joint fsawwa region vii asce-ewri pipeline rehabilitation presentation ro 11-14-2011

SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DELIVERY METHODS FOR REHABILITATION/REPLACEMENT OF

WASTEWATER SYSTEMSNovember 14, 2013

PLA

NN

ING

| E

NG

INE

ER

ING

| P

RO

GR

AM

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

AGENDA

REPLACEMENT / REHABILITATION ANALYSIS

PROCUREMENT METHODS EVALUATION

BID / CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

BID PROCESS

Rehabilitation/Replacement Analysis

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND

2. ROUTE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION

3. DATA COLLECTION

4. DATA ANALYSIS & EVALUATION

5. INSTALLATION & CONSTRUCTABILITY

6. EVALUATION MATRIX

7. REHAB EVALUATION

1. Project Background

Understand the basis/objective of the project Familiarize w/ history of the line Operational constraints Recognize stakeholder concerns

Sliplined

2. Route Alternate Evaluation Jurisdiction considerations Mitigating community impacts Shut down limitations Economical solution

2. Route Alternate Evaluation

ALIGNMENT VARIATIONS

3. Data Collection

Collect existing utility and underground facility records

Review recent available aerial photography

Perform site visits of preliminary pipe alignments

Identify potential profile conflicts

Catalogue special jurisdictional requirements

3. Data Collection

Geotechnical report

Pipe Laying Schedule

Plat information

4. Data Analysis & Evaluation

EXISTING UTILITY IDENTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION

Obtained “as-built” information from utility companies

Reviewed possible route corridors to identified existing utilities along corridors

Utility Contact Table

Utility Company Letter Sent Response Received

ATT ‐Miami‐Dade 5/3/2013 5/7/2013

ATT ‐Miami‐Dade 5/3/2013 4/8/2013

City of North Miami 5/3/2013 4/22/2013

City of North Miami Beach Public Utilities 5/3/2013 5/29/2013

City of Opalocka 5/3/2013 Pending

Comcast Cable 5/3/2013 6/26/2013

Florida Department of Transportation 5/3/2013 5/9/2013

Florida City Gas 5/3/2013 5/8/2013

FPL 5/3/2013 5/21/2013

FPL Fibernet LLC 5/3/2013 6/25/2013

MCI 5/3/2013 4/16/2013

Miami Dade Water Sewer N/A 5/21/2013

MDC Public Works 5/3/2013 5/14/2013

Teco Peoples Gas 5/3/2013 4/19/2013

American Traffic Solutions 5/3/2013 5/6/2013

Florida Gas Transmission Company 5/3/2013 5/7/2013

Level 3 Communications LLC 5/3/2013 5/22/2013

City of Miami Gardens 5/3/2013 6/25/2013

Systems Integration & Maintenance INC 5/3/2013 6/25/2013

XO Communications 5/3/2013 Pending

Typical Section along NE 159th St From NE 6th Ave and NE 10th Ave

Ave

Typical Section along NE 159th St From NE 3rd Ave and NE 4th Ave


ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS

Goal – avoid, minimize and mitigate/address potential project impacts and

Level-I contamination assessment;

Re-evaluating the site prior to replacements/replacements


DESIGN CRITERIA FOR REPLACEMENTS

In‐line Plug Valves every 0.5 mile

ARV installed at all high points and other intermediate points

MANHOLES every 1,200 feet and at valves and closures

PRESSURES Working pressure : 100 PSI , Test pressure : 150 PSI

VELOCITY 5 FPS MAX

PIPE FRICTION FACTOR Hazen Williams “ C “ Factor: 120, 140 preferable

HYDRAULIC CAPACITY equivalence of a 72‐inch diameter


PIPE MATERIALS EVALUATION Client Preferences and Familiarity Ease of Installation Installation Under Water Corrosion Resistance Production Quality Control System Flexibility Hydraulic Efficiency Manufacture & Availability Surge Protection Performance within environment Cost

Type Size (inches)Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 14‐48

High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) ½‐63

Ductile Iron (DIP) 4‐64

Pre‐Stressed Concrete Cylinder (PCCP) 10‐144

Bar Wrap Concrete Cylinder 10‐144

Fiberglass Reinforced Pipe (FRP) 12‐96

Steel 24‐144

Advantages Disadvantages

PCCP Durability and competitive prices for large diameter Unit weight per foot is the highest of alternatives.Corrosion control measures will be required

Steel Pipe Competitive price for large diameter pipes Lighter than concrete pipes

Installation of pipes will be new experience for local contractors. Corrosion control measures will be required

FRP Excellent corrosion resistance Does agency have experience and familiarity with this pipe

DIPFlexibility for future connectionsRelatively easy to install because of mechanical/push‐on joints

Corrosion control measures will be required

HDPE Leak resistance over PCCP due to quantity of joints & more leak proof joints

Longer trenches (access pits/shafts) to be opened at a timeWork zone/lay down area requirements


PIPE MATERIALS EVALUATION


PIPE MATERIALS EVALUATION

PIPE MATERIALS EVALUATION MATRIXEvaluation Criteria

Most Desired Option 1 Less Desired Option 3

Pipe Material

PCCP Steel Pipe DIP FRP

Economical FactorsCost 63/64‐inch $/LF 490 340 460 2791. Present Worth Capital Cost (PWCC) 3 2 3 1

PWCC Weighted Sub‐Total 1.5 1 1.5 0.5Non‐Economical Factors

1. Agency Experience and Familiarity 1 3 2 32. Connection to existing lines 1 3 2 33. Contractor's familiarit with pipe system 1 3 2 34. Pipe Laying length 2 1 2 15. Pipe weight 3 1 2 16. Pipe joint flexibility 3 1 2 27. Pipe installation in groundwater 2 2 1 28. Internal corrosion resistance 2 3 3 19. Cathodic Protection / Soil Corrosivity 2 3 3 110. Useful Life Span (Min. 50 Years) 2 2 2 111. Failure Characteristics 3 1 2 112. Diameter 1 1 2 1Non‐Economical Average = Sfactors / 12 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.7Non‐Economical Weighted 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.8

Total Economical and Non‐Economical Weighted Factors 1.7 2 2.5 1.3Ranking of Alternatives 2 3 4 1

5. Installation & Constructability

Installation performance of proposed pipe material

Coordination with Agencies for street closures

Construction rates Impacts to community (Church, Schools,

Hospitals…) Trenchless construction for major highways

& other critical crossings

Pipeline

5. Installation & Constructability

MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC:• Lane closure limits• Total road closure requirements • Mayor issues with necessary detours

along thoroughfares

6. Evaluation Matrix

Evaluation Parameter Weight FactorMinimize adverse traffic impacts (MOT) 7

Minimize public agency coordination/permitting 7

Low impact on businesses and/or public facilities/stakeholders 2

Risk of Successful Construction 5

Laterals/ Bends/ Obstructions/ Retrains 8

Future Redevelopment 2

Minimize Impact to Schedule 10

Minimize ROW or easement acquisition 2

Minimize project cost (OPC) 10

6. Evaluation Matrix

Evalua

tion

Parameters

Minim

ize Ad

verse

Traffic

Impa

ct

(MOT)

Minim

ize pu

blic

agen

cy

coordina

tion /

perm

itting

Low Im

pact on

Busine

sses and

/or

Public Facilitie

s /

Stakeh

olde

rs

Risk of Successful

Constructio

n

Laterals/ Be

nds/

Obstructio

ns/

Retrains

Future

Rede

velopm

ent

Minim

ize Im

pact

to Sched

ule

Minim

ize RO

W or

Easemen

t Ac

quisition

Cost per Option

Minim

ize Project

Cost (O

PC)

Total Points

Preferred

Alternate

Location Length (ft) Routes / Weighting Factor 7 7 5 5 8 2 10 2 10

Segment I4,445 1 0 0 3 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 $8,472,100 0 0 271,535 2 3 21 0 0 3 15 3 15 3 24 0 0 3 30 3 6 $3,510,600 3 30 141 .1,535 3 3 21 0 0 3 15 3 15 3 24 0 0 3 30 3 6 $3,510,600 3 30 1411,535 4 3 21 0 0 3 15 3 15 3 24 0 0 3 30 3 6 $3,510,600 3 30 141

Segment II3,030 1 2 14 0 0 2 10 0 0 2 16 1 2 2 20 0 0 $6,973,600 3 30 924,405 2 3 21 2 14 3 15 2 10 3 24 3 6 3 30 3 6 $11,198,100 0 0 126 .5,535 3 1 7 1 7 1 5 1 5 0 0 1 2 1 10 1 2 $10,941,300 2 20 584,560 4 3 21 2 14 3 15 1 5 0 0 2 4 1 10 2 4 $9,178,200 1 10 83

Segment III2,950 1 2 14 2 14 2 10 2 10 1 8 1 2 2 20 0 0 $5,578,000 1 10 883,210 2 3 21 3 21 1 5 3 15 3 24 1 2 3 30 2 4 $5,879,000 0 0 122 .2,315 3 1 7 2 14 2 10 1 5 1 8 2 4 2 20 2 4 $4,377,700 2 20 922,090 4 1 7 2 14 2 10 1 5 0 0 3 6 1 10 0 0 $4,007,900 3 30 82

Segment IV‐A1,325 1 2 14 1 7 3 15 1 5 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 $2,711,700 1 10 551,380 2 3 21 2 14 2 10 3 15 3 24 0 0 2 20 3 6 $2,738,800 3 30 140 .1,325 3 1 7 1 7 1 5 2 10 0 0 2 4 0 0 1 2 $2,709,400 2 20 551,350 4 0 0 1 7 1 5 1 5 2 16 2 4 1 10 2 4 $2,828,200 0 0 51

Segment IV‐B4,030 1 1 7 2 14 2 10 2 10 3 24 2 4 2 20 1 2 $7,458,400 1 10 1013,995 2 3 21 0 0 0 0 3 15 3 24 2 4 3 30 2 4 $7,330,500 3 30 128 .4,295 3 2 14 2 14 0 0 1 5 2 16 1 2 1 10 1 2 $7,912,400 2 20 834,640 4 2 14 1 7 2 10 1 5 1 8 1 2 1 10 1 2 $8,588,700 0 0 58

Segment V3,375 1 0 0 2 14 1 5 1 5 0 0 1 2 1 10 2 4 $6,310,400 1 10 502,605 2 3 21 3 21 1 5 3 15 3 24 3 6 3 30 3 6 $5,583,200 1 10 138 .2,630 3 2 14 2 14 1 5 3 15 2 16 2 4 2 20 3 6 $5,093,800 3 30 1243,950 4 1 7 2 14 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 2 2 20 0 0 $7,302,300 0 0 48

Route 1Route 2Route 3Route 4

NEW PIPE MATRIX

7. Rehab Evaluation

Identify & assess viability of available rehabilitation methods

Evaluate rehabilitate or replacement

ReplaceRehab

7. Rehab Evaluation

Accessibility & site constraints

Soil conditions

Magnitude of flows

Available bypassing or rerouting flows

Mechanism of failure or problem

Rights-of-way

Lateral connections

Length and size of pipeline

Need for up-sizing line

7. Rehab & Evaluation

CHOOSING THE RIGHT METHOD Identify acceptable level of risk Define shut down parameters Plan out requirements


CIP REHABILITATION


STEEL LINER SECTIONS


SLIPLINING


INTERNAL JOINT SEALS

7. Rehab Evaluation

DESIGN CRITERIA FOR REHABILITATION

PRESSURES Working pressure : 60‐65 PSI , Test pressure : 70 PSI

STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALITY Class IV

VELOCITY 5 FPS MAX

PIPE FRICTION FACTOR Hazen Williams “ C “ Factor: 140 preferable

HYDRAULIC CAPACITY equivalence of a 72‐inch diameter

7. Rehab Evaluation

StructureDeficiencies

Caused by

excessive I/I

CapacityDeficiencies

Increase in pipe size

required

At a Sewer Pipe

SeparateJoint(s)

Offset Joint(s)

Collapse has

occurred or is

eminent

ProblemDefinition

System Problem

Problem Location

StructuralCondition

SizeImpact

AppropriateOptions

AvailableTechnologies

Full Replacement1,2

Structural Rehabilitation1,2,3,4

Non‐Structural Rehabilitation5,6

Joint Repair/ PipeRehabilitation1,5,6,7

Pipe Replacement1

Joint Repair/Grouting7,8,9

ReplacementsNew Alignment

Open CutMicrotunneling

Existing AlignmentOpen Cut

Structural RelineCIPPSliplining

1

2

1

3

4

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Non‐Structural RelineCIPPSliplining

5

6

OthersMechanical jointsChemical Grouting/GroutingCement Patching

7

8

9

7. Rehab Evaluation

Sliplining

• Segmental Sliplining

• Continuous Sliplining

• Short Pipe

Cured-In-Place (CIP) Lining

• Conventional CIP

• Composite CIP

Grout-in-Place (GIP)

StrongPIPE™ Hybrid FRP - Continuous Reinforced Composite Liner

7. Rehab Evaluation

A number of rehabilitation methods could be examined

Condition of existing pipe

Cost

Track record

Drop in capacity associated with the reduction of cross-sectional

Feasibility and practicality limit number of rehabilitation methods

7. Rehab Evaluation

Booster Pump Stations may need to be reconfigured or shutdown

FM bypass associated with Pump Station

7. Rehab Evaluation

Would rehabbed line deliver required performance? If yes, proceed. If no, then replace.

Identify Pipe Performance Issues (i.e., Flow Issues, Corrosion)

Pipe is structurally sound Pipe is structurally inadequate

Pipe has infiltration issues or early signs of deterioration

Pipe has infiltration issues

Identify cause of leakage and select non‐structural/

semi‐structural rehab system

Pipe has early signs of deterioration

Identify cause and select non‐structural /semi‐structural rehab system

Identify cause of structural deterioration and select semi‐structural/ structural rehab system

CONSULTANT’S EVALUATION MATRIX

SPECIFIC PROJECT PARAMETERS: Minimize adverse traffic impacts (MOT) Minimize public agency coordination /

permitting Low Impact on Businesses and/or Public

Facilities / Stakeholders Risk of Successful Construction Laterals/ Bends/ Obstructions/ Retrains Future Redevelopment Minimize Impact to Schedule Reliance on Host Pipe Condition Flow Diversion Requirements Infiltration Concerns (During Construction) Reduction in Capacity Minimize Project Cost (OPC)

CONSULTANT’S EVALUATION MATRIX

Evalua

tion Parameters

Minim

ize Ad

verse Traffic

Im

pact (M

OT)

Minim

ize pu

blic agency

coordina

tion / pe

rmitting

Low Im

pact on

Busine

sses and

/or P

ublic

Facilities / Stakeh

olde

rs

Risk of Successful

Constructio

n

Laterals/ Be

nds/

Obstructio

ns/ Re

trains

Future Red

evelop

men

t

Minim

ize Im

pact to

Sche

dule

Reliance on

Host P

ipe

Cond

ition

Flow

Diversion

Re

quire

men

ts

Infiltration Co

ncerns

(During Co

nstructio

n)

Redu

ction in Cap

acity

Cost per Option

Minim

ize Project C

ost

(OPC

)

Total Points

Preferred Alternate

Location Length (ft.)

Rehabilitation Option \Weighting Factor 7 7 5 5 8 2 10 2 3 5 10 10

Segment I 1,530

Open Trench 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 15 3 24 3 6 0 0 3 6 0 0 3 15 3 30 $3,510,600 0 0 96

HDPE Sliplining 2 14 2 14 3 15 2 10 2 16 2 4 1 10 3 6 1 3 3 15 0 0 $1,404,800 3 30 137 .CIPP 3 21 1 7 3 15 1 5 0 0 0 0 3 30 1 2 1 3 1 5 2 20 $2,641,800 1 10 118

Fiberglass Sliplining (Short Pipe) 2 14 1 7 2 10 1 5 0 0 0 0 2 20 2 4 1 3 2 10 1 10 $1,909,800 2 20 103

Segment II 4,410

Open Trench 2 14 1 7 0 0 2 10 3 24 3 6 0 0 3 6 0 0 3 15 3 30 $11,198,100 0 0 112



Segment III 3,177

Open Trench 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 15 3 24 3 6 0 0 3 6 3 9 3 15 3 30 $5,993,900 0 0 105



Segment IV‐A 1,367

Open Trench 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 3 24 3 6 0 0 3 6 3 9 3 15 3 30 $2,827,700 0 0 100



Segment IV‐B 4,070

Open Trench 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 3 24 3 6 0 0 3 6 3 9 3 15 3 30 $7,343,500 0 0 100

HDPE Sliplining 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 10 2 16 2 4 1 10 3 6 1 3 1 5 0 0 $6,899,100 3 30 89

CIPP 3 21 3 21 3 15 1 5 0 0 0 0 3 30 1 2 1 3 2 10 2 20 $6,814,600 1 10 137 .Fiberglass Sliplining (Short Pipe) 2 14 2 14 2 10 1 5 0 0 0 0 2 20 2 4 1 3 3 15 1 10 $4,478,800 2 20 115

Segment V 2,470

Open Trench 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 3 24 3 6 0 0 3 6 3 9 3 15 3 30 $5,583,200 0 0 100

HDPE Sliplining 0 0 2 14 1 5 1 5 2 16 2 4 1 10 3 6 1 3 1 5 0 0 $4,169,300 3 30 98

CIPP 3 21 3 21 3 15 2 10 0 0 0 0 3 30 3 6 1 3 2 10 2 20 $4,287,500 1 10 146 .Fiberglass Sliplining (Short Pipe) 2 14 3 21 2 10 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 20 1 2 1 3 3 15 1 10 $3,023,700 2 20 125


DESIGN-BID-BUILD (DBB)

PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD

CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK (CMR)

DESIGN-BUILD (DB)

Traditional DB

Design-build-operate

Design-build-finance-operate

Design-build-own-operate-transfer

DESIGN‐BID‐BUILD CMARDESIGN BUILD

DBODBFO

DBOOTPROGRESSIVE DB

PROJECT DELIVERY SPECTRUM


DESIGN-BID-BUILD (DBB)

Separate contracts for design and construction.

Design documents are 100% complete

Contractor selection is based entirely on cost.

OWNER

DESIGNER BUILDER

ContractsCommunication


PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD

Procurement process in a short timeframe

Project can be implemented in phases

Maximizes owner flexibility

Initially cost for construction is not known

Cost is determined through combination of

negotiated and competitive processes

OWNER

TRADE SUBS


DB ENTITY

Select Design‐ Builder

30%Design

VE

60%Design

ConstructabilityReview

90%Design

ConstructabilityReview

Submit/ApproveLS / GMP


CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK (CMR)

CMR handles some aspects of design

Designer and CMR hold separate contracts with owner;

CMR contracts directly with trades and takes on

“performance risk”

Overlapping design and construction

Professional management to an owner whose

organization may not have capabilities

Facilitates phased construction

Constructability and speed of implementation

OWNER

DESIGNER TRADE SUBS


CMR


TRADITIONAL DESIGN-BUILD (DB)

Design and construction services in same contract.

Single point of responsibility

Typically multi-step procurement process

Owner transfer of responsibility; DB entity is liable

for design and construction

Overlapping design (~30%) and construction

OWNER

DESIGNER BUILDER


DB ENTITY

BID PROCESS

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (POST-DESIGN PHASE)

Construction Administration

• Pre-Bid Documents

Review of Final Contract Documents.

Project Advertisement and Bid Documents

Distribution

• Pre-Bid Conference.

• Preparation and Issuance of Addenda

• Bid Opening and Award

• Preparation of As-Bid Contract Documents

Construction Management

D/CM/DB TEAM

AGENCY PROGRAM MANAGER

RISKMANAGEMENT PROCUREMENT ATTORNEY’S

OFFICE

WRITTENCOMMENTS

WRITTENCOMMENTS

WRITTENCOMMENTS

PROGRAM MANAGER

FINAL CONTRACTDOCUMENTS

D/CM/DB TEAM

FINAL BIDDOCUMENTSMEETINGS AS NECESSARY

Questions?

Thank you!Credits:Rod Lovett, MD‐WASDRicardo Vieira, LAN