Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Pipe User Group
Tuesday March 14, 2017
Walnut Creek, CA
Matt Wassam720-333-4500
Agenda• AWWA M-28 liner definitions brief overview• What information is required to bid a project?• Technology Overview
– Transmission Mains: Compressive Fit– Distribution: CIPP
• Trenchless vs. Open Cut Economics
• Two categories of pressure pipe liners– Independent – liner is
designed for all applicable loads independent of the host pipe
– Interactive – semi-structural liner relies on radial support from host pipe to handle internal loads without failing
INDEPENDENTloose-fitting and close-fitting
INTERACTIVE
Pressure Liner Classifications
Design Liner Classification (AWWA M 28 Manual)
Class I Linings Non Structural
Class II Linings Semi Structural
Class III Linings Semi Structural
Class IV Linings* Fully Structural or Structurally Independent
1. A long term (50-year) internal burst strength, when tested independently from the host pipe, equal to or greater than the MAOP of the pipe to be rehabilitated
2. The ability to survive any dynamic loading or other short-term effects associated with sudden failure of the host pipe due to internal pressure loads
*
Why are you considering a trenchless project?
• Economics– Pipe depth? – Host pipe material? AC pipe?– Surface restoration cost? – Traffic disruption? – Environmental? Wetlands? Contaminated
soil?– Construction timing?
Questions to ask
• Is your product 3rd party verified– Psi rating / material properties / safety
• Detailed instructions for installing future repairs / taps / connections
• Long-term performance testing
What information is needed?
Pipe Diameter (exact?)
Pipe materialInternal corrosion (cleaning requirements)
Service connection detailsTemp bypass requirements
• Adjacent utilities• Pit locations and
sizes• Traffic control • Process water
discharge requirements
• Permitting
Procurement / Bidding
• Pilot Project: Sole Source• Bid against other competing technologies• Bid against conventional open cut• Design Build
Plans for bidding project
• Standard Utility Drawings
• Adjacent Utilities• Bypass
Requirements
Project Plans #2
Lining Project Economics
• Pit Frequency– 300’ for CIPP– 800’ for CFPE
• Construction restrictions– Work hours / days?
• Internal Corrosion
• Bypass requirements– Commercial
bypass?– Impact envelope
• Surface Restoration
Compressive Fitting HDPE
• 6”-48” Transmission Mains
• Very Long Pulls: 2,000’-3500’
• Hazen-Williams= 150• Over 10 million feet
installed • Class IV or Class III
• Large access pits• Service connections
require excavation• Must know exact ID• Future connections
History of Compressed Fit Lining
• Method originally developed by British Gas in 1970’s• Partnership with industry to advance the technology with
companies such as DuPont• Widely used in the oil, gas and mining industries• Over 10,000,000’ installed globally over the past 40
years• Numerous recent advancements and patents (end
fittings, flange connections, monitoring, industry specific, etc.)
Engineering and Design HDPE Pipe
• Methods of Joining•Butt fusion - Butt fused joint 20% stronger than rest of pipe
–Electrofusion–Mechanical joints
Liner Pipe Fusion
• PE pipe is manufactured in joint lengths of up to 60’
• Smaller diameters can be provided on reels
• Butt fusion process
Host Pipeline Cleaning and Calibration
MAXIMUM PENETRATION 1/16”
Liner Pipe Installation
• Cable strung through pipeline
• Sizing plate pulled• Cable attached to pulling
head• Pipe pulled through
reduction rollers and host pipe
HDPE Engineering – Pulling
• “Yield strength”• Closely monitored
and logged
Termination End Fittings Installed
• Stub Ends• Bolt Up• Compression Rings
Fittings
Termination Fittings
• Mechanical• www.isco-pipe.com
Fittings
Ft. Collins, Colorado 6,000 x 27”
Ft. Collins, Colorado 6,000 x 27”
• 2,400 x 27” in a single pull
• DR 26 Fully Structural pressure rated replacement
Ft. Collins, Colorado 2,400 x 27”
Ft. Collins, Colorado 6,000 x 27”
Ft. Collins, Colorado 6,000 x 27”
Amarillo, TX Case Study
Challenge 3,100 feet of 30” Cast Iron Water
Transmission Main installed in 1927 Leaking lead joints Tight easement, close to homes and
through busy roads Shut down limited to dry weather
conditions Flow capacity needed to be
maintained
Solution Several Methods Analyzed –
with CFPE selected to maximize flow capacity, limit excavation, follow the existing utility path and speed of installation
Liner System Design 32” Outside Diameter DR
32.5 HDPE DR 4710 1,200 feet pull distances to
minimize connections
Amarillo, TX Case Study
HDPE layout
3,100’ installed in 2 days Total project cost 50% of
open cut estimate Project design completed in
less than a month 4 joints in 3,100 feet of pipe
Amarillo, TX Case Study
Project Scope
• 525’ of 24” Ductile Iron Pipe at 180 psi.
• Lined with 24” DR 26 HDPE PE3408
Project Scope
• 540’ of 19” Steel Pipe at 180 psi. • Lined with 19.13” DR 26
Case Studies• Mississippi
– 45,000 ft– 3 inch to 12 inch steel pipe– 2,250 psi– CO2 injection
Case Studies
• Colorado– 72,000 ft– 12 inch steel – 2220 PSI– Produced water
Case Studies• PHMSA Regulated Pipeline
– 55 miles 8” steel pipe– 70 year old pipeline– Oil transmission– Heavy urban setting– 500 psi
Case Studies• Mexico
– 8” – 12” steel pipe– 27,000 ft– <1,000 psi
CIPP For Distribution Mains• 6”-18”• 2.5 million feet
installed• Services
reconnected robotically
• Temp bypass installed
• Relatively short runs: 300-500’
• Must know the exact ID and internal condition
Class IV CIPP Water Main Renewal
1. Locate the pipe2. Excavate access pits3. Clean the pipe4. CCTV inspection5. Install service connection plugs6. Install the structural CIPP7. Hydrostatic pressure test8. Robotically reinstate services9. Reconnection & civil work10. Disinfect the pipe11. Site restoration
Temporary Bypass
Water Main RenewalBasic Project Steps
Clean to bare metal Dry surface
Pipe Cleaning:
Water Main RenewalLiner installation
Polyester woven liner impregnated with epoxy resin Cured with hot water @ 65°C (150°F)
Water Main RenewalLiner installation
Pulled-in-place
Water Main Renewal Liner installation
Pig ReceiverPig Launcher
Reconnection
Breckenridge, CO
• 5,100’ x 6 and 8 inch• Cast Iron Pipe• 9-11 feet deep• History of circumferential beam
breaks
Breckenridge, COCOS T
EA $0.00EA $12,589.50EA $3,503.16EA $0.00EA $0.00EA $0.00EA $0.00EA $955.80EA $4,421.10EA $0.00EA $0.00EA $0.00EA $99,833.69LF $1,188.64EA $1,453.48EA $1,629.48LF $6,320.45LF $125,464.47EA $0.00EA $0.00EA $0.00EA $15,650.52LF $320,549.90LF $12,298.56
# # # # # # # #1.24 Sewer Main Replacement 0 $0.00 $0.00 92 $133.68
S UBTOTAL $ 4 8 0 , 0 7 8 . 0 6
1.21 Reconnect t o Exist ing Fire Hydrant 1 $5,263.16 $5,263.16 0 $0.001.22 Tie int o Exist ing Main 0 $0.00 $0.00 4 $3,912.631.23 Cure- in-Place 2940 $145.29 $427,152.60 2165 $148.06
1.18 8" DIP 0 $0.00 $0.00 1437 $87.311.19 6" Plug 0 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.001.20 8" Plug 0 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
1.15 8" Bend 0 $0.00 $0.00 4 $363.371.16 8" 900 Bend 0 $0.00 $0.00 3 $543.161.17 6" DIP 0 $0.00 $0.00 83 $76.15
1.12 6" MJ Cap 0 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.001.13 Fire Hydrant Assembly 3 $11,141.05 $33,423.15 11 $9,075.791.14 Insulat ion 0 $0.00 $0.00 68 $17.48
1.9 6"x6" Tee 5 $652.63 $3,263.15 10 $442.111.10 8"x6" Tee 0 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.001.11 8"x8" Tee 0 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
1.6 Vert ical Bends 0 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.001.7 8"x4" Reducer 0 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.001.8 8"x6" Reducer 0 $0.00 $0.00 4 $238.95
$0.00 $0.00 2 $1,751.581.4 4" Solid Sleeve 0 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.001.5 6" Solid Sleeve 0 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
Aqua - P i peBAS E BI D ALT B ADDI TI ON TO BAS E B I D ALT B
BI D I TEM
I TEM DES CRI P TI ONUNI T QUANTI TY
UNI T COS T
COS TQUANTI TY
UNI T COS T
Wat er Main
1.1 4" Gat e Valve 0 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.001.2 6" Gat e Valve 7 $1,568.00 $10,976.00 10 $1,258.951.3 8" Gat e Valve 0
Breckenridge, CO
Breckenridge, CO
Breckenridge, CO
Loveland, CO
• 6,400’ of 6-12”• 1,500’ of open cut• Public bid against open
cut• Project Completion July
2016
Loveland, CO
Loveland, CO
Loveland, CO
• $747,740 savings over open cut
• 6,200’ of lining completed in 6 weeks
• $177,008 savings in asphalt fees
Loveland, CO
Old Market Project
Old Market Project
Specifics: Lined over 2500’ of 10” and 12” CILJ water main 20% less than bursting and open cut Eliminated 20 (18) service reconnection
excavations. (2 had to be dug up after lining.) Avoided about 10,000 ft2 of brick removal 24 calendar days to clean and line ½ mile of
mains (including small service reinstatements).- 86 calendar days total on-site- vs. 145 days (est.) for replacement
Old Market Project
Old Market Project