A Tale of Two Levees · 2013-08-09 · A Tale of Two Levees Levee PLevee Pipeipe Levee Flood Gate ... Prepare Rehabilitation Strategy to Address all Needs ... – Spiral Wound PVC

A Tale of Two LeveesA Tale of Two Levees

Levee PipeLevee PipeLevee Flood GateLevee Flood GateCity of Rome, Georgia

Levee PipeLevee PipeRehabilitationRehabilitation

City of Paducah, Kentuckyy , gPresented by: Josh Myers EIT, CFM

y , yPresented by: Jason Petersen, PE

Georgia Association of Georgia Association of Floodplain Managers

5th Annual ConferenceMarch 23 - 25, 2010

Levee Flood GateLevee Flood GateRome, GeorgiaRome, Georgia

Background Information

• Three Rivers – Etowah, Oostanaula, and Coosa

Coosa• City Founded in 1834

Hi t f Ri R l t d ROME

• History of River-Related Industry

Histor of Freq ent •History of Frequent Flooding


Top 10 Recorded Crests•1886 – 40.3 feet•1892 – 37.2 feet•1947 – 34.5 feet•1916 – 34.3 feet•1990 – 34.2 feet•1946 – 34.1 feet•1948 – 33.9 feet•1946 – 33.8 feet

•1932 – 33.8 feet•1936 – 33.7 feet


Flood Protection•1891 Levee Commission Formed•1891 – Levee Commission Formed•1898 to 1899 – Broad Street Raised1937 USACE D i D t L S t•1937 – USACE Designs Downtown Levee System

•1939 – Rome’s Downtown Levees ConstructedL 1940’ All L k D C d•Late 1940’s – Allatoona Lake Dam Constructed

•1970’s – Carters Lake Dam Constructed•Late 1980’s – South Rome Levee Constructed


Downtown Levee

Avenue A Flood Gate & Pump Station

H i P kHeritage Park

Second Avenue Flood Gate & Pump Station

New Second Avenue Flood Gate Location

Levee Flood GateLevee Flood Gate

Flood MapRome, GeorgiaRome, Georgia

Levee Flood GateLevee Flood Gate

Original Scope•RFP advertised February 12 2008

Rome, GeorgiaRome, Georgia

•RFP advertised February 12, 2008•Decommission 2nd Avenue Flood GateR h bilit t A A Fl d G t•Rehabilitate Avenue A Flood Gate

•Construct New 2nd Avenue Flood Gate$1 95 Milli F d d b 2006 SPLOST•$1.95 Million Funded by 2006 SPLOST

•$100k Used for South Rome Levee Certification•Additional Funds Went to Rehabilitate Pump

Electrical Systems


2nd Avenue Flood Gate•Cast in Place Concrete Structure•Cast-in-Place Concrete Structure•Stop LogsC W ti D i i i•Concerns Warranting Decommissioning

•Narrow2 d A Wid i & H i l Pl•2nd Avenue Widening & Hospital Plans

•Labor Intensive•Aesthetics



Avenue A Flood Gate•Almost Identical to 2nd Avenue Flood Gate•Almost Identical to 2nd Avenue Flood Gate•Differences

Sli htl Sh t•Slightly Shorter•Different UseDiff F d i•Different Foundation

•Concerns Warranting Rehabilitation•Labor Intensive



New 2nd Avenue Flood Gate•Design Parameters•Design Parameters

•Provide Two-Way Vehicular AccessP id P d t i A•Provide Pedestrian Access

•Allow for Multi-Use Trail BridgeI I Pl d GDOT 2 d A •Integrate Into Planned GDOT 2nd Avenue

ImprovementsSi l d Q i k Fl d G t•Simple and Quick Flood Gate

•Meet all USACE Design Criteria



Project Phases•Conceptual Engineering•Conceptual Engineering•Review Authority CoordinationC t V lid ti•Concept Validation

•Construction DocumentsP i i•Permitting

•Bid Administration•Construction Administration•Project Certification


Modified Scope•Avenue A Flood Gate•Avenue A Flood Gate

•Damaged in PastS Li•Sewer Line

•Rebar SeveredD i i M d •Decision Made to

Abandon GateCit C ld A b •City Could Access by

Alternate Route


2nd Avenue Levee


Construction•Start Date October 21 2009•Start Date - October 21, 2009•Schedule - 120 Calendar DaysC l ti D t F b 17 2010•Completion Date – February 17, 2010

•However…


Forcemain


Rain, Rain, Rain…More Rain600

590

595

575

580

585

565

570

560January February March April May June July August September October November December

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008



35

40

45

20

25

30

5

10

15

0January February March April May June July August September October November December

Major Flood Stage Moderate Flood Stage Flood Stage Action Stage



20

25

15

20

5

10

0September October November November December January January February March March

Construction Period


Construction Progress – Avenue A


Construction Progress – New Gate


Questions?Questions?QQ

Paducah, KY Floodwall Pipe Rehabilitation ProjectSummary, Observations and Recommendations

Presented by:

Jason E Petersen P E Project ManagerJason E. Petersen, P.E., Project ManagerFlorence & Hutcheson

GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS ANNUAL TECHNICAL CONFERENCE

March 24, 2010Ma c , 0 0

OutlineOutline

• Backgroundg• Five Phases of a Pipe Rehabilitation Project• Summary/Observations• USACE “Proof Test” • Mix of project-specific info, general observations and

“Lessons Learned”“Lessons Learned”

Paducah Floodwall DataPaducah Floodwall Data

• 12.4 miles• 9.3 mi earthen levee 9.3 mi earthen levee • 3.1 mi concrete wall• 12 pump stationsp p• 37 gate penetrations• 1940’s construction• Constructed by USACE• City’s responsibility

Pipe DataPipe Data

• 65 gravity pipes• 8” to 113” diameter• Storm, sanitary and combined• Manhole and culverts• Urban & rural

Pipe ProblemPipe Problem

Must Rehab Deteriorated CMPs

• Questions….– Only CMPs?y– Cost?– Acceptable rehab methods?

City of Paducah retained F&H to design rehabilitation

55--Phase ApproachPhase Approach

• Phased Approach to Rehabilitation:pp1. Assessment2. Evaluation3 Design3. Design4. Procurement5. Construction

Phase 1 Phase 1 -- AssessmentAssessment

Goal - Gather Data to Establish Existing Conditiong

• “What and Where”• 3-components3 components

1. Records review2. Field verification3 Vid i ti (CCTV)3. Video inspection (CCTV)

Records ReviewRecords Review

• As-built drawingsg• Floodwall centerline stationing

– 3 sections– 128 PIs– 25 Equation Stations

• ROW and access OW a d access • O&M personnel

Field VerificationField Verification

• Base mapping• Diameter and material• Inlet/outlet treatment

Photos• Photos

• Site conditions• Label all structures• Label all structures• Surface improvements

CCTV InspectionCCTV Inspection

• Digital video – All PipesNASSCO PACP di• NASSCO PACP coding– Metal corrosion– Deformation (flexible pipe)( p p )

• Submergence• Cleaning and prep work

– rip rap– sticks and leaves

• Large diameter and man-entryLarge diameter and man entryThis is not a typical sanitary sewer CCTV inspection

Phase 2 Phase 2 -- EvaluationEvaluation

Goal – Evaluate Data and Need for Rehabilitation

• “How good/bad is it?”• PACP – Valuable screening tool

All b h bb d– All pipes 4 or 5 to be rehabbed– Summarize critical defects

• Inlet and outlet condition– Siltation– Scour

H d ll/St t diti• Headwall/Structure condition• Resolve discrepancies

Phase 3 Phase 3 -- DesignDesign

Goal – Prepare Rehabilitation Strategy to Address all Needsp gy

• Trenchless rehabilitation must consider:– Inlet/Outlet access – Range of pipe sizes– Alignment/deflections/deformations

Hydraulic capacity– Hydraulic capacity– Voids outside the pipe– Structural strength– Long-term maintenance and function

Design (cont.)Design (cont.)

• Evaluated state-the-art rehab methods and materials:Cured In Place Pipe (CIPP)– Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP)

– Grout-In-Place Liner– Spiral Wound PVC (manual and machine)– Profile Wall PVC and HDPE– Glass-Reinforced Pipe (GRP)– Spray-Applied Coatings (cementitious and epoxy)Spray Applied Coatings (cementitious and epoxy)– Fold and Form HDPE– Panel lining

Close fit pipe– Close-fit pipe

• Everything was “on the table”


• F&H solicited presentations from 8 vendors • Only “slipline” rehab concept was approved• Only slipline rehab concept was approved• 4 methods were selected:

– Slipline – Solid wall HDPEp– Slipline – Glass Reinforced Pipe (GRP)– Spiral Wound PVC (machine)– Spiral Wound PVC (manual) – Spiral Wound PVC (manual)

• Structural and nonstructural cementitious grout • F&H prepared design and specifications p p g p• Reviewed and approved by USACE


• Each material/method has unique parametersq p– UV radiation resistance– Shrinkage/expansion with temperature

Longitudinal beam stiffness– Longitudinal beam stiffness– Diameter factory or field controlled – Composite pipe system or individual– Access requirements


No one method is suitable for all pipes

Phase 4 Phase 4 -- ProcurementProcurement

Goal – Lower Bids Through Better Information

• Considerations– Pre-bid meeting w/site visit

l l h d– Contractor select material/method – Provide all assessment data– Wet weather levee damage– Flood event contingency– Define access limitations– “Grout-to-China” scenarioGrout to China scenarioSurprises = delays = $$$

Phase 5 Phase 5 --ConstructionConstruction

Goal – On-Time Within Budget

• Considerations– Submit workplan and sequencing

Management of water– Management of water– Wet weather– QA/QC for grout– Post-installation CCTV– On-site inspection

Summary and RecommendationsSummary and Recommendations

• Assessment, Assessment, Assessment• Quality CCTV is crucial• Levee pipe rehab is not sanitary sewer rehab

CMP’ hi hl fl ibl d h ll• CMP’s are highly flexible and pose many challenges• Experienced contractors are crucial to project success

C t l f t i k• Control of water is key• Diameter does not directly relate to difficulty

Clearly define QA/QC parameters for grout• Clearly define QA/QC parameters for grout

ProjectProject--Specific DataSpecific Data

• Contractor: Larry Smith Contractors, Inc.• Scope: 37 pipes (24” to 113”)Scope: 37 pipes (24 to 113 )• Cost: $2 million• Sliplining datap g

– 32 GRP (Hobas)– 4 fused HDPE (butt-fused)– 1 segmental HDPE (Snap Tite)– 1 segmental HDPE (Snap Tite)– 300 psi non-structural annulus grout

• Inlet/Outlet treatment completed• Inlet hydraulic improvement pending weather

USACEUSACE Proof Test*Proof Test*

Goal – Verify Sliplining Project Materials and Methodsy p g j

• Developed by USACE Levee Safety Section personnel w/input from City of Paducah and F&Hp y

• 2-24” and 1-48” CMPs from sliplining project• Non-Destructive Testing • Destructive Testing

*Presented with permission from the Louisville USACE Levee Safety Section


• Non-Destructive Testing (before and after sliplining)g ( p g)– Gamma ray logging– Thermographic analysis

Hydrostatic load test w/piezometers– Hydrostatic load test w/piezometers



• Destructive testing– Excavate and remove sliplined and grouted pipe– Cut pipe into segments and inspect– Install new pipe (original diameter)p p ( g )


USACEUSACE Proof Test* Proof Test* –– General ObservationsGeneral Observations

• Grout filled 100% of annulus• Grout migrated outside of host pipe

– 1 c.y. ± void in soilb d– CMP band at pipe joint

– Not detectable by PACP inspection

• Sliplining stopped infiltration in hydrostatic testSl pl g stopped lt at o yd ostat c test• Nondestructive testing not yet completed • Final report and guidance document is pending


The EndThe End