EPA/600/R-14/443 | December 2014 | www2.epa.gov/water-research
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Performance Evaluation of an Innovative Fiber
Reinforced Geopolymer Spray-Applied Mortar for
Large Diameter Wastewater Main Rehabilitation in
Houston, TX
.T-,
i
Office of Research and Development
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
-------
EPA/600/R-14/443
November 2014
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF AN INNOVATIVE FIBER
REINFORCED GEOPOLYMER SPRAY-APPLIED MORTAR FOR
LARGE DIAMETER WASTEWATER MAIN REHABILITATION IN
HOUSTON, TX
by
John C. Matthews, Ph.D., Wendy Condit, P.E.,
Saiprasad Vaidya, Ph.D., and Ryan Stowe
Battelle Memorial Institute
EPA Contract No. EP-C-11-038
Task Order No. 01
Ariamalar Selvakumar, Ph.D., P.E.
Task Order Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Urban Watershed Management Branch National
Risk Management Research Laboratory Water
Supply and Water Resources Division 2890
Woodbridge Avenue (MS-104)
Edison, NJ 08837
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati,
Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and Development,
funded and managed the research described herein under Task Order (TO) 01 of Contract No. EP-C-11-
038 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
Many utilities are seeking emerging and innovative rehabilitation technologies to extend the service life
of their infrastructure systems. However, information on new technologies is not always readily available
and not easy to obtain. To help to provide this information, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) developed an innovative technology demonstration program to evaluate technologies that have the
potential to reduce costs and increase the effectiveness of the operation, maintenance, and renewal of
aging water distribution and wastewater collection systems. The intent of this program is to make the
technologies' capabilities better known to the water and wastewater industries.
This report describes the performance evaluation of a fiber reinforced geopolymer spray-applied mortar,
which has potential as a structural alternative to traditional open cut techniques used in large-diameter
sewer pipes. Geopolymer is a sustainable green material that incorporates recycled industrial byproducts
and has been shown to have improved chemical and physical properties compared with ordinary portland
cement (OPC). GeoSpray™, produced by Milliken Infrastructure Solution, LLC (Milliken), was used to
rehabilitate a 60-in. reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) sewer main in Houston, Texas. The 25-ft depth of the
pipe and other site-specific conditions precluded open cut excavation and the need for a shortened bypass
time contributed to the selection of the GeoSpray™ technology. The project was completed in a two-
week timeframe including four spraying passes on 160 ft of 60-in. RCP. The host pipe was severely
deteriorated with corroded and exposed steel reinforcements and several locations of heavy water
infiltration, which led to the product being manually spray applied by hand rather than using a sled.
The material was successfully installed in a severely deteriorated pipe environment. The post-lining
inspection via closed-circuit television (CCTV) showed the rehabilitated pipe to be infiltration free, with
no signs of exposed rebar or cracking, and no significant defects were noted in the GeoSpray™ lining the
day after application. A lining thickness of approximately 3.3 in. was sprayed in the pipe, which is more
than the design minimum value of 1.9 in. The third-party test results for compressive strength averaged
8,635 pounds per square inch (psi) at 28 days, which is above the manufacturer stated claim of 8,000 psi
at 28 days. However, the samples collected by the research team tested under the manufacturer-stated
claims (e.g., measured at 7,881 psi or 1.5% below specification for compressive strength). Based on the
lower density of the mixture, it is hypothesized that the lower values in these samples were attributable to
light rain experienced during sample collection. However, it is assumed that the rain had no impact on
the material sprayed in the pipe as the mixer was covered during the installation. Overall, it is
recommended that sampling and testing procedures be further examined to ensure that the quality control
(QC) samples are indicative of the final material properties as installed in the field. Recommendations
are made related to measuring the "as installed" lining thickness, bond strength testing, and the use of
shaker tables to minimize voids.
For structurally rehabilitating a 60-in. pipe via geopolymer spray-applied lining, the costs would range
from $400 to $600 per linear foot (for projects of similar complexity and including bypass pumping).
The project resulted in an estimated carbon footprint of 24.10 short tons (48,200 Ib) of carbon dioxide
(CCh) equivalents, which was gauged to be 60% less than an equivalent excavation project (if feasible).
In addition, CC>2 equivalent emissions from the manufacture of geopolymers have been shown in the
literature to be as much as 65% to 90% less than emissions for OPC.
-------
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 Dr. Ray Sterling. 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 Houston. Cooperation from Inland Pipe Rehabilitation (IPR) and
Milliken Infrastructure Solutions, LLC (Milliken) was crucial for this project and the authors would like
to thank Chuck Slack, Steve Henning, and Nick Banchetti from IPR; Luke Keenan and Bob Atkin from
Milliken; and the IPR field crew for their assistance and work throughout this project. Key contributors
from the TTC included Rashedul Alam and Erez Allouche for the experimental work.
Finally, the authors would like to thank Mr. Daniel Murray and Mr. Raymond Frederick of Urban
Watershed Management Branch for their timely review of the report.
in
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Many utilities are seeking emerging and innovative rehabilitation technologies to extend the service life
of their infrastructure systems. However, information on new technologies is not always readily available
and not easy to obtain. To help to provide this information, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) developed an innovative technology demonstration program to evaluate technologies that have the
potential to reduce costs and increase the effectiveness of the operation, maintenance, and renewal of
aging water distribution and wastewater collection systems. The intent of the program is to make the
technologies' capabilities better known to the water and wastewater industries. The specific technology
metrics evaluated under this program include technology maturity, feasibility, complexity, performance,
cost, and environmental impact. This report describes the performance evaluation of the Milliken
Infrastructure Solutions, LLC (Milliken) GeoSpray™ fiber reinforced geopolymer spray-applied mortar
product that was used to rehabilitate a sewer main in Houston, Texas.
Demonstration Approach
The demonstration of innovative technologies requires clear and repeatable testing criteria if the
technologies are to be understood and accepted. As summarized in this report, a protocol was developed
to provide a consistent approach and a guide for conducting field demonstrations in a manner that
encourages acceptance of the outcomes and results by wastewater utilities. The demonstration protocol
addressed issues involved in gaining the approval for the use of innovative technologies by:
• Providing for independent verification of the claims of technology developers.
• Sharing information about new technologies among peer user groups.
• Supporting utilities and technology developers in bringing new products to a geographically and
organizationally diverse market.
Several innovative technologies were identified that have the potential to be demonstrated and that would
provide a benefit to advance the state-of-the-technology. The majority of sewer rehabilitation tends to use
cured-in-place pipe (CIPP), but new innovations are continually entering the market. The Battelle team
received an agreement from Milliken, which developed GeoSpray™, to participate in the EPA
Demonstration Program.
Cementitious linings can be applied to gravity sewers, but the corrosive environment makes the
application of ordinary portland cement (OPC) and concrete prone to deterioration. To combat the
corrosive environment, innovative geopolymer materials have been developed to provide higher material
strength and to increase corrosion resistance compared to conventional OPC based mortars. GeoSpray™
is composed of a proprietary micro-fiber reinforced, dense geopolymer mortar that can be spray applied.
It cures quickly providing a shortened bypass time, which allows the pipe to be re-established more
rapidly than OPC based mortars.
GeoSpray™ is designed for use in storm and sanitary sewer pipe rehabilitation applications in diameter
ranges of 30 to 200 in. (750 to 5,000 mm). The renewal length will vary depending on the pipe diameter
and required thickness and is typically ranges from 100 to 300 ft (30 to 100 m) per day for a 1.5-in. (38
mm) thick lining. Bends of any degree are feasible, but straight runs are preferred. Laterals are plugged
prior to lining and do not require reconnection, only the removal of the plugs. The lining is typically
IV
-------
sprayed at a minimum thickness of 1.5 in. (38 mm) for structural repairs or 0.5 in. (12.5 mm) for
corrosion protection. The work time is 60 to 90 minutes at 80°F (27°C).
Geopolymer Demonstration
Field demonstration of GeoSpray™ for the rehabilitation of a 60-in. was conducted on a 160 ft long, 60-
in. reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in Houston, Texas in April-May, 2013. For this project, the 25-ft
depth of the pipe and other site-specific conditions precluded open cut excavation and the need for a
shortened bypass time contributed to the selection of the GeoSpray™ technology. To successfully
execute the planned demonstration, site preparation activities that were required included: installation of
the temporary bypass system; closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection and cleaning of the pipe; and
repair of infiltration prior to lining. The GeoSpray™ was manually applied at this site because of the
severe deterioration of the host pipe, which caused high levels of water infiltration. When a pipe wall is
compromised and infiltration is heavy, manual spraying provides the advantage of being able to address
serious infiltration locations by hand-applying a thicker liner in a single pass. The material was
successfully installed in a severely deteriorated pipe environment. The entire project was conducted over
a period of 11 days and a total thickness of approximately 3.3 in. of the GeoSpray™ material was applied
over four spraying days. The post-lining inspection via CCTV showed the rehabilitated pipe to be
infiltration free and no significant defects were noted in the GeoSpray™ lining the day after application.
Demonstration Results
While the spray lining process is classified as conventional, the GeoSpray™1 lining product is classified as
innovative in terms of maturity based on its formulation (i.e., geopolymer) and usage. The outcome of
the technology evaluation is described in the technology evaluation metrics listed below:
Technology Maturity Metrics
• Innovative material installed using a conventional methodology.
• Corrosive resistance was not validated, but geopolymer is a proven improvement over OPC.
• Some third-party data are available, but long-term testing is needed.
Technology Feasibility Metrics
• Project met the owner's expectations and requirements.
• The material was successfully installed in a severely deteriorated pipe environment.
• Because of the severe deterioration of the host pipe and high levels of water infiltration, the lining
was manually spray-applied by hand versus application via a spray sled.
Technology Complexity Metrics
• Beneficial for wastewater utilities with deteriorating large-diameter mains in corrosive
environments.
• Requires trained professionals, but the lining process is not complex; therefore, contractors or
utility personnel could be trained to install this product.
• The project spanned a total of 11 working days, including unanticipated delays in setup of the
host pipe by the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) due to flows entering into the manhole at
the WWTP that initially could not be shut off.
-------
Technology Performance Metrics
• The post-lining inspection via CCTV showed the rehabilitated pipe to be infiltration free, with no
signs of exposed rebar or cracking, and no significant defects were noted in the GeoSpray™
lining the day after application.
• Calculations based on the amount of material sprayed each day and length of coverage showed
that the spray-applied thickness was approximately 3.3 in., which was more than the design
minimum value of 1.9 in.
• Third-party test results for all four days of spraying showed that the quality control (QC) samples
met design specifications. The compressive strength at 28 days averaged 8,635 psi compared to
the manufacturer's design specification of 8,000 psi.
• Mechanical testing by the research team indicated that the QC samples were lower than the
manufacturer claims of performance. For example, the compressive strength at 28 days was
measured at 7,881 psi (or 1.5% lower than the manufacturer's specification). Based upon the
lower than expected density of the mixture (by 3.6%), it is hypothesized that the lower values in
these samples were attributable to light rain experienced during sample collection. However, it is
assumed that the rain had no impact on the material sprayed in the pipe as the mixer was covered
during the installation.
• Because of the manual application of the GeoSpray™ material, not all of the typical QC
parameters could be collected on a continuous basis associated with the sled application.
However, the slump test results were consistent for each day of spraying, which suggests that a
uniform water/cement ratio was achieved.
Technology Cost Metrics
• The costs associated with projects similar to this range from $400 to $600 per linear foot.
Technology Environmental and Social Metrics
• Social disruption was minimal since traffic was only affected at one manhole and drivers were
able to access their homes throughout the project.
• An estimated 24.10 short tons (48,200 Ib) of CC>2 equivalents were emitted from on-site
operations. A similar open cut project, although impractical due to the site conditions, would
emit 120,000+ Ib of CO2 equivalents.
• CO2 equivalent emissions from the manufacture of geopolymers have been shown in the literature
to be as much as 65% to 90% less than emissions for OPC.
Conclusions and Recommendations
An innovative, spray-applied, fiber-reinforced geopolymer mortar was used to rehabilitate a 60-in. RCP
sewer main in Houston, Texas. The 160-ft long and 25-ft deep host pipe was severely deteriorated with
exposed and missing steel reinforcements and several locations of heavy water infiltration. The material
was successfully installed in a severely deteriorated pipe environment. The site conditions required the
lining to be spray applied by hand rather than using a sled.
Overall, it is recommended that sampling and testing procedures be further examined to ensure that the
QC samples are indicative of the final material properties as installed in the field. Recommendations are
made related to measuring the "as installed" lining thickness, bond strength testing, and the use of shaker
tables to minimize voids.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER i
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv
APPENDICES viii
FIGURES viii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
Section 1.0: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project Background 1
1.2 Project Objectives 2
1.3 Report Outline 2
Section 2.0: DEMONSTRATION APPROACH 3
2.1 General Approach 3
2.2 Technology Selection Approach 5
2.2.1 Overview of Innovative Sewer Main Rehabilitation 6
2.2.2 Overview of Fiber Reinforced Geopolymer Spray-Applied Mortar 6
2.2.3 Design of Cementitious Geopolymer Spray-On Lining 9
2.2.4 Installation of Cementitious Geopolymer Spray-On Lining 10
2.2.5 QA/QC of Cementitious Geopolymer Spray-On Lining 10
2.3 Site Selection Approach 11
2.3.1 Site Selection Factors 11
2.3.2 Site Description 12
Section 3.0: GEOPOLYMER DEMONSTRATION 14
3.1 Site Preparation 14
3.1.1 Safety and Logistics 14
3.1.2 Installation of Bypass 15
3.1.3 Pipe Cleaning and Inspection 16
3.1.4 Infiltration Repair 18
3.2 Technology Application 18
3.2.1 Technology Application Equipment and Process 18
3.2.2 Sample Collection 20
3.2.3 Geopolymer Spraying 21
3.3 Post-Demonstration Field Verification 21
Section 4.0: DEMONSTRATION RESULTS 23
4.1 Technology Maturity 23
4.2 Technology Feasibility 23
4.3 Technology Complexity 24
4.4 Technology Performance 24
4.5 Technology Cost 27
4.6 Technology Environmental Impact 27
Section 5.0: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 30
Section 6.0: REFERENCES 32
vn
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix A: DESIGN CALCULATION
Appendix B: QA/QC PROCEDURES
Appendix C: THIRD-PARTY TEST RESULTS
Appendix D: THIRD-PARTY DAILY INSPECTION FORMS
FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Schematic of GeoSpray™ Process 7
Figure 2-2. Aerial Photo of Demonstration Site Location 13
Figure 3-1. Barriers Surrounding Manhole #1 14
Figure 3-2. Bypass Pipes Converging (left) and Laying Parallel to an Open Channel (right) 15
Figure 3-3. Bypass Pumps at Manhole #1 15
Figure 3-4. Manhole #2 Located in a Backyard 16
Figure 3-5. Typical Condition of the Host Pipe Prior to Lining 17
Figure 3-6. Infiltration Entering the Host Pipe Prior to Lining 17
Figure 3-7. Chemical Grout Material 18
Figure 3-8. Hopper (top left) and High Shear Mixer (top right) and View of Application
System 19
Figure 3-9. Black Pressure Hose (left) and Spray Nozzle (right) 20
Figure 3-10. Collecting Fresh Material from the Pressure Hose (left) and Preparing Samples
(right) 20
Figure 3-11. Lined Pipe Prior to Final 1-in. Coating 22
Figure 3-12. Post-Lining Inspection of Fully Lined Pipe 22
Figure 4-1. Compressive Testing (left) and Flexural Testing (right) 25
Figure 4-2. Stress/Strain Curve for Compressive Samples 26
Figure 4-3. Set Time Testing (left) and Slump Testing (right) 26
Figure 4-4. Inputs for e-Calc for the GeoSpray™ 60-in. RCP Sewer Main Project 28
Figure 4-5. Results from e-Calc for the GeoSpray™ 60-in. RCP Sewer Main Project
(Installation [top] and Transportation [bottom]) 29
TABLES
Table 2-1. Framework of Technology Metrics to be Evaluated 4
Table 2-2. Selected Innovative Rehabilitation Technologies 5
Table 2-3. Chemical Ingredients of GeoSpray™ Material 7
Table 2-4. Material Properties of GeoSpray™ 8
Table 3-1. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection 16
Table 3-2. Summary of Geopolymer Spraying Application Data 21
Table 4-1. Summary of Spray Lining Thickness Estimates 24
Table 4-2. GeoSpray™ Performance Data Comparison 25
Table 4-3. Temperature Monitored During Installation 27
Table 5-1. Technology Evaluation Metrics Conclusion 30
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ACI American Concrete Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BPA bisphenol A
CCTV closed-circuit television
CI Chloride Ion
CIPP cured-in-place pipe
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HDPE high density polyethylene
hp horsepower
IPR Inland Pipe Rehabilitation
ksi kilopound per square inch
MGD million gallons per day
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
OPC ordinary portland cement
pcf pounds per cubic foot
psi pounds per square inch
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RCP reinforced concrete pipe
SOT state-of-technology
STREAMS II Scientific, Technical, Research, Engineering, and Modeling Support II
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TO Task Order
WWTP
wastewater treatment plant
-------
Section 1.0: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
Many utilities are seeking emerging and innovative rehabilitation technologies to extend the service life
of their infrastructure systems. However, information on new technologies is not always readily available
and easy to obtain. To help to provide this information, research is being conducted as part of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Aging Water Infrastructure Research Program to evaluate
promising innovative technologies that can reduce costs and improve the effectiveness of the operation,
maintenance, and renewal of aging drinking water distribution and wastewater collection systems. 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
industries, allowing their applications to be promoted in the U.S. The specific technology metrics
evaluated under this program include technology maturity, feasibility, complexity, performance, cost, and
environmental impact.
Several emerging and innovative technologies were identified based upon industry experience and
extensive state-of-technology (SOT) reports (EPA, 2010a; 201 Ob; 2013). It has been found that well
documented and publicized demonstration projects can play an important role in accelerating the
development, evaluation, and acceptance of new technologies. A successful demonstration project
provides substantial value to utilities, manufacturers, technology developers, consultants, service
providers, and contractors. 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
• Understanding of technology environmental impact and social cost
• 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 better understand the needs of utilities
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
Benefits to Contractors
• Identification of successfully implemented QA/QC protocols
• Identification of successfully implemented installation procedures including surface preparations
• Understanding of regulations related to the use of new renewal technologies
This report provides an assessment of the effectiveness, expected range of applications, and 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 field
-------
demonstration described in this report resulted in the successful installation of a fiber reinforced
geopolymer spray-applied mortar on 160 ft of a 60-in. reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) wastewater
collection main in Houston, Texas. Geopolymer is a cementitious material formed by alkali activation of
aluminosilicate powder (e.g., typically materials with high percentages of silica and alumina), which does
not require the presence of ordinary portland cement (OPC) (Vaidya and Allouche, 2011). Geopolymers
have been shown to have improved chemical and physical properties compared to OPC such as increased
corrosion resistance and high compressive strength (Kupwade-Patil and Allouche, 2013). Geopolymers
are also sustainable green materials that incorporate up to 50% of the raw material as recycled industrial
byproducts (e.g., fly ash) and provide an environmental benefit through a reduced carbon footprint
compared to OPC. Davidovits (2011) reported that approximately 60% less energy is required to produce
a standard geopolymer as compared to Portland cement, and 80-90% less CO2 is emitted.
The activities involved with spray-applied mortar installation, which included pre-installation activities
such as bypass construction; pipe wall cleaning and preparation; installation activities; and post-
installation activities such as visual inspection and laboratory testing are presented in this report. This
report conducts a full product evaluation based on the field demonstration results.
1.2 Project Objectives
The project objectives are to:
• Evaluate, under field conditions, the performance and cost of an innovative, fiber reinforced
geopolymer spray-applied mortar used to rehabilitate a 60-in. RCP wastewater collection main in
Houston, Texas.
• Document the results of the demonstration and provide recommendations related to product
installation and QA/QC measures.
This research was conducted for the EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
under Task Order (TO) No. 01 titled Field Demonstration and Retrospective Evaluation of Rehabilitation
Technologies for Wastewater Collection and Water Distribution Systems of the Scientific, Technical,
Research, Engineering, and Modeling Support II (STREAMS II) Contract No. EP-C-11-038. The report
describes data collection, analyses, and project documentation in accordance with EPA NRMRL's
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Requirements for Applied Research Projects (EPA, 2008) and
the project-specific QAPP (Battelle, 2012).
1.3 Report Outline
The report is organized into the following sections:
• Section 2.0 Demonstration Approach. Discussion of the demonstration program approach
including an overview of the innovative rehabilitation technology.
• Section 3.0 Geopolymer Demonstration. Documentation of the field demonstration including
site preparation, pipe cleaning, QA/QC procedures, sample collection, and site restoration.
• Section 4.0 Demonstration Results. Discussion of the demonstration results and assessment of
the technology based on comparison with the outlined evaluation metrics.
• Section 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations. Summary of the demonstration including
effectiveness of the demonstrated technology and recommendations for areas needing further
examination.
-------
Section 2.0: DEMONSTRATION APPROACH
This section outlines the overall approach to the field demonstration and provides an overview of the
innovative rehabilitation technology and site selection for this task.
2.1 General Approach
The demonstration of innovative technologies requires clear and repeatable testing criteria if the
technologies are to be understood and accepted. A protocol was developed to provide a consistent
approach and a guide for conducting field demonstrations in a manner that encourages acceptance of the
outcomes and results by wastewater utilities (as summarized in Table 2-1 and Section 4). The
demonstration protocol addressed issues involved in gaining the approval for the use of innovative
technologies by:
• Providing for independent verification of the claims of technology developers;
• Sharing information about new technologies among peer user groups; and
• Supporting utilities and technology developers in bringing new products 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, fiber reinforced geopolymer spray-applied mortar for wastewater 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 (Battelle, 2012). The demonstration protocol was
executed by completing the following steps:
• Prepared and obtained EPA approval for the QAPP;
• Gathered relevant data for demonstration opportunities meeting the selection criteria;
• Secured a commitment from the technology developer and contractor to use one of their projects
as the demonstration study;
• 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 and peer reviewed article summarizing the results.
This demonstration report not only records the use of the fiber reinforced geopolymer spray-applied
mortar technology, but also provides a documented case study of the technology selection process,
design, QA/QC procedures, 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 unless
otherwise stated. Special aspects of the EPA demonstration program which were aimed at adding value
to the wastewater rehabilitation industry are described below.
-------
• Consistent Design Methodology. An important role of this task is to identify design parameters
and specifications for the selected technologies and to document the application of a consistent
design methodology based on the vendor recommendations or industry defined standards.
• QA/QC Procedures. The success of a rehabilitation project depends largely on proper
installation controls and post-installation inspection and assessment. The level of qualification
testing and QA requirements typically vary by technology without a clear quality standard. This
task provided an opportunity to examine current QA practices and identify areas for
improvement. For technologies lacking an industry quality standard, QA/QC procedures
recommended by the vendor and utility should be reviewed and adopted (as appropriate).
• Technology Range of Applications. The demonstration provides an assessment of the short-
term effectiveness and cost of the selected technologies in comparison with the respective vendor
specifications and identifies conditions under which each technology can be best applied. This
effort also provides suggestions on necessary improvements for the technology itself, the
installation procedures, and QA/QC procedures. Several metrics are identified that can be used to
evaluate and document rehabilitation technology application, performance, and cost, which are
summarized in Table 2-1.
• Life-Cycle Performance. Long-term performance data for rehabilitation systems is needed.
These data will enable decision makers to make better cost-benefit decisions. This report will
assist utilities in developing life-cycle plans for the ongoing evaluation of rehabilitation
technology performance by collecting baseline data to enable comparative evaluation of the
systems' deterioration during subsequent retrospective investigations.
Table 2-1. Framework of Technology Metrics to be Evaluated
Technology Maturity Metrics
• Maturity is innovative (recently commercialized), emerging (not widely used in the U.S.), or conventional.
• Availability of supporting performance data and patent citation (if applicable).
• Comments and feedback from utility owners and consultants with experience from previous pilot studies.
Technology Feasibility Metrics
• Applicability of the technology in meeting the rehabilitation requirements.
• Suitability of the technology to the operating conditions of the host pipe.
• Consideration of 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, pre- and post-installation requirements, and maintenance requirements.
• Time and labor requirements for the overall rehabilitation project.
• Evaluation of the installation process, procedures, and problems encountered.
• Documentation of the efficiency of the reinstatement of laterals, etc.
Technology Performance Metrics
• Evaluation of manufacturer-stated performance versus actual performance.
• Expected visual appearance and geometric uniformity after installation.
Ability to achieve design specifications.
Technology Cost Metrics
Document costs including design, capital, operation and maintenance, traffic and surface footprint, and
calculate a unit cost.
Estimate an average level of social disruption (although social cost calculation is beyond the project scope).
Technology Environmental and Social Metrics
• Assess utilization of chemicals or waste byproducts that have an unintended impact on the environment.
• Assess quantity of waste byproducts produced (e.g., wastewater volume, soil requiring off-site disposal).
• Evaluate the overall "carbon footprint" of the technology compared to open cut.
-------
2.2
Technology Selection Approach
The Battelle team identified several innovative technologies in the SOT reports that have the potential to
be demonstrated and that would provide a benefit to advance the state of the technology (EPA, 2010a;
2010b; 2013). As new innovations are continually coming to market, this SOT information will be
supplemented during Task 1 to include emerging technologies of interest (such as the technologies
summarized in Table 2-2).
Table 2-2. Selected Innovative Rehabilitation Technologies
Technology
(Vendor)
Technology Description
Rationale for
Demonstration
Wastewater Rehabilitation
3 S Panels
(National Liner)
GeoSpray™
(Milliken)
Composite pipe consists of 3S
segmental panels, host pipe, and
3 S grout. Panels are made of
transparent polyvinyl chloride,
allowing visual confirmation of
uniform grouting.
Fiber reinforced geopolymer
mortar designed for spray
applications. Designed to adhere
to the surface to build thickness.
Circular or noncircular; visual
confirmation of uniform
grouting; used where bypassing
is not feasible, large diameter.
Fast return to service; high
durability; near-zero porosity;
high resistance to acid; green
material.
Water Main Rehabilitation
Melt-in-place pipe
(Aqualiner)
Automate Leak Repair
(Curapipe)
Pipe Armor
(Quest Inspar)
Thin thermoplastic polymer
composite liner for 6 in. to 12 in.
diameters. Glass fiber reinforced
polypropylene and a woven tube.
Heated with a pig that melts the
thermoplastic.
Pig train contains curing
substances under pressure that
plug leaks as the pigs travel
down the main. The substances
harden to plug leaks.
High build polyurea lining
material that can be spray
applied. Fast curing can
potentially allow for fast return
to service.
Performs as a Class IV liner
capable of independently
handling internal pressure and
external loads.
Innovative technique for leak
repair; can be deployed through
hydrants.
Can be applied to a Class IV
lining level capable of
independently handling internal
pressure and external loads.
The technology selection criteria identified by the project team follow the general guidelines below:
• Maturity. Novel and emerging technologies that are commercially available are desired.
Technologies should be truly novel and more than an incremental improvement over conventional
methods (EPA, 2009).
• Feasibility. The potential of the proposed technology as a compliance strategy for the site-
specific conditions should be identified. The nature of the problem faced in the pipe will
ultimately drive technology selection.
-------
• Complexity. Technology adaptability to and widespread benefit for small- to medium-sized
utilities is desired (EPA, 2009). The complexity refers to the level of training required for the
installer, pre- and post-installation requirements, and maintenance requirements.
• Performance. This criterion is evaluated based on the capabilities and limitations of the
technology and investigation of potential advances over existing and competing technologies.
Vendor performance claims will be compared to actual performance in the field.
• Cost. Cost of installation (direct cost) and cost for periodic inspection and cleaning (indirect
cost) are critical factors. The typical installation cost on a per-unit basis will be provided.
Warranties or guarantees on performance should be provided.
• Environmental. Technologies may use chemicals or produce waste byproducts that have an
unintended impact on the environment or water quality. Technologies that reduce the overall
carbon footprint of the project compared to open cut are desired (EPA, 2009).
2.2.1 Overview of Innovative Sewer Main Rehabilitation. Through the course of previous EPA
research efforts, it was recognized that many wastewater utilities in the U.S. utilize trenchless
rehabilitation technologies (EPA, 2009). However, the majority tends to use cured-in-place pipe (CIPP)
and as additional innovative technologies come to the market demonstration of their capabilities is
needed. The Battelle team received an agreement from GeoTree Technologies and its parent company
Milliken, which developed GeoSpray™ (see Table 2-2), to participate in the EPA Demonstration
Program. This rehabilitation technology, which is designed for gravity sanitary and storm sewers, is
described in detail below.
2.2.2 Overview of Fiber Reinforced Geopolymer Spray-Applied Mortar. The use of
cementitious geopolymer spray-applied mortar has shown potential as a cost-effective means of
rehabilitation for gravity sewers. Cementitious linings can be applied to gravity sewers, but the corrosive
environment makes the application of OPC and concrete prone to deterioration (EPA, 2010b). To combat
the corrosive environment, innovative geopolymer materials have been developed to provide higher
material strength and to increase corrosion resistance compared to conventional OPC based mortars.
Geopolymer is a term originally coined by Davidovits (1991) to describe a class of cement formed from
aluminosilicates. While traditional OPC relies on the hydration of calcium silicates, geopolymers form by
the condensation of aluminosilicates. The kinetics and thermodynamics of geopolymer networks are
driven by covalent bond formation between tetravalent silicon and trivalent aluminum. The molar ratio of
these key components along with sodium, potassium, and calcium have been shown to affect set time,
compressive strength, bond strength, shrinkage, and other desired properties.
Milliken's GeoSpray™ material is composed of a proprietary micro-fiber reinforced, dense geopolymer
mortar that can be spray-applied. As shown in Table 2-3, the GeoSpray™product consists primarily of
fly ash, sand, aggregate, silica, some OPC, and unspecified proprietary ingredients. GeoSpray™ forms a
crystalline structural solution for a high resistance to acids and greater surface durability. Figure 2-1 is a
schematic of the GeoSpray™ process, which requires the use of a hopper, high shear mixer, pump, and
application unit. The hopper feeds the material to the high shear mixer where water is added to obtain the
appropriate water to cement ratio before the freshly mixed product is pumped to the pipe via a black
pressure hose. Once applied, the GeoSpray™ cures quickly providing a shortened bypass time, which
allows the pipe to be re-established more rapidly than with conventional OPC based mortars. It is
resistant to environmental factors such as heat and cold through batch temperature control. It can adhere
to both organic and inorganic materials (e.g., properly prepared cement and brick surfaces) and can be
used for filling voids and patching.
-------
GeoSpray Matena
Water-
• Hopper
Shoar Mixgr and Pump
Mixed Product Pumped
to Pressure Hose
Mixture Spray-Applied to
Pipe (Manually with Nvzzle
Of Automatically with
Figure 2-1. Schematic of GeoSpray™ Process
Table 2-3. Chemical Ingredients of GeoSpray™ Material
Chemical Entity/Ingredient
Crushed stone or gravel
Sand
OPC
Proprietary ingredients
Fly ash
Crystalline silica
CAS No.
N/A
N/A
65997-15-1
N/A
N/A
14808-60-7
Milliken's GeoSpray™ is a dark gray mortar that has a dry unit weight of 127.7 pounds per cubic foot
(pcf) and a wet unit weight of 139.3 pcf The largest particle size is 0.3 mm. A 100-lb bag is added with
18 Ib of water, which yields 0.86 ft3 of as spray applied:
• 6.88 ft2 at a thickness of 1.5 in.
• 10.32 ft2 at a thickness of 1 in.
• 20.64 ft2 at a thickness of 0.5 in.
Physical properties for GeoSpray™ are shown in Table 2-4 (Milliken, 2013b).
-------
Table 2-4. Material Properties of GeoSpray1
Property
Compressive Strength
Flexural Strength
Modulus of Elasticity
Bond Strength
Set Time
Freeze Thaw
Durability
Sulfate Resistance
(% expansion)
Shrinkage
Tensile Strength
Abrasion Resistance
Chloride Ion (CI)
Penetration by Ponding
Standard
ASTM C39/C109
ASTM C293 (C78)
ASTM C469
ASTM C882
ASTM C807
ASTM C666
ASTMC1012
ASTM C1090
ASTM C496
ASTM Cl 138
ASTM C1543
Duration
IDay
28 Days
7 Days
28 Days
IDay
28 Days
IDay
28 Days
Initial Set
Final Set
300 Cycles
6 weeks
28 Days
28 Days
6 Cycles @
28 Days
90 Days
Ponding
Value
2,500 psi
8,000 psi
650 psi (1,200 psi)
800 psi (1,300 psi)
3,000 ksi
6,500 ksi
1,300 psi
2,500 psi
60-75 minutes
90-1 10 minutes
100%
Zero loss
0.011%
0.07%
750 psi
0.67% Loss
0.014%CI@
55-65 mm
The GeoSpray™ lining is designed for use in storm and sanitary sewer pipe rehabilitation applications in
diameter ranges of 30 to 200 in. (750 to 5,000 mm). The renewal length will vary depending on the pipe
diameter and required thickness and is typically ranges from 100 to 300 ft (30 to 100 m) per day for a 1.5-
in. (38 mm) thick lining. Bends of any degree are feasible, but straight runs are preferred. Laterals are
plugged prior to lining and do not require reconnection, only the removal of the plugs. The lining is
typically sprayed at a minimum thickness of 1.5 in. (38 mm) for structural repairs or 0.5 in. (12.5 mm) for
corrosion protection. A 0.5-in. (12 mm) thickness would typically be applied if a lining is designed for
additional corrosion protection of a structurally sound pipe. The work time is 60 to 90 minutes at 80°F
(27°C). The field demonstration program will allow evaluation of the main benefits claimed and
limitations cited by the manufacturer as follows (Milliken, 2013a):
Main Benefits Claimed
• Restores structural integrity for fully-deteriorated pipes
• High flexural bond and ultimate strength
• Low permeability
• Adheres to various surfaces (i.e., brick, rock, concrete, corrugated metal, and cast iron)
• Surface does not need to be dry (but no free water can be present; see limitations below)
• 60 to 90 minute work time
• Adapts to any shape, including bends, curves, and angles
• Non-clogging and highly flowable/pumpable for ease of use in spin or spray casting
• Non-abrasive nature leads to spinner heads, hoses, and equipment requiring less repair and
maintenance
-------
• Easier to clean from hoses and equipment
• Green material made from natural mineral polymers and 50% recycled industrial waste content
• Styrene and bisphenol A (BPA) free and contains no leachable toxins when subjected to the EPA
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
• Trenchless process with relatively small aboveground footprint and access requirements
compared to open cut or CIPP
Main Limitations Cited
• Requires a surface free of all dirt, grit, roots, grease, sludge, and debris
• Must be applied to a damp surface with no free water
• Temporary stoppage of flow or bypass may be required
• During cold weather conditions, the geopolymer cannot be placed when the temperature is 37°F
and falling without additional measures to maintain its temperature above that threshold (e.g.,
heaters and thermal breaks)
• During hot weather conditions, chilled water may be used to mix the geopolymer to maintain its
temperature below 90°F
• Materials contain highly alkali cement and chemicals that may cause eye and skin sensitization
2.2.3 Design of Cementitious Geopolymer Spray-On Lining. Appendix A includes the design
specifications for the Houston, Texas field demonstration site. The design approach is based on Young
and Budynas (2002) for two cases: (1) round or oval pipes; and (2) square and rectangular pipes. Each
case can be designed for either a partially or fully deteriorated pipe. The first design equation calculates
minimum lining thickness based on resistance to hydrostatic buckling for case (1) as follows:
Pwlrl-50.-n2)0-75
*** =N 0.807E - Aquation 1)
tpd = minimum thickness required, partially deteriorated pipe (inches)
Pw = external hydrostatic pressure due to groundwater (psi) = 0.433(HW + D/12)
Hw = height of ground water above pipe (feet)
D = inside diameter of the host pipe (inches)
/ = effective length caused by surface traffic wheels (inches)
r = inside radius of the host pipe (inches) = D/2
li = Poisson's ratio of concrete (0.15)
N = safety factor (2.0 default)
E = initial long-term modulus of elasticity (ksi) = 2,000 (Vipulanandan and Moturi, 2010)
The second design equation calculates minimum lining thickness for a fully deteriorated pipe based on
resistance to hydrostatic buckling and soil and live loads for case (1) as follows. The design for this
project was provided by a registered Professional Engineer and is shown in Appendix A.
Wt/r^Cl-/*2)0-75
*" =N - - Aquation 2)
tfd = minimum thickness required, fully deteriorated pipe (inches)
Wt = total loads (psi) = Pw + W's
-------
Pw = external hydrostatic pressure due to groundwater (psi) = 0.433(HW + D/12)
Hw = height of ground water above pipe (feet)
D = inside diameter of the host pipe (inches)
/ = effective length caused by surface traffic wheels (inches)
W's = soil and live loads (psi) = Wc/12/D
Wc = loads on pipe (Ib/ft) = Cd x w, x fB/72/
l_e-2fcM' X-J-/-L2
Cd = load coefficients = —
2kfj.i
ku' = soil coefficients
H = depth of cover from ground surface to top of pipe (feet)
Bd = width of trench (inches) = D + 24 in.
ws = unit weight of soil (pounds/cubic ft)
r = inside radius of the host pipe (inches) = D/2
li = Poisson's ratio of concrete (0.15)
TV = safety factor (2.0 default)
E = initial long-term modulus of elasticity (ksi) = 2,000 (Vipulanandan and Moturi, 2010)
2.2.4 Installation of Cementitious Geopolymer Spray-On Lining. The following is a brief
overview of the major steps involved in the application of a geopolymer spray-on lining:
• Site preparation including permits and traffic control
• Pipe cleaning and preparation
• Pre-lining inspection
• Sealing of active leaks
• Repair of invert and large voids
• Application of geopolymer spray-on lining
• Post-lining inspection
• Site cleanup and disposal of waste
2.2.5 QA/QC of Cementitious Geopolymer Spray-On Lining. The vendor's recommended
QA/QC procedures for the acceptance and certification of the GeoSpray™ product are included in
Appendix B. The QA/QC steps that should be used to evaluate the performance and proper application of
the lining include:
• Material Packaging. Material should be delivered in packaged and sealed condition and free of
moisture. Materials that have been exposed to moisture or have visible damage to the packaging
should not be used.
• Proper Surface Preparation. The pipe surface shall be thoroughly cleaned and made free of all
foreign materials including dirt, grit, roots, grease, sludge, and all debris or material that may be
attached to the wall or bottom of the pipe.
• Seal Active Leaks. The work consists of hand applying a dry quick-setting Cementitious mix
designed to instantly stop running water or seepage in all types of concrete and masonry
structures. The contractor should apply an approved quick-setting mortar in accordance with
manufacturer's recommendations.
• Invert Repair. The work consists of mixing and applying GeoSpray™ to fill all large voids and
repair inverts prior to spraying or centrifugally casting the pipe. For invert repairs, flow must be
temporarily restricted by inflatable or mechanical plugs prior to cleaning.
• Equipment. The application equipment should:
10
-------
o Have a mortar feed, high shear mixer, and pump as a single operating unit.
o Have sensors that maintain uniform operation of each function.
o Have a visible display for the rate of water addition. The water/cement ratio must be
maintained below 20%.
o Measure the back pressure on the discharge side of the pump. The back pressure should be
maintained below 25 bars.
o Have a spinner head capable of spraying in a clockwise and counter clockwise direction.
o Have a spinner head attached to a reciprocating mechanism to layer the materials.
o Have a retraction system capable of pulling the spinner head at a minimum rate of 4 in. per
minute with no more than +/-5% tolerance.
o Have a retraction system with a visible display that monitors the rate of retraction.
o Monitor and record the rate of retraction, material discharge volume, dry material usage, and
length of pipe covered on a daily basis.
o Be in clean and good working condition and maintained to manufacturers' standards.
o Be free of blockage or debris.
• Lining Thickness. The lining thickness is the key design parameter and should be verified
during the spray-on lining application through continuous monitoring by the operator of the speed
of the sled (e.g., rate of retraction) and the volumetric rate of application by the spray head, which
is measured with a flow gauge. This is computed as the volume of material sprayed at each
location along the pipe to ensure the minimum thickness is met. If the lining material is sprayed
and hand troweled, the thickness should be verified in the pipe with a thickness gauge. In
addition, the total quantity of GeoSpray™ placed on a daily basis is recorded and compared to the
linear feet of pipe covered and pipe diameter to estimate the overall thickness applied.
• Lining Sample Properties. The material properties should be measured and compared to the
manufacturer and design minimum requirements (Table 2-4). The tests required to be performed
for acceptance and certification of the product by the vendor are summarized in Appendix B and
include the compressive strength (ASTM C109), slump (ASTM C143), and temperature of the
batch water, dry powder, ambient air in pipe, ambient air in mixer, and sampled material (ASTM,
2012b). It is recommended that testing should occur at a minimum of one test for every 10 cubic
yards or 32,000 Ibs of material placed. In addition, testing should occur on the first day and last
day of spraying and at a minimum every other day in between. The person responsible for
collecting the test samples should be an American Concrete Institute (ACI) Certified Concrete
Field Testing Technician, Level 1.
2.3 Site Selection Approach
To ensure that the field demonstration results are acceptable and useful to the user community, the field
demonstration site and the condition of the selected test pipe had to be representative of typical
applications for the geopolymer technology. Therefore, the operational conditions (e.g., pipe type,
structural integrity, etc.) and environmental conditions (i.e., subsurface conditions) of potential host sites
had to be appropriate for the technology. Another important consideration in site selection was the
wastewater utilities' willingness to participate in the study.
2.3.1 Site Selection Factors. 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 depended on the willingness of local stakeholders
(such as the city, county/parish, neighborhood residents) to host a field demonstration that may involve
11
-------
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 demonstration program:
• Utility Commitment. Is the utility willing to use an emerging 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/or
test pipe rehabilitation need of national-scale versus regional-scale interest?
• Regulatory/Stakeholder Climate. Are local/state officials willing to work with the utility
concerning requirements to permit use of an emerging technique? Will the local stakeholders
consent to the potential disruption caused by the construction activities?
• Test Pipe and Site Conditions. Are the test pipe operating and environmental site conditions
suitable when compared to the technology's application limitations?
• Site Access and Safety. Are site conditions (i.e., site access, space requirements, etc.) suitable
for a safe and secure field demonstration?
The site selection process for this demonstration involved employing a collaborative approach with the
technology developer and installer in an effort to identify candidate sites for the planned demonstration
study. As part of this process, a dialogue with Milliken and Inland Pipe Rehabilitation (IPR) was
initiated. Milliken indicated that GeoSpray™ was being planned for a project in Houston on a critical
main entering into the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The overall responsibilities of the
technology vendor (Milliken) and installer (IPR) 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
2.3.2 Site Description. The City of Houston is located in southeastern Texas near the Gulf of
Mexico. The city has an estimated population over 2.1 million and is the fourth largest city in the U.S.
The City of Houston Public Works Wastewater Operations Division operates and maintains 40 WWTPs
treating an average of 277 million gallons per day (MGD) and 6,250 miles of sewer pipelines ranging in
size from 6 in. to 144 in.
The test pipe used for this demonstration was a fully deteriorated 60-in. RCP sanitary sewer pipe
approximately 160 ft long and 25 ft deep. The main was located under the White Oak Bayou just south of
Tidwell Road in northwest Houston (see Figure 2-2 with pipe alignment highlighted in red). The
upstream manhole was located in the backyard of a house on Oak Shadows Drive and the downstream
manhole ended at the Northwest WWTP located on Magnum Road.
GeoSpray™ was selected to rehabilitate the 60-in. RCP sewer main primarily because of the need for a
shortened bypass time for this critical pipe leading into the WWTP. Also, the 25-ft depth of the pipe and
other site-specific conditions precluded open cut excavation. The City of Houston selected GeoSpray™
because of positive past experience on rehabilitation projects within their collection system where the
pipe needed minimal capacity reduction and site excavation.
12
-------
Figure 2-2. Aerial Photo of Demonstration Site Location
13
-------
Section 3.0: GEOPOLYMER DEMONSTRATION
This section outlines the activities involved with the GeoSpray™ field demonstration including site
preparation, technology application, post-demonstration field verification, sample collection, and site
restoration.
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; closed-circuit television (CCTV)
inspection; cleaning of the pipe; and repair of any infiltration prior to lining. Details relating to these site
preparation activities are provided in this section.
3.1.1 Safety and Logistics. Throughout the demonstration project, the bypass access manhole (or
Manhole #1) was secured. It was located upstream from the lining access manhole at the intersection of
Oak Shadows Drive and Deepcreek Lane. Manhole #1 was surrounded with barriers around the clock
and the bypass pipes were secured behind temporary fencing (Figure 3-1). IPR was responsible for traffic
control throughout the demonstration. The demonstration took place over the course of two weeks from
finishing the bypass setup (week of April 22) to the final day of spraying (May 7). A typical day began
around 7:00 a.m. and activities each day were normally completed by 7:00 p.m. (12-hour duration).
Figure 3-1. Barriers Surrounding Manhole #1
The Battelle team had one staff member on site each day for the majority of the site preparation activities
and three staff members were on site for the first full day of spray lining to gather samples. The Battelle
team maintained coordination with IPR throughout the demonstration project to ensure that field data
14
-------
were collected as planned in the QAPP. Level D personal protective equipment including hard hats,
safety glasses, steel-toed shoes, and safety vests were required for all site visitors.
3.1.2 Installation of Bypass. IPR laid out the bypass prior to the week of April 22, 2013. The
bypass system included three 16-in. high density polyethylene (HDPE) bypass pipes, which converged
into two pipes (Figure 3-2, left) before heading downstream. The bypass piping had to run parallel to an
open channel, which is connected to the White Oak Bayou, before crossing the channel on a bridge and
then heading to the WWTP (Figure 3-2, right). Three large 50-horsepower (hp) pumps ran continually to
divert the flow from the 60-in. collection main to the WWTP (Figure 3-3).
Figure 3-2. Bypass Pipes Converging (left) and Laying Parallel to an Open Channel (right)
Figure 3-3. Bypass Pumps at Manhole #1
15
-------
3.1.3 Pipe Cleaning and Inspection. Cleaning and inspection took place over the course of four
days (Monday through Thursday). Cleaning began on Monday, April 22 by launching the cleaning
nozzle from the downstream manhole (Manhole #3) to the upstream lining access manhole located in a
backyard (Manhole #2 in Figure 3-4). Cleaning was accomplished using water from a self-contained
water truck that was capable of holding more than 500 gallons of water and providing the compressed air
needed for pressure washing to clean all foreign material attached to the pipe surface (e.g., dirt, grit,
sludge, etc.). Only water was used; it was not necessary for this project to employ detergent or muriatic
acid (as recommended if significant grease and oil are present). The exact volume of wash water could
not be tracked because the water was discharged directly into the sanitary sewer for disposal. During the
cleaning, approximately 6 cubic yards of debris was removed from the pipe.
Figure 3-4. Manhole #2 Located in a Backyard
The pre-lining CCTV inspection showed the 60-in. RCP host pipe was severely deteriorated with rebar
exposed and several infiltration locations gushing water prior to lining (Figures 3-5 and 3-6). Table 3-1
presents the pre-lining CCTV inspection results, which confirmed the fully-deteriorated condition of the
host pipe.
Table 3-1. Pre-Lining CCTV Inspection
Item
Manhole #2
Infiltration
Infiltration
Infiltration
Infiltration
Infiltration
Infiltration
Metallic Object
Infiltration
Rebar Exposed
Manhole #3
Location
N/A
12:00 o'clock
12:00 o'clock
12:00 o'clock
12:00 o'clock
12:00 o'clock
3:00 o'clock
7:00 o'clock
Multiple
Multiple
N/A
Distance (ft)
0
48
79
92
101
105
135
139
143-153
0-160
160
Comment
Upstream Manhole
Water seeping in
Water seeping in
Water seeping in
Water seeping in
Water seeping in
Water gushing in
Unidentified metallic object
Water gushing in multiple locations
Rebar exposed throughout the pipe
Downstream Manhole
16
-------
Figure 3-5. Typical Condition of the Host Pipe Prior to Lining
Figure 3-6. Infiltration Entering the Host Pipe Prior to Lining
17
-------
3.1.4 Infiltration Repair. After cleaning and debris removal, several infiltration locations had to
be repaired prior to lining because the GeoSpray™ material cannot be applied to a surface with free
water. The contractor used a moisture activated chemical grout from Avanti (AV-202) which is designed
to seal active water leaks in large cracks in concrete structures (Figure 3-7). The grout was applied using
a spray nozzle and took place on Friday and Saturday prior to lining. The repairs took longer than
expected due to flows spilling into the manhole at the WWTP that could not be shut off, which delayed
the time workers could get into the pipe. The uncontrolled flows were part of the WWTP system that was
not controlled by the contractor, but by the WWTP and was not related to the project bypass system. A
total of 40 gallons of grout was used to plug the various infiltration locations.
Figure 3-7. Chemical Grout Material
3.2
Technology Application
The geopolymer lining of the test section took place between Saturday, April 27 and Tuesday, May 7,
2013. The lining process included: loading the dry material into a hopper and mixing the material with
water; conveying the fresh mixed product to spray head; spraying; and finishing.
3.2.1 Technology Application Equipment and Process. The GeoSpray™ lining process requires
the use of several pieces of equipment including the hopper, high shear mixer, pump, and application unit.
The hopper is an elevated storage unit into which powdered material is emptied. The bagged material was
delivered to the site in 2,000 Ib bags, which were kept dry under a tarp. None of the bags had any visible
damage to their packaging. The hopper serves the purpose of a temporary storage and material
dispensing/feeding unit throughout the operations (Figure 3-8, left). The high shear mixer (Figure 3-8,
right) was used since the water to cement ratio was low and the final product was expected to gain
viscosity during mixing. The freshly mixed product was pumped to the pipe via a black pressure hose
(Figure 3-9, left) approximately 105 ft from the pipe and spray applied to the wall via a spray nozzle
(Figure 3-9, right). After spray, the material was smoothed by hand using a trowel. Typically,
18
-------
GeoSpray™ is manually applied in situations of severe deterioration where water is infiltrating and void
filling is necessary. In this case, the pipe had less than half of its original pipe wall thickness in the
majority of the pipe and had severe infiltration as the pipe was beneath an active bayou. When a pipe
wall is compromised, as in this instance, and infiltration is heavy, manual spraying provides the advantage
of being able to address serious infiltration locations by hand applying a thicker liner in a single pass.
The material was sprayed and trowelled within 30 minutes of being mixed, which is within the work time
of 60 to 90 minutes. There were no significant operational issues or downtime noted for the equipment
during spraying operations when the research team was on site on April 27, 2013. No issues were noted
with the maintenance or cleaning of spray heads, hoses, or other equipment when the research team was
on site on April 27, 2013. However, on the final day of spraying, some operational issues were noted by
the contractor in the spray logs for May 7, 2013 related to the replacement of the spinner bearings, gasket
repairs, hose repairs, mixing tube issues, and hopper repair.
Figure 3-8. Hopper (top left) and High Shear Mixer (top right) and View of Application System
19
-------
Figure 3-9. Black Pressure Hose (left) and Spray Nozzle (right)
3.2.2 Sample Collection. Each day prior to spraying, an independent lab would collect samples
for QC checks. Prior to the first spraying on Saturday, April 27, the research team also collected samples
as described in the QAPP (Figure 3-10). This included five cylinders for compressive strength via ASTM
C109 (2008a), five beams for flexural testing via ASTM C78 (2010a), three cylinders for modulus of
elasticity via ASTM C469 (2002), and a small cylinder for set time via ASTM C191 (2008b). The
samples were collected during a light rain and it was suspected that this additional moisture negatively
impacted the test results (see Section 4.4 for further discussion).
During the development of the QAPP, the product manufacturer stated that bond strength was typically
measured at each site via ASTM C882 (2005) and that the research team would be able to verify the
results. For this reason, it was included as a critical measure in the QAPP. However, during the
demonstration, the contractor informed the research team that bond strength is rarely measured in the field
unless specifically stated in the contract. For this project, it was not stated in the contract and therefore
the bond strength was not measured by the contractor or the research team. It is recommended that the
bond strength be measured at future project sites as a key QC measure.
Figure 3-10. Collecting Fresh Material from the Pressure Hose (left) and Preparing Samples (right)
20
-------
3.2.3 Geopolymer Spraying. The geopolymer spraying operation took a total of four days, and
the entire project was conducted over a period of 11 days (see Table 3-2). The contractor estimated that a
2-in. thick coating was sprayed along the entire 160-ft section over the course of the first three spraying
days (i.e., April 27, April 30, and May 1) and then an additional 1-in. thick coating was sprayed the entire
length of the pipe on the final spraying day (May 7) for a total target lining thickness of 3-in. The
minimum design thickness was 1.88 in. (see Appendix A). The calculated lining thicknesses for each day
of spraying varied from the contractor estimates as discussed in Section 4.4. After each pass, the hoses
were removed and the machine and hoses were cleaned with soap and water. The contractor spray logs
did not keep track of the water/cement ratio; however, this was checked via a slump test, which was
within the typical range (i.e., less than 1 in.) each day of spraying (see Table 3-2). Since the spray sled
was not used, those related QC parameters such as back pressure and rate of retraction of the sled were
not tracked. The water addition rate and pump speed were tracked at the beginning, middle, and end of
each spray run (see Table 3-2).
Table 3-2. Summary of Geopolymer Spraying Application Data
Date
4/27/13
4/30/13
5/1/13
5/7/13
Duration
(min.)
80
190
160
300
Dry
Material
(Ibs)*
6,000
12,000
12,000
18,000
Distance
(ft)
-30
-70
-60
160
Thickness
(in.)*
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0+
160-162
180-200
200
179-182
8
9-10
10
10
105
140
210
225
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
* Contractor provided estimates of lining thickness and dry material per verbal communication from vendor to
Battelle at time of project.
3.3
Post-Demonstration Field Verification
The post-lining inspection via CCTV showed the rehabilitated pipe to be free of infiltration, with no signs
of steel reinforcement rebar or cracking. Figure 3-11 shows the lined pipe prior to spraying the final 1-in.
coating and Figure 3-12 shows the fully lined pipe. The research team reviewed the post-lining CCTV
taken the day after the final coating was applied and no significant defects in the coating were noted.
21
-------
Figure 3-11. Lined Pipe Prior to Final 1-in. Coating
Figure 3-12. Post-Lining Inspection of Fully Lined Pipe
22
-------
Section 4.0: DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
This section presents the results of the field demonstration including an assessment of the technology
based on the evaluation metrics defined in Section 2.1 and Table 2-1. The specific metrics that were used
to evaluate and document the application of the GeoSpray™ product for the rehabilitation of a large
diameter wastewater main are described below.
4.1 Technology Maturity
While the spray lining process is classified as conventional, the GeoSpray™ lining product is classified as
innovative in terms of maturity based on its formulation (i.e., geopolymer) and usage. The product is a
sustainable green material in terms of environmental benefits (i.e., reduced carbon footprint compared to
OPC) and the use of recycled industrial byproducts (e.g., fly ash) for as much as 50% of the raw material.
The manufacturer reports that GeoSpray™ has been applied to over 150 structures in 11 states including
California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, and Washington. Representatives from the City of Houston considered GeoSpray™ to be a useful
technology option in their tool box. City representatives said they have had positive experiences in
various locations, especially for heavily deteriorated pipes, odd shape pipes, and pipes that needed
minimal capacity reduction and site excavation. They noted that intensive bypass is required, but they
have not had any notable issues.
4.2 Technology Feasibility
The GeoSpray™ lining was designed to provide a structural solution to the failure of a 60-in. RCP
wastewater pipe. The host pipe was 25 ft. deep and was located underneath an open channel bayou,
which essentially precluded an open cut replacement approach. The technology was found to be feasible
and met the rehabilitation requirements by providing a monolithic, structural lining within the fully-
deteriorated host pipe. The post-lining inspection via CCTV showed the rehabilitated pipe to be free of
infiltration, with no signs of steel reinforcement rebar or cracking, and no significant defects noted in the
GeoSpray™ lining the day after application.
The installation process was also found to be suitable to the conditions of the host pipe. Proper adherence
of the cementitious liner to the host pipe depends on several factors such as cleaning of the host pipe prior
to the liner application to remove loose debris and the elimination of any standing water or free water on
the pipe surface. For this demonstration, the cleaning process was found to be satisfactory in preparing
the surface as noted in the pre-lining CCTV inspection and a moisture activated chemical grout was used
to successfully seal active infiltration areas within the host pipe. During the demonstration, no
challenging situations were encountered outside of flow control obstacles at the WWTP, which were not
directly related to the technology implementation. The flow control issues did cause a delay in the
initiation of the spray lining process until the matter could be resolved and standing water was removed
from the pipe. The severe deterioration and infiltration in the host pipe also prevented the use of the sled
and required the lining to be hand sprayed. In addition, moderate temperatures are required during the
application process (between 37°F to 90°F). The ambient temperature during the field demonstration
ranged from 62°F to 87°F and all of the process temperatures monitored also conformed to this
requirement (see Section 4.4).
23
-------
4.3
Technology Complexity
The spray lining process is not a complex procedure; therefore, it is conceivable that contractors and/or
wastewater utility personnel could be trained to install this product. The vendor recommends that the
supervisor and equipment operator should have a minimum of 80 hours of training on the materials,
equipment, and process prior to deployment in the field. The dry cementitious powder comes in a bag,
which is then mixed with water and sprayed just as any other commercial product. The typical lining
crew throughout the project included one foreman and five to six laborers. During the actual lining, the
foreman operated the mixer, while two laborers remained aboveground. Three laborers were also located
in the pipe, with one spraying and two finishing the surface with trowels. In terms of operation and
maintenance, repairs of the spray equipment were required on one out of four days of spraying, but lining
operations were able to proceed as scheduled after the repairs were made. In terms of QA/QC, the person
responsible for collecting tests samples and performing tests should be an ACI certified field testing
technician who has experience in following ASTM procedures in handling, storing, and transporting the
samples.
4.4
Technology Performance
The technology performance was assessed through the ability to achieve the desired product thickness
within the host pipe and through the collection of samples to measure key properties of the GeoSpray™
material as prepared on site during the field demonstration. Since the sled was not used due to the heavy
deterioration and infiltration of the pipe, parameters such as the retraction rate of the sled could not be
tracked to determine the field applied thickness. Instead, an estimate was obtained based on the volume
of dry material sprayed and the length of pipe covered each day (Table 4-1). The assumptions made to
make this calculation are that the length of pipe sprayed each day had full 360° coverage of lining and
that the entire material placed into the hopper was used for spraying. For example, on 4/27/13, 6,000 Ibs
of material was sprayed inside the 60-in. pipe for a distance of 30 ft. The product yield is given to be 0.86
ft3/100 Ibs of dry material, resulting in 51.6 ft3 of material being sprayed (6,000 x 0.86/100). The area of
pipe sprayed is the circumference of the 60-in. (5 ft) pipe, which is 188 in (15.7 ft) by the length sprayed
(15.7 ft x 30 ft), which is 471 ft2. The calculated thickness is then given by dividing the yield by the area
of pipe sprayed (51.6 ft3 by 471 ft2), which 0.11 ft or 1.3-in. Based on these calculations, the field applied
thickness was approximately 3.3 in. total (see Table 4-1), which was well above the design value of 1.88
in. (see Appendix A). It should be noted that the contractor estimated lining thickness provided on the
spray logs appeared to be an overestimate compared to the calculated thickness for the first three spraying
days (from 50% to 75% higher). The contractor estimated thickness on the fourth day of spraying was
underestimated (by 100%). Overall, the total calculated thickness of 3.2 to 3.4 in. was higher than the
contractor estimated total thickness of 3.0 in. for the entire 160-ft application. Given the importance of
the lining thickness to the rehabilitation design, it is suggested that the "as installed" lining thickness be
checked in the field on a regular basis to verify the calculated results and the contractor estimates.
Table 4-1. Summary of Spray Lining Thickness Estimates
Date
4/27/13
4/30/13
5/1/13
5/7/13
Dry
Material
Ob)*
6,000
12,000
12,000
18,000
Distance
(ft)
-30
-70
-60
160
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0+
1.34
1.15
1.34
2.06
3.4
3.2
3.4
N/A
* Contractor provided estimates of lining thickness and dry material at time of project.
N/A = not applicable
24
-------
The results of the laboratory evaluation compared with the manufacturer stated claims are shown in Table
4-2. The testing results are tabulated both for the results from this study and from the third-party
laboratory contracted as part of the project for the City of Houston (see Appendix C). The testing results
are then compared to the design specifications as discussed below.
Table 4-2. GeoSpray™ Performance Data Comparison
Property
Field Applied Thickness
Compressive Strength
Flexural Strength
Modulus of Elasticity
Set Time (Final Set)
Slump
Density
Bond Strength
Standard
Young and Budynas
(2002)
ASTM C109 (28 day)
ASTM C78 (28 day)
ASTM C469 (28 day)
ASTMC191
ASTM C143
ASTMC138
ASTM C882 (28 day)
Result
3. 3 -in.
7,881 psi
641 psi
6,500 ksi
75 minutes
1-in.
134 lb/ft3
N/A
N/A
8,635 psi
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.25-in.
N/A
N/A
1.88-in.
8,000 psi
1,300 psi
6,500 ksi
100 minutes
(per ASTM C807)
1-in.
139.3 lb/ft3
1,600 psi
Compressive strength is a material's maximum resistance to axial loading and is the most important
property of hardened cementitious materials. The Compressive strength was measured per ASTM C109
(2008a; Figure 4-1, left) for two cylinders at 7 days, 14 days, and 28 days. The 28-day strength was
approximately 98.5% of the manufacturer's stated strength (see Figure 4-2). The third-party test results
averaged from three days of spraying and sample collection showed the Compressive strength exceeded
the manufacturer's stated strength at 28 days by 8% (see Appendix C). Since the third-party test results
were above the manufacturer's stated strength, the slightly lower 7,881 psi measured by the research team
was not deemed to be a significant issue.
Flexural strength and modulus of elasticity are less important for cementitious materials, but must still
meet minimum requirements to resist tensile forces. The flexural strength was measured per ASTM C78
(2010a; Figure 4-1, right) for two beams at 14 and 28 days. The 28-day strength was approximately 50%
of the manufacturer's stated strength. The modulus of elasticity of the beams was approximately 95% of
the manufacturer's stated strength. Third-party flexural tests were not required.
Figure 4-1. Compressive Testing (left) and Flexural Testing (right)
25
-------
Stress vs. Strain of Compresive Tests
9000
0
O.OOE+00
5.00E-04
l.OOE-03 1.50E-03
Strain
2.00E-03
2.50E-03
Figure 4-2. Stress/Strain Curve for Compressive Samples
The final set time was measured per ASTM C191 (2008b; Figure 4-3, left) for five cubes and was 75% of
the manufacturer stated set time of 100 minutes. By comparison, shotcrete typically can have final set
times in the range of 4 to 7 hours, which can be shortened depending on the presence of certain
admixtures (Belie et al., 2005). The material slump per ASTM C143 (2010b; Figure 4-3, right) was
within the standard range (e.g., <1.0) and was used to verify that the material had the proper water/cement
ratio. Slump tests are used as a measure of batch variability (uniformity) and changes in slump can
indicate variability in the batching process. The slump values were measured at 0.25 in. based upon third-
party test results across all four days, which suggests a fairly uniform preparation process across each
batch (see Appendix D). The slump value of the sample collected by the research team was 1.0 in., which
was within the specification of 1.0, but indicates a potential difference in the batch from the materials
tested by the third party.
Figure 4-3. Set Time Testing (left) and Slump Testing (right)
26
-------
In general, the samples collected by the research team tested under the manufacturer stated claims. Based
on the 3.6% lower than expected density of the GeoSpray™ mixture at 134 lb/ft3 compared to the design
specification of 139 lb/ft3, it is hypothesized that this could be attributable to the light rain experienced
during sample collection and preparation. It is also believed that the rain had no impact on the material
sprayed in the pipe as the mixer was covered during the installation. The average third-party test results
for compressive strength were above the manufacturer stated claim. Additionally, the material is
designed for spraying; therefore, pouring in the field without a shaker table can create voids, which might
also impact this testing. Current standards only require the use of tamping rods, which may or may not be
sufficient for eliminating voids in the samples. The use of a shaker table in the field is recommended as a
future practice to minimize voids. The results of the QC testing from the contractor's third-party showed
the material to be above the design strength requirements (see Table 4-1).
Temperatures were monitored by the third-party testing lab during the installation process to ensure that
they remained within the installation range (i.e., 37°F to 90°F) as summarized in Table 4-3 (see third-
party reports in Appendix D).
Table 4-3. Temperature Monitored During Installation
Property
Batch Water
Dry Powder
Ambient within Pipe
Ambient at Mixing Point
Sampled Material
62°F
84°F
77°F
68°F
84°F
51°F
73°F
79°F
83°F
87°F
50°F
78°F
74°F
76°F
82°F
50°F
80°F
79°F
76°F
80°F
4.5
Technology Cost
The cost to structurally rehabilitate a section of pipe is dependent on a wide variety of variables. These
common variables include: pipe diameter, host pipe material, length of pipe to be rehabilitated, pipe
condition including corrosion and/or ovality, the amount of cleaning required, the amount of active
infiltration, pipe depth, location of access points, and the physical forces on the pipe, including water, soil
and traffic loads. This list can be expanded to include limited site access, limited hours of operation,
operating in environmentally sensitive areas, along with other site-specific considerations. Other
important variables include: location of the project, traffic control concerns, and the largest variable being
the amount and type of bypass pumping required. Remote sites that require equipment and personnel to
travel long distances can also impact pricing. Locations that require a high degree of traffic control up to
and including police officers to direct traffic also increase pricing.
Bypass pumping on large-diameter pipe rehabilitation projects like this can typically be the largest
expense of the project. With the large amount of variables associated with each individual project, the
contractor provided the following information as a general guideline for structurally rehabilitating a 60-in.
RCP sewer main. The costs associated with projects similar to this range from $400 to $600 per linear
foot. As stated above, many factors other than the actual lining costs can greatly impact pricing.
4.6
Technology Environmental Impact
Cleaning was accomplished using water from a self-contained water truck that was capable of holding
more than 500 gallons of water and providing the compressed air needed for pressure washing to clean all
27
-------
foreign material attached to the pipe surface (e.g., dirt, grit, sludge, etc.). During the cleaning operation,
all of the water used was discharged into the bypass manhole and did not require additional processing.
The exact volume of wash water could not be tracked because the water was discharged directly into the
sanitary sewer for disposal. During the cleaning, approximately 6 cubic yards of debris was removed
from the pipe. Since excavations were not required for this project, no soil required off-site disposal. This
greatly reduced the carbon footprint of the project when compared to a traditional open cut project. To
estimate the carbon footprint, the tool known as e-Calc was used (Sihabbudin and Ariaratnam, 2009).
The e-Calc inputs are shown in Figure 4-4.
Equipment Details
Fuel Details
Project Details
Name
JCB Handler
tomatsu Track Hoe
Hertz Pump
Hertz Pump
Hertz Pump
Model
510-56
PC 200 HD
Pioneer Prime
Pioneer Prime
Pioneer Prime
Power
(hp)
114
155
50
50
50
Model
Year
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
Engine Useful
Tech. Hours
Tier 2 _HJ 5000
Tier 2 -HI 5000
Tier 2 _HJ 5000
Tier 2 H| 5000
Tier 2 _HJ 5000
31
31
.ill i
31
31
31
31
Cum. Hrs
Used
50
50
50
50
50
Sulfur Representative Used
Type (%) Equipment Cyde [%j
Diesel HI 0.33_HJ Tractors/loaders/Backhoes HI 90
Diesel H| 0.33_HJ Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes _HJ 90
Diesel HI 0.33_HJ Other Construction Equipment _HJ 90
Diesel H| 0.33_HJ Other Construction Equipment_HJ 90
Diesel HI 0.33_HJ Other Construction Equipment^ | 90
Diesel H| 0.33_HJ Other Construction Equipment_HJ 90
Diesel HI 0.33_HJ Other Construction Equipment^] | 90
Diesel HI 0,33_Hj Other Construction Equipment^ | 90
-ill Jill -ill
-ill -ill -ill
-ill -ill -ill
-ill -ill Zll
Use
(hrs)
20
4
240
240
240
1
Name
| Truck
| Truck
| Truck
| Truck
| Truck
| Truck
Transport Details
Gross Vehide
Make ?°dre Weight (GVW)
Year (Ibs.)
| Chevy 2500
| FordF-350
| Peterbilt
| Peterbilt Flat
| GMCC6500
1 IsuzuNQR
2005
8,501-10,000
2005 | 8,501-10,000
2005
2005
2005
2005
16,001-19,500
14,001-16,000
10,001-14,000
10,001-14,000
-ill
-ill
-ill
-ill
-ill
dl
Mileage
(mi)
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Fuel Details
31
31
31
31
31
-II
i
Sulfur
{%)
0.05 ^J|
O.OSjHI
O.OSjHI
0.05 JlH
0,05 _H|
0.05 jH|
Project Details
Number
*"""* ofTrips
Low jHI 30 |
Low HI ID |
LOW^J) 1|
Low _HJ 1 |
Low^J] 1|
LOW _HI 1 1
Oneway
Distance
(mi)
10 1
20|
20|
20|
||
20|
1
Return
Distance
(mi)
10
20
20
20
20
20
Figure 4-4. Inputs for e-Calc for the GeoSpray 60-in. RCP Sewer Main Project
The primary equipment on site were three large Pioneer bypass pumps (see Figure 3-3), which ran nearly
continually over the course of the 11-day project. The contractor also used a telescopic handler for
attaching the bypass system and a track hoe for various lifting activities. The contractor had four large
equipment trucks on site for the duration of the project, which were left at the site each night. In addition,
four pickup trucks were on site for various durations to transport staff to and from the site.
The e-Calc outputs are shown in Figure 4-5. The project resulted in a carbon footprint of approximately
23.06 short tons (or 46,100 Ib) of CC>2 equivalents from the equipment and 1.04 short tons (or 2,100 Ib) of
CCh equivalents from the vehicles for a total of 48,200 Ib. An equivalent open cut project would be
difficult to estimate as this pipe segment was located underneath an open channel bayou, which would
require a significant amount of work to open cut and is very impractical. From previous studies (EPA,
2012), open cut construction has been estimated to be around 2,000 Ib of CO2 equivalents per day. With
depth (26 ft) and surface obstructions (i.e., open channel bayou) of this project, the duration of an open
28
-------
cut project could be estimated to be several months at a minimum, resulting in a minimum impact of
120,000+ Ib of CO2 equivalents.
In terms of CC>2 equivalent emissions of the manufacture of geopolymers, studies have shown that
geopolymers produce as much 65% (McClellan et al., 2011) or even as much as 90% less emissions
(Davidovits, 2011) when compared to OPC.
Emissions
HC
(Ibs)
3,5l|
0,95|
6.97|
6.97J
6.97 |
0.00 |
0,00 1
0.00 |
0.00 1
0.00 ]
0.00 1
0.00 ]
CO NOx
(Ibs) (Ibs)
10.09
2,74
55.87
55,87
55,37
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
20,40
5,55
106.95
106,95
106,95
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
PM C02
1,61
0,44
9,97
9,97
9.97
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
SOx
(Ibs)
1.4l| 5.71
0.38 1
7,09 |
7,09 |
7.09 |
o.ooj
o.ooj
0,00 |
0.00 1
0,00 j
o.ooj
0.00 |
1.55
28.67
28.67
23.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
HC
(Ibs)
CO NOx
(Ibs) (Ibs)
| 0.20) 1,72
1 ' 1
0,02
| 0.02J
0,02|
] 0,02 1
1,14
0,17
0,15
0,13
0.13
2,37
1,91
0,28
0,26
0,22
0.22
PM C02 SOX
(Ibs) (S/T) (Ibs)
0,13
0,09
0,01
0,01
0.01
0.01
0.52
0,35
0,05
0,04
0.32
0.21
0,03
0,03
0.04 j 0.02
0.04
0.02
Figure 4-5. Results from e-Calc for the GeoSpray™ 60-in. RCP Sewer Main Project
(Installation [top] and Transportation [bottom])
29
-------
Section 5.0: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This demonstration of the innovative, spray-applied, fiber-reinforced geopolymer mortar used to
rehabilitate a 60-in. RCP that was 160-ft long and 25-ft deep in Houston, TX was deemed successful.
The host pipe was severely deteriorated with reinforcing steel exposed and missing and several locations
of heavy infiltration, which is why the lining was spray applied by hand rather than using a sled. Table 5-
1 summarizes the overall conclusions for each metric used to evaluate the technology.
Table 5-1. Technology Evaluation Metrics Conclusion
Technology Maturity Metrics
• Innovative material installed using a conventional methodology.
• Corrosive resistance was not validated, but geopolymer is a proven improvement over OPC.
• Some third-party data are available, but long-term testing is needed.
Technology Feasibility Metrics
• Project met the owner's expectations and requirements.
• The material was successfully installed in a severely deteriorated pipe environment.
• Because of the severe deterioration of the host pipe and high levels of water infiltration, the lining was manually
spray applied by hand versus application via a spray sled.
Technology Complexity Metrics
• Beneficial for wastewater utilities with deteriorating large-diameter mains in corrosive environments.
• Requires trained professionals, but the lining process is not complex; therefore, contractors or utility personnel
could be trained to install this product.
• The project spanned a total of 11 working days and this included unanticipated delays in setup of the host pipe by
the WWTP due to flows entering into the manhole at the WWTP that initially could not be shut off.
Technology Performance Metrics
• The post-lining inspection via CCTV showed the rehabilitated pipe to be free of infiltration, with no signs of
exposed rebar or cracking, and no significant defects were noted in the GeoSpray™ lining the day after
application.
• Calculations based on the amount of material sprayed each day and length of coverage showed that spray-applied
thickness to be approximately 3.3 in., which was more than the design minimum value of 1.9 in.
• Third-party test results for all four days of spraying showed that the QC samples met design. The compressive
strength at 28 days averaged 8,635 psi compared to the manufacturer's design specification of 8,000 psi.
• Mechanical testing by the research team indicated that the QC samples were lower than the manufacturer claims
of performance. For example, the compressive strength at 28 days was measured at 7,881 psi (or 1.5% lower than
the manufacturer's specification). Based upon the lower than expected density of the mixture (by 3.6%), it is
hypothesized that the lower values in these samples were attributable to light rain experienced during sample
collection. However, it is assumed that the rain had no impact on the material sprayed in the pipe as the mixer
was covered during the installation.
• Because of the manual application of the GeoSpray™ material, not all of the typical QC parameters could be
collected on a continuous basis associated with the sled application. However, the slump test results were
consistent for each day of spraying, which suggests that a uniform water/cement ratio was achieved.
Technology Cost Metrics
• The costs associated with projects similar to this range from $400 to $600 per linear foot.
Technology Environmental and Social Metrics
• Social disruption was minimal since traffic was only affected at one manhole and drivers were able to access their
homes throughout the project.
• An estimated 48,200 Ib of CO2 equivalents were emitted from on-site operations.
• A similar open cut project, although impractical due to the site conditions, would emit 120,000+ Ib of CO2
equivalents.
• CO2 equivalent emissions from the manufacture of geopolymers have been shown to be as much as 65% to 90%
less than emissions for OPC.
30
-------
It is recommended that sampling procedures be further examined to ensure that QC samples are indicative
of the final material properties as installed in the field. The calculated lining thickness was found to vary
significantly from the contractor estimates provided in the field. It is important to develop a protocol to
measure the lining thickness in the field as part of future QC procedures to verify the calculations. It
should be noted that bond strength is rarely measured in the field unless specifically stated in the contract.
It is recommended that the bond strength be measured at future project sites as a key QC measure. The
material is designed for spraying; therefore, pouring the material in the field may create voids. Current
standards only require the use of tamping rods, which may or may not be sufficient for eliminating voids
in the samples. The use of a shaker table in the field is recommended as a future practice to minimize
voids. Alternatively, a process for obtaining samples directly from the finished coating could be
explored, although this is less practical.
31
-------
Section 6.0: REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2002. Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of
Elasticity andPoisson 's Ration of Concrete in Compression. ASTM C469, ASTM Intl., West
Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard Test Method for Bond Strength of
Epoxy-Resin Systems Used with Concrete by Slant Shear. ASTM C882/C882M, ASTM Intl.,
West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2008a. Standard Test Method for Comprehensive
Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or [50-mm] Cube Specimens). ASTM
C109/C109M, ASTM Intl., West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2008b. Standard Test Methods for Time of Setting
of Hydraulic Cement by Vicat Needle. ASTM C191, ASTM Intl., West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2008c. Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength
of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Center-Point Loading). ASTM C293, ASTM Intl., West
Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2008d. Standard Test Method for Time of Setting of
Hydraulic Cement Mortar by Modified Vicat Needle. ASTM C807, ASTM Intl., West
Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2008e. Standard Test Methodfor Resistance of
Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing. ASTM C666/C666M, ASTM Intl., West
Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2009a. Standard Test Method for Comprehensive
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. ASTM C39/C39M, ASTM Intl., West
Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2009b. Standard Test Method for Length Change of
Hydraulic-Cement Mortars Exposed to a Sulfate Solution. ASTM C1012/C1012M, ASTM Intl.,
West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2010a. Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength
of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with third-Point Loading). ASTM C78/C78M, ASTM Intl.,
West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 201 Ob. Standard Test Method for Slump of
Hydraulic-Cement Concrete. ASTM C143/C143M, ASTM Intl., West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2010c. Standard Test Method for Density (Unit
Weight), Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete. ASTM C138/C138M, ASTM Intl.,
West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 201 Oc. Standard Test Method for Measuring Changes
in Height of Cylindrical Specimens of Hydraulic-Cement Grout. ASTM C1090, ASTM Intl., West
32
-------
Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2010d. Standard Test Method for Determining the
Penetration of Chloride Ion into Concrete by Ponding. ASTM C1543, ASTM Intl., West
Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2011. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. ASTM C496/C496M, ASTM Intl., West
Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2012a. Standard Test Method for Abrasion
Resistance of Concrete (Underwater Method). ASTM Cl 138M, ASTM Intl., West
Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2012b. Standard Test Method for Temperature of
Freshly Mixed Hydraulic-Cement Concrete. ASTM C1064/1064M, ASTM Intl., West
Conshohocken, PA.
Battelle. 2012. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Demonstration of GeoTree Technologies GeoSpray™
Fiber Reinforced Geopolymer Spray Applied Mortar. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Research
and Development, Cincinnati, OH. October.
Belie, N., C. Grosse, J. Kurz, and H. Reinhardt. 2005. "Ultrasound monitoring of the influence of
different accelerating admixtures and cement types for shotcrete on setting and hardening
behavior." Cement and Concrete Research, 35(11), 2087-2094
Davidovits, J. 1991. "Geopolymers: Inorganic polymeric new materials." Journal of Thermal Analysis
and Calorimetry, 37(8), 1633-1655.
Davidovits, J. 2011. "Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications." 3rd Ed., Geopolymer Institute.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. EPA NRMRL QAPP Requirements for Measurement
Projects, U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, D.C.
www. epa. gov/nrmrl/qa/pdf/MeasurementQ APPNRMRLrevO .pdf.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Rehabilitation ofWastewater Collection and Water
Distribution Systems: White Paper. EPA/600/R-09/048, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH, May, 91 pp., http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P10044GX.pdf.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a. State of Technology Report for Force Main
Rehabilitation. EPA/600/R-10/044, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
OH, March, 175 pp., http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P100785F.pdf.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010b. State of Technology for Rehabilitation ofWastewater
Collection. EPA/600/R-10/078, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH,
July, 325 pp., http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P1008C45.pdf.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. Performance Evaluation of Innovative Water Main
Rehabilitation CIPP Lining Product in Cleveland, OH. EPA/600/R-12/012, U.S. EPA, Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, February, 117 pp.
http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P100DZL3.pdf
33
-------
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. State of Technology for Rehabilitation of Water
Distribution Systems. EPA/600/R-13/036. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH, March, 212 pp. http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P100GDZH.pdf
Kupwade-Patil, K. and Allouche, E. 2013. "Examination of chloride induced corrosion in reinforced
geopolymer concretes." Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 25(10), 1465-1476.
McLellan, B., Williams, R., Lay, J., Riessen, A., and Corder, G. 2011. "Costs and carbon emissions for
geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement." Journal of Cleaner Production,
19(9), 1080-1090.
Milliken. 2013a. GeoSpray™: Geopolymer Mortar. Milliken GeoSpray™ Fact Sheet, 1 pp.
Milliken. 2013b. GeoSpray™: Geopolymer Mortar. Milliken GeoSpray™ Technical Data Sheet, July,
2pp.
Sihabbudin, S. and S. Ariaratnam. 2009. "Methodology for estimating emissions in underground utility
construction projects." Journal of Engineering Design and Technology, 7(1), 37-64.
Vaidya, S. and E. Allouche. 2011. "Strain sensing of carbon fiber reinforced geopolymer concrete."
Materials and Structures, 44(8), 1467-1475.
Vipulanandan, V. and S. Moturi. 2010. Testing GeoSpin Corporation Coating Material SW. Center for
Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology (CIGMAT) Report No. CIGMAT/UH 4/11-2010.
Young, W. and R. Budynas. 2002. Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain. 7th Edition, McGraw-Hill.
34
-------
APPENDIX A
DESIGN CALCULATION
-------
Design for City of Houston, Northwest WWTP.
,, ..
^ =2 - 0.807(2,000,000) - (Equation 1)
tpd = 1.28 inches
Pw = 11 .27 psi = 0. 433 (21 ft + 60 in./ 12)
Hw = 21 feet
D = 60 inches
/ = 288 inches
r = 30 inches = 60 in./2
H = 0.15
N = 2
E = 2,000,000 psi
The second design equation calculates minimum lining thickness for a fully deteriorated pipe based on
resistance to hydrostatic buckling and soil and live loads for case (1) as follows:
,, 29.83x288x301-5(l-0.152)0'75
^' =2 - 0.807(2,000,000) - (Equation 2)
tfd = 1.88 inches
Wt = 29.83 psi = 11. 27 psi + 18.56 psi
Pw = 11. 27 psi
Hw = 21 feet
D = 60 inches
/ = 288 inches
W, = 1 8 . 5 6 psi = (1 3, 363 lb/ft/1 2) I 60 in.
Wc = 13,363 Ib/ft = 2.098 x 130pcfx (84 in./12)2
Cd = 2.098
ku' = 0. 165 (sand and gravel)
H = 25 feet
Bd = 84 inches = 60 in. + 24 in.
ws = 130 pounds/cubic ft
r = 30 inches = 60 in./2
H = 0.15
N = 2
E = 2,000,000 psi
Since this pipe is considered to be fully deteriorated, the minimum design thickness comes from Equation
2 and must be greater than 1.88 in.
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B
QA/QC PROCEDURES
-------
Milliken Infrastructure Solutions, LiC
1713 Majestic Drive, Suite 101
Lafayette, CO 80026
720.021,8810
infrastructure.milh'keii.CQrrf
Procedures for Acceptance and Certification of Milliken Infrastructure Solutions (MIS)
GeoSpray*™ Geopolynier Mortar
Tests to be performed:
• Compressive Strength
» Slump
* Water Addition Rate and Pump Motor Speed Controller Setting
• Temperature
3 Batch Water
3 Dry Powder GeoSpray™ before mixing
3 Ambient Air Temperature within the pipe
3 Ambient Air Temperature at point of Mixing
3 Temperature of Sampled material
o Pump Distance
• Calculated Density
Frequ ency of Testing and Sampling*
The above testing is to be initiated on site and during placement of GeoSpray'". A minimum of one
test should be performed with every 10 yards or 32,000 pounds of material placed. Along with
material minimums, testing must occur;
The First Day GeoSpray™ is placed or applied at project
At minimum every other day GeoSpray™ is placed or applied at project
The Last Day GeoSpray™ is placed or applied at project
Materials must be tested in accordance with ASTM standards. MIS's GeoSpray™ specification, and the
Definitions defined within this document. Tests must be performed by AC1 accredited technicians and in a
certified third party independent laboratory. MIS recommends osmg third party independent testing agencies
with AC! certified technicians to cast, transport, eyre and test.
Definitions
• Sampiing-ASTM C172 Standard practice for sampling freshly mixed concrete.
o Size of sample-samples to beused for strength tests a minimum of 28L (1ft.3)
* Sampling Location Point - GeoSpray™ sample should be collected at the end of
the hose near the discharge point Only in rare circumstances where this may not be
possible, a sample may be drawn from a section of hose at minimum 50 feet from
the mixer/pump. All samples taken from anywhere other than the discharge point
must be marked and noted. In the event the technician does not have access to the
sampling point, samples may be drawn by IPR personnel and IMMEDIATELY
transferred to the nearest access point and handed to the AC! certified technician for
testing.
• Casting Specimens-ASTM 01 Standard practice for making & curing concrete test specimens in
field.
3 Sample Mold Size - Use 4' by 8" cylinders ONLY!
o Curing method:
* Initial cure - Cylinders must be immediately capped with a water tight sealing
Milliken Infrastructure
Solutions, Lit
B-l
-------
cap provided with the molds.
• Storage
Immediately after molding the specimens should be stored for a period up to 48H in
a temperature range from 68° and 78° F.
Compressive Strength - Follow ASTM C39/C39M Standard Test Method for Compressh-e Strength of
Cylindrical Con crete Specimens with the following rules applied:
o Sample Mold Size - Use 4" by 8" cylinders OMLY!
o Curingmetfaod:
• MIS's GeoSpray™ requires final cure be in a SQJJ4 humidity room. In
situations where a 50% cure room is not available, cylinders may be stripped and
wrapped in wet burlap and placed in a temperature controlled room. Wet burbp
should be kept moist throughout cure. See ASTM C31/31M for required
temperature control range. In all cases DO NOT SUBMERGE SAMPLES IN
A LIQUID CURE TANK OR IS WATERS
Slump - Follow ASTM C143 /C143 M Test Method for Slump of Hydrau !ic-Cenieiit Concrete with
the following rules applied;
o Sampling Location Point - GeoSpray™ sample should be collected at the end of the
hose near the discharge point. Only in rare circumstances where this may not be
possible, a sample may be drawn from a section of hose at minimum 50 feet from the
mixer / pump. All samples taken from anywhere other than the discharge point must be
marked and noted. In the event the technician does not have access to the sampling
point, samples may be drawn by IPR personnel and IMMEDIATELY transferred to the
nearest access p oint and handed to the AC! certified technician for testing,
Water Addition Rate Pump and Motor Speed Controller Setting:
o Verify and record current water addition setting from the Mixer / pump. "Flow Meter"
sight gauge is located on the control side of the equipment Determine, verify, and report
reading at flie time of sampling,, (examples.. 160,190, or 180}
o Verify and record current "Pump Motor Speed Setting, Pump motor speed control is
located on the control side of the equipment. Determine, verify, and report setting
(example 1 to 10).
Temperature Follow ASTM C1Q64/C1Q64M Test Method for Temperature of Freshly Mixed Hydraulic-
Cement Concrete with the following:
o Batch Water
* Pull a sample of the batch water from the "Cleaning Tap" located on the opposite
side of the controls of the mixer /pump. Place sample in a cup or vessel and
measure and record water temperature.
o Dry Powder "GeoSpray™ before mixing
* Draw a sample of GeoSpray*" powder from material feed point. Take
temperature and record.
o Ambient Air Temperature within the pipe
* Measure and record temperature. In the event access to the pipe is restricted, a
temperature reading may be taken by IPR personnel and communicated to the
ACI certified technician.
o Ambient Air Temperature at point of Mi3timg
* Measure and record temperature within the pipe at or near placement point.
o Temperature of Sampled material
* Place sample in an approved vessel, measure and record GeoSpray™ mortar
temperature.
Calculated Density - Follow ASTM C39/C39M Standard Test Method for Compressive
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens witla the following rules applied:
o Measure, weigh, record, and calculate density of "4 by 8" cylinders prior to breaking,
o Report calculated density.
Millikcn Infrastructure
Solutions, LLC
B-2
-------
Reporting - Report the following information:
Date and time samples are taken
Location and project name
Name of ACI certified technicians performing tests
Slump, temperatures, water addition rate, pump speed setting and results of any other field tests
performed
Explain any deviations from referenced standard test methods,
Date and time samples were received in the lab
Curing methods - Report the initial curing method with maximum and minimum temperatures
and final curing method.
Compressive results with data and calculations
Density results with Data and calculations
iraroUOWNG SECTION IS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM (A5mC31/31N-10STAMN^
OIRW& CQNCREH TEST SPEOMBtS IN THE FIELD) THIS 5KHON IN1BI0SfroOOM>PMICAIlANDI)EFIIIETHE
IMPORTANT ASFECT5 OF ASTM C31/31H-10 AS IT PERTAINS TO MIS 2, ffiOSPRAY™
CEQPOLYNERMOim&rriSTOEEUSEDJBASmFUG^
PRACTICES REGAIN AS THE OVERRIDING METHOD,
1. Scope
1.1 This practice covers procedures for making and curing cylLsider and beam specimens (from
representative samples of fresh concrete for a construction project,
1.2 Tlie concrete used to snake the- molded sp-ecsiaeEis shall be sampled after all on-site adjustments have
been made to the mixture proportions, including th* addition of mis water and admixtures. This practice is
not satisfactory for making specimens from concrete not having measurable shimp or requiring other siaes
or shapes of specimens
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTMStandardxa
C125 Terminology Relating to Concrete and CoiMrete Aggregates
C13B/C13SM Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric} of
Concrete
C143/C143M Test Method for Slmnp of Hydrjutic-Cement Concrete
C172 Practice for Sampling FVes&^ Mised Concrete
C173/C173M Test Method for Air Contest of Freshly Mixed Concrete "by the Volumetric Method
C231 Test Method fer Air Content of FteshJy Mboed Concrete by ihe Pressure Method
C403/C403M Test Method for Time of Setting of Concrete Mixtures by Penetration Resistance
C47Q/C470 M SpedScatson for M^tds for Forming Coiscrete Test C5rteri<^rs Vertically
C511 SpeeiScstkin for Mining Rooms, Moist Cabinets, Moist Reoms, and Water Storage
Tanks Used in the Testing of Hfdranlic Cements and Concretes
C617 Fractk;e for Capping Cvlifidncai Concrete Specimens
C1064/C1G64M Test Hetfeod for Temperature of FresMv1 Mixed Hydr^ulic-Ceinrat Concrete
2.2 American Concrete Institute Pub!ic8ti0ni4
CP-i Concrete Field Testing Technician, Grade 1
30 9R Guide for Consolidation of Concrete
3. Terminology
3.1 For definitioos of terms iised m this practice, refer to Terminology C12S*
4, Significance and Use
4.1 This practice provides standardised reqinrements for making^ curing, protecting, and traasppQifiing
concrete test specimens imder field conditions,
4.2 If the speciroetis are made aisd stsxidUrd cure-djas stipulated herein the re^uJtiBg slrenglii test d^ta when "die
specimens are tested are able to be used for the following pyirposes;
4.2,1 Acceptance testing for specified strength
4.2.2 Checking adequacy of mixture proportions for strengda, and
4-2.3 Quality control
S. Apparatus
D HoMs, General— Molds for specimens or fastenings thereto isi contact with the concrete shall be
made of noEiabsorfceiit material, nonreaetive with concrete coGtainmg portland or other hydraulic
cements. Molds shall hold thetr dimensions and shape ursder all coEditions of isse. Molds shall be
Mtlliken Infrastructure
Solutions, LLC
B-3
-------
watertight during use as fudged "by their ability to hold water poured into them,
o Cylinder Molds— Molds for casting concrete test specimens shall conform to the requirements of
Specification G47D/C470M.
o Tamping Rod—A round, smooth, straight, steel rod %virth a diameter conforming to the
reqiarements of having a diameter of 3/8 inches +or-1/16 inch or iOtnm +or- 2m.rn.The length of
the tamping rod shall be at least i 2 in. [300 mm]. The rod shall have the tamping end or both ends
rounded to a hemispherical tip of ttse same diameter as she rod.
o Mallet—A mallet with a rubber or rawhide head weighing 1.25 +/- O.SS Ib [0.6+/- G-- kg] shall be
used.
o Pls.ceme.nt Tools—of a size large enough so each amount of concrete obtained from the sampling
receptacle is representative and small enough so concrete is not spilled during placement In the
mold- For placing concrete in a cylinder mold, the acceptable tool is a scoop,
o Finishing Tools—a handheld float or a trowel.
o Slump Apparatus—The apparatus for measurement of slump shall conform to the requirements of
Test Method C143/C143M.
o Sampling Recsptade—The receptacle shall be a suitable heavy gauge metal pan, wheelbarrow, or
flat, clean nonabsorbent board of sufficient capacity to allow easy remixi&g of the entire sample
with a shovel or trowel.
o Temperature Measuring Devices—The temperature measuring devices shall conform to the
applicable requirements of Test Method C1Q64/C1D64M
6. TestingRecjUireiaents
6.1 Cylindrical Specimens—Compressive or splitting tensile strength specimens shall be cylinders cast and
allowed to set in an upright position,.
Cylinders must be able to be capped and sealed water tight.
The number and sise of cylinders cast shall be as directed by the specifier of the tests.
A minimum of six - 4" by 8" cylinders are to be cast with each test. Two cylinders will be
broken at a 7 day age, three more at 28 days, and one hold cylinder broken at S6 days or as
directed,
6.3 Field Technicians—The field technicians making and curing specimens for acceptance testing shall be
certified AC! Field Testing Technicians, Grade I or equivalent. Equivalent personnel certification programs
shall include both written and performance examinations,, as outlined in AC! CF-1.
7. Sampling Concrete
7.1 The samples used to fabricate test specimens under this standard shall be obtained in accordance with
Practice C172 unless an alternative procedure has been approved,
7.2 Record the identification oiFthe sample with respect to the location of the concrete represented and die
time of casting*
8. Slump, Air Content, and Temperature
8.1 Slump—Measure and record the slump of each batch of concrete from which specimens are made
immediately after remixing in die receptacle, as required m Test Method CI43/ C143ML
8,3 Temperature—Determine and record the temperature in accordance with Test Method C1064/CI06-4M.
9. Molding Specimens
9.1 Place of Molding— Mold specimens promptly on a level, rigid surface, free of vibration and other
disturbances, at a place as near as practicable to the location where they are to be stored.
9.2 Castmg Cylinders—While placing die concrete in the mold; move tiie scoop around the perimeter of
the mold opening to ensure an even distribution of the concrete with minimal segregation. Each layer of
concrete shall be consolidated as required* Ea placing the fetal layer, add an amosmt of concrete that will fill
the mold after consolidation.
9.4 Cans-oxidation— The methods of consolidation for this practice are radding.
9,4,1 Rodding—Place the concrete in the mold in the required number of layers of approximately
equal volume. Rod each layer uniformly over the cross section with the rounded end of the rod
nosing the required number of strokes. Rod the bottom layer throughout its depth. In rodding this
layer, itse cars not to damage the bottom of the mold, For each upper layer, allow the rod to
penetrate through the layer being rodded and into the layer below approximately 1 in. [25 mm].
After each layer is rodded, tap the outsides of the mold lightly 10 to 15 times with the mallet to
close auy holes left by rodding aad to release any large air babbles that may have been trapped*
After tapping? spade each layer of the concrete along the sides and ends of beam molds with a
trowel or other suitable tool. Overfilled molds shall have excess concrete removed.
9.5 Finishing—Perform all finishing with lite minimum manipulation necessary to produce a flat even
Millikcn Infrastructure
Solutions, LLC
B-4
-------
surface that is level with the rim or edge of the mold and that has oo depressions or projections larger than
i/vin-[3-3 mm].
9-5.I Cylinders—After consolidation,, finish the top surfaces by striking them off with the tamping
rod where the consistency of the concrete permits or with a handheld float or trowel*
Tightly secure water tight cap without disturbing the finished surface
9.6 Identification— Mark the specimens to positively identify them and the concrete they represent Use a
method that will isot alter the top surface of the concrete. Do act mark the removable caps. Upon removal
of the molds, mark the test specimens to retain their identities,
10. Curing
10.1 Curing:
10.I.I Storage—immediately after finishing move the specimens to an initial curing place For
storage. The supporting surface on which specimens are stored shall be level to within i/*in» per ft,
[20 mm per m], If cylinders lathe single itse molds are moved, lift a&d support the cylinders from
the bottom of the molds with a large trowel or similar device. If the top surface is marred during
movement to place of initial storage, immediately refinish,
10.1.2 In iasi Curing;— Immediately after molding and finishing, the specimens shall be stored for
a period of 24 hours + or - 6 hours in a temperature range from 68 and 78 °F [20 and 26 CC] and
in an environment preventing moisture loss from the specimens. Various procedures are capable of
feeissg used during the intoal curing perio d to maintain the speciie-d moistture and temperature
conditions. An appropriate procedure or combination of procedures shall be used. Shield all
specimens from the direct sunlight and, if used, radiant heating devices. The storage temperature
shall be controlled by use of heating and cooling devices, as necessary. Record the temperature
using a masdmum-mmimiim thermometer,
1Q.13 Final Curing;
10.1*3.1 Cylinders—Upon completion of initial curing arid within 30 min after removing
the molds t cure specimens with free water maintained on their surface sat all times at a
temperature of 73,5 * or - 3.5 °F [23,0 + or - 2,0 °C] using moist rooms complying wit3i
the require meats of Specification CS1I
MIS's GeoSpray"" requires final cure be in a 50% humidity room. In situations where
a. 50% cure room is not available, cylinders may be stripped and wrapped in wet burlap and
placed in a temperature controlled room. Wet burlap should be kept moist throughout cure.
In all cases DO NOT SUBMERGE SAMPLES IN WATER*
It, Transportation of Specimens to Laboratory
11.1 Specimens shall not be transported until at least 8 h after final set. During transporting, protect the
specimens with suitable cushioning material to prevent damage from jarring. Dining cold weather, protect
the specimens from freezing with suiitajble Insulation material, Prevent moisture loss during transportation*
Transportation time shall not exceed 4 hours,
12. Report
12-1 Report the following information to the laboratory th-ac will test the specimens:
12.1.1 Identification number,
12.1.2 Location of concrete represented by the samples,,
12.. 1.3 DateP time and name of individual molding specimens,
12.1.4 Slump., temperatures., water addition, pump motor speed controller setting? and results of
any other tests on the fresh concrete and assy deviations from referenced standard test methods,
and
12.1,5 Report the initial curing method with maximuin and minimum temperatures
Document last updated on 9-11-2013
Milken Infrastructure
Solutions, LLC
B-5
-------
APPENDIX C
THIRD-PARTY TEST RESULTS
-------
F UTS, we.
(GEEBHQ32HEGH
TO: RePipe - Texas, Inc.
416 picketing Stfeet
Houston, TX 77091
713-692-3373
www.hfshouston.com
DATE: April 27, 2013
REPORT NO: 13-C-0190-0002
Page
lofl
PROJECT:
COM Waste Water Treatment Facility
7600 S. Santa Fe Road
Building E
Houston, TX 77061
ATTN: Mr. Chuck Slack
GEOSPRAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Location: North end of 60" reinforced concrete pipe at junction box 1 (between manhole #1 and #2)
Set Cylinder Date Age Area Maximum Compressive Pass
No: ID: Tested: (Days) (sq.in.) Load (Ibs) Strength (psi) (Y/N)
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
B
C
D
E
F
05/02/13
05/02/13
05/23/13
05/23/13
06/27/13
06/27/13
7
7
28
28
56
56
12.57
12.57
12.57
12.57
12.57
12.57
79900
83850
101310
104410
124050
121610
6350
6670
8060
8310
9870
9670
Y
Y
Specification 8000 p.s.i @ 28 days
Cylinders/Cubes Cast: set/total 6/6
Remarks:
Test Method: ASTM C109
Technician: David Waggner, NICETII (Concrete)
Time: Refer to 13-C-0190-0001
Billing: N/A
Off Site: N/A
5, Inc. Consultants""
irm Reg. No. F-347S
C-l
-------
lHTS,iNc.
(GEEBH3S20GGH
TO: RePipe - Texas, Inc.
416 picketing Stfest
Houston, TX 77091
713-692-3373
www.hfshouston.com
DATE:
REPORT NO:
PROJECT:
May 1, 2013
13-C-0190-0009
Page
lof 1
COM Waste Water Treatment Facility
7600 S. Santa Fe Road
Building E
Houston, TX 77061
ATTN: Mr. Chuck Slack
GEOSPRAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Location: 60" reinforced concrete pipe between manhole 2 and manhole 3
Set Cylinder Date Age Area Maximum Compressive Pass
No: ID: Tested: (Days) (sq.in.) Load (Ibs) Strength (psi) (Y/N)
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
B
C
D
E
F
05/08/13
05/08/13
05/29/13
05/29/13
06/26/13
06/26/13
7
7
28
28
56
56
12.57
12.57
12.57
12.57
12.57
12.57
83560
87240
109280
107530
6650
6940
8690
8550
Y
Y
Specification: 8000 p.s.i. @ 28 days
Cylinders/Cubes Cast: set/total 6
Remarks:
Test Method: ASTM C109
Technician: David Waggner, NICETII Concrete
Time: Ref. to 13-C-0190-0008
Billing: 6.5 RT
Off Site: N/A
S, Inc. Consultants
LS firm Reg. No. F-347S
C-2
-------
lHTS,iivc.
•33BOE9DQEZ30BI
TO: RePipe - Texas, Inc.
415 picketing Street
Houston, TX 77091
713-692-3373
www.htshoti5ton.com
DATE: May 7, 2013
REPORT NO: 13-C-0190-0013
Page
lof 1
PROJECT:
COH Waste Water Treatment Facility
7600 S. Santa Fe Road
Building E
Houston, TX 77061
ATTN: Mr. Chuck Slack
GEOSPRAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Location: 60" reinforced concrete pipe between manhole 2 and manhole 3
Set Cylinder Date Age Area Maximum Compressive Pass
No: ID: Tested: (Days) (sq.in.) Load (Ibs) Strength (psi) (V/N)
I
I
1
1
1
1
A
B
C
D
E
F
05/14/13
05/14/13
06/04/13
06/04/13
07/02/13
07/02/13
7
7
28
28
56
56
12.57
12.57
12.57
12.57
12.57
12,57
78410
80310
114730
114000
6240
6390
9130
9070
Y
Y
Specification: 8000 p.s.i. @ 28 days
Cylinders/ Cubes Cast: set/total 6
Remarks:
Test Method :ASTM C109
Technician: David Waggner, NICETII Concrete
Time: Ref. to 13-C-0190-0010
Billing: N/A
Off Site: N/A
S, Inc. ConstrtTSMs
Firm Reg. No. F-3478
C-3
-------
C-4
-------
APPENDIX D
THIRD-PARTY DAILY INSPECTION FORMS
-------
416 Pickering Street
Houston, TX 77091
713-692-8373
WMV htshouston com
DATE: 4/27/2013
REPORT #: 13-C-0190-0001
Page 1 of 1
TO: RePipe - Texas, Inc.
7600 S. Santa Fe Road
Building E
Houston, TX 77061
PROJECT: COH Waste Water Treatment Facility
ATTN: Mr. Chuck Slack
DAILY INSPECTION
A HTS representative reported to the jobsite to perform inspection / testing on "GeoSpray GeoPolymer Mortar",
Temperatures were taken on batch water, dry powder "GeoSpray", ambient air temperature at point of mixing.
Water addition rate, pump motor speed and pump distance were monitored at time of mixing. Sample was tested
for slump, temperature and 6 test cylinders were cast.
Temperature of Batch Water - 62°
Temperature of Dry Powder - 84°
Ambient Temperature within Pipe - 77°
Ambient Temperature at Point of Mixing - 68°
Temperature of Sampled Material - 84°
Slump-1/4"
Water Addition Rate -180 gal/hr
Purnp Motor Speed Setting -10
Pump Distance -105'
Time Sampled - 3:20pm
Remarks:
Test Method:
Technician: David Waggener
NICET II Concrete
Time: 11:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Billing: 6.0 OT
Nonbillable Time:
Orig: Mr. Chuck Siack - RePipe Texas, \fic (Proposal/I nvoice/RepGrts}
cc: Mr. John Terrrto - HTS Inc. Consultants (Reports - Ail)
HTS, Inc. Consultants
Firm Reg. No. F-3478
TEST RESULT(S) RELATE TO THE ITEM(S) TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT APPROVAL OF HTS
D-l
-------
416 Pickering Street
Houston, TX 77091
713-692-8373
WMV htshouston com
DATE: 4/30/2013
REPORT #: 13-C-0190-0004
Page 1 of 1
TO: RePipe - Texas, Inc.
7600 S. Santa Fe Road
Building E
Houston, TX 77061
PROJECT: COH Waste Water Treatment Facility
ATTN: Mr. Chuck Slack
DAILY INSPECTION
An HTS, Inc. Consultants representative arrived at the above referenced project to perform inspection/testing on
"GeoSpray GeoPolymer Mortar". Temperatures were taken on batch water, dry powder "GeoSpray", ambient air
temperature at point of mixing. Water addition rate, purnp motor speed and pump distance were monitored at
time of mixing. Sample was tested for slump, temperature and 6 test cylinders were cast.
Temperature of Batch Water - 51 °
Temperature of Dry Powder - 73°
Ambient Temperature within Pipe - 79°
Ambient Temperature at Point of Mixing - 83°
Temperature of Sampled Material - 87°
Slump-1/4"
Water Addition Rate -165 gal/hr
Purnp Motor Speed Setting - 8
Pump Distance -140'
Time Sampled -10:40 am
60" reinforced concrete pipe between manhole 2 and manhole 3
Remarks:
Test Method:
Technician: David Waggener
NICET II Concrete
Time: 9:00 am-3:00pm
Billing: 6.0 RT
Nonbillable Time: N/A
Orig: Mr. Chuck Siack - RePipe Texas, \fic (Proposal/I nvoice/RepGrts}
cc: Mr. John Terrrto - HTS Inc. Consultants (Reports - Ail)
HTS, Inc. Consultants
Firm Reg. No. F-3478
TEST RESULT(S) RELATE TO THE ITEM(S) TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT APPROVAL OF HTS
D-2
-------
416 Pickering Street
Houston, TX 770S1
713-692-8373
WMV htshouston com
DATE: 5/1/2013
REPORT #: 13-C-0190-0008
Page 1 of 1
TO: RePipe - Texas, Inc.
7600 S. Santa Fe Road
Building E
Houston, TX 77061
PROJECT: COH Waste Water Treatment Facility
ATTN: Mr. Chuck Slack
DAILY INSPECTION
An HTS, Inc. Consultants representative arrived at the above referenced project to perform inspection/testing on
"GeoSpray GeoPolymer Mortar". Temperatures were taken on batch water, dry powder "GeoSpray", ambient air
temperature at point of mixing. Water addition rate, purnp motor speed and pump distance were monitored at
time of mixing. Sample was tested for slump, temperature, and 6 test cylinders were cast.
Temperature of Batch Water - 50°
Temperature of Dry Powder - 78°
Ambient Temperature Within Pipe - 74°
Ambient Temperature at Time of Mixing - 76°
Temperature of Sampled Material - 82°
Slump-1/4"
Water Addition Rate - 200 gal/hr
Purnp Motor Speed Setting -10
Pump Distance - 185'
Time Sampled -12:45 pm
60" reinforced concrete pipe between manhole 2 and manhole 3
Remarks: "Technician a/so picked up 1 set of 6 cylinders on this date.
Test Method:
Technician: David Waggener
NICET II Concrete
Time: 9:00 am-3:30pm
Billing: 6.5 RT
Nonbillable Time: N/A
Orig: Mr. Chuck Siack - RePipe Texas, \fic (Proposal/I nvoice/RepGrts}
cc: Mr. John Terrrto - HTS Inc. Consultants (Reports - Ail)
HTS, Inc. Consultants
Firm Reg. No. F-3478
TEST RESULT(S) RELATE TO THE ITEM(S) TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT APPROVAL OF HTS
D-3
-------
416 Pickering Street
Houston, TX 770S1
713-692-8373
WMV htshouston com
DATE: 5/7/2013
REPORTS: 13-C-0190-0012
Page 1 of 1
TO: RePipe - Texas, Inc.
7600 S. Santa Fe Road
Building E
Houston, TX 77061
PROJECT: COH Waste Water Treatment Facility
ATTN: Mr. Chuck Slack
DAILY INSPECTION
An HTS, Inc. Consultants representative reported to the jobsite to perform inspection/testing on "GeoSpray
GeoPolymer Mortar". Temperatures were taken on batch water, dry powder "GeoSpray", ambient air temperature
at point of mixing. Water addition rate, pump motor speed, and pump distance were monitored at time of mixing.
Sample was tested for slump, temperature, and 6 test cylinders were cast.
Temperature of Batch Water - 50°
Temperature of Dry Powder - 80°
Ambient Temperature Within Pipe - 79°
Ambient Temperature at Point of Mixing - 76°
Temperature of Sampled Material - 80°
Slump-1/4"
Water Addition Rate -180 gal/hr
Purnp Motor Speed Setting -10
Pump Distance - 220'
Time Sampled - 2:30 pm
60" reinforced concrete pipe between manhole 2 and manhole 3
Remarks:
Test Method:
Technician: David Waggener
NICET II Concrete
Time: 12:00 pm - 4:00 pm
Billing: 4.0 RT
Nonbillable Time: N/A
Orig: Mr. Chuck Slack - RePipe Texas, \fic (Proposal/I nvoice/RepGrts}
cc: Mr. John Terrrto - HTS Inc. Consultants (Reports - Ail)
HTS, Inc. Consultants
Firm Reg. No. F-3478
TEST RESULT(S) RELATE TO THE ITEM(S) TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT APPROVAL OF HTS
D-4
------- |