Rehabilitation of a Deteriorated 60” RCP Wastewater Rehabilitation of a Deteriorated 60” RCP Wastewater Rehabilitation of a Deteriorated 60” RCP Wastewater Rehabilitation of a Deteriorated 60” RCP Wastewater Interceptor Using Competing Trenchless Technologies Interceptor Using Competing Trenchless Technologies TAWWA/WEAT Summer Seminar TAWWA/WEAT Summer Seminar San Antonio, TX July 28, 2011 Wendy Martinez, PE Wendy Martinez, PE Mark Wade PE Mark Wade PE Bruce Cole, PE Bruce Cole, PE Corey Anderson EIT Corey Anderson EIT Mark Wade, PE Mark Wade, PE Dan Buonadonna, EIT Dan Buonadonna, EIT Corey Anderson, EIT Corey Anderson, EIT
32
Embed
Rehabilitation of a Deteriorated 60" RCP Wastewater Interceptor
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Rehabilitation of a Deteriorated 60” RCP WastewaterRehabilitation of a Deteriorated 60” RCP WastewaterRehabilitation of a Deteriorated 60” RCP Wastewater Rehabilitation of a Deteriorated 60” RCP Wastewater Interceptor Using Competing Trenchless TechnologiesInterceptor Using Competing Trenchless Technologies
Project Statement of ObjectiveProject Statement of ObjectiveProject Statement of ObjectiveProject Statement of Objective
Provide a renewed Rowlett Cottonwood Provide a renewed Rowlett Cottonwood RCP Transfer Sewer using strategicRCP Transfer Sewer using strategicRCP Transfer Sewer using strategic RCP Transfer Sewer using strategic inspection technologies to evaluate inspection technologies to evaluate pipeline rehabilitation options and pipeline rehabilitation options and trenchless solutions to promote trenchless solutions to promote
competition through an innovative design competition through an innovative design d titi biddid titi biddiand competitive bidding process.and competitive bidding process.
RowlettRowlett--Cottonwood Transfer Sewer SystemCottonwood Transfer Sewer SystemRowlettRowlett--Cottonwood Transfer Sewer SystemCottonwood Transfer Sewer SystemWilson Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Allen Junction Control Structure 60” and 54” RCP (1984)60” FRP (2004)
Inspection and Assessment ResultsInspection and Assessment ResultsInspection and Assessment ResultsInspection and Assessment Results
Evaluation of SiphonEvaluation of Siphon Trenchless SolutionsTrenchless Solutions
Findings and ResultsFindings and ResultsFindings and ResultsFindings and Results• Structural Condition:
–– Severe deterioration generally consistent throughout entire alignmentSevere deterioration generally consistent throughout entire alignmentg y g gg y g g–– Extensive pipe joint failure and active I/IExtensive pipe joint failure and active I/I–– H2S levels measured up to 300 ppmH2S levels measured up to 300 ppm–– Condition Rating: 4.5 (5 = very poor using SCREAM model)Condition Rating: 4.5 (5 = very poor using SCREAM model)–– 90% of the pipeline has a factor of safety less than 190% of the pipeline has a factor of safety less than 1
• Predicted Remaining Service Life:–– The range of predicted service life: 4The range of predicted service life: 4--10 years (30% < 7yrs)10 years (30% < 7yrs)
• Pipeline Rehabilitation/Replacementp p–– Phase I Improvements (construction completed)Phase I Improvements (construction completed)–– Phase II ( construction to be completed August 2011)Phase II ( construction to be completed August 2011)
• Wastewater Master Plan– Comprehensive short-term flow monitoring program– Development of a system-wide hydraulic model– Condition assessment of strategic interceptor sewer systems
Review of Renewal AlternativesReview of Renewal AlternativesReview of Renewal AlternativesReview of Renewal Alternatives
R i f t ti l lt tiR i f t ti l lt ti•• Review of potential alternativesReview of potential alternatives
•• Conditions and parameters: Conditions and parameters: –– Peak flow deliveryPeak flow delivery
–– Highly urbanized and Highly urbanized and g yg y
–– Flow control and odor management during constructionFlow control and odor management during construction
Review of Renewal Alternatives Review of Renewal Alternatives (cont’d)(cont’d)
C diti d t ( t’d)C diti d t ( t’d)•• Conditions and parameters (cont’d): Conditions and parameters (cont’d): –– Proven record of renewal alternativesProven record of renewal alternatives
–– Availability of experienced installersAvailability of experienced installers
–– Structural RenewalStructural Renewal
–– Alignment (bends and deflections)Alignment (bends and deflections)
•• Selection of final alternatives Selection of final alternatives
•• Final preFinal pre--design workshop and collaborationdesign workshop and collaboration
Initial Screening of AlternativesInitial Screening of AlternativesInitial Screening of AlternativesInitial Screening of Alternatives•• FRP SliplineFRP Slipline•• PVC SliplinePVC Slipline•• HDPE Ribline (SPR PE)HDPE Ribline (SPR PE)®
Pros• Longer Distance between Manholes• Longer Distance between Manholes• Can Install with Flow in Pipe• Can Push 3,000+ LF Downstream (FRP)• Can Push 2,000+ LF Upstream (FRP)• Fewer Access Manholes Required
Cons• Insertion Pits are Required• Insertion Pits are Required• More Potential for Odor Problems • Limit of 1.5% to 2% Deflection to Negotiate Bends• Slight Reduction in Capacity due to Smaller ID• Grout is Required in Annular Space• High ground water at insertion pits
Option 2 – Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP)Option 2 Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP)Pros
• Increase in Capacity due to Matching Corroded ID• Minimal Excavation Required – Work thru ManholesMinimal Excavation Required Work thru Manholes• Smaller Footprint for Odor Control
Cons• Requires By-Pass Pumping During Active Insertion and Curing• Requires Higher Level of Sewer Cleaning• Will Require Addition of New Access Manholes -Will Require Addition of New Access Manholes Maximum Length of Insertion is Approximately 1,000 LF• Field Wetting is Sensitive to Hot Ambient Temperatures
A ti I/I i h b ti ( t• Active I/I may require pre-rehab correction (grout, pre-lining)
Mi i A li h dMi i A li h dMet the Overall Project Goals:Met the Overall Project Goals:
Mission AccomplishedMission AccomplishedMet the Overall Project Goals:Met the Overall Project Goals:•• Reduced construction impact to neighborhood;Reduced construction impact to neighborhood;•• Increased life span of this critical asset;Increased life span of this critical asset;pp•• Reduced potential I/I and resulting treatment costs;Reduced potential I/I and resulting treatment costs;•• Saved construction costs through competitive Saved construction costs through competitive
t hl biddit hl bidditrenchless bidding.trenchless bidding.
K t SK t SThe Value of HigherThe Value of Higher--Level Diagnostic Inspection:Level Diagnostic Inspection:
Keys to SuccessKeys to Successgg g pg p
•• Identified viable and real pipe renewal options;Identified viable and real pipe renewal options;•• Aided in calculation of grout volume as required;Aided in calculation of grout volume as required;•• Established pipe measured ovalities to assess Established pipe measured ovalities to assess
The Value of Competing Technologies:The Value of Competing Technologies:•• Created a “level playing field”;Created a “level playing field”;•• Permitted a unique “mixPermitted a unique “mix--andand--match” approach;match” approach;•• Additional effort to design for 3 technologies added to Additional effort to design for 3 technologies added to
a construction cost savings of more than 40%.a construction cost savings of more than 40%.a construction cost savings of more than 40%.a construction cost savings of more than 40%.
Th k Y !Th k Y !Thank You!Thank You!Bruce Cole, NTMWDBruce Cole, NTMWD,,