&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Performance Evaluation
of Innovative Water Main
Rehabilitation Cured-in-Place Pipe
Lining Product in Cleveland, Ohio
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory -Water Supply and Water Resources Division
-------
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF INNOVATIVE WATER MAIN REHABILITATION
CURED-IN-PLACE PIPE LINING PRODUCT IN CLEVELAND, OH
by
John Matthews, Ph.D., Wendy Condit, P.E., Ryan Wensink, and Gary Lewis
Battelle Memorial Institute
EPA 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 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
Some utilities are seeking emerging and innovative rehabilitation technologies to extend the service life of
and repair a greater portion of their infrastructure systems. However, information on new technologies is
not always readily available and easy to obtain. To help provide this information, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) developed an innovative technology demonstration program to evaluate
technologies that have the potential to increase the effectiveness of the operation, maintenance, and
renewal of aging water distribution and wastewater conveyance systems and reduce costs. This program
also could be used to make the technologies' capabilities better known to the industry. This report
describes the performance evaluation of a Sanexen Aqua-Pipe® cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) lining product
for water main rehabilitation that was demonstrated in Cleveland, Ohio.
The demonstration approach began by developing a demonstration protocol to provide a consistent
approach for conducting the project by outlining the approach to plan, coordinate, and perform the
demonstration. Specific metrics evaluated under this program included 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 which
was the use of a structural CIPP lining, which has potential as a structural alternative to traditional open-
cut techniques used in water distribution pipes.
The CIPP lining demonstration was completed over the course of a week on seven lining runs spanning a
total of 1,996 ft of 6 in. cast iron water main and each lining run passed post-installation pressure testing.
A total of 17 of the 63 service connections (27%) had to be reinstated externally due to connections that
were flush, located in folds, blocked, deformed during cleaning, or misaligned with the corporation stops.
The evaluation metrics showed that the technology is innovative since it has been used at little more than
20 sites in the U.S. with several utilities expressing their willingness to use the technology in the future.
The technology met the project rehabilitation requirements and is considered to be beneficial for small,
medium, and large utilities in need of structural alternatives to replacement. The project lasted 10 weeks:
two weeks for bypass/excavation; seven weeks for pipe preparation, liner installation, and reconnection
with the pipe out of service; and one week for site restoration.
For the service connections, 5% (3 of 63) of the services were reinstated externally due to common issues
and another 22% (14 of 63) had to be reinstated externally due to events the manufacturer has rarely
encountered. The liner exceeded the requirements of ASTM F-1216, performed in a manner consistent
with a fully-structural Class IV CIPP liner, and improved the Hazen-Williams C-factor by nearly 43%
from 78.5 to 112.1. The overall demonstration cost was $505,687 for a unit cost of $247.89/liner foot (If)
and the CIPP portion of the project accounted for $374,000 of the total cost for a unit cost of $187.38/lf.
An estimated 52,880 pounds (Ib) of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for on-site operations could have
been reduced to 37,600 Ib if the lining crew had not mobilized from 600 miles away. A similar
replacement project would emit 77,360 Ib of CO2 for on-site operations and transportation and up to 6
times more CO2 when considering material production emissions.
The demonstration of the Sanexen Aqua-Pipe® CIPP liner in Cleveland was a successful project providing
valuable information on the design, installation, and QA/QC of CIPP used to rehabilitate water mains, but
continued improvements should be made in the process for internal reinstatement of services. The project
successfully demonstrated an innovative Class IV rehabilitation technology that met the owner's
expectations and multiple utilities expressed their willingness to use the technology again. It is
recommended that the cleaning process be standardized, and other issues contributing to the need for
external reinstatement be studied and improved upon including: flush service connections that cannot be
identified in smaller diameter pipes; and difficulty drilling service connections located in folds.
-------
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 the City of Cleveland Water Division, Water Utility Technical Lead Greg
Sattler. Cooperation from the Aqua-Pipe® developer Sanexen was also important for this project and the
authors would like to thank Michael Davison, Valerie Belisle, and the field crew for their assistance and
work throughout this project. Key contributors from the TTC include: Dr. Erez Allouche, Shaurav Alam,
and Jadranka Simicevic for the experimental work; Ben Curry for assisting in field activities; and Dr. Ray
Sterling for serving as a technical reviewer. The authors would like to thank the stakeholder group
members (Greg Sattler of City of Cleveland, Walter Graf of Water Environment Research foundation, and
David Hughes of American Water) for providing written comments.
in
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Some utilities are seeking emerging and innovative rehabilitation technologies to extend the service life of
and repair a greater portion of their infrastructure systems. However, information on new technologies is
not always readily available and easy to obtain. To help provide this information, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) developed an innovative technology demonstration program to evaluate
technologies that have the potential to increase the effectiveness of the operation, maintenance, and
renewal of aging water distribution and wastewater conveyance systems and reduce costs. This program
could be used to make the technologies' capabilities better known to the industry. This report describes
the performance evaluation of a structural cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) lining product for water main
rehabilitation that was demonstrated in Cleveland, Ohio.
Demonstration Approach
A protocol was developed to provide a consistent approach for conducting the project by outlining the
approach to plan, coordinate, and perform the demonstration. Execution of the protocol records the use
and provides an assessment of the technology, while also providing 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 structural CIPP lining, which
has potential as a structural alternative to traditional open-cut techniques used in water distribution pipes.
This report outlines the demonstration of Sanexen's Aqua-Pipe® CIPP product in Cleveland, Ohio for the
City of Cleveland Water Division. CIPP was developed for the wastewater rehabilitation industry more
than 40 years ago, but over the past 10 years it has started to emerge as an alternative for water main
rehabilitation. This field demonstration allowed for an evaluation of the main benefits claimed and
limitations cited by Sanexen for this innovative CIPP 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 Sanexen and
the City of Cleveland Water Division to conduct the demonstration as part of a project that had already
been scheduled between the two parties.
CIPP Lining Demonstration
Site preparation activities included: bypass installation; excavation of access pits; collection of soil and
water samples; baseline hydraulic testing; cutting the test pipe; cleaning and drying of the test pipe;
placement of defect pipe segments; and service plugging and pre-lining closed-circuit television (CCTV)
inspection. Pipe wall thickness and diameter measurements were also taken prior to rehabilitation.
The CIPP lining demonstration was completed over the course of a week on seven lining runs spanning a
total of 1,996 ft of 6 in. cast iron water main and each lining run passed post-installation pressure testing.
A total of 17 of the 63 service connections (27%) had to be reinstated externally due to connections that
were flush, located in folds, blocked, deformed during cleaning, or misaligned with the corporation stops.
IV
-------
Demonstration Results
The evaluation metrics showed that the technology is innovative since it has been used at little more than
20 sites in the U.S. with several utilities expressing their willingness to use the technology in the future.
The outcome of the technology evaluation is described in the technology evaluation metrics listed below:
Technology Maturity Metric
• Innovative technology used at less than 30 sites in the U.S.
• Improvement over traditional rehabilitation using cement mortar lining (Class IV versus Class I).
• Some data available, but long-term tests are ongoing and the method track record spans 10 years.
• Each utility owner contacted cited positive results and willingness to use the product again.
Technology Feasibility Metric
• Project required a structural rehabilitation and the technology met the rehabilitation requirements.
• Liner was not installed through any valves or fittings and the runs were without any major bends.
• Incomplete and/or premature curing of the liner was not evident during installation or inspection.
Technology Complexity Metric
• Beneficial for small, medium, and large utilities in need of structural alternatives to replacement.
• Requires trained installers. Pre- and post-activities can be performed with typical personnel.
• Site preparation requirements are similar to other rehabilitation technology requirements.
• The project lasted 10 weeks: two weeks for bypass/excavation, seven weeks for pipe preparation,
liner installation, and reconnection with the pipe out of service, and one week for site restoration.
• 5% (3 of 63) of the services were reinstated externally due to common issues and another 22%
(14 of 63) had to be reinstated externally due to events the manufacturer has rarely encountered.
Technology Performance Metric
• The liner exceeded the requirements of ASTM F-1216.
• Performed in a manner consistent with a fully-structural Class IV CIPP liner.
• Hazen-Williams C-factor was improved by nearly 43% from 78.5 to 112.1.
Technology Cost Metric
• The overall demonstration cost $505,687 for a unit cost of $247.89/liner foot (If).
• CIPP portion of the project accounted for $374,000 of the total cost for a unit cost of $187.38/lf.
Technology Environmental and Social Metrics
• Social disruption was minimal since traffic was not greatly affected and excavation was limited.
• Flush volume required for bypass, jetting, and scraping estimated to be 272,600 gallons (gal).
• Estimated 52,880 pounds (Ib) of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for on-site operations could
have been reduced to 37,600 Ib if the lining crew had not mobilized from 600 miles away.
• A similar replacement project would emit 77,360 Ib of CO2 for on-site operations and
transportation and up to 6 times more CO2 when considering material production emissions.
• If only 5% of the services were reinstated externally, the CO2 impact from the equipment used for
site restoration could have been reduced by 50%, an additional 9,480 Ib of CO2 emissions.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The demonstration of the Sanexen Aqua-Pipe® CIPP liner in Cleveland was a successful project providing
valuable information on the design, installation, and QA/QC of CIPP used to rehabilitate water mains, but
continued improvements should be made in the process for internal reinstatement of services. The project
successfully demonstrated an innovative Class IV rehabilitation technology that met the owner's
-------
expectations and multiple utilities expressed their willingness to use the technology again. It is
recommended that the cleaning process be standardized, and other issues contributing to the need for
external reinstatement be studied and improved upon including: flush service connections that cannot be
identified in smaller diameter pipes; and difficulty drilling service connections located in folds.
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER /
ABSTRACT //
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Hi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iV
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
FIGURES ix
TABLES x
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS x/i
1.0: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project Background 1
1.2 Project Objective 2
1.3 Report Outline 2
2.0; DEMONSTRATION APPROACH 3
2.1 Demonstration Protocol Overview 3
2.2 Technology Selection Approach 5
2.2.1 Overview of Innovative Water Main Rehabilitation Technologies 7
2.2.2 Overview of CIPP Water Pipe Rehabilitation 9
2.2.3 Technology Description 10
2.2.4 Design Approach for Structural CIPP Liners 13
2.2.5 Installation of CIPP Liners 15
2.2.6 QA/QC Requirements for CIPP Liners 16
2.2.7 Operation and Maintenance for CIPP Liners 17
2.3 Site Selection Approach 18
2.3.1 Site Selection Factors 18
2.3.2 Site Description 19
2.3.3 Physical/Operating Characteristics of the Test Pipe 22
3.0: CIPP DEMONSTRATION 25
3.1 Site Preparation 25
3.1.1 Safety and Logistics 25
3.1.2 Installation of Bypass 26
3.1.3 Excavation Pits and Pipe Access 26
3.1.3.1 Soil Sampling 28
3.1.3.2 Water Sampling 31
3.1.4 Hydraulic Testing 34
3.1.4.1 Leak Detection Survey 34
3.1.4.2 Friction Factor Test 34
3.1.5 Cleaning and Drying of Pipe 35
3.1.6 Defect Installation 38
3.1.6.1 Lab-Prepared Defect Pipe Segment 38
3.1.6.2 Field-Prepared Defect Pipe Segment 39
3.1.7 Service Plugging and Pipe Inspection 40
vii
-------
3.1.7.1 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #1 41
3.1.7.2 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #2 43
3.1.7.3 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #3 44
3.1.7.4 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #4 45
3.1.7.5 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #5 46
3.1.7.6 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #6 47
3.1.7.7 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #7 47
3.1.8 Pipe Wall Thickness and Inner Diameter 48
3.2 Technology Application 48
3.2.1 Technology Application Equipment and Process 49
3.2.2 CIPP Liner Installation 51
3.2.3 Post-Installation Pressure Test 51
3.2.4 Reinstatement of Service Connections 51
3.2.4.1 Internal Reinstatement 52
3.2.4.2 External Reinstatement 52
3.3 Post-Demonstration Field Verification 53
3.3.1 Post-Lining CCTV 53
3.3.1.1 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #1 53
3.3.1.2 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #2 54
3.3.1.3 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #3 55
3.3.1.4 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #4 55
3.3.1.5 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #5 56
3.3.1.6 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #6 57
3.3.1.7 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #7 57
3.3.2 Lining Thickness 58
3.4 Defect Sample Collection 59
3.4.1 Lab-Prepared Defect Pipe Segment 59
3.4.2 Field-Prepared Defect Pipe Segment 60
3.4.3 Sampling Logistics 60
3.5 Site Restoration 60
3.5.1 Disinfection 60
3.5.2 Reconnecting the Test Pipe 60
3.5.3 Backfilling and Site Restoration 61
3.6 Post-Rehabilitation Friction Factor Test 61
4.0: DEMONSTRATION RESULTS 62
4.1 Technology Maturity 62
4.2 Technology Feasibility 63
4.3 Technology Complexity 64
4.3.1 Training and Preparation Requirements 64
4.3.2 Labor and Time Requirements 64
4.3.3 Process Evaluation 65
4.4 Technology Performance 65
4.4.1 Liner Thickness 66
4.4.2 Liner Ovality 67
4.4.3 Tensile Testing 68
4.4.4 Flexural Testing 69
4.4.5 Hardness Testing 71
4.4.6 Negative Pressure Testing 74
viii
-------
4.4.7 Short-Term Pressure Testing 77
4.4.8 Specific Gravity 80
4.4.9 Pressure Burst Testing 80
4.4.10 Raman Spectroscopy Testing 80
4.4.11 Summary 81
4.5 Technology Cost 82
4.6 Technology Environmental and Social Impact 82
5.0: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 86
5.1 Conclusions 86
5.2 Recommendations 87
6.0: REFERENCES 88
APPENDIX A 92
CCTVLOGS 92
APPENDIX B 8
BURSTING TESTS 8
Summary 1
Appendix A: CCTVLOGS
Appendix B: BURSTING TESTS
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. Aqua-Pipe Cross-Section 12
Figure 2-4. Map of Cuyahoga County Showing the Location of the City of Cleveland 20
Figure 2-5. Map of the City of Cleveland Depicting the Approximate Demonstration Area 23
Figure 3-1. Access Pit Plated 25
Figure 3-2. Heat Fusion Welder (left) and 4 in. HOPE Pipe With Service Connection (right) 26
Figure 3-3. Pit Excavation Activities 27
Figure 3-4. Site Layout and Pit Locations 28
Figure 3-5. Vertical Distribution af Soil Sample Locations 29
Figure 3-6. Hydrant #1 (left) and Flow Hydrant (right) 35
Figure 3-7. Inside of theTuberculated Test Pipe 36
Figure 3-8. Hydraulic Jetting Truck (left) and Jetting Hose (right) 36
Figure 3-9. Truck Utilized for Wastewater Filtration 37
Figure 3-10. Cleaning Winch Truck 37
Figure 3-11. Steel Scrapers (left) and Rubber Squeegees (right) 38
Figure 3-12. Foam Pig (left) and Blower (right) 38
Figure 3-13. Installation of Pre-Fabricated Defect Pipe Segment 39
Figure 3-14. Field-Prepared Defect Section 40
Figure 3-16. Cctv Truck (left) and Robot (right) 41
Figure 3-17. Typical 5/8 in. Penetrating Service (left) and a Slightly Penetrating Service (right) 42
Figure 3-18. Crack Circling the Pipe around 1 in. Flush Service Connection 42
Figure 3-19. Shifted Joint at 71.6 m from Pit #2 43
Figure 3-20. Deep Corrosion at 60.9 m from Pit #2 44
-------
Figure 3-21. 1 In. Hole at 77.7 m from Pit #3 45
Figure 3-22. 1 In. Hole at 77.7 m from Pit #3 46
Figure 3-23. Small Protrusion of Metal at 81.3 m from Pit #6 47
Figure 3-24. Impregnated Liner Being Pulled Through Dual Rollers (left) and Winch Truck (right) 49
Figure 3-25. Roller Attached to the Truck (left) and Roller Attached to the Main (right) 49
Figure 3-26. Buffer Used to Clean Ends (left) and Addition of Resin at the Ends (right) 50
Figure 3-27. Launcher Attached to the Liner (left) and to Water via the Boiler Truck (right) 50
Figure 3-28. Boiler Truck Reservoirs (left) and Boiler Tank (right) 51
Figure 3-29. Internal Reinstatement of a Service Connection 52
Figure 3-30. Service Reinstated Internally (left) and Blocked (right) 54
Figure 3-31. Typical Fold at 10:00 (left) and Folds at a Shifted Joint (right) 54
Figure 3-32. Service Located in a Fold 56
Figure 3-33. Multiple Folds (left) and a Circumferential Fold (right) 58
Figure 3-34. Exhumation of Lab-Prepared Defect Section 59
Figure 3-35. Exhumation of Field-Prepared Defect Section 60
Figure 3-36. Valve Being Replaced (left) and Installation of a New Hydrant (right) 61
Figure 4-1. Exhumed Defected Sample 64
Figure 4-2. Location of Thickness Specimens (left) and Measuring With a Digital Caliper (right) 66
Figure 4-3. Measuring Ovality Before Buckling Test (left) and After Buckling (right) 67
Figure 4-4. Ovality of Host Pipe (Red), Liner Before Buckling (Green), and after Buckling (Blue) 67
Figure 4-5. Samples for Tensile Test (left) and Testing Machine (right) 68
Figure 4-6. Stress-Strain Curves from Tensile Testing 69
Figure 4-7. Samples Prepared for Bending Test (left) and Bending Test (right) 69
Figure 4-8. Stress Vs. Strain Curves 70
Figure 4-9. Specimen for Shore D Hardness Test (left) and a Shore D Hardness Tester (right) 71
Figure 4-10. Shore D Hardness of the Liner at the Crown 71
Figure 4-11. Shore D Hardness of the Liner at the Springline 72
Figure 4-12. Shore D Hardness of the Liner at the Invert 72
Figure 4-13. Hand-Held Portable Barcol Hardness Tester (left) and Taking Measurements (right) 72
Figure 4-14. Barcol Hardness of the Liner at the Crown 73
Figure 4-15. Barcol Hardness of the Liner at the Springline 73
Figure 4-16. Barcol Hardness of the Liner at the Invert 74
Figure 4-17. Exhumed Sample Showing Resin that has Leached Out 74
Figure 4-18. Breaking the Host Pipe (left) and Cutting the Liner Specimen (right) 75
Figure 4-19. Specimen With a Cap on one Side (left) and the with Caps on both Sides (right) 75
Figure 4-20. Complete Experimental Setup 76
Figure 4-21. Deflection Readings during the Vacuum Test 76
Figure 4-22. Buckling Test: Close-Up of Quick Connector (left) and Both Quick Connectors (right) 77
Figure 4-23. Resin Inside the Cap (left) and the Host Pipe and Liner Placed on the Cap (right) 77
Figure 4-24. Pouring Resin to Attach the Cap to the Host Pipe 78
Figure 4-25. Leak Test (left) and Adding Green Coloring to the Water (right) 78
Figure 4-26. Bleeding out of the Air (left) and Purging the Line (right) 79
Figure 4-27. 20 PSI Pressure (left) and No Signs of Distress (right) 79
Figure 4-28. 60 PSI Pressure (left) and No Signs of Distress (right) 79
Figure 4-29. 140 PSI Pressure (left) and No Signs of Distress (right) 80
Figure 4-30. Specific Gravity of the Samples 80
Figure 4-31. Results of Raman Spectroscopy Testing 81
Figure 4-32. Transport Vehicles Required Each Day During Bypass Installation 83
Figure 4-33. Results from E-Calc Showing Impact of Transport Vehicles 83
Figure 4-34. Equipment Required for Bypass Installation 83
TABLES
-------
Table 2-1. Technology Metrics Used for Evaluation 4
Table 2-2. Summary of Innovative Water Main Rehabilitation Technologies 9
Table 2-3. Physical Properties of Aqua-Pipe" 13
Table 2-4. Typical Design Parameters 15
Table 2-5. Summary of Potential Installation Issues for CIPP Liners 17
Table 2-6. Typical Water Quality Information for Cleveland 20
Table 2-7. Summary of Historical, Operational, and Environmental Characteristics of Test Pipe 24
Table 3-1. Summary of Pit Dimensions and Volume of Soil Removed 27
Table 3-2. Distances of Each Lining Run 27
Table 3-3. Summary of Soil Sample Analytical Testing 30
Table 3-4. Soil Sampling Results 30
Table 3-5. Water Sampling Results 31
Table 3-6. Pre-Rehabilitation 'C-Factor' Results 35
Table 3-7. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #1 41
Table 3-8. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #2 43
Table 3-9. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #3 44
Table 3-10. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #4 45
Table 3-11. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #5 46
Table 3-12. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #6 47
Table 3-13. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #7 48
Table 3-14. Wall Thickness and Inside Diameter Measurements 48
Table 3-17. Pressure Testing Results 51
Table 3-18. Summary of Service Reinstatement Methods 53
Table 3-19. Post-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #1 53
Table 3-20. Post-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #2 55
Table 3-21. Post-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #3 55
Table 3-22. Post-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #4 56
Table 3-23. Post-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #5 57
Table 3-24. Post-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #6 57
Table 3-25. Post-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #7 58
Table 3-26. Thickness Measurements of CIPP Liner 59
Table 3-6. Pre-Rehabilitation 'C-Factor' Results 61
Table 4-1. Estimate of Time and Labor Requirements for Major Activities 65
Table 4-2. Summary of Thickness Measurements 66
Table 4-3. Results from Tensile Testing (Longitudinal Direction) 68
Table 4-4. Specimens Used for Bending Testing 69
Table 4-5. Test Result of Bending Test on the Ring Sample 70
Table 4-6. Buckling Test Protocol 78
Table 4-7. Summary of Test Data for Aqua-Pipe Cipp Liner 81
Table 4-8. Cost Summary for Cleveland Demonstration 82
Table 4-9. Estimated Wastewater Volumes 82
Table 4-10. Total Co2 Emissions for Each Major Activity 84
Table 4-11. Equipment Specifications 84
Table 5-1. Technology Evaluation Metrics Conclusions 86
XI
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AWWA American Water Works Association
BNQ Bureau de Normalisation du Quebec
BPA bisphenol-A
BRL below reporting limit
C Hazen-Williams Coefficient of Roughness
CCTV closed circuit television
CIPP cured-in-place pipe
CO2 carbon dioxide
COC contaminant of concern
CWD Cleveland Water Division
CWS Charleston Water System
DDC Department of Design and Construction
EIA Energy Information Administration
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ER external reinstatement
gal gallons
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HDD horizontal directional drilling
HOPE high density polyethylene
I/I infiltration and inflow
IR internal reinstatement
ISTT International Society for Trenchless Technology
Ib pounds
If linear foot
LVDT linear variable displacement transducer
L/hr liter/hour
MCL maximum contaminant level
MGD million gallons per day
mm millimeters
MUD Metropolitan Utilities District
NASTT North American Society for Trenchless Technology
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSF National Sanitation Foundation
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
O&M operation and maintenance
xn
-------
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
ppm parts per million
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC quality control
TC Terrace Construction
TDS total dissolved solid
TO Task Order
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solid
TTC Trenchless Technology Center
UTM universal testing machine
VOC volatile organic compound
WRAS Water Regulations Advisory Scheme
xin
-------
1.0: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
As part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (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,
maintenance, and renewal of aging drinking water distribution and wastewater conveyance systems (EPA,
2007). 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 as part of
this research. This research includes field demonstration studies of emerging and innovative
rehabilitation technologies, which is intended to make the capability of these technologies better known to
the water and wastewater industry, allowing their applications to be promoted in the U.S.
Although 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 still inadequate to keep pace with increasing
needs, quality demands, and continually deteriorating systems (EPA, 2009). There is substantial room for
improvement in existing technologies and for the development of new technologies, offering
opportunities to make more effective investments in renewal. Many utilities are seeking improved
rehabilitation technologies to extend the service life of their assets 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. This critical gap was identified by stakeholders participated in the
Workshop hosted by the EPA on Innovation and Research for Water Infrastructure for the 21st Century
(EPA, 2006). The lack of knowledge on the performance of innovative technologies and the limited
ability to determine the most cost-effective, long-term rehabilitation methods for water distribution and
wastewater collection systems was identified as a key area of needed research (EPA, 2007).
Several innovative and emerging 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, New Jersey in September 2008 (EPA, 2009). It is known that
well documented 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 to these various groups 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
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
-------
This report provides impartial third-party assessment of the effectiveness, longevity, expected range of
applications, and life-cycle cost of the demonstrated technology to assist utilities in better decision
making on whether rehabilitation or replacement is more cost effective and in selecting rehabilitation
technologies for use. The demonstration described in this report resulted in the successful installation of a
Class IV structural cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner on 1,996 ft of 6 in. cast iron water main in Cleveland,
Ohio. This report discusses the activities involved with liner installation, which includes pre-installation
activities such as bypass construction, access pit excavation, and hydraulic testing; installation activities
such as service capping, CIPP pull-in and curing, and service reinstatement; and post-installation
activities such as liner pressure testing, laboratory testing, and site restoration. This report also conducts a
full product evaluation based on the demonstration results and recommendations to study important issues
such as the need for open-cut replacement of some difficult services to help fully understand this
technology more.
1.2 Project Objective
The report is intended to meet the following objectives:
• Provide the framework, protocols, metrics, and site selection criteria for selection of rehabilitation
technologies for subsequent field demonstrations.
• Evaluate, under field conditions, the performance and cost of an innovative, structural, CIPP
lining technology used to rehabilitate a 6 in. cast iron water distribution main in Cleveland, Ohio.
• Discuss the results of the demonstration and make recommendations as to what other areas
relating to the product should be examined further.
The report describes data collection, analyses, and project documentation associated with the second 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
Discussion of the demonstration program approach including an innovative rehabilitation technology
overview and the technology selection approach.
3.0: CIPP Demonstration
Documentation of the field demonstration including site preparation, pipe cleaning and liner
installation, QA/QC procedures, sample collection, and site restoration.
4.0: Demonstration Results
Discussion of the demonstration results and assessment of the technology based on comparison with
the outlined evaluation metrics.
5.0: Conclusions and Recommendations
Summary of the demonstration including execution of demonstration protocol and effectiveness of
the demonstrated technology, and recommendations for areas needing further examination.
-------
2.0: DEMONSTRATION APPROACH
This section outlines the overall approach of the field demonstration protocol, technology selection, and
site selection for the field demonstration of emerging and innovative rehabilitation technologies. The
overall approach is outlined to provide consistency and guiding principles for conducting and
documenting field demonstrations of water main rehabilitation technologies in a manner that will
encourage acceptance of the test results by water utilities.
2.1 Demonstration Protocol Overview
The demonstration of emerging and innovative technologies requires explicit and repeatable testing
criteria if the technologies are to be understood and approved. A protocol was developed to provide a
consistent approach and a guide for conducting demonstrations in a manner that encourages acceptance of
the outcomes and results by water utilities. The demonstration protocol addressed issues involved in
gaining the approval for the use of innovative and emerging technologies by:
• Integrating user input from the International Technology Forum 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 vendors.
• Sharing information about innovative technologies among peer user groups.
• Supporting utilities and technology developers in bringing a new product to a geographically and
organizationally diverse market.
A QAPP was developed, 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, structural CIPP lining for water main rehabilitation.
The QAPP described the overall objectives and approach to the EPA's 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 demonstration protocol was executed 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 Cleveland Water Division (CWD) for the demonstration;
• Secured a commitment from Aqua-Pipe®/Sanexen to perform the demonstration;
• Documented and conducted the field demonstration as outlined in the demonstration protocol;
• Processed and analyzed the results of the field demonstration; and
• Prepared a report, peer-reviewed article, and presentation summarizing the results.
This demonstration report not only records the use of the CIPP 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, the technical and QA/QC
procedures specified in the QAPP were followed closely unless otherwise stated. Any procedure that was
not followed and the reason why is noted in the remaining sections. Special aspects of the EPA
demonstration program which were aimed at adding value to the water 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.
• 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.
• 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 is scarce and needed. Life-cycle data would enable
decision makers to make fully informed cost-benefit decisions. The demonstration project lays
the groundwork for assisting utilities in developing life-cycle plans for the ongoing evaluation of
rehabilitation technology performance. 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 were 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.
-------
Table 2-1. Technology Metrics Used for Evaluation (Continued)
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, and 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, pre- and post-installation and maintenance requirements.
• 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 a micro-annulus, air voids,
coating holidays, longitudinal folds, and blisters.
• Ability to achieve rehabilitation design specifications such as: a) infiltration/inflow (I/I) reduction; b) achieving
design flexural and tensile strengths based on laboratory testing of coupon samples; and c) 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.
Technology Cost Metrics
• Document costs for conducting the technology demonstration, including design, capital, and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs and calculating a unit cost estimate.
• Evaluate overall level of social disruption (an estimate of social costs is highly site specific and beyond the
scope of the demonstration project).
Technology, Environmental, and Social Metrics
• Assess utilization of chemicals or waste byproducts that have an unintended impact on the environment or water
quality (e.g., the use of bisphenol-A [BPA] in epoxies or styrene in CIPP resins).
• 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 and emerging 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 based
on the research conducted under TO 58 and stakeholder input. 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 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) will ultimately drive technology
selection. 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. Examples include evaluating claims of I/I reduction, sanitary sewer
overflow/combined sewer overflow reduction, 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). 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 Main Rehabilitation Technologies. Through the course of
the research efforts of TO 58, 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).
Q>
O)
05
2
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
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 and therefore degradation of the infrastructure. This means that unless a more
aggressive rehabilitation program is adopted by water utilities, communities are going to be hit with
significantly increasing repair costs in the near future. Water rates have historically been set at levels that
do not truly reflect the value of this precious 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). There are seven key technical challenges for water main rehabilitation
identified as part of the TO 58 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 is
important (American Waterworks Association [AWWA], 2004).
• Limited inspection options. Effective inspection and condition assessment of water pipe is
generally difficult or extremely 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. Leadership in the area of design standards development
for trenchless replacement technologies for water mains has been slow to evolve in North
America. 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" organic polymers that can provide semi-
structural benefits to support the operation of deteriorated pipelines. There is a need to streamline
the product approval process as National Sanitation Foundation (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 favorably 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 indentified by the research team which meet the six
general technology selection criteria, meet the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/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
Aqua-Pipe®/
Sanexen
AquaLiner/
AquaLiner Ltd.
InsituMain1M/
Insituform
NordiPipe1M/
Norditube
Sekisui
Scotchkote™ 2697
3M™
Market Date/
Status/Size
2000 in
Canada;
2005 in U.S./
Innovative/
6 to 12 in.
2008 in Europe;
U.S. distributor
under selection
in2010/
Emerging/
8 to 12 in.
2009/
Emerging/
6 to 36 in.
2002 in Europe;
2010 in U.S./
Innovative/
6 to 48 in.
2009/
Emerging/
4 to 12 in.
Description
Composed of two concentric,
tubular, plain woven seamless
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. It has a polyethylene
layer on the inside pipe 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
polyethylene 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
millimeters (mm) thick. 10
minute cure time for inspection.
Ready for return to service in 60
min. Made of 100% solids after
cure and has no volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Suitable 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.
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 minimizing 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 CIPP Water Pipe Rehabilitation. CIPP rehabilitation began in the 1970s and
has been primarily used in the gas and sewer industry. Typically, the composite materials used consist of
polymeric felts that are impregnated with resin. Materials of choice for the felts range from a variety of
fabrics and polymers including polyester, polypropylene, and fiberglass. The resin used for impregnation
-------
has primarily consisted of polyester and vinyl ester resins. Over time different methods of installation
have been used including pulled-in-place and inversion. Pulled-in-place liners, such as Aqua-Pipe®,
involve the insertion of the liner into the host pipe by pulling the liner from one access pit to another with
a pulling mechanism such as a winch (Sanexen, 2010). Inversion is atechnique that involves the
expansion of a tube inside a host pipe by using pressurized air or water.
The most common method of rehabilitation for water mains (i.e., cement mortar linings) have been
applied only for non-structural corrosion and taste control, but innovative CIPP liners capable of
providing fully structural benefits to support the operation of deteriorated pipelines are emerging in the
market. Three different CIPP products have been introduced into the U.S. market in the last five years
which can be used for structural (AWWA Class IV) applications. 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.
QA criteria that have been included in past CIPP project specifications are presented below. Utility
owners can choose the criteria that best suit their needs and system. Work is judged satisfactory and
compliant if the following requirements are met:
• Minimum liner thickness should be calculated according to the requirements of American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F-1216 (ASTM, 2009a).
• The tensile and flexural tests used in the liner thickness calculations have to be carried out on a
composite material sample according to ASTM D-638 and ASTM D-790, respectively (ASTM,
2007aand2008a).
• The inside diameter of the rehabilitated pipe shall not be smaller than 90% of the inside diameter
of the original pipe. The utility owner should verify the allowable inside diameter of the
rehabilitated water main versus hydraulic capacity requirements.
• The Hazen-Williams Coefficient of Roughness (C) should be equal to or higher than 120.
• Following rehabilitation and before the reinstatement of service connections, the water main shall
be submitted to a hydrostatic pressure test according to ASTM F-1743 (ASTM, 2008b).
• Most rehabilitation projects request thickness design calculations, verification of the inside
diameter, and hydrostatic pressure tests.
As outlined in this report, the second of two demonstrations conducted under TO 58 was undertaken in
Cleveland, Ohio, by CWD using Sanexen's fully-structural CIPP lining product known as Aqua-Pipe®.
The remainder of this section provides background information on the use of CIPP liners for structural
water main rehabilitation and reviews design, QA/QC, installation, and O&M considerations associated
with the technology.
2.2.3 Technology Description. As described above, CIPP has been used in the wastewater
industry for more than 40 years, but only in the last five years has it been introduced into the water
rehabilitation industry in the U.S. Sanexen, in collaboration with the National Research Council of
Canada, developed Aqua-Pipe® around the year 2000 and introduced the product in the U.S. in 2005. At
present, the company advises that more than 1.5 million If has been installed throughout North America
(Belisle, 2011). The company has different licensees in North America and has undertaken a small
number of projects in the U.S. (New York City, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Atlanta, etc.).
10
-------
Replace with larger pipe
Add an additional parallel pipe
Structural liner
Replace pipe
Structural liner
Replace pipe
Cat hod k protection
Replace with larger pipe
Add an additional parallel pipe
Nan or Semi-Structural liner
Structural liner
Replace pipe
Semi-Structural liner
Structural liner
Replace pipe
Noo or Semi-Structural liner
Structural liner
Replace pipe
RDevaluate pipe
No action necessary
Figure 2-2. Technology Selection for Water Main Rehabilitation (Adapted from Deb et al., 2002)
The Aqua-Pipe® CIPP liner consists of two woven seamless polyester jackets, of which the inner jacket
has a polymeric membrane bonded to the interior to ensure water tightness. The liner is impregnated at
the work site in a purpose built vehicle where the resin is injected between the jackets and distributed by
feeding the liner through a nip roller. The liner is designed and tested in accordance with the procedures
set out in ASTM F-1216 and physical properties are determined in accordance with ASTM F-1216
(ASTM, 2009a). The liner is installed according to ASTM F-1743 (2008b).
Aqua-Pipe® is available in diameters of 6, 8, 10, and 12 in. and has an operating pressure capability of up
to 150 pounds per square inch (psi) (10 bar). The smooth polyurethane coating provides for a Hazen-
Williams friction coefficient (C) greater than 120. Aqua-Pipe® can be installed in lengths up to 500 feet
between access pits. The liner is installed by pulling the liner in place and pushing a pig through the liner
using water pressure to form the liner to the pipe wall. Circulating hot water for 90 minutes and then
holding under pressure for up to 12 hours completes the curing process. The service connections are
reinstated from within using a remote controlled mechanical robot to cut open the taps. Aqua-Pipe® is
certified to NSF/ANSI Standard 61 and it is also certified to BNQ Standard 3660-950 (2003) in Canada
and the Water Regulations Advisory Scheme (WRAS) Standard (2009) in the UK. The cross section can
be seen in Figure 2-3.
11
-------
Figure 2-3. Aqua-Pipe® Cross-Section (courtesy of Sanexen)
The field demonstration allowed evaluation of the main benefits claimed and limitations cited by Aqua-
Pipe® which are listed below (Aqua-Pipe, 2011):
Main benefits claimed
• Structural trenchless technology exclusively designed for drinking water distribution systems
• Possibility to line pipes those are difficult to access (underneath bridges, highways, etc.)
• No future maintenance required
• Excavate access pits at each end of the section
• Future dry and pressure taps of service connections easily carried out
• Little excavation when compared to traditional open-cut
• Possibility to line through bends
• Adjacent infrastructures not disturbed by work
• Less complaints from residents during work
• Increased pressure and flow capacity
• Corrosion resistance
• Regained structural capacity
• Rehabilitation costs generally 20 to 40% less expensive than traditional open-cut
• Prevention of water main breaks
• Reduced treatment and pumping costs
• No further intervention on rehabilitated water mains
• Reduced social costs
12
-------
Main limitations cited
• Difficulty reinstating services robotically that are: misaligned; flush with the pipe surface (no
nipple); or located under a liner wrinkle
• The length of renewal is limited to 500 ft
• Excavation of access pits may be necessary around bends >45° and at valve and fitting locations
• Material property data are all based on short-term testing procedures
Short-term mechanical properties from the Aqua-Pipe® suggested specifications are shown in Table 2-3
(Sanexen, 201 la). As discussed in Section 2.2.4, the design service life of 50 years is calculated from
ASTM F-1216. Based on the material properties and design, the product is a fully-structural (Class IV)
according to AWWA M28 (2001), which means Aqua-Pipe® is a stand-alone structural liner that can
withstand all dead and live loads and internal pressures, including vacuum, without the help of the
strength of the existing pipe. If the host pipe is depressurized, Aqua-Pipe® will resist the external dead
and live loads. Aqua-Pipe® can withstand operating pressures up to 150 psi.
Table 2-3. Physical Properties of Aqua-Pipe* (Sanexen, 2011a)
Property
Tensile Strength
Tensile Elongation
Flexural Strength
Flexural Modulus
Short Term Pressure
Resists Full Vacuum
Standard
ASTM D-638
ASTM D-638
ASTM D-790
ASTM D-790
N/A
N/A
Value
10,000 psi
20%
10,000 psi
350,000 psi
> 400 psi
-14.7 psi
ASTM F-1216
3,000 psi
N/A
4,500 psi
250,000 psi
N/A
N/A
2.2.4 Design Approach for Structural CIPP Liners. Aqua-Pipe® is designed according to the
ASTM F-1216 section for fully deteriorated pressure pipe (ASTM, 2009a). This standard covers all CIPP
that is to be installed in an underground condition and designed to withstand all external loads and full
internal pressure. The design thickness is calculated using three methods from five equations, with the
largest thickness being selected for the design. Each of the following equations has been rearranged to
solve for liner thickness (t). The first design equation (ASTM F-1216, XI. 1) calculates the minimum
thickness required to resist buckling under external hydrostatic pressure as follows:
where
t = thickness of the CIPP lining (in.)
D = mean inner pipe diameter (in.)
K = enhancement factor (typically 7)
EL = long-term modulus of elasticity for the liner material (psi)
C = ovality reduction factor =
A = % ovality =
Dmm = minimum inner pipe diameter (in.)
P = external pressure due to ground water (psi) =
Hwi = height of ground water above pipe invert (ft)
N = safety factor (typically 2)
v = Poisson's ratio (0.3)
13
-------
Additionally, as per section ASTM F-1216, X1.4, when the pipe is subject to a vacuum load, the CIPP
liner should be designed as a gravity pipe with the external hydrostatic pressure increased by an amount
equal to the negative pressure (Pv).
When the pipe is out of round, the bending stresses must be calculated to ensure the CIPP liner does not
exceed the long-term flexural strength of the material. This equation (ASTM F-1216, X1.2) calculates the
bending stress using the thickness (t) from Equation 1 as follows, which must be less than the CIPP long-
term flexural strength (SL):
where
S = long-term flexural strength for a liner with thickness (t) calculated in Equation 1 (psi)
P = external pressure due to ground water (psi) =
Hwl = height of ground water above pipe invert (ft)
N = safety factor (typically 2)
A = % ovality =
D = mean inner pipe diameter (in.)
Dmm = minimum inner pipe diameter (in.)
DR = dimension ratio = D/t
t = thickness calculated in Equation 1 (in.)
SL = long-term flexural strength for the liner material (psi)
The third design equation (ASTM F-1216, XI.3) calculates the minimum thickness required to withstand
hydraulic, soil, and live loads without collapsing as follows:
where
t = thickness of the CIPP lining (in.)
D = mean inner pipe diameter (in.)
N = safety factor (typically 2)
qt = total external pressure on pipe (psi) =
Hw2 = height of ground water above pipe crown (ft)
w = soil density (lb/ft3)
H = height of soil above pipe crown (ft)
Rw = water buoyancy factor (0.67 min) =
Ws = live load (psi)
C = ovality reduction factor =
A = % ovality =
Dmm = minimum inner pipe diameter (in.)
EL = long-term modulus of elasticity for the liner material (psi)
B' = coefficient of elastic support (inch pounds) =
E's = modulus of soil reaction (psi)
Two checks must be performed to ensure a minimum thickness is met. The first check is for bending
stress (Equation 2) with the total external pressure on the pipe (qt) substituted for the pressure due to
ground water (P). The second check uses the fourth design equation (ASTM F-1216, XI.4) to ensure the
minimum pipe stiffness is met using the thickness (t) from Equation 3 as follows:
14
-------
where
E
D
t
F
initial modulus of elasticity for the liner material (psi)
mean inner pipe diameter (in.)
thickness of the CIPP lining from Equation 3 (in.)
minimum pipe stiffness = 0.093 (inch pounds)
The fifth design equation (ASTM F-1216, XI.7) calculates the minimum thickness required to withstand
internal pressure only as follows:
where
t
D
OIL
Pi
N
thickness of the CIPP lining (in.)
mean inner pipe diameter (in.)
long-term (time corrected) tensile strength for CIPP (psi)
internal pressure (psi)
safety factor (typically 2)
The minimum thickness should be calculated by all four methods when faced with a fully deteriorated
pressure pipe condition, which is what Aqua-Pipe® is designed for, and the largest of the four values
should be used for a given project. The parameters in Table 2-4 are typically used in the design process
in addition to the manufactures standards and ASTM F-1216 parameters.
Table 2-4. Typical Design Parameters (Sanexen, 2010)
Parameter
Ovality of Host Pipe
Host Pipe Condition
Modulus of Soil Reaction (E's)
Factor of Safety against Buckling
Live Load (Ws)
Soil Unit Weight (w)
Creep Reduction Factor
Internal Pressure (PO
Depth of Cover (H)
Value
2% minimum
Fully deteriorated
700 psi minimum
2 minimum
AASHTO HS20-44 Loading under roadways
AASHTO E-80 Loading under railroads
120 lbs/ft3 minimum
(if no boring data is available in vicinity)
50% maximum
System Working Pressure
As indicated in bid documents
2.2.5 Installation of CIPP Liners. The following is a brief overview of the major steps involved
in the installation of a CIPP liner for water main rehabilitation. The work will typically last four to five
weeks from the installation of the temporary water supply to site restoration and cleanup including the
following steps (Sanexen, 2010):
• Locating the pipe - locate the water main and adjacent utilities
• Soil type determination - minimize risk for the contractor during access pit excavation
15
-------
• Notice to residents - inform residents of work to be performed
• Temporary water supply - install and connect residents to temporary bypass system
• Access pits - excavate pits at both ends of the pipe (typically 9 ft x 6 ft and 12 in. below the pipe)
• Pipe cleaning - mechanically clean the pipe via chain reamer and water jetting (drag scraping or
rack feed bore is not recommended )
• Inspection and plugging - pre-lining CCTV inspection and plugging of service connections
• CIPP installation - impregnation of the liner, insertion by pulling in, and liner curing
• Hydrostatic pressure test - pressure test before the reinstatement of service connections
• Opening service - internal reinstatement of service connections robotically
• Reconnection to system - the main is connected to the system and disinfected for return to service
• Surface restoration - pits are backfilled and the surfaces are restored
• Site cleanup - the bypass is disassembled and the site is cleaned
The timing and duration of each of these steps were documented during this project to establish the level
of complexity of the CIPP 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 CIPP Liners. 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 CIPP liner) were identified as follows:
• Ensure proper surface preparation. Internal pipe surfaces must be cleaned of rust and scale to
allow the composite liner to bond to the host pipe and restore the hydraulic capacity of the pipe.
o Clean the interior of the pipe using the vendor-recommended method
o Dry wall of pipe according to the requirements of the material being applied (swab and air)
o Pre-lining inspection of the pipe to ensure proper cleaning and drying (CCTV).
• Compare lining thickness to design value. The lining thickness is the key design parameter to
ensure the specifications have been met. Additionally, the inside diameter of the rehabilitated
pipe shall not be smaller than 90% of the inside diameter of the original pipe. (The utility owner
should verify the allowable inside diameter of the rehabilitated water main versus the hydraulic
capacity requirements.)
o Ultrasonic thickness gauge can be used to measure thickness as specified in ASTM E797
(ASTM, 2005a)
o Calipers can be used to measure the thickness manually from the pipe ends
• Ensure leakage free operation and adequate flow capacity. After liner installation, and prior
to reinstatement of services, 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. The Hazen-Williams C-factor 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. The Hazen-Williams C-factor should be equal to or higher than 120.
o Hydrostatic pressure test as indicated in Section 8.3 of ASTM F-1743 (ASTM, 2008b)
o Hazen-Williams flow test to determine improvement in headless caused by friction
• Compare lining samples to manufacturer performance specifications. The flexural and
tensile strength of samples removed from the field will determine if the field product met the
product design standards.
o Flexural strength and modulus are measured by ASTM D-790 (ASTM, 2007a)
o Tensile strength is measured by ASTM D-638 (ASTM, 2008a)
16
-------
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. These
potential issues are summarized in Table 2-5 and can arise from material issues, installation issues,
structural failures, or other factors external to the pipe.
Table 2-5. Summary of Potential Installation Issues for CIPP Liners
Potential Issue
Improper
Surface
Preparation
Improper
Forming and
Curing
Liner
Thickness
Not Achieved
Structural
Failure
Hydraulic
Issues
Description
Internal pipe surfaces must be cleaned of rust and scale
to allow the composite liner to bond to the host pipe and
restore the hydraulic capacity of the pipe.
CIPP liners must be formed and cured correctly to
ensure proper material properties. Improper curing can
result from incorrect pressure, temperature, or cure time.
Insufficient thickness can occur if the liner becomes
stretched or an insufficient amount of resin is
impregnated into the liner.
Pressurized host pipes and liners must withstand 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 liner to avoid the
risk of buckling.
CIPP liners, combined with cleaning operations, are
expected to improve the hydraulic characteristics of the
pipe by removing tuberculation and providing a thin
liner and smooth surface to maximize flow capacity.
Relevance to Protocol
Pre-lining inspection to document
adequacy of surface preparation.
Pressure, temperature, and cure
time will be recorded and material
tests will be conducted.
Thickness will be measured in the
field and in the lab with calipers
and with an ultrasonic gauge.
Mechanical properties will be
tested including tensile strength;
flexural strength; hardness; and a
hydrostatic buckling test. Prepared
defects of varying sizes and types
will be examined in exhumed pipe
samples and pressure tested in the
lab.
Pre-and post-lining flow tests will
be performed to determine any
improvements to the Hazen-
Williams C-factor.
2.2.7 Operation and Maintenance for CIPP Liners. Before the liner is put into service the
services are reinstated internally with a remote control robot. The robot is fitted with a cutting bit that
will cut through the liner and plug. The robot must be water tolerant and small enough to fit in a 6 in.
main, while still allowing for the movement necessary to reach and penetrate the service connections. If
the liner adjacent to a service connection is accidentally pierced during this reconnection, the section of
pipe has to be replaced using a local excavation.
If non-protruding service connections flush with the pipe surface are encountered, an internal locator is
required to find them for reinstatement. The equipment and methods presently used allow the Aqua-
Pipe® installers to keep the percentage of excavations for service reinstatement below 10% of the total
service connection openings, which was part of this demonstration evaluation.
The new liner does not require maintenance once it has been installed and the corrosion free liner will not
allow deposits to attach or form on the inside wall of the pipe. Periodic flushing of the water main or
other operations are only required if the utility owner deems it necessary for water quality purposes. The
new liner can be dry or pressure tapped and the only precaution would be to make sure that the water
utility workers use a saddle, a sharp shell cutter, and make sure that they have cut through the walls of
both the existing pipe and the liner (a written procedure is available from the manufacturer).
17
-------
If a cut has to be performed on a section of rehabilitated pipe, the same procedure as regular pipe can be
used. The pipe should be cut with a circular saw equipped with a sharp diamond blade, removed and
replaced with a new section of pipe and fittings along with a coupling for closure and no special end seals
are required (Sanexen, 2010).
2.3 Site Selection Approach
This section outlines the overall site selection factors, provides a description of the selected host site, and
reviews the physical and operating characteristics of the test pipe designated for the second of two field
demonstrations planned under the research efforts for TO 58.
2.3.1 Site Selection Factors. To ensure that the field demonstration results are useful to the water
utility user community, the field site and conditions of the test pipe had to be representative of typical
applications for the selected CIPP technology. Consequently, the operational conditions of the test pipe
(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 had to be appropriate for the technology being
considered. Another important consideration in site selection was the water utilities' willingness to
participate in the study.
Site selection was 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 emerging and innovative technologies. The site
selection process also depends on the willingness of local stakeholders (such as the city, county,
neighborhood residents) to host a 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 of 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
18
-------
• Site access and safety considerations. Are the site conditions suitable for a safe and secure field
demonstration? This includes consideration of the following:
o Site accessibility, including traffic control requirements
o Space requirements and restrictions to access (right-of-way)
o Security of testing equipment and availability of support facilities for bypass and flushing
o Proximity of site to high-voltage overhead power lines, natural gas pipelines or other utilities
o Proximity of site to contaminants/toxics in the soil or groundwater
o Proximity of site to high decibel noise sources
o Proximity of site to fault zones or active faults
o Closeness to fire and police protection, including fire lines
Site selection process for this second of two field demonstration involved employing a collaborative
approach with utilities and vendors in an effort to identify candidate sites for the planned demonstration
study. As part of this process, a dialogue with Sanexen, the manufacturer of Aqua-Pipe®, and the CWD
was initiated. Sanexen and the CWD indicated that Aqua-Pipe® was currently planned for a pilot
installation as part of a much larger cement mortar lining initiative being undertaken by CWD. Therefore,
the City of Cleveland and Aqua-Pipe® were selected for this demonstration study. The overall
responsibilities of the technology vendor (Sanexen) were defined as follows:
• Provide vendor specifications, 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
The overall responsibilities of CWD were defined as follows:
• 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 Sanexen
• 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.
2.3.2 Site Description. The City of Cleveland is located in northeastern Ohio on the southern
shore of Lake Erie, approximately 60 miles (100 km) west of the Pennsylvania border (see Figure 2-4). It
was founded in 1796 near the mouth of the Cuyahoga River, and became a manufacturing center owing to
its location at the head of numerous canals and railroad lines. The city proper has an estimated population
of 478,403 and is the center of the Greater Cleveland Area, which is the largest metropolitan area in Ohio.
19
-------
Cuyahoga
County
Figure 2-4. Map of Cuyahoga County Showing the Location of the City of Cleveland
CWD was created in 1853 and charged with the responsibility for collecting, treating, pumping, and
distributing water and providing related water service to customers within its service areas. CWD
operates a major public water supply system which serves not only the City of Cleveland, but also 70
suburban municipalities in Cuyahoga, Medina, Summit, and Geauga Counties. The Division is an
emergency standby provider for systems in three other counties. The present service area covers over 640
square miles and serves over 1.5 million people.
In the 2008 Annual Report (CWD, 2008), the aggregate metered consumption of water in the City
constituted 34% of the total metered consumption in the service area, while consumption in the direct
service communities and master meter communities constituted 57% and 9%, respectively. Operating
revenue in 2008 increased 0.7% to $242.2 million from $240.6 million in 2007. A water rate increase of
approximately 7.3%, which was partially offset by a decrease in metered water consumption of 4.5%,
contributed to this increase. Operating expenses, exclusive of depreciation, increased 3.3% to $143.8
million compared to $140.2 million in 2007. The $3.6 million increase in operating expenses in 2008 was
primarily due to increases in utilities, healthcare and indirect costs. CWD uses surface water drawn from
four intakes in Lake Erie as the source of drinking water and supplies water to 1.5 million people in 70
communities. Lake Erie is a part of the Great Lakes watershed. Table 2-6 presents typical water quality
information for the City of Cleveland.
Table 2-6. Typical Water Quality Information for Cleveland
Contaminant
MCL
CWD Result or Range
Volatile Organics (mg/L)
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromochloro methane
Bromomethane
tetrachloride
0.005
NR
NR
NR
0.005
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
-------
Table 2-6. Typical Water Quality Information for Cleveland (Continued)
Contaminant
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloromethane
2-Chlorotolulene
4-Chlorotoluene
Dibromomethane
,2-Dichlorobenzene
, 3 -Dichlorobenzene
,4-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
, 1 -Dichloroethane
,2-Dichloroethane
, 1 -Dichloroethene
cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,2 -Dichloroethy lene
Dichloro methane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1 , 3 -Dichloropropane
2,2-Dichloropropane
1, 1-Dichloropropene
1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Isopropylbenzene
4-Isopropyltoluene
Napthalene
n-Propylbenzene
Styrene
1,1,1,2 -Tetrachloroethane
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
1,2,3 -Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Trichloroethene
1,1,2 -Trichloroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
1,2,3 -Trichloropropane
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
MCL
0.1
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.6
0.6
0.6
NR
NR
0.005
0.007
0.07
0.1
0.005
0.005
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.7
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.1
NR
NR
1
0.2
0.005
NR
0.07
0.005
0.005
NR
NR
0.002
10
CWD Result or Range
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Radionuclides (pCi/L)
Beta Emitters (pCi/L)
Alpha Emitters (pCi/L)
50
15
ND
ND
Synthetic Organics (mg/L)
Alachlor
Atrazine
Simazine
0.002
0.003
0.004
ND
ND
ND
Inorganics (mg/L)
Aluminum
Antimony
NR
0.006
ND
ND
21
-------
Table 2-6. Typical Water Quality Information for Cleveland (Continued)
Contaminant
Arsenic
Barium
Berylium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper (90th percentile)
Cyanide
Fluoride
Iron
Lead (90th percentile)
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrate
Potassium
Selenium
Silica
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
MCL
0.01
2
0.004
0.005
0.1
1.3
0.2
4
NR
0.015
NR
0.002
NR
0.1
10
NR
0.05
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.002
NR
NR
CWD Result or Range
ND
0.017
ND
ND
ND
0.101
ND
1
ND
0.008
0.018
ND
ND
ND
0.4
ND
ND
1.6
ND
10.7
0.16
ND
ND
0.014
Miscellaneous (mg/L, unless otherwise noted)
Chloride
Color
Odor
Total Dissolved Solids
Calcium
Magnesium
Total Organic Carbon
pH
Alkalinity
Orthophosphate
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity (NTU)
Total Conform
250
15
3
500
NR
NR
No Value
>7.0
NR
>0.8
NR
0.3
<5%
18
<1
1
160
33
9
2
7-7.6
80
0.8-1.3
120
0.05
1.87%
Disinfection Byproducts
Total Trihalomethanes
Haloacetic Acids
Organic Halides
Haloacetic Nitriles
0.08
0.06
NR
NR
0.026
0.037
94
4.3
mg/L - milligrams per liter
ug/L - micrograms per liter
NR - not regulated
MCL - maximum contaminant level
ND - not detected
2.3.3 Physical/Operating Characteristics of the Test Pipe. As shown in Figure 2-5, the
demonstration study was conducted using a portion of a distribution main (referred to herein as "the test
pipe") running underneath Ferncliffe Avenue between West 190th and Rocky River Drive in the City of
Cleveland.
22
-------
Approximate
Demonstration
Area
Figure 2-5. Map of the City of Cleveland Depicting the Approximate Demonstration Area
The test pipe, which was installed in 1914 and in 1949, is 2,040 ft of 6 in. unlined cast iron main, running
east-west underneath Ferncliffe Avenue. The test pipe typically operates at a pressure of approximately 60
psi while transmitting approximately 0.86 million gallons per day (MGD) 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., are not available for the
native soil adjacent to the test pipe, therefore, soil samples were collected and analyzed for general
geochemical parameters as discussed in Section 3.1.3.2. Based on the 2009 climate data, the monthly
average temperature for the area around Cleveland ranges from 20°F in January to 73 °F in August.
23
-------
Table 2-7. Summary of Historical, Operational, and Environmental Characteristics of Test Pipe
Historical
Pipe ID and Material
Installation Date
Pipe Joint-to-Joint Length (ft)
Pipe Outer Diameter (in.)
Pipe Class
Pipe Wall Thickness (in.)
Approximate Total Pipe Length (ft)
Burial Depth (ft below ground surface)
Pipe Internal Lining
Pipe Lining Thickness (in.)
Pipe External Coating
Type of Joints
Land Use over Main
Leak History (recorded)
Date of First Joint Break (recorded)
Date of First Pipe Break (recorded)
6 in. Cast Iron
1914 & 1949
17.7 (5.4 m)&l 1.8 (3.6m)
7
Unknown
0.5
1914: 1,809 & 1949: 263
Typically 6, but can't verify without excavation
None
N/A
Unknown
Unknown
Residential traffic
Unknown
Unknown
1/7/1987
Operational
Typical Operating Flow (MOD)
Typical Operating Pressure (psi)
Friction Factor
Water pH (S.U.)
0.86
-60
C-factor~120
6.6 to 7.2
Environmental
Soil Parameters (moisture, pH,
resistivity, redox potential, etc.)(a)
Average Monthly Temperature (°F)/
Humidity (%) for 2009(b)
Historical data not available(a)
Aug. 73.6°F/67%
Sep. 66.0°F/71%
Oct. 53.2°F/66%
characterization was performed before the demonstration project (see Section 3.1.2.1).
(b) Based on data obtained for Weather Underground (wunderground.com).
24
-------
3.0: CIPP DEMONSTRATION
This section outlines the activities involved with the CIPP 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
To successfully execute the planned demonstration, various site preparation activities were required.
These activities included: installation of the temporary bypass system; excavation of several access pits to
expose the test pipe; hydraulic testing to collect baseline data; cutting into the test pipe to provide access
for cleaning, drying, and inspecting the pipe; and pre-lining inspection with a CCTV camera while
plugging the service connections. Additionally, cutting and drilling were required to support the
installation of defects in a field-defect section and the insertion of the lab-defect pipe segment. Details
relating to these site preparation activities are provided in this section.
3.1.1 Safety and Logistics. Throughout the demonstration project, individual excavation areas
along Ferncliffe Avenue were secured from West 190th Street (to the west) to Rocky River Drive (to the
east). CWD and its subcontractors, Terrace Construction (TC) and Sanexen, were responsible for traffic
control.
The demonstration took place over the course of 10 weeks from layout of the bypass system (week of
August 16) to removal of the bypass system (week of October 18). A typical day began around 7:00 a.m.
and activities each day were normally completed by 4:00 p.m. A local road dig permit was obtained to
conduct the planned excavations in the public right-of-way along Ferncliffe Drive. Open pits were
marked with cones and caution tape and TC 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 Plated
The Battelle team had at least one staff member on site each day for the majority of the preparation
activities and two staff members were on site during the week of lining. The Battelle team maintained
constant coordination with CWD and its subcontractors throughout the demonstration project to ensure
that all field data were collected as planned in the QAPP. Level D personal protective equipment,
25
-------
including hard hats, safety glasses, steel-toed shoes, and safety vests, were required for all site visitors.
All visitors were also required to sign in with the Battelle team representative each day.
3.1.2 Installation of Bypass. TC began laying out the bypass on Tuesday, August 17, 2010 to
supply water to the residents on Ferncliffe Avenue and completed the installation and connection of each
house except one on August 26 (six total working days). The bypass system, which consisted of 4 in.
high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe, was installed from a fire hydrant on Rocky River Drive, down
Ferncliffe Avenue, and ended at a fire hydrant on West 190th Street. The 4 in. FIDPE pipe was installed
using heat fusion welding. The pieces of HDPE pipe were held axially by a clamping device to allow
subsequent operations to take place. Once the pipe was clamped, the ends were reamed with a machining
tool to establish clean, parallel mating surfaces, perpendicular to the centerline of each pipe. A heating
plate was then inserted between the faced ends, and the pipe was drawn together against the heating plate.
Once the correct melt temperature was reached, the heating plate was quickly removed, and the melt ends
were drawn together with the clamp where it was held until the joint cooled. The specified force on the
joint was continuous, and held until the joint cooled. A small melt bead formed at the joint and at
completion, the fused pipe was removed from the welding machine.
The 4 in. HDPE bypass pipe contained fittings for 1 in. flexible hoses that were connected to each
residence. Figure 3-2 shows the heat fusion welder and the 1 in. flexible hose used for connecting the
bypass piping to the houses on Ferncliffe Avenue. TC opted not to chlorinate the bypass system for
disinfection purposes unless initial water samples for bacteriological analysis tested positive. The bypass
system was initially flushed at 600 gallons per minute (gpm) for 15 min and then allowed to flow at a rate
of 100 gallons per day (gpd) for seven days, which generated approximately 9,700 gal of wastewater.
After the bypass system was flushed, water samples were collected for bacteriological analysis. The
water samples passed bacteriological analysis; therefore, disinfection of the bypass system was not
necessary.
Figure 3-2. Heat Fusion Welder (left) and 4 in. HDPE Pipe with Service Connection (right)
3.1.3 Excavation Pits and Pipe Access. A total of nine excavation pits were excavated from
August 23 to September 2, 2010 to support the project (Figure 3-3). Pits #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, and #9
were used for installing the CIPP liner and Pit #5 was used for installing the lab-defect section and
retrieving both the lab-defect and field-defect sections once the liner installation was complete.
The dimensions of the eight pits required for the demonstration study and the one additional pit used for
installing the defect sections (referred to as Pit #5) are summarized in Table 3-1. The depth of each pit
26
-------
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 use of the CIPP liner installation equipment.
Figure 3-3. Pit Excavation Activities
Table 3-1. Summary of Pit Dimensions and Volume of Soil Removed
Pit
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5 (Test Pit)
#6
#7
#8
#9
All Pits
Length, in. (ft)
117(9.75)
108 (9.00)
118(9.83)
119(9.92)
114(9.50)
110(9.17)
102 (8.50)
112(9.33)
110(9.17)
Width, in. (ft)
68 (5.67)
68 (5.67)
68 (5.67)
72 (6.08)
69 (5.75)
69 (5.75)
67 (5.58)
64(5.33)
63 (5.25)
Depth, in. (ft)
90 (7.50)
86(7.17)
78 (6.50)
86(7.17)
87 (7.25)
79 (6.58)
88 (7.33)
91 (7.58)
91 (7.58)
Waste volume of soil requiring off-site disposal
Volume of Soil, ft3 (yd3)
414(15.3)
366(13.5)
362(13.4)
426 (15.8)
396 (14.7)
347 (12.9)
348 (12.9)
377 (14.0)
365(13.5)
3,401 (126.0)
The pits were outlined and "de-rocked" by cutting through the pavement with a demolition saw and
removing the pavement above the soil with a backhoe. The broken-up pavement was placed in a dump
truck and sent to be recycled. After the pits were "de-rocked", a backhoe was used to excavate the soil
and gain access to the pipe. The estimated volume of soil removed during excavating of the pits was
3,401 ft3 (Table 3-1). Table 3-2 summarizes the length of each of the seven lining runs.
Table 3-2. Distances of Each Lining Run
Lining Run
#1
#2
#3
#4 (includes test sections)
#5
#6
#7
Start Pit
#1
#2
#3
#4
#6
#7
#8
End Pit
#2
#3
#4
#6
#7
#8
#9
Total Length
Length, ft (m)
249 (76.0)
313 (95.5)
295 (90.0)
297 (90.5)
292 (89.0)
297 (90.5)
253 (77.0)
1,996 (608.5)
27
-------
The distance of each lining run allowed for the rehabilitation of the entire test pipe running underneath
Ferncliffe Avenue. Pit locations were strategically located to allow for the replacement of valves and
hydrants. Each run was less than the maximum application length of 500 ft suggested by Sanexen and
near the typical installation distance of 350 ft. Originally Pits #3 and #4 were intended to serve as the
locations for the lab-defect and field-defect pipe segments, respectively. However, the contractor decided
to use Pits #3 and #4 for lining. Therefore, Pit #5 was used for installation of both defect sections in the
middle of lining run #4. The location of Pit #5 in the middle of a lining runs was necessary to provide a
representative sample that would not have been possible if the defect sections would have been placed at
the beginning or end of a lining run. The location of the nine excavation pits is shown in Figure 3-4
across the approximate 2,040 ft (1,996 ft that was lined and 44 ft of sections replaced between lining runs)
distance.
Western Rehabilitation Area
Lined pipe samples were
collected from Pi! #5. Soil
samples were collected
dorr Pus.1
Pit #2 -ERt,:LFFE*.E
1 i pit 4
-•"-,'=-«*— >. .El. 1 *
Pit
ExpliMlion:
^#*—
m-
D
Test Pip*
Valve Replaced
Valve Installed
Hydrant Replaced
Pit Excavations
'1
!
Is t
-
I
8
r
... 1 , LI?
g
i
Eastern Rehabilitation Area
Pt
Pit |#6 FET CLFFCA.E
Pit #7
150
300
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 3-4. Site Layout and Pit Locations
3.1.3.1 Soil Sampling. Several measurable soil properties have been linked to 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 the structural CIPP lining might
be impacted by the current and future condition of the cast iron host pipe and the stressors or aging factors
in its environment. For this reason, several soil parameters were analyzed as discussed below.
28
-------
Soil samples were collected on August 21, 2010, from six grab 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
approximately 4 ft below subgrade; (5) at the bedding along the spring line; and (6) at the bedding
immediately below the invert. Figure 3-5 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 n3
The Test Pipe is
known to be
Approximately
4ftbgs
CLE-SOIL-01
(Immediately
below pavement
and subgrade)
CLE-SOIL-02
(-2,0 ft below subgrade)
CLE-SQIL-Q3
(~3 ft below subgrade)
CLE-SOIL-04
(Immediately Above the Crown)
\\ CLE-SOIL-05
11 (At the Bedding Along the Spring Line)
CLE-SOlL-06
(Immediately Below the Invert)
Figure 3-5. Vertical Distribution of Soil Sample Locations
As summarized in Table 3-3, soil samples from all six sampling locations were placed into glass jars and
sent for analysis of particle size distribution according to ASTM C-136 (i.e., sieve analysis) (ASTM,
2006) and geochemical parameters. 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 was 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. The soil samples were analyzed by Test America for
the parameters listed in Table 3-3.
29
-------
Table 3-3. Summary of Soil Sample Analytical Testing
Soil Measurement
Method of Analysis
Reference
Particle Size Distribution
Particle Size
Sieve analysis to determine particle size distribution of
bedding
ASTM C-136 (2006)
Geochemical Analysis
Moisture Content
pH
Electrical Resistivity
Oxidation-Reduction
Potential (ORP)
Cation Exchange
Capacity
Sulfide Concentration
Sulfate Concentration
Chloride Concentration
Determine water (moisture) content of soil by direct heating
Standard test method for pH of soil
Measure soil resistivity using two-electrode soil box method
Standard test method for measurement of oxidation-
reduction potential (ORP; redox) of soils
Standard method where soil is mixed with excess of
ammonium acetate to determine the exchange of ammonium
cations for exchangeable cations present in the soil
Acid soluble and acid insoluble sulfides: distillation
Standard test method for water-soluble sulfate in soil
Chloride: colorimetric, automated ferricyanide
ASTM D-4959 (2007b)
ASTM D-4972 (2001)
ASTM G-187 (2005b)
ASTM G-200(a)
(2009c)
EPA 9080 (1986a)
EPA 9030B (1996a)
ASTM C-1580 (2009d)
EPA 9250 (1986b)
Formally ASTM WK12508 as reported in the QAPP.
Soil testing results are presented in Table 3-4. All six consisted of mostly silt, clay (73%), sand (24%)
with some gravel (3%) on average. The geochemical analysis showed that the Cleveland site soil was not
highly corrosive. The soil pH ranged from 7.9 to 9.4 with a corrosive soil defined as having a pH less
than 5.5. The chloride concentration averaged 168 parts per million (ppm) and sulfate concentration
averaged 26 ppm, with a corrosive soil defined as having chloride concentrations greater than 500 ppm
and sulfate concentrations greater than 2,000 ppm. Electrical 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).
Table 3-4. Soil Sampling Results
Analyte
Reporting
Limit
Unit
Sampling Location (CLE)
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
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
1.3
20.9
2.5
6.2
12.2
34.9
42.9
7.5
25.0
3.9
8.4
12.7
30.1
37.4
4.7
25.9
4.2
8.5
13.2
35.3
34.1
5.0
26.3
3.4
9.1
13.8
32.5
36.2
0.7
22.7
2.6
7.6
12.5
36.6
40.0
0.4
22.7
3.1
7.7
11.9
40.7
36.2
Geochemical Analysis
Solids (%)
pH (solid)
Electrical Resistivity
ORP
Cation Exchange
Sulfide
Sulfate
Chloride
10
N/A
N/A
10
2.42
35.3
11.8
11.8
%
S.U.
ohm-cm
mV
meq/lOOg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
85.1
9.4
1,243
383
10.3
BRL
42. U
148
82.2
8.6
1,243
385
7.0
BRL
45.7J
172
80.2
8.3
1,094
384
8.1
BRL
26.4J
235
82.7
8.3
1,392
333
12.2
BRL
15.0J
137
81.3
8.4
1,343
353
9.8
BRL
19.9J
130
80.7
7.9
1,293
345
6.7
BRL
9.3B,J
187
N/A = not applicable J = estimated value
BRL = below reporting limit
30
-------
3.1.3.2 Water Sampling. Certification under NSF Standard 61 is required for all lining material to
be used for drinking water applications. This standard addresses materials and products that directly
contact drinking water such as process media, protective materials, joining and sealing materials, pipes,
mechanical devices, and mechanical plumbing devices. Under this standard, materials are tested for
contaminant leaching and to certify that contaminant levels are within acceptable limits for the protection
of human health and the environment. The suite of water parameters tested under this standard includes:
• pH by EPA method 150.1 (EPA, 1982);
• total dissolved solids by EPA method 160.1 (EPA, 1971a);
• total suspended solids by EPA method 160.2 (EPA, 1971b);
• turbidity by EPA method 180.1 (EPA, 1993a);
• iron and manganese by EPA method 200.7 (EPA, 1994);
• chloride, fluoride, nitrite, nitrate, phosphate, and sulfate by EPA method 300.0 (EPA, 1993b);
• total alkalinity by EPA method 310.1 (EPA, 1978);
• ammonia by EPA method 350.1 (EPA, 1993c);
• total organic carbon by EPA method 415.1/SM 5301B (EPA, 1974);
• VOCs by EPA method 524.2 (EPA, 1995a);
• silica by EPA method 200.7/6010B (EPA, 1996b);
• arsenic, calcium, copper, lead, magnesium, and sodium by SM 3113B (Standard Methods, 1999);
and
• organic compounds and BPA by EPA method 525.2 (EPA, 1995b), which was used in place of
EPA method 625 (for organic compounds) and liquid chromatography (BPA).
Accordingly, water sampling and analysis were conducted as part of the Cleveland demonstration. Prior
to rehabilitation of the test pipe, the source water quality was characterized by collecting and analyzing
water samples from two fire hydrants (CLE-01 and CLE-02) on Ferncliffe Avenue between West 190th
Street and Rocky River Drive. Water samples were collected from each water sampling location during
three separate sampling efforts: (1) baseline sampling prior to rehabilitation on August 12; (2) post-
rehabilitation sampling once the pipe was brought back into service immediately following disinfection
on October 21; and (3) post-rehabilitation sampling one week after the test pipe had been brought back
into service October 27. Table 3-5 presents the results of the three sampling efforts for both locations.
Table 3-5. Water Sampling Results
Analyte
RL
MCL
Unit
CLE-01
8/12
10/21
10/27
CLE-02
8/12
10/21
10/27
Field Water Quality Parameters
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Cl (as C12)
Total Cl (as C12)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
>7.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S.U.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
7.4
25.6
6.93
466.5
0.69
0.73
6.76
17.5
6.49
569.2
0.66
0.78
6.62
17.7
6
494.1
0.8
0.95
7.28
28.3
6.75
418.5
0.18
0.36
6.49
19.1
6.57
398.6
0.62
0.69
6.25
18.9
6.39
365.9
0.77
0.87
Lab Water Quality Parameters
pH
Alkalinity
Turbidity
Chloride
Fluoride
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
>7.0
N/A
0.3
250
N/A
S.U.
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
7.64
95.6
19
18.8
1.25
8.06
84.4
0.53
18.9
1.09
7.31
88.9
0.75
17.9
0.901
7.5
82.2
8.2
21.9
1.12
7.56
100
0.8
13.4
0.861
7.28
104
7.2
22.1
0.877
31
-------
Table 3-5. Water Sampling Results (Continued)
Analyte
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as NH3)
Sulfate
Orthophosphate (as OPO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
TDS
TSS
TOC
Arsenic
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Atrazlne
Aldrin
Alachlor
Benzo(a)pyrene
Butachlor
Di(2 -ethy lhexyl)adipate
Di(2 -ethy lhexyl)phthalate
Dieldrin
Metribuzin
Methoxychlor
Metolachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Propachlor
Simazine
,1,1 ,2-Tetrachchloroethane
,1,1 -Trichlorethane
, 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
, 1 -Dichloroethane
, 1 -Dichloroethene
, 1 -Dichoropropene
,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
,2,3-Trichloropropane
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
,2 -Dichlorobenzene
,2 -Dichloroethane
,2 -Dichloropropane
,3,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
,3 -Dichlorobenzene
,3 -Dichloropropane
,4 -Dichlorobenzene
2,2-Dichloropropane
RL
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.1
215
2
4
0.5
5
1
20
30
2
0.1
20
1
0.3
30
0.2
0.1
10
0.6
0.6
20
1
0.1
5
0.1
10
0.35
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
MCL
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
>0.8
N/A
500
N/A
N/A
10
N/A
1,300
300
15
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
400
6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
N/A
200
N/A
5
N/A
7
N/A
N/A
N/A
70
N/A
600
5
5
N/A
600
N/A
600
N/A
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
8/12
0.1
BRL
BRL
23.4
0.696
1550
166
72
2
5.87
23.9
BRL
916
3.25
8.42
249
10.3
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
2.8
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
CLE-01
10/21
0.12
BRL
BRL
21.1
0.885
1860
120
BRL
BRL
BRL
27.6
BRL
49
BRL
8
BRL
7.56
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
1.27
3.03
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
10/27
0.17
BRL
BRL
24.3
0.917
2080
146
BRL
2.9
BRL
31
BRL
70
BRL
8.44
BRL
8.28
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
1.39
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
8/12
0.1
BRL
BRL
24.6
0.585
1150
154
10
o
J
BRL
30.6
33
926
11.5
8.2
62
19.6
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
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
CLE-02
10/21
0.13
BRL
BRL
21.8
0.882
1870
102
4
BRL
BRL
27.7
BRL
617
BRL
8
66
7.56
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
0.72
2.17
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
10/27
0.18
BRL
BRL
27.2
0.879
2110
134
BRL
0.94
BRL
31.2
BRL
642
BRL
8.4
22
8.4
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
0.73
1.19
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
32
-------
Table 3-5. Water Sampling Results (Continued)
Analyte
2-Chlorotoluene
4-Chlorotoluene
4-Isopropyltoluene
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloro methane
Bromoform
Bromo methane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloro methane
Cis- 1 ,2 -Dichloroethane
Cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Dibromomethane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Epichlorohydrin
Ethyl Benzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Isopropylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Napthalene
n-Butyl Benzene
n-Propyl Benzene
sec-Butylbenzene
Styrene
tert-Butylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
Trans- 1 , 3 -Dichlorpropene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlororfluormethane
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes (total)
Bisphenol A
RL
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
40
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
5
MCL
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
N/A
N/A
80
N/A
N/A
5
100
N/A
70
N/A
70
N/A
60
N/A
N/A
N/A
700
N/A
N/A
20
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
N/A
5
1,000
N/A
N/A
5
N/A
N/A
2
10,000
N/A
Unit
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
CLE-01
8/12
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
8.72
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
15
BRL
BRL
BRL
3.99
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
20.8
10/21
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
5.61
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
7.39
BRL
BRL
BRL
2.5
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
10/27
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
7.87
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
9.92
BRL
BRL
BRL
2.92
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
CLE-02
8/12
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
8.43
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
14.4
BRL
BRL
BRL
3.54
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
5.24
10/21
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
5.5
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
7.47
BRL
BRL
BRL
2.37
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
1.06
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
10/27
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
6.65
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
9.39
BRL
BRL
BRL
2.67
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
BRL
RL = reporting limit
J = estimated value
BRL = below reporting limit
MCL = maximum contaminant limit
The two hydrants were relatively similar in water quality. The water was moderately hard with its
alkalinity ranging from 82.2 mg/L to 104 mg/L in both hydrants. The pH of the water in both hydrants
was within or slightly below the acceptable neutral range for drinking water of 6.5 to 8.5. The lining
operations did not appear to significantly affect the alkalinity or pH of the water based on post-
disinfection samples. Both total and free chlorine was above the recommended 0.5 mg/L for drinking
water in both hydrants with little difference in total and free chlorine with each sampling event.
33
-------
Turbidity typically should be less than 1 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) in drinking water. The
turbidity of both hydrants were greater than 5 NTU at 19 and 8.2 NTU, respectively, during baseline, but
the turbidity in both hydrants decreased to below 1 NTU immediately after the post-lining disinfection
event. One week after disinfection, the turbidity of the hydrant CLE-02 returned to a similar
concentration seen during baseline. The total suspended solid (TSS) decreased significantly in the post-
lining samples and remained below reporting limit (BRL) one week after disinfection. Total iron and
manganese concentrations were also generally lower in the post-lining samples, potentially due to the
cleaning and removal of tuberculation and subsequent lining of the cast iron pipe. Total dissolved solids
(TDS) and total organic carbon (TOC) both decreased right after disinfection, then rebounded a week
after disinfection. The concentrations of fluoride, chloride, nitrate, sulfate, orthophosphate, and silica did
not show any significant changes from the baseline sampling event.
Although several contaminants of concern (COCs) were detected in the water from both hydrants, none
were detected above their maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Arsenic (MCL 10 (ig/L) and lead
(secondary standard 15 (ig/L) were both detected during the baseline sampling, but were not detected
after the post-lining disinfection event. Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate (although not detected during baseline)
was detected after disinfection at concentrations far below its MCL. The other COCs
bromodichloromethane, chloroform, and dibromochloromethane were detected at levels comparable to
the baseline samples and are byproducts of the disinfection of the drinking water at the treatment plant.
The appearance of BPA during baseline sampling is not typical; however, after disinfection the BPA was
below reporting limit, which is required by the NSF and BNQ certifications.
3.1.4 Hydraulic Testing. Hydraulic tests (i.e., flow and leak detection survey, pressure, and
friction coefficient) were planned to be conducted prior to rehabilitation and once the liner installation
was completed to evaluate the effectiveness of the rehabilitation technology. The pre- and post-
rehabilitation tests included a leak detection survey, flow test, and friction coefficient test, which are
described in the following subsections.
Pressure testing was scheduled to be conducted prior to the rehabilitation and after lining to evaluate the
effectiveness of the rehabilitation to reduce pressure loss and associated water loss within the test pipe.
However, CWD did not want to subject the water main and service connections to unnecessary stress
during the test and therefore opted not to conduct the tests. Pressure tests were performed on individual
lining runs prior to reinstatement of the services, as discussed in Section 3.2.3.
3.1.4.1 Leak Detection Survey. An acoustic leak detection survey was conducted to determine the
presence or absence of leaks along the test pipe. This test provides an advanced indication of any leaks
related to structural issues in the test pipe. The results of the survey indicated that no leaks were detected.
3.1.4.2 Friction Factor Test. The Hazen-Williams C-factor is the primary criteria used for
determining if a liner reduces friction losses and restores hydraulic capacity to rehabilitated pipes.
Utilities typically assume a C-factor of approximately 50 for unlined cast iron pipes in their original
condition prior to lining. The Aqua-Pipe® lining was anticipated to result in a higher C-factor of as much
as 120, which Sanexen claims can be achieved following the installation of an Aqua-Pipe® liner. The
ability of the liner to improve the hydraulic characteristics of the test pipe was evaluated as part of the
field demonstration. The Hazen-Williams friction coefficient is calculated using the formula below:
where
C = Hazen-Williams Coefficient of Roughness (C-factor)
Cf = Unit Conversion Factor (4.52)
34
-------
Q
P
D
Flow through Test Section, gpm
Friction Loss, psi per foot of pipe (psi/ft)
Internal Diameter of Test Section (in.)
The field test was conducted by isolating the 2,040 ft long test pipe segment between West 190th Street
and Rocky River Drive underneath Ferncliffe Street. Three hydrants, two pressure hydrants (first and
fifth hydrants west of Rocky River Drive) and one flow hydrant (the sixth hydrant west of Rocky River
Drive) were utilized during the test. Figure 3-6 shows Hydrant #1 with pressure gauge installed and the
flow hydrant used to induce flow and measure flow rate via a pitot tube.
Figure 3-6. Hydrant #1 (left) and Flow Hydrant (right)
Pressure gauges were installed at the two pressure hydrants (upstream and downstream) to measure
headless across the pipe length, which was 1,195 ft between hydrants, and the third downstream hydrant
was used to induce flow and measure flow rate via a pitot tube. This frictional headless and the flow rates
were input into Equation 6 to calculate the C-factor as shown in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6. Pre-Rehabilitation C-Factor Results
Parameter
Length of Test Section, ft
Diameter of Test Section (D), in.
Total Head Loss, ft
Total Head Loss, psi
Friction Loss (P), psi/ft
Flow (Q), gpm
C-factor
Average C-factor
Hazen- Williams Flow Test
1
2
1,195
6
31.67
13.71
0.011475
340.28
76.98
15.00
6.50
0.005435
236.11
79.99
78.49
The average C-factor of the tuberculated test pipe shown in Figure 3-7 prior to rehabilitation was 78.49.
A post-rehabilitation Hazen-Williams flow test to check the improvement was conducted on August 3,
2011 and the results are discussed in Section 3.6.
3.1.5 Cleaning and Drying of Pipe. For proper installation of the CIPP liner, effective cleaning
had to be performed for the sections that were to be lined. Before each section could be cleaned, water
flow had to be stopped to isolate the test pipe and then the entire test section was flushed of all water,
35
-------
which took place on Tuesday, August 31. TC used a three-step method to clean the main that included:
hydraulic jet cleaning, scraping, and swabbing once access was gained to the test pipe by cutting out
sections in each access pit.
Figure 3-7. Inside of the Tuberculated Test Pipe
The initial phase for cleaning each pipe section was hydraulic jet cleaning. The hydraulic jetting truck
was equipped with a high-pressure water pump and a hose that had a special nozzle, shown in Figure 3-
The hose was fed through the pipe section and emitted a jet of water at 2,000 psi to remove debris and
deposits from the interior of the pipe.
Figure 3-8. Hydraulic Jetting Truck (left) and Jetting Hose (Right)
Any deposits remaining in the pipe were broken up to allow for easy removal during phase two, drag
scraping. The hose was fed each way through the pipe section two times for a total of four passes. The
wastewater generated from hydraulic jetting was pumped into the back of a filtration truck (Figure 3-9)
that contained a sediment filter and then allowed to overflow onto the street. Approximately 1 gal of
wastewater was generated during each pass per foot of water main for a total estimated wastewater
volume of 7,984 gal.
36
-------
Figure 3-9. Truck Utilized for Wastewater Filtration
Once hydraulic jet cleaning was completed on each pipe section, drag scraping was conducted to remove
the remaining loose material in the pipe. Drag cleaning involves using a winch truck (Figure 3-10) to pull
a mechanical cleaner, composed of steel scraper blades and rubber squeegees through the pipe.
Figure 3-10. Cleaning Winch Truck
The blades of the steel scraper (Figure 3-11) are flexible and allow it to negotiate slight bends in the pipe.
Both ends of the cleaner were attached to winch trucks located at both ends of the section being cleaned.
The mechanical cleaner was first dragged in one direction and then the other. While the mechanical
cleaner was dragged through the pipe, water was pumped at a rate of 300 gpm in one direction to flush
any remaining solids from the pipe. This process was repeated two times for each pipe section and each
scraping pass took approximately 45 minutes. As during hydraulic jetting, the water generated from the
process was pumped out of the excavation pit, through a sediment filter, and allowed to overflow on to
the ground. After drag scraping the pipe, the blades were taken off of the winch and the squeegees
(Figure 3-11) were dragged through the pipe in each direction. Based on the flowrate and time, the
estimated volume of wastewater generated during drag-scraping was 252,000 gal.
37
-------
Figure 3-11. Steel Scrapers (left) and Rubber Squeegees (right)
The final phase of cleaning and drying took place immediately prior to lining activities. Sanexen dried
each pipe section by swabbing the pipe with a foam pig and then circulating hot air for 30 minutes. The
foam pigs, made of open-cell polyurethane foam, were dragged through the pipe using a winch and then
an Allegro Com-Pax-Ial blower circulated hot air through each pipe section to evaporate any moisture
remaining in the pipe (Figure 3-12).
Figure 3-12. Foam Pig (left) and Blower (right)
3.1.6 Defect Installation. Prior to performing the pre-lining CCTV inspection, two defect sections
were installed in the middle of lining run #4. The field-prepared defect section utilized a piece of the cast
iron host pipe and the lab-prepared defect section consisted of 6 in. cast iron pipe section. In the
rehabilitation of a cast iron water main, a number of through holes, voids, or gaps in joints may be
expected to potentially be present in a pipe as well as longitudinal and circumferential cracks, which are a
common failure mechanism in cast iron pipes.
3.1.6.1 Lab-Prepared Defect Pipe Segment. In order to obtain lined pipe samples, a 6 ft pre-
fabricated defect pipe segment was machined prior to the field demonstration and shipped to the site for
installation into the test pipe prior to lining. The pre-fabricated defect section was machined by Battelle's
38
-------
machine shop using a 70-year old 6 in. cast iron pipe, which is similar to the general specifications of the
test pipe. The segment, which was installed on Tuesday, September 7, included two-ring break defects
and an incompetent bell joint, as discussed below:
• Simulated Joint Defect. The pipe was cut and reassembled so that a joint occurred within the re-
laid section of pipe. The joint was set to have a gap of 6 mm (0.25 in) between the bell and
spigot, so as to resemble a leaking joint/failed packing material. The joint was fixed externally to
maintain the gap during transport and installation at the field demonstration site.
• Ring Break. Two circumferential fractures ("ring breaks") were introduced by cutting the test
pipe into two segments, and introducing a 6 mm (0.25 in) gap between the sections before
reattaching the two segments using an external clamp mechanism.
The pre-fabricated defect pipe segment was installed in an excavated pit east of Pit #5 on Ferncliffe
Avenue that was required to cut out a valve in the water main. The test pipe was carefully lowered into
the pit using lifting straps and a backhoe. The test pipe was attached to the existing pipe using 6 in.
couplings. Figure 3-13 shows the pre-fabricated defect pipe segment prior to and during installation
activities.
Figure 3-13. Installation of Pre-Fabricated Defect Pipe Segment
3.1.6.2 Field-Prepared Defect Pipe Segment. In addition to the pre-fabricated defect section
discussed above, field-prepared defects were machined into a 6 ft section of the test pipe in Pit #5 prior to
lining on Tuesday, September 7. The pipe segment consisted of the original 6 in. cast iron pipe, which
was inspected to determine whether any structural defects were present. The simulated defects that were
field-prepared in the segment (Figure 3-14) are summarized below:
• Large Corrosion Holes. Larger corrosion areas that might develop after the lining is installed
will be modeled by cutting two circular holes, one 12 mm and the other with an 18 mm in
diameter. These manufactured larger corrosion holes were plugged to provide a smooth interior
surface for relining and then the plugs were removed in the laboratory for internal pressure testing
after lining. The test pressure used is suggested to be twice the mean operating pressure and
higher to test the liner to failure. Testing to liner failure is best suited within a laboratory setting
and will help to determine the maximum size of opening that can be addressed by the liner.
• Longitudinal and Circumferential Cracks. Longitudinal and circumferential cracks were
modeled by sawing out a rectangular defect in the pipe wall. The simulated cracks were 6 mm
wide by both 25 mm and 100 mm long, respectively. The coverage of each type of crack was
39
-------
examined in the exhumed section at the end of the testing period. The pressure testing will
demonstrate the product's ability to span the cracks in each direction.
• Large Pipe Fracture. Large pipe fractures were simulated by installing two fractures, one of
which is 1 in. wide by 3 in. long, and another 1 in. long by 3 in. wide. These fractures are
intended to simulate more extreme failure scenarios that a CIPP liner could potentially address in
a pressurized water main.
• Service Tap Installation. After the pipe was shipped back to the laboratory, a tap was installed
into the test section of the rehabilitated line using the manufacturer's recommended procedures.
The service tap was pressure tested to evaluate the performance of the liner in situations where
additional service taps are installed into a rehabilitated water main.
Figure 3-14. Field-Prepared Defect Section
3.1.7 Service Plugging and Pipe Inspection. CCTV, which is a commonly used method for
inspecting the interior of empty pipes, was used to conduct both pre- and post-lining inspections. Records
were maintained to document adverse pipe conditions or other defects that could limit the performance or
affect the application of the CIPP liner. The pre-lining CCTV inspection provides a visual evaluation of
the interior pipe surface prior to installation of the CIPP liner and allows for the insertion of plugs into
each service connection to prevent the migration of resin into the service during liner curing.
Prior to conducting the CCTV, Sanexen used a digital roto-wheel and the curb-stops on the street to map
the approximate location of each service connection in each lining segment. This was conducted to make
sure all service connections were accounted for during the capping process. Once a lining section was
mapped out above ground, the service connections inside the main were located, inspected, and then
capped with an HDPE plug using a remote-controlled robot equipped with an air-actuated piston and
cartridge of HDPE plugs. The robot is water tolerant and small enough to fit in the 6 in. diameter pipe
and still allow for the freedom of movement necessary to reach and plug the service connections.
Once each service connection in a lining run was capped, a final pre-lining CCTV inspection was
conducted using a CCTV camera and specialized equipment with video viewing and recording
capabilities which was operated by the CCTV truck (Figure 3-15). The location of each service
40
-------
connection as well as any pipe conditions that could limit the effectiveness of the liner were documented
on the video as well as on CCTV log sheets. It was important to accurately record the locations of each
service connection to allow for reinstatement after lining. Hard copies of the CCTV log sheets of the pre-
lining CCTV inspections are included in Appendix A.
Figure 3-15. CCTV Truck (left) and Robot (right)
3.1.7.1 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #1. The pre-lining inspection is a key component of the
installation process because it provides information relating to the degree of cleaning of the pipe prior to
the start of a lining operation. Other conditions that were inspected for included the presence of leaking
valves and ferrules, leaking stop taps, dropped joints, protruding ferrules, structural failures (cracks,
holes), re-cleaning requirements, debris, and standing water. Lining run #1 was the first section to be
inspected and have the services plugged, which took place on Wednesday, September 8. The results of
the final pre-lining inspection for lining run #1 from Pits #2 to #1, which took 12 minutes to complete, are
presented in Table 3-7.
Table 3-7. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #1
Item
Pit #2
Service
Service
Service
Service
Water
Service
Service
Repair
Service
Service
Service
Service
Water
Joint
Pit#l
Address
N/A
18901
18902
18905
Vacant
N/A
18910
18909
N/A
18913
18914
18923
18924
N/A
N/A
N/A
Location
N/A
at 11:30
at 01:00
at 11:00
at 01:30
Bottom !/4
at 01:30
at 10:30
at 02:00
at 11:00
at 01:30
at 12:00
at 02:00
Bottom !/2
360°
N/A
Distance (m)
1.0
4.2
6.0
16.5
18.9
26.5 to 3 1.0
33.3
33.8
34.4
43.8
47.1
57.2
58.4
61.0 to 70.0
70.0, 70.6, 71.6
74.7
Comment
Start, 09/08/2010
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
Standing water 1A of the pipe deep
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
Repair, Hole Roughly 3 in. Diameter
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
1 in. Non-Penetrating Service (Crack)
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
Standing water 1A of the pipe deep
Offset Joints
End (12 minutes)
41
-------
The 74.7 m lining run had 10 services along its length, eight of which were typical 5/8 in. penetrating
services. One other 5/8 in. service was only slightly penetrating at 43.8 m from Pit #2 and the difference
in penetration is shown in Figure 3-16.
Figure 3-16. Typical 5/8 in. Penetrating Service (left) and a Slightly Penetrating Service (right)
The remaining service was a 1 in. non-penetrating (flush) service at 57.2 m from Pit #2. The 1 in. service
connection was flush with the internal pipe wall and had a crack which circled the pipe at that location as
shown in Figure 3-17.
Figure 3-17. Crack Circling the Pipe around 1 in. Flush Service Connection
Other items of note included two locations of standing water that had to be removed before lining could
commence. Also, immediately following the second location of standing water near the end of the
inspection, three joints had shifted approximately 1A in. on short replacement sections, shown in Figure 3-
18. Also of note is that the pipe sections on lining run #1 were typically 5.4 m (17.7 ft) long, whereas the
pipe sections were typically 3.6m(11.8ft) for all remaining six lining runs.
42
-------
Figure 3-18. Offset Joint at 71.6 m from Pit #2
3.1.7.2 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #2. The final pre-lining inspection for lining run #2 took
place on Thursday, September 9. The results of the final pre-lining inspection from Pits #2 to #3, which
took 12 minutes to complete, are presented in Table 3-8.
Table 3-8. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #2
Item
Pit #2
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Corrosion
Corrosion
Service
Service
Service
Service
Pit #3
Address
N/A
18824
18823
18813
18814
18807
18808
N/A
N/A
18802
18801
18713
18714
N/A
Location
N/A
at 11:00
at 12:30
at 01:00
at 11:00
at 01:00
at 11:00
at 05:00
at 09:00
at 11:00
at 01:00
at 01:00
at 12:00
N/A
Distance (m)
1.0
10.9
11.7
29.0
29.2
41.0
47.7
57.8
60.9
61.4
61.6
79.0
80.3
89.0
Comment
Start, 09/09/2010
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
1 in. Non-Penetrating Service
(Crack)
1 in. Non-Penetrating Service
1 in. Non-Penetrating Service
(Crack)
1 in. Non-Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
Deep Corrosion
Deep Corrosion
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
End (12 minutes)
The 89 m lining run had 10 services along its length, three of which were typical 5/8 in. penetrating
services. Three other 5/8 in. services were slightly penetrating and the remaining four services were 1 in.
non-penetrating services, two of which had cracks circling the pipe at their location. Two other items of
note were areas of deep corrosion at 57.8 m and 60.9 m (Figure 3-19) from Pit #2.
43
-------
Figure 3-19. Deep Corrosion at 60.9 m from Pit #2
3.1.7.3 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #3. The final pre-lining inspection for lining run #3 took
place on Wednesday, September 15. The results of the final pre-lining inspection from Pits #3 to #4,
which took 11 minutes to complete, are presented in Table 3-9.
Table 3-9. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #3
Item
Pit #3
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Hole
Service
Service
Pit #4
Address
N/A
18712
18707
18706
18702
18701
18614
18613
18612
18607
18608
N/A
18601
18602
N/A
Location
N/A
at 11:00
at 01:00
at 11:00
at 11:00
at 01:00
at 11:30
at 12:30
at 11:00
at 12:30
at 11:00
at 11:00
at 01:00
at 11:00
N/A
Distance (m)
1.0
2.1
4.8
14.8
25.3
26.8
41.2
41.9
58.5
59.8
65.8
77.7
77.9
78.0
87.8
Comment
Start, 09/15/2010
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
1 in. Non-Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
1 in. Hole
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
End (11 minutes)
The 87.8 m lining run had 12 services along its length, nine of which were typical 5/8 in. penetrating
services. Two other 5/8 in. services were slightly penetrating and one service was a 1 in. non-penetrating
services. One other item detected in the inspection was a 1 in. hole located at 77.7 m from Pit #3 (Figure
3-20), which may have been an abandoned service.
44
-------
Figure 3-20. 1 in. Hole at 77.7 m from Pit #3
3.1.7.4 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #4. The final pre-lining inspection for lining run #4 took
place on Friday, September 10. The results of the final pre-lining inspection from Pits #4 to #6, which
took 12 minutes to complete and includes both defect sections, are presented in Table 3-10.
Table 3-10. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #4
Item
Pit #4
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Defect
Defect
Service
Service
Service
Service
Pit #6
Address
N/A
18514
18513
18507
18508
18502
18502
N/A
N/A
18418
18419
18412
18413
N/A
Location
N/A
at 11:00
at 01:30
at 02:00
at 11:30
at 11:30
at 02:00
N/A
N/A
at 12:00
at 02:00
at 11:00
at 02:00
N/A
Distance (m)
1.0
5.6
6.0
22.2
23.3
38.6
40.3
47.0 to 48.8
52.2 to 54.0
66.3
70.4
85.9
87.4
87.5
Comment
Start, 09/10/2010
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
Field-Defect Section
Lab -Defect Section
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
3/4 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service (not on video)
3/4 in. Small Penetrating Service (not on video)
End (12 minutes, Not on Video)
The 89.2 m lining run had 10 services along its length, three of which were typical 5/8 in. penetrating
services. Five other 5/8 in. services were slightly penetrating and two services were % in. slightly
penetrating services. Other items of note included the field-defect section located approximately 47.0 to
48.8 m from Pit #4 (Figure 3-21) and the lab-defect section located approximately 52.2 to 54.0 m from Pit
#4, respectively. It should also be noted that the final two services at locations 86.0 and 87.0 m from Pit
#4 are not included on the final pre-lining inspection due to video difficulties near the end of the lining
run, although both services had already been inspected and plugged.
45
-------
Figure 3-21. 1 in. Hole at 77.7 m from Pit #3
3.1.7.5 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #5. The final pre-lining inspection for lining run #5 took
place on Thursday, September 16. The results of the final pre-lining inspection from Pits #6 to #7, which
took 10 minutes to complete, are presented in Table 3-11.
Table 3-11. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #5
Item
Pit #6
Service
Service
Service
Service
Hole
Service
Service
Service
Service
Protrusion
Service
Pit #7
Address
N/A
18407
18406
18401
18400
N/A
18350
18349
18344
18343
N/A
18337
N/A
Location
N/A
at 02:00
at 11:00
at 01:00
at 11:00
at 12:00
at 12:00
at 01:00
at 12:00
at 01:00
at 10:30
at 01:00
N/A
Distance (m)
1.0
16.2
19.2
25.7
26.4
48.0
49.4
50.0
68.3
70.0
81.2
82.0
86.8
Comment
Start, 09/16/2010
3/4 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
1 in. Hole
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
3/4 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
3/4 in. Small Penetrating Service
Small Protrusion of Metal
1 in. Non-Penetrating Service
End (10 minutes)
The 86.8 m lining run had nine services along its length, five of which were 5/8 in. slightly penetrating
services. Three other % in. services were slightly penetrating and one 1 in. non-penetrating services was
located at 82.0 m from Pit #6. Other items detected in the inspection included a 1 in. hole located 48 m
from Pit #6 and a small protrusion of metal located at 81.2 m from Pit #6, shown in Figure 3-22.
46
-------
Figure 3-22. Small Protrusion of Metal at 81.3 m from Pit #6
3.1.7.6 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #6. The final pre-lining inspection for lining run #6 took
place on Thursday, September 16. The results of the final pre-lining inspection from Pits #8 to #7, which
took 10 minutes to complete, are presented in Table 3-12.
Table 3-12. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #6
Item
Pit #8
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Pit #7
Address
N/A
18307
18308
18314
18313
18319
18320
18325
18326
18332
18331
N/A
Location
N/A
at 11:00
at 01:00
at 12:30
at 12:00
at 11:30
at 12:30
at 12:00
at 12:30
at 12:30
at 11:00
N/A
Distance (m)
1.0
4.8
5.8
21.6
23.8
30.8
41.0
56.7
60.4
76.2
76.4
88.4
Comment
Start, 09/16/2010
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Non-Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
3/4 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
3/4 in. Penetrating Service
End (10 minutes)
The 88.4 m lining run had 10 services along its length, five of which were typical 5/8 in. penetrating
services. Two other 5/8 in. services were slightly penetrating and one 5/8 in. service was non-penetrating
(flush). The remaining two services were % in. penetrating services.
3.1.7.7 Pre-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #7. The final pre-lining inspection for lining run #7 took
place on Thursday, September 16. The results of the final pre-lining inspection from Pits #8 to #9, which
took 7 minutes to complete, are presented in Table 3-13.
47
-------
Table 3-13. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #7
Item
Pit #8
Service
Service
Hole
Hole
Pit #9
Address
N/A
18301
18211
N/A
N/A
N/A
Location
N/A
at 01:00
at 02:00
at 04:00
at 04:00
N/A
Distance (m)
1.0
6.7
48.6
58.6
58.7
76.1
Comment
Start, 09/16/2010
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
1 in. Hole
1 in. Hole
End (7 minutes)
The 76.1 m lining run had two services along its length, one 5/8 in. penetrating service and one 5/8 in.
slightly penetrating service. The run also had two 1 in. holes located at 58.6 m and 58.7 m from Pit #8,
respectively.
3.1.8 Pipe Wall Thickness and Inner Diameter. Priorto the demonstration study, the wall
thickness and inner diameter of the test pipe were not exactly known, although the inner diameter of the
test pipe was assumed to be 6 in. Therefore, the actual dimensions were recorded as part of the field
demonstration protocol. A digital caliper was used to measure the wall thickness of the test pipe at 3, 6,
9, and 12 o'clock positions as well as the inside diameter at each pipe opening that was exposed within
each excavation pit. Table 3-14 presents the wall thickness and inside diameter measurements recorded
from each excavation pit.
Table 3-14. Wall Thickness and Inside Diameter Measurements
Test
Pit
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
Pipe
End
East
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
West
Average
Lining
Run
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
Test Pipe
ID,
mm
150.5
150.5
150.8
150.8
150.7
150.8
150.8
154.0
154.0
149.7
153.8
153.6
153.9
153.4
152.0
Wall Thickness, mm
12:00
11.45
11.45
11.43
14.80
14.24
11.11
12.72
13.74
14.04
15.51
12.85
12.55
13.01
12.88
12.98
3:00
10.40
12.48
11.43
12.99
12.66
15.06
12.61
13.09
12.03
11.06
12.00
14.26
14.18
14.38
12.76
6:00
15.60
14.58
11.46
10.68
13.12
16.21
13.01
10.90
14.16
13.22
12.65
12.82
12.25
12.62
13.09
9:00
11.43
11.46
11.44
12.79
10.39
13.22
13.29
13.13
14.17
15.35
11.62
11.58
11.89
11.83
12.40
Avg.
12.22
12.49
11.44
12.82
12.60
13.90
12.91
12.72
13.60
13.79
12.28
12.80
12.83
12.93
12.81
The average thickness of the test pipe wall was 12.81 mm (0.5 in.), with a standard deviation of 1.4 mm
(0.05 in.). The average inner diameter of the test pipe was 152 mm (5.98 in.), with a standard deviation of
1.68 mm (0.07 in.).
3.2
Technology Application
The CIPP lining of the test section took place between September 10 and 18, 2010. The Aqua-Pipe®
lining process involves three main activities: liner impregnation with epoxy resin; insertion in the host
pipe; and curing.
48
-------
3.2.1 Technology Application Equipment and Process. The installation process requires the use
of several pieces of equipment including the wetout rig, pig launcher and catcher, and boiler truck. The
wetout rig is a specialized refrigerated truck, which contains equipment for impregnating the liner with
resin and pulling the liner through rollers to distribute the resin throughout the tube. The low temperature
of the truck delays the reaction of the two parts that make up the resin.
The liner is made of atwo-ply woven seamless polyester jacket, which allows the resin to penetrate the
material and harden in place. The combined effect of the polyester material with a hardened resin results
in a composite liner. The resin is shot into the liner with a specialized gun that has a pointed tip, which
can be inserted between the two jackets. The liner is impregnated as it is being pulled into the main with
a winch truck through dual rollers, which distribute the resin, shown in Figure 3-23.
Figure 3-23. Impregnated Liner Being Pulled Through Dual Rollers (left) and Winch Truck (right)
The liner is pulled over a set of rollers prior to entering the main to keep the liner flat, shown in Figure 3-
24. One roller is attached to the back of the refrigerated truck and the second is attached to the water
main.
Figure 3-24. Roller Attached to the Truck (left) and Roller Attached to the Main (right)
Once the liner has been completely pulled into place, the pig launcher and pig catcher are attached to both
ends of the liner. Before these two apparatuses are attached to the liner, the ends of the main are buffed
and additional resin is hand applied to the ends as a precaution to ensure a good seal, shown in Figure 3-
25.
49
-------
Figure 3-25. Buffer Used to Clean Ends (left) and Addition of Resin at the Ends (right)
The pig launcher and catcher, which are used to expand the liner to the host pipe wall, are attached to the
liner with metal straps (Figure 3-26). The launcher is then hooked up to the bypass system via a hose
attached to the boiler truck, shown in Figure 3-26. The boiler truck supplies pressurized water to the pig
launcher, which then sends the pig from the launcher to the catcher, which took about 5 minutes for each
lining run.
Figure 3-26. Launcher Attached to the Liner (left) and to Water via the Boiler Truck (right)
The boiler truck contains large reservoirs of water, which are pumped into the boiler tank and used for
liner curing, shown in Figure 3-27. The boiler truck is connected to both the pig launcher and catcher to
allow for constant circulation of the water. The truck is used to first circulate cold water under pressure
for 30 minutes and then hot water at 65°C is circulated for 90 minutes to cure the liner. The curing
process heats the impregnated liner to initiate a reaction between the reactants of the polymer resin. The
reaction causes the polymer resin to reticulate and harden to confer mechanical rigidity to the liner.
50
-------
Figure 3-27. Boiler Truck Reservoirs (left) and Boiler Tank (right)
3.2.2 CIPP Liner Installation. The seven individual lining runs took place over the course of nine
days from September 10 to 18. The resin and hardener lot numbers for each lining run were 100080052
and 10080053, respectively. Of all seven lining runs, lining run #3 took approximately 30 minutes longer
to pull into place because issues with a winch truck limited the speed in which the liner was pulled. The
typical pull-in duration was around 85 min at a rate of 3 to 4 ft/min and all liners were allowed to form for
20 to 25 min and cure with hot water for 90 min. The number of epoxy kits used ranged between eight
and ten per lining run.
3.2.3 Post-Installation Pressure Test. Pressure testing on each lining segment was conducted
after CIPP liner curing to evaluate the effectiveness of the rehabilitation. The rehabilitated pipes were
pressurized to 125 psi and a pressure gauge was monitored throughout the one-hour pressure test to
ensure make-up water did not exceed the amount permitted. The permitted amount of make-up water is
equal to 1 liter/hour (L/hr) per 280 ft of length. The results were recorded on log sheets and are presented
in Table 3-15.
Table 3-15. Pressure Testing Results
Lining
Run
#1
#2
#3
#5
#7
Date
09/14/10
09/15/10
09/18/10
09/21/10
09/22/10
Length,
ft
249
313
590
590
252
After
Curing,
days
4
2
2/4
4
4
Start
Flow
Meter,
L/hr
33,425.5
33,448.8
33,565.9
33,614.3
33,658.4
End
Flow
Meter,
L/hr
33,425.5
33,449.0
33,565.9
33,614.3
33,658.4
Make-up
Water
Permitted,
L/hr
0.89
1.12
2.11
2.11
0.90
Make-up
Water
Obtained,
L/hr
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.9
0.2
3.2.4 Reinstatement of Service Connections. The reinstatement of the service connections
included both internal and external reinstatement. Internal reinstatement is the preferred method and less
disruptive than external reinstatement. After pre-lining CCTV and service plugging, it was reported that
about four services would need to be reinstated externally, but some conditions created the need to
externally reinstate an additional 13 service connections as discussed in the following subsections.
51
-------
3.2.4.1 Internal Reinstatement. Once the liner was installed, cured, and pressure tested, the service
connections to the main were located and opened to provide service and allow water to flow back to the
users. The same remote-control robot used to cap the services was used to reinstate the services. The
robot was equipped with an air-actuated drill bit used to cut through the liner and permit free flow of
water through the service connection. Figure 3-28 presents photographs taken from the video monitor as
a service connection was being reinstated.
Figure 3-28. Internal Reinstatement of a Service Connection
During internal reinstatement of the service connections, a total of 17 of the 63 service connections (27%)
were unable to be reinstated internally. The reasons that the service connections could not be reinstated
internally included: (1) non-protruding (flush) service connections that could not be identified post-
rehabilitation; (2) blocked service connections or service located in a fold (block/fold); (3) incomplete
service capping due to corporation stops that were deformed during cleaning that allowed resin to get
behind the plug and block the connection (deform); and (4) difficulty drilling due to misalignment of the
existing saddle and corporation stop with service connection hole (misalign). Three of the 17 services
(5% of the services) needing to be reinstated externally were due to reasons 1 and 2, which are issues
commonly seen by the manufacturer. The remaining 14 external reinstatements (22% of the services)
were due to reasons 3 and 4, which the manufacturer categorizes as extraordinary events, rarely
encountered in water main rehabilitation projects.
3.2.4.2 External Reinstatement. The misalignment of the existing saddle and service connection
hole (reason #4) accounted for six external reinstatements and would be dated back to when the service
connections were installed. The vendor reports that this is the first time that they have experienced this
issue at a job site, but the prevalence of this type of defect in drinking water service line installations was
not further investigated. The other eight external reinstatements were due to the corporation stops that
were deformed due to the use of drag scrapers during the cleaning process (reason #3), which resulted in
poor plug sealing, thereby allowing resin to migrate behind the plug and into the service connection.
Although drag scraping is often used for cement mortar lining, it is not recommended when internal
plugging and reinstatement of service connections are required.
52
-------
A total of 13 additional excavation pits were required to gain access to the 17 service connections that
required external reinstatement. The service connections were reinstated externally using a drill bit to
drill through the service into the interior of the pipe. Table 3-16 summarizes the service connection
reinstatements. The causes for external reinstatement are numbered based on the four reasons cited in
Section 3.2 A.I. The method of reinstatement for each individual service is outlined in the post-
installation CCTV inspection tables in the following section.
Table 3-16. Summary of Service Reinstatement Methods
Lining
Run
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
Date
09/20/10
09/20/10
09/21/10
09/21/10
09/21/10
09/22/10
09/22/10
Total
Total
Connections
10
10
12
10
9
10
2
63
Reinsti
Internal
6
5
11
6
6
10
2
46
itement
External
4
5
1
4
o
J
0
0
17
Flush
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Block/
Fold
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
Deform
3
1
0
3
1
0
0
8
Misalign
0
4
1
0
1
0
0
6
3.3
Post-Demonstration Field Verification
Post-demonstration field verification testing conducted to evaluate the performance of the CIPP liner
included post-lining inspection with a CCTV camera robot. Other tests included were measurements to
verify the thickness of the liner and post-lining hydraulic testing.
3.3.1 Post-Lining CCTV. The post-lining CCTV inspection provided a visual assessment of the
quality of the liner once the services had been reinstated internally. The results of the post-lining CCTV
inspections are documented on DVDs and hard copies of the CCTV logs are included in Appendix A. A
description of each post-lining 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 Monday, September 20 from Pits #2 to #1. The inspection took 11 minutes to complete and the results
are summarized in Table 3-17.
Table 3-17. Post-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #1
Item
Pit #2
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Joint
Pit#l
Address
N/A
18901
18902
18905
Vacant
18910
18909
18913
18914
18923
18924
N/A
N/A
Location
N/A
at 11:30
at 01:00
at 11:00
at 01:30
at 01:30
at 10:30
at 11:00
at 01:30
at 12:00
at 02:00
360°
N/A
Distance (m)
1.0
4.3
6.1
16.6
18.9
33.2
33.7
43.7
47.1
57.1
58.3
69.5,71.5
74.6
Comment
Start, 09/20/2010
5/8 in. Penetrating Service (Deform)
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service Flushed
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service (Deform)
1 in. Non-Penetrating Service (Block)
5/8 in. Penetrating Service (Deform)
Offset Joints
End (11 minutes)
Services
N/A
ER
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
ER
ER
ER
N/A
N/A
53
-------
As outlined in Table 3-16, six of the 10 services were reinstated completely internally (IR). The
remaining four services (18901, 18914, 18923 and 18924) were located, but had to be reinstated
externally since they were deformed during cleaning and blocked by the resin. These four services
required external reinstatement (ER), which was accomplished with three excavation pits. Figure 3-29
shows a service that was reinstated internally and one of the four which were blocked, requiring external
reinstatement.
Figure 3-29. Service Reinstated Internally (left) and Blocked (right)
Throughout the inspection, a small fold was present at the 10:00 location until 58.0 m from Pit #2. The
remainder of the 26.6 m of test pipe had a fold which rotated to different locations, specifically when
encountering the shifted joints around the 70.0 m mark. Figure 3-30 shows the typical fold located at
10:00 and the shifting fold at a shifted joint. The fold exists because the liners are slightly oversized to
account for changes in the inner diameter of the host pipe, thereby ensuring the minimum design
thickness is met throughout the segment.
Figure 3-30. Typical Fold at 10:00 (left) and Folds at a Shifted Joint (right)
3.3.1.2 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #2. The post-lining inspection of lining run #2 occurred
on Monday, September 20 from Pits #2 to #3. The inspection took 14 minutes to complete and the results
are summarized in Table 3-18.
54
-------
Table 3-18. Post-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #2
Item
Pit #2
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Pit #3
Address
N/A
18824
18823
18813
18814
18807
18808
18802
18801
18713
18714
N/A
Location
N/A
at 11:00
at 12:30
at 01:00
at 11:00
at 01:00
at 11:00
at 11:00
at 01:00
at 01:00
at 12:00
N/A
Distance (m)
1.0
10.9
11.7
29.0
29.2
41.0
47.7
61.4
61.5
78.9
80.3
88.9
Comment
Start, 09/20/2010
5/8 in. Penetrating Service Flushed
1 in. Non-Penetrating Service (Misalign)
1 in. Non-Penetrating Service (Misalign)
1 in. Non-Penetrating Service (Misalign)
1 in. Non-Penetrating Service (Misalign)
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service Flushed
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service (Deform)
End (14 minutes)
Services
N/A
IR
ER
ER
ER
ER
IR
IR
IR
IR
ER
N/A
Five of the 10 services were successfully reinstated internally. One of the remaining five services
(18714) was located, but had to be reinstated externally due to being deformed during cleaning. The
remaining four services (18823, 18813, 18814, and 18807) had to be reinstated externally due to
misalignment between the saddle and corporation stop. The five external reinstatements required four
excavation pits. The section also had a small fold throughout the inspection.
3.3.1.3 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #3. The post-lining inspection of lining run #3 occurred
on Tuesday, September 21 from Pits #3 to #4. The inspection took 13 minutes to complete and the results
are summarized in Table 3-19.
Table 3-19. Post-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #3
Item
Pit #3
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Pit #4
Address
N/A
18712
18707
18706
18702
18701
18614
18613
18612
18607
18608
18601
18602
N/A
Location
N/A
at 11:00
at 01:00
at 11:00
at 11:00
at 01:00
at 11:30
at 12:30
at 11:00
at 12:30
at 11:00
at 01:00
at 11:00
N/A
Distance (m)
1.0
2.1
4.9
14.9
25.4
26.8
41.3
41.9
58.6
59.8
65.9
77.9
78.1
87.7
Comment
Start, 09/21/2010
5/8 in. Penetrating Service Flushed
5/8 in. Penetrating Service Flushed
5/8 in. Penetrating Service Flushed
5/8 in. Penetrating Service Flushed
5/8 in. Penetrating Service Flushed
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service Flushed
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service Flushed
5/8 in. Penetrating Service Flushed
1 in. Non-Penetrating Service (Misalign)
5/8 in. Penetrating Service Flushed
5/8 in. Penetrating Service Flushed
5/8 in. Penetrating Service Flushed
End (13 minutes)
Services
N/A
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
ER
IR
IR
IR
N/A
Of the 12 services, 11 were successfully reinstated internally and were flushed. The remaining service
(18607) had to be reinstated externally due to misalignment between the saddle and corporation stop. The
section also had a small fold throughout the inspection.
3.3.1.4 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #4. The post-lining inspection of lining run #4 occurred
on Tuesday, September 21 from Pits #4 to #6, before the two defect sections were extracted. The
inspection took 12 minutes to complete and the results are summarized in Table 3-20.
55
-------
Table 3-20. Post-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #4
Item
Pit #4
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Pit #6
Address
N/A
18514
18513
18507
18508
18502
18502
18418
18419
18412
18413
N/A
Location
N/A
at 11:00
at 01:30
at 02:00
at 11:30
at 11:30
at 02:00
at 12:00
at 02:00
at 11:00
at 02:00
N/A
Distance (m)
1.0
5.6
6.0
22.2
23.4
38.6
40.3
66.3
70.4
85.9
87.4
87.5
Comment
Start, 09/21/2010
5/8 in. Penetrating Service (Deform)
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service (Deform)
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service (Deform)
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
3/4 in. Small Penetrating Service (Fold)
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
3/4 in. Small Penetrating Service
End (12 minutes)
Services
N/A
ER !
ER
IR
ER
IR 1
IR
IR
ER
IR
IR
N/A 1
Six of the 10 services were successfully reinstated internally. Three of the remaining four services
(18514, 18513, and 18508) was located, but had to be reinstated externally due to being deformed during
cleaning. The section also had a small fold throughout the inspection. The remaining service (18419)
was drilled out partially, but due to its location in the middle of the fold, shown in Figure 3-31, had to be
reinstated externally. The four external reinstatements required three excavation pits.
Figure 3-31. Service Located in a Fold
3.3.1.5 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #5. The post-lining inspection of lining run #5 occurred
on Wednesday, September 22 from Pits #6 to #7. The inspection took 11 minutes to complete and the
results are summarized in Table 3-21.
56
-------
Table 3-21. Post-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #5
Item
Pit #6
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Pit #7
Address
N/A
18407
18406
18401
18400
18350
18349
18344
18343
18337
N/A
Location
N/A
at 02:00
at 11:00
at 01:00
at 11:00
at 12:00
at 01:00
at 12:00
at 01:00
at 01:00
N/A
Distance (m)
1.0
16.3
19.2
25.9
26.4
49.6
50.2
68.5
70.2
82.0
86.8
Comment
Start, 09/22/2010
3/4 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service (Fold)
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service (Deform)
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service (Flush)
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
3/4 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
3/4 in. Small Penetrating Service
1 in. Non-Penetrating Service (Misalign)
End (11 minutes)
Services
N/A
IR
IR
ER
ER
IR
IR
IR
IR
ER
N/A
Six of the nine services were successfully reinstated internally. One of the remaining three services
(18401) was located, but had to be reinstated externally due to being deformed during cleaning. One of
the two remaining services (18400) was non-protruding and had to be reinstated externally. The
remaining service (18337) had to be reinstated externally due to misalignment between the saddle and
corporation stop. The three external reinstatements required two excavation pits.
3.3.1.6 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #6. The post-lining inspection of lining run #6 occurred
on Wednesday, September 22 from Pits #8 to #7. The inspection took 11 minutes to complete and the
results are summarized in Table 3-22. All 10 services were successfully reinstated internally. Two
services (18332 and 18331) were not flushed, but excavations were not required to flush the services at a
later time.
Table 3-22. Post-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #6
Item
Pit #8
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Pit #7
Address
N/A
18307
18308
18314
18313
18319
18320
18325
18326
18332
18331
N/A
Location
N/A
at 11:00
at 01:00
at 12:30
at 12:00
at 11:30
at 12:30
at 12:00
at 12:30
at 12:30
at 11:00
N/A
Distance (m)
1.0
4.8
5.8
21.6
23.9
31.0
41.2
56.9
60.5
76.3
76.6
88.3
Comment
Start, 09/22/2010
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Non-Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
3/4 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Penetrating Service Not Flushed
3/4 in. Penetrating Service Not Flushed
End (11 minutes)
Services
N/A
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
N/A
3.3.1.7 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #7. The post-lining inspection of lining run #7 occurred
on Wednesday, September 22 from Pits #8 to #9. The inspection took 9 minutes to complete and the
results are summarized in Table 3-23. Both services were successfully reinstated internally.
57
-------
Table 3-23. Post-Lining CCTV Inspection of Lining Run #7
Item
Pit #8
Service
Service
Fold
Pit #9
Address
N/A
18301
18211
N/A
N/A
Location
N/A
at 01:00
at 02:00
360°
N/A
Distance (m)
1.0
6.7
48.6
74.7
76.1
Comment
Start, 09/22/2010
5/8 in. Penetrating Service
5/8 in. Small Penetrating Service
Circumferential Fold
End (9 min)
Services
N/A
IR
IR
N/A
N/A
Lining run #7 had a continuous fold which stretched the entire length of the run similar to each of the
other six lining runs. The run did, however, contain multiple folds in several locations, as shown in
Figure 3-32, and a circumferential fold at 74.7 m from Pit #8, which prevented the passing of the CCTV
camera after multiple attempts. This circumferential fold (Figure 3-32, right) is caused by excess material
that was not equilibrated during insertion and accumulated by the pig during forming.
Figure 3-32. Multiple Folds (left) and a Circumferential Fold (right)
3.3.2 Lining Thickness. The 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, although it was calibrated
for the CIPP material using samples provided by Aqua-Pipe®. Therefore, after lining of the test pipe, a
digital caliper was used to measure the entire wall thickness (i.e., pipe wall plus liner) at 3, 6, 9, and 12
o'clock positions in each access pit. Those measurements were subtracted from the pipe wall thickness
measurements taken prior to lining presented in Table 3-14. A summary of the thickness measurements is
shown in Table 3-24. Based on the comparison between the measurements collected in the field before
and after lining, the average lining thickness for each end ranged from 2.93 mm (0.12 in.) to 4.66 mm
(0.18 in.), averaging 3.66 mm (0.14 in.).
58
-------
Table 3-24. Thickness Measurements of CIPP Liner
Test
Pit
1
2
o
3
4
6
7
8
9
Pipe
End
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
Average
Lining
Run
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
Test Pipe
Wall Thickness, mm
12:00
2.34
3.50
4.26
2.56
4.14
4.33
4.03
3.02
3.33
4.12
2.75
5.79
4.05
2.73
3.64
3:00
2.66
2.35
3.45
3.61
3.26
4.74
3.48
3.13
2.36
3.82
3.79
3.57
4.73
4.28
3.52
6:00
3.82
2.62
3.84
3.05
4.44
4.88
3.13
3.47
3.01
1.79
3.81
3.44
4.11
4.13
3.54
9:00
3.27
3.25
4.33
5.46
4.12
4.67
4.31
3.40
4.68
3.55
1.86
4.60
3.24
4.66
3.92
Avg.
3.02
2.93
3.97
3.67
3.99
4.66
3.74
3.26
3.35
3.32
3.05
4.35
4.03
3.95
3.66
3.4
Defect Sample Collection
Upon completion of lining, curing and pressure testing of lining run #4 between Pits #4 and #6, the pre-
fabricated and field-prepared defect sections were exhumed and transported to Battelle for further
handling on Wednesday, September 22.
3.4.1 Lab-Prepared Defect Pipe Segment. During the exhumation process, the lab-prepared
defect segment was supported by a lifting strap attached to the bucket of a backhoe. Once the defect pipe
segment was secured, the couplings used to secure the defect-pipe segment to the test pipe were removed
and the liner was cut using a sawzall. As instructed by Sanexen, a stream of water was directed over the
liner while the liner was cut to minimize the amount of heat to which the liner would be subjected. Once
detached from the test pipe, the defect pipe segment was then lifted out of the excavation pit (Figure 3-33)
onto a "V-shaped" support cribbing.
Figure 3-33. Exhumation of Lab-Prepared Defect Section
59
-------
3.4.2 Field-Prepared Defect Pipe Segment. Upon completion of the pipe rehabilitation, the field-
prepared defect pipe segment was exhumed from Pit #5. The exhumation process was identical to the
process used to exhume the lab-prepared defect pipe segment with the exception of having to cut through
the pipe and the liner. A demolition saw was initially used to cut through the pipe down to the liner.
Once the liner was reached, a sawzall was used. As instructed by Sanexen, a stream of water was directed
over the pipe and liner during all sawing activities. The defect pipe segment was then lifted out of the
excavation pit by a lifting strap as shown in Figure 3-34.
Figure 3-34. Exhumation of Field-Prepared Defect Section
3.4.3 Sampling Logistics. After being transported to Battelle, the exhumed pipe segments were
crated and shipped via flat bed truck to Louisiana Tech University's Trenchless Technology Center (TTC)
for storage and laboratory testing. The pipe segments were transported with a chain of custody form.
TTC verified that the exhumed pipe segments arrived intact and were suitable for proposed testing.
3.5 Site Restoration
Site restoration was expected to include disinfection of the system, 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. CWD did not require TC to disinfect the water main after it was reconnected to
the water system. However, bacteriological testing was conducted prior to placing the water main back
into service. Samples were taken on October 15 and 18 from a fire hydrant on Ferncliffe Ave. and the
results of both tests were negative.
3.5.2 Reconnecting the Test Pipe. After CIPP lining, it was necessary to reconnect the test pipe
to the system including all valves, hydrants, and pipe sections, which took place between September 27
and October 7. This included replacement of pipe sections with segments of new 6 in. ductile iron pipes
in Pits #1 through #9; replacement of valves; and replacement of hydrants (shown in Figure 3-35). End
seals were not required at the rehabilitated pipe extremities and there were no documented issues or
difficulties with reconnecting the test pipe to the system.
60
-------
Figure 3-35. Valve being Replaced (left) and installation of a New Hydrant (right)
3.5.3 Backfilling and Site Restoration. Backfilling the rehabilitated test pipe was conducted as
per CWD specifications. The purpose of backfill was not only to fill the access points, but also to protect
the pipe and provide support for valves and hydrants. Backfilling took place in conjunction with
reconnection activities and surface restoration took place between October 27 and November 2. In all,
more than 90 cubic yards of low strength mortar and 20 cubic yards of concrete were used to backfill the
9 access and 13 service reconnection pits. Surface restoration was completed with 28 gal of SS-1 tack
coat and 20 tons of 448 Type 1 asphalt. All additional pieces of pipe, extra fittings, and incidental
materials including excess spoil material were removed from the jobsite during site cleanup activities and
all pavements were cleaned. Grass areas negatively affected by the demonstration were reseeded and
replaced with sod. Any damaged pavement was replaced according to local specifications and standards.
3.6
Post-Rehabilitation Friction Factor Test
A post-rehabilitation Hazen-Williams flow test was performed on August 3, 2011 to evaluate the
improvement in flow of the test section. Two separate tests were conducted on the test segment. The first
test used the first, second, third, and fourth hydrants west of Rocky River Drive and the second test used
the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth hydrants west of Rocky River Drive. This frictional headless and the
flow rates were input into Equation 6 to calculate the C-factor as shown in Table 3-25.
Table 3-25. Post-Rehabilitation C-Factor Results
Parameter
Length of Test Section, ft
Diameter of Test Section (D), in.
Total Head Loss, ft
Total Head Loss, psi
Friction Loss (P), psi/ft
Flow (Q), gpm
C-factor
Average C-factor
Hazen-Williams Flow Test
1
2
598
3
4
600
6
13.33
5.77
0.009652
444.44
110.38
8.33
3.61
0.006032
333.33
106.74
12.50
5.41
0.009021
444.44
114.49
7.08
3.07
0.005109
333.33
116.76
112.10
The average C-factor of the post-rehabilitated test pipe was 112.1. The average C-factor was less than the
120 that was anticipated from the rehabilitation, but it was a significantly greater than the pre-
rehabilitation C-factor of 78.5, resulting in an improvement of nearly 43%.
61
-------
4.0: DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
This section presents the results of the demonstration including a detailed evaluation of the technology
based on the evaluation metrics defined in Section 2.2. As outlined in Section 2.1, a key aspect of the
demonstration study was to assess the demonstrated technology based on the metrics outlined in Table 2-
1. The metrics that were used to evaluate and document the Sanexen Aqua-Pipe® CIPP products are
described below.
4.1 Technology Maturity
The Sanexen Aqua-Pipe® CIPP product is classified as innovative in terms of maturity based on its usage
and supporting performance data. CIPP technology has been successfully used for rehabilitation of
wastewater mains for 40 years, but has only been adapted to use for drinking water mains in the last 10
years. The product has been in use in Canada since 2000 and was first used in the U.S. in Naperville, IL
in the summer of 2006 (Vose and Loiacono, 2007). More than 1,500,000 If (284 miles) has been installed
in North America to date (Belisle, 2011). The Aqua-Pipe® product is a fully-structural Class IV solution,
which is a benefit when compared to the most common water main rehabilitation technology (cement
mortar lining). In the U.S., the product has been used at more than 20 sites as of early 2011 including:
• Cleveland, OH
• Naperville, IL
• Omaha, NE
• New York City, NY
• Charleston, SC
• Elmendorf AFB, AK
• Clinton, MI
• Atlanta, GA
• Minneapolis, MN
As part of the technology evaluation, four utilities provided direct information about their experiences
with the product including Clinton, Charleston, Omaha, and New York City. The township of Clinton,
Michigan has used Aqua-Pipe® to rehabilitate cast iron water main on two occasions: first in August of
2007 for 2,200 ft of 8 in. (Tingberg and Janicki, 2008) and the second in November of 2010 for 4,300 ft
of 12 in. The first project included an additional section of main, which was replaced by open-cut to
compare the costs of the two technologies. The total cost (i.e., cleaning, inspection, service
reinstatements, etc.) of the first project, which included internal reinstatement of 51 services, was $148/lf.
The city was very pleased with the product, which led to the second project. The second project included
26 service reinstatements, only one of which had to be reinstated externally and the total cost for the
project was $170/lf. The city plans to do more projects with this technology in the future as funding
becomes available (Janicki, 2011).
The installation in Charleston, South Carolina took place in the fall of 2009 on 2,000 ft of 8 in. ductile
iron, unlined cast iron, and cement lined cast iron. The mains were roughly 30 years old and located in an
isolated area on an old Navy base. The installation of the liner was successful. Even though the main did
not contain any active services, the requested demonstration of the reconnection process could not be
performed since the existing services had to be abandoned. Unique aspects of the pilot study included
lining through two tee-sections: one of which was successful and one of which plugged up the section and
required a repair. Lining through tee-sections is not recommended by Sanexen, but Charleston Water
System (CWS) decided they wanted to test it out. Also, an attempt at installing a new service on the lined
62
-------
main was made, which was unsuccessful as the drill bit stretched the polymeric membrane of the liner
considerably before breaking through the material. This attempt was performed by an inexperienced
contractor unfamiliar with the manufacturer tapping procedure. CWS will use this pilot project for
considering CIPP technology for additional projects in its historic downtown area (Benjock, 2011).
The project in Omaha for the Metropolitan Utilities District (MUD) took place in the fall of 2009 and
involved the rehabilitation of 1,460 ft of 10 in. and 1,090 ft of 12 in. cast iron mains dating back as far as
1895 in the Old Market District (Schovanec and Cote, 2011). Although this area had very few breaks, the
opportunity to address these 100+ year old mains would be limited in the future due to the restoration of
original cobblestone pavements in the area, scheduled for late 2009. MUD took the opportunity to
address these mains prior to the City's pavement restoration projects and chose structural lining over
alternative methods such as open cut and pipe bursting. The project included nine lining runs, all of
which were successfully installed and passed pressure testing. The main had a total of 86 service
connections: 32 of which were reinstated robotically; 35 of which were abandoned and robotically
plugged; and 19 which had to be reconnected externally due to their size. Omaha was pleased with the
results of the project and has recently used structural CIPP lining to rehabilitate another main and plans to
use it more in the future (Schovanec, 2011).
For the installation in New York, the City planned to rehabilitate approximately 9,000 ft of the 48 in.
diameter water main located on the west side of Madison Ave. The majority of the water main was
rehabilitated using fold-and-form, but the Department of Design and Construction (DDC) decided to test
CIPP on a small section of the 12 in. water main located on the east side of the street. Aqua-Pipe® was
used to rehabilitate a 230 ft section of cast iron in the winter of 2010, which was originally constructed in
1881, making the main nearly 120 years old (Ng and Loiacono, 2011). DDC was pleased with the
technology overall and anticipates using the product on more projects in the future. Areas of note include
the use of bypass lines, which are difficult to use in an environment like Manhattan due to security issues
and the difficulty for use with large buildings. Another potential limitation for New York's future use is
the limitation around a certain degree of bends as New York City has many mains with vertical and
horizontal bends so that the mains can avoid the multitude of other utilities underground (Ng, 2011).
In addition to the installation history cited above, performance data are also available in the Aqua-Pipe®
rehabilitation manual (Sanexen, 2010). The manual contains material physical properties, design
parameters, and product specifications and certifications, including the ANSI/NSF 61 Certificate. The
manual does not contain long-term testing results as the tests are currently being carried out by a third-
party laboratory at the time of this report.
4.2 Technology Feasibility
The Sanexen Aqua-Pipe® product is marketed as a Class IV liner capable of providing a fully structural
solution for renewing water mains. Essentially, the product forms a pipe within a pipe which is capable
of surviving possible failure of the host pipe. The structural performance of the liner is discussed in
Section 4.4, but the installed product was considered applicable to the rehabilitation requirements of this
demonstration. Challenging pipe configurations were not encountered as the liner was not installed
through any valves or fittings and the lining runs were without any major bends.
Anticipated failure modes considered included incomplete curing of the liner or premature curing of the
liner prior to full insertion. Neither of these failure modes was evident during the installation and curing
process or during post-installation inspections. After post-installation inspections and exhumation of the
two defect sections, visual inspections were also made to determine the ability of the liner to bridge the
pre-installed defects, shown in Figure 4-1. The liner did bridge each of the pre-installed defects, fit
tightly inside the host pipe, and there was no measurable annular space between the two.
63
-------
Figure 4-1. Exhumed Defected Sample
4.3
Technology Complexity
The use of structural CIPP liners for water mains is a sound alternative to open-cut replacement and the
traditional non-structural rehabilitation technology cement mortar lining. CIPP liners offer a similar level
of rehabilitation with less disruption to the surface when compared with open-cut replacement, as
excavations are typically spaced at 300 ft apart. Cement mortar liners, which require similar excavations
for access, are non-structural and only applicable to taste and corrosion control. Therefore, this
technology is considered beneficial for small, medium, and large utilities in need of structural alternatives
to open-cut replacement. Various aspects that contribute to the complexity of the technology such as
training requirements, site preparation activities, labor requirements, etc., are discussed below.
4.3.1 Training and Preparation Requirements. Although the demonstration described in this
report was performed by Sanexen, the product can be installed by licensed contractors that have been
trained to install the CIPP liner. The liner cannot be installed by untrained personnel, which is common
for the majority of rehabilitation technologies, but the pre- and post-installation activities and
maintenance operations can be performed by typical utility contactors and personnel. It is important that
the cleaning process used by the contractor be coordinated ahead of time to ensure consistency with the
manufacturer recommendations to avoid damage or deformation to the corporation stops prior to
rehabilitation. Site preparation activities, as discussed in Section 3.1, include bypass installation, pipe
cleaning, and excavation of access pits, all of which are required by other rehabilitation technologies.
The technology's effect on traffic flow is limited due to reduced excavation when compared with full
length open-cut replacement, but traffic control in the form of cones and signs is needed in and around
excavations.
4.3.2 Labor and Time Requirements. The time and labor for each of the major installation
functions is provided in Table 4-1 to outline the overall requirements for a typical installation. Since
several activities (i.e., excavation, cleaning, reconnection and site restoration, and bypass removal) had
varying crew sizes, the total number of labor hours is provided for the specified number of days with
average hours per day provided. The total Sanexen labor hours for the entire CIPP liner installation
including service capping, liner installation and curing, pressure testing, and reinstatement of services
64
-------
internally, are shown in a lump sum. Individual activity durations are described in the appropriate
subsections in Section 3.
Table 4-1. Estimate of Time and Labor Requirements for Major Activities
Activity
Bypass Piping (Entire test section)
Pit Excavation
Test Section Cleaning
Capping, CIPP Installation
and Internal Services
Reconnection and Site Restoration
Bypass Removal
Labor Required
F and 3L
F, L, O and T
F, L and O/T
F and 2L to 3L
0
1R and 3LI
F, O, 1L to 5L, and T
2F, O, and 6L
Time Required
166 hrs total (6 days, ~7 hr/day)
164 hrs total (5 days, ~8 hr/day)
99 hrs total (4 days, ~8 hr/day)
195 hrs total (6 days, ~8 hr/day)
116 hrs total (12 days, -9.5 hr/day)
384 hrs total (12 days, ~8 hr/day)
476 hrs total (13 days, ~7 hr/day)
47 hrs total (2 days, -6.5 hr/day)
Labor is identified as: F, contractor foreman;
and LI, liner installers.
L, laborers; O, backhoe operator; T, truck driver; R, robot operator;
The test pipe was taken out of service once the bypass was put online on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 and
the test pipe was put back online on Thursday, October 21, 2010. Therefore, the test pipe was out of
service and bypassed for seven weeks and two days.
4.3.3 Process Evaluation. The installation process has been optimized over the 10+ year
installation history in Canada and 5+ year history in the U.S. One aspect of the installation that is manual
and not automated is the impregnation of the liner with resin during installation, which is performed with
a hand-held gun. The installation process provides the technician with the proper liner/resin ratios to be
used during wet out, which are accounted for in QC by a counter and flow meter. In addition, the resin is
mechanically measured using pre-determined spacing between two compression rollers for each specific
liner diameter. This is used in order to assure the liner/epoxy ratio requirements. An automated measure
of the amount of resin being inserted into the liner would allow for QC of the resin.
Some issues related to mechanical difficulty and unexpected events occurred during the installation.
Mechanical issues with the capping robot delayed the capping for a few days while the problem was
worked out. The issue turned out to be a power issue and not a mechanical failure as originally thought,
and once discovered, capping and inspection resumed uninterrupted. The other issue observed during the
demonstration was the number of services requiring externally reinstatement. As discussed in Sections
3.2.4.1 and 3.2.4.2, 17 of the 63 active services (27%) had to be reinstated externally by excavation due to
various issues. These issues reduced the benefit of limited excavation for this project, since the external
service reinstatements required additional 13 excavations pits. Of the 17 services requiring external
reinstatement, 14 were due to reasons 3 and 4 (previously cited in Section 3.2.4.1), which the
manufacturer categorizes as extraordinary events that rarely occur in water main rehabilitation projects.
CWD reported that after service plugging, only four services were expected to require external
reinstatement. The additional 13 services requiring external reinstatement came as a surprise to CWD and
some of the benefits of using the product were negated due to the additional required excavations.
4.4
Technology Performance
Technology performance was evaluated in the field and the lab through the use of the QA/QC procedures
outlined in Section 2.2.6. Field QA/QC of surface preparation was accomplished by cleaning and drying
the test pipe and proper preparation was verified by the pre-installation CCTV inspection. Water
tightness of each section was verified in the field via post-installation pressure tests, all of which passed
65
-------
as documented in Section 3.2.3. The following sections discuss the results of the laboratory testing used
to evaluate the manufacturer-stated claims of performance versus actual liner performance.
4.4.1 Liner Thickness. The liner thickness was measured in the field and the lab to verify the
design thickness was met, shown in Table 4-2. The design thickness was calculated using ASTM F-1216
as described in Section 2.2.4. Conservative design thicknesses were obtained from Equations 1, 3, and 5
by assuming a groundwater table level 1.8 m (6 ft) above the invert of the pipe. Design thicknesses were
calculated to be 1.8 mm (0.07 in.) to support the water table, 2.5 mm (0.10 in.) to support the water table
plus vacuum condition, 2.4 mm (0.09) to support dead and live loads, and 2.3 mm (0.09) to support
internal water pressure, with the largest (e.g., 2.5 mm) taken as the minimum design thickness.
Table 4-2. Summary of Thickness Measurements
Measurement Location (Method)
Minimum Design Thickness
Lining Run #1 (Field)
Lining Run #2 (Field)
Lining Run #3 (Field)
Lining Run #4 (Field)
Lining Run #5 (Field)
Lining Run #6 (Field)
Lining Run #7 (Field)
All Lining Runs
Defect Sections, Crown (Lab)
Defect Sections, Invert (Lab)
Defect Sections, Springline (Lab)
Defect Sections, All (Lab)
Avg.
(mm.)
2.50
2.98
3.82
4.32
3.50
3.33
3.70
3.99
3.66
4.67
4.83
4.64
4.72
Min.
(mm.)
N/A
2.34
2.56
3.26
3.02
1.79
1.86
2.73
1.79
4.17
4.47
4.27
4.17
Max.
(mm.)
N/A
3.82
5.46
4.88
4.31
4.68
5.79
4.73
5.79
5.13
5.56
5.03
5.56
Standard
Deviation
N/A
0.56
0.89
0.51
0.46
0.94
1.17
0.68
0.85
0.20
0.22
0.21
0.23
For determining the thickness of the liner samples in the laboratory, specimens from three different
locations were used: the pipe's springline, crown, and invert. At each location, a strip of liner
(approximately 1 in. wide) was cut out (Figure 4-2, yellow lines) and six specimens (approximately 0.5
in. long each) were cut out of each strip. It should be noted that on one side of the liner (at left
springline), there was a noticeable fold in the liner and the strip was cut out in two parts avoiding the fold
(see Figure 4-2, left). Ten thickness readings were taken around each specimen (a total of 180 readings)
using a digital caliper with an accuracy of ±0.0001 (Figure 4-2, right).
liner strips were cut out first
Figure 4-2. Location of Thickness Specimens (left) and Measuring with a Digital Caliper (right)
66
-------
The average measured thicknesses and their standard deviations were determined in the lab from the test
sections and the overall average thickness was calculated to be 4.72 mm. The average thickness showed
the lab measurements to be more than 1 mm larger on average (i.e., 4.72 mm, lab, to 3.66 mm, field).
This is most likely due to the location of the measurements, as the field measurements were taken at the
ends of the lining runs where the liner can stretch. In all cases, the average measured CIPP wall
thicknesses were more than 1 mm greater than the design thickness of 2.5 mm.
4.4.2 Liner Ovality. To accurately map any deformation inside the liner, a profile plotter
developed at the TTC was used. The system features a linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT)
connected to a motor-gear system that rotates around the inner circumference of the liner. An encoder
system provides position information regarding the location around the pipe at which the data are taken.
The liner was placed inside a steel pipe, simulating a host pipe, and the profile plotter's centerline was
carefully aligned with that of the liner. The whole section was 14 in. long. Ovality was measured near
the middle of the section, at three cross-sections spaced 1 in. apart. Continuous readings were taken
around the circumference of each cross-section and averaged, shown in Figure 4-3. The procedure was
repeated after the liner had been tested for buckling to identify any change in the liner ovality. A profile
plot taken before and after the buckling test is shown in Figure 4-4.
Figure 4-3. Measuring Ovality before Buckling test (left) and after Buckling (right)
Profile Plot
Dst-Pipe (Steel Tube)
Figure 4-4. Ovality of Host Pipe (red), Liner before Buckling (green), and after Buckling (blue)
67
-------
The diameters measured when including the folded section, which are values from around 135° to 225°,
were excluded in the ovality calculations since the values would skew the calculations. Based on plots of
this pipe section, the fold represented approximately 25% of the circumference of the liner. The equation
in ASTM F-1216 does not account for the folding in the ovality calculation, which is something that
could be addressed in the future. The mean and minimum diameters measured outside of the folded
section by the plotter were 5.76 in. and 5.61 in., respectively. A resulting liner ovality measure of 2.5%
was calculated according to the equation provided in ASTM F-1216. The ovailty used in ASTM F-1216
liner design of 2% is an assumption, but the 2.5% measured after bucking is within the 5% maximum
used in F-1216 for calculating maximum loads (ASTM, 2009a).
4.4.3 Tensile Testing. The tensile tests conducted at the TTC used specimens that were cut from
the retrieved liner samples in accordance with ASTM D-638 (ASTM, 2008a; Figure 4-5) for measuring
the liner's tensile strength. A total of five specimens were prepared (cut in longitudinal direction) and
tested in the testing machine as shown in Figure 4-5.
Figure 4-5. Samples for Tensile Test (left) and Testing Machine (right)
The results of tensile testing are shown in Table 4-3. Using the information given in Table 4-3, the stress-
strain curves for all specimens was plotted, as shown in Figure 4-6. The average peak tensile stress for all
five samples is 9,415 psi, which is more than triple the 3,000 psi required by ASTM F-1216. The liner
performed very well despite the defects that were installed into the test sections
Table 4-3. Results from Tensile Testing (Longitudinal Direction)
Location
1
2
3
4
5
Average
Area(a) (in2)
0.0966
0.0914
0.0855
0.0918
0.0875
0.0906
Peak load (Ib)
923
812
825
867
833
852
Peak stress (psi)
9,555
8,888
9,645
9,463
9,525
9,415
Tensile modulus (psi)
780,000
486,000
440,000
486,000
389,000
516,200
(a) The thickness of the inner polyurethane liner, which ranges from 0.4 to 0.6 mm, is not considered in the
area calculations.
68
-------
Tensile Stress vs. Strain
12000
10000
8000
„- 6000
4000
2000
—Sample 1
—Sample 2
—Sample 3
—Sample 4
—Sample 5
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Strain, in/in
0.1
0.12
Figure 4-6. Stress-strain Curves from Tensile Testing
4.4.4 Flexural Testing. Five specimens (Figure 4-7, left) were cut from the retrieved liner
specimen in accordance with ASTM D-790 (ASTM, 2007a) for measuring the liner's flexural strength
and flexural modulus of elasticity. All sides of the specimens were smoothed using a grinder and a table
router. A water jet cutter could not be used due to curvature of the liner. Testing was performed using an
ADMET eXpert 2611 universal testing machine (UTM) shown in Figure 4-7 (right). Table 4-4 lists the
dimensions and moment of inertia area for all specimens.
Figure 4-7. Samples Prepared for Bending Test (left) and Bending Test (right)
Table 4-4. Specimens Used for Bending Testing
Specimen
1
2
3
4
5
Span
(in.)
4
4
4
4
4
Dimension
Width (in.)
0.459
0.515
0.501
0.493
0.479
Depth (in.)
0.1524
0.1704
0.1494
0.1504
0.1494
Moment of Inertia
of Area (in.4)
0.0001354
0.0002123
0.0001392
0.0001398
0.0001331
69
-------
Using the information listed in Table 4-4, the peak bending stress was calculated, shown in Table 4-5 and
the flexural stress vs. strain graph was plotted for all samples (Figure 4-8). Peak load, peak shear stress,
and flexure modulus were obtained from the software 'MtestW that operates the ADMET eXpert 2611
UTM. Deflection was calculated using the formula given by ASTM D-790. Peak bending stress was
calculated from the peak load value achieved 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. Test Result of Bending Test on the Ring Sample
Specimen
1
2
3
4
5
Average
Peak load
Ob)
13.77
21.70
13.73
15.79
13.51
15.70
Flexural
modulus (psi)
350,000
370,000
357,142
367,500
390,000
366,928
Deflection
(in.)
0.387
0.368
0.368
0.410
0.347
0.376
Peak bending
stress (psi)
7,750
8,707
7,376
8,496
7,582
7,982
The average peak bending stress for all five specimens was 7,982 psi, 3,500 psi more than the 4,500 psi
required by ASTM F-1216. The average flexural modulus was 366,928 psi, 115,000 psi more than the
250,000 psi required by ASTM F-1216.
Flexural Stress vs. Flexural Strain
—Sample 1
—Sample 2
Sample 3
—Sample 4
—Sample 5
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Flexural Strain, in/in
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure 4-8. Stress vs. Strain Curves
70
-------
4.4.5 Hardness Testing. The Durometer (Shore D) hardness test (ASTM D-2240; ASTM, 2005c)
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 (Figure 4-9).
Figure 4-9. Specimen for Shore D Hardness Test (left) and a Shore D Hardness Tester (right)
The Shore D hardness scale utilizes a weight of 10 Ib 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., similar to
those used by forklifts), while a value of 80 represents the hardness of paper making rollers. Six
specimens at each of the three locations of the exhumed sample (i.e., crown, springline, and invert) that
were used in the thickness measurements were subjected to the Shore D hardness test.
For each specimen, a total of 18 readings were taken on the outer surface of the liner (towards the host
pipe wall) and another 18 readings on the inner surface of the liner. The average calculated values and
their standard deviations are shown in Figure 4-10, 4-11, and 4-12. The weighted average of Shore D
hardness was calculated to be:
• For the inner surface: 42.1 ±2.2 (crown), 39.8 ±5.4 (springline), and 40.2 ±1.4 (invert)
• For the outer surface: 64.8 ±2.2 (crown), 66.2 ±5.1 (springline), and 60.8 ±1.5 (invert)
The inner surfaces have lower hardness values compared with the outer surface of the liner.
100
90
Cleveland 6 in. - Crown
D Inner surface (left) Weighted average 42.112.2
— • Outer surface (right)- Weighted average 64.812.2
Figure 4-10. Shore D Hardness of the Liner at the Crown
71
-------
Cleveland 6 in. - Springline
u Inner surface (left) Weighted average 39.8 ± 5.4
D Outer surface (right) Weighted average 66.215.1
Specimen
Figure 4-11. Shore D Hardness of the Liner at the Springline
Cleveland 6 in. - Invert
D Inner surface (left) Weighted average 40.2 ± 1.4
Outer surface (right) Weighted average 60.811.5
Specimen
Figure 4-12. Shore D Hardness of the Liner at the Invert
The six specimens from each of three locations were also subjected to the Barcol hardness test, using the
equipment as shown in Figure 4-13. For each specimen, a total of 18 readings were taken on the outer
surface using a hand-held portable Barcol hardness tester (Figure 4-13) and another 18 readings were
taken on the inner surface.
Figure 4-13. Hand-Held Portable Barcol Hardness Tester (left) and Taking Measurements (right)
72
-------
Similarly to the Durometer (Shore D) hardness test, it was found that the measured inner surface hardness
values were lower than those measured on the outer surface. The average calculated values and their
standard deviations are shown in Figures 4-14, 4-15, and 4-16. The weighted average of Barcol hardness
was calculated to be:
• For the inner surface: 2.2 ± 0.3 (crown), 2.1 ± 0.3 (springline), and 1.9 ± 0.3 (invert)
• For the outer surface: 9.7 ±1.4 (crown), 9.4 ±1.4 (springline), and 9.9 ±1.1 (invert)
Cleveland 6 in. - Crown
D Inner surf ace (left) Weighted average 2.2±0.3
• Outer surface (right) Weighted average 9.7 ± 1.4
Figure 4-14. Barcol Hardness of the Liner at the Crown
Cleveland6in. -Springline
D Inner surf ace (left) Weighted average 2.1±0.3
• Outer surface (right) Weighted average 9.4 ± 1.4
Figure 4-15. Barcol Hardness of the Liner at the Springline
73
-------
Cleveland 6 in. - Invert
Inner surface (left) Weighted average 1.9±0.3
Outer surface (right) Weighted average 9.9 ±1.1
Figure 4-16. Barcol Hardness of the Liner at the Invert
The softer inner surface is due to the presence of a thin polyurethane layer on the inside of the liner that
causes lower hardness values. This polyurethane layer is present for water tightness and has no structural
properties. There was some resin leaching through the defect holes that were made prior to the lining
installation (Figure 4-17), which might have caused an unequal distribution of the resin, and thus
contributed partially to softer inner surface.
Figure 4-17. Exhumed Sample Showing Resin That Has Leached Out
4.4.6 Negative Pressure Testing. To perform the negative pressure or vacuum test, the ductile
iron host pipe was first carefully broken by hammering and by utilizing a manually operated hydraulic
press to enable removing the liner from the host pipe while minimizing the possibility of damaging the
liner (Figure 4-18, left). Using a hand saw next, a 2 ft long section was cut out from the released liner
(Figure 4-18, right) where cured resin areas were showing on the surface of the liner due to the defects
(approximately 2 in. x 1 in.) that had been created in the host pipe prior to the relining.
74
-------
Figure 4-18. Breaking the Host Pipe (left) and Cutting the Liner Specimen (right)
The two caps necessary for closing and sealing the specimen for the test were manufactured by cutting a
circular steel plate, 6.5 in. in diameter using a water jet cutter, and welding it to a short piece of steel pipe
(3 in. long). A provision to a quick connector was attached to one cap. Polyurea was next poured inside
one cap and the liner was inserted into it and held until cured (Figure 4-19, left). The procedure was
repeated to attach the other cap to the farther end of the specimen and the final specimen is shown in
Figure 4-19 (right).
Figure 4-19. Specimen with a Cap on One Side (left) and the with Caps on Both Sides (right)
The sealed specimen was placed on top of a custom-made support as shown in Figure 4-20. Four LVDTs
were installed on the specimen: one on the crown, two on the spring-lines, and one on the invert, to
monitor and record any deflection induced by the vacuum inside the specimen. A vacuum pump of 100
kilopascals, kPa (1 bar) capacity was turned on and the vacuum was gradually created by sucking the air
out of the specimen. The gauge pressure was gradually increased to 1 bar and held at this level for 70
hours.
75
-------
Resin plugs snowing at
locations of defects on
the host pipe
Figure 4-20. Complete Experimental Setup
Figure 4-21 shows deflections measured by the LVDTs, which were very small (i.e., less than 0.003 in.).
The LVDT in the liner's crown (where defects manufactured in the host pipe prior to re lining were
located) measured slightly larger deflections compared to other LVDTs where measured values were
close to zero. The liner withstood the vacuum force (-14.5 psi) for 70 hours with very little deflection.
Deflection Vs Time
-Crown SL-N SL-S
-Invert
0.0030
0.002S
0.0020
0.0015
0.0010 —f—
0.0005
i.: uOUM
0.00 0,50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Time, hr
Figure 4-21. Deflection Readings during the Vacuum Test
76
-------
4.4.7 Short-Term Pressure Testing. The liner was taken out of the host pipe and a 14 in. long
section cut out as described in Section 4.4.6 (vacuum test). A 0.5 in. thick, 6 in. inner diameter steel pipe
that would act as a host pipe for the short-term pressure test (buckling test) was prepared by drilling two
threaded holes on the opposite sides of the host pipe to attach quick connectors as shown in Figure 4-22.
Figure 4-22. Buckling Test: Close-up of Quick Connector (left) and Both Quick Connectors (right)
The liner was placed inside the steel pipe and two custom-designed caps were fabricated for the ends. A
small, elevated platform was placed inside the cap and resin was poured and later, the pipe with the liner
was placed on the cap as shown in Figure 4-23.
Figure 4-23. Resin inside the Cap (left) and the Host Pipe and Liner placed on the Cap (right)
Next, the inner side of the outer flange of the cap and outer side of the host pipe were filled with resin to
seal the cap to the host pipe in the cap. Resin was also poured between the inner side of the inner flange
of the cap and interior side of the liner. Following the same procedure, the opposite side of the pipe was
also capped as shown in Figure 4-24.
77
-------
Figure 4-24. Pouring Resin to Attach the Cap to the Host Pipe
A leak test was first performed on the sample using green food coloring to trace any leaks (Figure 4-25)
in order to confirm that the specimen was ready for the external pressure (buckling) test.
Figure 4-25. Leak Test (left) and adding Green Coloring to the Water (right)
The buckling test was performed according to the protocol outlined in Table 4-6. Pressure was applied
using a high pressure pump and some of the pressure steps are shown in Figures 4-26 through 4-29.
There were no visible leaks or deformations observed on the liner during the test up to a final pressure of
140 psi.
Table 4-6. Buckling Test Protocol
Reading
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Pressure
(psi)
0
5
10
20
30
60
100
120
140
Duration
(mins)
15
2
5
10
15
30
30
30
60
Remarks
Space between the host pipe and liner flooded to bleed out air
Check for any leak
No visible leak or deformation on the liner
No visible leak or deformation on the liner
No visible leak or deformation on the liner
No visible leak or deformation on the liner
No visible leak or deformation on the liner
No visible leak or deformation on the liner
No visible leak or deformation on the liner
78
-------
Figure 4-26. Bleeding Out of the Air (left) and Purging the Line (right)
Figure 4-27. 20 psi Pressure (left) and No Signs of Distress (right)
Figure 4-28. 60 psi Pressure (left) and No Signs of Distress (right)
79
-------
Figure 4-29. 140 psi Pressure (left) and No Signs of Distress (right)
4.4.8 Specific Gravity. Specific gravity was measured utilizing the displacement method in
accordance with ASTM D-792 (ASTM, 2008c). The standard specifies that any convenient size
specimen can be used for this testing. The weight of 10 specimens was measured in air and in water, and
specific gravity was calculated for each specimen using the equation advised in ASTM D-792 The
average specific gravity for the sample was calculated to be 1.154 and standard deviation 0.093 as shown
in Figure 4-30.
io*dfk Siavitv j.15 a/trn3
Average 1.154 ± 0.93 g/cm3
Figure 4-30. Specific Gravity of the Samples
4.4.9 Pressure Burst Testing. The exhumed host pipe/liner sample delivered to the TTC did not
have sufficient length for also preparing a sample that could be used in pressure bursting tests. Therefore,
results from bursting tests performed on a different yet very similar pipe re lined several years ago using
the same CIPP liner in Canada (Allouche and Moore, 2005) is discussed in Appendix B.
4.4.10 Raman Spectroscopy Testing. The Raman spectroscopy testing was completed by TTC and
the results of the tests are shown in Figure 4-31. The tests were conducted on six samples, four of which
were base samples for comparison and two samples taken from the liner retrieved from the field. The
field samples were taken from the crown and invert of the liner.
80
-------
Sanexen Raman Shift
100
500
900
1300
Raman Shift, cm'
1700
2100
2500
Figure 4-31. Results of Raman Spectroscopy Testing
The field retrieved samples showed similar peaks to the base samples although not the same magnitude.
This means that no resin degradation has occurred, which should be expected since the liner was not
exposed to water for very long before being exhumed. This test is useful in providing baseline data,
which can be used for future comparison to help indentify resin degradation over time.
4.4.11 Summary. Table 4-7 summarizes the test results for the testing of the Sanexen Aqua-Pipe®
CIPP liner used in the Cleveland demonstration compared with the minimum design values.
Table 4-7. Summary of Test Data for Aqua-Pipe® CIPP Liner
Test
Liner Thickness, mm (in.)
Pipe/Liner Ovality, %
Tensile Strength, psi (MPa)
Flexural Strength, psi (MPa)
Flexural Modulus, psi (MPa)
Inner/Outer Hardness, Shore D
Inner/Outer Hardness, Barcol
Short-Term Pressure, psi (MPa)
Negative Pressure, psi (MPa)
Specific Gravity, g/cm3
Suggested
Specification'3'
2.5(0.10)
2.0
10,000 (68.9)
10,000 (68.9)
350,000 (2,413)
N/A
N/A
N/A
-14.5 (-0.10)
1.150
Minimum Design
(ASTM F-1216)
2.5(0.10)
N/A
3,000 (20.7)
4,500(31.0)
250,000 (1,724)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Average Lab
Value
4.72(0.19)(b)
2.5
9,415 (64.9)
7,982 (55.0)
366,928 (2,530)
40.7/63.9
2.1/9.7
140 (0.97)
-14.5 (-0.10)
1.154
^Manufacturer suggested specification as of May 2011.
(b) Includes thickness of polyurethane liner
The tensile and flexural strengths measured in the lab were lower than the suggested manufacturer
specification. This could be due to the fact that samples were taken from test sections of pipe containing
several installed defects, which allowed some resin to escape during curing. In all, the liner mechanical
properties (i.e., tensile strength, flexural strength, and flexural modulus) exceeded the minimum
requirements for ASTM F-1216 despite those installed defects. The liner did perform in a manner
consistent with a fully-structural, Class IV CIPP liner.
81
-------
4.5
Technology Cost
The costs for the CIPP demonstration and associated activities are documented in Table 4-8. The cost
item 'Structural CIPP lining" contains the costs for: setting up and disconnecting the 4 in. bypass;
excavation and restoration of all 22 access pits for installation and service reconnection; cleaning, capping
of service, CIPP installation, and internal service reinstatement; external service restatement; hydrant and
valve replacement; and pipe reconnection and site restoration. In all, the demonstration resulted in a cost
of $505,686 for the 2,040 ft test section (i.e., test section length includes the lined sections plus the
replacement sections in between lining runs) for a unit cost of $247.89/lf. The structural CIPP portion of
the proj ect accounted for $3 74,000 of the proj ect total for the 1,996 If of main that was lined for a CIPP
only unit cost of $187.38/lf
Table 4-8. Cost Summary for Cleveland Demonstration
Cost Item
Bypass piping
4 - cast iron valves
3 - replacement valves
6 - replacement hydrants
2 - hydrant risers
Replacement of main/pavement at Rocky River & Ferncliffe
Service connection
Structural CIPP lining
Units
2,063.5 If
4 each
3 each
6 each
total
total
total
1,996 If
Unit Price
$17.00
$4,506.00
$4,506.00
$6,542.00
$989.83
$22,723.52
$2,100.00
$187.38
Total
Cost
$35,079.50
$18,024.00
$13,518.00
$39,252.00
$989.83
$22,723.52
$2,100.00
$374,000.00
$505,686.85
4.6
Technology Environmental and Social Impact
Aqua-Pipe® is marketed as an alternative with low green house gas or carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent
emissions when compared to conventional methods. The installation method required access pits at
intervals of about 285 ft, reducing the equipment noise, disposal trucks, and hauling of bedding and
backfill materials compared with open-cut. For this project, the advantage was reduced by the addition of
13 excavation pits for reinstatement of 17 service connections that could not be reinstated internally.
The estimated volume of wastewater generated during field activities was monitored and the total amount
of wastewater generated during the demonstration project was 272,607 gal as shown in Table 4-9. The
bypass system was initially flushed at 600 gpm for 15 minutes and the flowrate was reduced to 100 gpd
for 7 days. During hydraulic jetting, approximately 1 gal/ft of water was used for the 1,996 ft test pipe
and each pipe section was hydraulic-jetted four times. A flowrate of approximately 300 gpm was used
during drag scraping and the time needed to drag-scrape the length of each test section was approximately
30 min and each of the seven test sections was drag-scraped four times. After lining, each test section
was cured by circulating hot water, with every foot of 6 in. diameter pipe containing 1.47 gal.
Table 4-9. Estimated Wastewater Volumes
Activity
Bypass Flushing
Hydraulic -Jetting
Drag-Scraping
Liner Curing
Flow Rate
600 gpm
100 gpd
1 gal/ft = 1994 gal/pass
300 gpm
1.47 gal/ft = 2931 gal
Time
15 mins
7 days
4 passes
120 mins/section
N/A
Total
Wastewater, gal
9,000
700
7,976
252,000
2,931
272,607
82
-------
In addition to the reduced environmental and social impact, the product is marketed as a technology with
low CO2 equivalent emissions compared to traditional open cut. CO2 equivalents or green house gases
make up the carbon footprint and include CO2, CH4, and N2O. Among the tools available commercially to
show the benefits of similar technologies is the e-Calc tool, which was developed at Arizona State
University for horizontal directional drilling (HDD) manufacturer Vermeer to illustrate the advantages of
using trenchless technologies. The e-Calc was used to calculate the environmental impact for each of the
major activities included in construction including: laying out and setting up the bypass; excavating the
access pits; cleaning and swabbing; CIPP liner installation; site restoration; and bypass removal. The tool
takes into account specific vehicle and equipment parameters, such as the vehicle parameters shown in
Figure 4-32, to calculate the emissions including CO2, shown in the results in Figure 4-33.
Transport emails
Gross Vehicle
N™ •**•= Y^ WBghtCGVW)
EH
1 unity Van
Truck
FordE-350
FordF-650
2000
2000
1 1
1 1 1
S.501-10.00Q
19,501-26,000
| =uel Deiais
^ -
_^J| 1000
j^j 1000
[ l>e«l jj|
D-esel jJI
3ir r ~^ir
31
3
31
31
31
31
i
Sulfur
0.05 Jl
0.05 jrjl
31
31
-I
31
Pro-^ct Details
Alttude
low J|
low Jill
31
11
31
31
Mintier
af Trips
6I
l\
1
1
1
Oneway
DffiUnce
(ml)
• j
»l
1
1
Ream
Distance
30
30
Prfit Form
Go To Next Method
Summary
Kbit I
Figure 4-32. Transport Vehicles Required Each Day during Bypass Installation
HC CO NOx PM C02 SOx
(Ibs) (Ibs) (Ibs) (Ibs) (S/T) (Ibs)
| 0.23J
| 0,48)
0,00 |
0,00 |
| 0,00 1
| 0,00 1
1.03J
1.31 1
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0,00 |
2.82]
5.69]
0.00 |
0.00 |
o.ooj
0.00 j
0,09]
0. 14 |
0.00 |
o.ooj
o.ooj
o.ooj
0,31
0,19
0.47 j 0,29
O.OOJ 0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
Figure 4-33. Results from e-Calc Showing Impact of Transport Vehicles
The total carbon emissions from lying out and connecting the bypass piping for vehicles and equipment
were equal to 1.02 short tons or roughly 2,040 Ibs of CO2. The equipment used during this activity and
input into e-Calc included the use of two generators to power the heat fusion welder for fusing the 6 in.
HOPE bypass piping and a chainsaw for cutting the pipe, as shown in Figure 4-34.
I Equgxrent Devils
Name
| BcMor
| Huemax
| Chamsm
Model
| PCJOH
[ GenlOOO
| Oregon
PC, er
1 " |
1 " |
1 3 1
Ye*
2005 |
2005 [
2005 |
Enjne
Te*.
TUT 2 2
Tier 2 j
T«r2 «
UseftJ
Hours
J| 5000
•Jj 5000
j| 5000
1
Cum.tts
Used
1 so|
1 50 |
51
FuefDetafe [ Project Details
Tvpe
Gas
Gas
Gas
Suffur Representative |,
(%} Equipment Cyde
_^j| 0.33_jJ| Other Construction Equipment _»J|
^|| 0.33_^J| Other Conslruction Equipment ^||
.ill °-33-^JI Other Conslruction Eqwpn>ent_»J|
ied
«
90
90
»
1
Use
(hrs)
32
32
i
Figure 4-34. Equipment Required for Bypass Installation
83
-------
The e-Calc process was completed for each of the major activities and the impacts from each of the major
activities are summarized in Table 4-10. During these calculations, some assumptions had to be made as
to the year and size of the engine of some pieces of equipment. Table 4-11 outlines the year and sizes
used to determine the emissions in Table 4-10. In all, the entire demonstration portion of the project
contributed more than 52,000 Ib of CO2 emissions.
Table 4-10. Total CO2 Emissions for Each Major Activity
Activity
Bypass layout and hookup (equipment and vehicles)
Excavating access pits (equipment and vehicles)
Cleaning and Swabbing (equipment and vehicles)
Lining with mobilization/demobilization (equipment and vehicles)
Site restoration (equipment and vehicles)
Bypass disconnection (equipment and vehicles)
Total (Including All Activities)
Total (Without 600 mile Mobilization and 13 Additional Pits)
CO2 Emissions
1.02 short tons (2,040 Ib)
5.30 short tons (10,600 Ib)
4.13 short tons (8,260 Ib)
5. 89 short tons (11, 780 Ib)
9.84 short tons (19,680 Ib)
0.26 short tons (520 Ib)
26.44 short tons (52,880 Ib)
18.80 short tons (37,600 Ib)
Table 4-11. Equipment Specifications
Equipment
CAT 420E Backhoe
Honda GX 160 Trash Pump
Bolder PC30H Generator
Bluemax 4000 Generator
Oregon Chainsaw
Deutz Winch Motor
Kubota GL 7000 Generator
Mole Generator
Ford 6550 Backhoe
C-24 Compressor
Ingersoll Rand Roller
Tack Buggy
Skid Steer
Year/HP
2005/93
2005/5
2005/5.5
2005/6.5
2005/3
2005/50
2005/11
2005/11
2005/70
2005/2
2005/175
2005/50
2005/40
Activity
Excavation/
Cleaning/
Lining/
Restoration
Cleaning/
Lining/
Restoration
Bypass
Bypass
Excavation
Cleaning
Lining
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Use (hr)
44/
207
257
93
207
207
10
32
32
10
48
23
11
16.5
16
7
8
4
One of the largest contributors of CO2 for the Cleveland demonstration was the mobilization of the lining
crew vehicles, which were driven 600 miles to Cleveland from Montreal for mobilization and another 600
miles for demobilization. The mobilization/demobilization accounted for 14% of the estimated CO2
footprint. By removing the mobilization/demobilization activities, the total CO2 emissions would be
lowered from 26.44 short tons (52,880 Ib) to 22.73 short tons (45,460 Ib). As the technology became
more mature, it would be expected that more local contractors could be licensed and trained to install the
product.
The activity with the most CO2 emissions for this demonstration was site restoration, which was affected
by the excavation pits required for installation access (9 pits) and the service reinstatements, which
required an additional 13 pits. If only 5% (3 of 63) of the services were reinstated externally, the CO2
84
-------
impact from the equipment used for site restoration could have been reduced by 50%, reducing the overall
emissions by 4.91 short tons (9,480 Ib) from 26.44 short tons (52,880 Ib) to 21.52 short tons (43,040 Ib).
If this reduction was combined with the removal of mobilization/demobilization, the total CO2 impact
could be reduced from 26.44 short tons (52,880 Ib) to 18.8 short tons (37,600 Ib), or 71 %.
The environmental impact of the demonstration can be compared to a typical pipe replacement by
estimating the impact of installing 1,996 ft of new 6 in. cast iron main. The bypass layout and hookup for
both projects would be similar (1.02 short tons), but the impact of the excavation, installation, and
restoration would be the primary difference in the environmental impact. The original excavation of the
access pits required 6 days of labor and equipment, but the full excavation of 1,996 ft required to install a
new 6 in. ductile iron main while reinstating services would take around 20 days and equates to an
estimated CO2 emission impact of 17.7 short tons, up from 5.3 short tons. Bypass disconnection would
also be similar for both projects (0.26 short tons), but surface restoration again would require more than
three times as much labor and equipment time (i.e., 5.91 short tons by 3.33 or 19.7 short tons).
In all, the CO2 emissions in short tons from a pipe replacement project including bypass setup (1.02) and
disconnection (0.26), excavation and pipe installation (17.7), and site restoration (19.7) and assuming the
host pipe is abandoned in place, would amount to an estimated 38.68 short tons (77,360 Ib) of CO2
emissions. This is approximately two times higher than the adjusted total for the lining demonstration
(from which the 600 mile mobilization activity and excavation of an additional 13 pits 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 Ib per person in one year (Energy Information
Administration [EIA], 2010). Therefore, the savings realized from using the lining method, which was
roughly 19.9 tons, versus an open-cut replacement would account for more than 100% of one person's
CO2 emissions for one year.
The comparison of on-site operations estimated above (i.e., 18.8 shorts tons for 2,000 ft of Aqua-Pipe) is
comparable to the 33 short tons of CO2 estimated by Sanexen for one mile of Aqua-Pipe (Sanexen,
201 Ib). The calculations above do not account for CO2 emissions due to material production, which
accounts for the majority of the CO2 equivalent emissions when calculating a complete carbon footprint.
Sanexen calculated that when material production is taken into account, green house gases are reduced by
84% or 1/6 the total for an open-cut project (Sanexen, 201 Ib). This value was not independently verified
for this project, but the Sanexen report was verified by BNQ according to the requirements of the
international standard ISO 14064-3 (Sanexen, 201 Ib). The BNQ is accredited by the Standards Council
of Canada, which confers international recognition in the field of green house gas quantification.
85
-------
5.0: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
The demonstration of the Sanexen Aqua-Pipe® CIPP liner in Cleveland, Ohio was a successful project
that provided valuable information on the design, installation, and QA/QC for CIPP used to rehabilitate
water mains. 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
• Innovative technology used at less than 30 sites in the U.S.
• Improvement over traditional rehabilitation using cement mortar lining (Class IV versus Class I).
• Some data available, but long-term testing are ongoing and the method track record spans 10 years.
• Each utility owner contacted cited positive results and wiliness to use the product again.
Technology Feasibility Metrics
• Project required a structural rehabilitation and the technology met the rehabilitation requirements.
• Liner was not installed through any valves or fittings and the runs were without any major bends.
• Incomplete and/or premature curing of the liner was not evident during installation or inspection.
Technology Complexity Metrics
• Beneficial for small, medium, and large utilities in need of structural alternatives to open cut replacement.
• Requires trained installers. Pre- and post-installation activities can be performed with typical personnel.
• Site preparation requirements are similar to other rehabilitation technology requirements.
• Lasted 10 weeks: two weeks for bypass/excavation, seven weeks for pipe preparation, liner installation and
reconnection while pipe was out of service, and one week for remaining site restoration.
• 5% (3 of 63) of the services had to be reinstated externally due to commonly seen issues and another 22% (14
of 63) had to be reinstated externally due to extraordinary events the manufacturer has rarely encountered.
Technology Performance Metrics
• Mechanical testing showed that the field applied liner exceeded the requirements of ASTM F-1216.
• Performed in a manner consistent with a fully-structural Class IV CIPP liner.
• Hazen-Williams C-factor was improved by nearly 43% from 78.5 to 112.1.
Technology Cost Metrics
• The overall demonstration cost $505,687 for a unit cost of $247.89/lf.
• The CIPP portion of the project accounted for $374,000 of the total cost for a unit cost of $187.38/lf.
Technology, Environmental and Social Metrics
• Social disruption was minimal since traffic was not greatly affected and excavation was limited.
• Flush volumes required for bypass, jetting, and drag scraping were estimated to be 272,600 gal.
• Estimated 52,880 Ib of CO2 emissions for on-site operations, which could have been reduced to 37,600 Ib if
the lining crew had not mobilized from 600 miles away. (A similar replacement project would emit 77,360
lbofCO2)
• A similar replacement project would emit 77,360 Ib of CO2 for on-site operations and transportation and up
to 6 times more CO2 when considering material production emissions.
• If only 5% of the services were reinstated externally, the CO2 impact from the equipment used for
site restoration could have been reduced by 50%, an additional 9,480 Ib of CO2 emissions.
This project resulted in the successful demonstration of an innovative Class IV water main rehabilitation
technology, which is an improvement over traditional Class I rehabilitation techniques. The technology
met the owner's requirements for the project and multiple utilities that had used the technology expressed
their willingness to use the technology again. The entire demonstration took place over the course of 10
86
-------
weeks including: two weeks for setting up the bypass and excavating access pits; seven weeks for pipe
preparation, liner installation, and reconnection to the system while the pipe was out of service; and one
week for remaining site restoration activities. Laboratory mechanical testing showed that the liner
exceeded the minimum requirements of ASTM F-1216 and performed in a manner consistent with a
fully-structural Class IV CIPP liner.
5.2 Recommendations
In all, the demonstration was successful, but continued improvements should be made in the process for
internal reinstatement of services. For this demonstration, issues commonly encountered resulted in 5%
of the services needing to be reinstated externally, while another 22% of the services had to be reinstated
externally due to pre-existing issues with service line/saddle alignment, which have rarely been
encountered by the manufacturer. The 27% of services reinstated externally more than doubled the
amount of excavation and surface restoration required for the project. It is recommended that the
cleaning process, which contributed to deformation of eight of the 17 (47%) services requiring external
reinstatement, be standardized in order to avoid damaging or deforming the corporation stops prior to
rehabilitation. It is also recommended the other issues contributing to the need for external reinstatement
be studied and improved upon including: (1) flush service connections that cannot be identified in smaller
diameter pipes; and (2) difficulty drilling service connections located in folds. In addition, because folds
in the liner are considered a typical installation occurrence (from over-sizing of the liner to ensure
adequate coverage), it is recommended that the design equations be modified to take into account this
folding (currently the design equations in ASTM F-1216 do not account for the folding in the ovality
calculation). This could help to potentially establish the amount of folding that could be tolerated without
a decline in the structural performance of the liner.
87
-------
6.0: REFERENCES
Allouche, E. and I. Moore. 2005. "Field Performance of Sanexen Pressure Pipe Liner System -
Experimental and Numerical Evaluations of a Close-fit Liner under Varying Internal Pressure
Conditions," Final Report, June 8, 56 pp.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1998. ASTM D-3139, "Standard Specification for
Joints for Plastic Pressure Pipes Using Flexible Elastomeric Seals," ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2001. ASTM D-4972, "Standard Test Method for
pH of Soils," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005a. ASTM E-797, "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 G-187, "Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Soil Resistivity Using the Two-Electrode Soil Box Method, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005c. ASTM D-2240, "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 C-136, "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). 2007a. ASTM D-790, "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). 2007b. ASTM D-4959, "Standard Test Method for
Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil by Direct Heating. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2008a. ASTM D-638, "Standard Test Method for
Tensile Properties of Plastics," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2008b. ASTM F-1743, "Standard Practice for
Rehabilitation of Existing Pipelines and Conduits by Pulled-in-Place Installation of Cured-in-
Place Thermosetting Resin Pipe (CIPP)," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
www.astm.org.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2008c. ASTM D-792, "Standard Test Methods for
Density and Specific Gravity (Relative Density) of Plastics by Displacement," ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
-------
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2009a. ASTM F-1216, "Standard Practice for
Rehabilitation of Existing Pipelines and Conduits by the Inversion and Curing of a Resin-
Impregnated Tube," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2009b. ASTM D-4541, "Standard Test Method for
Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers," ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2009c. ASTM G-200, "Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP) of Soil," ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2009d. ASTM C-1580, "Standard Test Method for
Water-Soluble Sulfate in Soil," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
American Waterworks Association (AWWA). 2001. "Manual M28: Rehabilitation of Water Mains," 2nd
Edition, 65 pp., AWWA, Denver CO.
American Waterworks Association (AWWA). 2004. Water: //Stats 2002 Distribution Survey, AWWA,
Denver, CO.
Aqua-Pipe. 2011. Aqua-Pipe List of Benefits. Available at: www.aqua-pipe.com/list-of-benefits.php.
Belisle, V. 2011. Personal communication with Valerie Belisle, Sanexen Environmental.
Benjock, G. 2011. Personal communication with Gregory Benjock, Charleston Water.
CalTrans. 2003. Corrosion Guidelines, Version 1.0, Prepared by California Department of
Transportation, Division of Engineering Services, Corrosion Technology Branch, Sept.
Cleveland Water Division (CWD). 2008. 2008 Annual Report. Available at:
www.clevelandwater.com/About us/2008 annual report.aspx
Deb, A., Y. Hasit, H. Schoser, J. Snyder, G. Loganathan, and P. Khambhammettu. 2002. "Decision
Support System for Distribution System Piping Renewal," American Water Works Association
Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2010. Annual Energy Review 2009, US EIA, Office of Energy
Markets and End Use, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., DOE/EIA-0384.
Janicki, M. 2011. Personal communication with Michael Janicki, Clinton Township Water & Sewer.
Ng. 2011. Personal communication with Dino Ng, New York City DDC.
Ng, Y.P. and J. Loiacono. 2011. "New York City Uses Cured-in-Place Liner to Structurally Rehabilitate a
125 Year Old Water Main," No-Dig, Washington, D.C., Mar. 27-31, Paper C-5-03.
Sanexen. 2010. Structural Rehabilitation of Water Mains. Aqua-Pipe® Brochure, Sanexen Environmental
Services Inc., Sep.
89
-------
Sanexen. 201 la. Structural Rehabilitation of Water Mains. Aqua-Pipe® Brochure, Sanexen
Environmental Services Inc., May.
Sanexen. 20lib. A Greener Choice 84%Less GHG. Aqua-Pipe® Brochure, Sanexen Environmental
Services Inc., Mar.
Schovanec, J. 2011. Personal communication with Jeff Schovanec, MUD.
Schovanec, J. and B. Cote. 2011. "Omaha MUD Renews Century Old Cast Iron Water Mains in the
Historic Old Market District," No-Dig, Washington, D.C., March 27-31, Paper C-5-04.
Standard Methods. 1999. Method 311 IB, "Metals by Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry," Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
Tingberg, F and M. Janicki. 2008. "Trenchless Cured-In-Place Watermain Rehabilitation Meeting NSF
61," No-Dig, Dallas, TX, April 27-May 2, Paper D-l-02.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1971a. Method 160.1, "Residue, Filterable (Gravimetric,
Dried at 180°C)," Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA/600/4-79/020,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1971b. Method 160.2, "Residue, Non-Filterable
(Gravimetric, Dried at 103-105°C)," Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,
EPA/600/4-79/020, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Method 415.1, "Organic Carbon, Total
(Combustion or Oxidation)," Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,
EPA/600/4-79/020, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1978. Method 310.1, "Alkalinity (Titrimetric, pH 4.5),"
Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA/600/4-79/020, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1982. Method 150.1, "pH (Electrometric)," Methods for
the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA/600/4-79/020, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986a. Method 9080, "Cation-Exchange Capacity of Soils
(Ammonium Acetate)," EPA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986b. Method 9250, "Chloride (Colorimetric, Automated
Ferricyanide AAI)," EPA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993a. Method 180.1, Revision 2.0, "Determination of
Turbidity by Nephelometry," Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in
Environmental Samples, EPA/600/R-93/100, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993b. Method 300.0, Revision 2.1, "Determination of
Inorganic Anions by Ion Chromatography," Methods for the Determination of Inorganic
Substances in Environmental Samples, EPA/600/R-93/100, Washington, D.C.
90
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993c. Method 350.1, Revision 2.0, "Nitrogen, Ammonia
(Colorimetric, Automated Phenate)," Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in
Environmental Samples, EPA/600/R-93/100, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994, Method 200.7, Revision 4.4, "Determination of
Metals and Trace Elements in Water and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic
Emission Spectrometry," Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples,
Supplement 1, EPA/600/R-94/111, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995a. Method 524.2, Revision 4.1, "Measurement of
Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry," EPA Method Guidance, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995b. Method 525.2, Revision 2.0, "Determination of
Organic Compounds in Drinking Water by Liquid-Solid Extraction and Capillary Column Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry," Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in
Drinking Water, EPA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996a. Method 9030B, "Acid-Soluble and Acid-Insoluble
Sulfides: Distillation," EPA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996b. Method 6010B, Revision 2, "Inductively Coupled
Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry," EPA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure
Gap Analysis, U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
U.S. 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.
U.S. 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, April 30.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. EPA NRMRL QAPP Requirements for Measurement
Projects, U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, D.C.
U.S. 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.
Vose, J. and J. Loiacono. 2007. "A First in the United States: Structural CIPP Water Main Rehabilitation
in the City of Naperville, IL," No-Dig, San Diego, CA, April 16-19, Paper E-l-01.
91
-------
APPENDIX A
CCTV LOGS
The following figures are field logs written by the CCTV operator. Included in the logs are the pre-lining
CCTV logs, which include post-lining comments for lining runs #1 through #7 (Figures A-l through A-
7).
-------
|
0
2
K
o.
CO
'J
i
n
1
01
I 3
T3 "-
S s
a)
S -a
S
'in
o
M
O
ic
d)
T3 _OJ (1)
a := 3
z > o;
T
f 'i
r_i
1
p-
'7,3,
fr,B*
|
;
Si
c
I .n
§ 0)
£l E
& & Zl f 1 o
QJ QJ 0> ]> *T
i- 1 i s
.
i
Figure A-l. CCTV Log for Lining Run #1
A-l
-------
Figure A-2. CCTV Log for Lining Run #2
A-2
-------
PECTION
RT
(X
m
(X
i
D
D
~
-o
y> -n
^ I C
3 s 8
I i I
£ o) _
s ^ -S
I
V)
o
1
•p QJ qj
D — ^J
^ !5* ry
f
1li&«8
[«^^J
^|8fiz. }
PH
m
f, i)h(S
,% p- il INS
f8^
r>\
falt.tfr
P- i3>14S
P
P3
- I -
fc I 1 1
Si Si g
1 1 1
I
*
a>
.0
i
OJ
1
S
Figure A-3. CCTV Log for Lining Run #3
A-3
-------
Figure A-4. CCTV Log for Lining Run #4
A-4
-------
111
5
K
H-
A-
•j
03
D
n
ite
I I
(D 'S
5 « 8
v <3 M
« I 3
I
C4-
che de
m
-D ffl u
e 3
?>
CD
Uamhe
pf-
:i>-;,
p f /CMS
^Ifli.
ipt
75
01
5
fgt iff
II
»
A =*
p 3
€ 5
* 1
TI MI
D
I
1
ssl
2 S .9
g >
-------
Figure A-6. CCTV Log for Lining Run #6
A-6
-------
D'INSPE
w
a:
0
<%
**
0*
,w I
% f.i3A6
-j i
?
S fi Si Si |
Sr w o> fl* <0 ^"
g- s 8 s a >
"• 5 > > 5 E
Si 5 S
B
73
Figure A-7. CCTV Log for Lining Run #7
A-7
-------
APPENDIX B
BURSTING TESTS
-------
The exhumed host pipe and liner sample delivered to TTC did not have sufficient length for preparing a
sample that could be used in pressure bursting tests. Therefore, results from bursting tests performed on a
different yet very similar pipe relined several years ago using the same CIPP liner in Canada (Allouche
and Moore, 2005) is discussed below.
The host pipe was a 6 in. cast iron water main approximately 3,300 ft long, which had been relined using
Aqua-Pipe® in 2003. Exhumed liner samples are shown in Figure B-l (left). For performing the testing, a
custom-made pressure cell was fabricated at the University of Western Ontario shown in Figure B-l
(right). Pipe specimens filled with water were placed into the cell, one at a time, which had 12 rods for
restraining the ends of the tested specimen. The apparatus could generate an internal pressure of up to
725 psi with an accuracy of up to ±5 psi.
Figure B-l. Exhumed Liner Samples (left) and a Custom-made Pressure Cell (right)
A total of eight short-term (quick burst) tests and one long-term bursting test were completed on the
specimens, as listed in Table B-l.
Table B-l. List of Bursting Tests Performed on the Aqua-Pipe® Lined Specimens
Test
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
Pressure
400 psi
550 psi
550 psi
550 psi
3 10 psi
3 10 psi
300 psi
250 psi
Objective/Specimen
Short-term hydrostatic pressure capacity of the host pipe/liner system/
Straight section with a bell-joint (Figure D-2)
Fire hydrant tee with two bells (Figure D-3)
Straight section with a stainless steel repair clamp (Figure D-5)
Specimen from Test #3 with the repair clump removed (Figure D-5)
Specimen from Test #4, with additional damage (Figure D-6)
Role of longitudinal folds creating high strain concentrations in the liner/
Straight section with a long longitudinal fold (Figure D-7)
Integrity of a tap connection subjected to high, prolonged internal pressure/
Specimen with three tap connections spaced 6 in. apart (Figure D-9)
Identify potential problems with inserting new taps/
Same specimen as in Burst Test #7
Summary
From a material prospective (i.e., flexural strength, elastic modulus, ductility) the Aqua-Pipe® liner is
capable of resisting internal pressures as high as 550 psi under burst test conditions, while spanning a gap
B-l
-------
8 in. long and 6 in. wide in the host pipe with a maximum deformation of 0.27 in. (7 mm). The Aqua-
Pipe® liner is capable of sealing a ring break and extensive corrosion pits in the host pipe under an
internal pressure of 550 psi. A significant decline in the structural performance of the liner is possible if
certain undesirable construction practices are used, such as excessive over-sizing of the liner and uneven
or incomplete wet-out of the liner, in the case of a fully deteriorated host pipe.
While the long-term effect of such voids on the structural performance of the liner-tap connection
interface could not be determined in this testing program, no failure was observed in and around the
interface area when it was subjected to an internal pressure of 300 psi over 135 minutes. When
performing a live tap on a lined cast iron pipe using standard tapping equipment, the liner beneath the tap
is not completely removed; thus, the risk exists that the partially cut liner tab will detach at some later
time and plug a downstream tap connection. A tight fitting liner of minimum thickness 5 mm can resist
buckling under full vacuum (equivalent to about 15 psi of external pressure). The liner can withstand 9
psi of external pressure if unconfmed (a design value of 4.5 psi using a factor of safety of 2).
B-2
------- |