EPA/600/R-11/017 | February 2011 | www.epa.gov /nrmrl
`
`Quality Assurance and Quality Control
`Practices for Rehabilitation
`of Sewer and Water Mains
`
`Office of Research and Development
`National Risk Management Research Laboratory - Water Supply and Water Resources Division
`
`BLD SERVICES, LLC - EX. 1016
`IPR2014-00770
`BLD SERVICES, LLC v. LMK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EPA/600/R-11/017
`
`February 2011
`
`
`
`
`
`Quality Assurance and Quality Control Practices
`
`for
`
`Rehabilitation of Sewer and Water Mains
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by
`
`
`Ed Kampbell
`
`Jason Consultants, LLC
`
`
`Dec Downey
`
`Jason Consultants, LLC
`
`
`Wendy Condit, P.E.
`Battelle Memorial Institute
`
`
`
`
`
`Contract No. EP-C-05-057
`
`Task Order No. 58
`
`
`
`
`for
`
`
`Ariamalar Selvakumar, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`
`Task Order Manager
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
`National Risk Management Research Laboratory
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Water Supply and Water Resources Division
`
`2890 Woodbridge Avenue (MS-104)
`
`Edison, NJ 08837
`
`
`
`
`
`National Risk Management Research Laboratory
`
`Office of Research and Development
`
`U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
`
`Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`DISCLAIMER
`
`
`
`
`The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
`
`(EPA) under Task Order (TO) 58 of Contract No. EP-C-05-057 to Battelle. The EPA, through its Office
`
`
`
`
`of Research and Development, funded and managed, or partially funded and collaborated in, the research
`
`described herein. This document has been subjected to the Agency‟s peer and administrative review and
`
`
`has been approved for publication. Any opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do
`
`
`
`not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, therefore, no official endorsement should be inferred.
`
`Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation
`
`
`for use.
`
`
`iii
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
`
`
`
`
`
`As part of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)‟s Aging Water Infrastructure Research
`
`
`Program, several areas of research are being pursued, including a review of quality assurance and quality
`
`
`
`control (QA/QC) practices and acceptance testing during the installation of rehabilitation systems. The
`
`
`
`objectives of this research effort were to collect, analyze, and summarize information on the installation
`
`and QA/QC practices for the trenchless rehabilitation of sewer mains and water transmission mains. In
`
`
`addition, consideration was given to practices related to water service lines, sewer service laterals, force
`
`mains, siphons, sewer manholes, pumping stations, associated wet wells, and other appurtenances. This
`review was accomplished primarily by conducting interviews directly with rehabilitation technology
`
`
`vendors, design engineers, and water and wastewater utilities that have a track record of using trenchless
`
`
`
`rehabilitation technologies within their network.
`
`
`
`The report provides an overview of how QA/QC issues have been handled in North America for
`
`
`trenchless rehabilitation technologies. Section 1 provides an overall background on current and historical
`
`practices for inspection and QA/QC of trenchless rehabilitation projects, including definitions of key
`
`
`
`
`terminology. The issues discussed include qualification testing (done to confirm suitability for a
`
`particular application), design considerations for these often proprietary technologies, the impact that the
`
`
`technologies have on the traditional QA/QC model for engineering projects (i.e., construction observation
`
`roles), and the level of emphasis placed on the QA/QC of the completed works versus more traditional
`
`replacement or new construction techniques.
`
`
`In Section 2, the various trenchless technologies currently available in North America are introduced and
`
`
`recommended QA/QC practices are summarized based on consultation with the technology vendors.
`
`Each major type of technology (including those that are relatively new and/or just now emerging) are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`discussed from the vendor‟s point of view including the QA/QC criteria that they consider important to
`
`
`
`
`
`the successful use of their technologies in wastewater collection and water distribution systems.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Section 3 presents QA/QC practices from the perspective of the utilities and/or the owner‟s engineering
`
`
`
`
`representative. In this section, the authors explore not only this perspective from a North American point
`
`
`of view, but also from a review of how these technologies are treated in the European Union. European
`
`Union standards have been written in a framework that seeks to address the technical requirements of a
`
`
`particular application. The European Union standards require the individual technologies to be type-
`
`
`
`tested for the suitability of the materials in service in that operating environment, to prove the suitability
`
`
`
`of their in-situ installation process, and to establish the requisite QA/QC for installers. This inclusive
`framework is quite different than the traditional North American model of materials and installation
`standards (e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] standards) that tend to be exclusive
`
`
`to particular technologies. Additionally, the European Union standards set a requirement for continued
`
`installation process verification testing (referred to as audit testing) to maintain the qualification for a
`
`particular technology‟s suitability in an approved application. It would appear from their written
`
`approach that a great deal of emphasis is placed on a quality finished product; although it is known to
`
`often fall short of this ideal in actual practice.
`
`
`
`
`
`Section 4 addresses the question of how North American utilities use the QA/QC documentation and
`
`other as-built information obtained from their rehabilitation projects to bolster their condition assessment
`
`
`
`and asset management activities. Given the demands on their time and shortfalls in budget, it is difficult
`
`
`
`for many utilities to adequately carry out QA/QC programs to provide the up-to-date information that is
`vital to asset management. Recognizing the value of the as-built information to future system
`
`
`
`
`maintenance, utilities should plan to commit the necessary resources to this effort.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Section 5 summarizes the research findings and discusses gaps or needed improvements that could and/or
`
`should be made to QA/QC steps currently being employed on trenchless rehabilitation projects. The
`
`authors present technology-specific recommendations for best practices to help to ensure that the as-built
`
`
`improvements are consistent with the engineering design-life calculations.
`
`
`Good QA/QC practices promote a healthy bid environment and ultimately lead to higher performing
`
`installations of trenchless technologies. Practitioners of a well executed QA/QC program benefit from the
`
`overall lower cost of these improvements and the lower in-house costs of managing these assets over
`
`
`
`time. Contractors and technology vendors will respond accordingly to this call for quality once in place.
`
`Better trained construction observers and the proper allocation of their time to monitor the installation
`
`
`
`
`process are key elements of a good QA/QC program. As-built information that is readily available to the
`
`operations engineering team aids in the real-time performance assessment and feedback to the capital
`
`
`improvements engineering team for the rehabilitation technologies being utilized. Successful QA/QC
`
`
`programs help to ensure that trenchless technologies will meet their designed service life expectations.
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`FOREWORD
`
`
`
`The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation‟s
`
`
`land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
`
`
`formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
`
`
`of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA‟s research program is
`
`providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
`
`knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
`
`our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
`
`
`The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency‟s center for investigation
`
`
`
`of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
`
`threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory‟s research program is on
`methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and sub­
`
`
`
`surface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
`
`sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of eco­
`systems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that
`
`reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL‟s research provides
`
`solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
`
`
`the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
`
`decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
`
`
`
`environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
`
`
`
`
`This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory‟s strategic long-term research plan. It is
`published and made available by EPA‟s Office of Research and Development to assist the user
`
`
`community and to link researchers with their clients.
`
`
`Sally Gutierrez, Director
`
`National Risk Management Research Laboratory
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`This report has been prepared by Jason Consultants with input from the research team, which includes
`
`
`Battelle and the Trenchless Technology Center (TTC) at Louisiana Tech University. The technical
`
`
`
`direction and coordination for this project was provided by Dr. Ariamalar Selvakumar of the Urban
`
`Watershed Management Branch. The project team would like to acknowledge the technology vendors
`
`and utilities that contributed to the review of current QA/QC practices. Sincere appreciation is extended
`
`to their representatives who took the time to provide input and to make valuable contributions to the
`report. The authors would like to thank the stakeholder group members (Dr. David Hughes of American
`
`
`
`Water and Dr. Walter Graf of Water Environment Research Foundation) for providing written comments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`CONTENTS
`
`
`DISCLAIMER .............................................................................................................................................iii
`
`
`
`EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... iv
`
`
`
`FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................................... vi
`
`
`
`ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..........................................................................................................................vii
`
`
`
`CONTENTS...............................................................................................................................................viii
`
`
`
`FIGURES..................................................................................................................................................... ix
`
`
`
`TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... ix
`
`
`
`ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... x
`
`
`
`1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`1.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`1.2 Overview of Inspection and QA/QC for Trenchless Rehabilitation Projects ............................. 1
`
`
`
`
`1.2.1 Qualification Testing for Trenchless Rehabilitation Projects ........................................ 2
`
`
`
`
`1.2.2 QA/QC Procedures for Trenchless Rehabilitation Projects ........................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`1.3 Historical Perspective on Inspection and QA/QC for Trenchless Rehabilitation Projects ......... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.0 QA/QC FROM THE VENDOR‟S PERSPECTIVE .............................................................................. 7
`
`
`2.1 Technology Vendors Participating in this Study ........................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`2.2 QA/QC Practices and Field Inspection Advocated by Vendors ................................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`2.2.1 CIPP QA/QC Practices .................................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`2.2.2 Close-Fit Liner QA/QC Practices ................................................................................ 12
`
`
`
`
`2.2.3 Sprayed-On Coating QA/QC Practices........................................................................ 15
`
`
`
`
`2.2.4 GIPL QA/QC Practices................................................................................................ 17
`
`
`
`
`2.2.5 Pipe Bursting QA/QC Practices................................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.0 QA/QC FROM THE OWNER‟S PERSPECTIVE .............................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`3.1 Utilities Participating in this Study ........................................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`
`3.2 Current QA/QC Practices by Utilities for Trenchless Rehabilitation Projects ......................... 24
`
`
`
`
`
`3.3 Future Trends in QA Practices by Utilities for Trenchless Rehabilitation Projects.................. 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.4 Overview of QA/QC Practices in Europe ................................................................................. 29
`
`
`
`
`3.4.1 QA/QC Practices in Germany...................................................................................... 32
`
`
`
`
`
`3.4.2 QA/QC Practices in the United Kingdom.................................................................... 35
`
`
`
`
`
`3.4.3 QA/QC Practices in France.......................................................................................... 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.4.4 QA/QC Practices in Denmark...................................................................................... 36
`
`
`
`
`4.0 QA/QC DATA COLLECTION AND ASSET MANAGEMENT ...................................................... 37
`
`
`
`4.1 Quantity and Quality of As-Built Data Collected ..................................................................... 38
`
`
`
`
`4.2 Use of As-Built Information in Utility Asset Management Programs...................................... 40
`
`
`
`4.3 Desired Use of As-Built Information and Potential Benefits from Its Collection .................... 44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING QA/QC PRACTICES................................................. 45
`
`
`
`5.1 Technology Specific Recommendations for QA/QC Best Practices ........................................ 45
`
`
`
`5.1.1 CIPP Best Practices Recommendations....................................................................... 45
`
`
`
`5.1.2 Close Fit Liner Systems Best Practices Recommendations ......................................... 46
`
`
`
`5.1.3 Sprayed-on Polymeric Coating Best Practices Recommendations .............................. 47
`
`
`
`5.1.4 GIPL Best Practices Recommendations ...................................................................... 48
`
`
`
`5.1.5 Pipe Bursting Best Practices Recommendations ......................................................... 50
`
`
`
`5.2 Encouraging and Achieving the Owner‟s Implementation of Best Practice Methodologies.... 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 54
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`FIGURES
`
`
`
`Figure 1-1. Example of a Long-Term Structural Performance Test of a CIPP Resin Material ................ 3
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2-1.
`Inversion Set-Up .................................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2-2. CIPP Inversion in Progress .................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2-3. Finished CIPP Showing a Tight Fit ..................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2-4. FnF Liners Before and After Expansion .............................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2-5. HDPE FnF Being Inserted in a Pipeline .............................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2-6. PVC FnF Material Heated and Being Pulled into Position .................................................. 13
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2-7. Winching Liner in Place....................................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2-8. Outlet Control Station .......................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2-9. Post Installation CCTV Inspection....................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2-10. Spray-Applied Polyurethane in a Man-Entry Size Pipe....................................................... 16
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2-11. Strip Style GIPL................................................................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2-12. Segmental PVC GIPL .......................................................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2-13. Machine Wound in Place Liner System............................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2-14. Grouting Operation Setup .................................................................................................... 20
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2-15. Visual of Grout Filling Operation ........................................................................................ 20
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2-16. GIPL Composite Cross-Section ........................................................................................... 20
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2-17. Typical Pipe Bursting Setup................................................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`Figure 2-18. Pipe Splitting Tool ............................................................................................................... 23
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3-1. Format of the Renovation Standards.................................................................................... 31
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4-1. Field Sample Test Report..................................................................................................... 38
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4-2. Ultrasonic Thickness Gage .................................................................................................. 39
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4-3. Pipeline Location Probe ....................................................................................................... 40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLES
`
`
`
`Table 2-1. Summary of Rehabilitation Technology Vendor Study Participation ........................................ 7
`
`
`
`Table 3-1. Summary of European Standards for Trenchless Rehabilitation Technologies ....................... 30
`
`
`
`
`Table 3-2. Example of QA/QC Tests Performed by IKT on CIPP Liners (IKT, 2008)............................. 33
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
`American National Standards Institute
`
`American Society of Civil Engineers
`
`
`American Society for Testing and Materials
`
`
`
`Abwassertechnische Vereinigung (German Wastewater Technical Association)
`American Water Works Association
`
`
`Closed-Circuit Television
`
`
`Comité Européen de Normalisation (European Committee for Standardization)
` Civil Engineering Specification for the Water Industry (UK)
`Cured-In-Place Pipe
`
` Comité Francais d'Accréditation (French Committee for Certification)
`Combined Sewer Overflow
`
`Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (Scientific and Technical Centre for
`
`
`Building)
`
`Check-Up Program for Small Systems
`
`
`
` Deutches Institut für Bautechnik (German Institute for Civil Engineering)
`
`Deutsches Institut für Normung (German Institute for Standardization)
`Department of the Environment (UK)
`
`
` Division of Sewerage and Drainage
`
`Differential Scanning Calorimetry
`
`
`
` Deutscher Verband für Wasserwirtschaft und Kulturbau (German Association for Water
`
`
`and Land)
`
`Deutsche Vereinigung für Wasserwirtschaft, Abwasser und Abfall e.V. (German
`
`Association for Water, Wastewater, and Waste)
`
`
`
`
`
` Environmental Protection Agency
`
`Environmental Testing and Verification
`
`
`
`Fold-and-Form
`
`
`Grout-In-Place Liner
`
`Geographic Information System
`
`
`Horizontal Directional Drilling
`
`
`
`High Density Polyethylene
`
`
`
`Information and Guidance Notes (UK)
`
`
`Infiltration and Inflow
`
` Institut für Unterirdische Infrastruktur (Institute for Underground Infrastructure)
`
`
`International Pipe Bursting Association
`
`International Organization for Standardization
`
`
`Little Rock Wastewater Utility
`
`
`Million Gallons
`
`Material Safety Data Sheet
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`AASHTO
`
`ANSI
`
`
` ASCE
`
`
` ASTM
` ATV
`AWWA
`
` CCTV
`
` CEN
` CESWI
`
`CIPP
`
`COFRAC
`
` CSO
`CSTB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` CUPPS
`
` DIBt
`
`DIN
`
` DoE
`
` DOSD
`
` DSC
`DVWK
`
`
`DWA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EPA
`
`ETV
`
`
` FnF
`
`GIPL
`GIS
`
`HDD
`
` HDPE
`
`IGN
`
` I/I
`
`IKT
`
`
` IPBA
`ISO
`
`
`
` LRWU
`
` MG
`
`MSDS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NACE
`
`NASSCO
`
`NASTT
`
`NRMRL
`
`NSF
`
`
`NWC
`
`
`NWIS
`
`
`PACP
`
`PE
`
`psi
`
`PWS
`
`PVC
`
`
`QA
`
`QC
`
`
`RAL
`
`RFP
`
`
`SDR
`
`SRM
`
`
`TAG-R
`
`TDS
`
`
`TTC
`
`
`
`UK
`
`
`USGS
`
`UV
`
`
`
`WICS
`
`WIS
`
`WRc
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`National Association of Corrosion Engineers
`
`National Association of Sewer Service Companies
`
`North American Society for Trenchless Technology
`
`
`
`National Risk Management Research Laboratory
`
`National Sanitary Foundation
`
`National Water Council (UK)
`
`
`
`National Water Information System
`
`
`
`Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program
`
`Polyethylene
`
`Pounds per Square Inch
`
`
`Performance Work Statement
`
`
`Polyvinyl Chloride
`
`
`
`Quality Assurance
`
`
`Quality Control
`
`
`
`Reichsausschuss für Lieferbedingungen (RAL) (National Board of Supply Conditions)
`
`Request for Proposal
`
`
`
`Standard Dimension Ratio
`
`Sewer Rehabilitation Manual (UK)
`
`
`Trenchless Assessment Guide – Rehabilitation
`
`
`Technical Data Sheet
`
`
`Trenchless Technology Center
`
`
`
`United Kingdom
`
`United States Geological Survey
`
`
`Ultraviolet
`
`
`Water Industry Certification Scheme (UK)
`
`Water Industry Specifications (UK)
`
`
`
`Water Research Centre (UK)
`
`
`xi
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`1.0 INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Objectives
`
`
`
`1.1
`
`The objectives of this research effort were to collect, analyze, and summarize information on the
`installation and quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) practices for the trenchless rehabilitation
`
`of sewer mains and water transmission mains. In addition, consideration was given to practices related to
`
`water service lines, sewer service laterals, force mains, siphons, sewer manholes, pumping stations,
`
`
`associated wet wells, and other appurtenances.
`
`
`This review was accomplished primarily by conducting interviews directly with rehabilitation technology
`
`
`vendors, design engineers, and water and wastewater utilities that have a track record of using trenchless
`
`
`
`rehabilitation technologies within their network.
`
`
`
`In the vendor interviews, the focus was on the type of qualification testing that occurs at the point of
`
`
`
`
`manufacture, along with the vendor‟s recommendations for field implementation of QA/QC during and
`after installation. In the utility interviews, particular emphasis was placed on field oversight of projects
`
`
`and the types of as-built information that is collected during the installation of the trenchless rehabilitation
`
`
`
`
`technology. It was also determined how the as-built information is used by the utilities in their decision-
`
`making efforts to estimate the effectiveness of the technology, its future maintenance requirements, and
`its probable life expectancy as part of their on-going asset management activities. The information
`
`
`gathered was used to develop case studies and to highlight best practices from vendors, contractors, and
`water/wastewater utilities. Upon assessment of available information, specific recommendations were
`made on steps for improving the development and implementation of testing and QA/QC practices for
`
`trenchless rehabilitation technologies.
`
`
`The report is organized as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Section 1 provides an overall background on current and historical practices for inspection
`
`
`and QA/QC of trenchless rehabilitation projects including definitions of key terminology.
`
`
`Section 2 summarizes QA/QC practices from a vendor‟s perspective.
`
`
`
`
`Section 3 summarizes QA/QC practices from a utility owner‟s perspective.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Section 4 reviews the types of as-built data collected by utilities and how the information is
`
`used within their asset management programs.
`
`
`Section 5 provides an overview of best QA/QC practices identified from this review for key
`
`
`trenchless technologies and also discusses overall recommendations for improving and
`
`facilitating the use of QA/QC programs by utilities.
`
`
`
`
`Overview of Inspection and QA/QC for Trenchless Rehabilitation Projects
`
`
`
`1.2
`
`
`
`
`
`To take full advantage of the estimated design life of the various trenchless rehabilitation technologies, it
`
`
`
`is important that the technology vendor and installer use proper manufacturing and installation controls
`
`
`and that the finished quality is confirmed by good QA/QC protocols and/or testing. This section provides
`
`
`an overview of the general approach to QA/QC for rehabilitation technologies including qualification
`
`
`
`testing and inspection and QA/QC activities that occur during or after installation. The key terminology
`
`
`
`used is defined below. The responsibility for these activities is distributed among the technology vendor,
`
`installation contractor, utility/owner, and owner‟s engineering representative at various times during the
`
`project as described below.
`
`1
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1. Provide routine and consistent checks to ensure data integrity, correctness, and process completeness;
`
`
` Identify and address errors and omissions in the installation process; and
`
`
` 3. Document and archive product installations and record all QC activities.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` QC activities include general methods such as accuracy checks on the data acquisition and calculations and the
`
` use of approved standardized procedures for making processing measurements, addressing uncertainties in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` installation process, archiving the installation process information, and reporting.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Quality assurance activities include a planned system of review procedures conducted by personnel not directly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` involved in the product‟s installation process. Reviews, preferably by independent third parties, should be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` performed upon the final product following the implementation of the QC procedures. Reviews verify that the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` quality objectives were met, ensure that the total installed product is as required, and support the effectiveness of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` the QC program being used in the manufacturing and installation process.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Acceptance testing confirms that the installation is consistent with the product that was pre-qualified in the
`
` design phase and that it should live up to its design performance expectations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Qualification Testing for Trenchless Rehabilitation Projects. Qualification (also referred
`
`1.2.1
`
`
`to as type testing) is typically the responsibility of the technology vendor in North America. Qualification
`
`
`testing is performed on the materials and the related installation process to determine the suitability of a
`
`
`given technology for use in a particular application. The design approach must be supported by the
`technology‟s qualification testing to withstand the rigors of the proposed installation process and function
`long-term in the environment in which it is being used. As discussed in Section 2, the type of
`
`qualification testing required varies according to the rehabilitation technology vendor. For example,
`
`
`some manufactured products must meet consensus qualification testing requirements in published
`
`industry standards such as the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), while other
`
`
`
`technologies meet proprietary specifications established by the vendor for material and installation
`
`requirements. The latter is typical for a new product that falls outside the range of existing products in
`
`
`
`general use. Examples of types of qualification testing include creep testing, hydrostatic or pressure
`
`
`design basis testing, chemical resistance testing, strain corrosion testing, and other material property
`
`
`testing requirements. Ideally, such testing is conducted using samples that are as closely representative of
`
`
`the installed products as possible.
`
`
`Creep testing is used by the industry to define the long-term performance properties of the materials (e.g.,
`
`
`polyvinyl chloride [PVC], polyethylene [PE], thermoset resins, etc.) used in the various technologies.
`
`
`Creep is defined as the time-dependent part of strain resulting from constant stress. The ASTM D2990
`
`
`method is widely accepted for creep testing and is used to determine the tensile, compressive, and/or
`
`flexural creep-rupture properties of the materials. ASTM D2837 and D2992 are widely used to qualify
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
` Key Definitions for QA/QC Programs
`
`
`
` Qualification testing is defined as a series of tests on the materials and/or related installation process to determine
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` the suitability of a given technology for use in a particular application. Some owners require pre-qualification or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` certification of the vendor‟s equipment and materials prior to use at their utility.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Quality control is a system of routine technical activities to measure and control the quality of the product as it is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` being produced and/or installed. The QC system is designed to:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`the internal hydrostatic or pressure design basis for pipelines made from these materials. Utilizing
`
`laboratory prepared plate and/or pipe specimens, the materials are loaded to produce strength-regression
`curves that allow for the material‟s long-term performance to be extrapolated from the 10,000 hours of
`
`
`
`testing required by the test procedure to the design service life (typically 50 years). Figure 1-1 shows a
`
`typical plot generated by an ASTM D2990 test on three cu