
3.89
4.60
4.15
4.37
0.90
1.03
3.16
0.90
10.41
12.99
8.02
12.99
2.88
2.30
1.64
2.28
Defect Section, Calipers on Ridges (Lab)
Defect Section, Calipers between Ridges (Lab)
4.17
2.89
2.59
1.63
6.55
4.62
1.00
0.74
The lining rig PLC has a software algorithm to estimate liner thickness based on volume of product (Parts
A and B) and the diameter of the pipe. As shown in Table 4-2, the average thickness was reported to be
3.5 mm for each lining run (ranging from 2.98 to 4.09 mm) as documented on the rig logs. The design
specification allows for +20%, which calculates to a maximum thickness of 4.2 mm, and all of the lining
rig estimates fell within this value. However, the calculated thickness with a standard deviation of
approximately 0.1 mm did not provide an accurate reflection of the high variability in liner thickness in
the actual pipe due to the ridging. The ridging effect discounts the values reported by the PLC for lining
thickness, therefore the liner rig readout is not an accurate measurement of the final sprayed thickness.
For determining the thickness in the lab, two sets of measurements were taken: one on the top of the
ridges (Figure 4-5, yellow dots) and the other between the ridges (Figure 4-5, red dots). In each set, 20
readings were taken at seven different locations around the sample (a total of 140 readings) using a
micrometer with an accuracy of ±0.0001 in., shown in Figure 4-5.
Figure 4-5. Location of Thickness Measurements (left) and Micrometer (right)
As shown in Table 4-2, the lab measured liner thickness ranged from 1.63 mm to 6.55 mm. The average
calculated values and their standard deviations were determined separately for both the ridges and the low
spots in the liner. The average liner thickness was calculated to be 4.17 mm on top of the ridges and 2.89
mm between ridges (e.g., the low spots), with the average of these measurements being 3.53 mm. The
analysis of the liner thickness based on the laboratory measurements indicated a much wider variability in
liner thickness (with standard deviations of 0.74 mm to 1.0 mm), along with values that fell well below
67
-------
the 3.5 mm design criteria. The standard deviations in the liner thickness at 1.0 mm were over an order of
magnitude higher than the values estimated by the lining rig PLC algorithm at 0.1 mm.
As shown in Table 4-2, the average liner thickness at 4.37 mm (across all three runs as measured in the
field) was slightly higher than the lab measured liner thickness of 4.17 mm on top of the ridges. The
measurements taken in the field are more variable compared to the lab with a standard deviation of 2.28
mm. This variability is partly due to readings being taken only in the access pits used for retrieving and
launching the spray-on lining application head. For example, the high variability comes from the
maximum measurements (up to 12.99 mm), which were all located at the 6 o'clock location of the
launching end of the test pipe for each lining run. The thickness was not being automatically controlled at
the beginning of each lining run, because the spray head was being inserted into the pipe manually to
allow for installation. As used for this demonstration, this shows the importance of using test sections in
the middle of liner runs as part of a QA/QC program to verify the liner thickness and to achieve a more
representative data set as the application is not well controlled at the start and end of the lining run and the
PLC readout does not provide an accurate measure of lining thickness.
4.1.4.2 Tensile Testing. As shown in Figure 4-6, a total of five specimens were prepared and tested for
their tensile strength in accordance with ASTM D638 (ASTM, 2008). The specimens were cut from the
retrieved liner samples. The results of the testing are shown in Tables 4-3 and 4-4, along with the stress-
strain curves for all samples as shown in Figures 4-7 and 4-8.
Figure 4-6. Tensile Specimens Before the Test (left) and Following the Test (right)
Table 4-3. Results from Tensile Testing (Longitudinal Direction)
Location
1
2
3
4
5
Average
Area (in.2)
0.0484
0.0635
0.0467
0.0437
0.0544
0.0513
Peak load (Ib)
65.18
89.67
69.65
75.63
79.41
75.71
Peak stress (psi)
,347
,412
,491
,708
,460
1,484
Tensile modulus (psi)
53,446
66,936
45,036
50,175
55,748
54,268
68
-------
Table 4-4. Results from Tensile Testing (Circumferential Direction)
Location
1
2
3
4
5
Average
Area (in.2)
0.0873
0.0777
0.0823
0.0799
0.0790
0.0812
Peak load (Ib)
73.53
65.48
66.46
86.71
65.70
71.58
Peak stress (psi)
842
843
808
1,084
832
882
Tensile modulus (psi)
42,881
34,059
54,020
55,252
59,183
49,079
1600
1400
1200
£ 1000
! 800
* 600
400
200
0
c
Tensile Modulus of Elasticity
Longitudinal
/
Z2
ZZ2
///
//
V
^
^S'
'/ ^^
^
•
^~— —
"~"^
_ — •
— Sample 1
— Sample 2
— Sample 4
— Sample 5
\ 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Strain, in/in
Figure 4-7. Stress-strain Curves from Tensile Testing (Longitudinal Direction)
1200
1000
•5 800
Q.
| 600
i/i
400
200
0
C
Tensile Modulus of Elasticity
Circumferential
/
/^
f
X
/
^t
-^
^~
^2^
=^—-
_- — —
_ •
_ . — •
— S
c
— S
— S
ample 1
ample 2
ample 3
ample4
ample 5
) 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Strain, in/in
Figure 4-8. Stress-strain Curves from Tensile Testing (Circumferential Direction)
69
-------
4.1.4.3 Flexural Testing. Five specimens (Figure 4-9) were cut from the retrieved liner specimen in
accordance with ASTM D790 (ASTM, 2007) for measuring the liner's flexural strength and flexural
modulus of elasticity. All of the specimens were cut to measure the flexural properties in the
circumferential direction. The sides of the specimens were smoothed using a grinder and a table router. A
water jet cutter was not used due to curvature of the liner. Testing was performed using an ADMET
eXpert 2611 universal testing machine, also shown in Figure 4-9. Table 4-5 lists the dimensions and
moment of inertia area for all five specimens.
Figure 4-9. Samples Prepared for Bending Test (left) and Bending Test (right)
Using the information in Table 4-5, the following three figures were drawn: load data and vertical
deflection data at mid-point for all samples (Figure 4-10); flexural stress and vertical deflection data
(Figure 4-11); and flexural stress and strain graphs for all samples (Figure 4-12). Peak load, peak shear
stress, and flexure modulus were obtained from the software 'MtestW,' and are listed in Table 4-6.
Peak bending stress was calculated based on the peak load value using the following expression:
where
a
P
L
D
I
Bending stress
Peak load
Span length
Depth of the specimen
Moment of inertia of area
Table 4-5. Specimens Used for Bending Testing
Specimen
1
2
3
4
5
Span
(in.)
2
2
2
2
2
Dimension
Width (in.)
0.448
0.452
0.480
0.472
0.522
Depth (in.)
0.112
0.113
0.120
0.118
0.131
Moment of Inertia
of Area (in.4)
5.25 x 1Q-5
5.43 x 1Q-5
6.91 x 1Q-5
6.46 x lO'5
9.78 x lO'5
70
-------
Table 4-6. Results from Bending Testing
Specimen
1
2
3
4
5
Average
Peak load
(Ib)
2.59
2.38
3.27
2.93
3.15
2.86
Flexural
modulus (psi)
52,153
34,185
41,327
41,153
27,891
39,341
Deflection
(in.)
0.327
0.409
0.373
0.352
0.192
0.331
Peak bending
stress (psi)
1,382.63 |
1,237.10
1,419.27
1,337.47
1,054.92
1,286
Load Vs Vertical Displacement
—Sample 1
—Sample 2
— Samples
—Sample4
—Samples
0,1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0,5 0.6
Vertical Displacement, in
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 4-10. Load vs. Vertical Displacement Curves
Flexural Stress Vs Vertical Displacement
1600
ffi
3
X
-------
Flexural Stress Vs Flexural Strain
1600
Q.
vf
TO
X
1)
Sample 1
Sample 2
— Samples
—Sample4
Samples
0.02 0.04 0.06
Flexural Strain, in/in
0.08
0.1
Figure 4-12. Stress vs. Strain Curves
4.1.4.4 Hardness. The Durometer (Shore D) Hardness test (ASTM D2240; ASTM, 2005b) 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 predetermined force
and time. The Shore D Hardness scale utilizes a weight of 10 Ibs and a tip diameter of 0.1 mm. For
interpreting the results, a Shore D Hardness scale value of 50 represents the hardness of a solid wheel
(e.g., those used by forklifts), while a value of 80 represents the hardness of paper making rollers.
The average calculated values and standard deviations are shown in Figure 4-13. An average of 18
readings at the inner and outer surface of each specimen is shown (with the outer surface adjacent to the
host pipe wall). The weighted average of Shore D hardness for the sample inner surface was calculated to
be 45.2 ±1.8, and for the outer surface 50 ±1.5. The inner surface appears to have a lower hardness value
compared with the outer surface of the liner. The design hardness value (Durometer Shore D) was 65.
New Jersey- 3M
70
60
Inner surface (left) Weighted average 45.2 ± 1.8
Outer surface (right) Weighted average 51.011.5
10
Figure 4-13. Results from Shore D Hardness Testing
72
-------
4.1.4.5 Discussion. Table 4-7 summarizes the mechanical test results for the SIPP 269 product used in
the demonstration. Test data (i.e., peak tensile stress, flexural strength, flexural modulus, and hardness)
are presented for flat specimens cast from material collected from the pail (control lot) and the rig,
specimens cut from the sprayed liner, and design specifications. Samples immersed in water were not
tested and the effect of wet conditions should be studied in the future. Specimens were cut from exhumed
samples of the liner by 3M and the TTC. TTC tests were performed on specimens cut in the longitudinal
and circumferential directions, with the samples cut in the longitudinal direction being 68% stronger on
average than circumferential cut samples (i.e., 1,480 psi in longitudinal direction versus 880 psi in the
circumferential direction). The specimens tested by 3M™ were cut in the longitudinal direction.
The peak tensile stress measured in the samples collected from the pipe is in the range of 36% to 64% of
the design value based on results from 3M™ and TTC, respectively. The flexural strength of the material
was in the range of 3.6% to 40% of the design specification based on results from 3M™ and TTC,
respectively. The flexural modulus measured by the TTC was 38% of design value and the hardness was
also much lower (i.e., 50 Shore D versus 65). Through all of the mechanical testing, it is clear that the
liner installed in the field did not meet the design specifications in any category and the reasons cited by
3M™ are discussed in Section 4.2. In addition, it was demonstrated that it is critical to collect actual
coupon samples of the liner in the field as part of the QA/QC Program because cast samples (collected
from the pail and/or rig) do not necessarily reflect the "as-installed" condition of the liner.
Table 4-7. Tensile, Flexural and Hardness Testing Results
Source of Sample
Design
Control Lot
(direct from pail)
Somerville Lot
(collected from rig)
Somerville Lot
(collected from pipe)
Somerville Lot
(collected from pipe)
Application
Technique
Spray
Cast
Cast
Spray
Spray
Peak Tensile
Stress*
16MPa
24.2±1.5 MPa
(3,5 10 psi)
19.0±1.0MPa
(2,756 psi)
5.8±0.2 MPa
(841 psi)
10.2 MPa
(1,484 psi)
Flexural
Strength
22 MPa
22.4±0.2 MPa
(3,249 psi)
17.0±4.0 MPa
(2,465 psi)
0.8±0.1MPa
(116 psi)
8.8 MPa
(1,286 psi)
Flexural
Modulus
720 MPa
N/A
N/A
N/A
271 MPa
(39,341 psi)
Hardness
65 Shore D
N/A
N/A
N/A
50±1.5
Shore D
Party
3M
3M
3M
3M
TTC
* Samples cut in the longitudinal direction
4.1.5 Technology Cost. Table 4-8 provides an estimated bid table for all aspects of the work
related to the Scotchkote™ SIPP 269 installation. Adjustments to the original bid submitted by 3M™
include both quantities and additional bid items. The original bid called for five 5ftx8ftx5ft
excavation pits, but one additional pit of this size was required near Pit #1 to allow for replacement of a
valve. One additional 5 ft x 14 ft x 5 ft pit was also required to allow for access to the area where a large
buildup of debris prevented proper cleaning near Pit #3. An additional item for the drag scraping required
to properly clean sections 2 and 3 was also added.
73
-------
Table 4-8. Bid Items for Somerville Demonstration
Bid Item
Install and remove 4 in. bypass piping
Install and remove 2 in. bypass piping
Install and remove <2 in. service connections
Install and remove >2 in. service connections
Excavate and backfill 5 x 8 x 5 pits (bid 5 total)
Excavate and backfill 5 x 14 x 5 pits (bid 1 total)
Restoration 3/8 in. slurry microsurfacing macadam
Crew for lining assistance
Dense-graded aggregate base course (DGABC)
Hydrant installation
Drag scraping
Cleaning and lining
Quantity
1,350 If
1,000 If
19 each
1 each
6 each
2 each
19,950 sf
3dy
75 tons
1 each
1,025 If
1,342 If
Unit Price
$9.50
$11.50
$300.00
$5,400.00
$5,500.00
$6,500.00
$1.50
$3,700.00
$50.00
$2,500.00
$9.24
$45.50
Total (based on actual quantities)
Cost
$12,825.00
$11,500.00
$5,700.00
$5,400.00
$33,000.00
$13,000.00
$29,925.00
$11,100.00
$3,750.00
$2,500.00
$9,471.00
$61,061.00
$199,232.00
In addition to the cost outlined above, NJAW incurred a cost of $22,814, the majority of which was
allocated to labor and labor overhead. The labor included project design, inspection, isolation of the test
section, and pre- and post-installation hydraulic flow testing, up until August 15. In all, it can be
estimated that the demonstration would have resulted in a cost of $222,000 (i.e., $199,232 + $22,814) for
the 1,342 ft test section for a unit cost of $ 165.46/lf. Additional labor costs were incurred by the utility
for the subsequent main replacement phase, along with the pipe material and fitting costs to install the
new 12 in. ductile iron main after the failure. These costs are not included in this report.
4.1.6 Technology Environmental and Social Impact. The Scotchkote™ SIPP 269 product was
marketed as an environmentally- and socially-friendly rehabilitation technology when compared with
disruptive open cut replacement methods. The installation method required access pits at intervals of 500
ft on average, which greatly reduced the equipment noise, volume of disposal trucks and hauling of
bedding and backfill materials, when compared with open cut. This advantage was lost when the test
section had to be abandoned in place, and replaced with a new 12 in. ductile iron pipe.
The waste byproducts from the demonstration are primarily flush water used during initial flushing,
cleaning, and disinfection. The flush water used during disinfection is outlined in Table 3-20 and is
estimated to be 999,250 gallons. The flush volume emptied from the pipe during initial flushing can be
estimated as the volume of the 1,342 ft test section, assuming the pipe was completely full, which is
calculated as 5,475 gallons using the following equation:
where
V
r
I
C
F=7i(r)2x/xC
Volume (gallons)
Radius (5 in.)
Test section length (1,342 ft)
Conversion factor (7.48 gallons/ft2/144 in.2/ft2)
The flush water used during cleaning is a rough estimate due to the non-uniformity of flushing during the
various cleaning tasks. The volume of water is estimated for each section based on the time and capacity
of the Homelite pump used during cleaning as shown in Table 4-9. The pump has a capacity of 18,000
74
-------
gph (300 gpm). In all, the flush volumes required for dewatering, cleaning, and disinfection are estimated
to be more than 1,283,000 gallons as shown in Table 4-10.
Table 4-9. Flush Volumes during Cleaning
Section
Rack Feed #1
Rack Feed #2
Rack Feed #3
Drag Scrape #2
Drag Scrape #3
Time
3hrs
5.5 hrs
5hrs
Ihr
Ihr
Pump Rate
18,000 GPH
18,000 GPH
18,000 GPH
18,000 GPH
18,000 GPH
Total
Volume
54,000 gallons
99,000 gallons
90,000 gallons
18,000 gallons
18,000 gallons
279,000 gallons
Table 4-10. Flush Water Volume
Activity
Dewatering
Cleaning
Disinfection
Total
Volume
5,475 gallons
279,000 gallons
999,250 gallons
1,283,725 gallons
In addition to the reduced environmental and social impact, the product was marketed as a technology
with a reduced carbon footprint. Several tools are available commercially to show the benefits of similar
technologies including the e-Calc tool, which was developed at Arizona State University for HDD
manufacturer Vermeer to illustrate the advantages of using trenchless technologies (Sihabuddin and
Ariaratnam, 2009). E-Calc was used to calculate the environmental impact for each of the major
activities including: laying out and setting up the bypass; excavating the access pits; dewatering, cleaning
and inspecting the test pipe; and lining and post-installation CCTV of the test pipe. The tool takes into
account specific vehicle and equipment parameters, shown in Figure 4-14, to calculate the emissions
including carbon dioxide (CO2), shown in the results in Figure 4-15.
Transport Details
Fuel Details
Project Details
Name
| Truck
| Truck
| Truck
| Truck
| Truck
| Truck
Model
Make year
| FordF-350 |
| GMCC5500 |
| FordF-150 |
| GMCC6500 |
fcenworthTSOO |
| AutoCar |
2006
2006
2010
Gross Vehide
Weight (GVW) Mllea9e
(Ibs.) Ort)
10,001-14,000 _^J|
16,001-19,500 J|
8,501-10,000 T\\
1997 | 19,501-26,000 •»• ||
2000
2000
33,001-60,000 _3J|
33,001-60,000 _»j|
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
Type
Gasoline
Diesel
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
Diesel
-dl
_dl
dl
dl
dl
dl
Sulfur
0.05 _^J|
0.05 _3J|
0.05 ^||
0,05 T\\
0,05 j-J
0.05^1
Altitude
Low ^||
Low ^||
Low HI
Low ^i|
Low ^11
Low _^j|
Oneway Return
N™ber Distance Distance
of Trips ,(mi) fmi)
[1
2]
[1
2|
M
iF
51 |
51 \—
51 |
51 |
51 I"
si r
51
51
51
51
51
51
Print Form
Go To Next Method
Summary
RESET
Figure 4-14. Transport Vehicles Required Each Day during Bypass Installation
75
-------
Laying out and connecting bypass piping
Transport Vehicles
Type mi
14.0 -,
Total Emissions
HC
CO
NOx
PM
0,8 Ibs
4.2 Ibs
12.1 Ibs
0.3 Ibs
SOx
0.8 Ibs
1 short ton (S/T) =
2000 pounds (Ibs)
Figure 4-15. Results from E-Calc Showing Impact of Transport Vehicles
The total carbon emissions from lying out and connecting the bypass piping were equal to 1.23 short tons
or roughly 2,460 Ib of CO2. Although disconnecting the bypass was not documented, it can be estimated
to have a similar impact as shown in Table 4-10. The e-Calc process was completed for each of the
activities described above. The next activity involved excavating the six initial access pits. This activity,
in addition to using several vehicles for transport, also involved the use of a backhoe, air compressor, and
chainsaw as shown in the equipment summary in Figure 4-16.
1
Name
j Backhoe
| Air Compressor
Equipment Details
Model
Case Super M |
Ingersoll-Ranc|
Power
-------
As shown in Figure 4-17, the equipment involved in the excavation process included a backhoe, air
compressor, and chainsaw. The equipment required for dewatering, cleaning, and inspecting included the
rack feed boring engine and generator, a Homelite pump, and an active partner saw. The equipment
required during the lining process was powered by an Atlas Copco 300 cfm compressor and a 125 cfm
under mount compressor. Table 4-12 outlines the year and sizes used to determine the emissions in Table
4-11. In all, the entire demonstration portion of the project contributed more than 40,000 Ib of CO2
emissions.
Excavation of 6 infial access pte
Equipment
Name Mrs
Transport Vehicles
Type mi
450 -
40.0 -
35.0 -
300 -
J25.0-
fit
I 20.0 -
UJ
15.0 -
100 -
5.0 •
0 0
m
n m
J
n
m
n a
H
n H
HC CO NOx PM C02
(Ibs) (Ibs) (Ibs) (Ibs) (SfT)
Type of Pollutant
1
SO*
(Ibs)
Total Emissions
HC n^
co 1 29.6 Ibs
N0x | 39.9 Ibs
PM | 2.3 Ibs
CO2 | 3.11 S/T
SOx | °-° lbs
1 short ton (S/T) =
2000 pounds (Ibs)
Figure 4-17. E-Calc Result for Access Pit Excavation
Table 4-11. Total CO2 Emissions for Each Major Activity
Activity
Bypass layout and hookup (equipment and vehicles)
Excavating initial access pits (equipment and vehicles)
Contractor vehicles/equipment (week of demonstration)
Lining crew vehicles (mobilization/demobilization)
Lining crew vehicles (week of demonstration)
Contractor vehicles (drag scraping only)
Dewatering, cleaning and inspecting (equipment)
Lining and post-installation inspecting (equipment)
Bypass disconnection estimate (equipment and vehicles)
Pit backfilling and surface restoration (equipment and vehicles)
Total (Including All Activities)
Total (Without 1,200 mile Mobilization/Demobilization)
CO2 Emissions
1.23 short tons (2,460 Ib)
3. 11 short tons (6,220 Ib)
3. 66 short tons (7,320 Ib)
7. 18 short tons (14,3 60 Ib)
0.25 short tons (5 00 Ib)
0.83 short tons (1,660 Ib)
0.92 short tons (1,840 Ib)
0.35 short tons (700 Ib)
1.23 short tons (2,460 Ib)
1.75 short tons (3, 5 00 Ib)
20.51 short tons (41,020 Ib)
13.33 short tons (26,660 Ib)
77
-------
Table 4-12. Equipment Specifications
Equipment
Case 580 Super M Backhoe
Ingersoll Rand Air Compressor
Stihl MS 250 Chainsaw
Rack Feed Bore CAT 2.2
Kohler Generator
Homelite Pump
Active Partner Saw K950
Atlas Copco Air Compressor
Undermount Air Compressor
Year/HP
2005/95
2007/80
2007/3
2005/51
2005/64
2005/5
2005/6.1
2005/75
2005/50
Activity
Excavation/
Demonstration/
Restoration
Excavation/
Demonstration
Excavation/
Demonstration
Cleaning
Cleaning
Cleaning
Cleaning
Lining
Lining
Use (hrs)
19.5/
28.0/
10.5
1.8/
3.1
61
1
12.1
13
15.5
6
3
7.5
The largest impact of the demonstration project was due to the mobilization of the lining crew vehicles,
which were driven around 1,200 miles to the job site for mobilization and another 1,200 miles for
demobilization. The mobilization/demobilization accounted for 35% of the estimated CO2 emission
footprint. By removing the mobilization/demobilization activities, the total CO2 emissions would be
significantly lowered from 20.51 short tons (41,020 Ibs) to 13.33 short tons (26,660 Ibs). As the
technology became more mature, it would be expected that more local contractors could be licensed and
trained to apply the product.
The environmental impact of the demonstration can be compared to the pipe replacement that took place
due to the liner failure. This comparison provides an estimate of the differences that may occur in a
typical pipe replacement project. The bypass layout and hookup for both projects would be similar (1.23
short tons), but the duration of the excavation due to the amount of material would be the primary
difference in the environmental impact. The excavation of the initial six test pits required 3 days of labor
and equipment, but the full excavation of 1,350 ft required to install the new 12 in. ductile iron main and
reinstate services took around 15 days and equates to more than five times as much CO2 emission (i.e.,
3.11 by 5 or 15.5 short tons). Bypass disconnection would also be similar for both projects (1.23 short
tons), but surface restoration again would require at least five times as much labor and equipment time
(i.e., 1.75 by 5 or 8.75 short tons).
In all, the CO2 emissions from the pipe replacement project including bypass setup (1.23) and
disconnection (1.23), excavation and pipe installation (15.5), and site restoration (8.75) and assuming the
host pipe is abandoned in place, would amount to an estimated 26.71 short tons (53,500 Ibs) of CO2
emissions. This is approximately 2 times higher than the adjusted total for the spray-on lining
demonstration (from which 1,200 mile mobilization/demobilization activity had been removed). To put
the CO2 emissions in prospective, the CO2 emissions for the U.S. in 2008 were 5.833 billion metric tons,
which translates to 19.2 tons or 38,400 Ibs per person in one year (EIA, 2010). Therefore, the savings
realized from using the spray-on lining method, which was roughly 13.4 tons, versus the open cut
replacement would account for about 70% of one person's CO2 emissions for one year.
4.2
Liner Failure
Potential causes of the semi-structural spray-on lining failure in Somerville were examined by 3M™ and
the research team to help determine why the failure occurred and hence to prevent it from happening in
78
-------
the future. Ideas about the failure ranged from poor surface preparation to a bad batch of material that did
not react properly. Other possible failures modes not examined by the research team included instances
of the polyurea material setting up before the material reached the host pipe surface, resulting in improper
curing and blistering (Ellison et al., 2010).
4.2.1 Root Cause Analysis. 3M™ performed an extensive RCA to determine the potential causes
of failure such as: whether or not the product was out of specification; impact of environmental
conditions; and impact of the lining process. The complete results of the RCA are confidential, but 3M™
did inform the research team that it had concluded that an improper chemical reaction led to the failure of
the liner. A complete reaction of Parts A and B is required for the materials to reach their specified
properties. The cause of the incomplete reaction was concluded to be the effect of humidity in the
environment, which led to increased moisture in the compressed air used to drive the spinner head. This
excess moisture is believed to have resulted in a liner material with improper polymer architecture and
significantly reduced flexural modulus. 3M™ hypothesized that the excessive moisture caused the base
material to hydrolyze, meaning that water basically blocked the complete reaction from occurring
between the base and activator.
During the field installation, the flow meters reported that volumetric ratio to be 100:100 as specified, but
to test their hypothesis, 3M produced off-ratio cast samples to test the effect of hydrolyzing of the base
material during the spray operation to mimic the effect hydrolyzing would have on the material once it
was sprayed on the pipe wall. A control sample with an equal mix ratio by volume was tested in three-
point bending (ASTM D790; ASTM, 2007) and compared to samples with 100:90 and 90:100 ratios of
base to activator as shown in Table 4-13.
Table 4-13. SIPP 269 Robustness Testing
Mix Ratio (Part A:Part B)
Dry Flex Modulus (MPa)1
Change in physical property compared to dry control
100:90
782
+111%
100:100 (control)
370
N/A
90:100
5
-98.6%
Samples were cured for 7 days in the desiccators.
The samples with a mix ratio of 100:90 base to activator showed an increase of 111% in flexural
modulus, whereas the samples with a mix ratio of 90:100 base to activator showed a drop to 5% of the
control flexural modulus. The 90:100 ratio is a surrogate for the hydrolyzing effect during the spray-on
lining operation in which the base material is unavailable for cross linking with activator. Scotchkote™
SIPP 269 chemistry relies on cross linking through the Part A side due to a lack of hard segment in Part
B. It is hypothesized that the introduction of moisture into the system during the spray process and slow
cure time likely decreased the amount of isocyanate (Part A base) available, resulting in a formulation
that was "effectively off ratio" or rich in Part B.
After this discovery, 3M™ was confident that the samples retrieved from the field had comparable
physical properties as the samples made and tested in the lab under field related conditions. There were
no other tests available to verify that similar reactions had occurred. This outcome led to the conclusion
that the SIPP 269 chemistry was not robust enough for use in typical in situ conditions and subsequent
discontinuation of sale and distribution of the product. A new product is currently in development with a
full-scale field trial being planned for 2011.
4.2.2 Alternative Testing Approach. The research team also performed additional alternative
testing to compare the liner samples prepared in the field to a control sample properly cured under
79
-------
laboratory conditions. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and infrared (IR) spectroscopy were
performed on samples (Figure 4-18) retrieved from the field during the installation of the new 12 in.
replacement pipe and control samples provide by 3M™ of material reacted under laboratory conditions.
Results of both the DSC and IR testing are discussed below. The IR data is provided in Appendix F.
Figure 4-18. Pipe 1 Before (left) and After (right) Collection of Sample 1A
DSC is used to perform thermal characterization studies on thermosetting resins. As the components in a
resin system cure, heat is evolved which is measured by the DSC. When no significant heat of cure is
observed, then it is assumed that the resin sample is completely or 100% cured. DSC can also be used to
measure the glass transition temperature (Tg) or softening temperature of a thermoset resin. Tg represents
the region in which the resin transforms from a hard, glassy solid to a viscous liquid. As a thermosetting
resin cures, the Tg increases and the heat of cure decreases. These changes can be used to characterize
and quantify the degree of cure of the resin system (Perkins-Elmer, 2000).
The DSC results were similar for both control and field samples and indicated that the product was most
likely fully cured in both cases. There was only a small exotherm around 200°C from a residual cure or
material decomposition, but it was roughly the same size in all samples (with -12.7 J/g on average for
control samples and -11.7 J/g on average for the field samples from Pipes 1, 2, and 3).
The average Tg for the control sample was 32.05°C (+/- 2.13°C) and the average Tg for the field samples
was 30.72°C (+/- 3.08°C) as measured by ASTM Method E1356-08 with DSC. In general, an increase in
the Tg is a function of curing and represents the increase in the molecular weight of the resin system
(Perkins-Elmer, 2000). The resin was cured under ambient field conditions with the pipe wall at 28°C
and ambient temperature at 31°C. The source water temperature was 27 to 31.4°C (the elevated
temperature is due to the fact that it is from a surface water source in August). If the DSC testing results
are correct and the upper Tg of the material is indeed located at 30 to 32°C, then the liner material may
experience some softening or reduction in its modulus when it comes into contact with the source water
upon the return to service. The lower Tg for Scotchkote™ SIPP 269 as reported in 3M product literature
is -40°C by an alternate method of ASTM D7028 with dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA). The DSC
method that was run was not sensitive enough to pick up the lower Tg value.
Additional data was provided by 3M for the DMA test results. 3M used a Seiko DMS 200 and Ten-
Measure software to run a DMA on a sample retrieved from the Somerville site. The sample was 20 mm
long, 3.5 mm wide and 0.83 mm thick. The temperature sweep in Figure 4-18 was run at a frequency of 1
80
-------
Hz with: the first ramp started at 25°C and ended at -100°C, with a rate of 15°C/min and a hold time of 5
min; the second ramp started at -100 °C and ended at 250°C, with a rate of 2°C/min and a hold time of 5
min; the third ramp started at 250°C and ended at 25°C, with a rate of 20°C/min and a hold time of 5 min.
Figure 4-19 shows a Tg as a large peak around 43°C as measured by the DMA, which is higher than the
Tg measured by the DSC at 30.7°C for the field sample. This is due to the inherent differences in the
DMA and DSC test procedures. There is also a Tg as a small peak around -40°C, which corresponds to
the 3M reported value in the literature.
-40
10
60 110
Temperature (°C)
160
210
Figure 4-19. DMA Results Showing Tan Delta vs. Temperature
IR spectroscopy can give an indication of the specific mix of chemical bonds with which complex
molecular units are bound together into polymer chains during the curing process. The absorption bands
in a spectrum are compared to the known absorption frequencies of certain types of bonds. The
absorption bands are characterized by their intensity (height), shape (broad or sharp), and position (cm"1)
in the spectrum. For this application, the types of functional groups of interest include carbonyl (C=O
bonds), the urethane band (C-N/C-N-H bonds), urea (N with C=O bonds), hydroxyl (O-H bond), and
amine (N-H bond). IR spectroscopy does not give information about polymer chain length or degree of
folding. Table 4-14 summarizes the position or frequency of these functional groups on the spectrum.
As discussed below, the IR spectroscopy results indicated that the field samples contained significantly
more urethane and less carbonyl functional groups (as evidenced by absorption at 1530 and 1710 cm"1
relative to that in the control sample). It is hypothesized that the increase in urethane and decrease in
carbonyl in the field samples versus the control sample is a result of an undesirable side reaction.
81
-------
Table 4-14. Typical IR Band Assignments for Various Functional Groups
Functional Group
c o
V_x \J
CNH
nw
\Jn
NH
Wavenumber (cm"1)
1725-1705
1710-1685
1735-1715
1720-1680
1695-1630
1530
3324-3342
3342-3355
3362-3404
3300-3450
3200-3380, 3300-3580
3160-3450
3420-3520, 3340-3420
3300-3520
3380-3450
Functional Group
Dialkyl ketone
Aromatic aldehyde
Conjugated ester
Carboxylic acid dimer
Amides and ureas
(electron attracting groups on N raise C=O)
Combination C-N stretch/C-N-H bend
(characteristic of urethane)
Primary alcohols
Secondary alcohols
Tertiary alcohols
Solid materials containing water
Primary aliphatic amine, 2 bands
Primary aliphatic amine as single band
Primary aromatic amine, 2 bands
Secondary aliphatic amine
Secondary aromatic amine
The formulation of Scotchkote™ SIPP 269 is believed to be a polyurea/polyurethane mixture, but the
exact chemistry is proprietary information. 3M™ has indicated that the product does contain
polyurethanes and esters that are not part of the main reaction. The typical polyurea formulation has a
diisocyanate prepolymer (e.g., Part A Base) and a diamine prepolymer (e.g., Part B activator) (Primeaux,
2004). These prepolymers are several monomer units, but not big enough to develop the full polymer
strength. Other diamines and triamines may be added to adjust curing time and finished properties such
as strength. If polyurethane is to be an intentional part of the final product, diols (dialcohols) can be used
in place of some of the amines. Catalysts are needed for polyurethane formulations, but not pure polyurea
formulations.
To get high molecular weight and thus high strength, a nearly equal number of isocyanate groups and
amine groups must be present. Each time an amine and an isocyanate combine, the chain lengths of the
two molecules combine. Enough alternating diamines and diisocyanates combining into each chain leads
to high molecular weight and good strength. If water is present, the isocyanate groups can react with
water to form amines without adding to the chain length. A small excess of isocyanate is typical to
account for this, but if the amount of water is too high, a substantial amount of diamine can be produced.
This can result in too few diisocyanate molecules to react, small chain lengths and lower strength.
IR tests were performed on samples to compare the chemical composition at the outer surface, inner
surface, and interior of the liner to look for evidence of an incomplete or improper cure. Figure 4-20 is a
comparison of IR spectra from the control sample and field samples from Pipe 1. Several differences
were noted between the composition of the control and the field samples as discussed below.
82
-------
4000 3500
File#2 = M4NPIPEL(1)
Comparison of control vs Sample 1A infrared spectra
1000 500
11/4/2010 6:35 PM Res=4
Figure 4-20. Comparison of IR Spectra of Control and Pipe 1A Field Samples
The IR spectroscopy showed that the field samples contained significantly more urethane (as evidenced
by absorption at 1530 cm"1 relative to that in the control sample). In contrast, the control sample had
significantly more of the 1710 cm"1 carbonyl peak. The ratio of the urethane peak (at 1530 cm"1) to the
carbonyl peak (at 1710 cm"1) was 31% higher on average in all of the field samples compared to the
control sample. The ratio of the urethane peak to the hydrocarbon backbone (2800 - 3000 cm"1) was 24%
higher on average in all of the pipe samples versus the control sample. The liner towards the pipe surface
had much higher urethane to carbonyl peak ratios at 39% higher on average than the control. It is
hypothesized that the presence of water at the pipe interface alters the isocyanate (Part A Base) chemistry
in some unintended way.
The fact that the carbonyl functional group increases and the urethane decreases in the control sample at
the same time suggests the reaction that leads to the 1710 cm"1 peak is associated with building strength.
The urethane could be appearing as an undesirable side reaction. Or some amount of urethane could be
intentional and the amount has been changed by an undesired reaction. The measured strength was
highest in the control sample, which also had the largest 1710 cm"1 peak. The broad peak around 3300
cm"1 is present in all of the spectra and is associated with hydroxyl (OH) or amine (NH) groups or a
combination of both. More information about the SIPP 269 formulation would be needed to tie this data
to specific aspects of the reaction, which was not available due to the proprietary nature of the product.
4.2.3 Discussion. Each of the liner failure investigations came to similar conclusions. 3M™
concluded that the moisture in the environment caused the base material to hydrolyze, thereby blocking
the preferred reaction from occurring. The result is polymer architecture with reduced cross-linking and
polymer strength. The alterative testing performed by the research team, although not definitive,
suggested that several differences existed in the composition of the control versus field samples. The Tg
value as measured by DSC could also be an issue for the liner material performance when ambient
temperature or source water conditions approach the softening point of the material in the summer
months. Also at issue is the extent of water in the pipe that may have contributed to the liner failure.
83
-------
5.0: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
The demonstration of the 3M™ Scotchkote™ SIPP 269 product in Somerville, New Jersey ultimately
resulted in a liner failure, but the outcomes of the project provided valuable information for the future
development of spray-on lining technologies. Table 5-1 summarizes the overall conclusions for each
metric used to evaluate the technology.
Table 5-1. Technology Evaluation Metrics Conclusions
Technology Maturity Metrics
• Emerging technology used at eight sites in the U.S. and Canada. Limited track-record with 2 of 3 other
utility owners who responded reporting similar liner failures (such as liner collapse, ridging, blistering).
• NSF 61 certified for use in drinking water applications. A UK Code of Practice is available, but no ASTM/
AWWA standards have been established to independently verify the design and installation methodologies.
• Short-term performance data is available, but the long-term design life is based on extrapolated data from
other similar materials (not the product itself).
Technology Feasibility Metrics
• Suitable to host pipe characteristics as the test run was relatively straight (no vertical bends).
• Marketed as a semi-structural rehabilitation, but did not perform up to rehabilitation requirements.
• The material did not maintain its shape or integrity, thereby reducing the hydraulic conditions on the main.
• Failure modes include material delamination, blistering, and folding due to the improper chemical reaction.
Technology Complexity Metrics
• If bypass and pits were in place, a 500 ft section could be cleaned, dried, inspected, and coated in one 11
hour day with a crew of four.
• Requires trained installers with knowledge of material handling procedures and use of lining equipment.
• Site preparation includes excavation pits up to 500 ft apart and bypass installation.
• Traffic was directed along one lane with one traffic officer used as required by New Jersey state law.
• Pipe cleaning and removal of all debris and standing water is required.
• Problems encountered with the rack feed bore getting lodged in lead found in the pipe and piles of debris
that could not be flushed led to the use of a drag scraper to clean two sections.
• In all, the test pipe was out of service and bypassed for approximately two weeks.
• Service reconnection is not typical, but the post-lining inspection showed one service was blocked.
Technology Performance Metrics
• Field applied results did not meet manufacturer-stated performance (shown in Table 4-7).
• QA/QC plan was successful in discovering the failure during post-installation hydraulic testing.
• Liner thickness varied throughout the test pipe and did not meet minimum requirements in all locations.
• Long-term effectiveness could not be measured due to the liner failure.
Technology Cost Metrics
• The demonstration cost $199,232 for construction and $22,814 for utility labor for a unit cost of $165.50/lf.
Technology Environmental and Social Metrics
• Social disruption was minimal as traffic was not greatly affected and excavation was limited.
• Flush volumes required for dewatering, cleaning and disinfection were estimated to be 1,283,725 gallons.
• Estimated 40,000 Ib of CO2 emissions, which could have been reduced to 27,000 Ibs if the lining crew had
not mobilized from 1,200 miles away. (A similar replacement project would emit 53,500 Ibs of CO2)
84
-------
The development and implementation of the demonstration protocol was instrumental in documenting pre
and post-installation activities; liner installation; and associated labor, equipment, and time for all
activities. The QA/QC procedures outlined in the QAPP were useful in measuring the lining material
properties, which showed that the field applied product did not meet design specifications. The post-
installation hydraulic testing was useful in identifying the low flow conditions, leading the field inspector
to require an additional visual inspection, thus locating the failure. Also, as a follow-up to the discovery
of the failure, 3M went back and checked other sites where pilot projects had been performed. Two of
those projects were found to have similar outcomes to the Somerville site, which would have gone
unnoticed had 3M not insisted that the lines be inspected. 3M is now working to repair those sections.
The information collected during this project is useful for utility owners that are in need of solutions for
rehabilitating aging water mains. Issues during cleaning such as the difficulty of removing sediments
from the main during rack feed boring led to the use of a drag scraper, which was more successful in this
situation. The importance of post-installation flow testing was also highlighted since it was instrumental
in identifying the failed liner. Finally, the needs for post-installation mechanical testing on samples
which come directly from the spray-on liner are important to verify that the material has reached the
design specifications. QA/QC samples that are cast from the materials used may not represent the "as-
installed" condition in the pipe, so liner coupons from the rehabilitated pipe should always be collected.
As the long term life is extrapolated for many rehabilitation materials, it may also be useful to conduct
retrospective analysis of liner materials, which have been in use for many years to ensure that the
materials are operating up to service life expectations.
Ultimately, the liner failure had a positive effect in the industry by revealing to 3M™ that Scotchkote™
SIPP 269 was not robust enough to use in typical in situ water main conditions. This finding led to the
removal of the product from the market, while a new formulation is produced and tested. A field trial of
the new formulation is discussed briefly in Appendix G. An additional impact on the industry from the
demonstration study and subsequent removal of the product from the market was the effect on the
AWWA Polymeric Lining Standards Subcommittee, which put further standards development on hold
until more polymeric linings for in situ pipe rehabilitation become available in North America.
5.2 Recommendations
It is recommended that the following issues relating to the use of semi-structural polymeric lining
materials in water mains be studied further:
• Effect of ambient conditions on the resin curing process including: moisture in the process
air/pipe; air/pipe temperature; and water temperature.
• Cleaning requirements including: proper surface preparation; flush volume/time; and proper
dewatering of the host pipe.
• Installation issues including: lining over debris not removed during cleaning; the issue of
completely stopping water from leaking through service connections; the 'shadow' effect causing
incomplete coverage near protruding services (Ellison et al., 2010); sealing the end locations;
temperature of spray applied materials; and the cause/effect of blistering/ridging on the
performance of spray-on lining material.
The study of these issues would be important in determining the effect each has on various polymeric
formulations. There have now been trials in the US, UK (more than 125 miles installed, Oram et al.,
2002), and Australia of various rapid-setting polymeric lining formulations from a number of different
manufacturers and in each region some failures have reportedly occurred. It is important to understand
the effect that the ambient conditions, cleaning requirements, and installation issues have on these types
of spray-applied structural or semi-structural linings in order for their use to be fully understood and
successfully applied in the future.
85
-------
6.0: REFERENCES
3M. 2009a. "3M™ Skotchkote™ Spray in Place Pipe 269 Coating, Pressure Pipe Rehabilitation Design
Guide 1.2," Prepared by 3M Water Infrastructure. September 1.
3M. 2009b. "3M™ Skotchkote™ Spray in Place Pipe 269 Coating, Potable Water Pipe Rehabilitation
Installation Guide 1.0," Prepared by 3M Water Infrastructure. December 15.
3M. 201 la. "3M™ Skotchkote™ Pipe Renewal Liner 2400, Data Sheet and Application Guide," Prepared
by 3M Water Infrastructure.
3M. 20lib. "Material Safety Data Sheet, 3M™ Skotchkote™ Pipe Renewal Liner 2400 Part A (Base),"
Prepared by 3M Water Infrastructure. May 4.
3M. 201 Ic. "Material Safety Data Sheet, 3M™ Skotchkote™ Pipe Renewal Liner 2400 Part B
(Activator)," Prepared by 3M Water Infrastructure. May 2.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005a. ASTM Standard E797, "Standard Practice
for Measuring Thickness by Manual Ultrasonic Pulse-Echo Contact Method," ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005b. ASTM Standard D2240-05, "Standard Test
Method for Rubber Property—Durometer Hardness," ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, www.astm.org.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2006. ASTM Standard C136-06, "Standard Test
Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates," ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2007. ASTM Standard D790-07el, "Standard Test
Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating
Materials," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2008. ASTM Standard D638-08, "Standard Test
Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
www.astm.org.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2009. ASTM Standard D4541, "Standard Test
Method for Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers," ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
American Water Works Association (AWWA). 1992. Standard for Disinfecting Water Mains, C651,
AWWA, Denver, CO.
American Waterworks Association (AWWA). 2001. "Manual M28: Rehabilitation of Water Mains," 2nd
Edition, 65 pp., AWWA, Denver CO.
American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2004. Water://Stats 2002 Distribution Survey, AWWA,
Denver, CO.
86
-------
American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2008. Standard C620-07for Spray-AppliedIn-Place
Epoxy Lining of Water Pipelines, 3 in. (75 mm) and Larger. AWWA, Denver, CO.
CalTrans. 2003. "Corrosion Guidelines Version 1.0," Prepared by California Department of
Transportation Division of Engineering Services Materials Engineering and Testing Services
Corrosion Technology Branch. September.
Deb, A., Y. Hasit, H. Schoser, J. Snyder, G. Loganathan, and P. Khambhammettu. 2002. "Decision
support system for distribution system piping renewal." AWWA Research Foundation, Denver,
CO.
Ellison, D., F. Sever, P. Oram, W. Lovins, A. Romer, S. Duranceau, and G. Bell. 2010. "Global Review
of Spray-On Structural Lining Technologies." Water Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2010. Annual Energy Review 2009, US EIA, Office of Energy
Markets and End Use, US Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., DOE/EIA-0384.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap
Analysis, U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Innovation and Research for Water Infrastructure for the
21st Century - EPA Research Planning Workshop - Draft Meeting Report, U.S. EPA, Office of
Research and Development, NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH, March.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Innovation and Research for Water Infrastructure for the
21st Century, Research Plan, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, NRMRL,
Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/X-09/003, April.
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600x09003/600x09003.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. EPA NRMRL QAPP Requirements for Measurement
Projects, U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Rehabilitation ofWastewater Collection and Water
Distribution Systems: State of Technology Review Report, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and
Development, NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/R-09/048, May.
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r09048/600r09048.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. State of Technology Report for Force Main
Rehabilitation, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH,
EPA/600/R-10/044, March, http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600rl0044/600rl0044.pdf
Natwig, G. and E. Murdock. 2010. "Spray-in-place Pipe for Water Main Renewal." No-Dig, Chicago, IL,
May 2-7, North American Society for Trenchless Technology, Liverpool, NY.
Oram, P., Warren, I. and Grove, D. 2002. "The introduction and implementation of rapid-setting
polymeric materials for in situ applied linings." No-Dig, Montreal, QB, North American Society
for Trenchless Technology, Liverpool, NY.
Perkins-Elmer. 2000. "Application Note: Characterization of Epoxy Resins Using DSC," Prepared by
Perkins-Elmer Instruments.
87
-------
Primeaux, D. 2004. "Polyurea vs. Polyurethane & Polyurethane/Polyurea: What's the Difference?"
Polyurea Linings Annual Conference, Tampa, FL, 1-20.
Sihabuddin, S. and Ariaratnam, S. 2009. "Methodology for estimating emissions in underground utility
construction operations." J. Eng. Des. and Tech., 7(1), 37-64.
Steward, E., Allouche, E., Baumert, M. and Gordon, J. 2009. "Testing of rigid polyurethane spray-on
lining under internal pressure." Pipelines, San Diego, CA, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Warren Associates. 1996. In-situ Epoxy Resin Lining Operational Guidelines and Code of Practice, 2nd
Edition, UK.
Warren Associates. 2000. In-situ Rapid Setting Polymeric Lining Operational Guidelines and Code of
Practice, UK.
Water Research Center (WRc). 2007. Code of Practice: In Situ Resin Lining of Water Main, IGN 4-02-
02. www.water.org.uk/home/member-services/wis-and-ign/archived-documents/ign-4-02-02.pdf
Water Research Center (WRc). 2010. Operational Requirements: In Situ Resin Lining of Water Main,
IGN 4-02-01. www.water.org.uk/home/member-services/wis-and-ign/archived-documents/wis-4-
02-01 -v3 —april-2010 .pdf
-------
APPENDIX A: SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS
Table A-l. Summary of Soil Sample Results
Analyte
Reporting
Limit
Unit
Sampling Location (SOM)
Soil-01
Soil -02
Soil -03
Soil -04
Soil -05
Soil -06
Particle Size Distribution
Gravel
Sand
Course Sand
Medium Sand
Fine Sand
Silt
Clay
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
13.2
67.4
21.0
33.1
13.3
13.5
5.9
2.8
29.6
5.3
12.8
11.5
33.1
34.5
0.0
25.9
0.3
13.3
12.3
39.3
34.8
5.1
22.4
1.5
10.2
10.7
34.5
38.0
1.5
26.6
1.0
15.1
10.5
36.1
35.8
4.8
27.7
2.6
12.7
12.4
35.9
31.6
Geochemical Analysis
Cation Exchange
Capacity
Solids (%)
Percent Moisture
1.00
0.25
NR
meq/
lOOgm
%
%
8.80
93.4
8.01
23.0
79.2
16.89
15.8
84.1
12.41
10.8
80.0
24.53
18.0
80.9
19.35
15.0
80.7
17.96
N/A = Not Applicable
NR = Not Reported
Table A-2. Summary of Geochemical Analysis
Analyte
Chloride
Sulfate
pH (solid)
Percent Solids
Acid-Soluble Sulfide
Electrical Resistivity
ORP
Reporting
Limit
11.4/12.1
11.4/12.1
NR
10
34.3/36.2
NR
10
Unit
mg/kg
mg/kg
No Units
%
mg/kg
ohm-cm
mVvs. NHE
Sampling Location (SOM)
SOIL-03
92.2
32.5
4.8
87.5
36.2
1,392
487
SOIL-05
166
5.8B
6.5
82.9
28.6 B
1,094
313
NR = Not Reported
B = Estimated result, result less than reporting limit.
89
-------
APPENDIX B: WATER SAMPLE RESULTS
Water quality parameters were measured in the field prior to the lining demonstration on July 19, 2010,
and the results are provided in Table B-l. The calibration readings had a pH slope of 96.0; DO slope of
102.3; and an ORP or 229.4 mV. The lab measured water quality parameters are provided in Table B-2.
Table B-l. On-Site Water Quality Parameters
Analyte
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free C12
Total C12
Unit
pH units
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
Sampling Location (SOM)
Water-01
7.02
31.4
5.46
276.5
0.02
0.07
Water-02
6.43
27.0
5.26
379.2
0.06
0.11
Table B-2. Lab Measured Water Quality Parameters
Analyte
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Ammonia (as NH3)
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bis-(2-Ethylhexyl) Adipate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Vinyl chloride
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Dichloromethane
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
1 ,2 -Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1 ,2 -Dichloropropane
Toluene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Ethyl Benzene
Styrene
o-Dichhlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Xylenes (total)
Reporting
Limit
0.5
0.05
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Sampling Location (SOM)
Water-01
BRL
0.56
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
Water-02
2.7
0.40
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
90
-------
Epichlorohydrin
Monochlorobenzene
Bisphenol A
Arsenic
Calcium
Copper
Hardness
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Silica (SiO2)
Sodium
Total Alkalinity
PH
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Turbidity
Chloride
Fluoride
NO2
NO3
Phosphate
Sulfate as SO4
0.5
0.5
1.00
5.00
10.0
20.0
N/A
300
2.00
0.200
20.0
215
10.0
1.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
0.10
0.100
0.100
0.05
0.05
0.100
0.100
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
tig/L
VP/L
mg/L
mg/L
pH Units
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
24.2
38.0
91.8
7800
38.6
7.63
90.0
11800
33.4
18.9
6.22
190
24.0
64
45.8
0.790
0.27
3.68
2.25
49.3
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
24.7
356
92.6
159
3.74
7.52
BRL
10900
27.4
33.3
6.54
184
BRL
1.1
36.0
0.842
BRL
5.06
3.07
50.2
BRL = Below reporting limit.
91
-------
APPENDIX C: CCTVLOGS
The following figures are field logs written by the CCTV operator. Included in the logs are: pre- and
post-lining CCTV logs for lining run #1 (Figures C-l and C-2); lining run #2 (Figures C-3 and C-4);
lining run #3 (Figures C-5 and C-6); and the post lining CCTV log for the defect sections (Figure C-7).
The correct time of execution of the pre-lining CCTV for lining run #3 (Figure C-5) is 20:30 pm (8:30
pm) and not 29:30 pm.
92
-------
CCTV iNsracnoN RECORD
SOMERVILLE DEMONSTRATION
TASK ORDER 58
Baireiie
I /;,• Business*'/ Innovation
Ls-^-ii
Scheme/
Location
Contract
Contractor
Supervisor
Gang Ref.
Date
CCTV recording reference
fo
--)
am/pm
Access Hole Refs.
Length Surveyed
RLR Number
Resin Material
Faults observed
Incomplete lining
Water damage
Slump
Ridging/ Ringing
Mix-ratio error
Single component
Blisters / blowholes
Hard scale / deposits
Poor cleaning
Other
Position
AM
Mfr
Mia
/v/rt
A/A
///$
Al£h£.
__^QH£.
/VflnJ
L Comment 1
Comment 2
i
CCTV TO BE WITNESSED BY CLIENT
For Client
Signature
Print name
Position
Date
Remedial action required? [
For CpntractQr
Signature j
Print name ,_
Position
Date
Remedial action taken?
NCR number ,
Pipe sample taken?
YES
PSQR number
Contractor's R»g>es«otative
Signature
Print name
Position
Date
J 2°!
Figure C-l. Pre-Lining CCTV Log for Lining Run #1
93
-------
CCTV INSPECTION RECORD
SOMERVIIJLE DEMONSTRATION
TASK ORDER 58
Batteiie
I lie miriness .'/ Innovation
Scheme/
Location
Contract
Contractor
Supervisor
Gang Ref.
Date
a tie
Access Hole Refs. L^U$""lOpL.t),^*-! *
Length Surveyed \ ^ "J
RLR Number j
Resin Material
CCTV recording reference I s'l'M.QO!
) Faults observed
^ Incomplete lining
1 Water damage
Slump
Ridging/ Ringing
Mix-ratio error
Single component
Blisters / blowholes
Hard scale / deposits
Poor cleaning
J Other
Position
r tvW
\\lc\-, t .
^—J-Licea^^..^
. [«,\i*\tio^ia
yvovNP
l\J Drv
h'kat\^
VC'n £..
'Unr^,
Comment 1 Comment 2
CCTV TO BE WITNESSED BY CLIENT
For Client
Signature
Print name
Position
Date
Remedial action required? j _ _YES
For Contractor.
Signature r ,•
Print name ,
Position ,
Date '
Remedial action taken?
,.slO ' '
YES
NCR number f
Pipe sample taken?
f YES
PSQR number
Contractor's Representative
Signature
Print name
Position
Date
Q2
l o r\c
Figure C-2. Post-Lining CCTV Log for Lining Run #1
94
-------
CCTV INSPECTION RECORD
SOMERVILLE DEMONSTRATION
TASK ORDER 58
Baneiie
i-mies^ ^ Innovation
Scheme/
Location
Contract
Contractor
Supervisor
Gang Ref.
Date
CCTV-recording reference
am/gfij>i
Access Hole Refs.
Length Surveyed i ^v%.i
RLR Number
Resin Material . SlF-f
/O"
Faults observed
Incomplete lining
sition
Comment 1
Comment 2
Water damage
Ridging/ Ringing
Mix-ratio error
Hard scale / deposits
Poor cleaning
CCTV TO BE WITNESSED BY CLIENT
Foraient
Signature
Print name
Position
Dale 0%
Remedial action required?
LQ...
YES
Remedial action taken?
YES
For Contractor
Signature
Print name
Position
Da«e r\Q£tO^lM2L
NO 3
NCR number [
Pipe sample taken?
NO PSQR number
Contractor's
Signature
Print name
Position
Date
iOoI s-
. (x
Figure C-3. Pre-Lining CCTV Log for Lining Run #2
95
-------
CCTV INSPECTION RECORD
SoMERvru.E DEMONSTRATION
TASK ORDFR 58
Balteile
the Ijusiiiesis ,.'/ Innovation
Scheme/
Location
Contract
Contractor
Supervisor
Gang Ref.
Date
CCTV recording reference
rU]<- Access Hole Refs. ..leilfii^r.' rfeS±|>i4 -
| Length Surveyed
I RLR Number _
Resin Material
Faults observed
Incomplete lining
Water damage
Slump
Ridging/ Ringing
Mix-ratio error
Single component
'BtQSHHNaMMe-
Hard scale / deposits
Poor cleaning
other jLfiflrf
Position
7^ M
Kinirrto Trifluf^
J
kftn^ C*>.
^A
Comment 1 Comment 2 !
i
/Oto Taps Cau«Xf £>h /eo/rf '
/O7, «=/
i
: j
Ae-ao* T«J^3ftl
C€TV TO BE WITNESSED BrCLII
ILIENT
Signature
Print name
Position
Date
Remedial action required? [ YES
Remedial action taken?
YES
For Contractor
Signature
Print name
Date
NCR number (
Pipe sample taken?
NO
PSQR number
Contractor's RepreseHfative
Signature
Print name
Position
Date
porty
Figure C-4. Post-Lining CCTV Log for Lining Run #2
96
-------
C'CTV INSPECTION RECORD
SOMERVH.LE DEMONSTRATION
TASK ORDER 58
Battelle
//.v Busline*:? _>' Innovation
Scheme/
Location
Contract
Contractor
Supervisor
Gang Ret
Dace
| S K
Access Hole Refs.
Length Surveyed i -J-S.3. <-•»
RLR Number |IIIII_'
[ $} fl*
CCTV recording reference | SlM,QO3
Faults observed
Position
Comment 1
Comment 2
Incomplete lining
Water damage
LSIump
Ridging/ Ringing
Single component
Blisters / blowholes
Hard scale / deposits
Poor cleaning
Other -—)
/ *' -|-- (^ ft J (*(_
CCTV TO BE WITNESSED BY CLIENT
For Client
Signature
Print name
Position
Date
Remedial action required?
For Contractor
Signature ••%
Print name
Position
Remedial action taken?
"YES~
NCR number •
Pipe sample taken?
NO
PSQR number
Contractor's
Print name
Position
Date
n
Figure C-5. Pre-Lining CCTV Log for Lining Run #3
97
-------
c:C"FV INSPECTION RECORD
SOMERVILLE DEMONSTRATION
TASK ORDER 58
Batreiie
xjsiiicss ^/ innovation
Scheme/
Location
Contract
Contractor
Supervisor
Gang Ref.
Date
CCTV recording reference
ltf_
Access Hole Refs.
Length Surveyed
RLR Number
Resin Material
!+**%.
Faults observed
Incomplete lining
Water damage
Slump
Ridging/ Ringing
Mix-ratio error
Single component
Blisters / blowholes
Hard scale/ deposits
Poor cleaning
Position Comment 1 j Comment 2
r
•""~)
Jrllfer-^ffYhrrvi ' 4fer /?6v'l
Other
CCTV TO BE WITNESSED BY CLIENT
For Client
Signature
Print name
Position
Date
Remedial action required? |___ YES
For Contractor
Signature
Print name
Position
Date
Remedial action taken?
YES
Tfto*?'
NCR number ]
Pipe sample taken?
NO
PSQR number
Contractor s Representative
Signature
Print name
Position
Date
OS./PWJQ
A-2
Figure C-6. Post-Lining CCTV Log for Lining Run #3
98
-------
PIPE SAMPLE RECORD
SOMERVILLE DEMONSTRATION
TASK ORDER 58
Batrene
I lie Business j/ Innovation
Scheme/
Location
Contract
Contractor
Supervisor
Gang Rcf.
Date
END1 j>&M
Thickness (mm)
Mean |
END 2
Thickness (mm)
Mean I
Te^ q»Wj
Access Hole Refs. T*Sj~f>t>£
Resin Material i S//"r 2"*! I
RLR Number
Length Lined '
I .....
(Position) I 3 o'clock 6 o'clock I 9 o'clock j 12 o'clock j
\_rt-1S /loo /23/ 1 '*-' ' 1 °
^__^ , ID" in
Max | ~ 1 Min | '
(Position) 3 o'clock 6 o'clock 9 o'clock 12 o'clock
i7o^ 1"J."Jt \~l'l~t^ I"?. "7
^5»-~
Max I I Min I Lining accepted? /^SS-5 NO
LININ.6-FAULTS £-*-b-
FauJjB obseiyed_
Incomplete lining _
Water damage
Slump
(tick)
Comments
Ridging/ Ringing
Mix-ratio error
Inadequate cure
Blisters
Poor cleaning)
I Other
PIPE CONDITION
i Oval
{ Undersize
, External light corrosion
External medium corrosion
\ External heavy corrosion
M |lv, yv-yaj Mfef «? <*f»l«-» k»4 '
^3
(tick) I Comments ',
__ . ,
Comments:
S<*toc*4
Photographs taken
NCR number issued (if any)
Sample passed to client;
Inspection Office
For Citent
Signature
Print name
MO
Attach any photographs or negatives to record
Date
Position
Date
Signature
Print
name
Position
D^e ; y)
-------
APPENDIX D: DEFECT SECTIONS
D.I
Field-Prepared Defect Pipe Segment
A 6 ft 4 in. section of prepared defects was installed in the field in Test Pit #3 on Wednesday, August 4
around 9 a.m. The pipe segment (Figure D-l) consisted of the original 10 in. cast iron pipe with the
simulated defects identified in Figure D-2 installed prior to the lining operation. Approximately 2.5 ft of
the pipe remained in its original condition, while the remaining 4 ft was used to install through holes/gaps
and circumferential cracks of varying sizes as described below to test the spanning capability of the spray-
on lining. The defects were installed by a technician from the TTC using a power drill and partner saw as
shown in Figure D-l. The drilled holes ranged in sizes from 6.4 mm to 9.5 mm to simulate small- to
medium size through-wall corrosion pit holes. The width of each simulated crack varied based on the
thickness of the blade (i.e., 3 mm for one blade width and 6 mm for two), and the length was
approximately 50 mm.
D.2
Figure D-l. Installation of Field Defects by TTC Technician
Lab-Prepared Defect Pipe Segment
In addition to the field-prepared defects discussed above, a 6 ft section of 10 in. ductile iron pipe with lab-
prepared defects was installed in the field in Test Pit #7 on Thursday, August 5 after drag scraping. This
pipe segment contained additional simulated defects that were manufactured offsite in the Battelle
machine shop due to the complexity of the manufactured defects. The off-site defect section was
originally planned to be installed in Test Pit #3 but, due to size constraints of the trench box, it had to be
placed in Pit #7, which was still in the middle of lining run #2 between Test Pits #2 and #4. In general,
the defects were designed so that the lining should be successful (if installed as designed) within most of
the defect parameter ranges (typical defects). The larger defects (atypical defects) that are outside the
normal range of application were incorporated into the test plan to provide a basis for defining the limits
of the applicability of the product.
The simulated defects in the lab-prepared 10 in. ductile iron pipe segment are shown in Figure D-3. Prior
to mobilization for the demonstration study, Battelle worked closely with 3M™ and NJAW to coordinate
details on the connection of the 10 in. ductile iron pipe to the existing 10 in. cast iron pipe to ensure that
the connection does not impose any restriction and/or barrier to the spray-on lining application.
100
-------
Lateral Position of Field-Prepared Pipe Defects
J
5"
] ]
7"
4"
>«
R4L
°C3
4"
] "j
—
>
C4
o
4.
m
-" —
r-
4"
r 10"-ID
Locations of Defect Cross-Sections
\
R2(
}
\
R1tz
a
L
<
=i
b
^Cl
(
c
i.
[
5C3
d"
e
I C2c
I
f
f
C4
(
f
§,
C
I
I1
1
ZD
•
1
Cross Sections Detailing the Radial Defect Locations
/
Section c-c
60°
120°
Section e-e
Explanation
Section f-f
Section g-g
Cl : 9.50 mm 0 circular hole
C2 : 6.40 mm 0 circular hole
C3 : 9.50 mm 0 circular hole
C4 : 6.40 mm 0 circular hole
Rl : 50 mm x 3 mm rectangular hole
R2 : 50 mm x 6 mm rectangular hole
R3 : 50 mm x 6 mm rectangular hole
R4 : 50 mm x 3 mm rectangular hole
Section d-d
Section h-h
4-
30°
Figure D-2. Drawings Detailing the Field-Prepared Defect Pipe Design
101
-------
Lateral Position of Pre-Fabricated Pipe Defects
6'-0"
31 rya
Joint
2' -i n" •
-1U
1=
Rl
=1
c
1"
J
gll
32
C2c
)ci
.
>
c:
5"
* —
1 Ji
~J
01,,
"2
C5
01«
"2
C4
C
— •-
C6
8
ol"
^2
-•-
:?
1
r-1"
Locations of Defect Cross-Sections
Joint
L
Rl
1
(
a
i
C2
)ci
b
)
c:
c
d
^=
Jl
d
~J
"
f
Lb
F
g
C4
g
IT
C
•
i
rfi
B
•
j
)
•
:7
•
<
Cross Sections Detailing the Radial Defect Locations
1/4", -—l!^-.
Joint
Section a-a Section b-b Section c-c Section d-d Section e-e
Section f-f
Explanation
Section g-g
Section h-h
Section i-i
Section j-j
Section k-k
Cl : 18mm 0 circular hole C5 : 1mm 0 circular hole Jl : 3mm gap along the anulus
C2 : 12mm 0 circular hole C6 : 3mm 0 circular hole R1 . 25mm x 100mm rectangular hole
C3 : 3mm 0 circular hole C7 : 1mm 0 circular hole R2 . 25mm x 100mm rectangular hole
C4 : 3mm 0 circular hole C8 : 1mm 0 circular hole
Figure D-3. Drawings Detailing the Lab-Prepared Defect Pipe Design
102
-------
The defects described above were installed to simulate the following defects. The pipe was cut and
reassembled to simulate a joint defect that occurs within the re-laid section of pipe. The joint was set to
have a gap (6 mm or 0.25 in.) between the bell and spigot, so as to resemble a leaking joint and/or failed
packing material. The joint was fixed externally to maintain this gap during transport and installation at
the field demonstration site as shown in Figure D-4.
Small corrosion through holes were represented by 1 and 3 mm diameter holes drilled at the quarter
points of the pipe circumference in two cross-sections (see defects C3 through C8 in Figure D-3). Larger
corrosion areas that could develop after the lining was installed were modeled by cutting two squares or
circular holes, one with maximum dimension of 12 mm and the other with maximum dimension of 18
mm into the pipe wall (see defects Cl and C2 in Figure D-3). The manufactured larger corrosion holes
were plugged to provide a smooth interior surface for relining. Longitudinal and circumferential cracks
were modeled by routing out a rectangular defect in the pipe wall. The size of the simulated cracks is 25
by 100 mm with a 3 mm crack width (see defects Rl and R2 in Figure D-3 and Figure D-5). A
circumferential fracture ("ring break") was introduced by cutting the pipe into two segments, and
introducing a 3 mm (1/8 in.) gap between the sections before reattaching the two segments using an
external bracing mechanism shown in Figure D-6.
One additional defect was to be applied in the lab by installing a tap into the test section using
recommended procedures, but due to the failure this defect was not installed. The service tap would have
been pressure tested to evaluate performance when service taps are installed into a rehabilitated pipe.
Figure D-4. Pre-Fabricated Joint Defect
103
-------
Figure D-5. Pre-Fabricated Crack Defects
Figure D-6. Pre-Fabricated Rink Break
104
-------
APPENDIX E: LINING LOG DATA
The following figures are field logs written by the lining operator. Included in the logs are: lining logs for
lining run #1 (Figure E-l); lining run #2 (Figure E-2); and lining run #3 (Figure E-3). Batch numbers and
quantities of material are not included on all lining logs, but that information was documented by the field
team and is included in section 3.2.3. The weight check section on each lining log also incorrectly lists
Part A as the activator and Part B as the base. Part B is actually referred to as the activator and Part A is
the base. The columns are labeled correctly in Tables 3-11, 3-12 and 3-13 in section 3.2.3.
Also included are the lining log data tables produced by the lining rig for: lining run #1 (Table E-l);
lining run #2 (Table E-2); and lining run #3 (Table E-3).
105
-------
RESIN LINING RECORD
SOMERVILLE DEMONSTRATION
TASK ORDER 58
Baneiie
The Business of Innovation
Scheme/ . ^
Location S°'M*l''tfU^ NO
NO
^**°^
mg/!
hrs
YES NO
j
Method used f Rackbore^) Drag scrape
dumber of swabs 2.
Pipe wall temperature i 2*?- ^ *C
Activator temperature *f ^ °C
Spin-uptime 1 b.S (Mins)
WEIGHT CHECK 2: PRBPO3T UNING
Test No. Weight of Weight of Mix-ratio
base (B) activator (A) * (A/B)x100
1 'V*4 HA rtA
2 A"4 /y/t A^>4
I 3 HA HA NA
(If required)
Weight check 2 OK? H A YES NO
Tab test OK? ^^ _i!!i2_ NO
_j>OST CURE
?VES? NO
I ^^ NO
QfES) j NO
?€&5 NO
Curing time: finish when post cure inspection is
complete Hf-fS
Tack free C~^® ^ NO
CCTV Record number ' ^i~i»O£s |
Disinfectant concentration mg/1
at end of contact time
Flushing time
Where discharged j
Reconnection time ' j
Water quality results OK YES NO
(chlorine, turbidity, taste, 1
odour, appearance, i
coliform, E.coli))? ;
Comments; fliw f&dt: 5.4ut-l«~i^ rios* SfX^d •• i,H% —J «•*'»«.
gISil- , , ,_, , ,»
Fpf Client For Contractor
Signature _ j Signature _ _ ]
Print name GvAVvj wx. . ^^xtiv3 Print name !
Position ^iSfiAjfCWW Position '
Date at Oa
1 0 Date
A-1
Figure E-l. Lining Log for Lining Run #1
106
-------
RESIN LINING RECORD
SOMERVILLE DEMONSTRATION
TASK ORDER 58
Baireiie
The Business of Innovation
Scheme/
Location
Contract
Contractor
Supervisor
Gang Ref.
Date
Lining rig number
Application head rt
Base batch numbe
Activator batch nur
Cleaned: visual che
Cleaned: CCTV sur
Ambient temperatu
Base temperature
Lining: time start
Lining: time compli
Son^Vfi U* t AC 3 "i»Pf iLe^
TOSS
Access Hole
g>HA | Pipe Diameter io"rp
T i 4-W-4. U<- ^lAjr* 4*
O& |o£a 1 10
jmber
•s
fibers
•cksOK?
veyOK?
re
•te
L*il
fpu^to
Pipe Material C*Art (var\
Resin Material &i?V "Ztj^
Length Lined /^2. IXLA
I
COT* /V/SI3S •< A<(38SO 1 Quantity 1
UJT-» /y/ &(*«-* < Ai/38S( [ QU
j,^«™^_
OTS/ NO
#ts) NO
_i
31-S -C
"l% °c
i"*H
1 803
WEIGHT CHECK 1
Test Ho. Weight of Weight of Mix-ratio
base (B) activator (A) = (A/B)x100
Method used |<#ackbofe ^
antity [
> (Pfi
(_Number of swabs
Pipe wall temperature _
Activator temperature
Spin-up time
^J
gscrapO
t .U> -c
f? «C
52 v-to
v,d-i, {MM)
WEIGHT CHECK 2: PRE/POST LINING
Test No. Weight of
base(B)
J _ HSa Sit* M».«1 1 HA
2 M
•M 38^T 1 1 * . is
3 */Z8 *>VK MVff
Time of Test No. 3 / tt'JO
>
Weight check 1 OK?
Mix-ratio print out OK?
INSPECTION
Uniformity OK?
Quality OK?
Thickness OK?
Hardness OK?
Curing time: start
Duration of cure
CCTV survey OK?
Disinfectant concentration at
start of contact time
Contact time
Deehlortnated?
Reconnection date
Pipe sample record number
^s?=s^^.
f^Sr- NO
(YESJ) NO
PRE-CURE
/fE"§? NO
Tffe-' NO
^E§J NO
from exit of machine
from pipe / S D^
1
$!5r | NO
V™^
mgfl
hrs
YES 1 NO
2 HA
3 /V*S
(If required)
Weight check 2 OK? /¥A
Tab test OK? /Vfl
Curing time: finish
Tack free
CCTV Record number
Disinfectant concentration
at end of contact time
Flushing time
Where discharged
Reconnection time
Water quality results OK
(chlorine, turbidity, taste,
odour, appearance,
coliform, E.coli))?
Weight of
activator (A)
/Ji*
MA
MA
\ YES
YES
Mix-ratio
- (A/B)x100
yVA)
SJtf
Al&
NO
NO
POST CURE
YES
YES
f YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
when post cure inspection is !
complete i^O0 1
YES
NO
5 t^AOO £,*
mg/1
YES"
""""NO"
Non-conformance record no. |
Comments:
For Client
Signature
Print name
Position
Date
/y For Contract^ ' ./) r\ ft
/x/y ifttfcjj
fig rJ3 R.i U£ ^ > s ^
Signature L4MAA£_,
Print name v_L|~x -p
CM.O i
7To,
-------
RESIN LINING RECORD
SOMERVILLE DEMONSTRATION
TASK ORDER 58
Batteile
The Business of Innovation
Scheme/ -
Location SCp-P 2.6* Re's- fes4 fV-y-^2- - Tij-/ /Y./
Contractor &'*"'1 J Pipe Diameter |D" "ID
Supervisor ^
3 MM) 2 US' I IJS'-JO
Time of test No. 3 -T,\ t^D>
Weight check 1 OK?
Mix-ratio print out OK?
INSPECTION
Uniformity OK?
Quality OK?
Thickness OK?
Hardness OK?
Curing time: start
Duration of cure
CCTV survey OK?
Disinfectant concentration at
start of contact time
Contact time
Dechlorinated?
Reconnection date
Pipe sample record number
Mon-conformance record no.
-^^~^
rv§s< i NO
VES'J I NO
v^"^^
JRE-CURE
<3B*f NO
/OE^ NO
/f^1 NO
from exit of machine
from pipe 5^ 3 Q^ ^v ^
/fisS NO
Pipe wall temperature "2 *r • 7 °C
Activator temperature tyS" °C
Spin-uptime i 'tf&'jez. (Mine)
WEIGHT CHECK 2: PRE/POST LINING
i Test No. Weight of Weight of Mix-ratio
i base(B) activator (A) - (A/B)x100
1 /M& MA HM
2 M# AIM AlH
s 3 AIM Af A WA
(If required)
Weight check 2 OK? A/M YES NO
Tab test OK? />(4 YES NO
POST CURE
^^i 1 NO
€E&* NO
s^. NO
JE^> NO
Curing time: finish when post cure inspection is
^^t*^. complete 2t/£&Aj*
Tack free fYESJ NO
CCTV Record number S lAA OO3
V^^^x"
mg/i Disinfectant concentration mgyi
at end of contact time
hrs j Flushing time
YES 1 NO ; Where discharged
Reconnection time j
Water quality results OK YES NO |
(chlorine, turbidity, taste, j
! odour, appearance, i i
j coliform, E.coli))? \ |
!
Comments:
ForClieriJ /y For Contractor ' '~ J <•
Signature ^Jf< *-& ^-^/ l££*J$£> • Signature J jl\'^> • ^' ' J '• ' ^
Print name CV3»t£Mi/ C*-^- • L^i-^I^- Print name .- * , , H
Position KJ?&^/>
Date ~ ""b'S
t-vc- t-i^V ; Position , , •
n.<5 I ( O Date .,.-.- :
Figure E-3. Lining Log for Lining Run #3
108
-------
Table E-l. Lining Log Data for Lining Run #1
Spin-Up Mode (Time: 4:10:03 p.m.)
Time
0:03
0:13
0:26
0:40
0:55
A pressure
(psi)
1397
1529
1584
1601
1628
B pressure
(psi)
1254
1390
1419
1412
1414
Mix
Ratio
0.00
1.00
1.02
1.00
1.03
Flowrate
(L/min)
0.00
2.52
5.10
5.28
4.62
Speed
(m/min)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Thickness
(mm)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Tank
Temp (°F)
89
89
89
89
89
Lining Mode (Time: 4:11:23 p.m.)
Time
0:15
0:29
0:42
0:55
:08
:20
:32
:45
:57
2:09
2:21
2:32
2:44
2:56
3:08
3:20
3:32
3:44
3:55
4:07
4:19
4:30
4:41
4:53
5:04
5:15
5:26
5:38
5:50
6:02
6:13
6:24
6:35
6:46
6:57
7:08
7:19
7:30
7:41
7:52
A pressure
(psi)
1632
1691
1751
1803
1845
1892
1907
1917
1939
1958
1975
2025
2029
2055
2055
2043
2027
2042
2064
2075
2088
2084
2081
2081
2084
2085
2072
2080
2076
2082
2084
2080
2079
2073
2069
2071
2077
2095
2080
2083
B pressure
(psi)
1410
1439
1470
1495
1518
1545
1555
1554
1575
1585
1590
1616
1610
1610
1627
1622
1617
1616
1637
1630
1643
1636
1636
1640
1646
1653
1644
1644
1640
1640
1637
1639
1643
1643
1645
1644
1644
1646
1638
1640
Mix
Ratio
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
Flowrate
(L/min)
4.38
4.32
4.56
4.80
4.92
5.04
5.16
5.28
5.16
5.16
5.28
5.34
5.58
5.52
5.46
5.46
5.52
5.46
5.46
5.52
5.52
5.52
5.64
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.64
5.52
5.52
5.52
5.64
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.64
5.64
5.64
5.64
5.58
5.58
Speed
(m/min)
2.61
.66
.54
.63
.77
.80
.81
.85
.83
.83
.83
.92
.94
.98
.98
.97
.92
.94
.94
.92
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.01
2.07
1.95
1.95
2.03
1.98
2.00
2.00
2.04
2.03
1.97
2.03
2.00
2.01
2.03
2.01
1.97
Thickness
(mm)
0.00
0.00
3.71
3.69
3.49
3.51
3.56
3.59
3.53
3.53
3.62
3.48
3.61
3.49
3.45
3.48
3.60
O CO
3.53
3.53
3.60
3.46
3.46
3.54
3.47
3.37
3.58
3.62
3.41
3.49
3.46
3.54
3.42
3.45
3.55
3.48
3.54
3.51
3.48
3.47
3.55
Tank
Temp (°F)
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
90
92
93
94
94
95
96
96
96
96
95
95
95
95
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
109
-------
8:03
8:14
8:25
8:36
8:47
8:58
9:09
9:20
9:31
9:42
9:53
10:04
10:15
10:26
10:37
10:48
10:59
11:10
11:21
11:32
11:43
11:54
12:05
12:16
12:27
12:38
12:49
13:00
13:11
13:22
13:33
13:44
13:55
14:06
14:17
14:28
14:39
14:50
15:01
15:12
15:23
15:34
15:45
15:56
16:07
16:18
16:29
16:40
16:51
17:02
17:13
17:24
17:35
2073
2077
2073
2064
2072
2066
2070
2082
2072
2066
2071
2062
2057
2071
2068
2065
2076
2070
2061
2070
2059
2057
2069
2064
2071
2074
2068
2055
2060
2057
2045
2065
2065
2056
2067
2065
2075
2063
2056
2044
2044
2059
2065
2076
2063
2064
2057
2051
2056
2050
2050
2065
2061
1638
1644
1648
1644
1644
1637
1636
1638
1637
1637
1643
1643
1639
1642
1638
1632
1636
1636
1636
1643
1641
1643
1643
1637
1628
1636
1634
1631
1635
1639
1635
1642
1638
1629
1633
1631
1628
1637
1637
1635
1634
1638
1638
1626
1630
1633
1632
1632
1640
1639
1634
1633
1632
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.02
5.70
5.70
5.64
5.64
5.64
5.64
5.64
5.76
5.70
5.70
5.76
5.76
5.76
5.76
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.76
5.76
5.76
5.76
5.76
5.88
5.76
5.76
5.82
5.82
5.82
5.82
5.88
5.82
5.82
5.94
5.82
5.82
5.88
5.88
5.82
5.82
5.88
5.88
5.88
5.94
6.00
5.88
5.88
6.00
5.94
5.94
5.94
6.00
6.00
5.94
2.00
2.09
1.95
2.04
1.95
2.04
2.01
2.01
2.03
2.18
2.15
2.12
2.04
2.00
2.07
2.07
2.04
2.09
2.12
2.07
2.00
2.07
2.04
2.09
2.14
2.10
2.10
2.09
2.15
2.04
2.07
2.09
2.10
2.12
2.09
2.09
2.07
2.07
2.14
2.10
2.15
2.10
2.14
2.14
2.14
2.04
2.12
2.21
2.09
2.15
2.12
2.15
2.17
3.58
3.42
3.62
3.46
3.62
3.46
3.51
3.59
3.52
3.28
3.36
3.41
3.53
3.61
3.44
3.44
3.50
3.46
3.41
3.48
3.61
3.48
3.61
3.46
3.38
3.47
3.47
3.49
3.39
3.61
3.52
3.49
3.54
3.44
3.49
3.53
3.55
3.52
3.42
3.50
3.43
3.50
3.49
3.52
3.45
3.61
3.55
3.37
3.56
3.46
3.55
3.50
3.44
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
110
-------
17:46
17:57
18:08
18:19
18:30
18:41
18:52
19:03
19:14
19:25
19:36
19:47
19:58
20:09
20:19
20:29
20:40
20:51
21:02
21:13
21:23
21:33
21:44
21:54
22:04
22:14
22:24
22:34
22:44
22:54
23:04
23:14
23:24
23:34
23:44
23:54
24:04
24:14
24:24
24:34
24:44
24:54
25:04
25:14
25:24
25:34
25:44
25:54
26:04
26:14
26:24
26:34
26:44
2055
2064
2059
2056
2056
2046
2051
2059
2057
2064
2057
2059
2044
2047
2051
2049
2051
2054
2046
2061
2059
2047
2042
2048
2048
2061
2051
2056
2054
2054
2056
2052
2047
2048
2042
2042
2051
2053
2054
2037
2048
2035
2042
2036
2035
2045
2050
2041
2047
2051
2034
2044
2039
1627
1630
1632
1629
1637
1634
1626
1636
1632
1629
1625
1629
1625
1629
1638
1632
1633
1631
1624
1628
1626
1624
1624
1633
1637
1634
1631
1629
1625
1623
1627
1629
1630
1624
1630
1628
1627
1625
1625
1614
1622
1621
1627
1626
1624
1624
1624
1615
1618
1623
1621
1616
1628
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.94
5.94
5.94
5.94
5.94
5.94
6.00
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.00
6.00
6.06
6.06
6.12
6.12
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.12
6.12
6.12
6.12
6.12
6.12
6.12
6.12
6.12
6.18
6.24
6.18
6.18
6.18
6.18
6.18
6.18
6.18
6.18
6.18
6.18
6.18
6.24
6.24
6.18
6.18
6.30
6.24
6.24
6.24
6.24
2.14
2.14
2.14
2.17
2.14
2.14
2.14
2.17
2.17
2.18
2.17
2.15
2.15
2.21
2.12
1.88
2.29
2.23
2.21
2.17
2.17
2.15
2.17
2.18
2.24
2.15
2.18
1.94
2.23
2.23
2.20
2.23
2.20
2.24
2.18
2.20
2.15
2.18
2.21
2.26
2.23
2.21
2.23
2.20
2.18
2.20
2.24
2.23
2.24
2.23
2.23
2.24
2.26
3.49
3.49
3.49
3.44
3.49
3.49
3.52
3.51
3.51
3.48
3.51
3.50
3.50
3.43
3.58
4.09
3.35
3.41
3.43
3.51
3.51
3.53
3.54
3.52
3.42
3.57
3.52
3.96
3.44
3.44
3.49
3.48
3.56
3.45
3.55
3.53
3.60
3.55
3.50
3.43
3.48
3.50
3.48
3.53
3.59
3.56
3.45
3.48
3.52
3.51
3.51
3.49
3.46
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
93
111
-------
26:54
27:04
27:14
27:24
27:34
27:44
27:54
28:04
28:14
28:24
28:34
28:44
28:54
29:04
29:14
29:24
29:34
29:44
29:54
30:04
30:14
30:24
30:34
30:44
30:54
31:04
31:14
31:24
31:34
31:44
31:54
32:04
32:14
32:24
32:34
32:44
32:54
33:04
33:14
33:24
33:34
33:44
33:54
34:04
34:14
34:24
34:34
34:44
34:54
35:04
35:14
35:24
35:34
2029
2049
2046
2041
2064
2044
2057
2038
2032
2036
2036
2043
2038
2050
2050
2052
2044
2028
2039
2044
2036
2045
2053
2040
2049
2045
2036
2035
2043
2038
2038
2049
2043
2039
2040
2031
2030
2030
2032
2032
2044
2029
2045
2045
2027
2029
2020
2014
2031
2030
2023
2040
2032
1621
1626
1620
1616
1616
1616
1618
1621
1622
1624
1621
1622
1614
1618
1612
1623
1621
1617
1626
1627
1619
1612
1620
1612
1616
1618
1620
1624
1626
1620
1612
1618
1613
1612
1614
1613
1618
1619
1617
1614
1604
1609
1612
1612
1609
1613
1613
1609
1613
1609
1602
1609
1607
1.00
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
6.24
6.30
3.24
6.24
6.24
6.24
6.24
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.36
6.36
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.36
6.36
6.36
6.36
6.36
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.36
6.36
6.36
6.36
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.36
6.36
6.36
6.36
6.36
6.36
6.36
6.36
6.36
6.36
2.21
2.21
2.24
2.23
2.26
2.26
2.29
2.23
2.26
2.26
2.20
2.24
2.21
2.24
2.24
2.26
2.26
2.27
2.32
2.26
2.24
2.24
2.26
2.23
2.30
2.32
2.32
2.30
2.32
2.27
2.24
2.27
2.24
2.29
2.26
2.29
2.29
2.33
2.21
2.24
2.27
2.24
2.27
2.24
2.26
2.26
2.26
2.29
2.27
2.26
2.27
2.32
2.29
3.54
3.57
3.49
3.51
3.46
3.46
3.42
3.55
3.50
3.50
3.60
3.52
3.57
3.52
3.52
3.50
3.50
3.47
3.41
3.53
3.56
3.52
3.50
3.55
3.43
3.44
3.44
3.46
3.44
3.51
3.52
3.47
3.52
3.45
3.53
3.48
3.48
3.42
3.57
3.52
3.47
3.52
3.47
3.56
3.53
3.53
3.53
3.48
3.51
3.53
3.51
3.44
3.48
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
112
-------
35:44
35:54
36:04
36:14
36:24
36:34
36:44
36:54
37:04
37:14
37:24
37:34
37:44
37:54
38:04
38:14
38:24
Avg.
2032
2031
2021
2030
2025
2025
2021
2027
2030
2027
2027
2020
2022
2020
2032
2031
2028
2045
1611
1612
1611
1610
1612
1609
1604
1602
1603
1603
1606
1605
1609
1612
1617
1612
1607
1623
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.01
6.36
6.36
6.36
6.36
6.42
6.42
6.36
6.36
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.42
6.42
6.42
6.42
6.42
5.97
2.35
2.27
2.32
2.27
2.26
2.27
2.29
2.30
2.36
2.30
2.24
2.26
2.29
2.33
2.30
2.27
2.30
2.14
3.39
3.51
3.44
3.51
3.56
3.54
3.48
3.46
3.37
3.43
3.52
3.50
3.52
3.45
3.49
3.54
3.49
3.50
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
94
Table E-2. Lining Log Data for Lining Run #2
Spin-Up Mode (Time: 6:10:17 p.m.)
Time
0:00
0:04
0:09
0:16
0:24
0:33
0:43
0:52
A pressure
(psi)
538
1172
1434
1518
1603
1619
1664
1745
B pressure
(psi)
341
1027
1351
1474
1509
1489
1490
1521
Linin
Time
0:10
0:19
0:28
0:38
0:47
0:57
:06
:15
:24
:33
:42
:51
2:00
2:09
2:18
2:27
2:36
A pressure
(psi)
1765
1810
1851
1853
1873
1880
1919
1931
1968
1992
1993
2027
2038
2052
2050
2047
2063
B pressure
(psi)
1528
1543
1548
1555
1573
1594
1623
1625
1643
1647
1648
1674
1684
1695
1693
1686
1692
Mix
Ratio
0.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.01
.00
.02
Flowrate
(L/min)
0.00
0.48
2.04
3.12
7.98
9.90
7.32
6.78
Speed
(m/min)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Thickness
(mm)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Tank
temp (°F)
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
? Mode (Time: 6:11:30 p.m.)
Mix
Ratio
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
Flowrate
(L/min)
6.30
6.66
6.78
6.78
6.66
6.66
6.72
6.72
6.84
6.84
6.90
6.90
7.02
7.14
7.14
7.14
7.14
Speed
(m/min)
1.16
2.81
2.76
2.92
2.52
2.39
2.42
2.39
2.36
2.46
2.47
2.47
2.52
2.47
2.53
2.53
2.53
Thickness
(mm)
0.00
0.00
3.08
3.24
3.32
3.49
3.47
3.52
3.63
3.49
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.62
3.53
3.53
3.45
Tank
temp (°F)
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
113
-------
2:45
2:54
3:03
3:12
3:21
3:30
3:39
3:48
3:56
4:05
4:13
4:22
4:31
4:40
4:48
4:56
5:04
5:12
5:20
5:28
5:36
5:44
5:52
6:00
6:08
6:16
6:24
6:32
6:40
6:48
6:56
7:04
7:12
7:20
7:28
7:36
7:44
7:52
8:00
8:08
8:16
8:24
8:32
8:40
8:48
8:56
9:04
9:12
9:20
9:28
9:36
9:44
9:52
2063
2063
2046
2068
2049
2042
2061
2069
2106
2120
2133
2127
2113
2136
2158
2159
2166
2171
2165
2168
2168
2169
2174
2181
2196
2183
2183
2161
2178
2193
2176
2190
2189
2185
2203
2196
2188
2194
2213
2205
2202
2209
2200
2183
2185
2208
2202
2203
2209
2200
2185
2180
2204
1684
1688
1681
1693
1692
1691
1679
1692
1713
1774
1733
1734
1730
1741
1749
1744
1748
1749
1752
1750
1760
1759
1757
1758
1764
1759
1769
1756
1769
1766
1757
1761
1763
1755
1779
1783
1778
1773
1779
1771
1760
1781
1780
1775
1772
1781
1773
1769
1779
1777
1774
1773
1784
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.02
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.02
.02
.00
.00
.02
.02
.02
.00
.00
.02
.02
.00
.00
.02
.02
.00
.02
7.08
7.08
7.02
6.96
6.96
6.96
7.20
6.96
6.96
7.20
7.32
7.38
7.44
7.44
7.44
7.44
7.44
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.68
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.62
7.62
7.68
7.68
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.68
7.74
7.74
7.68
7.68
7.74
7.74
7.74
7.68
7.68
7.74
7.86
7.80
7.68
7.62
7.62
7.68
7.74
2.50
2.59
2.47
2.58
2.47
2.56
2.52
2.53
2.53
2.52
2.59
2.65
2.58
2.65
2.65
2.67
2.67
2.70
2.71
2.67
2.67
2.64
2.68
2.68
2.78
2.70
2.70
2.71
2.70
2.73
2.70
2.85
2.74
2.74
2.76
2.62
2.71
2.76
2.87
2.79
2.79
2.79
2.78
2.74
2.70
2.76
2.74
2.82
2.76
2.79
2.74
2.71
2.76
3.55
3.42
3.56
3.38
3.53
3.49
3.59
3.45
3.45
3.59
3.54
3.49
3.62
3.51
3.51
3.49
3.49
3.48
3.46
3.52
3.55
3.59
3.53
3.53
3.47
3.51
3.51
3.49
3.54
3.50
3.57
3.37
3.45
3.45
3.43
3.64
3.57
3.51
3.36
3.45
3.48
3.48
3.49
3.51
3.57
3.51
3.59
3.46
3.49
3.42
3.48
3.55
3.51
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
114
-------
10:00
10:08
10:16
10:24
10:32
10:40
10:48
10:56
11:04
11:12
11:20
11:28
11:36
11:44
11:52
12:00
12:08
12:16
12:24
12:32
12:40
12:48
12:56
13:04
13:12
13:20
13:28
13:36
13:44
13:52
14:00
14:08
16:45
14:24
14:32
14:40
14:48
14:56
15:04
15:12
15:20
15:28
15:36
15:44
15:52
16:00
16:08
16:16
16:24
16:32
16:40
16:48
16:56
2198
2198
2189
2206
2209
2186
2191
2187
2201
2208
2204
2189
2184
2182
2180
2199
2205
2203
2205
2191
2187
2177
2182
2177
2205
2203
2201
2198
2195
2185
2196
2197
2199
2193
2195
2182
2185
2191
2194
2197
2191
2199
2202
2192
2194
2187
2165
2178
2186
2182
2185
2187
2186
1776
1775
1762
1779
1776
1778
1780
1774
1778
1778
1775
1772
1773
1777
1774
1781
1781
1775
1769
1774
1777
1776
1776
1769
1781
1778
1777
1781
1780
1783
1786
1779
1776
1772
1776
1776
1781
1788
1784
1781
1775
1775
1774
1778
1785
1786
1771
1772
1772
1766
1767
1768
1777
.02
.02
.00
.00
.00
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.00
.00
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.00
.00
.00
.02
.02
.02
.00
.00
.02
.02
.00
.00
.02
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
7.74
7.74
7.86
7.80
7.80
7.74
7.74
7.74
7.74
7.74
7.74
7.80
7.80
7.86
7.74
7.74
7.74
7.86
7.74
7.74
7.74
7.86
7.86
7.80
7.80
7.86
7.86
7.74
7.74
7.80
7.92
7.74
7.74
7.80
7.80
7.74
7.74
7.80
7.80
7.80
7.80
7.92
7.80
7.80
7.80
7.92
7.86
7.86
7.86
7.86
7.86
7.86
7.86
2.71
2.74
2.78
2.78
2.82
2.73
2.79
2.73
2.76
2.76
2.73
2.76
2.81
2.78
2.76
2.81
2.73
2.78
2.71
2.85
2.81
2.76
2.84
2.73
2.82
2.78
2.74
2.82
2.78
2.79
2.79
2.87
2.79
3.00
2.90
2.85
2.67
2.88
2.73
2.88
2.78
2.81
2.76
2.78
2.79
2.74
2.76
2.78
2.84
2.81
2.85
2.74
2.88
3.57
3.53
3.52
3.52
3.46
3.55
3.48
3.55
3.51
3.51
3.55
3.54
3.48
3.55
3.51
3.46
3.55
3.55
3.57
3.40
3.46
3.57
3.47
3.58
3.46
3.52
3.59
3.44
3.49
3.50
3.56
3.38
3.48
3.25
3.37
3.40
3.63
3.39
3.58
3.39
3.52
3.54
3.54
3.52
3.50
3.62
3.57
3.55
3.47
3.51
3.45
3.59
3.42
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
93
92
92
92
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
115
-------
17:04
17:12
17:20
17:28
17:36
17:44
17:52
18:00
18:08
18:16
18:24
18:32
18:40
18:48
18:56
19:04
19:12
19:20
19:28
19:36
19:44
19:52
20:00
20:08
20:16
20:24
20:32
20:40
20:48
20:56
21:04
21:12
21:20
21:28
21:36
21:44
21:52
22:00
22:08
22:16
22:24
22:32
22:40
22:48
22:56
23:04
23:12
23:20
23:28
23:36
23:44
23:52
24:00
2183
2178
2192
2204
2197
2176
2187
2192
2180
2182
2194
2191
2193
2189
2197
2187
2189
2198
2171
2193
2190
2194
2205
2183
2178
2180
2186
2173
2189
2185
2196
2210
2181
2194
2184
2162
2176
2190
2179
2182
2197
2188
2187
2168
2180
2177
2178
2196
2192
2192
2176
2182
2168
1784
1782
1785
1777
1779
1764
1770
1766
1777
1783
1781
1783
1768
1771
1772
1775
1781
1780
1777
1772
1780
1780
1775
1770
1772
1778
1789
1777
1774
1776
1778
1775
1772
1772
1783
1772
1778
1781
1776
1767
1769
1778
1784
1775
1783
1781
1776
1772
1775
1779
1772
1781
1775
.02
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.00
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.00
.00
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.00
.00
.02
.02
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.02
.00
.00
.02
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.86
7.86
7.92
7.92
7.92
7.92
7.86
7.86
7.86
7.86
7.86
7.80
7.86
7.80
7.86
7.86
7.86
7.86
7.98
7.86
7.86
7.92
8.04
7.86
7.86
7.86
7.86
7.86
7.86
7.92
7.92
7.86
7.86
7.98
7.92
7.92
7.92
7.92
7.92
8.04
7.86
7.86
7.92
8.04
7.86
7.86
7.92
7.92
7.92
7.92
7.92
7.92
8.04
2.78
2.76
2.84
2.84
2.88
2.87
2.82
2.82
2.85
2.78
2.82
2.85
2.81
2.85
2.84
2.79
2.82
2.79
2.76
2.88
2.85
2.81
2.82
2.81
2.81
2.76
2.81
2.84
2.87
2.82
2.90
2.85
2.74
2.84
2.84
2.82
2.78
2.84
2.87
2.82
2.93
2.78
2.82
2.76
2.84
2.82
2.85
2.88
2.87
2.84
2.82
2.84
2.82
3.55
3.57
3.50
3.50
3.44
3.46
3.49
3.49
3.45
3.55
3.49
3.45
3.51
3.45
3.47
3.53
3.49
3.53
3.62
3.42
3.45
3.54
3.57
3.51
3.51
3.57
3.51
3.47
3.44
3.52
3.43
3.45
3.59
3.53
3.50
3.52
3.58
3.50
3.46
3.57
3.36
3.55
3.52
3.65
3.47
3.49
3.48
3.44
3.46
3.50
3.52
3.50
3.57
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
116
-------
24:08
24:16
24:24
24:32
24:40
24:48
24:56
25:04
25:12
25:20
25:28
25:36
25:44
25:52
26:00
26:08
26:16
26:24
26:32
26:40
26:48
26:56
27:04
27:12
27:20
27:28
27:36
27:44
27:52
28:00
28:08
28:16
28:24
28:32
28:40
28:48
28:56
29:04
29:12
29:20
29:28
29:36
29:44
29:52
30:00
30:08
30:16
30:24
30:32
30:40
30:48
30:56
31:04
2197
2193
2222
2230
2210
2225
2209
2202
2187
2219
2225
2212
2213
2216
2211
2214
2199
2192
2217
2219
2210
2217
2225
2217
2200
2199
2208
2203
2197
2227
2221
2206
2200
2199
2195
2192
2223
2223
2212
2208
2209
2197
2187
2185
2205
2199
2232
2222
2211
2216
2211
2205
2201
1793
1783
1797
1786
1784
1798
1794
1796
1789
1803
1789
1788
1785
1792
1793
1788
1793
1788
1796
1794
1785
1777
1799
1798
1795
1796
1796
1788
1780
1796
1793
1789
1790
1794
1791
1785
1800
1795
1788
1788
1792
1791
1789
1788
1789
1783
1789
1794
1793
1789
1798
1799
1793
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.01
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.16
8.16
8.22
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.16
8.16
8.16
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.16
8.16
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.22
8.16
8.16
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.22
8.22
8.28
8.16
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.16
8.28
8.22
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.16
8.16
8.16
2.90
2.90
2.91
2.94
2.93
2.90
2.93
2.88
2.87
2.87
2.84
2.97
2.94
2.91
2.91
2.93
2.90
2.87
2.90
2.93
2.90
2.94
2.87
2.90
2.87
2.87
2.90
2.90
2.96
2.96
2.90
2.87
2.91
2.87
2.87
2.91
2.94
2.96
2.97
2.85
2.87
2.91
2.87
2.88
2.88
2.94
2.93
2.91
2.85
2.90
2.87
2.93
2.93
3.48
3.48
3.46
3.47
3.49
3.56
3.47
3.52
3.54
3.54
3.58
3.44
3.47
3.51
3.48
3.47
3.50
3.54
3.53
3.49
3.50
3.45
3.54
3.50
3.54
3.54
3.56
3.53
3.46
3.43
3.50
3.54
3.48
3.54
3.59
3.54
3.53
3.46
3.41
3.56
3.54
3.48
3.54
3.55
3.60
3.50
3.47
3.48
3.56
3.50
3.57
3.49
3.49
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
117
-------
31:12
31:20
31:28
31:36
31:44
31:52
32:00
32:08
32:16
32:24
32:32
32:40
32:48
32:56
33:04
33:12
33:20
33:28
33:36
33:44
33:52
34:00
34:08
34:16
34:24
34:32
34:40
34:48
34:56
35:04
35:12
35:20
35:28
35:36
35:44
35:52
36:00
36:08
36:16
36:24
36:32
36:40
36:48
36:56
37:04
37:12
37:20
37:28
37:36
37:44
37:52
38:00
38:08
2203
2211
2207
2198
2187
2201
2190
2195
2204
2202
2196
2195
2204
2194
2195
2192
2192
2189
2192
2205
2200
2201
2200
2192
2181
2199
2201
2199
2208
2213
2205
2211
2208
2200
2179
2189
2198
2197
2189
2204
2200
2193
2204
2202
2185
2184
2202
2203
2200
2212
2209
2184
2177
1790
1788
1784
1782
1783
1791
1791
1795
1791
1787
1779
1778
1785
1784
1777
1791
1790
1784
1780
1782
1780
1780
1787
1788
1787
1796
1792
1788
1784
1788
1787
1782
1796
1798
1784
1776
1785
1782
1776
1783
1786
1787
1798
1800
1785
1781
1786
1784
1782
1793
1795
1783
1785
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
8.22
8.22
8.16
8.16
8.16
8.16
8.16
8.16
8.16
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.34
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.28
8.28
8.28
8.28
8.28
8.28
8.28
2.88
2.97
2.94
2.97
2.88
2.96
2.90
2.96
2.94
2.90
2.96
2.93
3.08
3.02
2.90
2.78
2.91
2.91
3.02
3.00
2.91
2.91
2.93
2.99
2.93
2.96
2.94
2.96
2.96
2.93
2.94
2.91
2.94
2.88
3.00
2.99
2.94
2.99
2.96
2.91
2.87
2.97
2.99
2.96
2.99
2.96
3.00
2.94
2.99
2.91
3.07
2.93
2.93
3.57
3.46
3.47
3.44
3.55
3.46
3.53
3.46
3.47
3.56
3.48
3.52
3.34
3.41
3.56
3.71
3.54
3.54
3.41
3.43
3.54
3.46
3.57
3.45
3.52
3.48
3.50
3.48
3.48
3.52
3.50
3.54
3.50
3.57
3.48
3.50
3.55
3.45
3.48
3.54
3.59
3.46
3.45
3.48
3.45
3.48
3.45
3.53
3.47
3.56
3.39
3.54
3.54
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
118
-------
38:16
38:24
38:32
38:40
38:48
38:56
39:04
39:12
39:20
39:28
39:36
39:44
39:52
40:00
40:08
40:16
40:24
40:32
40:40
40:48
40:56
41:04
41:12
41:20
41:28
41:36
41:44
41:52
42:00
42:08
42:16
42:24
42:32
42:40
42:48
42:56
43:04
43:12
43:20
43:28
43:36
43:44
43:52
44:00
44:08
44:16
44:23
44:31
44:39
44:47
44:55
45:03
45:11
2199
2204
2194
2197
2203
2200
2207
2208
2184
2185
2203
2212
2192
2189
2207
2204
2185
2175
2195
2195
2180
2202
2206
2196
2185
2200
2193
2170
2193
2201
2186
2208
2210
2202
2182
2198
2176
2179
2200
2191
2196
2200
2196
2198
2192
2188
2196
2181
2177
2208
2194
2195
2185
1795
1795
1790
1770
1781
1783
1782
1796
1786
1790
1798
1796
1779
1776
1785
1789
1789
1781
1794
1794
1779
1786
1786
1784
1771
1788
1790
1780
1791
1793
1778
1781
1786
1787
1777
1790
1781
1786
1795
1781
1783
1779
1779
1784
1788
1782
1796
1783
1781
1790
1778
1780
1769
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
8.28
8.28
8.28
8.28
8.28
8.28
8.28
8.28
8.28
8.28
8.28
8.28
8.28
8.28
8.34
8.34
8.40
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.40
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
3.00
2.97
3.00
2.94
3.02
2.94
2.96
2.97
2.90
3.00
3.00
3.03
3.00
3.00
2.91
2.99
2.94
3.00
2.94
3.02
2.97
3.03
2.99
3.03
3.00
3.00
2.99
2.91
3.02
3.02
3.03
3.00
3.05
2.93
3.03
3.05
2.94
2.99
2.96
2.96
2.94
3.07
2.99
3.00
2.97
3.00
3.02
3.02
3.03
3.05
3.08
3.02
3.00
3.45
3.49
3.45
3.53
3.44
3.53
3.51
3.49
3.58
3.45
3.45
3.42
3.45
3.45
3.59
3.50
3.58
3.48
3.55
3.46
3.51
3.44
3.50
3.44
3.48
3.48
3.50
3.59
3.46
3.46
3.47
3.48
3.43
3.57
3.44
3.43
3.55
3.50
3.56
3.56
3.58
3.41
3.50
3.48
3.50
3.50
3.49
3.49
3.49
3.49
3.50
3.50
3.50
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
119
-------
45:19
45:27
45:34
45:41
45:49
45:57
46:05
46:13
46:21
46:28
46:35
46:42
46:49
46:56
47:03
47:10
47:17
47:25
47:32
47:39
47:46
47:53
48:00
48:07
48:15
48:22
48:29
48:36
48:43
48:50
48:57
49:04
49:11
49:18
49:25
49:32
49:39
49:46
49:53
50:00
50:07
50:14
50:21
50:28
50:35
50:42
50:49
50:56
51:03
51:10
51:17
51:24
51:31
2200
2192
2172
2198
2190
2193
2185
2202
2186
2176
2181
2185
2168
2193
2183
2193
2174
2197
2199
2189
2198
2182
2171
2192
2185
2194
2192
2192
2182
2195
2178
2164
2202
2186
2190
2186
2203
2188
2167
2186
2174
2179
2201
2188
2195
2180
2182
2187
2170
2159
2189
2183
2160
1787
1790
1782
1796
1785
1785
1766
1782
1773
1777
1779
1787
1778
1790
1777
1781
1766
1779
1786
1778
1796
1787
1777
1785
1771
1779
1772
1779
1776
1790
1784
1775
1779
1776
1778
1774
1784
1779
1770
1787
1781
1785
1776
1773
1778
1770
1773
1782
1777
1770
1787
1778
1764
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.46
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.46
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
2.99
3.05
2.93
3.00
3.05
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.00
2.99
3.02
2.97
2.94
2.96
3.05
3.02
3.08
3.00
3.02
3.00
2.97
3.00
2.93
3.03
3.03
3.10
2.96
3.00
3.00
3.10
3.02
2.99
3.00
3.00
3.03
3.02
2.99
2.90
3.08
2.99
3.11
3.02
3.05
3.05
3.07
3.00
3.05
3.05
2.94
3.03
2.99
3.13
3.08
3.52
3.45
3.60
3.50
3.45
3.47
3.47
3.47
3.50
3.55
3.49
3.54
3.58
3.56
3.45
3.49
3.42
3.53
3.49
3.50
3.54
3.50
3.60
3.49
3.49
3.42
3.58
3.53
3.53
3.42
3.51
3.55
3.53
3.53
3.49
3.51
3.55
3.66
3.44
3.57
3.43
3.54
3.50
3.50
3.46
3.53
3.48
3.50
3.63
3.52
3.57
3.42
3.47
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
120
-------
51:38
51:45
51:52
51:59
52:06
52:13
52:20
52:27
52:34
52:41
52:48
52:55
53:02
53:09
53:16
Avg.
2193
2183
2194
2198
2175
2193
2180
2178
2172
2194
2173
2179
2195
2180
2177
2181
1775
1769
1783
1773
1776
1785
1784
1780
1769
1779
1769
1766
1781
1776
1771
1773
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
1.01
8.52
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.58
8.58
8.02
3.17
2.93
3.26
3.26
3.08
2.91
2.91
3.02
3.14
3.16
3.02
3.07
3.00
3.08
3.05
2.87
3.37
3.62
3.25
3.25
3.44
3.64
3.64
3.51
3.37
3.38
3.54
3.48
3.55
3.49
3.53
3.50
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
Table E-3. Lining Log Data for Lining Run #3
Spin-U
Time
0:02
0:07
0:14
0:22
0:30
0:39
0:48
A pressure
(psi)
1253
1516
1604
1734
1775
1798
1816
B pressure
(psi)
979
1333
1485
1577
1620
1628
1634
p Mode (Time: 11:13:13 p.m.)
Mix
Ratio
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.00
Flowrate
(L/min)
0.00
0.48
4.56
6.24
8.10
8.22
7.44
Speed
(m/min)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Thickness
(mm)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Tank
temp (°F)
87
87
87
86
86
86
86
Lining Mode (Time: 11:14:32 p.m.)
Time
0:10
0:19
0:28
0:37
0:45
0:54
:02
:10
:18
:26
:34
:42
:50
:58
2:06
2:14
2:22
2:30
2:38
2:46
A pressure
(psi)
1823
1844
1905
1954
1985
2001
2032
2063
2090
2090
2119
2137
2145
2164
2162
2155
2155
2164
2178
2181
B pressure
(psi)
1628
1639
1663
1688
1708
1721
1743
1767
1769
1773
1784
1790
1798
1812
1818
1818
1806
1810
1817
1820
Mix
Ratio
.00
.02
.00
.00
.02
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.02
.02
.00
.02
.00
.00
.02
.02
Flowrate
(L/min)
7.88
6.78
6.72
6.84
7.14
7.26
7.44
7.44
7.44
7.80
7.80
7.74
7.74
7.74
7.80
7.98
7.92
7.92
7.86
7.86
Speed
(m/min)
0.00
3.98
2.82
2.67
2.62
2.59
2.59
2.62
2.70
2.67
2.81
2.71
2.88
2.74
2.76
2.73
2.82
2.84
2.78
2.88
Thickness
(mm)
0.00
0.00
2.98
3.21
3.41
3.51
3.60
3.55
3.45
3.66
3.48
3.57
3.37
3.53
3.54
3.66
3.52
3.50
3.55
3.42
Tank
temp (°F)
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
121
-------
2:54
3:02
3:10
3:18
3:26
3:34
3:42
3:50
3:58
4:06
4:14
4:22
4:30
4:38
4:46
4:54
5:02
5:10
5:18
5:26
5:34
5:42
5:50
5:58
6:06
6:14
6:22
6:30
6:38
6:46
6:54
7:02
7:10
7:18
7:26
7:34
7:42
7:50
7:58
8:06
8:14
8:22
8:30
8:38
8:46
8:54
9:02
9:10
9:18
9:26
9:34
9:42
9:50
2204
2193
2176
2170
2197
2201
2187
2176
2209
2198
2190
2211
2211
2210
2219
2202
2208
2193
2216
2201
2204
2191
2216
2212
2192
2176
2199
2195
2202
2198
2207
2197
2202
2183
2202
2194
2190
2189
2203
2191
2185
2202
2193
2207
2202
2186
2201
2195
2187
2195
2186
2206
2195
1832
1832
1826
1828
1835
1834
1819
1816
1835
1836
1840
1843
1844
1837
1822
1829
1840
1837
1849
1842
1839
1826
1837
1842
1838
1832
1847
1838
1838
1830
1838
1836
1835
1839
1849
1838
1830
1832
1840
1838
1838
1851
1841
1848
1837
1829
1842
1839
1849
1848
1837
1843
1834
.02
.02
.02
.00
.00
.00
.02
.02
.00
.02
.02
.02
.00
.00
.01
.02
.02
.02
.01
.00
.00
.02
.02
.02
.01
.02
.02
.02
.00
.00
.00
.02
.02
.02
.02
.00
.00
.02
.02
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.86
7.86
7.86
7.92
7.92
7.92
7.86
7.86
7.92
7.98
7.98
7.98
8.04
8.04
8.10
7.98
7.98
7.98
8.10
8.04
8.04
7.98
7.98
7.98
8.10
7.98
7.98
7.98
8.04
8.04
8.04
7.98
7.98
7.98
7.98
8.16
8.04
7.98
7.98
8.04
8.04
8.10
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.16
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
2.73
2.93
2.88
2.79
2.82
2.81
2.84
2.78
2.84
2.84
2.84
2.88
2.84
2.85
2.90
2.82
2.88
2.94
2.81
2.91
2.93
2.87
2.90
2.76
2.87
2.81
2.87
2.76
2.88
2.85
2.90
2.85
2.88
2.78
2.84
2.85
2.85
2.97
2.73
2.90
2.82
2.87
2.91
2.87
2.91
2.84
2.94
2.82
2.90
2.81
2.87
2.94
2.93
3.61
3.36
3.42
3.56
3.52
3.54
3.47
3.55
3.50
3.53
3.53
3.47
3.55
3.53
3.50
3.54
3.47
3.40
3.62
3.46
3.44
3.49
3.45
3.62
3.54
3.56
3.49
3.62
3.50
3.53
3.48
3.51
3.47
3.60
3.53
3.59
3.53
3.36
3.66
3.48
3.57
3.54
3.46
3.51
3.46
3.55
3.42
3.62
3.48
3.59
3.51
3.42
3.44
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
122
-------
9:58
10:06
10:14
10:22
10:30
10:38
10:46
10:54
11:02
11:10
11:18
11:26
11:34
11:42
11:50
11:58
12:06
12:14
12:22
12:30
12:38
12:46
12:54
13:02
13:10
13:18
13:26
13:34
13:42
13:50
13:58
14:06
14:14
14:22
14:30
14:38
14:46
14:54
15:02
15:10
15:18
15:26
15:34
15:42
15:50
15:58
16:06
16:14
16:22
16:30
16:38
16:46
16:54
2206
2202
2185
2201
2193
2196
2205
2191
2210
2198
2185
2174
2202
2200
2193
2211
2200
2185
2188
2180
2192
2203
2195
2199
2211
2198
2182
2162
2198
2195
2187
32210
2204
2190
2195
2195
2187
2183
2198
2204
2195
2213
2191
2191
2189
2194
2189
2206
2195
2193
2208
2192
2172
1844
1844
1841
1855
1845
1839
1842
1835
1853
1848
1846
1839
1851
1844
1835
1838
1843
1838
1849
1851
1846
1851
1841
1828
1850
1847
1843
1835
1856
1848
1839
1848
1845
1840
1852
1857
1850
1844
1848
1845
1838
1840
1845
1839
1855
1856
1845
1851
1842
1841
1855
1850
1845
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.00
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.22
8.10
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.10
8.22
8.10
8.10
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.10
8.16
8.28
8.16
8.04
8.04
8.10
8.10
8.16
8.10
8.10
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.10
8.10
8.10
2.87
2.85
2.91
2.87
3.00
2.85
2.94
3.14
2.99
3.03
2.85
2.88
2.94
2.94
2.97
2.94
2.79
2.91
2.87
2.84
2.93
2.85
2.88
2.87
2.91
2.85
2.94
2.91
2.88
2.90
2.84
2.96
2.90
2.90
2.87
2.93
2.94
2.90
2.97
2.96
2.91
2.81
2.91
2.84
2.94
2.96
2.90
2.90
2.94
2.81
2.87
2.91
2.97
3.51
3.53
3.46
3.51
3.35
3.61
3.45
3.21
3.37
3.32
3.56
3.57
3.45
3.45
3.39
3.42
3.61
3.48
3.54
3.58
3.47
3.56
3.52
3.54
3.48
3.56
3.45
3.46
3.50
3.48
3.58
3.43
3.50
3.48
3.51
3.44
3.45
3.53
3.49
3.46
3.46
3.59
3.48
3.58
3.47
3.43
3.50
3.48
3.42
3.59
3.54
3.48
3.54
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
87
86
86
86
86
87
123
-------
17:02
17:10
17:18
17:26
17:34
17:42
17:50
17:58
18:06
18:14
18:22
18:30
18:38
18:45
18:52
18:59
19:06
19:13
19:20
19:27
19:34
19:41
19:48
19:55
20:02
20:09
20:16
20:23
20:30
20:37
20:44
20:51
20:58
21:05
21:12
21:19
21:26
21:33
21:40
21:47
21:54
22:01
22:08
22:15
22:22
22:29
22:36
22:43
22:50
22:57
23:04
23:11
23:18
2193
2204
2187
2200
2189
2169
2191
2180
2168
2183
2196
2198
2225
2224
2256
2264
2257
2261
2278
2280
2292
2298
2294
2279
2284
2289
2288
2281
2281
2305
2290
2294
2296
2287
2279
2291
2292
2303
2288
2293
2287
2278
2273
2296
2290
2299
2286
2300
2287
2278
2266
2286
2283
1857
1843
1841
1846
1839
1832
1846
1846
1842
1850
1837
1848
1858
1864
1885
1895
1896
1890
1902
1895
1903
1901
1901
1897
1910
1919
1909
1900
1901
1898
1897
1909
1900
1902
1907
1913
1908
1894
1896
1906
1907
1902
1905
1921
1908
1902
1896
1909
1905
1901
1902
1915
1908
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.16
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.16
8.10
8.10
8.16
8.28
8.34
8.58
8.58
8.64
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.58
8.58
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.58
2.94
2.93
2.88
2.96
2.90
2.81
2.93
2.88
2.81
2.93
2.91
2.96
2.87
2.90
2.88
2.94
3.00
3.03
3.08
3.10
3.10
3.08
2.94
3.08
2.94
3.08
3.07
3.14
3.10
3.05
3.10
2.99
3.03
3.02
3.11
3.02
3.16
3.14
3.10
3.00
3.02
3.00
2.97
3.05
3.02
3.13
3.10
3.11
3.10
3.07
3.02
3.00
3.08
3.45
3.47
3.52
3.43
3.53
3.59
3.44
3.50
3.59
3.44
3.51
3.43
3.54
3.53
3.60
3.55
3.58
3.54
3.51
3.45
3.45
3.44
3.60
3.44
3.65
3.49
3.51
3.42
3.47
3.50
3.45
3.57
3.52
3.54
3.43
3.56
3.41
3.37
3.42
3.53
3.51
3.53
3.57
3.53
3.56
3.44
3.47
3.46
3.47
3.51
3.56
3.58
3.49
87
87
87
87
86
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
124
-------
23:25
23:32
23:39
23:46
23:53
24:00
24:07
24:14
24:21
24:28
24:35
24:42
24:49
24:56
25:03
25:10
25:17
24:24
25:31
25:38
25:45
25:52
25:59
26:06
26:13
26:20
26:27
26:34
26:41
26:48
26:55
27:02
27:09
27:16
27:23
27:30
27:37
27:44
27:51
27:58
28:05
28:12
28:19
28:26
28:33
28:40
28:47
28:54
29:01
29:08
29:15
29:22
29:29
2292
2276
2301
2287
2282
2260
2268
2301
2289
2290
2284
2303
2300
2283
2271
2258
2270
2296
2288
2293
2291
2290
2276
2281
2282
2280
2273
2301
2294
2282
2266
2267
2265
2284
2295
2315
2298
2300
2293
2305
2300
2299
2294
2330
2336
2319
2326
2342
2317
2316
2295
2324
2331
1895
1893
1909
1905
1907
1901
1904
1909
1909
1906
1897
1914
1907
1909
1909
1904
1900
1913
1904
1893
1893
1914
1911
1914
1912
1906
1897
1912
1908
1906
1902
1903
1905
1915
1908
1922
1908
1913
1913
1925
1928
1929
1918
1936
1936
1923
1932
1942
1931
1938
1926
1938
1938
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.00
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
8.58
8.58
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.52
8.52
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.64
8.58
8.58
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.58
8.58
8.64
8.64
8.64
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.58
8.58
8.70
8.70
8.70
8.64
8.64
8.64
8.70
8.82
8.82
8.76
8.70
8.70
8.76
8.88
8.88
3.03
3.19
3.08
2.97
3.10
3.02
2.96
2.97
3.07
3.07
3.14
3.08
3.07
3.13
3.00
3.08
3.00
3.10
3.10
3.14
2.97
3.03
3.10
3.13
2.97
3.00
3.08
3.10
3.16
3.07
3.14
3.07
3.10
3.03
3.00
3.07
2.85
3.20
3.26
3.23
3.19
3.10
2.88
2.94
3.19
3.08
3.20
3.13
3.23
3.14
3.10
3.19
3.16
3.54
3.37
3.44
3.57
3.42
3.51
3.61
3.59
3.51
3.51
3.42
3.49
3.51
3.44
3.58
3.49
3.60
3.47
3.47
3.37
3.57
3.49
3.47
3.44
3.64
3.60
3.51
3.47
3.41
3.51
3.42
3.51
3.47
3.52
3.55
3.48
3.77
3.36
3.34
3.37
3.42
3.50
3.76
3.68
3.42
3.59
3.45
3.51
3.37
3.47
3.55
3.49
3.53
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
125
-------
29:36
29:43
29:50
29:57
30:04
30:11
30:18
30:25
30:32
30:39
30:46
30:53
31:00
31:07
31:14
31:21
31:28
31:35
31:42
31:49
31:56
32:03
32:10
32:17
32:24
32:31
32:38
32:45
32:52
32:59
33:06
33:13
33:20
33:27
33:34
33:41
33:48
33:55
34:02
34:09
34:16
34:23
34:30
34:37
34:44
34:51
34:58
35:05
35:12
35:19
35:26
35:33
35:40
2325
2327
2336
2336
2313
2322
2330
2314
2320
2302
2332
2333
2308
2321
2325
2299
2302
2331
2312
2320
2332
2308
2320
2316
2294
2321
2329
2314
2326
2307
2326
2338
2310
2319
2302
2320
2306
2329
2330
2303
2321
2297
2313
2286
2308
2325
2315
2326
2309
2325
2302
2311
2291
1934
1918
1932
1938
1929
1938
1949
1936
1937
1921
1931
1933
1920
1926
1941
1928
1933
1944
1924
1928
1932
1920
1932
1938
1927
1943
1947
1932
1935
1919
1932
1931
1933
1945
1934
1938
1930
1926
1936
1923
1935
1924
1940
1928
1939
1946
1932
1936
1923
1937
1925
1938
1929
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
8.88
8.70
8.70
8.70
8.82
8.82
8.82
8.70
8.70
8.70
8.76
8.82
8.82
8.82
8.82
8.82
8.82
8.76
8.76
8.76
8.76
8.82
8.82
8.88
8.70
8.70
8.82
8.94
800
.OO
8.88
8.76
8.70
8.70
8.82
8.82
8.82
8.82
8.82
800
.00
8.88
8.76
8.70
8.70
8.82
8.94
8.82
8.82
8.82
800
.00
8.88
8.94
8.82
8.70
3.14
3.05
3.20
2.99
3.19
3.16
3.14
3.20
3.14
3.08
3.10
3.20
3.08
3.19
3.17
3.16
3.17
3.22
3.19
3.17
3.16
3.08
3.13
3.13
3.19
3.07
3.11
3.13
3.29
3.28
3.17
3.14
3.16
3.13
3.10
3.17
3.13
3.22
3.17
3.20
3.20
3.10
3.06
3.13
3.13
3.14
3.17
3.20
3.25
3.11
3.23
3.17
3.19
3.54
3.57
3.40
3.65
3.47
3.50
3.52
3.40
3.47
3.54
3.55
3.45
3.59
3.47
3.48
3.50
3.48
3.41
3.46
3.48
3.59
3.54
3.56
3.56
3.42
3.56
3.55
3.58
3.38
3.39
3.46
3.47
3.45
3.54
3.57
3.48
3.54
3.44
3.51
3.47
3.43
3.52
3.54
3.54
3.58
3.52
3.48
3.45
3.43
3.58
3.47
3.48
3.42
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
86
86
86
86
87
87
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
126
-------
35:47
35:54
36:01
36:08
36:15
36:22
36:29
36:36
36:43
36:50
36:57
37:04
37:11
37:18
37:25
37:32
37:39
37:46
37:53
38:00
38:07
38:14
38:21
38:28
38:35
38:42
38:49
38:56
39:03
39:10
39:17
39:24
39:31
39:38
39:45
39:52
39:59
40:06
40:13
40:20
40:27
40:34
40:41
40:48
40:55
41:02
41:09
41:16
41:23
41:30
41:37
41:44
41:51
2313
2327
2313
2319
2310
2328
2304
2307
2287
2313
2298
2310
2294
2325
2321
2332
2323
2322
2310
2326
2332
2329
2343
2331
2315
2344
2327
2314
2303
2342
2334
2326
2364
2342
2326
2309
2341
2329
2322
2317
2355
2340
2324
2331
2332
2324
2312
2308
2348
2335
2327
2317
2350
1938
1949
1933
1935
1921
1940
1927
1937
1929
1946
1930
1935
1920
1934
1933
1948
1949
1948
1943
1953
1946
1942
1947
1941
1935
1956
1952
1948
1940
1958
1948
1938
1960
1948
1945
1938
1952
1957
1948
1939
1945
1944
1937
1949
1951
1952
1947
1941
1948
1948
1938
1931
1949
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
8.70
8.82
8.82
8.82
8.82
8.82
8.88
8.88
8.94
8.82
8.82
8.82
8.94
8.82
8.82
8.94
9.06
8.94
8.94
8.94
9.06
8.94
800
.OO
8.88
8.94
8.94
8.82
8.82
8.94
9.12
9.00
800
.00
8.88
9.06
8.94
800
.00
8.88
8.94
8.94
8.94
8.94
8.94
8.94
800
.00
8.88
8.94
9.06
8.94
8.94
8.94
9.06
8.94
8.94
3.16
3.17
3.14
3.20
3.19
3.07
3.14
3.11
3.22
3.19
3.20
3.19
3.26
3.19
3.13
3.11
3.13
3.20
3.17
3.25
3.16
3.25
3.20
3.26
3.19
3.19
3.23
3.11
3.14
3.16
3.23
3.20
3.26
3.17
3.31
3.23
3.13
3.17
3.20
3.25
3.19
3.26
3.11
3.22
3.22
3.14
3.25
3.19
3.23
3.20
3.19
3.17
3.19
3.45
3.48
3.52
3.45
3.47
3.61
3.54
3.58
3.48
3.47
3.45
3.47
3.43
3.47
3.54
3.60
3.63
3.50
3.53
3.45
3.60
3.45
3.60
3.45
3.47
3.41
3.52
3.55
3.57
3.62
3.49
3.47
3.43
3.58
3.39
3.44
3.56
3.53
3.50
3.45
3.52
3.43
3.60
3.46
3.46
3.57
3.50
3.52
3.47
3.50
3.56
3.53
3.52
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
127
-------
41:58
42:05
42:12
42:19
42:26
42:33
42:40
42:47
42:54
43:01
43:08
43:15
43:22
43:29
43:36
43:43
43:50
43:57
44:04
44:11
44:18
44:25
44:32
44:39
44:46
44:53
45:00
45:07
45:14
45:21
45:28
45:35
45:42
45:49
45:56
46:03
46:10
46:17
46:24
46:31
46:38
46:45
46:52
Avg.
2332
2315
2303
2337
2334
2327
2321
2307
2341
2327
2314
2289
2309
2331
2323
2323
2323
2333
2320
2319
2315
2306
2303
2343
2333
2324
2316
2302
2334
2319
2308
2315
2319
2315
2310
2347
2337
2322
2311
2290
2306
2322
2315
2342
1950
1946
1942
1963
1955
1946
1938
1927
1951
1948
1946
1940
1945
1957
1947
1930
1938
1948
1945
1936
1949
1946
1941
1949
1948
1940
1935
1929
1954
1951
1950
1945
1949
1942
1934
1947
1948
1944
1941
1938
1943
1960
1952
1893
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.01
.01
1.01
8.94
8.94
8.94
8.94
8.94
8.94
8.94
8.94
9.06
8.94
8.94
8.94
9.12
9.00
8.94
8.94
8.94
8.94
8.94
8.94
8.94
9.06
9.06
9.06
8.94
8.94
9.00
9.12
9.00
8.94
8.94
9.06
9.06
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.00
9.00
9.06
9.18
8.49
3.22
3.19
3.14
3.25
3.28
3.26
3.22
3.20
3.17
3.25
3.28
3.13
3.20
3.26
3.32
3.17
3.28
3.17
3.17
3.22
3.13
3.20
3.20
3.26
3.40
3.40
3.20
3.26
3.29
3.16
3.14
3.19
3.28
3.40
3.22
3.26
3.23
3.23
3.31
3.26
3.11
3.25
3.28
3.04
3.48
3.52
3.57
3.45
3.42
3.43
3.48
3.50
3.58
3.45
3.42
3.58
3.57
3.46
3.37
3.53
3.42
3.53
3.53
3.48
3.58
3.55
3.55
3.48
3.29
3.29
3.47
3.67
3.42
3.55
3.57
3.56
3.46
3.32
3.51
3.46
3.51
3.51
3.43
3.46
3.63
3.50
3.51
3.50
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
128
-------
F.I
APPENDIX F: INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY TESTING RESULTS
Experimental Data
Infrared spectra were acquired using Digilab FT-IR spectrometers. An FTS-7000e equipped with an
infrared microscope was used to acquire transmission spectra while an FTS-60a equipped with an ATR
accessory (Harrick Scientific "Split Pea" ATR accessory) was used to acquire attenuated total reflectance
(ATR) spectra.
The ATR technique emphasizes the surface of the sample being analyzed such that more emphasis is
given to any materials adsorbed onto the surface or to any differences in chemistry of the surface as
compared to the bulk polymer. ATR spectra also have a shift in the relative strength of absorption bands
at various wavenumbers compared to transmission spectra. Transmission spectra are typically the basis
of infrared libraries and are therefore more easily searchable.
One peak appears increased in the transmission spectrum of the control (#24) sample as compared to the
sample spectra. That peak in the control sample appears at 1712 cm"1, a region associated with carbonyl
groups. Table F-l shows various functional groups typically assigned to that region. The "urethane
band" observed in all spectra near 1530 cm"1 is very typical of urethane materials. This band appears to
decrease in intensity as the carbonyl increases suggesting the possibility of the formation of different
functional groups. It is assumed that the control sample exhibits complete cure under controlled
conditions and as such should be representative of that material. The samples in general appear to be
closer to the spectrum of the control (higher carbonyl and reduced urethane) in the polymer that faces
away from the pipe. Spectra of the cross-section and the surface toward the pipe were the opposite:
higher urethane peak intensity and lower carbonyl intensity. Note that DSC measurements for the
samples were essentially the same as for the control suggesting that the samples and control are similarly
cured.
Table F-l. Functional Group Assignments
Functional Group
C=O
CNH
Wave Number (cm"1)
1725-1705
1710-1685
1735-1715
1720-1680
1695-1630
1530
Dialkyl ketone
Aromatic aldehyde
Conjugated ester
Carboxylic acid dimer
Amides and ureas
(electron attracting groups on N raise C=O)
Combination C-N stretch/C-N-H bend
The first two below figures show comparisons of the IR transmission spectra (Figure F-l) and polymer
ATR spectra (Figure F-2) for multiple samples. The next six figures present the ATR spectra for samples
1A (Figure F-3); IB (Figure F-4); 2A (Figure F-5); 2B (Figure F-6); 3A (Figure F-7); and 3C (Figure F-8)
at three different locations. The next figure compares the ATR spectra of the interior of surface blisters
for 3 samples (Figure F-9). The following figure compares the transmission spectra of the control sample
with both the interior and exterior surface of sample 1A (Figure F-10). The next figure compares the
control sample with the material that most closely matched the transmission spectra in the computerized
spectra libraries, HM# 9168 (Figure F-l 1). The last figure shows the control material compared to the
spectrum of urea to show the contribution of the urea peaks to the spectrum (Figure F-12).
129
-------
OJ
o
Sample 1a bulk polymer from center of cross section
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000
File #2 = M15NPIPEL{1) Wavenumber (cm-1)
Comparison of infrared transmission spectra of Sample 1A and Control
1500
1000 500
11/15/2010 5:54 PM Res=
Figure F-l. Comparison of Infrared Transmission Spectra of Sample 1A and Control
-------
130H
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000
File #4 = S9NPIPEL(5) Wavenumber (cm-1)
Comparison of polymer ATR spectra in middle of coating
1500
1000 500
11/9/2010 2:21 PM Res=
Figure F-2. Comparison of Polymer ATR Spectra in Middle of Coating
-------
OJ
to
3000
1500
z;cc 2000
File # 3 = S4MPIPEL(5) Wavenumber (cm-1}
Sample 1A pipe surface, middle of cross section, and surface away from pipe
Figure F-3. Sample 1A Pipe Surface, Middle of Cross Section, and Surface Away from Pipe
1000 ecc
11/4/2010 6:23 PM Res=S
-------
OJ
OJ
120-
110-
100-
EO
4000 3500
Fite#1 = S8NPIPEL(1>
:ccc
2EOO
2000
Wavenumber (cm-1}
15CC
1000 EDO
11/SC010 3:54 PM Res=8
Sample 1B pipe surface, middle of cross section, and surface away from pipe
Figure F-4. Sample IB Pipe Surface, Middle of Cross Section, and Surface Away from Pipe
-------
100-
1500
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000
Fite# 3 = SSNPIPEL(15) Wavenumber (cm-1)
Sample 2A pipe surface, middle of cross section, and surface away from pipe
Figure F-5. Sample 2A Pipe Surface, Middle of Cross Section, and Surface Away from Pipe
1000 500
11/8/2010 5:15 Pl,1 Res=S
-------
110-
100-
1500
4000 3500 :CCC 2500 2000
File # 1 = S9NPIPEL[1) Wavenumber (cm-1)
Sample 2B pipe surface, middle of cross section, and surface away from pipe
Figure F-6. Sample 2B Pipe Surface, Middle of Cross Section, and Surface Away from Pipe
1000 EDO
11/9/2010 2:03 PM Res=B
-------
3C
4000 3500 3000 2ECC 2000
Fife # 2 = S9NPIPEL(11) Wavenumber (cm-1)
Sample 3A pipe surface, middle of cross section, and surface away from pipe
1EOO
1000 500
11/9/2010 3:20 PM Res=S
Figure F-7. Sample 3A Pipe Surface, Middle of Cross Section, and Surface Away from Pipe
-------
ICC
3000 2500 2000
File # 3 = S9NPIPEL(19) Wavenumber (cm-1;
Sample 3C pipe surface, middle of cross section, and surface away from pipe
1500
1CCC 500
11/9/2010 5:39PM Res=S
Figure F-8. Sample 3C Pipe Surface, Middle of Cross Section, and Surface Away from Pipe
-------
OJ
oo
25CC 2000
Wavenumber(cm-1}
4000 3500
File* 2 = SSNPIPEL(17)
Comparison of the interior surface of blisters
Figure F-9. Comparison of the Interior Surface of Blisters
1500
1000 EDO
1 US/2010 E:«PM Res=B
-------
95
90
85
80
75
70
sample 1A, surface toward pipe in depression area
sample 1A inner surface in depression
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000
File # 3 : S4NPIPEL(1) Wavenumber (cm-1)
Comparison of transmission spectrum of #24 control with ATR corrected 1A spectra
1500
1000 500
11/4/2010 5:55 PM Res=8
Figure F-10. Comparison of Transmission Spectrum of Control with ATR Corrected 1A Spectra
-------
§
CO
.a
1-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0-
-0.4-
-0.6-
-0.8-
-1-
- HM #9168; POLY(UREA URETHANE) WITH PHTHALIMIDE SIDE GROUPS
- Control sample (dogbone "24"): G825958-AMA
4000
3500
3000 2500 2000
cm-1
o o
-N—U-N—|—CH2-CH2-N—U-O-CH2-CH2
H °«Ji--N--^^0 H
1500
1000
500
wavenum
532
640
724
776
876
1088
1172
1248
1328
1360
1468
1544
1712
1776
2944
3384
leight (%
17.43
14.33
39.61
9.67
8.04
24.50
19.25
43.76
37.58
42.14
26.80
50.31
100
36.47
11.17
28.65
Name
Name
Source of Sample
Technique
Formula
Comments
Synonyms
Classification
Value
POLY(UREA URETHANE) WITH
PHTHALIMIDE SIDE GROUPS
C.-P. Yang, Department of Chemical
Engineering, Tatung Institute of
Technology, Taipei, Taiwan
KBr (1/350)
C.15.H.16.N.4.O.5.
Method Of Synthesis- polycondensation
ofN-(l,3-diisocyanato-l-
propyl)phthalimide with ethanolamine in
dimethyl sulfoxide in the presence of Sn-
powder
POLY[OXYCARBONYLIMINO-(3-
POLYURETHANE AND URETHANE
PREPOLYMERS
Figure F-ll. Comparison of Control Samples with HM #9168 Poly(urea urethane)
140
-------
co
£2
&_
O
1-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0-
-0.2-
-0.4-
-0.6-
-0.8-
-1-
- HL #347; Urea
- Control sample (dogbone "24"): G825958
4000
3500
3000
2500
O
2000
1500
1000
500
cm-1
H2N NH2
Name
Name
Technique
Melting Point
Mol.Weight
CAS Registry Number
Formula
Purity
Value
Urea
KBr-
PelletSpectrometer= Bruker IPS 85
405C
60.03
57-13-6
CH4N2O
>99%
Figure F-12. Comparison of Control Samples with HL #347 Urea
141
-------
APPENDIX G: FIELD TRIAL OF NEW FORMULATION
G.I
Background
In the 8 months since the demonstration in Somerville, NJ, 3M has developed a new formulation known
as 3M™ Scotchkote™ Pipe Renewal Liner 2400 and conducted laboratory and field trials for this new
product. The first pilot project for the new formulation was conducted in Bar Harbor, ME in June 2011
and is described below. Material properties and specifications for the new formulation are included in
Tables G-l and G-2 (3M, 201 la, 201 Ib, 201 Ic).
Table G-l. Material Properties of Renewal Liner 2400
Property
Tensile Strength at Break
Tensile Elongation
Flexural Strength
Flexural Modulus
Burst Pressure 6 in. Lining (3.5 mm thick)
Hardness
Impact Resistance 120 mil (1.7 mm thick)
Abrasion Resistance
Glass Transition Temperature (Tg)
Standard
ASTM D638
ASTM D638
ASTM D790
ASTM D790
ASTMD1599
ASTM D2240
ASTM D2794
ASTM D4060
ASTM D7028
Value
39MPa
5%
58MPa
3,620 MPa
205 psi
87 Shore D
17 Joules
193 milligram loss/ 1000 cycles
205°F (96°C)
Table G-2. Summary of Specifications for Renewal Liner 2400
Parameter
Base Component
Activator Component
Diameter of Pipe
Storage Sealed Container
Mix Ratio By Volume
Mix Ratio By Weight
Cure Time (CCTV)
Total Cure Time
Thickness Range
Description/Specification
Off White Thixotropic Liquid
Black Thixotropic Liquid
4 in. to 24 in. (100 to 610 mm)
40°F to 90°F (5°C to 32°C)
1:1
100 (Base): 123.1 (Activator)
10 minutes (at 68°F)
60 minutes (at 68°F)
3.5 mm to 8.5 mm
G.2
Bar Harbor, Maine Pilot Project
The pilot project for the new formulation called Scotchkote™ Pipe Renewal Liner 2400 was conducted
between June 6-10, 2011 in Bar Harbor, ME. The test section consisted of 6 in. cast iron with three lining
runs of approximately 550 ft, 320 ft, and 180 ft, respectively. The sections were cleaned on Tuesday,
June 7th and lining began on section #1 (550 ft) on Wednesday, June 8th. The installation process was
identical to the one used in Somerville and the lining of section # 1 took place in 1 hour 40 minutes (6.1
ft/min). Post-installation CCTV inspection showed a finished surface with a light gray color. This
section did have locations that were not lined properly due to water damage. The city believed that
groundwater entered into the main after the final pre-lining CCTV through a damaged abandoned service.
142
-------
This section required removal and replacement with a new piece of pipe (see Figure G-l). Field applied
material samples were not made available at the time of installation, so the material properties were not
independently verified by the research team in order to compare to the vendor specifications in Table G-l.
Figure G-l. End Section #1 (left) and Water Damaged Section (right)
CCTV videos of section #3 (180 ft) were reviewed and, as in Somerville, the first half of the section
showed little ridging, while the second half showed more ridging (Figure G-2).
16:50 06.09.11 LCI: 016.70ft 1&52 06.09.11 LC1: -082.70ft
Figure G-2. Half Without Ridging (left) and Half With Ridging (right)
Another potential defect visible from the CCTV video was the shadow effect near the two services on
section #3. Both services were missing small amounts of material near the services connections as shown
in Figure G-3.
143
-------
Figure G-3. Two Services Showing Missing Material on Section #3
Also, there were several locations throughout the section where clumps of solid product formed along the
invert of the pipe (Figure G-4). The cause of this potential defect is not known and 3M is working to
determine the cause and if the clumps of material have an adverse effect on the lining.
Figure G-4. Clumping of Solid Material Along the Invert
G.3
Summary
A pilot project of 3M's Scotchkote™ Pipe Renewal Liner 2400 was conducted in Bar Harbor, ME in
early June 2011. Visual observations from the field and CCTV videos showed potential defects of
ridging and shadowing. Also, a portion of one section had to be replaced due to water damage. However,
this was not believed to be a deficiency in the material, but an installation error due to water flowing into
the pipe after final cleaning and inspection. The material specification data reported in Table G-l was
provided by the manufacturer and has not been independently verified by the authors of this report.
144
------- |