Rehabilitation of a Deteriorated 60” RCP WastewaterRehabilitation of a Deteriorated 60” RCP WastewaterRehabilitation of a Deteriorated 60” RCP Wastewater Rehabilitation of a Deteriorated 60” RCP Wastewater Interceptor Using Competing Trenchless TechnologiesInterceptor Using Competing Trenchless Technologies

TAWWA/WEAT Summer SeminarTAWWA/WEAT Summer SeminarSan Antonio, TX

July 28, 2011Wendy Martinez, PE Wendy Martinez, PE

Mark Wade PEMark Wade PEBruce Cole, PEBruce Cole, PECorey Anderson EITCorey Anderson EIT Mark Wade, PEMark Wade, PE

Dan Buonadonna, EITDan Buonadonna, EITCorey Anderson, EITCorey Anderson, EIT

Presentation OutlinePresentation OutlinePresentation OutlinePresentation Outline

•• Project OverviewProject Overviewjj•• Inspection/Assessment Phase Inspection/Assessment Phase •• Design PhaseDesign Phasegg•• Bidding PhaseBidding Phase•• DiscussionsDiscussions

Project Statement of ObjectiveProject Statement of ObjectiveProject Statement of ObjectiveProject Statement of Objective

Provide a renewed Rowlett Cottonwood Provide a renewed Rowlett Cottonwood RCP Transfer Sewer using strategicRCP Transfer Sewer using strategicRCP Transfer Sewer using strategic RCP Transfer Sewer using strategic inspection technologies to evaluate inspection technologies to evaluate pipeline rehabilitation options and pipeline rehabilitation options and trenchless solutions to promote trenchless solutions to promote

competition through an innovative design competition through an innovative design d titi biddid titi biddiand competitive bidding process.and competitive bidding process.

RowlettRowlett--Cottonwood Transfer Sewer SystemCottonwood Transfer Sewer SystemRowlettRowlett--Cottonwood Transfer Sewer SystemCottonwood Transfer Sewer SystemWilson Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant

Allen Junction Control Structure 60” and 54” RCP (1984)60” FRP (2004)

Inspection and Assessment ResultsInspection and Assessment ResultsInspection and Assessment ResultsInspection and Assessment Results

2008Part A

Condition InspectionManhole InspectionsManhole Inspections

Pipeline LampingPipeline Lamping

Part B Condition InspectionAdditional CCTV InspectionsAdditional CCTV Inspections

2 D and 32 D and 3--D Laser ProfileD Laser Profile

Part A Assessment

Condition AssessmentCondition AssessmentScoring and Risk AssessmentScoring and Risk Assessment

Part B Assessment

Remaining Service LifeRemaining Service LifePipeline LampingPipeline Lamping

Limited CCTV InspectionsLimited CCTV InspectionsFlow MonitoringFlow Monitoring

2,D and 32,D and 3--D Laser ProfileD Laser ProfileSonar Imaging (siphon)Sonar Imaging (siphon)

H2S MonitoringH2S Monitoring

Scoring and Risk AssessmentScoring and Risk AssessmentCondition Rating and CriticalityCondition Rating and Criticality

Feasible AlternativesFeasible AlternativesHydraulic AnalysisHydraulic Analysis

Technologies Used Initial Technologies Used Final Technologies UsedMudMasterMudMaster CCTVCCTV Recommendations

Additional InspectionsAdditional InspectionsQuantification of CorrosionQuantification of Corrosion

Technologies Used

RedZoneRedZone RoboticsRobotics

Recommendations

FullFull--Scale RehabilitationScale RehabilitationPhased ImplementationPhased Implementation

Evaluation of SiphonEvaluation of Siphon Trenchless SolutionsTrenchless Solutions

Findings and ResultsFindings and ResultsFindings and ResultsFindings and Results• Structural Condition:

–– Severe deterioration generally consistent throughout entire alignmentSevere deterioration generally consistent throughout entire alignmentg y g gg y g g–– Extensive pipe joint failure and active I/IExtensive pipe joint failure and active I/I–– H2S levels measured up to 300 ppmH2S levels measured up to 300 ppm–– Condition Rating: 4.5 (5 = very poor using SCREAM model)Condition Rating: 4.5 (5 = very poor using SCREAM model)–– 90% of the pipeline has a factor of safety less than 190% of the pipeline has a factor of safety less than 1

• Predicted Remaining Service Life:–– The range of predicted service life: 4The range of predicted service life: 4--10 years (30% < 7yrs)10 years (30% < 7yrs)

• Wastewater Flow Conditions:

Metric (mgd) 60” RCP 60” FRP Total

Projected 2030 Peak Wet-Weather Flow (10-yr) 65.8 68.4 134.2

Projected 2030 Peak Base X 3.0 70.8 82.5 153.3

Capacity (gravity) 73.2* 97.1 170.3

Capacity (threshold surcharge) 77 0* 101 5 178 5Capacity (threshold surcharge) 77.0 101.5 178.5* Sliplined Condition

Total Thickness of Cl III IV RCP 8”Total Thickness of Cl III, IV RCP - 8

Thickness of Sacrificial Lining – 3”

C iti l Z f

60” ID RCP

Critical Zone of Corrosion (3-5”)

Sonar and CCTV InspectionSonar and CCTV InspectionSonar and CCTV InspectionSonar and CCTV Inspection(RedZone)(RedZone)

SEVERE CORROSION ABOVE 10:00 AND 2:00 POSITIONS

RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations

• Pipeline Rehabilitation/Replacementp p–– Phase I Improvements (construction completed)Phase I Improvements (construction completed)–– Phase II ( construction to be completed August 2011)Phase II ( construction to be completed August 2011)

• Siphon Cleaning–– Capacity improvementCapacity improvement

• Wastewater Master Plan– Comprehensive short-term flow monitoring program– Development of a system-wide hydraulic model– Condition assessment of strategic interceptor sewer systems

Review of Renewal AlternativesReview of Renewal AlternativesReview of Renewal AlternativesReview of Renewal Alternatives

R i f t ti l lt tiR i f t ti l lt ti•• Review of potential alternativesReview of potential alternatives

•• Conditions and parameters: Conditions and parameters: –– Peak flow deliveryPeak flow delivery

–– Permanent, corrosionPermanent, corrosion--resistant solutionresistant solution

–– LongLong--term H2S controlterm H2S control

–– Highly urbanized and Highly urbanized and g yg y

–– Flow control and odor management during constructionFlow control and odor management during construction

Review of Renewal Alternatives Review of Renewal Alternatives (cont’d)(cont’d)

C diti d t ( t’d)C diti d t ( t’d)•• Conditions and parameters (cont’d): Conditions and parameters (cont’d): –– Proven record of renewal alternativesProven record of renewal alternatives

–– Availability of experienced installersAvailability of experienced installers

–– Structural RenewalStructural Renewal

–– Alignment (bends and deflections)Alignment (bends and deflections)

•• Selection of final alternatives Selection of final alternatives

•• Final preFinal pre--design workshop and collaborationdesign workshop and collaboration

Initial Screening of AlternativesInitial Screening of AlternativesInitial Screening of AlternativesInitial Screening of Alternatives•• FRP SliplineFRP Slipline•• PVC SliplinePVC Slipline•• HDPE Ribline (SPR PE)HDPE Ribline (SPR PE)®

•• CIPPCIPP•• CutCut--andand--Cover (FRP)Cover (FRP)

Jointed PanelsJointed Panels•• Jointed PanelsJointed Panels•• Pipe BurstingPipe Bursting•• Cementitious Structural CoatingCementitious Structural CoatingCementitious Structural CoatingCementitious Structural Coating•• Deformed/reformed HDPEDeformed/reformed HDPE•• Thermoformed PVC LiningThermoformed PVC Lininggg

Review Matrix of AlternativesReview Matrix of AlternativesCriteria

Sliplining Sliplining CIPP Ribline Open-Cut

Review Matrix of AlternativesReview Matrix of Alternatives

gPVC

gFRP HDPE FRP

No Bypass Pumping Required No Additional Access Pts Required Availability of Qualified Installers Structural Integrity Proven Technology + + Proven Technology + + Navigation of Bends/Deflections - -

Final Alternatives SelectedFinal Alternatives Selected

Criteria Sliplining Sliplining CIPP Ribline Open-Cut

Final Alternatives SelectedFinal Alternatives Selected

Criteria gPVC

gFRP HDPE FRP

No Bypass Pumping Required No Additional Access Pts Required Availability of Qualified Installers Structural Integrity Proven Technology + + Proven Technology + + Navigation of Bends/Deflections - -

Rehabilitation TechnologiesRehabilitation TechnologiesRehabilitation TechnologiesRehabilitation Technologies

Option 1 – FRP SlipliningOption 1 FRP Sliplining

Pros• Longer Distance between Manholes• Longer Distance between Manholes• Can Install with Flow in Pipe• Can Push 3,000+ LF Downstream (FRP)• Can Push 2,000+ LF Upstream (FRP)• Fewer Access Manholes Required

Cons• Insertion Pits are Required• Insertion Pits are Required• More Potential for Odor Problems • Limit of 1.5% to 2% Deflection to Negotiate Bends• Slight Reduction in Capacity due to Smaller ID• Grout is Required in Annular Space• High ground water at insertion pits

Rehabilitation TechnologiesRehabilitation TechnologiesRehabilitation TechnologiesRehabilitation Technologies

Option 2 – Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP)Option 2 Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP)Pros

• Increase in Capacity due to Matching Corroded ID• Minimal Excavation Required – Work thru ManholesMinimal Excavation Required Work thru Manholes• Smaller Footprint for Odor Control

Cons• Requires By-Pass Pumping During Active Insertion and Curing• Requires Higher Level of Sewer Cleaning• Will Require Addition of New Access Manholes -Will Require Addition of New Access Manholes Maximum Length of Insertion is Approximately 1,000 LF• Field Wetting is Sensitive to Hot Ambient Temperatures

A ti I/I i h b ti ( t• Active I/I may require pre-rehab correction (grout, pre-lining)

Rehabilitation TechnologiesRehabilitation TechnologiesRehabilitation TechnologiesRehabilitation Technologies

Option 3 –RIBLINETM/SPR PEOption 3 RIBLINE /SPR PEPros

• Can Install with Flow in PipeMi i l E ti R i d W k th M h l• Minimal Excavation Required – Work thru Manholes

• Smaller Footprint for Odor Control• High ground water can be accommodated

Cons• Will Require Addition of New Access Manholes -

Maximum Length of Winding is Approximately 800 LF• Slight Reduction in Capacity due to Smaller ID• Grout is Required in Annular Space

Phase I DesignPhase I DesignPhase I DesignPhase I Design60” and 54” RCP (1984)60” FRP (2004)

Project Total Footage

Base Bid 10,610

Alt No 4

Alt No 3

Bid Alt #1 1,790

Bid Alt #2 2,120

Bid Alt #3 1,230Alt No 1

Alt No 2

Bid Alt #4 1,510

Total 17,260

Base Bid

Allen Junction Control Structure

Ph 1 P j t C di ti IPh 1 P j t C di ti I• Traffic control

Phase 1 Project Coordination IssuesPhase 1 Project Coordination Issues

• Construction permits• Work in rights-of-way• Odor control and management• Wet-weather controls (during construction)

S• Site restoration• Potential contractor pool• Ground water control if necessary• Ground water control, if necessary

T Od C t l St t iT Od C t l St t i• Reduce flow thru the pipe by diverting flow at Allen Control

S

Temporary Odor Control StrategiesTemporary Odor Control Strategies

Structure• Batch or continuously treat remaining flow in pipe with

chemical.• Control odor at excavations

– Negative Pressure using mechanical ventilation– Vapor phase treatment with dry media scrubberp p y

Ph 1 Bid R ltPh 1 Bid R ltContractor Technology Bid $/lf $/ID

Phase 1 Bid ResultsPhase 1 Bid Results

Engineer’s Estimate Slipline $7,825,000 $453 $8.40SJ Louis Slipline+CIPP $4,428,000 $256 $4.70Boyer Slipline $5 269 000 $305 $5 65Boyer Slipline $5,269,000 $305 $5.65Huff & Mitchell Slipline + Ribline $5,717,000 $331 $6.10Southwest Pipeline Ribline $5,812,000 $337 $6.25WRS I f t t Sli li Ribli $7 580 000 $439 $8 10WRS Infrastructure Slipline + Ribline $7,580,000 $439 $8.10BRH-Garver Slipline $7,923,000 $459 $8.50Boring & Tunneling Co. Ribline $8,038,000 $466 $8.65

Spiniello Slipline + CIPP $8,130,000 $471 $8.70RePipe Construction CIPP $8,581,000 $497 $9.20

Ph 1 C t tiPh 1 C t tiPhase 1 Construction Phase 1 Construction

Phase 2 ProjectPhase 2 Project LayoutLayoutPhase 2 Project Phase 2 Project LayoutLayout

WM6

Slide 23

WM6 Good slide.Can you add approx. lengths of each color coded segment?

Also, can we kill the 625 in the scale?Can you add a W to WTP?WM, 1/25/2010

Ph 2 S i l C id tiPh 2 S i l C id tiPhase 2 Special ConsiderationsPhase 2 Special Considerations

• Temporary Access EasementsTemporary Access Easements

• CIPP Installation at Siphon Approaches (crossing residential properties)

• Siphon CleaningSiphon Cleaning

• Odor Control During Construction

Siphon CleaningSiphon Cleaningp gp g

Ph 2 Bid R ltPh 2 Bid R lt

Contractor Technology Bid $/lf $/ID

Phase 2 Bid ResultsPhase 2 Bid Results

Contractor Technology Bid $/lf $/ID

Engineer’s Estimate Slipline $8.92 million $559 $10.35

SJ Louis Slipline+CIPP $4.84 million $303 $5.60

Oscar Renda Slipline $5.04 million $316 $5.85

Boyer Slipline $6 89 million $431 $7 98Boyer Slipline $6.89 million $431 $7.98

Southwest Pipeline SPR $6.99 million $438 $8.11

Phase 2 Phase 2

•• Construction began in August 2010Construction began in August 2010Construction Almost Complete!Construction Almost Complete!

•• Construction began in August 2010Construction began in August 2010

•• All slipline pipe (> 12,000 LF) installed by All slipline pipe (> 12,000 LF) installed by D b 2010D b 2010December 2010December 2010

•• Siphon cleaning to be completed summer Siphon cleaning to be completed summer 20112011

•• Minimal bypass pumping requiredMinimal bypass pumping requiredMinimal bypass pumping requiredMinimal bypass pumping required

•• Detailed laser profiling useful in evaluating Detailed laser profiling useful in evaluating adequate grout placementadequate grout placementadequate grout placementadequate grout placement

Mi i A li h dMi i A li h dMet the Overall Project Goals:Met the Overall Project Goals:

Mission AccomplishedMission AccomplishedMet the Overall Project Goals:Met the Overall Project Goals:•• Reduced construction impact to neighborhood;Reduced construction impact to neighborhood;•• Increased life span of this critical asset;Increased life span of this critical asset;pp•• Reduced potential I/I and resulting treatment costs;Reduced potential I/I and resulting treatment costs;•• Saved construction costs through competitive Saved construction costs through competitive

t hl biddit hl bidditrenchless bidding.trenchless bidding.

K t SK t SThe Value of HigherThe Value of Higher--Level Diagnostic Inspection:Level Diagnostic Inspection:

Keys to SuccessKeys to Successgg g pg p

•• Identified viable and real pipe renewal options;Identified viable and real pipe renewal options;•• Aided in calculation of grout volume as required;Aided in calculation of grout volume as required;•• Established pipe measured ovalities to assess Established pipe measured ovalities to assess

structural renewal requirements.structural renewal requirements.

The Value of Competing Technologies:The Value of Competing Technologies:•• Created a “level playing field”;Created a “level playing field”;•• Permitted a unique “mixPermitted a unique “mix--andand--match” approach;match” approach;•• Additional effort to design for 3 technologies added to Additional effort to design for 3 technologies added to

a construction cost savings of more than 40%.a construction cost savings of more than 40%.a construction cost savings of more than 40%.a construction cost savings of more than 40%.

Th k Y !Th k Y !Thank You!Thank You!Bruce Cole, NTMWDBruce Cole, NTMWD,,

(972) 442(972) 442--54055405(bcole@ntmwd.com)(bcole@ntmwd.com)

Wendy Martinez, CH2MWendy Martinez, CH2M HILLHILL(972) 663(972) 663 23012301(972) 663(972) 663--2301 2301

(wendy.martinez@ch2m.com)(wendy.martinez@ch2m.com)