Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main ... web.pdfDemonstration and Evaluation...

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

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

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

© 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.


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.


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



3.4 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



3-15 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.


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.


Beneficial for small, medium, and large utilities in need of structural alternatives to open cut

replacement.

Required licensed contractors for the installation.


Lasted six days for cleaning, lining, and cooling.


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).


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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


(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


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).


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)


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)


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).


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.


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.


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.


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


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).


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


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).




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.


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


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


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,



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)


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,



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)


Sample Area,




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,




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,




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)


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.

http://www.ikt.de/english/publications.html


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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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).


Project duration lasted three days for bypass, cleaning, lining, and pressure testing.


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.


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).


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.


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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


Peak Load, lbs (kg)



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)



Peak Load, lbs (kg)



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


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.


Emerging technology used for nearly five years in the U.S. Installation process is highly quality controlled in the field.


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.


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.


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).


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).


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.


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.

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.

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.


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.


Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics. ASTM Intl., West Conshohocken, PA.


Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical

Insulating Materials. ASTM Intl., West Conshohocken, PA.


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.

http://www.insituform.com/Water-Wastewater/PipeLiningsWastewater/~/media/Corporate/Files/Insituform/iPlus%20Composite.ashx



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

Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main ... web.pdfDemonstration and Evaluation...

Documents

Transcript of Demonstration and Evaluation of Innovative Wastewater Main ... web.pdfDemonstration and Evaluation...