PORTSMOUTH FORCE MAIN SELECTION OF PIPE MATERIALS · 2016-07-14 · Pump Station Tunnel Section...
Transcript of PORTSMOUTH FORCE MAIN SELECTION OF PIPE MATERIALS · 2016-07-14 · Pump Station Tunnel Section...
Design Considerations for Selection of Pipe Design Considerations for Selection of Pipe Material for Large Diameter CSO Force MainMaterial for Large Diameter CSO Force Main
Pacific Northwest Clean Water Association
2010 Conference
Presented By Presented By M. Patty Nelson, City of PortlandM. Patty Nelson, City of PortlandPhil Phil RoppoRoppo, Brown and Caldwell, Brown and CaldwellMark Mark HavekostHavekost, Jacobs Associates, Jacobs Associates
Presentation Overview
Project OverviewDesign RequirementsPipe Materials ConsideredPipe Material EvaluationSelectionProject UpdateQuestions
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Willamette River Combined Sewer Willamette River Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) ProgramOverflow (CSO) Program
Portsmouth Force MainPortsmouth Force Main
Deliver 120 mgdFrom Swan Island CSO Pump Station to Existing Portsmouth TunnelMeet ASFO Deadline of December 2011
Segment 1 Segment 1 –– Swan Island AlignmentSwan Island Alignment Single 66 Inch Force MainSingle 66 Inch Force Main
3,000 linear feet 84-inch Microtunnel4 Microtunnel Shafts6,800 linear feet Open CutSteel Pipe with Polyurethane Liner
Segment 2 Segment 2 –– Bluff AlignmentBluff Alignment Single 66 Inch Force Main inside a 10 Foot TunnelSingle 66 Inch Force Main inside a 10 Foot Tunnel
200 linear feet - Open Cut6,000 linear feet - Deep Tunnel2 Tunnel ShaftsFiberglass Reinforced Pipe
Profile ConsiderationsProfile Considerations
Force Main: Sloped to Drain
Segment 1: Conflicting Utilities
Segment 2: Deep Connection
Design RequirementsDesign Requirements120 120 mgdmgd, peak 140 , peak 140 mgdmgd
Single 66Single 66--Inch DiameterInch Diameter
Corrosion ResistantCorrosion Resistant
Handle Hydraulic Transient ConditionsHandle Hydraulic Transient Conditions
Pipe Materials ConsideredPipe Materials Considered
Welded Steel Pipe (WSP) with polyurethane liningWelded Steel Pipe (WSP) with polyurethane lining
FiberFiber--Reinforced Polymer Pipe (FRPP)Reinforced Polymer Pipe (FRPP)
Ductile Iron (DIP) with PROTECTO 401 (ceramic Ductile Iron (DIP) with PROTECTO 401 (ceramic epoxy lining)epoxy lining)
Reinforced Concrete Cylinder Pipe (RCCP)Reinforced Concrete Cylinder Pipe (RCCP)
Pipe Material EliminatedPipe Material Eliminated
Ductile Iron (DIP) Ductile Iron (DIP) Insufficient Size Insufficient Size
Reinforced Concrete Cylinder Pipe (RCCP)Reinforced Concrete Cylinder Pipe (RCCP)Corrosion concerns with concrete liningCorrosion concerns with concrete lining
Pipe Materials EvaluatedPipe Materials EvaluatedFiberFiber--Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Polymer Pipe (FRPP) ASTM D3754Pipe (FRPP) ASTM D3754
20 20 –– 40 foot length40 foot length
Push on jointsPush on joints
225 to 300 lbs per linear foot225 to 300 lbs per linear foot
Pipe Materials EvaluatedPipe Materials EvaluatedWelded Steel Pipe (WSP) Welded Steel Pipe (WSP) AWWA C200 AWWA C200
Polyurethane liningPolyurethane lining
40 foot length40 foot length
DoubleDouble--welded lap jointswelded lap joints
600 lb per linear foot600 lb per linear foot
Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation Criteria
CostCost
ConstructabilityConstructability
Structural DesignStructural Design
DurabilityDurability
Maintenance Maintenance
Installation RiskInstallation Risk
Sewer OperationSewer Operation
Cost ConsiderationsCost Considerations
Direct CostsDirect CostsProduction RatesProduction RatesRestraint RequirementsRestraint RequirementsNumber Welds/JointsNumber Welds/JointsWeight/HandlingWeight/HandlingCorrosion Resistant CoatingCorrosion Resistant CoatingMaintenance Access for Lined PipeMaintenance Access for Lined Pipe
Cost ComparisonCost ComparisonSegment 1Segment 1 Segment 2Segment 2
WSPWSP 4.37 - 4.69 million
5.07 5.07 –– 5.11 5.11 millionmillion
FRPFRP 4.52 4.52 -- 5.79 5.79 millionmillion
3.75 – 4.78 million
Thrust Restraint Thrust Restraint Required Required –– Poor Poor soils soils
Maintenance AccessMaintenance Access Intermediate Intermediate ShaftShaft
Constructability ConsiderationsConstructability Considerations
Space requirement Space requirement -- ShoringShoringEase of Installation Ease of Installation -- HandlingHandlingLength Pipe Length Pipe -- # Joints# JointsRestraint RequirementRestraint RequirementWeight of PipeWeight of PipeBackfill RequirementsBackfill Requirements
Constructability ComparisonConstructability ComparisonSegment 1Segment 1 Segment 2Segment 2
WSPWSP Double Welded Lap Joints
Prep/Patch Lining at Joints
Shoring system for external joint welds
Single welded lap joint – Careful fit for welding
Prep/Patch Lining at Joints
FRPFRP Push-on JJoints
Careful attention required for backfill
External thrust restraint system
Push-on Joints
Specialized bracing for backfilling in tunnel
Structural Design ConsiderationsStructural Design Considerations
LoadingLoadingInternal PressuresInternal PressuresExternal PressuresExternal PressuresAbility to handle ground movementAbility to handle ground movement
Structural Design ComparisonStructural Design ComparisonBoth WSP and FRP were designed to handle:
Internal Pressure 45 psi operating, 63 psi peakFull VacuumInstallation LoadsBackfill Loads
Durability ConsiderationsDurability Considerations
Internal Corrosion ResistanceInternal Corrosion ResistanceExternal Corrosion ResistanceExternal Corrosion ResistanceAbrasion ResistanceAbrasion ResistanceFatigueFatigue
Durability ComparisonDurability ComparisonSegment 1 & 2Segment 1 & 2
WSPWSP Internal Corrosion: Lining External Corrosion: Tape WrapAbrasion: Polyurethane HighestFatigue: Resistant
FRPFRP Pipe material Corrosion Resistant Abrasion: High ResistanceFatigue: Designed using higher pressure class to extend pipe life
Maintenance ConsiderationsMaintenance Considerations
Access for Repairs & CleaningAccess for Repairs & Cleaning
Method of RepairsMethod of Repairs
Historical Maintenance IssuesHistorical Maintenance Issues
Maintenance ComparisonMaintenance ComparisonSegment 1Segment 1 Segment 2Segment 2
WSPWSP Shallow force main
Air/Vac Access Vaults
Lining repairs anticipated
Repairs sensitive to workmanship & environment
Deep force main
Requires Intermediate Shaft for Access
Lining repairs anticipated
Repairs sensitive to workmanship & environment
FRPFRP Shallow force main
Air/Vac Access Vaults
Repairs using fiberglass and resin laminations – controlled environment
Deep force main
Repairs using fiberglass and resin laminations – controlled environment
Installation Risk ConsiderationsInstallation Risk Considerations
Excessive loads due to:Excessive loads due to:Pipe floatation Pipe floatation High grouting pressuresHigh grouting pressures
Poor JointsPoor Joints
Damage from InstallationDamage from Installation
Installation Risk ComparisonInstallation Risk ComparisonSegment 1Segment 1 Segment 2Segment 2
WSPWSP Lining damage during installation
Double Joints Protect
Lining damage during installation
Pipe grouted within tunnel
FRPFRP Pipe damage during backfill
Joint Leakage
Pipe damage during backfill
Joint Leakage
Summary of Pipe ComparisonSegment 1 Segment 2
Pipe Cost WSP FRPP
Constructability Neutral FRPP
Structural Design Neutral Neutral
Durability FRPP FRPP
Maintenance Neutral FRPP
Installation Risk WSP WSP
System Operation ConsiderationsSystem Operation ConsiderationsLow PressureLow Pressure
Wet Weather Operation OnlyWet Weather Operation Only
Avoid Full VacuumAvoid Full Vacuum
Air/Vacuum Relief & AccessAir/Vacuum Relief & Access
Air/Vacuum Relief ValvesAir/Vacuum Relief Valves
Locations needed for Air/Vacuum ReliefLocations needed for Air/Vacuum Relief
Must vent to surfaceMust vent to surface
Hydraulic Transient Analysis to Determine LocationHydraulic Transient Analysis to Determine Location
Pipe Material Considerations in Pipe Material Considerations in Hydraulic Transient AnalysisHydraulic Transient Analysis
Different Pipe Materials = Different Wave SpeedsDifferent Pipe Materials = Different Wave Speeds
Wave Speed impacts Transient AnalysisWave Speed impacts Transient Analysis
FRP = Higher Wave Speed than SteelFRP = Higher Wave Speed than Steel
Reviewed combinations of pipe type Reviewed combinations of pipe type SegSeg 1 & 1 & SegSeg 22
Objective Avoid Full Vacuum ConditionObjective Avoid Full Vacuum Condition
Transient Analysis: Steel Vs FRPTransient Analysis: Steel Vs FRP
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
Force Main STA (ft) PS Discharge ~ STA 10+00
Pres
sure
(psi
g)
P Steady-State (psig)
Pressure Max (psig)
Pressure Min (psig)
Vent-O-Mat Location
60% Design Profile
Steady-State Pressure
Maximum Pressure
Minimum Pressure
Flow Exiting Pump Station
Tunnel Section
Option 7A:Segment 1: Fiberglass Pipe (wave speed 1,400 ft/s)Segment 2: Fiberglass Pipe (wave speed 1,400 ft/s)Vent-O-Mat Locations: 7
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
Force Main STA (ft) PS Discharge ~ STA 10+00
Pres
sure
(psi
g)
P Steady-State (psig)
Pressure Max (psig)
Pressure Min (psig)
Vent-O-Mat Location
60% Design Profile
Steady-State Pressure
Maximum Pressure
Minimum Pressure
Flow Exiting Pump Station
Tunnel Section
Option 6A:Segment 1: Steel PipeSegment 2: Fiberglass Pipe (wave speed 1,400 ft/s)Vent-O-Mat Locations: 7
Selection: Segment 1 Steel + Segment 2 FRP Selection: Segment 1 Steel + Segment 2 FRP
All FRP All FRP Steel + FRP Steel + FRP
Fear FactorFear FactorPoor Experience with Plastic PipePoor Experience with Plastic Pipe
Major FacilityMajor Facility
Single Force MainSingle Force Main
Tunnel Tunnel –– Limited AccessLimited Access
Case History FRP PipeOwner Project Application Size
(inches)Length (LF)
Pipe Installation Method
City of Charleston, South Carolina
Harbor Tunnel, Ashley River Tunnel (2006)Cooper River Tunnel (2007)
Pressurized Sewer Siphon
20 – 54 5,0009,50018,100
HOBAS Carrier Pipe in Tunnel
Jackman Penstock Replacement (1982, 2003, 2007)
Jackman Penstock Replacement (1982, 2003, 2007)
Hydropower penstock
84 3,900 FlowtiteHOBAS
Open Cut
City and County of Honolulu
Hart Street Force Main (2000)
Sewer Force Main
51 2,100 HOBAS Pipe Jacking
City of Abilene Buck Creek Force Main
Sewer Force Main
36 26,000 HOBAS Open Cut
Goochland County, Virginia
Goochland/Henrico Regional FM
Sewer Force Main
48 44,800 Flowtite Open Cut
THE DECISIONTHE DECISION
Segment 1 Pipe MaterialSegment 1 Pipe Material
10,000 LF10,000 LF
6666--Inch Steel AWWA Inch Steel AWWA C200C200
Polyurethane LinerPolyurethane Liner
Tape WrapTape Wrap
Segment 2 Pipe MaterialSegment 2 Pipe Material66 inch FRPP – HOBAS ASTM D3754
WHERE ARE WE NOW?WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Segment 1 Update
Segment 2 Deep TunnelSegment 2 Deep Tunnel
QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?