HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 City of Bozeman - Rehabilitation Alternatives Evaluation
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DOWNTOWN STORMWATER MAIN
REHABILITATION EVALUATION
REHABILITATION
ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION
August 2020
Prepared For:
Stormwater Division
20 East Olive Street
Bozeman, MT 59715
Prepared By:
CITY OF BOZEMAN – DOWNTOWN
STORMWATER MAIN REHABILITATION
EVALUATION
Rehabilitation Alternatives Evaluation
Prepared for:
Stormwater Division
20 E. Olive St.
Bozeman, MT 59715
Prepared by:
2090 Stadium Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
August 2020
4528.12328.01
q:\28\12328-01\50design\task4 - rehab alternatives eval\alternativeevaluation_final_2020-08-10.docx
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 1
3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA .............................................................................................. 2
3.1 Surface Disturbance ............................................................................................... 2
3.2 Hydraulic Capacity ................................................................................................. 2
3.3 Structural Improvements ........................................................................................ 3
3.3.1 Fully Deteriorated Pipe Design Criteria ....................................................... 3
4.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 5
4.1 Alternative Description ........................................................................................... 5
4.1.1 Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) ........................................................................ 5
4.1.2 Pipe Bursting .............................................................................................. 5
4.1.3 Spiral Wound Pipe Liner ............................................................................. 6
4.1.4 Spray-in-Place Pipe - Geopolymer .............................................................. 6
4.1.5 Fold-and-Form Pipe Liner (FFP) ................................................................. 7
4.1.6 Sliplining ..................................................................................................... 7
4.2 Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................... 7
4.3 Recommended Alternatives ................................................................................... 9
4.3.1 Surface Disturbance ................................................................................... 9
4.3.2 Hydraulic Capacity ...................................................................................... 9
4.3.3 Structural Strength ...................................................................................... 9
4.3.4 Service Connections ................................................................................. 10
4.3.5 Construction Complexity ........................................................................... 10
4.4 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost ................................................................... 10
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 11
FIGURES
Figure 1: Existing cylindrical brick, mortared-in-place pipe. ........................................................ 1
Figure 2: Manhole connection to cylindrical brick mortared-in-place pipe. .................................. 3
TABLES
Table 1: Estimated Existing Hydraulic Capacity .......................................................................... 2
Table 2: Approximate Pipeline Cover and Live Load .................................................................. 4
Table 3: Alternative Rating Matrix .............................................................................................. 8
Table 4: Recommend Alternatives Estimated Full Pipe Hydraulic Capacity ................................ 9
Table 5: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost ......................................................................... 10
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Existing Stormwater Mains
Appendix 2: Construction Cost Estimates
Appendix 3: Preliminary Design Calculations
Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Phase 1 of the City of Bozeman’s Downtown Trunk Line Rehabilitation Project, as identified in
the Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan, is the rehabilitation of approximately 2,000 linear feet
of stormwater piping located in the alleyway between Main Street and Mendenhall Street which
connects into the North Rouse Avenue system. The North Rouse Avenue stormwater main is
being replaced by MDT as part of the Rouse Avenue Reconstruction project. This report
focuses on the stormwater main located in the alleyway between Main Street and Mendenhall
Street.
The purpose of this report is to complete an alternatives analysis of pipe rehabilitation options
for the City of Bozeman’s downtown stormwater main. The analysis will define design criteria,
describe possible pipeline rehabilitation technologies, and identify a minimum of two (2)
rehabilitation options to be used as the basis of construction bid alternatives.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The alleyway stormwater main between North Rouse Avenue and
South Tracy Street was installed in the early 1900s. The
downtown stormwater trunk line is a critical component of the
downtown stormwater conveyance system and the City has
recognized that the aged trunk line is hydraulically overloaded
during intense storm events. Any structural damage or failure of
the pipeline would have major implications.
The alleyway stormwater main is constructed of cylindrical brick
pipe, mortared-in-place. This type of pipe construction was a
common practice in the early 1900s. The inside diameter of the
pipeline ranges in size from 27 inches to 35 inches with an
average pipe coverage depth of 8.5 feet below the surface.
Additionally, there are 27 active stormwater service connections
along this reach of the stormwater main serving historical
buildings and surface inlets. The exhibits in Appendix A show the
overall project location, pipe size/slopes, service connections, and
additional information on the existing stormwater main.
Figure 1: Existing cylindrical
brick, mortared-in-place pipe.
Page 2
3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA
The three primary design criteria which guided the evaluation of alternatives for this project
include: (1) required surface disturbance; (2) hydraulic capacity; and (3) structural improvement.
3.1 Surface Disturbance
The existing stormwater main is located in a confined alleyway with surface features consisting
of historical buildings, overhead power/communication lines paralleling the stormwater main,
and Bozeman Creek crossing above the stormwater main. In addition to the surface features,
buried natural gas, communication, sanitary sewer, and potable water lines have been installed
between the stormwater main and the ground surface. Given the number of potential conflicts,
the pipeline rehabilitation shall be accomplished using a trenchless technology alternative, as
traditional dig and replace methods are not feasible. The cost of traditional dig and replace is
however provided as a basis of comparison in subsequent sections of this report. Trenchless
technologies shall minimize surface disturbances related to:
Street and alleyway closures
Reactivation of service line connections
Insertion pits and pipe layout areas
3.2 Hydraulic Capacity
The downtown stormwater trunk line is the primary conveyance structure for the downtown
watershed, approx. 330 acres. Since construction of the stormwater trunk line in the early
1900s, the impervious surface features have increased markedly throughout the drainage basin
and the once oversized stormwater main is now near or exceeding its hydraulic capacity during
typical storm events. The approximate full pipe flow hydraulic capacity of the existing
stormwater main is summarized in Table 1. The estimated hydraulic capacity has been
calculated using Manning’s equation for circular open-channel flow. Manning’s equation is the
typical equation used to estimate flow in gravity or open-channel pipe conditions. The estimated
flow in Table 1 is based on an assumed Manning’s roughness (n) value of 0.015, representative
of the existing cylindrical brick mortared-in-place pipeline.
Table 1: Estimated Existing Hydraulic Capacity
Upstream
Manhole
Downstream
Manhole
Length
Pipe
Size
I.D.
Pipe
Slope Full Pipe Flow
(feet) (inches) (%) (gpm) (cfs)
M.F.04.0057 M.F.04.0058 49.00 27.00 0.39% 7,515 16.74
M.F.04.0058 M.F.04.0059 347.00 28.20 0.32% 7,630 16.99
M.F.04.0059 M.F.04.0061 359.00 32.40 0.35% 11,672 26.00
M.F.04.0061 M.F.04.0062 564.00 34.80 0.26% 12,080 26.90
The trenchless pipe rehabilitation alternates shall minimize any reductions or restrictions to the
pipeline’s overall hydraulic capacity.
Page 3
3.3 Structural Improvements
The stormwater trunk line is a critical asset to the downtown stormwater conveyance system
and is over 100 years old. Given its location in the confined alleyway, adjacent to historical
buildings and numerous utilities, the structural integrity of the pipeline is a key factor in keeping
the stormwater system operational. If the pipeline were to collapse, spot repairs would be
difficult, and the stormwater system would not be capable of conveying stormwater which could
lead to subsurface erosion and flooding of
adjacent buildings and roadways.
DOWL reviewed the 2018 video inspection of
the pipeline and assessed the pipeline/manhole
connections. The inspection revealed the
pipeline to be in reasonably good condition
given its age, showing minimal visual signs of
structural degradation within the pipeline. At the
pipe to manhole connections, there are
openings where the open ends of the cylindrical
brick are visible (see Figure 2). These openings
allow a pathway for water to seep behind the
pipeline or into the brick structure. This could
lead to erosion or structural deterioration that
are not visible on the external pipe surface.
Due to the age of the pipeline, it is
recommended that trenchless rehabilitation alternatives be designed assuming a fully-
deteriorated pipe to perpetuate the existing pipe’s structural integrity into the future. The
manhole to pipeline connections should also be re-grouted to prevent water migration outside of
the interior pipeline conveyance.
3.3.1 Fully Deteriorated Pipe Design Criteria
Pipeline rehabilitation alternatives shall be designed to withstand the hydrostatic, soil, and live
loads that may exist. For fully-deteriorated pipe, the total pressure (Pt) or load is estimated by
accounting for the contributions of hydrostatic water pressure (Pw), buoyancy-corrected soil load
(PS), and superimposed live load (PL).
Pt = Pw + PS + PL
Hydrostatic water and soils loads are the pressure placed on the pipe from groundwater and the
soil column above the pipeline. The hydrostatic water pressure is calculated as follows:
Pw = HW x (0.433 psi/ft water)
HW = Water height above the top of the pipe, ft
The prismatic loading pressure of the soil on the pipeline is calculated as shown below.
Additional soils design parameters such as depth of groundwater, modulus of soil reaction and
coefficient of elastic support are approximated based on the in-situ soil properties.
Figure 2: Manhole connection to cylindrical brick
mortared-in-place pipe.
Page 4
PS = wHSRW / 144 in2/ft2
W = Soil density, lb/ft3
HS = Soil height above top of pipe, ft
RW = Water buoyancy factor, dimensionless
= 1 – 0.33(HW/HS) ≥ 0.67
Live loads consist of concentrated or distributed dynamic surface loading induced by vehicle
traffic over the pipeline. Typical vehicle live loading is outlined by the American Association of
State highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). AASHTO HS-20 loading is a prismatic model
in which the impact of live loads decreases as the depth of cover increases. Live load impacts
become insignificant with eight (8) feet of soil cover over the top of the pipeline. Table 2
identifies the cover for each pipeline section, measured at the manholes, and the corresponding
approximate HS-20 live loading.
Table 2: Approximate Pipeline Cover and Live Load
Manhole
Surface
Elevation
Pipe
Invert
Elevation
Nominal
Pipe Size
Approx.
Pipeline
Cover
Approx. HS-20
Live Load
(ft) (ft) (in) (ft) (psi)
M.F.04.0057 4,810.60 4,799.80 27 8.6 0.7
M.F.04.0058 4,810.11 4,799.69 30 7.9 1.2
M.F.04.0059 4,808.17 4,798.17 33 7.3 1.2
M.F.04.0061 4,809.25 4,797.75 33 8.8 1.00
M.F.04.0062 4,808.09 4,795.09 36 10.0 N/A
Page 5
4.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
The following section is a brief description of trenchless pipe rehabilitation alternatives, a
qualitative comparison of the alternatives, and recommendations for the preferred alternatives.
4.1 Alternative Description
4.1.1 Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP)
Cured-in-Place pipe is a trenchless pipe rehabilitation technology to repair structural issues
and/or mitigate inflow/infiltration issues. The process involves inserting a resin-saturated felt
tube made of polyester, fiberglass cloth, or a number of other materials into the host pipe at
manhole locations. The resin tube is then expanded using air pressure, hot water or steam and
is cured using UV or a thermal process (hot water or steam) to bond and seal to the host pipe.
Once cured, service lines are reinstated from within the pipeline using a robotic cutting device.
Advantages
-Limited surface disturbance
-In-situ reinstatement of service lines
-Increased structural strength
-Decreased Manning’s roughness factor
Disadvantages
-Requires bypass pumping
-Must allow for adequate cure time
-Reduces pipe diameter
-Environmental and health impacts of
CIPP emissions
4.1.2 Pipe Bursting
Pipe bursting is the replacement of a host pipe by fragmenting the existing pipe while inserting a
new pipe of equal or larger size in its place. The process involves cracking the existing pipe
using hydraulic, pneumatic, or reaming techniques, outward displacement of the existing pipe,
and simultaneously inserting a new replacement pipe. Pipe bursting is used to increase the
pipeline’s structural strength, hydraulic capacity, and reduce inflow/infiltration. The pipe size
being burst typically ranges from 2 inches to 36 inches with lengths between 200 to 500 feet.
Bursting installations become more difficult with larger diameters, greater degrees of upsizing,
and longer run lengths.
Advantages
-Increased structural strength.
-Increased hydraulic capacity.
Disadvantages
-Requires bypass pumping.
-External excavation required for
reinstatement of service connections.
-Surface deformation is possible.
-Existing utilities may be damaged
during bursting process.
-Enlarged construction footprint for
insertion pit and layout of continuous
pipe.
Page 6
4.1.3 Spiral Wound Pipe Liner
Spiral wound pipe liners are a trenchless technology to restore hydraulic efficiency and
structural integrity of aging pipelines. Spiral wound liners are a continuous strip of PVC or HDPE
material that is fed through a winding machine which “feeds it” into the host pipe. The winding
process connects the continuous strip to itself using an interlocking edge joint to form a
continuous pipe within the existing pipeline. The spiral wound liner is either designed to fit tight
to the host pipe or at a fixed diameter with the annular space grouted to increase structural
strength and to bond the liner to the host pipe. Spiral wound pipe is installed mechanically
through a manhole without the use of chemicals or a curing process. Additionally, spiral wound
liners can typically be installed while maintaining flow, avoiding bypass pumping.
Advantages
-Increased structural strength.
-No bypass pumping required.
-Increased hydraulic capacity due to
reduced roughness factor.
-Service connections can be reinstated
robotically.
Disadvantages
-Reduction in pipe diameter.
-Installation length is limited to approx.
400’, intermediate access point may be
necessary.
-Limited installation contractor’s in the
Montana region
4.1.4 Spray-in-Place Pipe - Geopolymer
Spray-in-Place Pipe (SIPP) lining systems use a robotic sprayer to coat the interior of the
existing pipe with cement mortar, epoxy, polyurea, or geopolymer mortar to rehabilitate aging
pipes in place. The cement mortar, epoxy, and polyurea liners enhance the flow capacity but
provide little to no structural strength. Geopolymer mortar is a monolithic mineral polymer with
ceramic properties which can be designed for full structural restoration. The application process
consists of a high-pressure wash of the pipeline with environmentally friendly detergents to
remove excess oil and grease, plugging any infiltration areas with hydraulic cement, and bypass
pumping all flow. The geopolymer is applied using a centrifugal sprayer mounted on a slow-
moving sled. The typical application thickness ranges from 1.5-3.0 inches depending on the
pipe conditions and design requirements.
Advantages
-Limited surface disturbance
-In-situ reinstatement of service lines
without robotic cutting (depending on
thickness of application)
-Increased structural strength
-Can be applied even with pipe
deformities, bends, and non-round
structures
Disadvantages
-Requires bypass pumping
-Must allow for adequate cure time.
-Reduces hydraulic radius
-Increased friction factor (Manning’s n)
-Extensive cleaning prior to installation.
-Infiltration needs to be temporarily
sealed prior to applying lining
Page 7
4.1.5 Fold-and-Form Pipe Liner (FFP)
Fold and Form Pipe (FFP) is a PVC or HDPE pipe that is manufactured round and folded into a
“U” or “C” shape while it is still warm to reduce the cross-sectional area and then coiled for
shipment. Onsite, the pipe is warmed and fed into the host pipe through a manhole. Once inside
the host pipe, both ends are sealed, and steam/pressure is used to expand the pipe to create a
tight fit inside of the existing pipe. Service line connections are reinstated using a robotic cutter.
The rehabilitated pipeline has improved structural integrity and hydraulic roughness.
Advantages
-Limited surface disturbance
-In-situ reinstatement of service lines
-Increased structural strength on
pipelines smaller than 24-inch diameter.
Disadvantages
-Requires bypass pumping
-Pipeline failure is possible if the pipe
does not properly unfold.
-There is no mechanical bond between
the liner and the existing pipe.
-Reduces hydraulic radius.
-Structural support limited in pipes over
24-inch diameter.
4.1.6 Sliplining
Sliplining is the process of pushing or pulling a new pipeline of smaller diameter into the existing
host pipe. A pipe insertion pit is excavated to access the host pipe. After the pipe is installed the
annular space between the new and existing pipe is grouted to hold the liner in place, reduce
infiltration, and for structural rigidity. Sliplining can be completed with a number of pipe materials
including HDPE, PVC, fiberglass, etc. The reinstatement of lateral connections is typically
completed with a surface excavation. Unlike pipe bursting, the existing host pipe remains intact.
Advantages
-Increased structural strength of
pipeline.
Disadvantages
-Requires bypass pumping.
-Significant reduction in hydraulic radius
which may reduce capacity.
-External excavation necessary for
reinstatement of service connections.
-Insertion pit and pipe laydown area
required.
4.2 Comparison of Alternatives
Table 3 is a qualitative ranking of the pipeline rehabilitation alternatives. Each category is
assigned a point value out of a total of 100 points. The total value of each respective category is
subjectively based upon the relative importance of the category for this particular application.
Each category is given a maximum score of 5 points and then multiplied by the criterion weight
to arrive at the total points for the category (i.e. 4/5 x 20 = 16 points). Some alternatives may
have the same value if no relative difference exists between the categories.
This methodology is used as one tool in the evaluation of alternatives in light of the recognition
that any such rating system has limitations. This methodology is combined with sound
engineering judgement and is combined with the other aspects of the project which must be
addressed in arriving at the preferred alternatives. Table 3 provides a qualitative ranking from
best to worst for the respective categories.
Page 8
Table 3: Alternative Rating Matrix
Criterion Criterion
Weight
Cured-in-
Place Pipe
Spiral Wound
Pipe Liner
Fold-and-
Form Pipe
Liner
Spray-in-
Place Pipe Pipe Bursting Sliplining
Score Points Score Points Score Points Score Points Score Points Score Points
Surface Disturbance 25 5 25 4 20 5 25 5 25 2 10 3 15
Hydraulic Capacity 25 4 20 4 20 3 15 3 15 5 25 3 15
Structural Strength 25 4 20 4 20 2 10 2 10 5 25 5 25
Service Connections 15 5 15 4 12 4 12 4 12 1 3 2 6
Construction
Complexity 10 5 10 4 8 4 8 3 6 2 4 3 6
TOTAL SCORE 100 90 80 70 68 67 67
Page 9
4.3 Recommended Alternatives
As shown in Table 3, Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) and Spiral Wound Pipe Liner are the two
highest-scoring alternatives with minor differences as described below:
4.3.1 Surface Disturbance
Both CIPP and spiral wound pipe can be installed through existing manholes, limiting surface
disturbances at the manholes. Both options will require short-term road/alleyway closures for
construction operations, and both will require bypass pumping during insertion and curing of the
liner. The spiral wound pipe will require the installation of two (2) intermediate manholes in the
sections between North Black to North Bozeman and North Bozeman to North Rouse. The
intermediate access points are necessary due to the increased liner thickness required for these
sections, as the increased thickness decreases the amount of liner that can be placed on a
continuous spiral wound pipe spool.
4.3.2 Hydraulic Capacity
Both recommended pipe rehabilitation alternatives will reduce the inside diameter and cross-
sectional area of the existing pipeline. However, the liners will create a smoother and
continuous inner surface, without joints or grout lines, which will decrease frictional flow
resistance. The Manning’s roughness coeffect (n) will reduce from 0.015, for the existing
cylindrical brick mortared-in-place pipe, to 0.010 for the newly lined pipeline. Both rehabilitation
alternatives will increase the overall full pipe capacity of the stormwater main by approximately
20 - 40% dependent on the resulting internal diameter of the pipeline.
Table 4: Recommend Alternatives Estimated Full Pipe Hydraulic Capacity
Upstream
Manhole
Downstream
Manhole
Full Pipe Flow
Existing
Pipeline
CIPP
Rehabilitation
Spiral Wound Pipe
Rehabilitation
(cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
M.F.04.0057 M.F.04.0058 16.74 22.83 21.33
M.F.04.0058 M.F.04.0059 16.99 23.28 21.81
M.F.04.0059 M.F.04.0061 26.00 36.03 31.76
M.F.04.0061 M.F.04.0062 26.90 37.50 33.36
4.3.3 Structural Strength
Both recommended alternatives will be designed with the assumption that fully-deteriorated pipe
structural support is necessary. Preliminary liner thicknesses for the CIPP and spiral wound pipe
liners, based on a number of initial assumptions, are summarized as follows. See appendix 3 for
preliminary liner thickness calculations These preliminary thicknesses will need to be verified
during the final design phase of the project.
Approx. CIPP Thickness = 0.45” – 0.55” (11.4 – 14.0 mm)
Approx. Spiral Wound Pipe Thickness = 0.79” – 1.2” (20 – 30.5 mm)
Page 10
4.3.4 Service Connections
Service line connections can be reinstated using a robotic cutter from within the pipe for both
the CIPP and spiral wound pipe liner alternatives. With the CIPP liner, the service connection
locations are confirmed based on field measurements and a “dimple” is typically visible in the
liner at the service line. The location of service connections on spiral wound pipe liner also relies
on field measurements but indications of service lines are not visible on the interior. Additionally,
a “gap” in the void space is typically present between the existing service line and the new pipe
liner. This “gap” is typically spanned using a “top hat” connection which extends into the service
line and is bonded to the liner material.
4.3.5 Construction Complexity
CIPP is a common technology for in-situ pipe rehabilitation by contractors in Montana and
throughout the western United States. This project is relatively straightforward and similar to
other CIPP installations. The primary project complication is the requirement for bypass
pumping of any baseline or stormwater flow during the liner installation. Since the stormwater
pipeline is a primary trunk line, the Contractor will need to consider weather forecasts through
the duration of construction.
Spiral wound pipe liners are gaining more traction in the trenchless pipe rehabilitation market
and installation contractors and suppliers are increasing in numbers but are less common than
the CIPP. The construction process is similar to CIPP on this project with the exception of the
need for two (2) intermediate manholes/access points. The new manholes will need to be
installed in the alleyways where utility conflicts with natural gas and communication lines are
likely. The benefit to the spiral would pipe installation is that it can be installed while maintaining
flow in the pipeline, therefore potentially eliminating the need to bypass pump flow during
installation.
4.4 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
The preliminary opinion of probable construction costs for the two (2) recommended
rehabilitation alternatives is presented below along with the cost of a traditional dig and replace
option for comparison. The construction cost estimate provided herein is a Class 3 budget level
estimate with an expected accuracy range of within 10 to 20%, (AACE International
Recommended Practice No 18R-97). The estimate is for construction costs only, i.e.
engineering cost are excluded, based on DOWL’s experience with previously constructed
projects, vendor budgetary quotes, material bid costs, and professional judgement.
Table 5: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Alternative
Estimated Construction
Cost
Total per LF
Traditional Dig and Replace of Stormwater Main $1,360,084 $1,030
Cured-in-Place Pipe Stormwater Main Rehabilitation $443,454 $336
Spiral Wound Pipe Liner Stormwater Main Rehabilitation $721,593 $547
Page 11
5.0 REFERENCES
EPA/600/R-10/078; July 2010; State of Technology for Rehabilitation of Wastewater Collection
Systems
EPA 832-f-99-032; September 1999; Collection Systems O&M Fact Sheet – Trenchless Sewer
Rehabilitation
Jaques, Jacqule & Shallenberger, Ryan; August 2018; NASSCO Tech Tips Spiral Would Liners
and the Pipe Rehabilitation Industry
Lanzo Lining Services, Inc., 2010; Engineering Design Guide for Rehabilitation with Cured-in-
Place Pipe, Second Edition
Muenchmeyer, Gerhard; February 2013; NASSCO Tech Tips Folded Pipe Trenchless Lining
Technologies Provide Choices for Consumers
North American Society for Trenchless Technology, 2011; Second Edition of the Pipe Bursting
Good Practices Guidelines
Quadex Lining Systems; February 2020; The Quadex Lining System, Next Generation
Infrastructure Renewal – A Precision-Applied Structural and Corrosion Resistant Solution.
Timberlake, Matt; June 2016, NASSCO Tech Tips: Pipe Bursting Preparing for Success
APPENDIX 1: EXISTING STORMWATER MAINS
MAIN ST.MAIN ST.N. BLACK AVE.N. BOZEMAN AVE.N. ROUSE AVE.N. TRACY AVE.MENDENHALL ST.
DOWNTOWN STORMWATER MAINS
REHABILITATION EVALUATION PROJECT
406-586-8834
2090 Stadium Drive
Bozeman, Montana 59715
WWW.DOWL.COM
OVERALL STORMWATER SYSTEM MAP EXHIBIT 1
N. BLACK AVE.N. TRACY AVE.1-5 E MAIN ST11 E MAIN ST17 E MAIN ST23 E MAIN ST27 E MAIN ST29 E MAIN ST35-37 E MAIN ST9 E MAIN ST101 E MAIN ST107 E MAIN ST115 E MAIN ST121 E MAIN ST123 E MAIN ST101 E MAIN ST129 E MAIN ST26 E MENDENHALL ST
1 W MAIN ST7 W MAIN ST23 N TRACY AVE
27 N TRACY AVE
DOWNTOWN STORMWATER MAINS
REHABILITATION EVALUATION PROJECT
406-586-8834
2090 Stadium Drive
Bozeman, Montana 59715
WWW.DOWL.COM
DETAILED STORMWATER SYSTEM MAP EXHIBIT 2MATCH LINE - SEE EXHIBIT 3~8" CMP SERVICE (STA 2+11)
UTILITY BORING
TYPICAL PIPELINE
N. BOZEMAN AVE.N. ROUSE AVE.232 E
MENDENHALL ST
131 E MAIN ST137 E MAIN ST201 E MAIN ST219 E MAIN ST223 E MAIN ST225 E MAIN ST229 E MAIN ST235 E MAIN ST241 E MAIN ST303 E MAIN ST311 E MAIN ST321 E MAIN ST35 N BOZEMAN AVE232 E MENDENHALL ST234 E MENDENHALL ST40 N BOZEMAN AVE
34 N BOZEMAN AVE
39 N ROUSE
AVE
DOWNTOWN STORMWATER MAINS
REHABILITATION EVALUATION PROJECT
406-586-8834
2090 Stadium Drive
Bozeman, Montana 59715
WWW.DOWL.COM
DETAILED STORMWATER SYSTEM MAP EXHIBIT 3MATCH LINE - SEE EXHIBIT 2TYPICAL SERVICE CONNECTIONS
TYPICAL PIPE AT MANHOLE
APPENDIX 2: CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Mobilization/Demob 5% % of Total $1,030,366.67 $51,518
Taxes Bonds Insurance 5% % of Total $1,030,366.67 $51,518
Assume Same Pipe Diameter 36" - RCP 1,320 LF $150.00 $198,000
Contractor Install of Pipe 25% % of Pipe $198,000.00 $49,500
Manhole Replacement 5 EA $8,000.00 $40,000
Disposal of Existing Pipe & Trench Material 2,347 CY $20.00 $46,933
Trench Backfill - Flowable Fill 2,347 CY $100.00 $234,667
Surface Restoration - Asphalt 264 Ton $150.00 $39,600
Surface Restoration - Concrete Sidewalks 56 SY $75.00 $4,167
Reinstatement of Service Connections 27 EA $2,500.00 $67,500
Bozeman Creek Crossing 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000
Bozeman Creek Bridge Replacement 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000
Utility Crossings/Utility Pole 20 EA $1,500.00 $30,000
Bypass Pumping 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000
Exploratory Excavation 40 HR $500.00 $20,000
Traffic Control 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000
$1,133,403
20%Contingency=$226,681
$1,360,084
$1,030
Item
Site Civil
Subtotal=
Total Estimated Construction Cost =
Total Estimated Construction Cost (per LF) =
Traditional Dig and Replace of Stormwater Main
City of Bozeman - Stormwater Division
Downtown Stormwater Main Rehbilation Evaluation
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Date: 8/4/2020
Q:\28\12328-01\50Design\Task4 - Rehab Alternatives Eval\BznStormRehab_CostEstimatee.xlsxPage 1 of 1
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Mobilization/Demob 5% % of Total $335,950.00 $16,798
Taxes Bonds Insurance 5% % of Total $335,950.00 $16,798
CIPP Materials & Install 1,320 LF $200.00 $264,000
Pre Pipeline Cleaning 1,320 LF $1.75 $2,310
Pre CCTV Pipeline Inspection 1,320 LF $2.00 $2,640
Adjust Protruding Services 10 EA $500.00 $5,000
Reinstatement of Services 27 EA $1,000.00 $27,000
Bypass Pumping 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000
Traffic Control 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000
$369,545
20%Contingency=$73,909
$443,454
$336
Cured-in-Place Pipe Stormwater Main Rehabilitation
City of Bozeman - Stormwater Division
Downtown Stormwater Main Rehbilation Evaluation
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Date: 8/4/2020
Item
Site Civil
Subtotal=
Total Estimated Construction Cost =
Total Estimated Construction Cost (per LF) =
Q:\28\12328-01\50Design\Task4 - Rehab Alternatives Eval\BznStormRehab_CostEstimatee.xlsxPage 1 of 1
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Mobilization/Demob 8% % of Total $532,148.33 $42,572
Taxes Bonds Insurance 5% % of Total $532,148.33 $26,607
Spiral Wound Pipe Materials & Install - 27" 48 LF $250.00 $12,000
Spiral Wound Pipe Materials & Install - 28" 347 LF $260.00 $90,220
Spiral Wound Pipe Materials & Install - 32" 359 LF $355.00 $127,445
Spiral Wound Pipe Materials & Install - 35" 564 LF $400.00 $225,600
Pre Pipeline Cleaning 1,320 LF $1.75 $2,310
Pre CCTV Pipeline Inspection 1,320 LF $2.00 $2,640
Adjust Protruding Services 10 EA $500.00 $5,000
48" Doghouse Manhole 2 EA $8,000.00 $16,000
Manhole Backfill - Flowable Fill 21 CY $100.00 $2,133
Surface Restoration - Asphalt 7 Ton $250.00 $1,800
Reinstatement of Services 27 EA $1,000.00 $27,000
Bypass Pumping (if needed) 0 LS $10,000.00 $0
Traffic Control 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000
$601,328
20%Contingency=$120,266
$721,593
$547
Spiral Wound Pipe Liner Stormwater Main Rehabilitation
City of Bozeman - Stormwater Division
Downtown Stormwater Main Rehbilation Evaluation
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Date: 8/4/2020
Item
Site Civil
Subtotal=
Total Estimated Construction Cost =
Total Estimated Construction Cost (per LF) =
Q:\28\12328-01\50Design\Task4 - Rehab Alternatives Eval\BznStormRehab_CostEstimatee.xlsxPage 1 of 1
APPENDIX 3: PRELIMINARY DESIGN CALCULATIONS
City of Bozeman - Downtown Stormwater Rehabilitation 8/10/2020
CIPP Liner Thickness Design PSY
A. Design Thickness Based Upon Buckling (Fully-deteriorated Pipe:)
Governing Equations, from ASTM F1216-08:
Where:
qt = Total external pressure on pipe, psi. See expression below.
C =Ovality Reduction Factor. See expression below.
N =Safety Factor
Rw = Water Buoyancy Factor. See expression below.
B' = Coefficient of Elastic Support. See Expression Below.
E's = Modulus of Soil Reaction, psi
EL = Long-term Modulus of Elasticity for CIPP, psi
I =Moment of Inertia for CIPP, in4/in. See Expression Below.
D =Mean Inside Diameter of Original Pipe, in.
Total External Pressure:
Where:
qt = Total external pressure on pipe, psi.
Pw = Hydrauilc Pressure, psi = Hw,ft x 0.433 psi/ft
PE = Earth Load Pressure, psi = (Rw x gs x Hc)/144
PLL = H20 Highway Loading
Height Of
Cover (ft)
Live
Load, psf
1 1800
2 800
3 600
4 400
5 250
6 200
7 175
8 100
over 8 neglect
Ovality Reduction Factor:
Where:
q = Percentage Ovality of Original Pipe
Water Buoyancy Factor:
Where:
Hw = Height of Water Above Top of Pipe, ft.
Hc = Height of Cover Above Top of Pipe, ft.
2
1
3
''23 úû
ùêë
é ÷ø
öçè
æ=D
IEEBRN
Cq LSWt
LLEwtPPPq++=
3
2
0011
0011
÷÷÷÷÷
ø
ö
ççççç
è
æ
÷÷ø
öççè
æ +
÷÷ø
öççè
æ -
=
q
q
C
÷÷
ø
öçç
è
æ-=
c
W
W H
HR33.01
Q:\28\12328-01\50Design\Task4 - Rehab Alternatives Eval\CIPP Buckling&Flow_.xlsmPage 1 of 2 Buckling-27"
City of Bozeman - Downtown Stormwater Rehabilitation 8/10/2020
CIPP Liner Thickness Design PSY
Coefficient of Elastic Support:
Where:
Hc = Height of Cover Above Top of Pipe, ft.
Moment of Inertia of CIPP:
Where:
t = Thickness of CIPP, in
For 27 in., Diameter Pipe
Input Parameters:
D = 27 in Mean Inside Pipe Diameter
N = 2 Safety Factor
E's = 700 psi Modulus of Soil Reaction
EL = 125000 psi Long-term Modulus of Elasticity for CIPP
Hw = 3 ft Height of Water Above Top of Pipe, ft.
Hc = 8.6 ft Height of Cover Above Top of Pipe, ft.
gs = 110 lb/ft3 Unit Weight of Soil
PLL = 100 lb/ft2 Live Load
q = 2 % Ovality of Original Pipe
Set up the following expression to use Excel "Solver" to determine t, pipe wall thickness.
A. Design Thickness Based Upon Buckling:
t SDR Rw Pw PE PLL qt C B' I rhs
in psi psi psi psi in4/in psi
0.4505 0.88 1.3 5.81 0.7 7.81 0.8358 0.3042 7.6E-03 0.0000
11.4416 mm
B. Design Thickness Based Upon Minimum Thickness:
Governing Equations, from ASTM F1216:
Substitute and solve for t:
Where:
E = Initial Modulus of Elasticity for CIPP, psi
I = Moment of Inertia for CIPP, in4/in.
D = Mean Inside Diameter of Original Pipe, in.
t = Thickness of CIPP, in
Input Parameters:
E = 250,000 psi Minimum Initial Modulus of Elasticity for CIPP
D = 27 in Mean Inside Pipe Diameter
tmin = 0.4446 in
t = 0.4505 in For 27 in., Diameter Pipe, for the Above Stated Assumptions Only.
11.44 mm
( )
CHeB560.0
'
41
1
-+=
21
3tI=
t
L
SW qD
IECEBRNshr -úû
ùêë
é ÷ø
öçè
æ==2
1
3
''2310
390.03³D
IE
21
3tI=3
1321390.0 ÷÷ø
öççè
æ ×׳E
Dtnim
Q:\28\12328-01\50Design\Task4 - Rehab Alternatives Eval\CIPP Buckling&Flow_.xlsmPage 2 of 2 Buckling-27"
City of Bozeman - Downtown Stormwater Rehabilitation 8/10/2020
CIPP Liner Thickness Design PSY
A. Design Thickness Based Upon Buckling (Fully-deteriorated Pipe:)
Governing Equations, from ASTM F1216-08:
Where:
qt = Total external pressure on pipe, psi. See expression below.
C =Ovality Reduction Factor. See expression below.
N =Safety Factor
Rw = Water Buoyancy Factor. See expression below.
B' = Coefficient of Elastic Support. See Expression Below.
E's = Modulus of Soil Reaction, psi
EL = Long-term Modulus of Elasticity for CIPP, psi
I =Moment of Inertia for CIPP, in4/in. See Expression Below.
D =Mean Inside Diameter of Original Pipe, in.
Total External Pressure:
Where:
qt = Total external pressure on pipe, psi.
Pw = Hydrauilc Pressure, psi = Hw,ft x 0.433 psi/ft
PE = Earth Load Pressure, psi = (Rw x gs x Hc)/144
PLL = H20 Highway Loading
Height Of
Cover (ft)
Live
Load, psf
1 1800
2 800
3 600
4 400
5 250
6 200
7 175
8 100
over 8 neglect
Ovality Reduction Factor:
Where:
q = Percentage Ovality of Original Pipe
Water Buoyancy Factor:
Where:
Hw = Height of Water Above Top of Pipe, ft.
Hc = Height of Cover Above Top of Pipe, ft.
2
1
3
''23 úû
ùêë
é ÷ø
öçè
æ=D
IEEBRN
Cq LSWt
LLEwtPPPq++=
3
2
0011
0011
÷÷÷÷÷
ø
ö
ççççç
è
æ
÷÷ø
öççè
æ +
÷÷ø
öççè
æ -
=
q
q
C
÷÷
ø
öçç
è
æ-=
c
W
W H
HR33.01
Q:\28\12328-01\50Design\Task4 - Rehab Alternatives Eval\CIPP Buckling&Flow_.xlsmPage 1 of 2 Buckling-28.2"
City of Bozeman - Downtown Stormwater Rehabilitation 8/10/2020
CIPP Liner Thickness Design PSY
Coefficient of Elastic Support:
Where:
Hc = Height of Cover Above Top of Pipe, ft.
Moment of Inertia of CIPP:
Where:
t = Thickness of CIPP, in
For 28.2 in., Diameter Pipe
Input Parameters:
D = 28.2 in Mean Inside Pipe Diameter
N = 2 Safety Factor
E's = 700 psi Modulus of Soil Reaction
EL = 125000 psi Long-term Modulus of Elasticity for CIPP
Hw = 3 ft Height of Water Above Top of Pipe, ft.
Hc = 7.9 ft Height of Cover Above Top of Pipe, ft.
gs = 110 lb/ft3 Unit Weight of Soil
PLL = 175 lb/ft2 Live Load
q = 2 % Ovality of Original Pipe
Set up the following expression to use Excel "Solver" to determine t, pipe wall thickness.
A. Design Thickness Based Upon Buckling:
t SDR Rw Pw PE PLL qt C B' I rhs
in psi psi psi psi in4/in psi
0.4768 0.87 1.3 5.28 1.2 7.79 0.8358 0.2947 9.0E-03 0.0000
12.1101 mm
B. Design Thickness Based Upon Minimum Thickness:
Governing Equations, from ASTM F1216:
Substitute and solve for t:
Where:
E = Initial Modulus of Elasticity for CIPP, psi
I = Moment of Inertia for CIPP, in4/in.
D = Mean Inside Diameter of Original Pipe, in.
t = Thickness of CIPP, in
Input Parameters:
E = 250,000 psi Minimum Initial Modulus of Elasticity for CIPP
D = 28.2 in Mean Inside Pipe Diameter
tmin = 0.4643 in
t = 0.4768 in For 28.2 in., Diameter Pipe, for the Above Stated Assumptions Only.
12.11 mm
( )
CHeB560.0
'
41
1
-+=
21
3tI=
t
L
SW qD
IECEBRNshr -úû
ùêë
é ÷ø
öçè
æ==2
1
3
''2310
390.03³D
IE
21
3tI=3
1321390.0 ÷÷ø
öççè
æ ×׳E
Dtnim
Q:\28\12328-01\50Design\Task4 - Rehab Alternatives Eval\CIPP Buckling&Flow_.xlsmPage 2 of 2 Buckling-28.2"
City of Bozeman - Downtown Stormwater Rehabilitation 8/10/2020
CIPP Liner Thickness Design PSY
A. Design Thickness Based Upon Buckling (Fully-deteriorated Pipe:)
Governing Equations, from ASTM F1216-08:
Where:
qt = Total external pressure on pipe, psi. See expression below.
C =Ovality Reduction Factor. See expression below.
N =Safety Factor
Rw = Water Buoyancy Factor. See expression below.
B' = Coefficient of Elastic Support. See Expression Below.
E's = Modulus of Soil Reaction, psi
EL = Long-term Modulus of Elasticity for CIPP, psi
I =Moment of Inertia for CIPP, in4/in. See Expression Below.
D =Mean Inside Diameter of Original Pipe, in.
Total External Pressure:
Where:
qt = Total external pressure on pipe, psi.
Pw = Hydrauilc Pressure, psi = Hw,ft x 0.433 psi/ft
PE = Earth Load Pressure, psi = (Rw x gs x Hc)/144
PLL = H20 Highway Loading
Height Of
Cover (ft)
Live
Load, psf
1 1800
2 800
3 600
4 400
5 250
6 200
7 175
8 100
over 8 neglect
Ovality Reduction Factor:
Where:
q = Percentage Ovality of Original Pipe
Water Buoyancy Factor:
Where:
Hw = Height of Water Above Top of Pipe, ft.
Hc = Height of Cover Above Top of Pipe, ft.
2
1
3
''23 úû
ùêë
é ÷ø
öçè
æ=D
IEEBRN
Cq LSWt
LLEwtPPPq++=
3
2
0011
0011
÷÷÷÷÷
ø
ö
ççççç
è
æ
÷÷ø
öççè
æ +
÷÷ø
öççè
æ -
=
q
q
C
÷÷
ø
öçç
è
æ-=
c
W
W H
HR33.01
Q:\28\12328-01\50Design\Task4 - Rehab Alternatives Eval\CIPP Buckling&Flow_.xlsmPage 1 of 2 Buckling-32.4"
City of Bozeman - Downtown Stormwater Rehabilitation 8/10/2020
CIPP Liner Thickness Design PSY
Coefficient of Elastic Support:
Where:
Hc = Height of Cover Above Top of Pipe, ft.
Moment of Inertia of CIPP:
Where:
t = Thickness of CIPP, in
For 32.4 in., Diameter Pipe
Input Parameters:
D = 32.4 in Mean Inside Pipe Diameter
N = 2 Safety Factor
E's = 700 psi Modulus of Soil Reaction
EL = 125000 psi Long-term Modulus of Elasticity for CIPP
Hw = 3 ft Height of Water Above Top of Pipe, ft.
Hc = 7.3 ft Height of Cover Above Top of Pipe, ft.
gs = 110 lb/ft3 Unit Weight of Soil
PLL = 175 lb/ft2 Live Load
q = 2 % Ovality of Original Pipe
Set up the following expression to use Excel "Solver" to determine t, pipe wall thickness.
A. Design Thickness Based Upon Buckling:
t SDR Rw Pw PE PLL qt C B' I rhs
in psi psi psi psi in4/in psi
0.5331 0.86 1.3 4.82 1.2 7.33 0.8358 0.2866 1.3E-02 0.0000
13.5398 mm
B. Design Thickness Based Upon Minimum Thickness:
Governing Equations, from ASTM F1216:
Substitute and solve for t:
Where:
E = Initial Modulus of Elasticity for CIPP, psi
I = Moment of Inertia for CIPP, in4/in.
D = Mean Inside Diameter of Original Pipe, in.
t = Thickness of CIPP, in
Input Parameters:
E = 250,000 psi Minimum Initial Modulus of Elasticity for CIPP
D = 32.4 in Mean Inside Pipe Diameter
tmin = 0.5335 in
t = 0.5335 in For 32.4 in., Diameter Pipe, for the Above Stated Assumptions Only.
13.55 mm
( )
CHeB560.0
'
41
1
-+=
21
3tI=
t
L
SW qD
IECEBRNshr -úû
ùêë
é ÷ø
öçè
æ==2
1
3
''2310
390.03³D
IE
21
3tI=3
1321390.0 ÷÷ø
öççè
æ ×׳E
Dtnim
Q:\28\12328-01\50Design\Task4 - Rehab Alternatives Eval\CIPP Buckling&Flow_.xlsmPage 2 of 2 Buckling-32.4"
City of Bozeman - Downtown Stormwater Rehabilitation 8/10/2020
CIPP Liner Thickness Design PSY
A. Design Thickness Based Upon Buckling (Fully-deteriorated Pipe:)
Governing Equations, from ASTM F1216-08:
Where:
qt = Total external pressure on pipe, psi. See expression below.
C =Ovality Reduction Factor. See expression below.
N =Safety Factor
Rw = Water Buoyancy Factor. See expression below.
B' = Coefficient of Elastic Support. See Expression Below.
E's = Modulus of Soil Reaction, psi
EL = Long-term Modulus of Elasticity for CIPP, psi
I =Moment of Inertia for CIPP, in4/in. See Expression Below.
D =Mean Inside Diameter of Original Pipe, in.
Total External Pressure:
Where:
qt = Total external pressure on pipe, psi.
Pw = Hydrauilc Pressure, psi = Hw,ft x 0.433 psi/ft
PE = Earth Load Pressure, psi = (Rw x gs x Hc)/144
PLL = H20 Highway Loading
Height Of
Cover (ft)
Live
Load, psf
1 1800
2 800
3 600
4 400
5 250
6 200
7 175
8 100
over 8 neglect
Ovality Reduction Factor:
Where:
q = Percentage Ovality of Original Pipe
Water Buoyancy Factor:
Where:
Hw = Height of Water Above Top of Pipe, ft.
Hc = Height of Cover Above Top of Pipe, ft.
2
1
3
''23 úû
ùêë
é ÷ø
öçè
æ=D
IEEBRN
Cq LSWt
LLEwtPPPq++=
3
2
0011
0011
÷÷÷÷÷
ø
ö
ççççç
è
æ
÷÷ø
öççè
æ +
÷÷ø
öççè
æ -
=
q
q
C
÷÷
ø
öçç
è
æ-=
c
W
W H
HR33.01
Q:\28\12328-01\50Design\Task4 - Rehab Alternatives Eval\CIPP Buckling&Flow_.xlsmPage 1 of 2 Buckling-34.8"
City of Bozeman - Downtown Stormwater Rehabilitation 8/10/2020
CIPP Liner Thickness Design PSY
Coefficient of Elastic Support:
Where:
Hc = Height of Cover Above Top of Pipe, ft.
Moment of Inertia of CIPP:
Where:
t = Thickness of CIPP, in
For 34.8 in., Diameter Pipe
Input Parameters:
D = 34.8 in Mean Inside Pipe Diameter
N = 2 Safety Factor
E's = 700 psi Modulus of Soil Reaction
EL = 125000 psi Long-term Modulus of Elasticity for CIPP
Hw = 3 ft Height of Water Above Top of Pipe, ft.
Hc = 8.8 ft Height of Cover Above Top of Pipe, ft.
gs = 110 lb/ft3 Unit Weight of Soil
PLL = 0 lb/ft2 Live Load
q = 2 % Ovality of Original Pipe
Set up the following expression to use Excel "Solver" to determine t, pipe wall thickness.
A. Design Thickness Based Upon Buckling:
t SDR Rw Pw PE PLL qt C B' I rhs
in psi psi psi psi in4/in psi
0.5512 0.89 1.3 5.97 0.0 7.26 0.8358 0.3070 1.4E-02 0.0000
14.0006 mm
B. Design Thickness Based Upon Minimum Thickness:
Governing Equations, from ASTM F1216:
Substitute and solve for t:
Where:
E = Initial Modulus of Elasticity for CIPP, psi
I = Moment of Inertia for CIPP, in4/in.
D = Mean Inside Diameter of Original Pipe, in.
t = Thickness of CIPP, in
Input Parameters:
E = 250,000 psi Minimum Initial Modulus of Elasticity for CIPP
D = 34.8 in Mean Inside Pipe Diameter
tmin = 0.5730 in
t = 0.5730 in For 34.8 in., Diameter Pipe, for the Above Stated Assumptions Only.
14.55 mm
( )
CHeB560.0
'
41
1
-+=
21
3tI=
t
L
SW qD
IECEBRNshr -úû
ùêë
é ÷ø
öçè
æ==2
1
3
''2310
390.03³D
IE
21
3tI=3
1321390.0 ÷÷ø
öççè
æ ×׳E
Dtnim
Q:\28\12328-01\50Design\Task4 - Rehab Alternatives Eval\CIPP Buckling&Flow_.xlsmPage 2 of 2 Buckling-34.8"
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
US Design Data
1.00 Worksheet Contents
Hyperlink Section name Section numberGOWorksheet Contents 1.00GOLine Physical Details 2.00GOSoil, Loading and Liner Defaults 3.00GOLiner Selection 4.00GOConstraints5.00GOAdditional Technical Information 6.00GOHydraulic Information (Assumes Full Flow)7.00GOOther Consumables 8.00GOCustomised Liner 9.00
2.00 Line Physical Details
Run No.1 2 3 4MFO4.00057 MFO4.00058 MFO4.00059 MFO4.00061totototo MFO4.00058 MFO4.00059 MFO4.00061 MFO4.00062Pipe Length (ft)48.0 347.0 359.0 564.0Existing Pipe Diameter (in)27 28 32 35Annular Gap (in)----Liner External Diameter (in)27.0 28.2 32.4 34.8Liner Internal Diameter (in)25.4 26.6 30.0 32.4Depth to Invert of Host (ft)10.8 10.4 10.0 12.5Cover Height above Crown of Existing (ft)8.6 8.1 7.3 9.6Cover Height above Crown of Liner (ft)8.6 8.1 7.3 9.6Water Table Above Crown of Host (ft)3.8 3.4 3.0 5.5Water Table Above Crown of Liner (ft)3.8 3.4 3.0 5.5
3.00 Soil, Loading and Liner Defaults
Soil Density (lb/ft3)110 110 110 110% Ovality of Liner 2 2 2 2Factor of Safety 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Wheel Load (lb)HS20 HS20 HS20 HS20Modulus of Soil Reaction (psi)700 700 700 700Enhancement Factor 4 4 4 4Poisson's Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38Long Term Ring Bending Modulus (psi)116,000 116,000 116,000 116,000
4.00 Liner Selection
Profile Type 126-20EX 126-20EX 126-30EX 126-30EXWinding Method SPR™ EX SPR™ EX SPR™ EX SPR™ EXSteel Reinforcement ----Profile Height (in)0.79 0.79 1.20 1.20
5.00 Constraints
Technical Constraints?NO NO YES YES
Fully Deteriorated Factor of Safety 2.62 2.58 3.66 2.69
Partially Deteriorated Factor of Safety 3.07 2.82 5.58 3.02
6.00 Additional Technical Information
Profile Length Required (m)(Note: wastage varies by product)252.5 1,909.8 2,235.5 3,786.5
Profile Length Per Spool (m)2,200 2,200 1,800 1,800Profile Length Check(SPR™ EX spools can not be joined)0.12 spools 0.87 spools NOT OK as SPR™ ENOT OK as SPR™ EX
Above Minimum Diameter?YES YES YES YESAbove Minimum Stiffness of 2.921 psi?YES (4.6)YES (4.016)YES (7.88)YES (6.288)
7.00 Hydraulic Information (Assumes Full Flow)
Host Pipe Manning's Coefficient 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016Liner Manning's Coefficient (Default 0.009)0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009Slope of Line 0.0039 0.0032 0.0033 0.0029Percentage Reduction in Area 11.33%10.86%14.28%13.33%Percentage Reduction in Diameter 5.83%5.58%7.41%6.90%Original Flow Capacity (ft3/s)15.71 15.98 23.51 26.66Liner Flow Capacity (ft3/s)23.80 24.38 34.03 39.17Percentage Change in Flow 51.45%52.52%44.77%46.91%
8.00 Other Consumables
Wire Requirement (m)301 2,257 2,595 4,350
Wire Diameter (mm)1.2mm 1.2mm 1.2mm 1.2mm
Sealant Requirement (l) / Weld Bead (kg)3.82 28.88 33.80 57.25
Grout Requirement (yd^3)
Manhole Number
Page 1 of 1Printed: 12:07 PM, 7/29/2020Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)Project Owner: City of BozemanProject Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater RehabC:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Fully Deteriorated Design
1 2 3 4
MFO4.00057 MFO4.00058 MFO4.00059 MFO4.00061
to to to to
MFO4.00058 MFO4.00059 MFO4.00061 MFO4.00062
Existing Pipe Diameter (in.)27 28 32 35
Annular Gap (in.)----
Liner External Diameter (in.)27 28 32 35
Liner Internal Diameter (in.)25.4 26.6 30.0 32.4
Depth to Invert of Existing (ft.)10.8 10.4 10.0 12.5
Cover Height above Crown of Existing (ft.)8.6 8.1 7.3 9.6
Cover Height above Crown of Liner (ft.)8.6 8.1 7.3 9.6
Water Table above Crown of Existing (ft.)3.8 3.4 3.0 5.5
Water Table above Crown of Liner (ft.)3.8 3.4 3.0 5.5
Soil Density (lb/ft3)110 110 110 110
% Ovality 2 2 2 2
Factor of Safety 2 2 2 2
Modulus of Soil Reaction (psi)700 700 700 700
Profile Type 126-20EX 126-20EX 126-30EX 126-30EX
Steel Reinforcement ----
Profile Height (in)0.787 0.787 1.201 1.201
Depth to Neutral Axis (in)0.265 0.265 0.363 0.363
Moment of Inertia (in4/in)0.01291 0.01291 0.03669 0.03669
Long Term Ring Bending Modulus (psi)116,000 116,000 116,000 116,000
Long Term Ring Stiffness (psi)0.09 0.07 0.15 0.12
Long Term Pipe Stiffness (psi)4.60 4.02 7.88 6.29
Water Buoyancy Factor 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.81
Coefficient of Elastic Support 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.32
Ovality Reduction Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Impact Factor 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Soil Pressure (psi)5.57 5.31 4.82 5.95
Hydrostatic Pressure (psi)1.65 1.47 1.30 2.38
Live Load on Pipe (psi) [using selected load case]0.57 0.56 1.00 0.51
Total External Pressure on Pipe (psi)7.79 7.34 7.12 8.84
Pipe External Pressure Capacity (psi)10.19 9.46 13.04 11.89
Design Check OK OK OK OK
Actual Factor of Safety 2.62 2.58 3.66 2.69
Host Pipe Manning's Coefficient 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016
Liner Manning's Coefficient 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009
Slope of Line 0.0039 0.0032 0.0033 0.0029
Percentage Reduction in Area 11.33% 10.86% 14.28% 13.33%
Percentage Reduction in Diameter 5.83% 5.58% 7.41% 6.90%
Original Flow Capacity (ft3/s)16 16 24 27
Liner Flow Capacity (ft3/s)24 24 34 39
Percentage Change in Flow 51.45% 52.52% 44.77% 46.91%
Axle Load (lb)80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000
Length of Tie (ft)8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5
Tie Spacing (ft)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Impact Factor 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Alpha 0.92 0.97 1.05 0.83
Beta (0.46)(0.48)(0.53)(0.42)
Applied Load (psi)11 11 12 10
Surface Dimension 1 (ft)30 29 14 32
Surface Dimension 2 (ft)33 26 24 34
Applied Load (lb)80,000 60,000 48,000 80,000
Impact Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adjusted Load (psi)0.57 0.56 1.00 0.51
Surface Dimension 1 (ft)30.6 30.0 28.8 32.2
Surface Dimension 2 (ft)18.9 18.2 17.1 20.4
Applied Load (lb)463,572 463,572 463,572 463,572
Impact Factor 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjusted Load (psi)6.12 6.50 7.20 5.40
Surface Dimension 1 (ft)18.7 18.0 16.9 20.3
Surface Dimension 2 (ft)23.8 23.1 21.9 25.3
Applied Load (lb)359,363 359,363 359,363 359,363
Impact Factor 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjusted Load (psi)6.16 6.60 7.39 5.36
Surface Dimension 1 (ft)30 29 14 32
Surface Dimension 2 (ft)33 26 24 34
Applied Load (lb)100,000 75,000 60,000 100,000
Impact Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adjusted Load (psi)0.71 0.70 1.25 0.64
Surface Dimension 1 (ft)30 29 14 32
Surface Dimension 2 (ft)33 26 24 34
Applied Load (lb)40,000 30,000 24,000 40,000
Impact Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adjusted Load (psi)0.29 0.28 0.50 0.25
N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HS10 0.29 0.28 0.50 0.25
HS20 0.57 0.56 1.00 0.51
HS25 0.71 0.70 1.25 0.64
Cooper E80 10.73 11.20 12.01 9.82
B747 6.12 6.50 7.20 5.40
B777 6.16 6.60 7.39 5.36
Custom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Wheel Load Summary (psi)Boeing 777 LoadHS10 Wheel LoadHS25 Wheel LoadLoadingDesignHydraulic InformationCooper E80 Rail LoadHS20 Wheel LoadBoeing 747 LoadRun No.
Manhole No.Design InformationProfile DetailsCalculated InformationPage 1 of 1Printed: 12:07 PM, 7/29/2020Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)Project Owner: City of BozemanProject Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater RehabC:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Partially Deteriorated Design
1 2 3 4
MFO4.00057 MFO4.00058 MFO4.00059 MFO4.00061
to to to to
MFO4.00058 MFO4.00059 MFO4.00061 MFO4.00062
Existing Pipe Diameter (in.)27 28 32 35
Annular Gap (in.)----
Liner External Diameter (in.)27 28 32 35
Liner Internal Diameter (in.)25.4 26.6 30.0 32.4
Water Table above Crown of Existing (ft.)3.8 3.4 3.0 5.5
Water Table above Crown of Liner (ft.)3.8 3.4 3.0 5.5
% Ovality 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Factor of Safety 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Enhancement Factor 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Poisson's Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
Profile Type 126-20EX 126-20EX 126-30EX 126-30EX
Steel Reinforcement (mm)----
Profile Height (in)0.787 0.787 1.201 1.201
Depth to Neutral Axis (in)0.265 0.265 0.363 0.363
Moment of Inertia (in4/in)0 0 0 0
Long Term Ring Bending Modulus (psi)116,000 116,000 116,000 116,000
Long Term Ring Stiffness (psi)0.09 0.07 0.15 0.12
Long Term Pipe Stiffness (psi)4.600 4.016 7.880 6.288
Ovality Reduction Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Total External Pressure on Pipe (psi)2.62 2.49 2.47 3.64
Pipe External Pressure Capacity (psi)4.02 3.51 6.88 5.49
Design Check OK OK OK OK
Actual Factor of Safety 3.07 2.82 5.58 3.02
Host Pipe Manning's Coefficient 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016
Liner Manning's Coefficient 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009
Slope of Line 0.0039 0.0032 0.0033 0.0029
Percentage Reduction in Area 11.33% 10.86% 14.28% 13.33%
Percentage Reduction in Diameter 5.83% 5.58% 7.41% 6.90%
Original Flow Capacity (ft3/s)15.7 16.0 23.5 26.7
Liner Flow Capacity (ft3/s)23.8 24.4 34.0 39.2
Percentage Change in Flow 51.45% 52.52% 44.77% 46.91% Hydraulic InformationRun No.
Manhole No.Design InformationProfile DetailsCalc'd InfoDesignPage 1 of 1
Printed: 12:07 PM, 7/29/2020Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)Project Owner: City of BozemanProject Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs FD (US)
Run Number 1
1. Design Information
Existing Pipe Internal Diameter, De =27.00 in
Depth to Invert of Existing Pipe, Hi =10.80 ft
Cover Height above Crown of Liner, He =8.55 ft
Water Table above Crown of Liner, Hwe =3.80 ft
Soil Density, w =110.00 pcf
Ovality of Existing Pipe, q =2.00 %
Minimum Factor of Safety, N =2.00
Modulus of Soil Reaction, E's = 700.00 psi
2. Profile Details
Profile Type = 126-20EX
Steel Reinforcement thickness, or option = -mm
Profile Height, t = 0.79 in
Depth to Neutral Axis, tNA =0.26 in
Moment of Inertia, I =0.01291 in4/in
Long term modulus of Elasticity of Plastic Profile, EL 116000.00 psi
Long Term Ring Stiffness of Pipe, RSL = 0.09 psi
3. Calculated Information
Water Buoyancy Factor
Where:
Hwe =3.80 ftHe = 9 ft
Rw =0.85
Coefficient of Elastic Support
Where:
He = 8.55 ft
B' =0.30
Ovality Reduction Factor
Fully Deteriorated Design Condition
(ASTM F1741 Appendix X1.2.2)
()min67.0;33.01
−=
e
wewH
HR
eHeB065.041
1'−+=
Page 1 of 3Printed: 12:07 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs FD (US)
Where:
q =2.0 %
C =0.84
Impact Factor (Airport Loadings)
Where:
He = 8.55 ft
1.10
Impact Factor (HS vehicle loadings, from AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 12th Edition)
If He <= 1ft, α = 1.3. If He < 2ft, a = 1.2. If He <= 3ft, a = 1.1. Otherwise a = 1.
α =1.00
4. Loading
Soil Pressure
Where:
He = 8.55 ft
Rw =0.85
qs =5.57 psi
Hydrostatic Pressure
Where:
Hwe = 3.80 ft
qwe =1.65 psi
Vehicular Loading (see HS20 Loading for this line)
HS20 Loading
Where:
80000.00 lbs
L1 =29.80 ft
L2 =32.63 ft
1.00
3
2
1001
1001
+
−=q
q
C
()()min1.1;3048.015.04.1 ×−=eHα
=α
144/wesRwHq=
wewHq433.0=
14421××
Σ=LL
Pwqα
=ΣP
=α Page 2 of 3Printed: 12:07 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs FD (US)
wq =0.57 psi
Cooper E80 Rail Load (not applicable for this line)
(Model as strip load using Boussinesq distribution Table C-1 COE EM 1110)
wq = σP /144 = (q*If/π)*(α+sin(α)*cos(α+2*β)/144
Where:
q =80000.00 psf
If =1.50 Mandated as per AREMA
α =0.92 α = ATan((x+LT/2)/HSC) - β
β =-0.46 β = ATan((x-LT/2)/HSC)
wq =10.73 psi
Total External Pressure on Pipe
q't = qs + qw + wq q't = qs + qw + wq
q't =7.79 psi
5. Design
Pipe External Pressure Capacity
Where:
C =0.84
N =2.00
Rw =0.85
B' =0.30
E's =700 psi
=Long Term Ring Stiffness, RSL
=0.086 psi
qt =10.19 psi
Design Check
qt > q't = OK
ie. 10.19 >7.79 = OK
Actual Factor of Safety
Nactual =(qt x N) / q't
Nactual =2.6
3D
IEL
𝑞𝑞𝑡𝑡=1𝑁𝑁32.𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅.𝐵𝐵′.𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆.𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸𝐿𝐿𝐼𝐼𝐷𝐷3
Page 3 of 3Printed: 12:07 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs FD (US)
Run Number 2
1. Design Information
Existing Pipe Internal Diameter, De =28.20 in
Depth to Invert of Existing Pipe, Hi =10.42 ft
Cover Height above Crown of Liner, He =8.07 ft
Water Table above Crown of Liner, Hwe =3.40 ft
Soil Density, w =110.00 pcf
Ovality of Existing Pipe, q =2.00 %
Minimum Factor of Safety, N =2.00
Modulus of Soil Reaction, E's = 700.00 psi
2. Profile Details
Profile Type = 126-20EX
Steel Reinforcement thickness, or option = -mm
Profile Height, t = 0.79 in
Depth to Neutral Axis, tNA =0.26 in
Moment of Inertia, I =0.01291 in4/in
Long term modulus of Elasticity of Plastic Profile, EL 116000.00 psi
Long Term Ring Stiffness of Pipe, RSL = 0.07 psi
3. Calculated Information
Water Buoyancy Factor
Where:
Hwe =3.40 ftHe = 8 ft
Rw =0.86
Coefficient of Elastic Support
Where:
He = 8.07 ft
B' =0.30
Ovality Reduction Factor
Fully Deteriorated Design Condition
(ASTM F1741 Appendix X1.2.2)
()min67.0;33.01
−=
e
wewH
HR
eHeB065.041
1'−+=
Page 1 of 3Printed: 12:09 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs FD (US)
Where:
q =2.0 %
C =0.84
Impact Factor (Airport Loadings)
Where:
He = 8.07 ft
1.10
Impact Factor (HS vehicle loadings, from AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 12th Edition)
If He <= 1ft, α = 1.3. If He < 2ft, a = 1.2. If He <= 3ft, a = 1.1. Otherwise a = 1.
α =1.00
4. Loading
Soil Pressure
Where:
He = 8.07 ft
Rw =0.86
qs =5.31 psi
Hydrostatic Pressure
Where:
Hwe = 3.40 ft
qwe =1.47 psi
Vehicular Loading (see HS20 Loading for this line)
HS20 Loading
Where:
60000.00 lbs
L1 =28.96 ft
L2 =25.79 ft
1.00
3
2
1001
1001
+
−=q
q
C
()()min1.1;3048.015.04.1 ×−=eHα
=α
144/wesRwHq=
wewHq433.0=
14421××
Σ=LL
Pwqα
=ΣP
=α Page 2 of 3Printed: 12:09 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs FD (US)
wq =0.56 psi
Cooper E80 Rail Load (not applicable for this line)
(Model as strip load using Boussinesq distribution Table C-1 COE EM 1110)
wq = σP /144 = (q*If/π)*(α+sin(α)*cos(α+2*β)/144
Where:
q =80000.00 psf
If =1.50 Mandated as per AREMA
α =0.97 α = ATan((x+LT/2)/HSC) - β
β =-0.48 β = ATan((x-LT/2)/HSC)
wq =11.20 psi
Total External Pressure on Pipe
q't = qs + qw + wq q't = qs + qw + wq
q't =7.34 psi
5. Design
Pipe External Pressure Capacity
Where:
C =0.84
N =2.00
Rw =0.86
B' =0.30
E's =700 psi
=Long Term Ring Stiffness, RSL
=0.075 psi
qt =9.46 psi
Design Check
qt > q't = OK
ie. 9.46 >7.34 = OK
Actual Factor of Safety
Nactual =(qt x N) / q't
Nactual =2.6
3D
IEL
𝑞𝑞𝑡𝑡=1𝑁𝑁32.𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅.𝐵𝐵′.𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆.𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸𝐿𝐿𝐼𝐼𝐷𝐷3
Page 3 of 3Printed: 12:09 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs FD (US)
Run Number 3
1. Design Information
Existing Pipe Internal Diameter, De =32.40 in
Depth to Invert of Existing Pipe, Hi =10.00 ft
Cover Height above Crown of Liner, He =7.30 ft
Water Table above Crown of Liner, Hwe =3.00 ft
Soil Density, w =110.00 pcf
Ovality of Existing Pipe, q =2.00 %
Minimum Factor of Safety, N =2.00
Modulus of Soil Reaction, E's = 700.00 psi
2. Profile Details
Profile Type = 126-30EX
Steel Reinforcement thickness, or option = -mm
Profile Height, t = 1.20 in
Depth to Neutral Axis, tNA =0.36 in
Moment of Inertia, I =0.03669 in4/in
Long term modulus of Elasticity of Plastic Profile, EL 116000.00 psi
Long Term Ring Stiffness of Pipe, RSL = 0.15 psi
3. Calculated Information
Water Buoyancy Factor
Where:
Hwe =3.00 ftHe = 7 ft
Rw =0.86
Coefficient of Elastic Support
Where:
He = 7.30 ft
B' =0.29
Ovality Reduction Factor
Fully Deteriorated Design Condition
(ASTM F1741 Appendix X1.2.2)
()min67.0;33.01
−=
e
wewH
HR
eHeB065.041
1'−+=
Page 1 of 3Printed: 12:11 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs FD (US)
Where:
q =2.0 %
C =0.84
Impact Factor (Airport Loadings)
Where:
He = 7.30 ft
1.10
Impact Factor (HS vehicle loadings, from AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 12th Edition)
If He <= 1ft, α = 1.3. If He < 2ft, a = 1.2. If He <= 3ft, a = 1.1. Otherwise a = 1.
α =1.00
4. Loading
Soil Pressure
Where:
He = 7.30 ft
Rw =0.86
qs =4.82 psi
Hydrostatic Pressure
Where:
Hwe = 3.00 ft
qwe =1.30 psi
Vehicular Loading (see HS20 Loading for this line)
HS20 Loading
Where:
48000.00 lbs
L1 =13.61 ft
L2 =24.44 ft
1.00
3
2
1001
1001
+
−=q
q
C
()()min1.1;3048.015.04.1 ×−=eHα
=α
144/wesRwHq=
wewHq433.0=
14421××
Σ=LL
Pwqα
=ΣP
=α Page 2 of 3Printed: 12:11 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs FD (US)
wq =1.00 psi
Cooper E80 Rail Load (not applicable for this line)
(Model as strip load using Boussinesq distribution Table C-1 COE EM 1110)
wq = σP /144 = (q*If/π)*(α+sin(α)*cos(α+2*β)/144
Where:
q =80000.00 psf
If =1.50 Mandated as per AREMA
α =1.05 α = ATan((x+LT/2)/HSC) - β
β =-0.53 β = ATan((x-LT/2)/HSC)
wq =12.01 psi
Total External Pressure on Pipe
q't = qs + qw + wq q't = qs + qw + wq
q't =7.12 psi
5. Design
Pipe External Pressure Capacity
Where:
C =0.84
N =2.00
Rw =0.86
B' =0.29
E's =700 psi
=Long Term Ring Stiffness, RSL
=0.147 psi
qt =13.04 psi
Design Check
qt > q't = OK
ie. 13.04 >7.12 = OK
Actual Factor of Safety
Nactual =(qt x N) / q't
Nactual =3.7
3D
IEL
𝑞𝑞𝑡𝑡=1𝑁𝑁32.𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅.𝐵𝐵′.𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆.𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸𝐿𝐿𝐼𝐼𝐷𝐷3
Page 3 of 3Printed: 12:11 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs FD (US)
Run Number 4
1. Design Information
Existing Pipe Internal Diameter, De =34.80 in
Depth to Invert of Existing Pipe, Hi =12.50 ft
Cover Height above Crown of Liner, He =9.60 ft
Water Table above Crown of Liner, Hwe =5.50 ft
Soil Density, w =110.00 pcf
Ovality of Existing Pipe, q =2.00 %
Minimum Factor of Safety, N =2.00
Modulus of Soil Reaction, E's = 700.00 psi
2. Profile Details
Profile Type = 126-30EX
Steel Reinforcement thickness, or option = -mm
Profile Height, t = 1.20 in
Depth to Neutral Axis, tNA =0.36 in
Moment of Inertia, I =0.03669 in4/in
Long term modulus of Elasticity of Plastic Profile, EL 116000.00 psi
Long Term Ring Stiffness of Pipe, RSL = 0.12 psi
3. Calculated Information
Water Buoyancy Factor
Where:
Hwe =5.50 ftHe = 10 ft
Rw =0.81
Coefficient of Elastic Support
Where:
He = 9.60 ft
B' =0.32
Ovality Reduction Factor
Fully Deteriorated Design Condition
(ASTM F1741 Appendix X1.2.2)
()min67.0;33.01
−=
e
wewH
HR
eHeB065.041
1'−+=
Page 1 of 3Printed: 12:12 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs FD (US)
Where:
q =2.0 %
C =0.84
Impact Factor (Airport Loadings)
Where:
He = 9.60 ft
1.10
Impact Factor (HS vehicle loadings, from AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 12th Edition)
If He <= 1ft, α = 1.3. If He < 2ft, a = 1.2. If He <= 3ft, a = 1.1. Otherwise a = 1.
α =1.00
4. Loading
Soil Pressure
Where:
He = 9.60 ft
Rw =0.81
qs =5.95 psi
Hydrostatic Pressure
Where:
Hwe = 5.50 ft
qwe =2.38 psi
Vehicular Loading (see HS20 Loading for this line)
HS20 Loading
Where:
80000.00 lbs
L1 =31.63 ft
L2 =34.47 ft
1.00
3
2
1001
1001
+
−=q
q
C
()()min1.1;3048.015.04.1 ×−=eHα
=α
144/wesRwHq=
wewHq433.0=
14421××
Σ=LL
Pwqα
=ΣP
=α Page 2 of 3Printed: 12:12 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs FD (US)
wq =0.51 psi
Cooper E80 Rail Load (not applicable for this line)
(Model as strip load using Boussinesq distribution Table C-1 COE EM 1110)
wq = σP /144 = (q*If/π)*(α+sin(α)*cos(α+2*β)/144
Where:
q =80000.00 psf
If =1.50 Mandated as per AREMA
α =0.83 α = ATan((x+LT/2)/HSC) - β
β =-0.42 β = ATan((x-LT/2)/HSC)
wq =9.82 psi
Total External Pressure on Pipe
q't = qs + qw + wq q't = qs + qw + wq
q't =8.84 psi
5. Design
Pipe External Pressure Capacity
Where:
C =0.84
N =2.00
Rw =0.81
B' =0.32
E's =700 psi
=Long Term Ring Stiffness, RSL
=0.117 psi
qt =11.89 psi
Design Check
qt > q't = OK
ie. 11.89 >8.84 = OK
Actual Factor of Safety
Nactual =(qt x N) / q't
Nactual =2.7
3D
IEL
𝑞𝑞𝑡𝑡=1𝑁𝑁32.𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅.𝐵𝐵′.𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆.𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸𝐿𝐿𝐼𝐼𝐷𝐷3
Page 3 of 3Printed: 12:12 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs PD (US)
Run Number 1
1. Design Information
Existing Pipe Internal Diameter, De =27.00 in
Water Table above Invert of Liner, Hwe =6.1 ft
Ovality of Existing Pipe, q =2.00 %
Minimum Factor of Safety, N =2.00
Enhancement Factor, K =4.00
Poisson's Ratio, v =0.38
2. Profile Details
Profile Type = 126-20EX
Steel Reinforcement thickness, or option = -mm
Profile Height, t = 0.79 in
Depth to Neutral Axis, tNA =0.26 in
Moment of Inertia, I =0.01291 in4/in
Long term modulus of Elasticity of Plastic Profile, EL =116000.00 psi
Long Term Ring Stiffness of Pipe, RSL = 0.09 psi
3. Calculated Information
Ovality Reduction Factor
Where:
q =2.00 %
C =0.84
4. Loading
Hydrostatic Pressure
Where:
Hwe = 6.1 ft
qw =2.62 psi
5. Design
Pipe External Pressure Capacity
Partially Deteriorated Design Condition
(ASTM F1741 Appendix X1.2.2)
()min67.0;33.01 −=ewewHHReHeB213.0411'−+=
3
2
1001
1001
+
−=q
q
C
()min1.1;15.04.1 eH−=α
wesRwHq=
wewHq433.0=
()()[]eeLHHw45.15.045.12.0 70 +×+=αLwstwqqq++='
()32101
24 ×××=N
RSCKqLt Page 1 of 2Printed: 12:08 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs PD (US)
Where:K =4.00
C =0.84
N =2.00v =0.38
=Long Term Ring Stiffness, RSL
=0.086 psi
qt =4.02 psi
Design Check
qt > q'w = OK
ie. 4.02 >2.62 = OK
Actual Factor of Safety
Nactual =(qt x N) / q'w
Nactual =3.1
3D
IEL
()32101×−× νNt
Page 2 of 2Printed: 12:08 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs PD (US)
Run Number 2
1. Design Information
Existing Pipe Internal Diameter, De =28.20 in
Water Table above Invert of Liner, Hwe =5.8 ft
Ovality of Existing Pipe, q =2.00 %
Minimum Factor of Safety, N =2.00
Enhancement Factor, K =4.00
Poisson's Ratio, v =0.38
2. Profile Details
Profile Type = 126-20EX
Steel Reinforcement thickness, or option = -mm
Profile Height, t = 0.79 in
Depth to Neutral Axis, tNA =0.26 in
Moment of Inertia, I =0.01291 in4/in
Long term modulus of Elasticity of Plastic Profile, EL =116000.00 psi
Long Term Ring Stiffness of Pipe, RSL = 0.07 psi
3. Calculated Information
Ovality Reduction Factor
Where:
q =2.00 %
C =0.84
4. Loading
Hydrostatic Pressure
Where:
Hwe = 5.8 ft
qw =2.49 psi
5. Design
Pipe External Pressure Capacity
Partially Deteriorated Design Condition
(ASTM F1741 Appendix X1.2.2)
()min67.0;33.01 −=ewewHHReHeB213.0411'−+=
3
2
1001
1001
+
−=q
q
C
()min1.1;15.04.1 eH−=α
wesRwHq=
wewHq433.0=
()()[]eeLHHw45.15.045.12.0 70 +×+=αLwstwqqq++='
()32101
24 ×××=N
RSCKqLt Page 1 of 2Printed: 12:09 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs PD (US)
Where:K =4.00
C =0.84
N =2.00v =0.38
=Long Term Ring Stiffness, RSL
=0.075 psi
qt =3.51 psi
Design Check
qt > q'w = OK
ie. 3.51 >2.49 = OK
Actual Factor of Safety
Nactual =(qt x N) / q'w
Nactual =2.8
3D
IEL
()32101×−× νNt
Page 2 of 2Printed: 12:09 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs PD (US)
Run Number 3
1. Design Information
Existing Pipe Internal Diameter, De =32.40 in
Water Table above Invert of Liner, Hwe =5.7 ft
Ovality of Existing Pipe, q =2.00 %
Minimum Factor of Safety, N =2.00
Enhancement Factor, K =4.00
Poisson's Ratio, v =0.38
2. Profile Details
Profile Type = 126-30EX
Steel Reinforcement thickness, or option = -mm
Profile Height, t = 1.20 in
Depth to Neutral Axis, tNA =0.36 in
Moment of Inertia, I =0.03669 in4/in
Long term modulus of Elasticity of Plastic Profile, EL =116000.00 psi
Long Term Ring Stiffness of Pipe, RSL = 0.15 psi
3. Calculated Information
Ovality Reduction Factor
Where:
q =2.00 %
C =0.84
4. Loading
Hydrostatic Pressure
Where:
Hwe = 5.7 ft
qw =2.47 psi
5. Design
Pipe External Pressure Capacity
Partially Deteriorated Design Condition
(ASTM F1741 Appendix X1.2.2)
()min67.0;33.01 −=ewewHHReHeB213.0411'−+=
3
2
1001
1001
+
−=q
q
C
()min1.1;15.04.1 eH−=α
wesRwHq=
wewHq433.0=
()()[]eeLHHw45.15.045.12.0 70 +×+=αLwstwqqq++='
()32101
24 ×××=N
RSCKqLt Page 1 of 2Printed: 12:11 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs PD (US)
Where:K =4.00
C =0.84
N =2.00v =0.38
=Long Term Ring Stiffness, RSL
=0.147 psi
qt =6.88 psi
Design Check
qt > q'w = OK
ie. 6.88 >2.47 = OK
Actual Factor of Safety
Nactual =(qt x N) / q'w
Nactual =5.6
3D
IEL
()32101×−× νNt
Page 2 of 2Printed: 12:11 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs PD (US)
Run Number 4
1. Design Information
Existing Pipe Internal Diameter, De =34.80 in
Water Table above Invert of Liner, Hwe =8.4 ft
Ovality of Existing Pipe, q =2.00 %
Minimum Factor of Safety, N =2.00
Enhancement Factor, K =4.00
Poisson's Ratio, v =0.38
2. Profile Details
Profile Type = 126-30EX
Steel Reinforcement thickness, or option = -mm
Profile Height, t = 1.20 in
Depth to Neutral Axis, tNA =0.36 in
Moment of Inertia, I =0.03669 in4/in
Long term modulus of Elasticity of Plastic Profile, EL =116000.00 psi
Long Term Ring Stiffness of Pipe, RSL = 0.12 psi
3. Calculated Information
Ovality Reduction Factor
Where:
q =2.00 %
C =0.84
4. Loading
Hydrostatic Pressure
Where:
Hwe = 8.4 ft
qw =3.64 psi
5. Design
Pipe External Pressure Capacity
Partially Deteriorated Design Condition
(ASTM F1741 Appendix X1.2.2)
()min67.0;33.01 −=ewewHHReHeB213.0411'−+=
3
2
1001
1001
+
−=q
q
C
()min1.1;15.04.1 eH−=α
wesRwHq=
wewHq433.0=
()()[]eeLHHw45.15.045.12.0 70 +×+=αLwstwqqq++='
()32101
24 ×××=N
RSCKqLt Page 1 of 2Printed: 12:12 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F
This structural design check is based on specific input parameters provided to Joseph Dominguez, of Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC.
Use of this information is subject to verification and review by others for suitability for any specific application.
Detailed Calcs PD (US)
Where:K =4.00
C =0.84
N =2.00v =0.38
=Long Term Ring Stiffness, RSL
=0.117 psi
qt =5.49 psi
Design Check
qt > q'w = OK
ie. 5.49 >3.64 = OK
Actual Factor of Safety
Nactual =(qt x N) / q'w
Nactual =3.0
3D
IEL
()32101×−× νNt
Page 2 of 2Printed: 12:12 PM, 7/29/2020
Version: 1.3.3 (12th June 2019)
Project Owner: City of Bozeman
Project Location: Dwn Twn Stormwater Rehab
C:\Users\Joseph Dominguez\Documents\SSPRA\SPR\F