demonstration and evaluation of innovative wastewater main ... web.pdfdemonstration and evaluation...
TRANSCRIPT
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies
Water Environment Research Foundation635 Slaters Lane, Suite G-110 n Alexandria, VA 22314-1177
Phone: 571-384-2100 n Fax: 703-299-0742 n Email: [email protected]
WERF Stock No. INFR4R11
June 2014
Demonstration and Evaluation of InnovativeWastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies
Infrastructure
IWA PublishingAlliance House, 12 Caxton StreetLondon SW1H 0QSUnited KingdomPhone: +44 (0)20 7654 5500Fax: +44 (0)20 7654 5555Email: [email protected]: www.iwapublishing.comIWAP ISBN: 978-1-78040-593-3/1-78040-593-6
Co-published by
INFR4R11_WEF-IWAPspread.qxd 6/3/2014 2:40 PM Page 1
DEMONSTRATION AND
EVALUATION OF INNOVATIVE
WASTEWATER MAIN
REHABILITATION TECHNOLOGIES
by:
John Matthews, Ph.D. Battelle Memorial Institute
2014
INFR4R11
ii
The Water Environment Research Foundation, a not-for-profit organization, funds and manages water quality
research for its subscribers through a diverse public-private partnership between municipal utilities, corporations,
academia, industry, and the federal government. WERF subscribers include municipal and regional water and water
resource recovery facilities, industrial corporations, environmental engineering firms, and others that share a
commitment to cost-effective water quality solutions. WERF is dedicated to advancing science and technology
addressing water quality issues as they impact water resources, the atmosphere, the lands, and quality of life.
For more information, contact:
Water Environment Research Foundation
635 Slaters Lane, Suite G-110
Alexandria, VA 22314-1177
Tel: (571) 384-2100
Fax: (703) 299-0742
www.werf.org
This report was co-published by the following organization.
IWA Publishing
Alliance House, 12 Caxton Street
London SW1H 0QS, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7654 5500
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7654 5555
www.iwapublishing.com
© Copyright 2014 by the Water Environment Research Foundation. All rights reserved. Permission to copy must be
obtained from the Water Environment Research Foundation.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2013948975
Printed in the United States of America
IWAP ISBN: 978-1-78040-593-3/ 1-78040-593-6
This report was prepared by the organization(s) named below as an account of work sponsored by the Water
Environment Research Foundation (WERF). Neither WERF, members of WERF, the organization(s) named below,
nor any person acting on their behalf: (a) makes any warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any
information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report or that such use may not infringe on privately
owned rights; or (b) assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any
information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report.
Battelle Memorial Institute
The research on which this report is based was developed, in part, by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) through Cooperative Agreement No. CR-83419201-0 with the Water Environment Research
Foundation (WERF). However, the views expressed in this document are not necessarily those of the EPA and
EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication. This report is a
publication of WERF, not EPA. Funds awarded under the Cooperative Agreement cited above were not used
for editorial services, reproduction, printing, or distribution.
This document was reviewed by a panel of independent experts selected by WERF. Mention of trade names or
commercial products or services does not constitute endorsement or recommendations for use. Similarly, omission
of products or trade names indicates nothing concerning WERF's or EPA's positions regarding product effectiveness
or applicability.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies iii
This report has been prepared with input from the research team, which includes
Battelle Memorial Institute, the Trenchless Technology Center (TTC) at Louisiana Tech
University, Carollo Engineers, and RPS Espey. The technical direction and coordination for this
project was provided by Walter Graf from the Water Environment Research Foundation
(WERF). The author would like to acknowledge the many contributors to this project and report:
Research Team
Principal Investigator:
John C. Matthews, Ph.D.
Battelle Memorial Institute
Project Team:
Shaurav Alam, Ph.D.
Erez Allouche, Ph.D.
Trenchless Technology Center
Andy Dettmer, Ph.D., P.E.
Formerly of Carollo Engineers
Wayne Hunter, P.E.
RPS Espey
Project Stakeholders and Contributors:
Saiprasad Vaidya, Ph.D.
Battelle Memorial Institute
Chris Bartlett
Jake Pierce
Jadranka Simicevic
Yu Yan
Trenchless Technology Center
Chase Bentley, P.E.
E. Rick King, P.E.
Carollo Engineers
Shrirang Golhar, P.E.
Charles Manning, P.E.
RPS Espey
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
iv
Art Hartle, P.E.
TRA
Bart Hines, P.E.
City of Frisco
John Fuquay
David Kallfelz
Fuquay Inc.
Ryan Banker
Mike Burkhard
Jay Lanz
Mark Littleton
Jon Wagner
L. Grant Whittle
Reline America
Bobby Cagle
Josh Awalt
Lynn Osborn, P.E.
Tim Peterie
Eugene Zaltsman
Insituform Technologies
WERF Project Subcommittee
Janet Ham
Water Corporation of Western Australia
Ross Homeniuk, P.E.
CH2M HILL
Lawrence P. Jaworski, P.E., BCEE
Brown & Caldwell
Ariamalar Selvakumar, Ph.D., P.E.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
V. Firat Sever, Ph.D., P.E.
Benton and Associates, Inc.
William T. Suchodolski, P.E.
Ocean County Utilities Authority
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies v
Innovative Infrastructure Research Committee Members
Stephen P. Allbee (Retired)
Daniel Murray
Michael Royer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Traci Case
Water Research Foundation
Peter Gaewski, M.S., P.E. (Retired)
Tata & Howard, Inc.
Kevin Hadden
Orange County Sanitation District
David Hughes
American Water
Kendall M. Jacob, P.E.
Cobb County
Jeff Leighton
City of Portland Water Bureau
Steve Whipp (Retired)
United Utilities North West
Walter L. Graf, Jr.
Water Environment Research Foundation
Daniel M. Woltering, Ph.D.
Water Environment Research Foundation (IIRC Chair)
Water Environment Research Foundation Staff Director of Research: Daniel M. Woltering, Ph.D.
Program Director: Walter L. Graf, Jr.
vi
Abstract:
The lack of knowledge on the performance of innovative wastewater rehabilitation
technologies, specifically for large-diameter pipes, and the limited ability to determine the most
cost-effective, long-term rehabilitation methods for wastewater collection systems, has been
identified as a critical need. Key stakeholders indicated that several pipe scenarios were of
interest for demonstrating innovative wastewater rehabilitation technologies, including those
applicable to challenging site conditions such as large diameter pipes (> 48 in or 1,200 mm) and
pipes with challenging configurations. To help provide this information, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) developed an innovative technology demonstration program to
evaluate technologies that have the potential to increase the effectiveness of the operation,
maintenance, and renewal of aging water distribution and wastewater conveyance systems and to
also reduce costs. This program is intended to enhance the industry’s awareness of commercially
available technologies and their capabilities. This report describes the demonstration and
performance evaluation of two emerging wastewater rehabilitation technologies.
In each case, the technologies met the owner’s requirements. Mechanical testing showed
that each liner exceeded the minimum design requirements, as well as the increased suggested
manufacturer’s values. A key lesson learned from the UV-cured demonstration was the
importance of using the proper test method when evaluating the liner’s structural properties.
Fiberglass liners must be tested according to ASTM F2019 which requires a 2-in (50 mm) wide
specimen and the orientation of the prepared specimen to come from the circumferential or hoop
direction in order to not cut through the fiberglass reinforcement. A key lesson learned from the
large diameter water-cured (WC)-CIPP demonstration was the importance of proper planning
and site access considerations. Careful attention is required to ensure proper and timely
preparation before lining equipment setup for each installation shot. Also, many large pieces of
equipment are required and access is needed to move the resin tankers in and out during wetout.
Benefits:
Provides information on the design, installation, and QA/QC procedures for the UV-cured
Reline America Blue-Tek™ CIPP liner used to rehabilitate 10-in VCP in Frisco, Texas.
Provides guidance on the how to mechanically test glass fiber-reinforced UV-cured CIPP
liners.
Provides a detailed cost breakdown for the UV-cured CIPP demonstration and technology.
Provides information on the design, installation, and QA/QC procedures for the large-
diameter Insituform iPlus® Composite WC-CIPP liner used to rehabilitate RCP in Irving,
Texas.
Provides guidance on the how to mechanically test composite WC-CIPP liners.
Provides a cost breakdown for the large-diameter composite WC-CIPP demonstration and
technology.
Keywords: Wastewater pipe rehabilitation, cured-in-place pipe (CIPP), UV-cured CIPP, large-
diameter pipe rehabilitation, trenchless technology.
ABSTRACT AND BENEFITS
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies vii
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii
Abstract and Benefits ..................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................ xii
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. ES-1
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Background .............................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Project Objectives ................................................................................................ 1-2
1.3 Report Outline ...................................................................................................... 1-2
2.0 Demonstration Approach .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Demonstration Protocol Overview ...................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Technology Selection Approach .......................................................................... 2-4
2.2.1 UV-Cured CIPP ....................................................................................... 2-4
2.2.2 Large-Diameter WC-CIPP ..................................................................... 2-13
3.0 UV-Cured CIPP Demonstration ................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Site Preparation .................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Safety and Logistics ................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.2 Above Ground Sample ............................................................................. 3-1
3.1.3 Installation of Bypass System .................................................................. 3-3
3.1.4 Pre-Lining Inspection and Cleaning ........................................................ 3-4
3.1.5 Pipe Inner Diameter ................................................................................. 3-5
3.2 Technology Application....................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.1 Shipping, Storage, and Handling ............................................................. 3-5
3.2.2 Liner Insertion and Inflation. ................................................................... 3-6
3.2.3 Liner Curing ............................................................................................. 3-8
3.3 Post-Lining CCTV ............................................................................................. 3-11
3.3.1 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #1 .................................................... 3-11
3.3.2 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #2 .................................................... 3-12
3.3.3 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #3 .................................................... 3-13
3.4 Demonstration Results ....................................................................................... 3-13
3.4.1 Technology Maturity ............................................................................. 3-13
3.4.2 Technology Feasibility........................................................................... 3-14
3.4.3 Technology Complexity......................................................................... 3-14
3.4.4 Technology Performance ....................................................................... 3-15
3.4.5 Technology Cost .................................................................................... 3-29
3.4.6 Technology Environmental Impact........................................................ 3-29
3.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 3-29
TABLE OF CONTENTS
viii
4.0 Large-Diameter WC-CIPP Demonstration ................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Site Preparation .................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Safety and Logistics ................................................................................. 4-2
4.1.2 Pre-Lining Inspection and Cleaning ........................................................ 4-2
4.2 Technology Application....................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.1 Liner Wetout ............................................................................................ 4-3
4.2.2 Liner Inversion ......................................................................................... 4-7
4.2.3 Liner Curing and Cooling ........................................................................ 4-8
4.3 Post-Lining CCTV ............................................................................................. 4-10
4.4 Demonstration Results ....................................................................................... 4-11
4.4.1 Technology Maturity ............................................................................. 4-11
4.4.2 Technology Feasibility........................................................................... 4-11
4.4.3 Technology Complexity......................................................................... 4-11
4.4.4 Technology Performance ....................................................................... 4-12
4.4.5 Technology Cost .................................................................................... 4-17
4.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 4-17
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 5-1
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. A-1
References ................................................................................................................................... R-1
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies ix
2-1 Technology Metrics Used for Evaluation ........................................................................ 2-3
2-2 Physical Properties of Blue-Tek™ Liner ......................................................................... 2-6
2-3 Characteristics of Blue-Tek™ Liner ................................................................................ 2-6
2-4 Typical Design Parameters .............................................................................................. 2-9
2-5 Distances of Each Lining Run ....................................................................................... 2-11
2-6 Physical Properties of Insituform iPlus® Composite Liner ........................................... 2-14
2-7 Characteristics of Insituform iPlus® Composite Liner .................................................. 2-14
2-8 TRA Design Parameters ................................................................................................ 2-16
3-1 Inside Diameter Measurements........................................................................................ 3-5
3-2 Lining Summary ............................................................................................................ 3-10
3-3 Results from Liner Thickness ........................................................................................ 3-16
3-4 Results from Specific Gravity ........................................................................................ 3-16
3-5 Results from Tensile Testing ......................................................................................... 3-17
3-6 Results from Flexural Testing for Longitudinal Specimen............................................ 3-20
3-7 Results from Flexural Testing for Circumferential Specimen ....................................... 3-21
3-8 Results from Hardness Testing ...................................................................................... 3-23
3-9 Summary of Test Data ................................................................................................... 3-28
3-10 Cost Summary ................................................................................................................ 3-29
3-11 Technology Evaluation Metrics Conclusions ................................................................ 3-30
4-1 Measured Data for Segment 3 of 9 .................................................................................. 4-2
4-2 Cure Log .......................................................................................................................... 4-9
4-3 Lining Summary .............................................................................................................. 4-9
4-4 Results from TRA Demonstration ................................................................................. 4-13
4-5 Summary of Test Data ................................................................................................... 4-16
4-6 Technology Evaluation Metrics Conclusions ................................................................ 4-18
A-1 Water Tightness of Tests from Building Sites for Inliners Which are Cured Onsite ..... A-1
LIST OF TABLES
x
2-1 Reline America Blue-Tek™ GRP UV-Cured CIPP Lining System ................................ 2-5
2-2 Map of Frisco, TX Site .................................................................................................. 2-10
2-3 Demonstration Test Pipe Location ................................................................................. 2-11
2-4 First CCTV Inspection (left) and a Typical Joint (right) ............................................... 2-11
2-5 Damage Test Pipe at 106 ft or 32 m (left) and 110 ft or 34 m (right) ............................ 2-12
2-6 Second First CCTV Inspection (left) and a Lateral Connection (right)......................... 2-12
2-7 Root Intrusions at 127 ft (39 m) from MH5 .................................................................. 2-13
2-8 Cured Insituform iPlus® Composite Liner ..................................................................... 2-14
2-9 TRA Site Location ......................................................................................................... 2-17
2-10 Typical Wall Thickness Losses ..................................................................................... 2-18
2-11 Wall Thickness Losses Greater than 5 in (125 mm) ...................................................... 2-18
3-1 Above Ground Lining Demonstration ............................................................................. 3-2
3-2 Bypass Pump at MH1 (left) and Flow Through Plug at MH5 (right) .............................. 3-3
3-3 CCTV Truck and Operator (left) and Cleaning (right) .................................................... 3-4
3-4 Slip Sheet Being Inserted into the Test Pipe .................................................................... 3-4
3-5 Crated Liner Being Attached to the Winch Head ............................................................ 3-6
3-6 Winch Trailer ................................................................................................................... 3-7
3-7 Light Train (left) and Light Train Winch (right) ............................................................. 3-7
3-8 PVC Pipe Used for Restrained Liner Samples ................................................................ 3-8
3-9 Cure Truck Control Panels............................................................................................... 3-9
3-10 Inner Film Removal (left) and Restrained Sample Collection (right). .......................... 3-10
3-11 Inner Film Tear Analysis (left) and Wrinkles (right) ..................................................... 3-10
3-12 Typical Liner Condition for Run #1 .............................................................................. 3-11
3-13 Typical Liner Condition for Run #2 .............................................................................. 3-12
3-14 Typical Liner Condition for Run #3 .............................................................................. 3-13
3-15 Micrometer Set (left) and Measurement Using a Micrometer (right)............................ 3-15
3-16 Samples for Tensile Test (left) and Testing Machine (right) ......................................... 3-17
3-17 Samples Prepared for Bending Test: Longitudinal (left) and Circumferential (right) ... 3-19
3-18 Longitudinal (left) and Circumferential (right) Specimen Being Tested....................... 3-19
3-19 Specimen for Shore D Hardness Test (left) and a Shore D Hardness Tester (right) ..... 3-23
LIST OF FIGURES
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies xi
3-20 Samples for Water Tightness ......................................................................................... 3-24
3-21 Water Tightness Testing ................................................................................................ 3-24
3-22 Red Spots Seen Under Digital Microscope ................................................................... 3-25
3-23 Ovality Testing............................................................................................................... 3-25
3-24 Ovality Results ............................................................................................................... 3-26
3-25 Threaded Hole (left) and Pressure System (right) for Buckling Test ............................ 3-27
3-26 Pressure Gauge (left) and Leak at 66 psi or 455 kPa (right) .......................................... 3-28
4-1 Wet Weather Flow Capacity ............................................................................................ 4-1
4-2 New Manhole Insert ......................................................................................................... 4-3
4-3 Resin Tanker (left) and Mixing Trailer (right) ................................................................ 4-4
4-4 Resin Slug Being Pumped in the Liner ............................................................................ 4-5
4-5 Liner Being Pulled into Wetout Tent ............................................................................... 4-5
4-6 Rollers That Distribute the Resin ..................................................................................... 4-6
4-7 Felt and Glass Reinforcement Layers .............................................................................. 4-6
4-8 Starting Inversion ............................................................................................................. 4-7
4-9 Ongoing Inversion ........................................................................................................... 4-7
4-10 Temperature from Sensor ................................................................................................ 4-8
4-11 Post-Lining Walk Through Inspection........................................................................... 4-10
4-12 Post-Lining Inspection of the Overlap ........................................................................... 4-10
4-13 Flat Plate Samples .......................................................................................................... 4-12
4-14 Flexural Testing ............................................................................................................. 4-12
4-15 Hardness Testing ............................................................................................................ 4-16
xii
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAC Critical Area of Concern
CCTV Closed Circuit Television
CMD Cubic meters per Day
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CIPP Cured-in-Place Pipe
GRP Glass Reinforced Plastic
I/I Infiltration and Inflow
in Inch
ISO International Organization for Standardization
lf Linear Feet
lm Linear Meter
LVDT Linear Variable Displacement Transducer
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MH Manhole
mm Millimeter
NASTT North American Society for Trenchless Technology
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
QA Quality Assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC Quality Control
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
SIPP Spray-in-Place Pipe
sf Square Feet
sm Square Meters
TRA Trinity River Authority of Texas
TTC Trenchless Technology Center
U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
UV Ultraviolet
VCP Vitrified Clay Pipe
WC Water-Cured
WERF Water Environment Research Foundation
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Many utilities are seeking emerging and innovative rehabilitation technologies to extend
the service life and repair a major portion of their infrastructure systems. However, information
on new technologies is not always readily available and easy to obtain. To help provide this
information, the U.S. EPA developed an innovative technology demonstration program. The
program evaluates commercially available technologies that have the potential to increase the
effectiveness of the operation, maintenance, and renewal of aging water distribution and
wastewater conveyance systems and reduce costs. The outcomes of this program are used to
make the technologies’ capabilities better known to the industry. This report describes the
demonstration and performance evaluation of two emerging wastewater rehabilitation
technologies: UIltraviolet (UV) cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) and reinforced WC-CIPP for large-
diameter pipes.
CIPP has been used as a wastewater pipe rehabilitation method since its development in
the early 1970s in London. It is estimated that more than 40,000 miles of CIPP have been
installed worldwide (U.S. EPA, 2010b). CIPP is a hollow liner typically consisting of polyester
and/or a glass-reinforced plastic fabric tube that is cured thermosetting resin. The CIPP is formed
within an existing pipe and takes the shape of the pipe. CIPP can be installed via an inversion
process or pull-in process and can be cured with hot water, steam, or UV light. Resin types can
be polyester, vinylester, or epoxy (U.S. EPA, 2010b).
A quality assurance project plan (QAPP) was developed to provide a consistent approach
for conducting the demonstrations by outlining the approach to plan, coordinate, and perform the
demonstration. Execution of the protocol recorded the use and provided an assessment of the
technology. Additionally, a documented case study of the technology selection process,
application of a consistent design methodology, and application of appropriate quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures are provided. Specific metrics evaluated under
this program include technology maturity, feasibility, complexity, performance, cost, and
environmental impact.
ES.1 UV-Cured CIPP Demonstration
Necessary site preparation activities included temporary bypass, pre-lining inspection
with a CCTV camera, and cleaning. In addition, an above ground lining of 60 ft (18 m) of 10-in
(250 mm) polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe provided extra cured liner samples for comparison with
the inline samples collected from the manholes (MHs). Host pipe diameter measurements were
also taken prior to rehabilitation.
The UV-cured CIPP lining of an 888 ft (271 m) section of 10-in (250 mm) vitrified clay
pipe (VCP) was completed in three days, at an average of 296 ft (90 m) per day per in three
shots. The lining process involved two main activities: insertion of the liner into the host pipe,
typically known as a lining shot, and the UV curing. Insertion of the liner took an average of
18 ft/min (5.5 m/min), while the pressurization or inflation took approximately 35 minutes per
shot. Once inspected after inflation, the UV-curing of the liner was completed in approximately
3.8 ft/min (1.2 m/min). Certain sections of the liner were wrinkled due to a tear in the inner film
on two installation shots, but this did not have a negative effect on the liner strength. The
ES-2
outcome of the technology evaluation is described in the technology evaluation metrics listed
below:
Technology Maturity Metric Emerging technology used for nearly seven years in the U.S.
More than 1,000,000 linear feet (lf) (305 km) installed in North America.
Liner manufacturing is a highly quality controlled process.
Technology Feasibility Metrics
Project required a structural rehabilitation and the technology met the rehabilitation
requirements.
Liner was not installed through any challenging configurations except for a varied host pipe
size.
Incomplete and/or premature curing of the liner was not evident during installation or
inspection.
Technology Complexity Metrics
Beneficial for small, medium, and large utilities in need of structural alternatives to open cut
replacement.
Required certified installers (pre/post-installation activities can be performed with typical
utility staff).
Required site preparation similar to other rehabilitation technology requirements.
Project duration lasted three days for bypass, cleaning, lining, and pressure testing.
Technology Performance Metrics
Testing showed that the liner exceeded the design and manufacturers suggested requirements.
Flexural strength was greater than 56 ksi (385 MPa) and the flexural modulus was greater
than 1,900 ksi (13,100 MPa).
Passed water tightness and pressure testing.
Technology Cost Metrics
The overall discounted project demonstration cost was $39,194 for a unit cost of $44.14/lf
($144.63/ linear meter (lm)) or $4.41/lf/in of diameter ($0.58/lm/mm of diameter).
The overall non-discounted cost would have been nearly $57,700 for a unit cost of $64.98/lf
($212.92/lm) or $6.50/lf/in of diameter ($0.85/lm/mm of diameter).
The non-discounted cost for the UV CIPP liner only was $40,848 for a unit cost of $46.00/lf
($150.73/lm) or $4.60/lf/in of diameter ($0.60/lm/mm of diameter).
Technology Environmental and Social Metrics
Social disruption was minimal as traffic was not greatly affected and there were no
excavations.
A comparable heat cured CIPP project would produce an estimated 3,000 lbs (1,360 kg) of
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for bypass and lining operations.
A replacement project would have produced an estimated 23,000 lbs (10,400 kg) of CO2
emissions for open-cut pipe laying and restoration.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies ES-3
ES.2 Large-Diameter WC-CIPP Demonstration
Site preparation activities included taking the pipe out of service and diverting the flow to
a parallel interceptor, a pre-lining inspection using a laser profiler, pressure cleaning, and
infiltration and inflow (I/I) repair. Laser profiling showed the average diameter to be 97 in
(2,425 mm) for the test segment.
The large-diameter WC-CIPP lining of a 781 ft (238 m) section of 96-in (2,400 mm)
reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) was completed in five days as part of a much larger project
totaling 17,200 ft (5,243 m). The lining process involved three main activities: wetting out or
impregnating the liner over the hole, inverting the liner into the host pipe, and curing and cooling
the liner. The wetout operation took nearly 18 hours, while the liner inversion lasted 36 hours.
After inversion, curing of the liner was completed in 22 hours, during which the liner was kept at
a critical temperature of 180°F (82°C) for seven hours. The liner cool down process took an
additional 24 hours before the ends were cutout. The outcome of the technology evaluation is
described in the technology evaluation metrics listed below:
Technology Maturity Metric Emerging technology used for nearly five years in the U.S.
Installation is a highly quality controlled procedure in the field.
Technology Feasibility Metrics
Required a structural rehabilitation and the technology met the rehabilitation requirements.
Liner was not installed through any challenging configurations except for a varied host pipe
size.
Incomplete and/or premature curing of the liner was not evident during installation or
inspection.
Technology Complexity Metrics
Beneficial for small, medium, and large utilities in need of structural alternatives to open cut
replacement.
Required licensed contractors for the installation.
Required site preparation similar to other rehabilitation technology requirements.
Lasted six days for cleaning, lining, and cooling.
Technology Performance Metrics
Testing showed that the liner exceeded the design and manufactures suggested requirements.
Flexural strength greater than 11 ksi (75 MPa) and flexural modulus greater than 1,000 ksi
(6,900 MPa).
Technology Cost Metrics
The overall project cost was $16,340,000 for a unit cost of $950/lf ($3,117/lm) or $9.90/lf/in
of diameter ($1.29/lm/mm of diameter).
The composite WC-CIPP liner had a unit cost of $740/lf ($2,428/lm) or $7.71/lf/in of
diameter ($1.01/lm/mm of diameter).
Technology Environmental and Social Metrics
Disruption was minimal as traffic was not affected and there were few excavations every
2,000 ft (600 m).
A replacement project would have required 17,200 lf (5,243 m) of open-cut at a depth of
approximately 25 ft (7.6 m).
ES-4
ES.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
This project resulted in the successful demonstration of two emerging wastewater
rehabilitation technologies, glass reinforced plastic (GRP) UV-cured CIPP and large-diameter
reinforced composite WC-CIPP. In each case, the technologies met the owner’s requirements for
the project. Laboratory mechanical testing showed that each liner exceeded the minimum design
requirements as well as the increased suggested manufacturer’s values.
A key lesson learned from the UV-cured demonstration was the importance of using the
proper test method when evaluating the liner’s structural properties. Fiberglass liners must be
tested according to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F2019 which requires a
2-in (50 mm) wide specimen and the orientation of the prepared specimen to come from the
circumferential or hoop direction in order to not cut through the fiberglass reinforcement.
A key lesson learned from the large diameter WC-CIPP demonstration was the
importance of proper planning and site access considerations. Careful attention is required to
ensure proper and timely preparation in advance of the lining equipment setup for each
installation shot. Also, many large pieces of equipment are required and access is needed to
move the resin tankers in and out during wetout.
Technology and/or process specific recommendations for improvement include: Use of
better inner film for the UV-cured CIPP, and optimization of the thermal sensor system for the
large-diameter WC-CIPP. The UV-cured CIPP vendor has started using an improved inner film,
while a sensor technology developer is working towards optimizing the thermal sensor for the
large-diameter WC-CIPP. However, neither of these improvements caused any errors with the
final product or material testing that would have necessitated corrective actions.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 1-1
CHAPTER 1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
The stakeholders participating in the U.S. EPA workshop on Water Infrastructure for the
21st Century (U.S. EPA, 2007) identified the lack of knowledge on the performance of
wastewater rehabilitation technologies as a key critical deficiency. In addition, key stakeholders
have indicated that several pipe scenarios were of interest for demonstrating innovative
wastewater rehabilitation technologies, including those applicable to challenging site conditions
such as large diameter pipes (> 48 in or 1,200 mm), non-circular pipes, pipes with bends and
angles that are not straight runs, pipes with limited surface access, and pipes with inability to
bypass (U.S. EPA, 2009). These gaps and the need for information sharing among utilities on
innovative rehabilitation technologies are documented in the U.S. EPA’s Research Plan, which
led to their recommendation for an innovative technology demonstration program (U.S. EPA,
2007).
To address these needs, several innovative and emerging technologies were identified for
demonstration by the project team based on industry experience, literature reviews, and other
U.S. EPA projects being led by the team. Two technologies were previously demonstrated under
the U.S. EPA program for water distribution main rehabilitation: polymeric spray-in-place pipe
(SIPP) lining (U.S. EPA, 2012b) and reinforced CIPP lining for pressure mains (U.S. EPA,
2012c). It is known that well-documented demonstration projects by credible independent
organizations can play an important role in accelerating the development, evaluation, and
acceptance of new technologies. The benefits of the technology demonstration program to these
various groups are summarized below:
Benefits to Utility Owners
Reduced risk of experimenting with new technologies and new materials on their own.
Increased awareness of innovative and emerging technologies and their capabilities.
Assistance in setting up strategic and tactical rehabilitation plans and programs.
Identification of design and QA/QC issues.
Benefits to Manufacturers/Technology Developers
Opportunity to advance technology development and commercialization.
Opportunity to accelerate the adoption of new technologies in the U.S.
Opportunity to lay the groundwork for design standards that may accelerate market
penetration.
Benefits to Consultants and Service Providers
Opportunity to compare performance and cost of similar products in a consistent manner.
Access to standards and specifications for new technologies.
Education of best practices on pre- and post-installation procedures and testing.
1-2
This research is intended to provide an impartial third-party assessment of the
effectiveness, longevity, expected range of applications, and life-cycle cost of two demonstrated
technologies. The report will assist wastewater utilities in deciding whether rehabilitation or
replacement is more cost effective and in selecting rehabilitation technologies for use. The
demonstrations described in this report resulted in the successful installation of:
A UV-cured CIPP liner on 888 ft (271 m) of 10-in (250 mm) VCP sewer in Frisco, TX.
A large-diameter glass fiber reinforced WC-CIPP liner on 17,200 ft (5,243 m) of 96-in
(2,400 mm) RCP sewer in Irving, Texas for the Trinity River Authority of Texas (TRA).
CIPP has been used as a wastewater pipe rehabilitation method since its development in
the early 1970s in London. It is estimated that more than 40,000 miles of CIPP have been
installed worldwide (U.S. EPA, 2010b). CIPP is a hollow liner typically consisting of polyester
and/or a glass-reinforced plastic fabric tube that is cured thermosetting resin. The CIPP is formed
within an existing pipe and takes the shape of the pipe. CIPP can be installed via an inversion
process or pull-in process and can be cured with hot water, steam, or UV light. Resin types can
be polyester, vinylester, or epoxy (U.S. EPA, 2010b).
This report will discuss the activities involved with each liner installation, which included
pre-installation activities; installation activities; and post-installation activities. The report also
includes technology evaluations based on the demonstration results and gives recommendations
to study important issues to help fully understand these technologies.
1.2 Project Objectives
The demonstration and evaluation project and report are intended to meet these objectives:
Evaluate, under field conditions, the performance and cost of an innovative, UV-cured CIPP
lining technology used to rehabilitate a 10-in (250 mm) VCP wastewater pipe in Frisco, TX.
Evaluate, under field conditions, the performance and cost of an innovative, large-diameter
WC-CIPP lining technology used to rehabilitate a 96-in (2,400 mm) RCP wastewater pipe in
Irving, TX for TRA.
1.3 Report Outline
This demonstration and evaluation report is organized into four primary sections:
Demonstration Approach – Discussion of the demonstration program’s approach includes
an overview of the rehabilitation technologies and selection criteria.
UV-Cured CIPP Demonstration – Documentation of the field demonstration includes site
preparation, liner installation, QA/QC procedures, and sample collection for the Frisco
demonstration. Discussion of the demonstration results and assessment of the technology
based on comparison with the outlined evaluation metrics.
Large-Diameter WC-CIPP Demonstration – Documentation of the field demonstration
includes site preparation, liner installation, QA/QC procedures, and sample collection for the
TRA demonstration. Discussion of the demonstration results and assessment of the
technology based on comparison with the outlined evaluation metrics.
Conclusions and Recommendations – Summary of the demonstrations includes
effectiveness of the demonstrated technologies and recommendations for areas needing
further examination.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 2-1
CHAPTER 2.0
DEMONSTRATION APPROACH
This chapter outlines the protocol and technology and site selection criteria for the field
demonstrations. The overall approach is outlined to provide consistency and guiding principles
for conducting and documenting field demonstrations of rehabilitation technologies in a manner
that will encourage acceptance of the test results by wastewater utilities.
2.1 Demonstration Protocol Overview
The demonstration of innovative technologies requires clear and repeatable testing
criteria if the technologies are to be understood and accepted. The demonstration protocol seeks
to address issues involved in gaining the approval for the use of new technologies and expanding
their application 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.
A QAPP was developed by the Battelle research team, which outlined the approach to
plan, coordinate, and execute the field demonstration protocols with the specific objectives of
evaluating, under field conditions, the performance and cost of two innovative CIPP liners for
wastewater main rehabilitation.
The QAPP described the overall objectives and approach to the U.S. EPA field
demonstration program, the technology and site selection factors considered, and the features,
capabilities, and limitations of the selected technology, which are summarized below. The
Battelle research team executed the demonstration protocol by completing the following steps:
Prepared and obtained WERF and U.S. EPA approval for the QAPP.
Gathered technology data for methods meeting the technology and site selection criteria.
Secured commitments from TRA and Frisco for the demonstrations.
Secured commitments from Reline America and Insituform to perform the demonstrations.
Documented and conducted the field demonstrations.
Processed and analyzed the results of the field demonstrations.
Prepared a final report summarizing the results.
This demonstration report also provides a documented case study of the technology
selection process, design, QA/QC metrics, and the preparation for life-cycle management of the
asset. In performing the field demonstrations, the Battelle research team followed the technical
and QA/QC procedures specified in the QAPP unless otherwise stated. Any nonconformity of
the procedures outlined in the QAPP and its explanation are noted in the following sections.
2-2
Special aspects of the U.S. EPA demonstration program that are aimed at adding value to the
wastewater rehabilitation industry are described below:
Demonstrate a Consistent Design Methodology – The design of a liner can be for partially
deteriorated or fully deteriorated conditions depending on the condition of the host pipe and
the needs of the utility. One role of the demonstration project was to identify design
parameters and specifications for the selected technologies and apply a consistent design
methodology based on the vendor recommendations or industry defined standards.
Demonstrate Appropriate QA/QC Procedures – The success of a rehabilitation project
depends largely on proper installation controls and post-installation inspection and
assessment. The level of the qualification testing and QA requirements vary from technology
to technology; and occasionally there is no clear industry quality standard. The current QA
practices were examined, specifically for large-diameter pipes (Matthews et al., 2012) and
areas for improvement were identified.
Provide a Technology Assessment – This program assesses the short-term effectiveness and
the cost of the selected technologies in comparison with the respective vendor specifications
and identifies the conditions under which each technology is most suitable. It also provides
suggestions on necessary improvements for the technologies, the installation procedures, and
QA/QC procedures. The metrics used to evaluate and document rehabilitation technology
application, performance, and cost are summarized in Table 2-1.
Demonstrate Life-Cycle Plan for Ongoing Evaluation – Long-term data regarding the
performance of various rehabilitation systems is desperately needed. These data will enable
decision makers to make fully informed cost-benefit decisions. It is important for the
demonstration projects to lay the groundwork by assisting utilities in developing life-cycle
plans for the ongoing evaluation of rehabilitation technology performance. This project will
collect baseline data to enable comparative evaluation of the liners’ deterioration during
subsequent retrospective investigations, which is being performed under another U.S. EPA
program (U.S. EPA, 2012a).
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 2-3
Table 2-1. Technology Metrics Used for Evaluation.
Technology Maturity Metrics
Maturity and status are assessed as emerging, innovative, or conventional. New technologies that are commercially available overseas, but not yet widely applied in the U.S. market, are considered emerging.
Interest is in the demonstration of novel and emerging technologies that are commercially available and represent more than an incremental improvement over conventional methods.
Availability of supporting data (full-scale data vs. pilot-scale data) and patent citation (if applicable). Comments and feedback from utility owners and consultants with experience from previous installations.
Technology Feasibility Metrics
Determination of the nature of the problem faced in the pipe (e.g., structural, semi-structural, or non-structural rehabilitation) and the applicability of the technology in meeting the rehabilitation requirements.
Suitability of the technology to the hydraulic and operating conditions of the pipe, the type of pipe material, and any challenging pipe configurations (e.g., non-circular pipes, bends, valves, fittings).
Formal consideration of the anticipated failure modes and documentation of design procedures.
Technology Complexity Metrics
Adaptability and widespread benefit for small- to medium-sized utilities.
Level of training required for the installer, pre- and post-installation and maintenance requirements.
Site preparation requirements include cleaning, number/size of excavations, and effect on traffic.
Estimated time/labor requirements and speed of installation including length of time pipe is out of service.
Evaluation of the installation process, procedures, and problems encountered.
Documentation of the efficiency of the connection restoration system for laterals and end terminations.
Technology Performance Metrics
Evaluation of manufacturer-stated performance versus actual performance.
Development of a QA/QC plan and documentation of its outcome and adequacy.
Evaluation of the ability to handle non-ideal conditions and potential damage during installation.
Expected visual appearance and geometric uniformity after installation.
Ability to achieve specifications such as design flexural and tensile strengths based on laboratory testing.
Established procedures for tracking long-term effectiveness and projected longevity.
Technology Cost Metrics
Document costs for conducting the technology demonstration, including design, capital, and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and calculating a unit cost estimate.
Estimate the level of social disruption (an estimate of social costs is site-specific and beyond the scope).
Technology, Environmental and Social Metrics
Assess utilization of waste byproducts that may have an unintended impact on the environment. Assess quantity of waste byproducts produced (e.g., flush water volume or soil requiring off-site disposal). Evaluate the overall “carbon footprint” of a technology compared to open cut.
2-4
2.2 Technology Selection Approach
Several emerging and innovative rehabilitation technologies were identified by the U.S.
EPA (2009) that had the potential for demonstration, including UV-cured CIPP and large-
diameter rehabilitation trenchless technologies. These technologies are commercially available,
but uncertainty in their capabilities necessitates their full-scale field demonstration. The
following sections give overviews of each technology.
2.2.1 UV-Cured CIPP
CIPP products have been in use since their first installation in 1971 in East London and it
is estimated that nearly 40,000 miles (64,000 km) of CIPP have been installed worldwide (U.S.
EPA, 2010). This technology has continued to evolve from the original needle-felt tube
impregnated with polyester resin and inverted into place to the use of various tubes, installation,
resin types, and cure methods. The latest innovation for CIPP in the U.S. is the use of glass-
reinforced liners that are cured with UV sources. This innovation has changed the competitive
dynamics of the major European markets and it will most likely lead to a greater cost
effectiveness and improved performance in the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 2009). One of the primary
benefits and drivers of its development and use in Europe is the use of an UV-resistant outer
film. This film prevents resin from migrating into laterals and cracks in the host pipe and
prevents the emission of styrene (U.S. EPA, 2010a). This technology, which has been in use in
Germany for more than 15 years, has recently been introduced into the U.S. market. Benefits of
this type of technology (Reline, 2011) are listed below, with the thickness to strength ratio and
ability to bridge profile changes being evaluated in this demonstration.
Reduced styrene emissions and faster curing.
Long shelf life of impregnated liner if protected from the light.
High strength, thinner fiberglass liners can achieve the strength of much thicker felt liners.
Ability to bridge over profile and cross-sectional changes.
Lower thermal shrinkage than felt liners resulting in smaller annular gaps.
Smaller footprint and lower CO2 emissions due to the lack of hot water boilers/steam
generators.
Interest in this innovative technology created the need to demonstrate its capabilities and
document its benefit to utilities in the U.S., which led the U.S. EPA to identify it as a suitable
technology for demonstration under their previous field demonstration program (U.S. EPA,
2012b and 2012c). The team coordinated with the City of Frisco, TX; Fuquay, a certified
installer of UV-cure CIPP in Texas; and Reline America to organize the demonstration project.
The product chosen for this demonstration was the Reline America Blue-Tek™ GRP
UV-cured CIPP lining system (Figure 2-1). This liner is a seamless spirally wound glass fiber
liner that can use either polyester or vinylester resin and is custom manufactured for the length
and inside diameter of the host pipe. Continuous lengths up to 1,000 lf (305 m) are typical, while
continuous lengths up to 2,000 lf (610 m) are possible when curing from each direction. The
liner has an exterior and an interior styrene impermeable film that keeps the resin in place. The
exterior film also blocks the liner from UV light. This product is manufactured in a facility that is
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001 (2008) certified for the manufacture
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 2-5
of rehabilitation liners for the trenchless repair of sewers and pipe and has a full testing
laboratory in Saltville, Virginia. The liners are shipped in crates to licensed installers, where it
can be stored up to six months typically prior to installation. QA measures performed at the
facility include: viscosity and cure tests of the resins; weight and resin to glass ratio tests; and
tensile, flexural, thickness, and porosity tests on cured liner samples.
Once installed in the field, the cured pipe should conform to the minimum structural
parameters shown in Table 2-2 in accordance with the ASTM F2019 (2011) as per the Reline
America Blue-Tek™ specifications (Reline, 2011). The characteristics of the Blue-Tek™ liner
are given in Table 2-3 (Reline, 2011).
Figure 2-1. Reline America Blue-Tek™ GRP UV-Cured CIPP Lining System.
2-6
Table 2-2. Physical Properties of Blue-Tek™ Liner.
Property Standard Value ASTM F2019
Tensile Strength ASTM D638 20,000 psi (138 MPa) 9,000 psi (62 MPa)
Flexural Strength ASTM D790 20,000 psi (138 MPa) 6,500 psi (45 MPa)
Short-Term Flexural Modulus ASTM D790 1,000 ksi (6,900 MPa) 725 ksi (5,000 MPa)
Long-Term Flexural Modulus DIN–DN 761 600 ksi (4,100 MPa) N/A
Porosity/Water Tightness Test* N/A Pass N/A * Determined by applying dyed water on the exterior surface of a liner sample and application of a partial vacuum of 0.5 bars on the inner surface of the liner samples for 30 minutes. These should be no visible evidence of water droplets, foam, or moisture on the inner surface and no evidence of dye in the water after 30 minutes.
Table 2-3. Characteristics of Blue-Tek™ Liner.
Adapted from Reline, 2011.
Property Value
Typical Diameter Range 4 to 48 in (100 to 1,200 mm)
Typical Insertion or Shot Length Range Up to 1,000 ft (305 m)
Pipe Shapes Any
Typical Thickness Maximum Thickness
2.8 to 3.5 mm (0.11 to 0.14 in) 12.6 mm (0.50 in)
Liner Reinforcement Material Advantex E-CR Glass Fiber
Resin Type Polyester or Vinylester
Shelf Life 6 months
Refrigeration or Field Impregnation None required
Outer Film Serves as pre-liner
Inner Film Removed after liner curing
Seam Type Seamless
Product Life 50+ years
Cure Mechanism Measured
Travel speed controls exposure to drive the localized exothermic reaction
Location of Cure Measurement 4 sensors along the light train
Collection Intervals Every inch along the footage of the pipe
2.2.1.1 Installation of UV-Cured CIPP
This list is a brief overview of the major steps involved in the installation of UV-cured
CIPP:
Site preparation including permits, traffic control, and bypass setup.
Cleaning the pipe.
Pre-lining inspection/closed circuit television (CCTV).
Winching in of liner.
Inflating liner with blower air.
Curing of the liner with UV light train.
Removal of liner end packers.
Removal of inner film.
Tightness/pressure test.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 2-7
Reestablish flow.
Reinstate laterals.
Trim liner ends.
Post-lining inspection/CCTV.
Site cleanup and disposal of waste.
2.2.1.2 QA/QC Requirements for UV-Cured CIPP
As part of the demonstration protocol development, QA/QC steps that can be used to
evaluate the performance and proper application of UV-cured CIPP were identified as follows:
Saturation – Proper resin saturation is achieved with each layer of glass mat sent through a
resin bath. Even dispersion is achieved using an automated machine process in an ISO
certified manufacturing facility, which is controlled by tightly measuring the resin-to-glass
ratio weights. Only glass mats with the proper resin-to-glass ratio are permitted for use in
liner manufacture.
Viscosity – Proper resin viscosity is determined by timed viscosity tests on resin batch
samples. Glass layers are wet-out at low viscosity and allowed to mature to high viscosity
before glass layers are used in tube manufacture. Only glass wet-out with resin batches that
achieve specified viscosity requirements are permitted for use in liner manufacture.
Catalyzation – Polyester and vinylester resin systems use initiators to create the free radical
polymerization process that leads to resin hardening. Initiators are added to the resin system
by the resin manufacturer prior to being distributed to the liner manufacturer. The liner
manufacturer verified the cure properties of the resin against their material requirements prior
to off-loading the resin at the liner facility.
Surface Preparation – Surfaces to be lined are to be cleaned of all debris. A pre-lining
inspection of the host pipe should be used to ensure proper cleaning and preparation of the
pipe surface. The liner tightly conformed to the host pipe surface, including forming to any
remaining deposits or debris, in the event of inadequate cleaning.
Lining Thickness – The lining thickness is a key design parameter for CIPP liners. Calipers
are typically used for measuring wall thickness in the field and micrometers are typically
used in the lab. A special, more accurate caliper can be used to measure the reinforced
portion of the liner wall thickness in the lab. Also, the pre- and post-installation inside
diameters are compared to ensure hydraulic needs are met.
Mechanical Strength – The flexural modulus of the CIPP liner enables the liner to handle
external loads applied in the circumferential direction per ASTM F1216. Both the flexure and
tensile properties are measured in the lab to ensure the liner meets the specifications and
design parameters.
Curing – The UV intensity and duration are important to ensure the resin is activated
correctly. The exotherm is critical evidence of the initiation of the cure. These parameters are
monitored during the installation according to the manufacturer guidelines and a post-lining
inspection is performed to ensure the liner has been properly cured.
2-8
2.2.1.3 Design Approach for UV-Cured CIPP
Currently, there is no standalone ASTM design standard for UV-cured CIPP lining
materials. Thépot (2004) provides an overview of various international methods for design of
sewer linings. Efforts are underway at ASTM for the development of a design standard based
upon a modified Thépot approach, which will include the ability to design non-circular pipes.
The current standard for the design of all tight-fitting liners, including CIPP lining
materials, is documented in ASTM F1216 (2009) Standard Practice for Rehabilitation of
Existing Pipelines and Conduits by the Inversion and Curing of a Resin-Impregnated Tube,
which is based on the Timoshenko buckling equation (Timoshenko and Gere, 1961). This
standard is currently undergoing an intensive review and rewrite.
The research behind this standard does not take into account the composite nature of
reinforced UV-cured products, as it was developed utilizing non-reinforced materials in order to
control the known structural failure mechanisms. However, ASTM F1216 is the generally
accepted design method to be conservative for reinforced liners as well.
The ASTM F1216 design should meet the minimum thickness requirements based on
Equations X1.1 and X1.2 for a partially deteriorated pipe and the physical properties listed under
Table X1.1 of ASTM F1216. Each of the following equations has been rearranged to calculate
for liner thickness (t). The first design Equation (Equation 1) calculates the minimum thickness
required to resist buckling under external hydrostatic pressure:
[
( )]
( )
where,
t = thickness of the CIPP lining (in)
D = mean inner pipe diameter (in)
K = enhancement factor (typically 7)
EL = long-term modulus of elasticity for the liner material (psi)
C = ovality reduction factor = (( ) ( ) )
Δ = % ovality =
Dmin = minimum inner pipe diameter (in)
P = external pressure due to ground water (psi) = ( ) Hw1 = height of ground water above pipe invert (ft)
N = safety factor (typically 2)
ν = Poisson’s ratio (0.27)
A ‘K’ factor of 7 is typical for thicker non-reinforced liners. Liners with lower geometric
stiffness, such as reinforced liners, will generally have higher test values for the ‘K’ factor, thus
the use of 7 for reinforced liners is very conservative.
When the pipe is out of round, the bending stresses must be calculated to ensure the CIPP
liner does not exceed the long-term flexural strength of the material. The ASTM F1216 Equation
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 2-9
(X1.2) calculates the bending stress using the thickness (t) from Equation 1 as follows, which
must be less than the CIPP long-term flexural strength (SL):
(
) ( (
)) ( (
)) ( )
where,
S = long-term flexural strength for a liner with thickness (t) calculated in Eq. 1 (psi)
P = external pressure due to ground water (psi) = ( ) Hw1 = height of ground water above pipe invert (ft)
N = safety factor (typically 2)
Δ = % ovality =
D = mean inner pipe diameter (in)
Dmin = minimum inner pipe diameter (in)
DR = dimension ratio = D/t
t = thickness calculated in Equation 1 (in)
SL = long-term flexural strength for the liner material (psi)
The parameters in Table 2-4 are frequently used values for a fully deteriorated design case in
addition to the manufacturer’s standards and ASTM F1216 parameters (Reline, 2011). These
parameters are site-specific and should be determined by the design engineer for each individual
project site.
Table 2-4. Typical Design Parameters.
Parameter Value
Ovality of Host Pipe 0 - 10%
Host Pipe Condition Fully deteriorated
Soil Modulus 600 to 1,500 psi (4 to 10 MPa)
Factor of Safety 2
Live Load 16,000 lbs (7,200 kg)
Soil Density* 120 lbs/ft3 (1,920 kg/m3)
Depth of Cover As indicated in bid documents * Determined by appropriate ASTM D6938 or American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) T310 standards.
2-10
2.2.1.4 Site Description
The City of Frisco is a suburb located north of Dallas in Collin and Denton Counties,
Texas (Figure 2-2). According to the 2010 census, the population of Frisco was 116,989 up from
33,714 in 2000 making it one the fastest growing cities in the U.S. The City of Frisco identified a
length of pipe along Hillcrest Road (see approximate demonstration location in Figure 2-2) in
need of rehabilitation.
Figure 2-2. Map of Frisco, TX Site.
Approximate
Demonstration
Area
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 2-11
The length of pipe or test pipe needing rehabilitation stretched from upstream MH2,
through MH3 and MH4 to the downstream MH5 shown in Figure 2-3. The test pipe was a 10 in
(250 mm) diameter and 888 ft (271 m) long VCP, installed typically in 5-ft (1.5 m) lengths (see
Table 2-5).
Figure 2-3. Demonstration Test Pipe Location.
Table 2-5. Distances of Each Lining Run.
Lining Run Start MH End MH Length, ft (m)
#1 2 3 71 (22)
#2 3 4 477 (145)
#3 4 5 340 (104)
Total Length 888 (271)
The entire length of test pipe was inspected via CCTV on May 26, 2011. The inspection
showed the test pipe to be in fair condition except for two heavily damaged locations. The first
CCTV inspection started from MH3 and ended 477 ft (145 m) downstream at MH4 (Figure 2-4).
The pipe was running from one-fourth to one-half full during the inspection, thus a complete
assessment of the pipe invert was not possible.
Figure 2-4. First CCTV Inspection (left) and a Typical Joint (right).
MH1
MH5
MH4
MH3
MH2
2-12
The damaged section was located 106 ft (32 m) downstream from MH3 and showed a
break in the crown region of the pipe at the joint with a longitudinal crack or fracture extending
from the break down the entire 5 ft (1.5 m) segment to 111 ft or 34 m (Figure 2-5). The video
also showed extensive cracking on the left and right sides of the pipe from 109 ft to 111 ft
(Figure 2-5). A damaged joint was also located at 166 ft (51 m) from MH3.
Figure 2-5. Damage Test Pipe at 106 ft or 32 m (left) and 110 ft or 34 m (right).
Groundwater infiltration and root intrusions were not detected at other locations along the
test pipe except at the joint located 285 ft (87 m) from MH3, which showed some slight
infiltration from 11:00 o’clock down the side of the pipe. This section of test pipe did not contain
any lateral connections.
The second CCTV inspection started from MH5 and ended 340 ft (104 m) at MH4. The
pipe was running from one-fourth to one-half full during the inspection, thus complete
assessment of the pipe invert was not possible (Figure 2-6). There was a lateral connection
(Figure 2-6) located around 8 ft (2.4 m) from MH5, which was estimated based on number of
pipe lengths inspected since the counter was not calibrated.
Figure 2-6. Second CCTV Inspection (left) and a Lateral Connection (right).
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 2-13
Root intrusions were visible at the joints located 128 ft (39 m), 138 ft (42 m), 173 ft (53
m) from MH5 (Figure 2-7) from 10:00 to 2:00 o’clock. The damaged section was located 333 ft
(101 m) upstream from MH5 (Figure 2-7) and showed a longitudinal crack extending from the
joint at 333 ft (101 m) through the next joint at 338 ft (103 m) and extending down to a
circumferential crack located at 340 ft (104 m) from MH5.
Figure 2-7. Root Intrusions at 127 ft (39 m) from MH5.
Groundwater infiltration and root intrusions were not visible at any other locations along
the test pipe and this section of test pipe did not contain any additional lateral connections.
2.2.2 Large-Diameter WC-CIPP
Large-diameter pipeline rehabilitation presents unique challenges that require careful
attention to detail and extensive planning and preparation. It is often more difficult for
innovation to take place in large-diameter methods than in small-diameter pipe rehabilitation due
to the overall increase in project risk inherent in large diameter pipelines (e.g., potentially
diverting large quantities of sewerage flow, high cost of repairing improper installations, deeper
access pits and MHs, etc.). Utilities are less likely to “try something new” when it comes to
larger mains. However, there are many benefits to utilities for the increased use of innovative
methods, which include the following: cost savings, competitive bidding, reduced surface and
environmental disruption, increased flow capacity, and longer lasting materials.
Three large-diameter methods were considered for this project, namely: non-reinforced
WC-CIPP, reinforced WC-CIPP, and grouted in place spiral-wound liners. Specifications for all
three rehabilitation methods were developed and bid against each other producing bids within
5% for all three methods and resulting in reinforced WC-CIPP as the low-bid rehabilitation
method for TRA on this project. CIPP is a thermally cured liner developed to allow for internal
rehabilitation of pipelines and tunnels. Reinforced WC-CIPP is a specially designed and
manufactured lining system, which incorporates carbon fibers or fiberglass into the outside
layers for adding strength without adding thickness.
Most of the application of this technology has been in pipe sizes less than 48 in (1,200
mm) diameter, except for small sections, where larger diameter mains located under roadways
were rehabilitated using CIPP to minimize disruption to the roadway. There is less understanding
of the performance of large-diameter WC-CIPP, mainly due to the smaller number of projects in
2-14
the U.S. that have deployed this technology for extensive reaches of pipelines. Uncertainties
exist with the product on large scale applications and the means by which owners can effectively
measure the product’s performance once installed. The Battelle research team identified a
portion of the TRA project as a demonstration project and coordinated with TRA, Insituform,
and RPS Espey to summarize the actual project experience in order to document the performance
of CIPP liner in a large-diameter sewer application.
The product used for this demonstration was the reinforced version of common WC-CIPP
by Insituform called iPlus® Composite (Figure 2-8). The cured liner was required to conform to
the minimum structural parameters shown in Table 2-6.
Figure 2-8. Cured Insituform iPlus® Composite Liner.
Table 2-6. Physical Properties of Insituform iPlus® Composite Liner.
Insituform, 2013.
Parameter Standard TRA Specification ASTM F1216
Flexural Strength ASTM D790 5,000 psi (34 MPa) 4,500 psi (31 MPa)
Short-Term Flexural Modulus ASTM D790 750 ksi (5,200 MPa) 250 ksi (1,700 MPa)
Long-Term Flexural Modulus N/A 488 ksi (3,400 MPa) N/A
The characteristics of the Insituform iPlus® Composite WC-CIPP liner are given in
Table 2-7.
Table 2-7. Characteristics of Insituform iPlus® Composite Liner.
Insituform, 2013.
Parameter Value
Diameter Range 24 to 96 in (600 to 2,400 mm)
Typical Insertion or Shot Length Range More than 750 ft (230 m)
Pipe Condition Partially or Fully Deteriorated
Bends and Offset Joints Yes, Bends up to 90°
Effluent Temperature Up to 120°F (49°C)
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 2-15
2.2.2.1 Installation of Large-Diameter WC-CIPP
This list is a brief overview of the major steps involved in the installation of large-
diameter CIPP:
Site preparation including permits, traffic control, and bypass setup.
Cleaning of the pipe.
Pre-lining inspection/CCTV and/or visual.
Onsite or factory resin impregnation or wet-out and inversion of liner.
Curing of liner.
Removal of liner ends to reestablish flow.
Reinstatement of laterals.
Post-lining inspection/CCTV and or visual inspection.
Site cleanup and disposal of waste.
2.2.2.2 QA/QC Requirements for Large-Diameter WC-CIPP
As part of the demonstration protocol development, QA/QC steps that can be used to
evaluate the performance and proper application of the WC-CIPP liner have been identified as
follows (U.S. EPA, 2011):
Surface Preparation – Surfaces to be treated must be cleaned of all debris to ensure that all
loose or structurally incompetent wall material has been removed by the cleaning process. A
pre-lining inspection of the host pipe should be used to ensure proper cleaning and
preparation of the pipe surface. The pre-lining inspection also assists in determining the any
additional pipe wall loss during the surface preparation, which could affect the diameter of
the WC-CIPP liner.
Saturation – The resin must be impregnated into the fabricated tube where at least 95% of
the void space is taken up by the resin. This is accomplished by placing the tube under a
vacuum and distributing the resin equally by running the tube through a set of calibration
rollers. The amount of resin required is given by the tube manufacturer to the contractor. The
length of tube saturated, a dye, and the total resin quantity are used to confirm proper
saturation.
Catalyzation – Polyester and vinylester resin systems use initiators to create the free radical
polymerization process that leads to resin hardening. Initiators are added to the resin system
by mixing just prior to the tube’s saturation. A gel test is done routinely throughout the
saturation process using the planned initiator system (i.e., heat) to ensure that the resin has
been properly catalyzed.
Lining Thickness – The lining thickness is a key design parameter for WC-CIPP liners.
Calipers and micrometers can be used for measuring wall thickness. Also, the pre- and post-
installation inside diameters were compared to ensure hydraulic needs are met.
Curing and Cooling – The standard in the industry is to use initiators that commence curing
at around 140°F. By using thermocouple wires placed in the interface between the WC-CIPP
and the host pipe, the exothermic reaction commencing in the liner can be observed to
monitor the progress of the curing. The resin manufacturers, in conjunction with the WC-
CIPP system manufacturers, have developed an empirical relationship between the readings
2-16
observed and the time required to cure the resin past the observed exotherm (point of initial
hardening). In the case of UV-cured liners, the temperatures are taken from the inside of the
liner being installed and is compared to the WC-CIPP system manufacturer’s relationship of
temperature, thickness, and time of exposure. In order to properly anneal any residual
stresses from the curing process in any of the curing regimes, the liner is cooled down at a
steady rate consistent with its thickness. Both the curing time and the cool down time are
given by thermocouple readings. The readings will ensure thorough curing of resin and
dimensional stability of the newly installed WC-CIPP liner prior removing the expansion
pressure used during the installation.
Mechanical Strength – The flexural and tensile strength of the WC-CIPP liner enables the
liner to handle external loads if the host pipe is compromised during its service life of the
liner. These parameters were measured in the lab to ensure the liner met the design
parameters.
2.2.2.3 Design Approach for Large-Diameter WC-CIPP
The design was based on the minimum thickness requirements calculated using
Equations X1.1 and X1.2 for a partially deteriorated pipe and the physical properties in Table
X1.1 from ASTM F1216 (see Section 2.2.1.3). The parameters in Table 2-8 were the values used
for the design case in addition to the manufacturer’s standards and ASTM F1216 parameters.
These parameters are site-specific and should be determined by the design engineer for each
individual project site.
Table 2-8. TRA Design Parameters.
Parameter Value
Ovality of Host Pipe 5%
Host Pipe Condition Partially deteriorated
Host Pipe Internal Diameter 96 in (2,400 mm)
Design Life 50 years
Flexural Strength 5,000 psi (34 MPa)
Short-Term Flexural Modulus 750 ksi (5,200 MPa)
Soil Modulus 400 psi (2.8 MPa)
Factor of Safety 2
Live Load AASHTO HS20-44
Soil Density 120 lbs/ft3 (1,920 kg/m3)
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 2-17
2.2.2.4 Site Description
The demonstration was part of the Elm Fork Relief Interceptor System; segment Critical
Area of Concern (CAC) 11 which is owned by TRA in Irving, Texas (Figure 2-9). In total, there
were more than 17,200 ft (5,243 m) of RCP needing rehabilitation and approximately 780 ft (238 m)
was used for the demonstration. The original pipe was installed in 1985 and was designed to
meet the ASTM C76 requirements. The entire CAC-11 project is located in the Elm Fork
floodway. The estimated 100-year flood level in Elm Fork floodway is 427 ft (130 m), which is
approximately 20 ft (6.1 m) above the ground level. The buoyancy force on the pipe and the
MHs/junction boxes becomes a major concern.
Figure 2-9. TRA Site Location.
Approximate
Demonstration
Area
2-18
The condition assessment report prepared in April 2011 revealed that approximately
14,230 ft (4,337 m) of the 1985 constructed unlined 96-in (2,400 mm) RCP pipe had a wall
thickness of 9.75 in (248 mm). The remaining 2,970 ft (905 m) of pipe had a thicker wall of
13.25 in (337 mm), which was evidence that use of sacrificial concrete was deployed in areas of
expected corrosion. This information was based on a robotic laser technology inspection of the
entire 17,200 ft (5,243 m). The inspection showed that approximately 90% of the pipe had a loss
of wall thickness between 0.5 to 3 in (12.5 to 75 mm) before cleaning (Figure 2-10), and some
areas (Figure 2-11) showed losses greater than 5 in (125 mm).
Figure 2-10. Typical Wall Thickness Losses.
Figure 2-11. Wall Thickness Losses Greater than 5 in (125 mm).
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 3-1
CHAPTER 3.0
UV-CURED CIPP DEMONSTRATION
This chapter outlines the activities involved with the UV-cured CIPP lining field
demonstration in Frisco, Texas that included site preparation, technology application, post-
demonstration verification, and sample collection and testing.
3.1 Site Preparation
To successfully execute the planned liner installation, a temporary bypass system and
pre-lining inspection with a CCTV camera and pipe cleaning activities were required first. In
addition, a 60 ft (18 m) long, 10-in (250 mm) diameter PVC pipe was lined above ground to
provide extra cured liner control samples for comparison with the inline samples collected from
the MHs.
3.1.1 Safety and Logistics
Throughout the demonstration project, the City of Frisco was responsible for traffic
control. The demonstration took place over the course of five days from performing the above
ground lining to shipping the samples to the lab. The actual underground pipe lining took place
over three days. The research team had at least two staff members onsite each day for the
majority of the activities and maintained constant coordination with the contractor. The UV CIPP
liner supplier also had representatives available in the field to answer questions. 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 Above Ground Sample
The Battelle research team mobilized to the field on Monday, February 4th
, 2013. The
liner was pulled into the above ground PVC pipe at the Frisco physical plant yard (Figure 3-1)
and the lining activities were initiated around 1:45 pm, which included inflating the liner with a
blower and end packer, sliding the light train inside the liner, and installing the second end
packer to fully establish back pressure inside the liner. A pressure transducer was connected to
the curing truck’s onboard computer, which controls and records the curing process. Around
1:50 pm, the inflation protocol was initiated where the liner pressure was increased to 1.0 psi
(6.9 kPa) and held for 10 minutes to relax expansion stresses in the liner. Then the internal
pressure was increased in 1 psi (6.9 kPa) increments every five minutes until the specified cure
pressure was reached, which was around 6.0 to 6.5 psi (41 to 45 kPa). This pressure was selected
in an effort to be indicative of the expected installation pressures of the actual pipe rehabilitation
segments. Next, a pre-cure CCTV inspection was performed with the light train camera being
pulled to the upstream end of the section, enabling the crew to confirm that the liner was
properly inserted and tightly formed against the host pipe.
Once the light train reached the upstream end (approximately five minutes), the bulb
optimization protocol was initiated to begin the curing process (approximately 10 minutes). Bulb
optimization is a critical step to ensure that the bulb will emit proper UV intensity levels so that
the light train travel speed can also be optimized. Curing took approximately 20 minutes (an
3-2
average of 3 ft or 0.9 m per minute). The light train must remain stationary while curing for an
extended period at each liner end, in order to provide comparable UV exposure to the liner ends
as is accomplished with the multiple (i.e., nine) bulbs along the light train through the remainder
of the pipe. With a longer length pipe, the average per foot curing speed will be considerably
higher. After the light train was turned off and removed, the blower was turned on to cool the
liner down (approximately 30 minutes) before removing the inner film. A successful air pressure
test was performed by increasing the internal pressure to 4 psi (28 kPa) and holding it for two
minutes and then adjusting back to 4 psi (28 kPa) if any air leaked out and holding the pressure
for another eight minutes.
Figure 3-1. Above Ground Lining Demonstration.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 3-3
3.1.3 Installation of Bypass System
Bypass hoses and pumps were laid out by the seven-man crew of Fuquay on Tuesday,
February 5th
to transport wastewater from the upstream MH1 to the farthest downstream MH5,
see Figure 2-3. Figure 3-2 shows the bypass pump and piping setup at MH1 and the flow through
plug before being inserted into MH5. One crew member was assigned to monitor the fuel level in
the pumps.
Figure 3-2. Bypass Pump at MH1 (left) and Flow Through Plug at MH5 (right).
3-4
3.1.4 Pre-Lining Inspection and Cleaning
For proper installation of the UV-cured CIPP liner, effective cleaning had to be
performed for the sections that were to be lined. For each section, the cleaning nozzle was first
passed from the downstream MH to the upstream MH. At the upstream MH, the nozzle was
pulled back 5-10 ft and the CCTV camera transporter was attached. Then the CCTV operator
controlled the cleaning nozzle while inspecting the main (Figure 3-3). The crew was also
equipped with chain knockers and sponges if needed to assist with cleaning.
Figure 3-3. CCTV Truck and Operator (left) and Cleaning (right).
The first segment to be cleaned was segment #3 (MH4 to MH5) on Tuesday, February
5th
. Cleaning began around 10:15 am with the nozzle being sent from MH5 to MH4
(approximately five minutes). Only one lateral was found during the inspection and cleaning
(approximately 35 minutes), however it was determined to have been capped by the City. The
CCTV inspection robot was also used to pull the slip sheet into place in preparation for lining
this segment (Figure 3-4). The slip sheet is anchored at each end and doused with dish washing
soap to aid in reducing friction when pulling the liner in place.
Figure 3-4. Slip Sheet Being Inserted into the Test Pipe.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 3-5
3.1.5 Pipe Inner Diameter
Prior to the demonstration study, the wall thickness and inner diameter of the test host
pipe segments were not accurately known. It was assumed that the inside diameter of the test
host pipe was 10 in (250 mm). The actual pipe diameter was revealed to vary considerably
between 9.5 to 10.125 in (241 to 257 mm) depending on the location along the main (see Table
3-1). The average inside diameter of the test pipe wall was found to be 9.875 in (251 mm), with a
standard deviation of 0.22 in or 2.2%.
Table 3-1. Inside Diameter Measurements.
MH Pipe End Lining Run ID, in (mm)
2 Downstream 1 10.000 (254)
3 Upstream 1 9.500 (241)
Downstream 2 9.750 (248)
4 Upstream 2 10.000 (254)
Downstream 3 10.125 (257)
5 Upstream 3 9.875 (251)
Average Test Pipe 9.875 (251)
All tight-fitting liners have minimum and maximum expansion characteristics and to
ensure proper conformance to the host pipe, knowledge of the true host pipe inside diameter is
required when sizing a liner for manufacture. The Blue-Tek™ liner can expand approximately
8%. The outside diameter of the liner must be sized smaller than the minimum inside diameter of
the pipe to be lined in order to avoid wrinkling from excess material. In order to achieve a tight
fit, a liner should also be capable of expanding from the minimum to the maximum inside
diameter. An 8% expansion provided the needed tolerance for conservatively manufacturing the
liner smaller than the minimum inside diameter while still fitting tightly at the maximum inside
diameter.
3.2 Technology Application
The UV-cured CIPP lining of the test section took place between February 5th
and 7th
,
2013. The lining process involved two main activities: insertion into the host pipe and UV-light
curing.
3.2.1 Shipping, Storage, and Handling
The liners were shipped in insulated wooden crates lined with a layer of UV barrier
plastic. The liner did not have to be refrigerated, but was conditioned as needed to stay within the
tolerances specified by ASTM F2019, Section 6.4.2. This section requires the impregnated liner
to be stored, transported, and installed inside maximum and minimum temperatures not less than
45°F (7°C) or higher than 95°F (35°C) when being installed onsite.
3-6
3.2.2 Liner Insertion and Inflation
Once the slip sheet is anchored into place, rollers are placed at the top of the MH and
crown of the pipe to allow for liner insertion. The liner is attached to the winch system at the
upstream end while being hand folded by the crew and pulled downstream directly from the crate
in which it was shipped to the site (Figure 3-5). Because Blue-TekTM
liners are spirally wound,
the longitudinal roving in the glass mats cannot absorb the pulling forces, therefore, woven
fiberglass pulling bands are positioned on the top and bottom of the liner during manufacture, to
primarily carry such pulling forces. A constant tension winch is also utilized to ensure that the
liner is not damaged by the insertion process. The winch pull force peaked at 400 lbs (181 kg)
and the pull in rate was approximately 15 ft (4.6 m) per minute (Figure 3-6). The manufacturer
now labels each crate with the recommended maximum pulling force for the liners.
Once the liner is inserted, excess liner material is cut off at each end and those ends were
carefully re-sealed with clear styrene barrier tape to prevent emulsification of liner resin through
contact with water in the MH. Next, the blower end packer, light train winch, and rollers were
put into place. Despite the limited working space within many MHs, it is essential that the liner
be trimmed to a sufficient length so that at least 26 in (660 mm) of liner is between the end
packer and the host pipe or the test sample restraining sleeve in this case. Otherwise the light
train may not be able to provide adequate UV exposure to completely cure the liner ends. This is
why end samples are frequently not adequately representative of the strengths achieved down the
length of the liner.
Figure 3-5. Crated Liner Being Attached to the Winch Head.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 3-7
Figure 3-6. Winch Trailer.
At this point the inflation protocol is initiated. First the liner is partially inflated to allow
room for the 15 ft (4.6 m) long light train to be inserted (Figure 3-7). Next, the light train packer
(Figure 3-7) is installed and strapped in place. Internal pressure of the liner is then raised to 1.0
psi and held there for 10 minutes, and then the pressure is raised by 1.0 psi (6.9 kPa) every five
minutes until the cure pressure is reached (i.e., approximately 6.0 psi or 41 kPa).
Figure 3-7. Light Train (left) and Light Train Winch (right).
3-8
In each MH, PVC pipes were used in an effort to collect restrained liner samples for the
subsequent laboratory evaluation (Figure 3-8). PVC restraints were selected by the installer
because of their relative resistance to radial expansion; however, the rigid edges of the PVC
make it more difficult to insert the light train within the limited workspace inside of a MH invert.
In Europe, zippered restraining sleeve bags are often used inside of MHs to avoid the rigid edges
of a restraining sleeve pipe (Whittle, 2013).
Figure 3-8. PVC Pipe Used for Restrained Liner Samples.
3.2.3 Liner Curing
After the inflation protocol was completed, the bulb optimization was initiated. During
the first lining run, wrinkles in the liner were visible during the inflation protocol and it was
speculated that either an inner film tear or the inconsistency in host pipe inner diameter could
have led to the issue. The inner film tear was evidenced in the quality tracker system data log
evidenced by the pressure drop and visually confirmed upon removal of the inner film. The
quality tracker system documents the site-specific information (i.e., client, physical location,
date, lining run, etc.), liner parameters (i.e., wall thickness, length, storage temperature,
production date, etc.) and tracks in real time pressure in the liner, temperature, the light train
bulbs status and speed, and the length down the pipe. The tear was attributed to the use of a new
inner film material that was proving incapable of complying with specification tolerances. This
particular inner film product has subsequently been removed from the ISO controlled approved
raw materials list and is no longer used during the manufacture and application of the Blue-
Tek™ liner.
The bulb optimization is controlled at the cure truck (Figure 3-9). First, the bulbs were
optimized to the desired wattage (i.e., either 400 or 600 watts). Once the liner became hard at the
end where the light train began, which was confirmed via a tap test (i.e., after approximately 90
seconds), the winch started to pull the light train cable through the liner at half speed. Once the
light train was 12 ft (3.7 m) into the pipe, the winch speed was increased to full speed until the
final 12 ft (3.7 m) were reached. At that point, the winch was slowed down to half speed, and
once the light train reached the final 2 ft (0.6 m), the light bulbs 1, 2, and 3 were turned off. The
light train was then slowly pulled by hand for the final 2 ft (0.6 m) and as the light train
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 3-9
approached the packer, the light bulbs 4, 5, and 6 were turned off. Finally, after confirming the
hardness at the end (via tap tests again), the light bulbs 7, 8, and 9 were turned off.
The temperature inside the liner was monitored continually during this curing process to
ensure a proper exotherm down every foot of the liner; however if the temperature reaches more
than 240°F (116°C) at any time, the winch was sped up by ½ ft (0.2 m) per minute until the
temperature goes below 240°F (116°C). These temperatures are not at risk of damaging the
liner’s structural properties, but if the temperature is allowed to spike too hot, the inner film can
melt and stick to the inside of the liner, creating minor construction hassles. It should be noted
that although the liner lumen temperatures are continuously monitored, the specific minimum
temperatures achieved during exotherm will greatly vary with differing field conditions. The
primary goal of monitoring temperatures is to see evidence of an active exothermic reaction.
Figure 3-9. Cure Truck Control Panels.
Although not encountered during this demonstration project, if a bulb were to blow out
during curing, the light train speed can be slowed down to otherwise accommodate for the
reduction in UV exposure and still ensure a complete cure. Bulbs can blow if they are improperly
handled. No bulb should be touched without wearing cloth gloves, because skin oil can cause a
bulb blow-out. Bulb intensity will also decline over time with use; therefore bulb intensity must
be inspected and deemed satisfactory before use.
After the light train was removed from the host pipe, the inner film was removed utilizing
the same winch previously attached to the light train (Figure 3-10) and coiled on a spool. If there
has been an unexplained pressure fluctuation of 0.5 psi (3.4 kPa) or greater, an inspection of the
inner film for tears is recommended during the inner film removal, which took place on the first
segment. Also, one of the wheels fell off the light train during the process, but the train was
repaired for subsequent liner installations. New equipment specifications have a different wheel
design that would preclude such an error in properly seating a light train wheel. Next, the
restrained samples were cut from the MHs (Figure 3-10).
3-10
Figure 3-10. Inner Film Removal (left) and Restrained Sample Collection (right).
A summary of the durations for each major activity of all three lining runs is summarized
in Table 3-2. The Lining Runs #2 (i.e., MH3 to MH4) and #3 (MH4 to MH5) experienced inner
film tears leading to delays (Figure 3-10). During each of those lining runs, the smell of styrene
was not experienced, but a loss of pressure was noticed during the installation. The inner film’s
tear was determined to be a material supplier issue. Depressurization from tears in the inner film
can lead to wrinkles, but the effects were not significant enough to warrant any lining
replacements (Figure 3-11). Table 3-2. Lining Summary.
MHs Date Lining
Run, Length Insertion Inflation Inspection Curing
2-3 Feb. 6 1, 71 ft (22 m) 7 minutes 30 minutes 5 minutes 25 minutes
3-4 Feb. 6-7* 2, 477 ft (145 m) 23 minutes 25 minutes 30 minutes 110 minutes
4-5 Feb. 5 3, 340 ft (104 m) 20 minutes 50 minutes 15 minutes 100 minutes**
Total/Average 888 ft (271 m) 18 ft/min
(5.5 m/min) 35 minutes
18 ft/min (5.5 m/min)
3.8 ft/min (1.2 m/min)
*Initiated Feb. 6, but due to an inner film tear, inflation could not begin until early morning Feb. 7 after delivery of a replacement inner film; (5 hr. wait with the liner already inserted into the host pipe; encapsulation of the liner in the inner and outer film helps to prevent liner damage from water contact and resin emulsification) ** Does not include 50 minute break to inspect liner wrinkling; UV curing has start-stop capability at any point.
Figure 3-11. Inner Film Tear Analysis (left) and Wrinkles (right).
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 3-11
Pressure tests were conducted for each lining run on Friday, February 8th
, 2013; however,
the available pressure test plugs were too long to properly insert into the liner ends inside of the
MH, so there was no means of ensuring conclusive results. Also, there were no active laterals
requiring reinstatement, but if there were any; they would have been reinstated remotely with a
robot similar to other CIPP methods (Melcher, 2010).
3.3 Post-Lining CCTV
The post-lining CCTV inspection provided a visual assessment of the quality of the liner
once the inner film was removed. The results of the post-lining CCTV inspections are documented
on DVDs. A description of each post-lining inspection is described in the following sections.
3.3.1 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #1
The post-lining inspection of lining Run #1 occurred on Wednesday at 2:20 pm. The
inspection was completed in five minutes and the liner was shown to be in good condition
(Figure 3-12).
Figure 3-12. Typical Liner Condition for Run #1.
3-12
3.3.2 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #2
The post-lining inspection of Lining Run #2 occurred on Thursday at 11:15 am. The
inspection was completed in 10 minutes and the liner was shown to be in good condition (Figure 3-13).
Figure 3-13. Typical Liner Condition for Run #2.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 3-13
3.3.3 Post-Lining CCTV of Lining Run #3
The post-lining inspection of Lining Run #3 occurred on Tuesday at 7:00 pm. The
inspection was completed in eight minutes and the liner was shown have some wrinkles in many
locations throughout the lining run (Figure 3-14). Wrinkles are not ideal, but they are not
expected to cause any premature failures in the future.
Figure 3-14. Typical Liner Condition for Run #3.
3.4 Demonstration Results
This section presents the results of the demonstration including a detailed evaluation of
the technology based on the evaluation metrics defined in Table 2-1.
3.4.1 Technology Maturity
The Blue-Tek™ product is classified as an emerging technology in terms of maturity
based on its North American usage and supporting performance data. CIPP technology has been
successfully used for rehabilitation of wastewater mains for more than 40 years, but UV-cured
products have only been used for around 20 years around the world and about seven years in the
U.S. To-date, more than 1,800 miles (2,900 km) of Blue-Tek™ liners have been installed in
more than 25 countries (Reline, 2011). Reline America will have sold more than 1,000,000 lf
(305 km) of Blue-Tek™ liners before the end of 2013 (Whittle, 2013). Several trade magazines
and websites have documented case studies of other installations including: Bueno (2008 and
2011), Godwin (2009), Aird (2010), Keating (2012), and Talend (2012).
3-14
3.4.2 Technology Feasibility
The Reline America Blue-Tek™ liner is marketed as a liner capable of providing a
structural solution for renewing wastewater mains. The structural performance of the liner is
discussed in more detail in Section 3.4.4 and shows the installed product was considered
applicable to the rehabilitation requirements of this demonstration. The only challenging pipe
configuration encountered was related to the varied inner pipe diameter of the host pipe, which
did not seem to cause any issues for the liner installation. The claimed ability of the liner to
radially expand by up to 8% enabled proper conformation of the liner despite the varied inside
diameter of the host pipe.
Anticipated failure modes included incomplete curing of the liner or premature curing of
the liner prior to full insertion. Neither failure mode was evident during the installation and
curing process or during post-installation inspections. Complete curing of the liner appears to be
adequately controlled through specified curing speeds, which have been validated by the
manufacturer through scientific testing. This testing included different combinations of liner
diameters and thicknesses for the manufacturer’s specific resins (especially clarity and initiator)
and specific equipment (especially bulb wattage and wavelengths).
Premature curing of the liner appears to be adequately controlled through the use of the
UV barrier outer film. The manufacturer provides shipping, handling, and storage guidelines that
permit a long shelf-life up to six months, but liners exceeding one year old in proper storage have
been tested for proper curing, and thereafter successfully installed (Whittle, 2013).
3.4.3 Technology Complexity
The use of GRP UV-cured CIPP liners for wastewater mains is a comparable alternative
to open-cut replacement and other rehabilitation systems. UV-cured CIPP liners offer a similar
level of renewal as other CIPP systems with the benefit of typically faster curing and thinner wall
thicknesses due to the material composition. The access requirements for UV-cured CIPP are
similar to other CIPP systems as well; therefore, this technology is considered to be beneficial
for small, medium, and large utilities using other rehabilitation systems.
This product can be installed by licensed contractors or in-house utility crews that have
been trained to install the liner. The liner cannot be installed by untrained personnel, which is
common for the majority of rehabilitation technologies. The pre-installation activities and
maintenance operations can be performed by typical utility contactors and personnel. The
technology’s effect on traffic flow is limited due to its trenchless nature, but traffic control in the
form of cones and signs is needed in and around MHs and any excavations, as required. The
contactor had a lining crew of eight: one foreman; one CCTV operator; and six laborers. A total
of 888 ft (271 m) of lining was completed over the course of three days, in three separate
installation shots. The test pipe was taken out of service once the bypass was started on Tuesday
and the test pipe was put back in service on that Friday.
The installation process has been optimized over the 15+ year installation history in
Germany and six plus year history in the U.S. The liner manufacturing process is highly quality
controlled at the manufacturing facility and QC checks are performed throughout the process,
although some details remain proprietary. The QCs built into the system design (i.e., spiral
winding for no full-length seam imperfection, UV initiation for consistent curing, tamper proof
documentation of all QC variables, etc.) and the liner manufacturing process (i.e., resin viscosity
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 3-15
confirmed prior to liner manufacture) intentionally help to limit the influence of known field
variables. These variables may include groundwater exposure, ambient temperature variations,
thermal heat sinks, and localized liner wall compression. Independent verification testing by IKT
labs in Germany have documented the success rate of such integrated QC measures towards
achieving consistent as-built specification compliance (IKT, 2012).
With the integrated system design, manufacturing, construction, and inspection controls
of the UV CIPP lining system, there are few variables that require extensive field experience to
adapt the design and construction process to specific site conditions. Contractor and in-house
utility crews are routinely successfully installing liners within 10,000 to 20,000 lf (3 to 6 km),
after only a week or two of training through the manufacturer (Whittle, 2013).
During the field demonstration project, some issues related to the inner film tearing and a
wheel insertion failure where easily fixed and should not impact future jobs. As with all tight-
fitting liners, sizing the liner ahead of time was critical for minimizing folds and wrinkles and to
accommodate for variable pipe diameters, like the ones seen in Frisco, TX.
3.4.4 Technology Performance
Technology performance was evaluated in the field (post-installation pressure tests where
applicable) and the lab. The following sections discuss the results of the laboratory testing used
to evaluate the manufacturer-stated performance versus actual liner performance.
3.4.4.1 Liner Thickness
The liner thickness was measured in the lab to verify the design thickness was met. The
liner thickness was measured using a micrometer (resolution ±0.0025 mm or ±0.00001 in) per
ASTM F1216 as 3.5 mm (0.138 in). A total of 150 readings were taken for the one above ground
and six restrained samples. The readings were taken on 25 – 1 in x 1 in (25 mm x 25 mm)
specimen that were obtained from different locations on the test samples (see Figure 3-15).
Figure 3-15. Micrometer Set (left) and Measurement Using a Micrometer (right).
3-16
The measured average thicknesses of the liners are shown in Table 3-3 and the overall
average thickness was found to be 3.85 mm (0.151 in) ± 0.16 mm (0.006 in), which is above the
design thickness of 3.50 mm (0.138 in). For design compliance purposes, only the structural
layers should be included in the liner structural thickness measurements. Laboratories will
require guidance from the manufacturer to subtract any composite non-structural layers such as
an integral thin outer felt layer that is not strain compatible with the fiberglass layers.
Table 3-3. Results from Liner Thickness.
Samples Average, mm (in) Sta. Dev., mm (in)
Above ground 3.96 (0.156) 0.50 (0.020)
Run 1, MH2 3.80 (0.150) 0.51 (0.020)
Run 1, MH3 3.56 (0.140) 0.53 (0.021)
Run 2, MH3 4.03 (0.159) 0.50 (0.020)
Run 2, MH4 3.97 (0.156) 0.50 (0.020)
Run 3, MH4 3.80 (0.150) 0.51 (0.020)
Run 3, MH5 3.81 (0.150) 0.51 (0.020)
Average 3.85 (0.151) Sta. Dev. 0.16 (0.006)
3.4.4.2 Specific Gravity
Specific gravity was measured using the displacement method listed in ASTM D792
(2008). The standard specifies that any convenient size specimen can be used for this testing.
The weights of 20 – 1 in x 1 in (25 mm x 25 mm) specimen were measured in air and in water (at
71°F or 22°C) for all seven samples. The average specific gravity for all of the specimens was
calculated to be 1.46, with a standard deviation of 0.04, as shown in Table 3-4. The variation in
specific gravity is likely due to localized differences in the ratio of resin to glass material.
Variations in specific gravity are not typically indicative of as-built performance issues
with glass reinforced liners. The resin to glass ratios of installed UV-cured CIPP liners can vary
with higher local compression forces (e.g., at diameter restrictions). However, the primary
strength of the liner is provided by the glass, which can compress during installation without
localized glass reduction. As long as sufficient resin is present to properly bond the glass layers,
then the minimum structural strengths will be met or exceeded, even with a locally reduced resin
to glass ratio.
Table 3-4. Results from Specific Gravity.
Samples Average Sta. Dev.
Above ground 1.47 0.05
Run 1, MH2 1.49 0.04
Run 1, MH3 1.50 0.04
Run 2, MH3 1.44 0.05
Run 2, MH4 1.50 0.04
Run 3, MH4 1.38 0.05
Run 3, MH5 1.47 0.04
Average 1.46 Sta. Dev. 0.04
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 3-17
3.4.4.3 Tensile Testing
The tensile tests in accordance with ASTM D638 (2010) were performed on the
specimen obtained from the retrieved liner samples. A total of five test specimens were prepared
(cut in longitudinal direction) and tested for each of the seven samples (Figure 3-16).
Figure 3-16. Samples for Tensile Test (left) and Testing Machine (right).
The results from the tensile testing are shown in Table 3-5. The recorded average peak
tensile strength of the seven samples (measured on 39 specimens) was 21,371 psi (147 MPa),
which is more than twice the required 9,000 psi (62 MPa) per ASTM F2019. The strength also
exceeded the reported 20,000 psi (138 MPa) listed in the vendor’s literature. In all seven
samples, the average tensile strength recorded on the test specimen was above the reported
20,000 psi (138 MPa) except for the samples collected from Lining Run #3. Even though this
lining run experienced a tear in the inner film and visible wrinkles, the average tensile strength
recorded for these samples (i.e., 19,990 psi or 137.8 MPa) was comparable to the manufacturer’s
listed value (i.e., 20,000 psi or 137.9 MPa) and the strength shortfall is insignificant.
Table 3-5. Results from Tensile Testing.
Sample Area,
in2 (mm2) Peak Load,
lbs (kg) Peak Stress,
psi (MPa) Tensile Modulus,
ksi (MPa)
Above Ground Sample
1 0.074 (48) 1,814 (823) 24,550 (169) 1,827 (12,600)
2 0.073 (47) 1,693 (768) 23,185 (160) 1,440 (9,900)
3 0.087 (56) 1,716 (778) 19,698 (136) 1,841 (12,700)
4 0.067 (43) 1,889 (857) 28,283 (195) 1,671 (11,500)
5 0.072 (46) 1,780 (807) 24,707 (170) 2,250 (15,500)
Average 0.075 (48) 1,780 (807) 24,085 (166) 1,806 (12,500)
Sta. Dev. 0.007 (4.5) 79 (36) 3,094 (21) 296 (2,000)
Run #1, MH2
1 0.063 (41) 1,824 (827) 28,958 (200) 2,252 (15,500)
2 0.066 (43) 1,198 (543) 18,130 (125) 1,535 (10,600)
3 0.070 (45) 1,338 (607) 19,137 (132) 2,659 (18,300)
4 0.064 (41) 1,376 (624) 21,429 (148) 2,387 (16,500)
5 0.059 (38) 1,151 (522) 19,475 (134) 1,473 (10,200)
6 0.065 (42) 1,358 (616) 21,059 (145) 1,918 (13,200)
Average 0.065 (42) 1,374 (623) 21,365 (147) 2,037 (14,000)
Sta. Dev. 0.003 (1.9) 239 (108) 3,918 (27) 477 (3,300)
Run #1, MH3
1 0.059 (38) 1,511 (685) 25,489 (176) 3,558 (24,500)
3-18
Sample Area,
in2 (mm2) Peak Load,
lbs (kg) Peak Stress,
psi (MPa) Tensile Modulus,
ksi (MPa)
2 0.062 (40) 1,479 (671) 24,006 (166) 1,803 (12,400)
3 0.063 (41) 1,241 (563) 19,705 (136) 4,106 (28,300)
4 0.063 (41) 868 (394) 13,861 (96) 1,626 (11,200)
5 0.056 (36) 1,185 (538) 21,093 (145) 1,809 (12,500)
Average 0.061 (39) 1,257 (570) 20,831 (144) 2,580 (17,800)
Sta. Dev. 0.003 (1.9) 260 (118) 4,519 (31) 1,161 (8,000)
Run #2, MH3
1 0.061 (39) 1,508 (684) 24,886 (172) 2,421 (16,700)
2 0.069 (45) 1,537 (697) 22,153 (153) 1,624 (11,200)
3 0.062 (40) 1,832 (831) 29,404 (203) 1,827 (12,600)
4 0.068 (44) 1,421 (645) 20,772 (143) 1,615 (11,100)
5 0.065 (42) 1,219 (553) 18,693 (129) 1,445 (10,000)
6 0.062 (40) 1,354 (614) 21,942 (151) 1,997 (13,800)
Average 0.065 (42) 1,479 (671) 22,975 (158) 1,821 (12,600)
Sta. Dev. 0.003 (1.9) 208 (94) 3,739 (26) 350 (2,400)
Run #2, MH4
1 0.073 (47) 1,201 (545) 16,384 (113) 2,531 (17,500)
2 0.061 (39) 1,593 (723) 26,064 (180) 1,605 (11,100)
3 0.063 (41) 1,323 (600) 21,165 (146) 2,313 (15,900)
4 0.075 (48) 1,514 (687) 20,290 (140) 1,814 (12,500)
5 0.071 (46) 1,426 (647) 20,005 (138) 1,565 (10,800)
Average 0.069 (45) 1,411 (640) 20,782 (143) 1,966 (13,600)
Sta. Dev. 0.006 (3.9) 155 (70) 3,473 (24) 434 (3,000)
Run #3, MH4
1 0.065 (42) 1,299 (589) 19,858 (137) 2,148 (14,800)
2 0.060 (39) 1,420 (644) 23,556 (162) 2,794 (19,300)
3 0.070 (45) 1,131 (513) 16,222 (112) 2,910 (20,100)
4 0.070 (45) 1,588 (720) 22,652 (156) 2,014 (13,900)
5 0.074 (48) 1,062 (482) 14,376 (99) 1,925 (13,300)
6 0.066 (43) 1,604 (728) 24,188 (167) 2,000 (13,800)
7 0.059 (38) 1,130 (513) 19,080 (132) 3,305 (22,800)
Average 0.066 (43) 1,319 (598) 19,990 (138) 2,443 (16,800)
Sta. Dev. 0.005 (3.2) 224 (102) 3,741 (26) 551 (3,800)
Run #3, MH5
1 0.064 (41) 1,236 (561) 19,223 (133) 1,478 (10,200)
2 0.063 (41) 1,143 (518) 18,035 (124) 1,180 (8,100)
3 0.060 (39) 1,040 (472) 17,386 (120) 1,136 (7,800)
4 0.062 (40) 1,506 (683) 24,286 (167) 2,002 (13,800)
5 0.061 (39) 1,222 (554) 20,068 (138) 1,564 (10,800)
Average 0.062 (40) 1,229 (557) 19,800 (137) 1,472 (10,100)
Sta. Dev. 0.002 (1.3) 173 (78) 2,714 (19) 349 (2,400)
All 7 Samples
Average 0.066 (43) 1,403 (636) 21,371 (147) 2,035 (14,000)
Sta. Dev. 0.006 (3.9) 250 (113) 3,662 (25) 636 (4,400)
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 3-19
3.4.4.4 Flexural Testing
Flexure strength and modulus tests in accordance with ASTM D790 and ASTM F2019,
respectively, were conducted on a total of 72 specimens (Figure 3-17) obtained from the
retrieved liner samples. Of importance in ASTM F2019 is the requirement for 2-in. wide
specimen cut from the circumferential direction for measuring the liner’s flexural strength and
flexural modulus of elasticity. ASTM D790 requires specimen to be cut from the longitudinal
direction typically ½-in (12.5 mm) wide, but when testing glass fiber reinforced liners; the
testing must be performed according to ASTM F2019. No specific guidelines are listed in ASTM
F2019 to accommodate for the effect of curvature on the specimen cut from the circumferential
direction. The manufacturer stated that with adjustments to the dimensions of curved coupons, it
is possible for curved samples to achieve representative results with flat samples, but such
measures have not been incorporated into the North American consensus standards (Whittle,
2013). All edges of the specimens were smoothed using a grinder and a table router. The
specimens were marked and tested as shown in Figure 3-18.
Figure 3-17. Samples Prepared for Bending Test: Longitudinal (left) and Circumferential (right).
Figure 3-18. Longitudinal (left) and Circumferential (right) Specimen Being Tested.
3-20
The results from the longitudinal flexural testing are shown in Table 3-6 for comparison
to the circumferential results shown in Table 3-7. The average peak bending strength recorded
for all seven longitudinal samples (measured on 37 specimens) was 29,018 psi (200 MPa), which
is more than four times the required 6,500 psi (45 MPa) per ASTM F2019 and more than the
listed 20,000 psi (138 MPa) in the vendor’s literature. The average flexural modulus of elasticity
recorded for all longitudinal samples was 1,477 ksi (10,200 MPa), which is more than twice the
required 725 ksi (5,000 MPa) per ASTM F2019 and more than the listed 1,000 ksi (6,900 MPa)
in the vendor’s literature.
Table 3-6. Results from Flexural Testing for Longitudinal Specimen.
Sample Area,
in2 (mm2) Peak Load,
lbs (kg) Peak Stress,
psi (MPa) Flexural Modulus,
ksi (MPa)
Above Ground Sample
1 0.0013 (0.84) 36.73 (17) 28,524 (197) 2,521 (17,400)
2 0.0012 (0.77) 47.48 (22) 39,567 (273) 2,230 (15,400)
3 0.0015 (0.97) 65.85 (30) 43,900 (303) 2,369 (16,300)
4 0.0015 (0.97) 54.68 (25) 42,062 (290) 1,880 (13,000)
5 0.0013 (0.84) 38.36 (17) 29,508 (203) 1,918 (13,200)
Average 0.0013 (0.84) 48.62 (22) 36,712 (253) 2,183 (15,100)
Sta. Dev. 0.0001 (0.06) 12.06 (5.5) 7,200 (50) 279 (1,900)
Run #1, MH2
1 0.0017 (1.10) 44.68 (20) 26,282 (181) 1,000 (6,900)
2 0.0019 (1.23) 51.79 (23) 27,258 (188) 1,238 (8,500)
3 0.0014 (0.90) 42.87 (19) 30,621 (211) 1,574 (10,900)
4 0.0013 (0.84) 55.97 (25) 43,823 (302) 2,036 (14,000)
5 0.0017 (1.10) 39.76 (18) 23,388 (161) 1,142 (7,900)
6 0.0015 (0.97) 46.55 (21) 31,033 (214) 1,422 (9,800)
Average 0.0016 (1.03) 46.94 (21) 30,401 (210) 1,402 (9,700)
Sta. Dev. 0.0002 (0.13) 5.97 (2.7) 7,783 (54) 371 (2,600)
Run #1, MH3
1 0.0022 (1.42) 31.10 (14) 14,136 (97) 734 (5,100)
2 0.0014 (0.90) 32.36 (15) 23,114 (159) 1,933 (13,300)
3 0.0013 (0.84) 29.25 (13) 22,500 (155) 1,085 (7,500)
4 0.0013 (0.84) 45.13 (20) 34,715 (239) 1,779 (12,300)
Average 0.0016 (1.03) 34.46 (16) 23,616 (163) 1,382 (9,500)
Sta. Dev. 0.0004 (0.26) 7.23 (3.3) 8,457 (58) 568 (3,900)
Run #2, MH3
1 0.0017 (1.10) 50.85 (23) 29,912 (206) 1,393 (9,600)
2 0.0017 (1.10) 23.77 (11) 13,982 (96) 797 (5,500)
3 0.0017 (1.10) 54.46 (25) 32,035 (221) 1,719 (11,900)
4 0.0017 (1.10) 19.76 (9) 11,624 (80) 676 (4,700)
5 0.0017 (1.10) 53.50 (24) 31,471 (217) 1,461 (10,100)
6 0.0017 (1.10) 23.58 (11) 13,871 (96) 442 (3,000)
Average 0.0017 (1.10) 37.65 (17) 22,149 (153) 1,081 (7,500)
Sta. Dev. 0.0000 (0.00) 16.84 (7.6) 9,909 (68) 510 (3,500)
Run #2, MH4
1 0.0016 (1.03) 49.63 (23) 31,019 (214) 1,567 (10,800)
2 0.0019 (1.23) 24.39 (11) 12,837 (89) 674 (4,600)
3 0.0018 (1.16) 65.21 (30) 36,228 (250) 1,422 (9,800)
4 0.0018 (1.16) 49.94 (23) 27,744 (191) 1,515 (10,400)
5 0.0011 (0.71) 55.19 (25) 50,173 (346) 2,672 (18,400)
Average 0.0016 (1.03) 48.87 (22) 31,600 (218) 1,570 (10,800)
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 3-21
Sample Area,
in2 (mm2) Peak Load,
lbs (kg) Peak Stress,
psi (MPa) Flexural Modulus,
ksi (MPa)
Sta. Dev. 0.0003 (0.19) 15.07 (6.8) 13,543 (93) 714 (4,900)
Run #3, MH4
1 0.0012 (0.77) 32.15 (15) 26,792 (185) 1,522 (10,500)
2 0.0015 (0.97) 67.68 (31) 45,120 (311) 1,905 (13,100)
3 0.0014 (0.90) 43.01 (20) 30,721 (212) 1,481 (10,200)
4 0.0012 (0.77) 37.10 (17) 30,917 (213) 2,098 (14,500)
5 0.0014 (0.90) 37.00 (17) 26,429 (182) 1,005 (6,900)
6 0.0013 (0.84) 45.85 (21) 35,269 (243) 1,734 (12,000) Average 0.0013 (0.84) 43.80 (20) 32,541 (224) 1,624 (11,200)
Sta. Dev. 0.0001 (0.06) 12.66 (5.7) 6,957 (48) 382 (2,600)
Run #3, MH5
1 0.0018 (1.16) 47.55 (22) 26,417 (182) 1,269 (8,700)
2 0.0018 (1.16) 35.82 (16) 19,900 (137) 1,076 (7,400)
3 0.0016 (1.03) 21.28 (10) 13,300 (92) 301 (2,100)
4 0.0015 (0.97) 49.97 (23) 33,313 (230) 1,707 (11,800)
5 0.0018 (1.16) 61.51 (28) 34,172 (236) 1,359 (9,400)
Average 0.0017 (1.10) 43.23 (20) 25,420 (175) 1,142 (7,900)
Sta. Dev. 0.0001 (0.06) 15.29 (6.9) 8,905 (61) 523 (3,600)
All 7 Samples
Average 0.0016 (1.03) 43.56 (20) 29,018 (200) 1,477 (10,200)
Sta. Dev. 0.0002 (0.13) 12.76 (5.8) 9,635 (66) 562 (3,900)
The results of the circumferential flexural testing, which is the required test method for a
fiberglass liner, are shown in Table 3-7. The average peak bending strength recorded on all seven
circumferential samples (measured on 35 specimens) was 56 ksi (385 MPa), which is
approximately nine times the required 6,500 psi (45 MPa) per ASTM F2019 and approximately
three times the listed 20,000 psi (138 MPa) in the vendor’s literature. Also, the average flexural
strength of the circumferential samples is approximately twice the strength recorded on
longitudinal samples. This shows the importance of using the correct testing method (i.e., ASTM
F2019 vs. ASTM D790) when testing fiberglass liners. The average flexural modulus recorded
on all circumferential samples was 1,900 ksi (13,100 MPa), which is more than twice the
required 725 ksi (5,000 MPa) per ASTM F2019, and approximately twice the listed 1,000 ksi
(6,900 MPa) in the vendor’s literature. Also, the average flexural modulus of the circumferential
samples is approximately 30% more than the average flexural modulus for the longitudinal
samples, which again highlights the importance of the proper testing method.
Table 3-7. Results from Flexural Testing for Circumferential Specimen.
Sample Area,
in2 (mm2) Peak Load,
lbs (kg) Peak Stress,
psi (MPa) Flexural Modulus,
ksi (MPa)
Above Ground Sample
1 0.00099 (0.64) 651.33 (295) 71,575 (493) 2,348 (16,200)
2 0.00099 (0.64) 662.30 (300) 75,261 (519) 2,492 (17,200)
3 0.00095 (0.61) 661.31 (300) 76,013 (524) 2,403 (16,600)
4 0.00097 (0.63) 584.55 (265) 67,971 (469) 2,095 (14,400)
5 0.00095 (0.61) 652.79 (296) 75,906 (523) 2,403 (16,600)
Average 0.00097 (0.63) 642.46 (291) 73,345 (506) 2,348 (16,200)
Sta. Dev. 0.00002 (0.01) 32.74 (15) 3,513 (24) 151 (1,000)
Run #1, MH2
3-22
Sample Area,
in2 (mm2) Peak Load,
lbs (kg) Peak Stress,
psi (MPa) Flexural Modulus,
ksi (MPa)
1 0.0132 (8.52) 658.21 (299) 49,864 (344) 1,566 (10,800)
2 0.0124 (8.00) 412.40 (187) 33,258 (229 1,294 (8,900)
3 0.0108 (6.97) 626.90 (284) 58,046 (400) 2,018 (13,900)
4 0.0133 (8.58) 827.05 (375) 62,184 (429) 1,977 (13,600)
5 0.0089 (5.74) 262.99 (119) 29,549 (204) 1,213 (8,400)
Average 0.0117 (7.55) 557.51 (253) 46,580 (321) 1,614 (11,100)
Sta. Dev. 0.0019 (1.23) 221.02 (100) 14,605 (101) 374 (2,600)
Run #1, MH3
1 0.0065 (4.19) 294.63 (134) 45,328 (313) 2,617 (18,000)
2 0.0080 (5.16) 274.39 (124) 34,299 (236) 1,592 (11,000)
3 0.0071 (4.58) 432.56 (196) 60,924 (420) 2,615 (18,000)
4 0.0099 (6.39) 417.43 (189) 42,165 (291) 1,683 (11,600)
5 0.0070 (4.52) 280.95 (127) 40,136 (277) 2,038 (14,100)
Average 0.0077 (4.97) 339.99 (154) 44,570 (307) 2,109 (14,500)
Sta. Dev. 0.0013 (0.84) 78.12 (35) 9,987 (69) 492 (3,400)
Run #2, MH3
1 0.0082 (5.29) 703.20 (319) 85,756 (591) 3,122 (21,500)
2 0.0096 (6.19) 656.52 (298) 68,388 (472) 2,659 (18,300)
3 0.0093 (6.00) 548.49 (249) 58,977 (407) 2,062 (14,200)
4 0.0105 (6.77) 549.15 (249) 52,300 (361) 1,868 (12,900)
5 0.0071 (4.58) 417.55 (189) 58,810 (405) 2,387 (16,500)
Average 0.0089 (5.74) 574.98 (261) 68,846 (475) 2,420 (16,700)
Sta. Dev. 0.0013 (0.84) 110.95 (50) 13,020 (90) 496 (3,400)
Run #2, MH4
1 0.0123 (7.94) 517.78 (235) 42,096 (290) 1,151 (7,900)
2 0.0146 (9.42) 652.41 (296) 44,686 (308) 1,044 (7,200)
3 0.0119 (7.68) 643.77 (292) 54,098 (373) 1,568 (10,800)
4 0.0108 (6.97) 602.47 (273) 55,784 (385) 1,669 (11,500)
5 0.0113 (7.29) 840.47 (381) 74,378 (513) 1,999 (13,800)
Average 0.0122 (7.87) 651.38 (295) 54,208 (374) 1,486 (10,200)
Sta. Dev. 0.0015 (0.97) 118.38 (54) 12,715 (88) 391 (2,700)
Run #3, MH4
1 0.0122 (7.87) 623.32 (283) 51,092 (352) 1,379 (9,500)
2 0.0103 (6.65) 556.51 (252) 54,030 (373) 1,870 (12,900)
3 0.0105 (6.77) 709.70 (322) 67,590 (466) 1,979 (13,600)
4 0.0107 (6.90) 662.84 (301) 61,948 (427) 1,803 (12,400)
5 0.0145 (9.35) 654.26 (297) 45,121 (311) 1,338 (9,200)
Average 0.0116 (7.48) 641.33 (291) 55,956 (386) 1,674 (11,500)
Sta. Dev. 0.0018 (1.16) 56.62 (26) 8,888 (61) 295 (2,000)
Run #3, MH5
1 0.0090 (5.81) 525.96 (239) 58,440 (403) 2,026 (14,000)
2 0.0104 (6.71) 493.98 (224) 47,498 (327) 1,064 (7,300)
3 0.0106 (6.84) 593.01 (269) 55,944 (386) 1,528 (10,500)
4 0.0083 (5.35) 444.21 (201) 53,519 (369) 1,906 (13,100)
5 0.0085 (5.48) 573.88 (260) 67,515 (465) 1,955 (13,500)
Average 0.0094 (6.06) 526.21 (239) 56,583 (390) 1,696 (11,700)
Sta. Dev. 0.0011 (0.71) 60.21 (27) 7,336 (51) 402 (2,800)
All 7 Samples
Average 0.0089 (5.74) 561.98 (255) 56,584 (390) 1,907 (13,100)
Sta. Dev. 0.0039 (2.52) 144.94 (66) 13,456 (93) 500 (3,400)
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 3-23
3.4.4.5 Hardness Testing
The Durometer (Shore D) hardness test (ASTM D2240, 2005) is used to determine the
relative hardness of soft materials, such as thermoplastic and thermosetting materials. This test
measures the penetration of a specified indenter into the subject material under predetermined
force and time. The Shore D hardness scale utilizes a weight of 10 lb (4.5 kg), a tip diameter of
0.1 mm (0.004), and an angle of 35°. A total of more than 600 readings were taken on the inner
and outer side of 1 in x 1 in (25 mm x 25 mm) samples (Figure 3-19). The average recorded
values of hardness are shown in Table 3-8.
Figure 3-19. Specimen for Shore D Hardness Test (left) and a Shore D Hardness Tester (right).
Table 3-8. Results from Hardness Testing.
Samples No. of Samples Average Inside Average Outside
Above Ground 25 70.5 61.9
Run 1, MH2 25 70.1 63.6
Run 1, MH3 24 71.0 64.9
Run 2, MH3 25 74.1 61.5
Run 2, MH4 25 70.7 59.7
Run 3, MH4 25 69.9 67.1
Run 3, MH5 24 70.6 70.5
Average 71.0 64.2
Sta. Dev. 1.4 3.7
Average hardness of the samples on the inner surfaces was found to be 71.0, while on the
outer surface it was 64.2. The outer surface of the samples had a thin felt layer with observed
minuscule perforations, which may have led to the lower hardness values. For interpretation of
the results, a Shore D hardness scale value of 64 represents the hardness of an HDPE pipe and a
value of 85 represents the hardness of a PVC pipe (O’Rourke et al., 1990).
3-24
3.4.4.6 Water Tightness
A water tightness or leak test was performed according to the Working Group of Liner
Testing Institutes in Germany or APS (2004) method (see Appendix). This method is used in
Germany to test water tightness of all UV-cured CIPP materials annually (see
www.ikt.de/english/publications.html). Eight 1.77 in (45 mm) ± 0.06 in (1.5 mm) diameter
specimens were extracted from the liner oriented along the longitudinal direction to minimize
effect of curvature (see Figure 3-20). Out of the eight, five specimens were tested.
Figure 3-20. Samples for Water Tightness.
A manually operated suction pump was connected to a cup where the samples were
placed with the concave side being the outside. A negative pressure gauge was attached to the
tube using a T-connection. The periphery of the samples was sealed using silicon and colored
(red) water was poured on top of the sample (see Figure 3-21).
Figure 3-21. Water Tightness Testing.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 3-25
When vacuum pressure was applied for 30 minutes, it was found that the samples were
holding 7.25 psi (50 kPa) suction pressure. The tests showed no evidence of leaks on the
samples; however, when magnified 200X under a digital microscope, presence of infinitesimal
red spots on the opposite side were revealed (see Figure 3-22), which is considered passing.
Figure 3-22. Red Spots Seen Under Digital Microscope.
3.4.4.7 Ovality
To accurately map any deformation inside the liner, a profile plotter was used (Figure
3-23). The system features a linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT) connected to a
motor-gear system that rotates around the inner circumference of the liner. An encoder system
provides position information regarding the location around the pipe at which the data are taken.
The liner was inside the PVC host pipe while the measurements were taken to ensure that the
liner center is aligned with the measuring device. Next, the profile plotter was aligned with the
center of the UV-cured CIPP liner tube. Continuous readings were taken around the
circumference of three cross-sections spaced 1 in. apart and averaged. Finally, the raw data were
adjusted using MATLAB software to obtain the profile.
Figure 3-23. Ovality Testing.
Red Spot
Red Spot
3-26
The liner was found to be approximately circular (Figure 3-24, green line) with reference
to its center. The mean and minimum diameters were found to be 9.47 in (241 mm) and 9.44 in
(240 mm), respectively, and the percent ovality based on the ovality definition in ASTM F1216
was found to be 0.25%.
Figure 3-24. Ovality Results.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 3-27
3.4.4.8 Buckling Pressure Testing
The above ground liner was taken out of the host pipe and a 24-in (600 mm) long section
was cut out and inserted into a steel host section. Two 3/8-in (9.5 mm) threaded holes were
drilled on the opposite sides of the steel tube where quick connectors were attached to allow
attaching the pressure application system (see Figure 3-25). The liner was manually pushed into
the tube and a pipe joint lubricant was applied to the inside of the tube to aid the sliding of the
liner.
Figure 3-25. Threaded Hole (left) and Pressure System (right) for Buckling Test.
Next, two specially designed open-ended conical steel caps were placed at the both ends
of the steel tube. The annular space between the tube and the caps was filled with polyureas and
the caps were held against each end of the pipe specimen using threaded rods. The steel end caps
were designed to ensure the annular space between the inner wall of the pipe and outer wall of
the liner were sealed. A digital pressure gauge was connected to one of the threaded holes at the
top, while the bottom hole was plugged with a quick connector for applying water pressure
(Figure 3-26). The nitrogen gas assisted pressure bladder system was used to convert normal
water supply pressure to elevated water pressure for the testing. The annulus pressure went up to
66 psi (455 kPa) before a leak was observed on the liner (Figure 3-26). This pressure is
equivalent to 152 ft (46 m) of head, which is greater than the buckling strength of conventional
CIPP materials (Omara et al., 2000). It should be noted that this is a non-standard procedure for
obtaining a buckling pressure value that is used when the host pipe cannot be removed intact;
however, the test results are consistent with other buckling tests (see Zhao et al., 2005). If a lined
host pipe had been tested, it is assumed that the annular gap would have been much smaller and
resulted in a higher buckling pressure.
Threaded Hole
3-28
Figure 3-26. Pressure Gauge (left) and Leak at 66 psi or 455 kPa (right).
3.4.4.9 Performance Summary
Table 3-9 summarizes the test results for the testing of the Reline America Blue-Tek™
liner used in the Frisco demonstration compared with the minimum design values.
Table 3-9. Summary of Test Data.
Test Suggested
Specification Design
Avg. Lab Value
Liner Thickness, mm (in) 3.5 (0.138) 3.5 (0.138) 3.85 (0.151)
Pipe/Liner Ovality, % N/A 3.0 0.25
Tensile Strength, psi (MPa) 20,000 (138) 9,000 (62) 21,371 (147)
Flexural Strength (longitudinal), psi (MPa) 20,000 (138) 6,500 (45) 29,018 (200)
Flexural Strength (circumferential), psi (MPa) 20,000 (138) 6,500 (45) 56,584 (385)
Flexural Modulus (longitudinal), ksi (MPa) 1,000 (6,900) 725 (5,000) 1,477 (10,200)
Flexural Modulus (circumferential), ksi (MPa) 1,000 (6,900) 725 (5,000) 1,907 (13,100)
Inner/Outer Hardness, Shore D N/A N/A 71.0/64.2
Water Tightness Pass N/A Passed
Buckling Pressure, psi (kPa) N/A N/A 66 (455)
Specific Gravity N/A N/A 1.46
The critical measurements of average thickness, tensile strength, flexural strength, and
flexural modulus values of the final product exceeded the design and suggested specification of
the manufacturer. It is important to note that the flexural strength and modulus exceeded the
design strength when the test samples are obtained from the longitudinal direction according to
ASTM F1216, but this method should not be used with glass liners. The proper method is to cut
samples from the circumferential direction for fiberglass liners (per ASTM F2019) to a minimum
width of 2 in (50 mm) to ensure the fibers have not been disturbed in the sampling. Testing a
wider, curved sample in the circumferential direction is more challenging for the lab, but is more
representative of the true hoop strength of the liner. The manufacturer’s design values and the
field verification testing should, therefore, be completed with circumferential samples (as per
ASTM F2019) rather than longitudinal samples (as per ASTM F1216).
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 3-29
3.4.5 Technology Cost
The costs for the Frisco demonstration and associated activities are documented in Table
3-10. In all, the demonstration resulted in a discounted cost of $39,194 for the 888 ft (271 m) test
section (which was bid for an 836 ft or 255 m test section) with a unit cost of $44.14/lf
($144.63/lm) or $4.41/lf/in of diameter ($0.58/lm/mm of diameter). If non-discounted unit rates
were applied to the actual lining length (i.e., 888 ft or 271 m vs, 836 ft or 255 m) and durations
(i.e., 3 days vs. 2 days), the total demonstration cost would have been approximately $57,700
with a unit cost of $64.98/lf ($212.92/lm) or $6.50/lf/in of diameter ($0.85/lm/mm of diameter),
which is within the typical range of CIPP and generally less than a comparable open-cut project
(Simicevic and Sterling, 2003).
Table 3-10. Cost Summary.
Cost Item Units Unit Price Cost
Setup bypass pipes (4 in dia.) 836 lf $2.00 $1,672.00
Setup bypass pumps 2 $300.00 $600.00
Bypass Operation 2 Days $700.00 $1,400.00
Pre-Lining CCTV Clean and Video 836 lf $1.00 $836.00
Post-Lining CCTV Video 836 lf $1.00 $836.00
Mobilization Total $2,500.00 $2,500.00
UV-Cured Liner (10 in dia. x 2.8 mm) 836 lf $33.50 $28,006.00
UV-Cured Liner (Additional 0.7 mm) 836 lf $4.00 $3,344.00
Total $39,194.00
3.4.6 Technology Environmental Impact
Since, access pits and surface restoration were not required for this demonstration and the
use of heavy equipment was not a major factor, the project’s CO2 equivalent emissions compared
to conventional methods were not calculated. Among the tools available to show the benefits of
similar rehabilitation and replacement technologies are the e-Calc tool (Sihabuddin and
Ariaratnam, 2009). Previous estimates using e-Calc by U.S. EPA (2012c) for a project of this
length (i.e., ~900 ft or 275 m) are approximately 800 lbs (360 kg) of CO2 for bypass piping and
2,200 lbs (1,000 kg) of CO2 for a thermal cure lining. These values are in comparison to an open-
cut project that would result in nearly 23,000 lbs (10,430 kg) of CO2 emission, i.e., 1,000 lbs
(450 kg) for bypass, 6,000 lbs (2,720 kg) for pipe laying, and 16,000 lbs (7,260 kg) for surface
restoration. Therefore the lining project would result in a CO2 emission reduction of 20,000 lbs
(9,070 kg) or 87%. Note that CO2 emissions with UV-cured CIPP methods are expected to be
even lower without emissions from a boiler truck or steam generator.
3.5 Conclusions
The demonstration of the Reline America Blue-Tek™ liner in Frisco, Texas was a
successful project that provided valuable information on the design, installation, and QA/QC for
UV-cured CIPP used to rehabilitate wastewater mains. The final product exceeded the design
and suggested specification of the manufacturer in all critical measurements (i.e., average
thickness, tensile strength, flexural strength, and flexural modulus). One key take away is the
importance of using the proper test method when evaluating the liner’s structural properties.
While traditional CIPP liners are tested to ASTM D790, fiberglass liners must be tested
3-30
according to ASTM F2019, specifically the width of the sample (i.e., 2 in or 50 mm wide vs. ½
in or 12.5 mm wide) and the orientation of the prepared specimen (i.e., the specimen must be cut
in the circumferential or hoop direction as it is designed and not in longitudinal direction in order
to not cut through the fiberglass reinforcement). Table 3-11 summarizes the overall conclusions
for each metric used to evaluate the technology.
Table 3-11. Technology Evaluation Metrics Conclusions.
Technology Maturity Metrics
Emerging technology used for nearly seven years in the U.S.
More than 1,000,000 lf (305 km) installed in North America.
Liner manufacturing process is highly quality controlled.
Technology Feasibility Metrics
Project required a structural rehabilitation and the liner met the rehabilitation requirements.
Not installed through any challenging configurations except for varied host pipe size.
Incomplete and/or premature curing of the liner was not evident during installation or inspection.
Technology Complexity Metrics
Beneficial for small, medium, and large utilities in need of structural alternatives to open cut replacement.
Requires certified installers (pre/post-installation activities can be performed with typical utility staff).
Required site preparation similar to other rehabilitation technology requirements.
Project duration lasted three days for bypass, cleaning, lining, and pressure testing.
Technology Performance Metrics
Testing showed that the liner exceeded the design and manufacturers suggested requirements.
Flexural strength was greater than 56 ksi (385 MPa) and the flexural modulus was greater than 1,900 ksi (13,100 MPa).
Passed water tightness and pressure testing.
Technology Cost Metrics
The overall discounted project demonstration cost was $39,194 for a unit cost of $44.14/lf ($144.63/lm) or $4.41/lf/in of diameter ($0.58/lm/mm of diameter).
The overall non-discounted cost would have been nearly $57,700 for a unit cost of $64.98/lf ($212.92/lm) or $6.50/lf/in of diameter ($0.85/lm/mm of diameter).
The non-discounted cost for the UV-cured CIPP liner only was $40,848 for a unit cost of $46.00/lf ($150.73/lm) or $4.60/lf/in of diameter ($0.60/lm/mm of diameter).
Technology, Environmental and Social Metrics
Social disruption was minimal since traffic was not greatly affected and there were no excavations.
A comparable heat cured CIPP project would produce an estimated 3,000 lbs (1,360 kg) of CO2 emissions for bypass and lining operations.
A replacement project would have produced an estimated 23,000 lbs (10,400 kg) for open-cut pipe laying and restoration.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 4-1
CHAPTER 4.0
LARGE-DIAMETER WC-CIPP DEMONSTRATION
This chapter outlines the activities involved with the large-diameter WC-CIPP lining
field demonstration for TRA and evaluation, including site preparation, technology application,
post-demonstration verification, and sample collection and testing.
4.1 Site Preparation
This demonstration was part of a larger project and our efforts were focused on one lining
run (i.e., Segment 3 of 9). The large project included more than 17,200 lf (5,243 m) of lining
over nine segments. To successfully execute the demonstration, the pipe was taken out of service
and pre-lining inspection using a laser profiler and cleaning was performed. Bypass piping was
not required since an existing 104-in. parallel interceptor was used to divert flows during the
project.
It should be noted that had the parallel not been available, significant bypass piping
would have been required. The bypass avoidance is limited by the average daily flow capacity of
the existing 104-in. pipe. This bypass avoidance would not have been possible during wet
weather flows as shown in Figure 4-1 since the combined peak flows of 190 million gallons per
day (MGD) or 719,228 cubic meters per day (CMD) would have exceeded the capacity of the
104-in (2,600 mm) pipe (i.e., 109 MGD or 412,610 CMD).
Figure 4-1. Wet Weather Flow Capacity.
4-2
4.1.1 Safety and Logistics
The demonstration was completed in six days from positioning the equipment to the liner
cool down. The research team had one staff member onsite for the majority of the activities and
maintained constant coordination with the contractor. Level D personal protective equipment,
including hard hats, gloves, safety glasses, steel-toed shoes, and safety vests, were required for
all site visitors. There was also a safety trailer onsite continually equipped with first aid, safety
gear, etc.
4.1.2 Pre-Lining Inspection and Cleaning
For proper installation of the WC-CIPP liner, effective cleaning and accurate
measurement of the diameter of the host pipe were required. Table 4-1 provides the laser
profiling data for Segment 3 of 9, which was 1,495 ft (456 m) long, with the lower 780 ft (238
m) serving as the demonstration shot. The contractor was intentionally limited to single WC-
CIPP installation shots less than 1,200 lf (366 lm). This was the result of this study, which
identified greater prevalence of flexural cracking when lengths exceeding 1,200 lf (366 lm) were
deployed on large diameter WC-CIPP (Matthews et al., 2012). The upper portion of Segment 3
of 9 was lined prior to the demonstration and the two installation shots overlapped in the center
of the segment. The average cross-sectional loss of concrete for this section was 0.575 square
feet (sf) (0.053 square meters (sm)) and the average diameter of the host pipe was 97.09 in
(2,466 mm).
Table 4-1. Measured Data for Segment 3 of 9.
Station Distance from MH, ft (m)
Concrete Loss, sf (sm)
Avg. Diameter, in (mm)
Ovality, %
134+00.00 (Upstream)
133+65.16 35 (11) 0.568 (0.053) 97.08 (2,466) 0.27
132+69.33 131 (40) 0.564 (0.052) 97.07 (2,466) 0.12
131+65.47 235 (72) 0.476 (0.044) 96.91 (2,462) 0.17
130+62.65 337 (103) 0.360 (0.033) 96.69 (2,456) 0.37
129+62.41 438 (134) 0.709 (0.066) 97.35 (2,473) 0.47
128+65.56 534 (163) 0.751 (0.070) 97.42 (2,474) 0.50
127+63.19 637 (194) 0.672 (0.062) 97.28 (2,471) 0.58
126+65.22 735 (224) 0.716 (0.067) 97.36 (2,473) 0.45
125+65.60 834 (254) 0.643 (0.060) 97.22 (2,469) 0.54
124+61.29 939 (286) 0.683 (0.063) 97.29 (2,471) 0.28
123+63.29 1,037 (316) 0.802 (0.075) 97.52 (2,477) 0.66
122+64.24 1,136 (346) 0.876 (0.081) 97.66 (2,481) 0.59
121+63.25 1,237 (377) 0.361 (0.034) 96.69 (2,456) 0.75
120+67.02 1,333 (406) 0.491 (0.046) 96.93 (2,462) 0.28
119+64.91 1,435 (437) 0.182 (0.017) 96.35 (2,447) 0.97
119+05.44 (Downstream) 1,495 (456) 0.348 (0.032) 96.66 (2,455) 0.00
Average 0.575 (0.053) 97.09 (2,466) 0.44
Cleaning of the test section took place on Monday and Tuesday, November 26th
and 27th
,
2012 using pressure washers and included debris removal. Any I/I locations detected during the
CCTV inspection were repaired prior to lining.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 4-3
4.2 Technology Application
The large-diameter WC-CIPP lining of the lower portion of Segment 3 of 9 (i.e., the test
section) took place between November 27th
and December 1st, 2012. The lining process involved
three main activities: wetting out or impregnating the liner over the hole, inverting the liner into
the host pipe, and curing and cooling the liner. The liners were inverted through either existing
MHs that were replaced after the lining or new MHs to be installed post-lining that were held in
place with concrete (Figure 4-2). The new MHs locations required large access pits. The access
pits for the test section were approximately 24 ft (7.3 m) deep x 18 ft (5.5 m) long x 14 ft (4.3)
wide. The lining crew worked around the clock in 12 hour shifts and each crew had four crew
members including the foreman.
Figure 4-2. New MH Insert.
4.2.1 Liner Wetout
Due to the size of the liner and the weight of the resin, the liners are impregnated or
wetout with resin on-site. The resin is pumped from tankers that can hold up to 24,000 liters
(6,330 gallons) at a time (Figure 4-3). These tankers weigh approximately 67,000 lbs (30,400 kg)
each when full of resin. The resin pumping is controlled from the mixing trailer (right side of
Figure 4-3). For this project of 780 ft (238 m) of lining, approximately three resin tankers were
used and the resin was pumped in the order of 18,000 to 20,000 lbs (8,200 to 9,100 kg) slugs at a
time (Figure 4-4).
The wetout began at 10:00 pm on Tuesday, November 27th
, 2012. Prior to inverting the
liner, hydrophilic end seals were set at each end of the liner. At the upstream end, approximately
4-4
60 ft (18 m) of liner, where the overlap between the upper and lower portions of Segment 3 of 9
would occur, was prepared with a release agent to allow for cutting out and removing the cured
end. Any large fins or folds were also cut down at that location.
The liner was pulled into the wetout tent from a tractor trailer to initiate the wetout
process (Figure 4-5). In the wetout tent, the liner was pumped with resin, which was distributed
into the liner through a set of rollers (Figure 4-6). The liner had nine layers of sewn felt and two
layers of glass reinforcement, which overlap at the 12:00 o’clock position in the liners (Figure
4-7) that when cured measured 36.5 mm (1.44 in) in thickness. The liner has a manufacturing lead
time of approximately four weeks for large-diameter glass reinforced liners.
Figure 4-3. Resin Tanker (left) and Mixing Trailer (right).
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 4-5
Figure 4-4. Resin Slug Being Pumped in the Liner.
Figure 4-5. Liner Being Pulled into Wetout Tent.
4-6
Figure 4-6. Rollers That Distribute the Resin.
Figure 4-7. Felt and Glass Reinforcement Layers.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 4-7
4.2.2 Liner Inversion
The water pressure inversion began at 2:00 am on Wednesday, November 28th
, 2012
(Figures 4-8 and 4-9) and took approximately 36 hours to complete (i.e., 2:00 pm Thursday,
November 29th
, 2012).
Figure 4-8. Starting Inversion.
Figure 4-9. Ongoing Inversion.
4-8
4.2.3 Liner Curing and Cooling
During curing, the temperature was measured with the Zia system (Giddens et al., 2011)
which uses a fiber optic cable to measure the temperature at 6-in (150 mm) intervals every 30
seconds. The readings can be shared through cell phone apps and monitored remotely so that all
project stakeholders can monitor the progress in real time. The readings were taken until 6:00 pm
Wednesday when the system stopped working, which was reported to have occurred on other
shots as well. The contractor had installed a set of thermocouples as well and those were used to
monitor the temperature during the remaining cure cycle. The readings from the Zia system are
shown in Figure 4-10, which started around 56°F (13°C) when the inversion began and reached
75°F (24°C) around 6:00 pm on Wednesday, November 28th
, 2012, before curing began.
Figure 4-10. Temperature from Sensor.
The cure required a minimum water head of 7.9 ft (2.4 m) with a recommended head of
10.1 ft (3.1 m), which is equivalent to a minimum pressure of 3.4 psi (23 kPa) and recommended
pressure of 4.4 psi (30 kPa) at the inversion face of the liner. The curing process began by
starting the boilers at 1:00 am on Friday, November 30th
, 2012, which continued 22 hours to
completion (Table 4-2), and it required 7-hrs of lead time once the far end water temperature
reached 180°F (82°C). After the hot water cure, the cool down began at 11:00 pm and took 24
hours to complete (i.e., 11:00 pm Saturday, December 1st, 2012). A summary of the durations for
each major activity is shown in Table 4-3.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 4-9
Table 4-2. Cure Log.
Time Far End Water Temp., °F (°C)
Pump Pressure, psi (kPa)
01:00 AM (Boilers started)
02:00 AM 96 (36) 28 (193)
03:00 AM 98 (37) 28 (193)
04:00 AM 103 (39) 28 (193)
05:00 AM 109 (43) 26 (179)
06:00 AM 115 (46) 26 (179)
07:00 AM 122 (50) 24 (165)
08:00 AM 130 (54) 24 (165)
09:00 AM 138 (59) 24 (165)
10:00 AM 146 (63) 24 (165)
11:00 AM 155 (68) 20 (138)
12:00 PM 155 (68) 10 (69)
01:00 PM 165 (74) 8 (55)
02:00 PM 170 (77) 8 (55)
03:00 PM 177 (81) 14 (97)
04:00 PM (7-hrs. required to complete the curing process)
185 (85)
14 (97)
05:00 PM 189 (87) 14 (97)
06:00 PM 190 (88) 14 (97)
07:00 PM 196 (91) 12 (83)
08:00 PM 198 (92) 10 (69)
09:00 PM 198 (92) 10 (69)
10:00 PM 199 (93) 9 (62)
11:00 PM (Cool down started) 198 (92) 9 (62)
Table 4-3. Lining Summary.
Activity Date Approximate Duration
Cleaning Nov. 26-27, 2012 36 hours
Liner Wetout Nov. 27-28, 2012 18 hours*
Liner Inversion Nov. 28-29, 2012 36 hours
Liner Curing Nov. 30, 2012 22 hours
Liner Cooling Nov. 30-Dec. 1, 2012 24 hours * Continues during first half of inversion
4-10
4.3 Post-Lining CCTV
The post-lining visual inspection provided an assessment of the quality of the liner and
the overlapping sections. The liner was shown to be in good condition (Figure 4-11) and the
overlapping sections were shown to be very tight against each other (Figure 4-12).
Figure 4-11. Post-Lining Walk Through Inspection.
Figure 4-12. Post-Lining Inspection of the Overlap.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 4-11
4.4 Demonstration Results
This section presents the results of the demonstration including a detailed evaluation of
the technology based on the evaluation metrics defined in Table 2-1.
4.4.1 Technology Maturity
The Insituform iPlus® Composite product is classified as emerging in terms of maturity
based on its usage and supporting performance data. CIPP technology has been successfully used
for rehabilitation of wastewater mains for more than 40 years; however, 96-in (2,400 mm) and
above installations are rare as well as the use of reinforced liners in these applications. Even rarer
are installation shots of 750 ft (230 m) or longer. The TRA project had 17 total installation shots
greater than 750 ft (230 m). Only one project has been documented that had an installation shot
this long, and it was a 1,400 ft (425 m) shot that was successfully installed in 2009 (Osborn,
2011).
4.4.2 Technology Feasibility
The Insituform iPlus® Composite liner is marketed as a liner capable of providing a
structural solution for renewing large-diameter wastewater mains. The structural performance of
the liner is discussed in Section 4.4.4, and shows that the installed product was considered
applicable to the rehabilitation requirements of this demonstration. The only challenging pipe
configuration encountered was related to the slightly varied inner pipe diameter, i.e., less than
1 in (25 mm) over the 96 in (2,400 mm) diameter, which did not seem to cause any issues for the
liner installation. Anticipated failure modes considered included incomplete curing of the liner,
which was not evident during the installation and curing process or during post-installation
inspections.
4.4.3 Technology Complexity
The use of reinforced WC-CIPP liners for large-diameter wastewater mains is a
comparable alternative to open-cut replacement and other rehabilitation systems, particularly
where surface usage of the pipeline route must remain in service. Reinforced WC-CIPP liners
offer a comparable level of renewal as other CIPP and grout-in-place systems, with the benefit of
thinner wall thicknesses due to the reinforcement provided by the glass fibers. Also, the access
requirements of reinforced WC-CIPP are similar to other CIPP applications; therefore, this
technology is considered beneficial for small, medium, and large utilities already using
conventional CIPP and other rehabilitation systems.
This product must be installed by licensed contractors who have been trained to install
the liner. The liner cannot be installed by personnel not trained to install the specific technology,
which is common for the majority of rehabilitation technologies. The technology’s effect on
traffic flow is typical of other large-diameter rehabilitation systems. Traffic was not an issue at
this remote site; however, access by large tractor trailer trucks was challenged by the native soils
of the floodplain of the adjacent Elm Fork of the Trinity River. Also, there were protected trees
lining the access road. There was also the ongoing potential of river flooding; therefore an
emergency evacuation was planned as a contingency. A real-time weather monitoring system
was developed for the contractor’s use during installation to reduce the risk of interruption to an
inversion.
4-12
The contractor had a crew of four men for each shift: one foreman and three laborers. The
total 780 ft (238 m) of lining was completed over the course of five days. The test pipe was taken
out of service for the duration of the project and flows were diverted into a parallel 104-in (2,600
mm) interceptor. The installation process has been optimized and scaled up of over the past 40+
years of installation history of inverted CIPP. The liner manufacturer process is quality
controlled during wetout, inversion, and curing with constant QC checks in the field.
4.4.4 Technology Performance
Technology performance was evaluated in the lab on samples collected from 15 of the 19
lining shots, not just the test section from Segment 3 of 9. Table 4-4 presents the results of the
laboratory testing used to evaluate the manufacturer-stated performance versus actual liner
performance. The flexure tests on all the samples were performed in accordance with ASTM
D790 on flat plate samples (Figure 4-13). The test samples were cut with a table saw and tested
as shown in Figure 4-14.
Figure 4-13. Flat Plate Samples.
Figure 4-14. Flexural Testing.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 4-13
The thicknesses shown in Table 4-4 do not include the inner coating. The average
thickness of the test segment (Shot #7) was 35.1 mm (1.38 mm). Overall, the average thickness
was 35.0 mm (1.38 in) and the average peak strength was 11,648 psi (75 MPa), which is more
than 2.5 times the required 4,500 psi (31 MPa) per ASTM F1216 and in the vendor’s literature,
which is also 4,500 psi (31 MPa). The average short-term flexural modulus of the liner was
1,000 ksi (6,900 MPa), which is four times the required 250 ksi (1,700 MPa) per ASTM F1216
and more than the listed 750 ksi (5,200 MPa) design strength.
Table 4-4. Results from TRA Demonstration.
Sample Thickness, mm (in.)*
Peak Load, lbs (kg)
Peak Stress, psi (MPa)
Short-Term Flexural Modulus, ksi (MPa)
Shot #2
1 34.3 (1.35) 841 (381) 10,851 (75) 969 (6,700)
2 34.8 (1.37) 1,070 (485) 13,565 (94) 988 (6,800)
3 34.8 (1.37) 1,048 (475) 13,327 (92) 1,008 (7,000)
4 34.8 (1.37) 1,044 (474) 13,311 (92) 1,020 (7,000)
5 34.3 (1.35) 1,035 (469) 13,311 (92) 1,021 (7,000)
Average 34.5 (1.36) 1,008 (457) 12,873 (89) 1,001 (6,900)
Sta. Dev. 0.25 (0.01) 94 (43) 1,135 (8) 22 (200)
Shot #3
1 34.8 (1.37) 822 (373) 13,438 (93) 1,020 (7,000)
2 34.5 (1.36) 1,054 (478) 13,763 (95) 1,074 (7,400)
3 34.8 (1.37) 1,081 (490) 13,814 (95) 1,076 (7,400)
4 34.5 (1.36) 1,119 (508) 14,639 (101) 1,150 (7,900)
5 34.5 (1.36) 1,043 (473) 13,607 (94) 1,078 (7,400)
Average 34.5 (1.36) 1,024 (464) 13,852 (96) 1,080 (7,400)
Sta. Dev. 0.25 (0.01) 117 (53) 464 (3) 46 (300)
Shot #4
1 34.0 (1.34) 912 (414) 12,226 (84) 966 (6,700)
2 34.3 (1.35) 902 (409) 12,051 (83) 952 (6,600)
3 34.0 (1.34) 899 (408) 12,191 (84) 968 (6,700)
4 33.8 (1.33) 889 (403) 12,314 (85) 987 (6,800)
5 33.5 (1.32) 870 (395) 12,034 (83) 1,013 (7,000)
Average 34.0 (1.34) 894 (406) 12,163 (84) 977 (6,700)
Sta. Dev. 0.25 (0.01) 16 (7) 119 (1) 24 (200)
Shot #5
1 34.3 (1.35) 929 (421) 12,318 (85) 1,007 (6,900)
2 34.5 (1.36) 929 (421) 12,063 (83) 982 (6,800)
3 34.3 (1.35) 932 (423) 12,188 (84) 1,001 (6,900)
4 34.5 (1.36) 947 (430) 12,286 (85) 994 (6,900)
5 34.0 (1.34) 909 (412) 12,089 (83) 994 (6,900)
Average 34.3 (1.35) 929 (421) 12,189 (84) 996 (6,900)
Sta. Dev. 0.25 (0.01) 14 (6) 114 (1) 9 (100)
Shot #6
1 34.3 (1.35) 972 (441) 12,814 (88) 1,019 (7,000)
2 34.3 (1.35) 1,020 (463) 13,452 (93) 1,048 (7,200)
3 34.5 (1.36) 1,049 (476) 13,608 (94) 1,057 (7,300)
4 34.3 (1.35) 1,053 (478) 13,865 (96) 1,069 (7,400)
5 34.0 (1.34) 965 (438) 12,941 (89) 1,007 (6,900)
Average 34.3 (1.35) 1,012 (459) 13,336 (92) 1,040 (7,200)
Sta. Dev. 0.25 (0.01) 42 (19) 446 (3) 26 (200)
Shot #7 (Test Section)
1 34.0 (1.34) 1,034 (469) 13,235 (91) 1,021 (7,000)
4-14
Sample Thickness, mm (in.)*
Peak Load, lbs (kg)
Peak Stress, psi (MPa)
Short-Term Flexural Modulus, ksi (MPa)
2 34.8 (1.37) 1,062 (482) 13,627 (94) 1,045 (7,200)
3 34.5 (1.36) 1,048 (475) 13,510 (93) 1,056 (7,300)
4 34.5 (1.36) 1,066 (484) 13,913 (96) 1,076 (7,400)
5 34.3 (1.35) 1,038 (471) 13,769 (95) 1,056 (7,300)
Average 34.5 (1.36) 1,050 (476) 13,611 (94) 1,051 (7,200)
Sta. Dev. 0.25 (0.01) 14 (6) 259 (2) 20 (100)
Shot #8
1 34.5 (1.36) 833 (378) 10,642 (73) 1,011 (7,000)
2 34.8 (1.37) 874 (396) 11,158 (77) 1,058 (7,300)
3 34.8 (1.37) 864 (392) 10,884 (75) 1,040 (7,200)
4 34.8 (1.37) 862 (391) 10,666 (74) 1,011 (7,000)
5 34.3 (1.35) 781 (354) 10,305 (71) 992 (6,800)
Average 34.5 (1.36) 843 (382) 10,731 (74) 1,022 (7,000)
Sta. Dev. 0.25 (0.01) 38 (17) 316 (2) 26 (200)
Shot #9
1 34.8 (1.37) 765 (347) 9,782 (67) 943 (6,500)
2 35.0 (1.38) 833 (378) 10,116 (70) 970 (6,700)
3 35.0 (1.38) 818 (371) 10,017 (69) 941 (6,500)
4 35.0 (1.38) 831 (377) 10,193 (70) 978 (6,700)
5 35.0 (1.38) 829 (376) 10,135 (70) 967 (6,700)
Average 35.0 (1.38) 815 (370) 10,049 (69) 960 (6,600)
Sta. Dev. 0.00 (0.00) 29 (13) 162 (1) 17 (100)
Shot #10
1 35.3 (1.39) 774 (351) 9,440 (65) 888 (6,100)
2 34.8 (1.37) 853 (387) 10,656 (73) 941 (6,500)
3 35.3 (1.39) 878 (398) 10,764 (74) 944 (6,500)
4 35.3 (1.39) 877 (398) 10,643 (73) 923 (6,400)
5 35.0 (1.38) 853 (387) 10,468 (72) 947 (6,500)
Average 35.0 (1.38) 847 (384) 10,394 (72) 929 (6,400)
Sta. Dev. 0.25 (0.01) 43 (20) 544 (4) 25 (200)
Shot #14
1 36.1 (1.42) 951 (431) 11,387 (79) 946 (6,500)
2 35.8 (1.41) 955 (433) 11,655 (80) 982 (6,800)
3 35.8 (1.41) 940 (426) 9,908 (68) 991 (6,800)
4 35.3 (1.39) 909 (412) 11,564 (80) 1,003 (6,900)
5 35.8 (1.41) 935 (424) 11,337 (78) 958 (6,600)
Average 35.8 (1.41) 938 (425) 11,170 (77) 976 (6,700)
Sta. Dev. 0.25 (0.01) 18 (8) 717 (5) 23 (200)
Shot #15
1 36.1 (1.42) 850 (386) 10,120 (70) 954 (6,600)
2 35.8 (1.41) 849 (385) 10,122 (70) 950 (6,600)
3 35.6 (1.40) 882 (400) 10,752 (74) 991 (6,800)
4 35.6 (1.40) 898 (407) 10,949 (75) 986 (6,800)
5 35.6 (1.40) 847 (384) 10,639 (73) 968 (6,700)
Average 35.8 (1.41) 865 (392) 10,516 (73) 970 (6,700)
Sta. Dev. 0.25 (0.01) 23 (10) 378 (3) 18 (100)
Shot #16
1 34.3 (1.35) 827 (375) 10,595 (73) 1,021 (7,000)
2 34.5 (1.36) 837 (380) 10,578 (73) 1,025 (7,100)
3 34.5 (1.36) 839 (381) 10,577 (73) 1,005 (6,900)
4 34.5 (1.36) 845 (383) 10,588 (73) 1,004 (6,900)
5 34.0 (1.34) 788 (357) 10,352 (71) 1,016 (7,000)
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 4-15
Sample Thickness, mm (in.)*
Peak Load, lbs (kg)
Peak Stress, psi (MPa)
Short-Term Flexural Modulus, ksi (MPa)
Average 34.3 (1.35) 827 (375) 10,538 (73) 1,014 (7,000)
Sta. Dev. 0.25 (0.01) 23 (10) 104 (1) 9 (100)
Shot #17
1 36.3 (1.43) 971 (440) 11,494 (79) 1,006 (6,900)
2 36.6 (1.44) 1,018 (462) 11,943 (82) 1,028 (7,100)
3 36.6 (1.44) 1,037 (470) 12,174 (84) 1,030 (7,100)
4 36.6 (1.44) 970 (440) 11,300 (78) 973 (6,700)
5 36.3 (1.43) 945 (429) 11,559 (80) 1,022 (7,000)
Average 36.6 (1.44) 988 (448) 11,694 (81) 1,012 (7,000)
Sta. Dev. 0.25 (0.01) 38 (17) 356 (2) 24 (200)
Shot #18
1 36.6 (1.44) 902 (409) 10,452 (72) 905 (6,200)
2 36.6 (1.44) 927 (420) 10,654 (73) 927 (6,400)
3 36.6 (1.44) 907 (411) 10,544 (73) 914 (6,300)
4 36.3 (1.43) 923 (419) 10,907 (75) 941 (6,500)
5 36.3 (1.43) 880 (399) 10,556 (73) 901 (6,200)
Average 36.6 (1.44) 908 (412) 10,623 (73) 918 (6,300)
Sta. Dev. 0.25 (0.01) 19 (9) 174 (1) 16 (100)
Shot #19
1 34.5 (1.36) 850 (386) 10,837 (75) 1,037 (7,200)
2 34.8 (1.37) 904 (410) 11,308 (78) 1,051 (7,200)
3 34.8 (1.37) 942 (427) 11,808 (81) 1,047 (7,200)
4 34.5 (1.36) 914 (415) 11,437 (79) 1,030 (7,100)
5 34.5 (1.36) 864 (392) 11,012 (76) 1,012 (7,000)
Average 34.5 (1.36) 895 (406) 11,280 (78) 1,035 (7,100)
Sta. Dev. 0.25 (0.01) 38 (17) 378 (3) 15 (100)
All 15 Shots
Average 35.0 (1.38) 924 (419) 11,648 (80) 1,000 (6,900)
Sta. Dev. 0.76 (0.03) 88 (40) 1,325 (9) 49 (300)
* Does not include the inner coating
Additional samples were provided for conducting specific gravity and hardness tests.
Specific gravity was measured using the displacement method listed in ASTM D792 (2008). The
weights of 1 in x 1 in (25 mm x 25 mm) specimens were measured in air and in water. The
average specific gravity for all the samples was calculated to be 1.258 ±0.0015, which was
slightly higher than the design range of 1.13-1.21. The liner material is a non-homogeneous
laminate and its specific gravity tends to vary from one inversion to the other depending on the
weight of glass fibers per unit area and the number of felt layers used.
Hardness measurements were performed on the inner and outer surfaces of 1 in x 1 in (25
mm x 25 mm) specimen per the ASTM D 2240 test procedure using a Shore D Durometer. The
results of the hardness are given in Figure 4-15. The average hardness of the inner surface was
found to be around 35% lower in comparison to the outer surface (i.e., 50.3 versus 67.9),
presumably due to the presence of a 0.6 mm (0.02 in) thick thermoplastic or polypropylene
coating. Subsequently, hardness testing was performed on the side of the specimens in the
vicinity of the inner coring (a zone in close proximity to the curing water).
4-16
Figure 4-15. Hardness Testing.
Table 4-5 summarizes the test results for the testing of the Insituform iPlus® Composite
liner used in the TRA demonstration compared with the minimum design values.
Table 4-5. Summary of Test Data.
Test TRA Specification Average Lab Value
Liner Thickness, mm (in) 35.0 (1.38) 35.0 (1.38)
Flexural Strength, psi (MPa) 5,000 (34) 11,648 (75)
Flexural Modulus, ksi (MPa) 750 (5,200) 1,000 (6,900)
Inner/Outer Hardness, Shore D N/A 50.3/67.9
Specific Gravity 1.13-1.21 1.26
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 4-17
4.4.5 Technology Cost
The costs for the overall 17,200 ft (5,243 m) TRA project were approximately
$16,340,000 for a unit price of $950/lf ($3,117/lm) or $9.90/lf/in. of diameter ($1.29/lm/mm of
diameter). This cost included many line items such as: mobilization, pipe cleaning, by-pass
pumping, composite WC-CIPP lining, new MHs, trench safety, hydromulch, sodding, access
restoration at the golf course and two developed municipal parks, sidewalk and trail
replacements, junction box modifications, access roads, fill infiltration points, and extra gravel.
Project cost also included provisions for visual screenings, noise abatement, and odor control.
The unit cost for the composite WC-CIPP was $740/lf ($2,428/lm) or $7.71/lf/in. of diameter
($1.01/lm/mm of diameter), which equates to approximately $577,000 for a length similar to the
test run (i.e., 780 ft or 238 m). Cost estimates for a comparable open cut project are difficult to
make, but had the owner allowed open cut replacement, it is expected that the project would have
cost considerably more and taken much longer to complete.
Estimates of the project CO2 equivalent emissions compared to conventional methods
were not made for this demonstration. It could be assumed that since the access pits were
required only at every 2,000 ft (600 m) and minimal surface restoration was required, that the use
of heavy equipment would be negligent compared to 17,200 lf (5,243 m), 25 ft (7.6 m) deep
open-cut project.
4.5 Conclusions
The demonstration of the Insituform iPlus® Composite liner in Irving, Texas was a
successful project that provided valuable information on the design, installation, and QA/QC for
large-diameter WC-CIPP used to rehabilitate wastewater mains. One key lesson learned is the
importance of proper planning when executing a project of this magnitude. Careful attention is
required to ensure proper and timely preparation in advance of the lining equipment setup,
especially when a project has multiple installation shots (i.e., 19 total in this case). Another
important consideration is the site access and layout. Several large pieces of equipment (e.g.,
resin tankers, cure control trailer, wetout tent, and tractor trailer, etc.) are required and access is
needed to move the resin tankers in and out during wetout. Table 4-6 summarizes the overall
conclusions for each metric used to evaluate the technology.
4-18
Table 4-6. Technology Evaluation Metrics Conclusions.
Technology Maturity Metrics
Emerging technology used for nearly five years in the U.S. Installation process is highly quality controlled in the field.
Technology Feasibility Metrics
Project required a structural rehabilitation and the technology met the rehabilitation requirements.
Not installed through any challenging configurations except for a varied host pipe size.
Incomplete and/or premature curing of the liner was not evident during installation or inspection.
Technology Complexity Metrics
Beneficial for small, medium, and large utilities in need of structural alternatives to open cut replacement.
Requires licensed contractors for the installation.
Site preparation requirements are similar to other rehabilitation technology requirements.
Lasted six days for cleaning, lining, and cooling.
Technology Performance Metrics
Testing showed that the liner exceeded the design and manufactures suggested requirements.
Flexural strength greater than 11 ksi (75 MPa) and short-term flexural modulus greater than 1,000 ksi (6,900
MPa).
Technology Cost Metrics
The overall projects cost was $16,340,000 for a unit cost of $950/lf ($3,117/lm) or $9.90/lf/in. of diameter ($1.29/lm/mm of diameter).
The composite liner had a unit cost of $740/lf ($2,428/lm) or $7.71/lf/in of diameter ($1.01/lm/mm of diameter).
Technology, Environmental and Social Metrics
Disruption was minimal as traffic was not affected and there were excavations only every 2,000 ft (600 m).
Disruption was minimal for the City’s public golf course and the two public recreational parks.
A replacement project would require 17,200 ft (5,243 m) of open-cut down 25 ft (7.6 m) deep.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies 5-1
CHAPTER 5.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This project resulted in the successful demonstration of two emerging wastewater
rehabilitation technologies – GRP UV-cured CIPP and large-diameter reinforced composite WC-
CIPP. In each case, the technologies met the owner’s requirements for the project. Laboratory
mechanical testing showed that each liner exceeded the minimum design requirements as well as
the increased suggested manufacturer’s values. The results should provide confidence to other
owner’s in need of alternatives to traditional renewal and rehabilitation methods if the outlined
procedures are followed.
A key lesson learned from the UV-cured demonstration was the importance of using the
proper test method when evaluating the liner’s structural properties. Fiberglass liners must be
tested according to ASTM F2019, which requires a 2-in (50 mm) wide specimen and the
orientation of the prepared specimen to come from the circumferential or hoop direction in order
to not cut through the fiberglass reinforcement.
A key lesson learned from the large diameter WC-CIPP demonstration was the
importance of proper planning and site access considerations. Careful attention is required to
ensure proper and timely preparation in advance of the lining equipment setup for each
installation shot. Also, many large pieces of equipment are required and access is needed to
move the resin tankers in and out during wetout.
Technology and/or process specific recommendations for improvement include: use of
better inner film for the UV-cure CIPP and optimization of the thermal sensor system for the
large diameter WC-CIPP. The UV-cure CIPP vendor has started using an improved inner film,
while a sensor technology developer is working towards optimizing the thermal sensor for the
large diameter WC-CIPP. However, neither of these improvements caused any errors with the
final product or material testing that would have necessitated corrective actions.
5-2
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies A-1
APPENDIX A
APS WATER TIGHTNESS TEST
Table A-1. Water Tightness of Tests from Building Sites for Inliners Which are Cured Onsite.
Taking of Sample
Representative sample with minimum measures of approximately (20 times the thickness of sample) inches times 1-3/16 in (46 mm).
Sample should be taken under supervision of an independent expert or the local construction supervising authority.
Preparation
Do not cut off external foil or laminated material.
Internal foil has to be cut through completely by a lattice cut.
Avoid damage to laminated material of the liner (a maximum depth of cut into the carrying laminated material of 1/64 in (0.4 mm) is allowed).
Distance Between Cuts
The distance between the latticed cuts has to be approximately 4 mm (0.16 in) in each case.
Test Area Ø 1 49/64 in (44.8 mm) ±1/16 in (1.6 mm).
Medium Local tap water, which is dyed with Rhodamine or Fluorescein.
Stress relieving substances with a volume share of <0.1% have to be used for a better wetting.
Duration of Test 30 minutes.
Test Pressure Negative pressure of 7.25 psi (50 kPa) ± 5%.
Selection of Test Areas
Three separate examinations for each test from the building site.
Choose obviously marked areas.
Test Conditions
Room temperature 72°F (22°C) ± 5°F (3.5°C).
Store samples at least 4 hours in advance at room temperature.
Interpretation
If test moistures ooze through (drops, appearance of foam or moisture), that means the liner is definitely not tight.
Each of the three tested spots has to be tight.
The result of the test can only be tight or not tight.
A-2
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies R-1
REFERENCES
Aird, J. (2010). “Pipes and liners: Techniques for repairing damage and increasing pipes'
hydraulic capacity.” Stormwater, Vol. 11, No. 7, pp. 12-25, Forester Media.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2013).
AASHTO T310: Standard Specification for In-Place Density and Moisture Content of Soil and
Soil-Aggregate by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (2005). ASTM D2240: Standard Test
Method for Rubber Property-Durometer Hardness. ASTM Intl., West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (2008). ASTM D792: Standard Test
Methods for Density and Specific Gravity (Relative Density) of Plastics by Displacement. ASTM
Intl., West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (2009). ASTM F1216: Standard Practice
for Rehabilitation of Existing Pipelines and Conduits by the Inversion and Curing of a Resin-
Impregnated Tube. ASTM Intl., West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (2010). ASTM C76: Standard
Specification for Reinforced Concrete Culvert, Storm Drain, and Sewer Pipe. ASTM Intl.,
West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (2010). ASTM D638: Standard Test
Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics. ASTM Intl., West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (2010). ASTM D790: Standard Test
Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical
Insulating Materials. ASTM Intl., West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (2010). ASTM D6938: Standard Test
Method for In-Place Density and Water Content of Soil and Soil-Aggregate by Nuclear Methods
(Shallow Depth). ASTM Intl., West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (2011). ASTM F2019: Standard Practice
for Rehabilitation of Existing Pipelines and Conduits by the Pulled in Place Installation of Glass
Reinforced Plastic (GRP) Cured-in-Place Thermosetting Resin Pipe (CIPP). ASTM Intl.,
West Conshohocken, PA.
APS. (2004). Bi-Umwelt Bau (Environmental Construction Standard) No. 5, Working Group of
Liner Testing Institutes in Germany (APS), pp. 60-61.
Bueno, S. (2008). “CIPP benefits resort dam: Trenchless methods used to rehab spillway and
outfall pipe.” Trenchless Technology, Feb., pp. 24-26, Benjamin Media.
R-2
Bueno, S. (2011). “CIPP helps Pennsylvania Township strengthen its sewers.” Trenchless
Technology, Oct., pp. 36-38, Benjamin Media.
Deutsches Institut fur Normung (DIN). (1997). DIN EN 1610: Construction and Testing of
Drains and Sewers. DIN, Berlin, Germany.
Giddens, K., Conte, J., Rapp, G., and Rapp, L. (2011). “Monitoring the CIPP lining process
using underground sensors.” Proc., No-Dig Show, Washington, D.C., NASTT, Paper E-5-04.
Godwin, P. (2009). “Pittsburgh suburb uses CIPP to address I/I issues.” Trenchless Technology,
Jul., pp. 34-35, Benjamin Media.
IKT. (2012). Liner Report 2011. Institute for Underground Infrastructure, Germany, May, 9 pp.
Insituform. (2013). IPLUS®
Composite. Insituform, May, 2 pp. www.insituform.com/Water-
Wastewater/PipeLiningsWastewater/~/media/Corporate/Files/Insituform/iPlus%20Composite.as
hx
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2008). ISO 9001: Quality Management
Systems – Requirements. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Keating, J. (2012). “Pipe systems and pipe rehabilitation.” Stormwater, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 40-
45, Forester Media.
Matthews, J., Dettmer, A., Simicevic, J., Hunter, W., Allouche, E., and Manning, C. (2012).
“Review of QA/QC procedures associated with rehabilitation of large diameter interceptors.”
Proc., No-Dig Show, Nashville, TN, NASTT, Paper A-4-02.
Melcher, B. (2010). “Small diameter sewer rehabilitation: Experiences with fiberglass UV-cured
technology.” Proc., No-Dig Show, Chicago, IL, NASTT, Paper C-4-01.
Omara, A., Guice, L., Straughan, W., and Akl, F. (2000). “Instability of thin pipes encased in
oval rigid cavity.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 126(4), 381-388.
O’Rourke, T., Druschel, S., and Netravali, A. (1990). “Shear strength characteristics of sand
polymer interfaces.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 116(3), 451-469.
Osborn, L. (2011). “San Diego pipeline rehabilitation: Landing a 747 on a sewer.” Proc., No-Dig
Show, Washington, D.C., NASTT, Paper F-50-02.
Reline. (2011). Submittal Package for Blue-Tek™ UV Light Cured Pipe Lining System. Fuquay,
Inc.
Sihabuddin, S. and Ariaratnam, S. (2009). “Methodology for estimating emissions in
underground utility construction operations.” Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology,
7(1), 37-64.
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies R-3
Simicevic, J. and Sterling, R. (2003). Survey of Bid Prices for Trenchless Technology Methods.
Trenchless Technology Center Report, Jan., 35 pp.
Talend, D. (2012). “Turnaround Strategies: Part 1. Materials and rehabilitation techniques to
improve aging infrastructure.” Stormwater, Vol. 13, No. 8, pp. 28-34, Forester Media.
Thépot, O. (2004). “International comparison of methods for the design of sewer linings.” 3R
International, Issue 43, pp. 520-526.
Timoshenko, S. and Gere, J. (1961). Theory of Elastic Stability. 2nd
Edition, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2007). Innovation and Research for Water
Infrastructure for the 21st Century, Research Plan. EPA/600/X-09/003, Apr., 80 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2009). Rehabilitation of Wastewater
Collection and Water Distribution Systems: State of Technology Review Report. EPA/600/R–
09/048, Sterling, Wang, and Morrison, May, 91 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2010a). State of Technology Report for
Force Main Rehabilitation. EPA/600/R–10/044, Morrison, Sangster, Wang, and Condit, Mar.,
175 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2010b). State of Technology for
Rehabilitation of Wastewater Collection Systems. EPA/600/R–10/078, Sterling, Simicevic,
Allouche, Condit, and Wang, Jul., 325 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2011). Quality Assurance and Quality
Control Practices for Rehabilitation of Sewer and Water Mains. EPA/600/R–11/017, Kampbell,
Downey, and Condit, Feb., 67 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2012a). A Retrospective Evaluation of
Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) Used in Municipal Gravity Sewers. EPA/600/R–12/004, Allouche,
Alam, Simicevic, Sterling, Condit, Headington, Matthews, Kampbell, Sangster, and Downey,
Feb., 232 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2012b). Performance Evaluation of
Innovative Water Main Rehabilitation Spray-On Lining Product in Somerville, NJ. EPA/600/R–
12/009, Matthews, Condit, Wensink, Lewis, and Sterling, Feb., 159 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2012c). Performance Evaluation of
Innovative Water Main Rehabilitation CIPP Lining Product in Cleveland, OH. EPA/600/R–
12/012, Matthews, Condit, Wensink, and Lewis, Feb., 117 pp.
Whittle, L.G. (2013). Personal Communication with L. Grant Whittle, Reline America.
R-4
Zhao, W., Nassar, R., and Hall, D. (2005). “Design and reliability of pipeline rehabilitation
liners.” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 20(2), 203-212.
WERF Subscribers
WASTEWATER UTILITY
Alabama Montgomery Water Works
& Sanitary Sewer Board
Alaska Anchorage Water &
Wastewater Utility Arizona Avondale, City of Glendale, City of Peoria, City of Phoenix Water Services
Department Pima County Wastewater
Reclamation Department Tempe, City of
Arkansas Little Rock Wastewater
California Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District Corona, City of Crestline Sanitation District Delta Diablo Sanitation
District Dublin San Ramon Services
District East Bay Dischargers
Authority East Bay Municipal Utility
District Encino, City of Fairfield-Suisun Sewer
District Fresno Department of
Public Utilities Inland Empire Utilities
Agency Irvine Ranch Water District Las Gallinas Valley
Sanitary District Las Virgenes Municipal
Water District Livermore, City of Los Angeles, City of Montecito Sanitation
District Napa Sanitation District Novato Sanitary District Orange County Sanitation
District Palo Alto, City of Riverside, City of Sacramento Regional
County Sanitation District
San Diego, City of San Francisco Public
Utilities, City and County of
San Jose, City of Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County Santa Barbara, City of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Rosa, City of Silicon Valley Clean Water
South Coast Water District South Orange County
Wastewater Authority Stege Sanitary District Sunnyvale, City of Thousand Oaks, City of Union Sanitary District West Valley Sanitation
District
Colorado Aurora, City of Boulder, City of Greeley, City of Littleton/Englewood
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Metro Wastewater Reclamation District
Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District
Connecticut Greater New Haven
WPCA
District of Columbia DC Water
Florida Fort Lauderdale, City of JEA Hollywood, City of Miami-Dade County Orange County Utilities
Department Palm Beach County Pinellas County Utilities Reedy Creek Improvement
District St. Petersburg, City of Tallahassee, City of Toho Water Authority
Georgia Atlanta Department of
Watershed Management
Augusta, City of Clayton County Water
Authority Cobb County Water
System Columbus Water Works Gwinnett County
Department of Water Resources
Macon Water Authority Savannah, City of
Hawaii Honolulu, City & County of
Idaho Boise, City of
Illinois Greater Peoria Sanitary
District Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Sanitary District of Decatur Wheaton Sanitary District
Indiana Jeffersonville, City of
Iowa Ames, City of Cedar Rapids Water
Pollution Control Facilities
Des Moines, City of Kansas Johnson County
Wastewater Louisville and Jefferson
County Metropolitan Sewer District
Olathe, City of Overland Park, City of
Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1
Louisiana Sewerage & Water Board
of New Orleans
Maine Bangor, City of Portland Water District
Maryland Anne Arundel County Howard County Bureau of
Utilities Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission
Massachusetts Boston Water & Sewer
Commission Upper Blackstone Water
Pollution Abatement District
Michigan Ann Arbor, City of Detroit, City of Gogebic-Iron Wastewater
Authority Holland Board of Public
Works Saginaw, City of Wayne County Department
of Public Services Wyoming, City of
Minnesota Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services Rochester, City of Western Lake Superior
Sanitary District
Missouri Independence, City of Kansas City Missouri
Water Services Department
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Nebraska Lincoln Wastewater &
Solid Waste System Nevada Henderson, City of
New Jersey Bergen County Utilities
Authority Ocean County Utilities
Authority
New York New York City Department
of Environmental Protection
North Carolina Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Utilities Durham, City of Metropolitan Sewerage
District of Buncombe County
Old North State Water Company Inc.
Orange Water & Sewer Authority
Raleigh, City of
Ohio Akron, City of Avon Lake Municipal
Utilities Columbus, City of Metropolitan Sewer District
of Greater Cincinnati Montgomery County Water
Services Northeast Ohio Regional
Sewer District Summit County
Oklahoma Oklahoma City Water &
Wastewater Utility Department
Tulsa, City of
Oregon Albany, City of Bend, City of Clean Water Services Gresham, City of Lake Oswego, City of Oak Lodge Sanitary District Portland, City of Water Environment
Services
Pennsylvania Philadelphia, City of,
Water Department University Area Joint
Authority
South Carolina Beaufort - Jasper Water &
Sewer Authority Charleston Water System Greenwood Metropolitan
District Mount Pleasant
Waterworks Spartanburg Water Sullivan’s Island, Town of
Tennessee Cleveland Utilities Murfreesboro Water &
Sewer Department
WERF Subscribers Nashville Metro Water
Services Texas Austin, City of Dallas Water Utilities Denton, City of El Paso Water Utilities Fort Worth, City of Houston, City of San Antonio Water System Trinity River Authority
Utah Salt Lake City Department
of Public Utilities
Virginia Alexandria Renew
Enterprises Arlington County Fairfax County Fauquier County Hampton Roads Sanitation
District Hanover County Henrico County Hopewell Regional
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Loudoun Water Lynchburg Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Prince William County Service Authority
Richmond, City of Rivanna Water & Sewer
Authority
Washington Everett, City of King County Department
of Natural Resources & Parks
Puyallup, City of Seattle Public Utilities Sunnyside, Port of Yakima, City of
Wisconsin Green Bay Metro
Sewerage District Kenosha Water Utility Madison Metropolitan
Sewerage District Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District Racine Water &
Wastewater Utility Sheboygan, City of Stevens Point, City of Wausau Water Works
Australia/New Zealand
Water Services Association of Australia
Canada Calgary, City of EPCOR Lethbridge, City of Regina, City of Toronto, City of Winnipeg, City of
STORMWATER UTILITY
California Monterey, City of San Diego County
Department of Public Works
San Francisco Public Utilities, City & County of
Santa Rosa, City of Sunnyvale, City of
Colorado Aurora, City of Boulder, City of
Florida Orlando, City of
Iowa Cedar Rapids Water
Pollution Control Facilities Des Moines, City of
Kansas
Overland Park, City of
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, City of, Water Department
Tennessee
Chattanooga Stormwater Management
Washington
Bellevue Utilities Department
Seattle Public Utilities
STATE AGENCY
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
Harris County Flood Control District
Kansas Department of Health & Environment
Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission
Urban Drainage & Flood Control District, CO
CORPORATE
AECOM Alan Plummer Associates
Inc. American Cleaning Institute Aqua-Aerobic Systems Inc. Atkins Benton & Associates Black & Veatch
Corporation Brown and Caldwell Burns & McDonnell Carollo Engineers, P.C. CDM Smith CH2M HILL CRA Infrastructure &
Engineering
D&B/Guarino Engineers LLC
Effluential Synergies LC EMA Inc. Environ International
Corporation Environmental Operating
Solutions Inc. Evoqua Water
Technologies Gannett Fleming Inc. GeoSyntec Consultants GHD Inc. Global Water Advisors Inc. Greeley & Hansen LLC Hazen & Sawyer P.C. HDR Inc. HNTB Corporation Holmes & McGrath Inc. Infilco Degremont Inc. Jacobs Engineering
Group Inc. KCI Technologies Inc. Kelly & Weaver P.C. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Larry Walker Associates LimnoTech Malcolm Pirnie, the Water
Division of ARCADIS MaxWest Environmental
Systems McKim & Creed Michael Baker, Jr. Inc. MWH NTL Alaska Inc. Parametrix Inc. Praxair Inc. Pure Technologies Ltd. Ross Strategic Southeast Environmental
Engineering LLC Stone Environmental Inc. Stratus Consulting Inc. Synagro Technologies Inc. Tata & Howard Inc. Tetra Tech Inc. The Cadmus Group Inc. The Low Impact
Development Center Inc. URS Corporation Versar, Inc. Westin Engineering Inc. Wright Water
Engineers Inc. Zoeller Pump Company
Australia CSIRO
Austria Sanipor Ltd.
Canada Associated Engineering O2 Environmental Inc. Trojan Technologies Inc.
Norway Aquateam Cowi AS
INDUSTRY
American Water Anglian Water Services
Ltd. Chevron Energy
Technology Company Dow Chemical Company DuPont Company Eastman Chemical
Company Eli Lilly & Company FMC Corporation InSinkErator Johnson & Johnson Merck & Company Inc. Procter & Gamble
Company Suez Environnement United Utilities North West United Water Services LLC VandCenter Syd Veolia Water North
America List as of 6/4/14
Chair
Terry L. Johnson, Ph.D.,
P.E., BCEE
Black & Veatch
Corporation
Vice-Chair
Rajendra P. Bhattarai, P.E.,
BCEE
Austin Water Utility
Thomas C. Granato, Ph.D.
Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago
Donald Gray (Gabb),
Ph.D., P.E., BCEE
East Bay Municipal
Utility District
Robert Humphries, Ph.D.
Water Corporation of
Western Australia
David Jenkins, Ph.D.
University of California
at Berkeley
Mark W. LeChevallier,
Ph.D.
American Water
Ted McKim, P.E. BCEE
Reedy Creek
Energy Services
Elizabeth Southerland,
Ph.D.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Paul Togna, Ph.D.
Environmental Operating
Solutions, Inc.
Art K. Umble, Ph.D., P.E.,
BCEE
MWH Global
Kenneth J. Williamson,
Ph.D., P.E.
Clean Water Services
Chair
Catherine R. Gerali
Metro Wastewater
Reclamation District
Vice-Chair
Kevin L. Shafer
Metro Milwaukee
Sewerage District
Secretary
Eileen J. O’Neill, Ph.D.
Water Environment
Federation
Treasurer
Brian L. Wheeler
Toho Water Authority
Paul L. Bishop, Ph.D., P.E.,
BCEE
University of
Rhode Island
Glen Daigger, Ph.D., P.E.,
BCEE, NAE
CH2M Hill
Scott D. Dyer, Ph.D.
The Procter & Gamble
Company
Philippe Gislette
Degrémont,
Suez-Environnement
Julia J. Hunt, P.E.
Trinity River Authority
of Texas
Terry L. Johnson, Ph.D.,
P.E., BCEE
Black & Veatch
Corporation
Jim Matheson
Oasys Water
Ed McCormick, P.E.
Union Sanitary District
James Anthony (Tony)
Parrott
Metropolitan Sewer
District of Greater
Cincinnati
Cordell Samuels
Regional Municipality
of Durham, ON
Interim Executive Director
Daniel M. Woltering,
Ph.D.
WERF Research Council
WERF Board of Directors
Method of Payment: (All orders must be prepaid.)
q C heck or Money Order Enclosedq V i s a q M a s t e r c a r d q A m e rican Express
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
To Order (Subscribers Only):
To Order (Non-Subscribers):
S h i p p i n g & H a n d l i n g :
Amount of Order United States Canada & Mexico All Others
* m i n i mum amount for all orders
Stock # P r o d u c t Quantity Unit Price To t a l
Postage &Handling
VA Residents Add 5% Sales Tax
Canadian ResidentsAdd 7% GST
Up to but not more than:
More than $200.00
Add:
Add 20% of order
Add:
Add 20% of order
$7.50* 8.00 8.50 9.0010.0011.00
13.00 15.00 18.00
$9.509.509.50
18.0018.0018.0024.0035.0040.00
Add:50% of amount40% of amount
$20.0030.0040.0050.0060.0080.00
100.00150.00200.00
W E R F P r o d u c t O r d e r F o r m
Account No. Exp. Date
Signature
TOTAL
Log on to www. werf.org and clickon “Publications.”
Phone: 571-384-2100 Fa x : 703-299-0742
WERFAttn: Subscriber Services635 Slaters LaneAlexandria, VA 22314-1177
Make checks paya ble to the Water Environment Research Foundation.
(
7
Non-subscribers may order WERFpublications either through WERFor IWAP (www.iwapublishing.com).Visit WERF’ s website at www.werf.orgfor details.
As a benefit of joining the Water Environment Research Foundation, subscribers are entitled to receive one complimentary c o py of all finalr e p o rts and other products. Additional copies are ava i l a ble at cost (usually $10). To order your complimentary c o py of a report, please wri t e“ f r e e ” in the unit price column. WERF keeps tra ck of all orders. If the charge differs from what is shown here, we will call to confirm the totalb e fore processing.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Name Title
Organization
Address
City State Zip Code Country
Phone Fax Email
Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies
Water Environment Research Foundation635 Slaters Lane, Suite G-110 n Alexandria, VA 22314-1177
Phone: 571-384-2100 n Fax: 703-299-0742 n Email: [email protected]
WERF Stock No. INFR4R11
June 2014
Demonstration and Evaluation of InnovativeWastewater Main Rehabilitation Technologies
Infrastructure
IWA PublishingAlliance House, 12 Caxton StreetLondon SW1H 0QSUnited KingdomPhone: +44 (0)20 7654 5500Fax: +44 (0)20 7654 5555Email: [email protected]: www.iwapublishing.comIWAP ISBN: 978-1-78040-593-3/1-78040-593-6
Co-published by
INFR4R11_WEF-IWAPspread.qxd 6/3/2014 2:40 PM Page 1