Joint fsawwa region vii asce-ewri pipeline rehabilitation presentation ro 11-14-2011
-
Upload
ascemiami-dade -
Category
Business
-
view
317 -
download
2
Transcript of 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
4. Data Analysis & Evaluation
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS
Goal – avoid, minimize and mitigate/address potential project impacts and
Level-I contamination assessment;
Re-evaluating the site prior to replacements/replacements
4. Data Analysis & Evaluation
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
4. Data Analysis & Evaluation
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
4. Data Analysis & Evaluation
PIPE MATERIALS EVALUATION
4. Data Analysis & 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
7. Rehab & Evaluation
7. Rehab & Evaluation
CIP REHABILITATION
7. Rehab & Evaluation
STEEL LINER SECTIONS
7. Rehab & Evaluation
SLIPLINING
7. Rehab & Evaluation
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
HDPE Sliplining 3 21 3 21 3 15 3 15 2 16 3 6 1 10 3 6 1 3 3 15 0 0 $4,228,100 3 30 158 .CIPP 2 14 1 7 2 10 1 5 0 0 2 4 3 30 1 2 1 3 1 5 2 20 $7,969,300 1 10 110
Fiberglass Sliplining (Short Pipe) 1 7 1 7 2 10 1 5 0 0 2 4 2 20 2 4 1 3 2 10 1 10 $5,641,600 2 20 100
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
HDPE Sliplining 1 7 1 7 3 15 2 10 2 16 2 4 1 10 3 6 1 3 1 5 0 0 $3,212,400 3 30 113 .CIPP 2 14 1 7 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 30 2 4 1 3 2 10 2 20 $5,610,000 1 10 108
Fiberglass Sliplining (Short Pipe) 3 21 1 7 1 5 1 5 0 0 0 0 2 20 1 2 1 3 3 15 1 10 $3,897,300 2 20 108
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
HDPE Sliplining 1 7 2 14 2 10 3 15 2 16 2 4 1 10 3 6 1 3 1 5 0 0 $1,196,200 3 30 120 .CIPP 3 21 1 7 3 15 1 5 0 0 0 0 3 30 1 2 1 3 1 5 2 20 $2,291,100 1 10 118
Fiberglass Sliplining (Short Pipe) 2 14 2 14 3 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 20 2 4 1 3 3 15 1 10 $1,605,400 2 20 115
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
PROCUREMENT METHODS EVALUATION
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
PROCUREMENT METHODS EVALUATION
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
PROCUREMENT METHODS EVALUATION
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
ContractsCommunication
DB ENTITY
Select Design‐ Builder
30%Design
VE
60%Design
ConstructabilityReview
90%Design
ConstructabilityReview
Submit/ApproveLS / GMP
PROCUREMENT METHODS EVALUATION
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
ContractsCommunication
CMR
PROCUREMENT METHODS EVALUATION
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
ContractsCommunication
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