108 Miles Condition Assesment - HDR Schiff

Pipelines 2010: Climbing New Peaks to Infrastructure ReliabilityRenew, Rehab, and Reinvest 878
2010 ASCE
CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF 108-MILES OF
WATER TRANSMISSION LATERALS

Ratliff, A.1, Russo, M. 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by mario luna on 02/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) initiated a program to assess water transmission
laterals that were constructed prior to 2000 and retained the services of HDR Engineering, Inc.
(HDR) to provide condition assessment of approximately 108 miles of pipe in Las Vegas,
Nevada, summarized in Table 1. The project team included specialized subconsultants (Schiff
Associates, Pressure Pipe Inspection Company, Echologics, Kleinfelder, TRC Solutions, Rafael
Civil, Rock Solid Group, and Cardno TBE) for corrosion testing and evaluation, internal
inspection of PCCP, acoustic testing, geotechnical investigation, surveying, test station
installation and excavations, broadband electromagnetic testing, and potholing.
Table 1. Summary of Laterals Included in the Project

Diameter Length Year Cathodic
Pipeline Material
(in.) (ft.) Built Protection
Whitney Lateral - 66 17,588 1968 Mortar lined and coated None
No test stations steel pipe
Las Vegas Valley 96 4,948 1969 Prestressed concrete None
Lateral - No test pipe (Carnegie Type
stations Joints) by Hydro Conduit
Corp.
Las Vegas Lateral - 90 31,818 1969 Mortar lined and coated None
No test stations steel pipe
Fayle Lateral - 72 1,807 1977 Steel lined with Pritec Impressed Current
Two test stations coating by Kaiser Steel
Foothills Lateral - 24 897 1978 Asbestos cement None
No test stations pressure pipe by Johns
Manville
Mesa Lateral 42 10,886 1978 Pretensioned concrete Impressed Current
Fifteen test stations cylinder pipe by Ameron
North Lateral - 16 2,851 1978 Asbestos cement None
No test stations pressure pipe by Johns
Manville
Robinson Lateral - 24 5,954 1978 Asbestos cement None
No test stations pressure line pipe
Twin Lake Lateral - 48 28,262 1978 Pretensioned concrete Impressed Current
No test stations cylinder pipe by Ameron
Foothills Lateral - 24 74 1979 Steel lined with coal tar None
No test stations enamel by Conduit
Fabricators
1
Senior Project Manager, HDR Engineering, Inc., 7180 Pollock Dr., Suite 200, Las Vegas, NV 89119-4336,
(702)938-6033, alison.ratliff@hdrinc.com
2
Senior Maintenance Engineer, Southern Nevada Water Authority, 243 Lake Shore Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89005,
(702)567-2083, mark.russo@lvvwd.com
1
Pipelines 2010
2010 ASCE
Diameter Length Year Cathodic

Pipeline Material
(in.) (ft.) Built Protection
Charleston Heights 36 574 1979 Steel lined with coal tar None
Lateral No test enamel by Conduit
stations Fabricators
Charleston Heights 48 493 1979 Pretensioned concrete Magnesium Anode
Lateral Five test cylinder pipe
stations
Gibson Lateral - 42 10,717 1995 Mortar lined and coated Magnesium
No test stations steel pipe Ribbon Anode
West Valley Lateral - 60 32,883 1997 Mortar lined and coated Galvanic Anode
Thirty-one test stations steel pipe
Oakey Lateral - 72 566 1979 Steel lined with coal tar None
No test stations enamel by Conduit
Fabricators
Main Aqueduct A 96 12,514 1967 Pretensioned concrete None
cylinder pipe
Main Aqueduct B 96, 108 15,787 1977 Prestressed concrete None
cylinder pipe
Main Aqueduct 120 3,168 1971 Reinforced concrete pipe None
CRITICALITY EVALUATION
The project will span 3 years and the first step was to determine the order in which inspections
would take place over the project duration. A criticality evaluation was performed to prioritize
the laterals for inspection. This requires criteria for evaluation that were developed along with
the specific scoring methodology for each. A system to weight the criteria was included in the
evaluation, as some criteria are more important than others, using a decision support tool,
PairWise Comparison. The outcome of the criticality evaluation provided a prioritized listing of
the laterals to be inspected each year of this 3-year program.
Criteria were developed for the criticality evaluation and resulted in the following list. Other
criteria that were discussed but not used because they were not considered to be differentiators in
determining the criticality of the pipes included: Internal pressure; transient pressure; linings;
recent construction; future CIP; maintenance history; and accessibility:
Age All pipes are pre-2000, but were defined by 4 different age categories: Stage 1, Stage
2, CRC, and CIP.
Coatings The various pipe materials have different types of applied or manufactured
coatings. These were divided into cement-mortar applied, coatings integral with pipe
structure such as PCCP, dielectric only, and dielectric with mortar coatings.
Cathodic Protection Some of the pipes have cathodic protection installed, while others do
not. Test stations are also installed along some pipes. This category was divided into no
cathodic protection and no test stations, no cathodic protection but has test stations, sacrificial
cathodic protection with zinc or magnesium anodes, older impressed current system, and new
impressed current system.
System Importance Even though all the laterals are important to the operation of the system,
three categories were identified: main lateral with no backup or redundancy, main lateral with
backup or redundancy, or secondary lateral.
External Conditions This criteria address the external environment in which the pipe is
located (trench area). Categories include aggressive, non-aggressive, CLSM, and potential
stray current influence. Soil resistivity is an indicator of soil and groundwater conditions;
2
Pipelines 2010
2010 ASCE
therefore, low soil resistivity would fall under aggressive external condition and high soil
resistivity falls under non-aggressive external condition. If the pipe is parallel to or crossed
by another utility with cathodic protection that may result in stray currents, then this is another
external condition that could affect the performance of the pipe.
Pipe Material This category addresses the predicted performance of specific pipe materials.
The materials include steel pipe (WSL, CML&CS), reinforced concrete pipe (RCP),
prestressed and pretensioned concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP and PCCLP), and asbestos cement
pressure pipe (ACPP). PCCP is further defined by whether it was installed in the 1970s or
pre- or post-1970.
For this evaluation, a score of 1 indicates high priority and 5 indicates low priority. Table 3
presents the scoring system used for each criteria.
Table 1. Criteria Scoring
Criteria Score Definition
Age 1 Stage 1
2 Stage 2
3 CRC
4 CIP
5 Not used
Coatings 1 Mortar coating
2 Coating integral with pipe structure (PCCP, PCCLP)
3 Dielectric only
4 Not Used
5 Dielectric with mortar
Cathodic Protection 1 No CP, no TSs
2 No CP, with TSs
3 Sacrificial CP with zinc anodes
4 Older impressed current and sacrificial CP with magnesium anodes
5 Newer impressed current
System Importance 1 Main lateral with no backup
2 Main lateral with backup
3 Secondary lateral
4 Not used
5 Not used
External Conditions 1 Aggressive (low soil resistivity)
2 Possible stray current
3 Not used
4 Non-aggressive (high soil resistivity)
5 Controlled, low-strength material (CLSM)
Pipe Material 1 ACPP
2 PCCP (installed in 1970s)
3 PCCP (pre and post 1970), PCCLP
4 RCP
5 Steel
The PairWise Comparison Decision Support Tool was utilized to provide a relative weighting of
the criteria used for the Criticality Evaluation. This tool provides a simple way to compare
criteria or alternatives against each other. Using numeric values between 1 and 5, numbers are
assigned as follows:
5 if one criterion is determined to be of much greater value than the other;
3
Pipelines 2010
2010 ASCE
4 if one criterion is determined to be of greater value than the other;

3 if one criterion is determined to be of equal value than the other;
2 if one criterion is determined to be of lesser value than the other; and
1 if one criterion is determined to be of much lesser value than the other.
As shown in Table 3, weighting factors were determined by taking the sum and dividing by the
total of the sum for each criterion. A weight is a fractional value between 0 and 1 and all the
weights must sum to 1. Weighting factors were applied to the scores for each criteria and a total
score was determined for each of the laterals to identify which year inspection work would be
conducted.
Table 3. Pair Wise Comparison Results

Cathodic System External Pipe Weighting
Age Coatings Protection Importance Conditions Material Sum Factor
Age
3 1 5 2 3 14 0.16
Coatings
3 2 5 4 4 18 0.20
Cathodic
5 4 5 3 5 22 0.24
Protection
System
1 1 1 1 1 5 0.06
Importance
External
4 2 3 5 5 19 0.21
Conditions
Pipe
3 2 1 5 1 12 0.13
Material
Total 90 1.00
YEAR ONE PROJECTS

Based on the criticality evaluation, Year One projects were identified that included the following
laterals:
Robinson Lateral, ACPP
Boulder City Lateral, Pretensioned CCP
North Las Vegas Valley Lateral, ACCP and Steel
Foothills Lateral, ACPP and Steel
Twin Lakes Lateral, PCCP
Main Aqueduct, RCP
Main Aqueduct A, PCCP
Main Aqueduct B, PCCP and Steel
Figure 1 provides the location of the pipelines in the Las Vegas Valley that were evaluated in
Year One of the program. Due to the variety of materials included in this project, a number of
inspection technologies were required. Table 2 lists the technologies that will apply to the
various pipe materials.
INSPECTION SUMMARY
The pipeline evaluations focused on the assessment of conditions likely to affect the structural
degradation (reference 1 for steel pipe) of the pipe (e.g. soil corrosivity and DC current flows)
and the mechanical strength of the pipeline (e.g. pipe wall thickness or reinforcing degradation).
Indirect and direct inspection techniques were implemented to evaluate two key parameters: soil
geo-chemistry and physical and operational pipeline parameters. These parameters provided
Pipelines 2010
2010 ASCE
information and data necessary to evaluate the ability of the pipeline to perform satisfactorily in
terms of conveying water at the required pressure and flow rate.
Figure 1. Pipeline Locations in the Las Vegas Valley
Table 2. Summary of Inspection Technologies Used by Material

Pipe Material Technologies
Asbestos-cement Pressure Soil Resistivity Testing - Emag
Soil Sampling and Testing
Groundwater Sampling and Testing (if present)
Potholing and Acoustic Testing
Direct Assessment (Excavations)
Coring and Petrographic Analysis
Prestressed Concrete Soil Resistivity Testing - Emag & Wenner 4-pin
Cylinder Soil Sampling and Testing
Electrical Continuity Survey
Remote Field Transformer Coupling (RFTC) Survey
Broadband Electromagnetic (BEM) Hand Scanning Kit (HSK) (Optional)
Steel with Cement Mortar Soil Resistivity Testing - Emag & Wenner 4-pin
Lining and Coating, Coal Soil Sampling and Testing
5
Pipelines 2010
2010 ASCE
Pipe Material Technologies

Tar Epoxy, or Tape Groundwater Sampling and Testing (if present)
Coating Test Station Installation
Electrical Continuity Survey
Potential Survey
Stray Current Survey
BEM HSK Survey
Ultrasonic Thickness (UT) Testing (Optional)
Reinforced Concrete Pipe Soil Resistivity Testing - Emag & Wenner 4-pin
Soil Sampling and Testing
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
Prior to conducting fieldwork, the project team developed a detailed field work plan for the first
year of work, which identified the procedures and requirements for the various field work
activities. This plan was implemented throughout the project to assess the various laterals.
Provided below is a summary of the condition assessment, results, and recommendations.
Soil Corrosivity Evaluation

As the first field testing method required on all pipes regardless of material, the soil corrosivity
evaluation included electromagnetic (Emag) conductivity surveys, Wenner 4-pin testing, and soil
and groundwater sampling and testing.
The Emag survey was performed at all accessible locations along the entire alignment of each
lateral that provided a horizontal assessment of soil resistivity. Based on an analysis of the Emag
results (readings below 1,500 ohms-cm or where low readings were observed), Wenner 4-pin
testing was conducted to obtain a vertical soil resistivity profile and soil sampling was
conducted. Figure 2 provides an example of Emag results and Table 3 presents an example of
the Wenner 4-pin results. The Wenner 4-pin results shown in Table 3 indicate that the soil
resistivity is lower with depth.
When soil sampling encounters groundwater, groundwater samples are also obtained. Based on
the soil analysis, sites are classified as: 1) severely corrosive to ferrous metals; 2) aggressive with
respect to exposure of cement-mortar or concrete embedded steel to the migration of chloride;
and 3) subject to severe sulfate attack alone. A total of 26 soil sites were identified for testing.
Only one site encountered groundwater for sampling.
Acoustic Testing
Acoustic testing was performed on the asbestos-cement pressure pipe (ACPP) on the Robinson,
North, and Foothills Laterals and the Boulder City Lateral, which is a pretensioned concrete
cylinder pipe. Acoustic testing is a noninvasive testing method that does not require the pipe to
be out of service for testing to be performed. Initially a 300- to 700-foot-long section is selected
for testing. When a section of pipe is thought to be in poor condition or when there are concerns
about a particular section, a higher resolution is obtained by moving the acoustic sensors closer
together. For most of the lateral inspection on this project, the distance was too long between
access structures, therefore potholes were provided to connect wires to the pipe for additional
listening stations. Details of the acoustic testing performed on this project are presented in a
separate paper, Acoustic Based Condition Assessment of Asbestos-Cement Water Transmission
Laterals, Marc Bracken, et al., 2010, ASCE Pipelines Conference. Wide variations in
resistivities and water levels can create concentration type corrosion cells that increase the
corrosion rates above what would be expected from the chemical characteristics
6
Pipelines 2010
2010 ASCE
Figure 2. Emag results indicating sites for Wenner 4-pin and Soil Sampling
Table 3. Wenner 4-pin Results
Pipelines 2010
2010 ASCE
One leak was identified (Figure 3) along the Robinson Lateral at a approximate Station 77+00,
which was also identified by soil corrosivity as a high potential site for external corrosion.
Figure 3. Potential Leak Location at the North Las Vegas Airport
Electrical Continuity
A test of the state of the electrical continuity along metallic and prestressed concrete cylinder
pipelines was completed to validate the installed condition. The electrical continuity testing is
conducted along the entire pipeline alignment where feasible. The testing hinges on pipeline
appurtenance connection details and accessibility such as blow-offs, air vacuum/air release
valves, test stations, and connection points to foreign structures. This testing is complete prior to
conducting any Close-interval Survey (CIS). A total of eleven test stations were installed on two
laterals during the Year One inspections. Electrical continuity testing confirmed that some pipes
were electrically discontinuous through appurtenances. An electrically continuous pipe is
required for cathodic protection (CP), but is susceptible to long-line galvanic corrosion if left
unprotected.
Pipe Potential Survey

Baseline potential testing was conducted on metallic and prestressed concrete cylinder pipelines
to establish a baseline reference to monitor future changes in potentials (Figure 4). Comparing
potentials over time estimates the probability that corrosion is occurring and evaluates corrosion
control, if installed. Close-interval survey (CIS) was conducted on pipes that are electrically
discontinuous. The CIS identified anodic areas where the pipe is likely corroded to protect
adjacent cathodic areas. During the CIS, a significant amount of stray current was measured. No
stray current source evaluation was conducted at this time. Stray current was identified on one
lateral.
Details of the potential results performed on this project are presented in a separate paper, Use of
Surface Potential and Other Electrical Measurements for Corrosion Assessments of Large
Diameter Transmission Pipes, Steve Fox, et al, 2010 , ASCE Pipelines Conference.
Pipelines 2010
2010 ASCE
Figure 4. Example of Potential Survey Results
Internal PCCP Inspection

Remote Field Transformer Coupling (RFTC) inspections were completed by PPIC to perform the
internal inspections of PCCP. Different internal inspection tools are currently available and the
selection of one over the other is a function of access, pipe size, hydraulic pressures and
velocities. The North Las Vegas Lateral PCCP will be inspected using the pipecrawler system,
which requires no more than 20 psi at the pipe low point. This equipment is placed in the pipe
and acts like a radio transmitter and receiver. The pipecrawler travels the length of the pipe and
creates an electromagnetic field. If there are any breaks in the wires along the PCCP, the wires
will amplify the noise from the electromagnetic field produced by the pipecrawler. Results of
the North Las Vegas Lateral RFTC inspection were not available at the time this paper was
submitted.
Two laterals in the project were previously inspected by PPIC and the results of these inspections
were utilized when evaluating the Main Aqueducts A and B. As seen in Figure 4, wire breaks
were previously identified along the Main Aqueduct B. When combined with other test results,
sites for direct assessment were identified.
Direct Assessment
Based on the results of the indirect pipeline inspection (soil corrosivity, acoustic testing,
electrical continuity, and potentials), optimum sites exhibiting the highest potential of
deterioration due to either external or internal conditions were selected for direct assessment.
After excavation of pipe at locations of these optimum sites, the following direct assessment test
methods were implemented for the different pipe materials:
ACPP core sampling, petrographic analysis
Metallic BEM, UT (optional)
PCCP BEM, UT (optional)
RCP Ground Penetrating Radar
ACPP One site was identified for direct assessment on the Robinson Lateral where acoustic
testing indicated a potential leak. It was expected that the pipe would need to be replaced to
correct the leak and SNWA field crews were available with pipe to perform the repair.
Petrographic analysis was performed on the removed portion of pipe. Petrographic analysis is a
valuable tool in failure analysis of concrete or cement pipe. Performing petrographic analysis
provides material characterization analysis by using a combination of optical microscopy,
scanning electron microscopy, and chemical analysis. These types of analyses provide an
9
Pipelines 2010
2010 ASCE
understanding of man-made materials and has been used for many years in the natural sciences.
Petrography is a term known from geology meaning, "the systematic characterization of rocks in
hand specimen and thin section". A well-performed analysis should provide information about
the causes of failure, as well as suggestions for repair. At the time of submittal of this paper, the
direct assessment and petrographic analysis had not been performed.
Metallic - Each steel pipe site identified for direct assessment will be excavated to the pipe
spring line and the pipe wall thickness measured to determine the loss of steel. Previous work on
the Las Vegas Valley Lateral (Reference 2) has shown that using the BEM over the entire
exposed surface of the lateral provided a good assessment of the average wall thickness of the
pipe. It was decided to use the HSK as a screening tool for this project and only remove coatings
to perform UT testing where the HSK indicated a significant thinning of the wall or a pin hole
was developing. A comparison of leasing versus purchasing the HSK equipment indicated that it
was more cost-effective to purchase the equipment than lease over the 3-year duration of the
project. When the equipment is ready for delivery, Rock Solid will provide training to local staff
on the operation of the equipment to obtain inspection data. Rock Solid will provide data
analysis from Australia and results returned within 24 hours of receiving the data. At the time of
submittal of this paper, the HSK testing had not yet been conducted.
Hand Scanning Kit (HSK) The HSK is a portable unit that uses BEM technology that scans
through the protective coating and provides an average wall thickness measurement for a two-
inch square (1290.3 mm2) area over the entire exposed pipe surface. This technology works by
generating a pulsed eddy current (an induced electrical current that flows in a circular path
containing a continuum of frequencies) that propagates through the metal and is detected by a
receiving probe adjacent to the exciting probe. Similar to UT testing, the pipe wall thickness is
related to the change in the signal over time. HSK is considered non-destructive because it does
not generally require removal of the protective coating. The pipeline can remain completely
intact because the HSK can scan through coatings such as mortar (up to approximately 3 inches
or 76.2 mm), paint, and tar. Instead of providing point readings, since the readings are averaged,
isolated pits or scratches that are not large enough to impact the average reading will not be
identified. Instead, only a general thinning of the area will be reported. The HSK system is
generally considered accurate to within 40 mils (0.040 inches or 1.016 mm). The HSK
technology requires data processing using a multi stage screening and processing procedure.
Ultrasonic Thickness (UT) Testing UT results are significantly more precise than HSK, but the
measurements are limited to a test window where the mortar has been removed to expose the
steel pipe. The test window is traditionally selected by mapping potential isopleths to identify an
area with the highest probability of corrosion. Although UT testing is technically considered
non-destructive because it does not harm the steel pipe wall, it does require the removal of
protective coatings and smoothing (cleaning and grinding) of the pipe surface to allow for
transducer contact with the steel being measured for accurate wall thickness readings. If the
surface material is rough or irregular in shape, accurate UT readings may be difficult to obtain.
UT testing utilizes high frequency sound energy (beyond the human audible range) to determine
pipe wall thickness without adversely affecting the material. A voltage is applied across a
piezoelectric ceramic to generate an ultrasonic wave. The ultrasonic wave propagates through the
steel and is reflected back to the transducer by the external surface due to a change in density.
The wave travel time is directly related to the distance traveled by using the speed of sound
through steel. UT provides an instantaneous point reading which is very accurate at that spot,
but may not detect an adjacent flaw.
10
Pipelines 2010
2010 ASCE
During UT testing, samples of the mortar coating are taken for testing. When chloride
concentrations increase in the mortar coating, the chloride ion creates a highly localized attack or
pitting, and corrosion of the steel may be induced by reducing the pH of the pore solution at the
steel-mortar interface.
Ground Penetrating Radar

Where soil corrosivity results indicated a potentially corrosive external environments on RCP,
excavations were scheduled to conduct external GPR inspection. GPR can detect subsurface
voids and delaminations in concrete pipes and structures. GPR historically has been used from
the surface to identify and locate voids in the soil surrounding pipes and buried structures.
Current technology allows the GPR unit to sit directly on top of the concrete structure to
characterize the condition through the wall. This technology will be used on the Main Aqueduct
Lateral. At the time of submittal of this paper, this work had not yet been conducted. An
example of the type of imaging available by the use of GPR is presented in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Example GPR Image through Concrete Pipe Wall
A GPR system radiates short pulses of high-frequency electromagnetic (EM) energy into the
ground from a transmitting antenna. This EM wave propagates into the concrete at a velocity that
is related to the electrical properties of subsurface materials (specifically, the materials relative
dielectric permittivity). When this wave encounters the interface of two materials having
different dielectric properties (i.e., concrete and water or air), a portion of the energy is reflected
back to the surface, where it is detected by a receiver antenna and transmitted to a control unit
for processing and display.
Evaluation and Recommendations

During the evaluation phase of the work, all the field data, existing documents, utility
information, and cathodic protection data are evaluated and recommendations developed for
either additional testing, repair/rehabilitation/replacement, or future testing requirements. The
following recommendations have been identified to date.
11
Pipelines 2010
2010 ASCE
Table 6. Results and Recommendations for Year One Laterals

Diameter
Pipeline Material Recommendations
(in.)
Las Vegas Valley Lateral 96 PCCP Soil corrosivity severe corrosion
90 Steel mortar lined and potential; high sulfates one location
coated indicates potential for severe sulfate
attack; 9 test stations installed; future
inspection recommended
Foothills Lateral 24 ACPP ACPP internal leeching suspected
24 Steel coal tar enamel based on water quality;
lined recommendation AC pipe coring and
petrographic analysis, currently
performing additional HSK scanning of

other AC pipes to build database
Steel - 2 test stations installed, pipe in
good condition, cathodic protection
system recommended
North Lateral 16 ACPP Soil corrosivity severe corrosion
potential; internal water quality
corrosive; approach for all AC pipes,
see Foothills Lateral recommendations
Robinson Lateral 24 ACPP Soil corrosivity mildly corrosive;
internal water quality moderately
corrosive; acoustic monitoring - leak
identified; approach for all AC pipes,
see Foothills Lateral recommendations
Twin Lake Lateral 48 Pre-tensioned CCP Soil corrosivity severely corrosive;
potential survey results for partial pipe
only, recommended to wait and perform
testing on entire alignment in Year 2
work
Main Aqueduct B 96, 108 PCCP Class III wire, two bonding straps,
shorting rods to steel can, internal Z
joint bonds; recommendation to install
electrical insulating device, design stray
current mitigation system
Main Aqueduct A 96 Pretensioned CCP Class II wire, no bonding straps, no
shorting rods to steel can, no joint
bonds; PPIC reevaluated 2004 data
using current analysis tool and wire
breaks were significantly reduced;
recommended to reinspect in the future.
Main Aqueduct 120 RCP Soil corrosivity mildly corrosive except
at land/water interface area along Lake
Mead; direct assessment with GPR
survey at four locations indicates small
degradation of reinforcing wire, but not
significant; reinspect at future date.
References
1. American Water Works Association, Steel Water Pipe: A Guide for Design and Installation,
4th edition, 2004.
2. Phased and Focused Approach for Water Pipeline Corrosion Assessment, Alison Ratliff, et
al, October 2009, ASCE Pipelines Conference, San Diego CA
3. Basic Principles of Ultrasonic Testing. NDT Resource Center. 2 May 2008.
4. NACE International. Standard Recommended Practice: Pipeline External Corrosion Direct
Assessment Methodology, Approved 2002.
12
Pipelines 2010

108 Miles Condition Assesment - HDR Schiff

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

108 Miles Condition Assesment - HDR Schiff

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Pipelines 2010: Climbing New Peaks to Infrastructure ReliabilityRenew, Rehab, and Reinvest 878

CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF 108-MILES OF

WATER TRANSMISSION LATERALS

Table 1. Summary of Laterals Included in the Project

Diameter Length Year Cathodic

Thirty-one test stations steel pipe

4 if one criterion is determined to be of greater value than the other;

Table 3. Pair Wise Comparison Results

YEAR ONE PROJECTS

Figure 1. Pipeline Locations in the Las Vegas Valley

Table 2. Summary of Inspection Technologies Used by Material

Pipe Material Technologies

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)

Soil Corrosivity Evaluation

Table 3. Wenner 4-pin Results

Figure 3. Potential Leak Location at the North Las Vegas Airport

Pipe Potential Survey

Figure 4. Example of Potential Survey Results

Internal PCCP Inspection

Ground Penetrating Radar

Figure 5. Example GPR Image through Concrete Pipe Wall

Evaluation and Recommendations

Table 6. Results and Recommendations for Year One Laterals

performing additional HSK scanning of

También podría gustarte