Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Pipelines
2018
Planning and Design
Papers from Sessions of the
Pipelines 2018 Conference
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
July 15–18, 2018
Edited by
Christopher C. Macey, P.Eng.
Jason S. Lueke, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
PIPELINES 2018
Planning and Design
PROCEEDINGS OF SESSIONS OF THE PIPELINES 2018
CONFERENCE
July 15–18, 2018
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
SPONSORED BY
Utility Engineering and Surveying Institute of the
American Society of Civil Engineers
EDITED BY
Christopher C. Macey, P.Eng.
Jason S. Lueke, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Published by American Society of Civil Engineers
1801 Alexander Bell Drive
Reston, Virginia, 20191-4382
www.asce.org/publications | ascelibrary.org
Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not
necessarily represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement
made herein. No reference made in this publication to any specific method, product, process,
or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by
ASCE. The materials are for general information only and do not represent a standard of
ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference in purchase specifications, contracts, regulations,
statutes, or any other legal document. ASCE makes no representation or warranty of any
kind, whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or
utility of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this publication, and
assumes no liability therefor. The information contained in these materials should not be used
without first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or
specific application. Anyone utilizing such information assumes all liability arising from such
use, including but not limited to infringement of any patent or patents.
ASCE and American Society of Civil Engineers—Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office.
Photocopies and permissions. Permission to photocopy or reproduce material from ASCE
publications can be requested by sending an e-mail to
[email protected] or by locating a
title in ASCE's Civil Engineering Database (http://cedb.asce.org) or ASCE Library
(http://ascelibrary.org) and using the “Permissions” link.
Errata: Errata, if any, can be found at https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784481646
Copyright © 2018 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
All Rights Reserved.
ISBN 978-0-7844-8164-6 (PDF)
Manufactured in the United States of America.
Pipelines 2018
iii
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Preface
Pipelines are the arteries of the modern world that convey the essence of what drives quality of
life, commerce, and public health for all of society. Whether conveying drinking water, collecting
wastewater, storage and conveyance of storm water, or transport of petroleum or other fluids –
pipelines are one of the most essential elements of modern infrastructure that impacts the way we
live and ability to improve the world around us.
This year’s conference theme is Revitalizing Global Underground Utility Infrastructure. It
focuses on the awareness that pipelines are a global topic essential to our quality of life; that we
have common issues and concerns independent of our nationality; and that our industry can work
together to truly develop solutions without borders. This is an exciting realization that holds hope
and promise for our future.
In coordination with the American Society of Civil Engineers, the technical program and this
publication were planned and implemented by the Technical Program Committee, led by the
Technical Co-Chairs. A call for abstracts was made for the first Pipelines conference outside of
the United States, from which well over 300 abstracts were submitted. These abstracts were then
sorted into tracks based on the general topic areas of Condition Assessment, Planning and Design,
Construction and Rehabilitation, Utility Engineering and Survey, Multi-discipline, and Technical
Posters. In addition, 5 panel sessions were included with topics from Women in Engineering to
Ethics to Emergency Response as well as other specialized technical topics. This resulted in an
extraordinarily high-quality program containing 175 papers and 15 poster presentations.
For publication purposes, technical papers from the eight presentation tracks were consolidated
into the following three subjects: 1- Pipelines 2018: Planning & Design, 2- Pipelines 2018:
Condition Assessment and Construction & Rehabilitation, and 3- Pipelines 2018: Multidiscipline
Topics and Utility Engineering and Survey.
On behalf of the Technical Program Committee, we are pleased to offer you the Proceedings of
ASCE Pipelines 2018 “Revitalizing Global Underground Utility Infrastructure”.
Yours truly,
Chris Macey, P.Eng., M.ASCE and Jason Lueke, Ph.D., P.Eng., M.ASCE
Technical Co-Chairs
© ASCE
Pipelines 2018
iv
Acknowledgments
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Technical Program Committee
Technical Program Co-Chairs
Chris Macey, P.Eng., AECOM
Jason S. Lueke, Ph.D., P.Eng., Associated Engineering
Conference Co-Chairs
Tennyson Muindi, P.E., McMillen Jacobs Associates
William Fernandes, Toronto Water
Technical Program Track Chairs
Jeff W. Heidrick, P.E., ENV SP, Burns & McDonnell, Planning and Design
Shaoqing Ge, Ph.D., American Water, Planning and Design
Roberts McMullin, P.E., EBMUD, Condition Assessment
Felipe Pulido, P.E., Arcadis Condition Assessment Track
Murat Engindeniz, P.E., Simpson Gumpertz and Heger, Construction & Rehabilitation
Duane Strayer, P.Eng, Associated Engineering, Construction & Rehabilitation
Doug Jenkins, P.E., CH2M, Utility Engineering and Surveying
Mark Mihm, P.E., HDR Multidiscipline
Scott Christensen, PE., HDR, Poster Coordinator
Pre-Conference Workshop Leads
Workshop Chair – Erin McGuire, P.E., CDM Smith
Nathan Faber, P.E. - Large Diameter Pipeline Forum
Andrea Chisholm, PMP - Soft Factors of Project Success and a Partnering-Based Model of
Project Delivery
Jerry Colburn - Right-of-Way Considerations in Pipeline Routing
Sri Rajah, Ph.D., P.E., G.E., S.E., P.Eng. - Upcoming MOP on Seismic Design of Buried Water
& Wastewater Pipelines
Mark Knight, Ph.D., P.Eng. - Save Construction Time and Money with Subsurface Utility
Engineering (SUE)
ASCE Staff
Corinne Addison
Cristina Charron
Ricardo Colon
Donna Dickert
Susan Dunne
Brian Foor
Aaron Koepper
Allison Ly
© ASCE
Carolyn Martin
Nives McLarty
Andrew Moore
Susan Reid
Sean Scully
John Segna
Trevor Williams
Pipelines 2018
v
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The Technical Program Co-Chairs and the Steering Committee would like to thank the over 80
individuals which participated as part of the 2018 Technical Committee. Everyone worked as a
team to review abstracts, papers, and posters, and continued to collaborate throughout the
construction of this year’s technical program. Most of the below technical committee members
also served as moderators for the conference.
Pat Acker, P.E., P.L.S.
Brian Ball
George Bontus, P.Eng
Mike Brannon
Adam Braun, P.Eng
William Brick, P.E., BCEE
Keith Bushdiecker, P.E.
Dave Caughlin
Kyle Couture, P.E.
Robert Cullwell, P.E.
Matthew Duffy, PE
William Elledge, P.E.
Christine Ellenberger, P.E.
Michael Fleury, P.E., BCEE
Tober Francom, Ph.D.
Amin Ganjidoost
Hadi Ganjidoost
Chris Garrett
Matt Gaughan, P.E.
Jim Geisbush, P.E.
Ahmad Habibian, Ph.D., P.E.
Christopher Haeckler, P.E.
Neil Harvey
Shelly Hattan, P.E., CCM
Cliff Jones
Brent Keil, P.E., SCWI
Josh Kercho, P.E.
Sharareh Kermanshachi, Ph.D., P.E., LEED
AP, PMP
Joel Koenig, P.E.
Steven Kramer, P.E.
Ian Lancaster
Mike Larsen
Jeff LeBlanc
Bryon Livingston, P.E.
Charles Marsh
Cian McDermott, P.Eng
Rich Mielke, P.E.
Antonio Miglio, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Peter Nardini, P.E.
Henry Polvi, P.E.
Mark Poppe, P.E.
Anna Pridmore, Ph.D., P.E.
Sri Rajah, Ph.D., P.E.
Mellownie Salvador
Eric Schey
Walt Schwarz, PE
Veysel (Firat) Sever, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE
Ad Shatat, P.Eng
Jonathan Shirk, P.E.
Jeffrey Shoaf, P.E., PMP
William Shook
Jerry Snead, P.E.
Andrew Sneed, P.E.
Andrew Sparks, P.E.
Ross Standifer, P.E.
Andrew Stanton, P.E.
James Steele
Alan Swartz, P.E.
Jeni Tatum, P.E.
Sanjay Tewari
Gary Thompson, MMP
Daniel Toft
Berk Uslu, Ph.D.
Ricardo Vieira, P.E.
Bob Walker, P.E., MPA
Toby Weickert
Andrew Williams, P.E.
Kas Zurek
The Technical Program Co-Chairs also thank the authors and exhibitors for their dedication to
the industry in presenting at this conference. Without your contributions, the conference would
not be possible.
© ASCE
Pipelines 2018
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
And lastly, the Technical Program Co-Chairs express special thanks to Tennyson Muindi and
William Fernandes, Conference Co-Chairs, and the Steering Committee for their efforts and
leadership during the planning and execution of Pipelines 2018 Conference.
© ASCE
vi
Pipelines 2018
vii
Contents
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Design
Design Considerations for Water Supply Intakes on the Great Lakes .....................................1
J. Warren Green
Design Considerations for Dual 96-Inch Water Transmission Pipeline
Pig Retrieval Station and Flow Distribution Basin ...................................................................11
Dorian French, David Miller, Jonathan Howard, and Heidi Fischer
Using Hydraulic Modeling Software to Design, Plan, Optimize, and Operate
a 200,000 BPD Produced Water Gathering System .................................................................20
Jonathan Faughtenberry
Improving Infrastructure Resilience through Design and Construction
Standards: Twinning of the East Brampton Trunk Sewer—The
Construction Experience .............................................................................................................33
Mark Belanger, Brandon Gorr, Olena Gordiyenko, Simon Hopton,
and Seamus Tynan
Abandoned Coal Mines Make for Challenging HDD Design and
Installation ....................................................................................................................................39
Jason Lueke, Amber McQuarrie, Patrick Bain, Renato Clementino,
Niels Rasmussen, Tamer Elshimi, and Christopher Lamont
Testing the Modified Iowa Formula to Calculate the Deflection of Two
Flexible Pipes Buried in Sand into One Trench under Live Loads .........................................50
Alaa Abbas, Felicite Ruddock, Rafid Alkhaddar, Glynn Rothwell,
and Robert Andoh
Bridge Crossing Piping System Design Using Welded Steel Pipe or
Ductile Iron Pipe ..........................................................................................................................60
Brett P. Simpson
Design and Construction of the South Hartford CSO Tunnel ................................................69
James Sullivan and Andrew Perham
Riser Pipe and Port Design for the Toronto Ashbridges Bay Treatment
Plant Outfall .................................................................................................................................81
Kevin Waher, Graeme Henderson, Colleen Gammie, Justyna Kempa-Teper,
and Vlad Petran
WISE Local Infrastructure Project in the Town of Castle Rock Demanded a
Unique Set of Design and Construction Solutions ....................................................................91
Michael Lehrburger, Matthew D. Gallagher, and Marvin Lee
© ASCE
Pipelines 2018
New Transmission Watermain Specifications—City of Toronto ..........................................100
Henry W. Polvi, Prapan Dave, Chad Stephen, and Stewart Dickson
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Pipe Dynamic Load Analysis for Transient Multiphase Flow ...............................................111
David Cheng, Mohan Rathinasabapathy, and Sukanta Bhattacharjee
The New Interactive AWWA M11—Flange Bolt Torque Calculator—A
Technical Guide to Its Background, Relevance, and Use.......................................................122
John H. Bambei Jr., Elizabeth S. Ralph, David Lay, and Brent D. Keil
Innovative Steel Casing Pipe Installation Using Mechanical Interlocking
Joints ...........................................................................................................................................128
Brent Keil, Robert Card, and Trevor Gonterman
How DC Water Created an In-House Design Team ...............................................................138
William Elledge
Pipe Considerations for Deep St. Louis LMRDP CSO Tunnel Dewatering
Pump Station ..............................................................................................................................148
Cale Underberg, Jeffrey Gratzer, Rebecca Elwood, and Patricia Pride
Between a Track and a Hard Place—Thrust Restraint Alternatives in a
Constrained Location ................................................................................................................157
Keith R. Bushdiecker, Jeremy M. Ross, and Michael D. Gossett
Challenges Associated with Designing Large Diameter Feedermain
Interconnections .........................................................................................................................165
Daniel Meskell, Jacek Pawlus, and Wendy Tian
Understanding Pneumatically-Induced Hydraulic Surges and Geysers in
Sewers..........................................................................................................................................176
Anthony Margevicius
Innovative Twin-Pipe Design to Serve Short Term and Long Term
Operating Needs .........................................................................................................................185
Wendy Tian, Cian McDermott, and Joseph Ng
Holistic Transient Analysis of a Large Pressure Zone ...........................................................195
Eppo Eerkes
Large Diameter Feedermain Takes Advantage of Grooved Technology .............................206
Chris Sundberg
Design, Manufacture, and Microtunnel Construction Using Wet Retrieval of
the 108-Inch Diameter Low Level Outlet at NYC’s Gilboa Dam ..........................................217
Everette Knight, Emory Chase, Richard Mielke,
and Leszek Glodkowski
© ASCE
viii
Pipelines 2018
ix
Planning
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Not All Projects Are Created Equal—The King County North Mercer
Enatai Project Goes from 945 Alternatives to 1 ......................................................................226
James Chae, Grizelda Sarria, and Sibel Yildiz
Using the Alternative Delivery CMAR Method to Reline Two 12-ft
Diameter Steel Pumping Plant Discharge Pipes and Discharge Manifold
Piping at the Central Arizona Project .....................................................................................237
Jess Chism and Jim Geisbush
The Importance of Terrain Analysis for Pipeline Planning and Pipeline
Asset Management .....................................................................................................................245
Dennis O’Leary, Bailey Theriault, Anne Sommerville, and Mark Nixon
Breaking In: Planning Your Next Large Diameter Pipeline Shutdown ...............................256
Justin C. Reeves and J. Warren Green
The Amazing Race, Oklahoma Edition: Fast-Track Alignment Selection
for a 70-Mile Pipeline.................................................................................................................265
Clay Herndon, Scott Maughn, and Amanda Powers
Planning for the Future: 30-Inch HDD FM Crossing of Halifax River ................................274
Blake Peters, Nichole Lloyd, and Robert Tatum
Balancing Prescription and Innovation through Design-Build of a Major
Recycled Water Conveyance Project .......................................................................................284
William Wong, Jonathon P. Marshall, Kyle Rhorer, and Ryan Sellman
Negotiating and Executing High-Risk, Contractor-Proposed 30-Inch
Horizontal Direction Drill along Colonial-Era, Historical Structure in
Urban, Downtown Corridor .....................................................................................................293
Will Gibson, Matthew Francis, and Tim Marsh
Keys to Successful Delivery of a Design-Build Pipeline .........................................................305
Gregory S. Harris, Janet L. Atkinson, and Matthew B. Carpenter
Sustainable Construction for Large Diameter Steel Pipeline on the
Integrated Pipeline Project .......................................................................................................318
Jonathan D. Shirk
Which Delivery Method Is Best for Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Projects? An Analysis of Alternative Project Delivery Methods Performance ...................328
Mounir El Asmar and Samuel T. Ariaratnam
A New Source of Water for the U.K.’s Second Largest City .................................................334
Steve MacKellar
© ASCE
Pipelines 2018
x
Planning, Sequencing, and Design of Canada’s Largest CSO Project .................................345
Allan Rocas and Daniel Cressman
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Research
Thin-Walled Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipes Performance under
Three-Edge Bearing Load .........................................................................................................355
Fouad T. Al Rikabi, Shad M. Sargand, Joh Kurdziel, and Husam H. Hussein
New Deep Burial Testing Facility at Queen’s University .......................................................364
Van Thien Mai, Ian Moore, and Neil Hoult
Measurement of Ground Heave Due to Horizontal Borehole Instability
during Horizontal Directional Drilling Experiments in Sand ...............................................373
Haitao Lan, Ian D. Moore, and Dong Wang
Experimental Full Scale Tests on Shallow Buried Pipes under Live
Load Conditions .........................................................................................................................384
Bert Bosseler, Mark Klameth, Martin Liebscher, Bernhard Falter,
and Martin Achmus
Two-Dimensional Analysis of Invert Paving of Deteriorated Steel
Culverts .......................................................................................................................................397
Abdul Qaium Fekrat and Teruhisa Masada
Overview of the Geometric Parameters of a Press-Fit Interlocking
Mechanism: Experimental and FEA Analysis of Steel Pipe Joint ........................................406
Urso Campos, David Hall, John Matthews, Christopher Morgan,
Shaurav Alam, and Hadi Baghi
Seismic
Using API Line for Improved Seismic Performance of Water
Transmission Mains ...................................................................................................................415
Mike Dadik, Wayne Gresh, Mark Havekost, and Tim Collins
Creating a Seismic Resilient Pipe Network for Los Angeles..................................................425
C. A. Davis
Experimental Results of Steel Lap Welded Pipe Joints in Seismic
Conditions ...................................................................................................................................433
Brent D. Keil, Fritz Gobler, Richard D. Mielke, Gregory Lucier, Gregory C. Sarvanis, and
Spyros A. Karamanos
Numerical Simulation of Steel Lap Welded Pipe Joint Behavior in
Seismic Conditions .....................................................................................................................444
Giannoula Chatzopoulou, Dimitris Fappas, Spyros A. Karamanos,
Brent D. Keil, and Richard D. Mielke
© ASCE
Pipelines 2018
1
Design Considerations for Water Supply Intakes on the Great Lakes
J. Warren Green, P.E.1
1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Vice President and Chief Technical Officer, Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc., One
Oakbrook Terrace, Suite 300, Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181. E-mail:
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
Intake facilities have more impact on the operation, maintenance, and value of a water
system than any other component. The location, type of inlet structure, and conveyance conduit
directly controls water quality and quantity, which controls the design of the treatment and
delivery facilities. Further, intake facilities typically represent the largest unit cost ($/MGD
capacity) than any other component in a water supply system. Before any consideration can be
given to the intake location and design, the water quality and quantity parameters must be
determined. For the Great Lakes’ intakes, water quality is usually a more significant issue than
the available quantity, and the best source of water may not be the closest. Intake facilities
include three primary components: the inlet structure, pipeline, and shore facilities. A case study
will be presented to illustrate the challenges, such as icing, ship traffic, invasive mollusks, and
marine construction. This new intake system consisted of 6,900 feet (2,103 m) of pipe, two
submerged timber cribs, and two stop-log chambers. Approximately 2,000 feet (610 m) of the
pipeline was installed by tunneling with the remaining installed by trenching.
INTRODUCTION
Intake facilities have a significant impact on the operation and costs of both constructing and
operating a water supply system. The location, type of inlet structure, and conveyance conduit
directly controls water quality and quantity which dictates the design of the treatment and
delivery facilities. Further, it typically represents the largest unit cost ($/MGD) than any other
component in a water supply system. In many instances, this cost can represent 10% to 15% of
the water system investment.
Initial design considerations during the preliminary engineering phase should include source
water quality, intake location, type of intake, constructability and maintenance. Before any
consideration can be given to the intake location and design, the water quality and quantity
parameters must be determined. For intakes located on the Great Lakes, quantity is usually not a
question, unless it involves permitting issue. However, water quality can be a significant issue
and the best water source may not be the closest. Selection of the proper intake location may take
anywhere from several months to several years of water quality testing and surveys to determine
the best location for the present and future needs of the water works system.
After selecting the intake location, the engineer should focus on the intake system design, not
only to meet the projected water demands but also develop a system that minimizes maintenance
issues and is cost effective to construct. Intake systems are composed of three primary
components: the inlet structure, intake conduit, and the connection to the shore facilities. Due to
the increased cost of offshore construction, system capacity should be thoughtfully evaluated in
advance of needs.
Typically, there are three types of inlet structures installed on the Great Lakes: wedge wire
tee head screens, hydraulically balanced cones, and timber cribs. Each has inherent advantages
and disadvantages for use in the Great Lakes. Regardless of the type chosen, the designer must
© ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Pipelines 2018
account for issues such as sheet ice, frazil ice, zebra mussels, shifting sediments, and impacts to
aquatic life. Other considerations that the design engineer must account for include the slope of
connecting pipelines and access manholes. Connecting pipelines, or tunnels, must be installed on
a continuous slope to avoid trapping air, while access manholes along the pipelines must be
properly spaced and adequately sized for the ingress and egress of divers and their equipment.
Intake pipelines terminate at a shore facility to convey the water to its intended location
which may include screen chambers or pump station wet wells. The designer must optimize the
intake conduit size to minimize headloss. Headloss is of chief importance because it determines
the depth, and therefore the cost, of the shore structure as well as the long term operating cost.
A recent case study is presented herein to illustrate the above design challenges the engineer
must address. The recent case study involves the technical aspects of the new intake system,
which includes 6,600 lineal feet (2,012 m) of 78-inch (1,981 mm) pipe and 350 (107 m) lineal
feet of 60-inch (1,524 mm) pipe, two submerged timber intake cribs and two stop-log chambers.
The intake system begins with a tunnel shaft located on the lake shore and terminating at two
intake cribs located in about 30-feet of water depth. Approximately 2,010 lineal feet (613 m) of
the 78-inch (1,981 mm) pipeline was installed by tunneling with the remaining length installed
by open marine trenching.
Many challenges were encountered during the design, including high groundwater conditions
for the tunneling portion of the work, bury depths of over 50 feet, pipeline connections made in
“wet” conditions, control of frazil ice, mitigation of aquatic life impacts, zebra mussel control,
and quality control of pipe installation.
INTAKE LOCATION
Before any consideration can be devoted to the intake design, the engineer must evaluate the
water quality and quantity needs to meet the utility demands. Water quantity is usually not a
concern on the Great Lakes unless it involves a permitting issue or requirement, but water quality
is another issue.
The selected source should provide a water quality that is economical to treat, not subject to
pollution, and provides for economical construction. It is common, in many instances, for the
selection of the preferred location to take several years of water quality testing and surveys to
determine which site is the best for current and future water supply operation. In some instances,
the closest source may not be the best. For example, the City of Green Bay, Wisconsin, which is
located on south end of Green Bay, has a Lake Michigan intake located near Kewaunee,
Wisconsin, on the Door County peninsula, approximately 28 miles (45 km) away. Water quality
differences between these two water sources drove the decision, the high quality of the Lake
Michigan water was the deciding factor in this instance.
The selection of a water source should be carefully reviewed with a thorough examination of
water quality records, water currents, sewage treatment plant discharge, and potential for
industrial waste discharge that may possible endanger water quality.
A basic water quality checklist for a new intake will include:
No contaminants exceeding United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
limits,
Minimal seasonal variability in physical/chemical parameters,
Minimal variability in physical/chemical traits with water depth,
No physical/chemical characteristics indicating water is difficult to treat, and
Minimal potential for pollution.
© ASCE
2
Pipelines 2018
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
After selecting the water source, the engineer must turn their attention to the specific site
selection for the new intake. A number of evaluations will be required during this phase to result
in a successful project. One cannot over-emphasize the importance of engineering planning and
investigation during this phase. Some of these evaluations may not apply in specific instances
since this paper is discussing intakes located on the Great Lakes. Failure to properly plan and
execute prudent engineering studies will result in a failed project, excessive costs, costly change
orders, and potential litigation. Sometimes owners, ever budget conscience, do not grasp the
benefits to them by investing up front in these studies. These preliminary investigations include:
Lake Currents
Numerous investigations have been conducted on water currents in the Great Lakes by
agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
USEPA. Using this information, the engineer should select a site that has a constantly changing
supply of water to avoid stagnant conditions and/or flow conditions that may introduce pollutants
into these water source.
Ship Wrecks
There are over 6,000 shipwrecks in the Great Lakes, some have been mapped, but most have
not been located and are not referenced on the NOAA National Charts. Ship wrecks pose a
significant impediment to the construction of intake facilities and failure to identify this
information to the constructor will results in costly time delays and change orders.
Shipping Channels and Drafts
The shipping lanes as shown on the NOAA National Charts are the recommended courses by
both the U.S. and Canadian Lake Carrier’s Associations. Although most freighter captains
attempt to stay on the course lines, there is nothing “cast in stone” which would mandate staying
even within a reasonable distance of each side of the shown courses. It should be noted that there
is not an area or zone which would not have a potential of a freighter over the top of the intake,
and if in distress situation, anchorage can occur.
U.S. flagged freighters on the Great Lakes range in length from 383 feet (117 m) to 1,013
feet (309 m) and draft between 26 feet (7.92 m) and 28 feet (8.53 m) below water level. There is
not a correlation between length and draft depth. These ships carry from 5,750 tons (5,216 Mg)
to 70,000 tons (63,504 Mg) of cargo.
Subsurface Investigations
Soundings from the shoreline to the intake structure location should be performed along the
proposed intake conduit route. It is imperative these soundings be tied to known vertical and
horizontal datum. The designer must remember that survey datum for land-side and Great Lakes
water side are not always the same (e.g. National Geodetic Vertical Datum vs. International
Great Lakes Datum need conversions).
Survey soundings will be used to create lake bed topography and just like a land survey, lake
bed anomalies will need to be identified. One example might be an uncharted ship wreck. During
the design of the case study discussed at the end of this paper, the subsurface survey indicted the
© ASCE
3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Pipelines 2018
potential of a wreck site. Further investigations proved that the anomaly was a moving sandbar.
It is also critical to record lake surface level on the date(s) of the subsurface surveys. These lake
levels can be referenced back to the Army Corp of Engineers historical lake levels to be used
during the design phase.
Ice Formation: Great Lakes experience indicates that the location and design features of
submerged intakes can alleviate intake-icing problems. However, the problems may occur
despite all precautions. It is common knowledge that the major ice formations of interest are
characterized as sheet ice and frazil ice. Sheet ice, which forms on the lake surface, will act as a
shield to heat transfer and protect the water intake from icing. Sheet ice is not generally expected
to be a problem as long as sufficient depth of water is present.
Frazil ice formation is a common phenomenon adversely affecting water intakes on the Great
Lakes. Frazil ice crystals are known to form when the lake water is cooled to about 32°F (0°C).
In the active state of formation the crystals agglomerate into slush ice, which have the capacity to
adhere to surfaces and form anchor ice. The phenomenon requires conditions of turbulence
within the super cool water mass created either by currents, wind action or from withdrawing
water at rates which create critical velocities. Formation conditions are characterized by winds at
approximately 10 miles per hour (16 kph) or greater, no sheet ice, clear skies contributing to high
heat transfer rates for the water mass, air temperature below 19°F (-7.2°C), water temperatures of
about 32°F (0°C), and heat loss gradient of approximately 0.01°F per hour. The formation and
accretion processes are accelerated in the presence of materials of high thermal conductivity,
such as steel, which will act to absorb the latent heat released during the ice formation process.
Frazil ice and the resulting anchor ice formations on an intake structure are closely related to
heat conduction, convection, and radiation of intake structure materials and entrance velocity.
For that reason, the intake structure should be constructed of a material with low thermal
conductivity, such as wood, concrete, plastics or plastic covered steel (in preference to plain
steel), to prevent the water from becoming super cooled and forming frazil ice. As an additional
frazil ice preventative measure, water passages/openings should be designed so that the entrance
velocity does not exceed 0.25 foot per second (0.08 mps) during winter conditions.
INTAKE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Once the intake site is determined, careful consideration should be given to the type of
intake, including the inlet structure, sometimes referred to as a crib, the intake conduit, and the
receiving facility located on the shore. Due to the high initial cost of intake construction, design
capacity should be based on longer term future water use projections. Other water system
components are usually constructed in parallel units to meet system demands as they occur, but
intakes are not easily expanded and parallel construction can present unique challenges.
Typically, the cost of intakes on the Great Lakes is directly proportional to the diameter of
the intake conduit, whereas the carrying capacity increases with the square of the diameter. For
this reason, consideration may be given to nominal increases in conduit diameter to obtain
additional capacity for a nominal increase in cost. An example of this approach was used for an
intake on Lake Michigan. Multiple bid alternatives were taken on 42-inch (1,067 mm), 48-inch
(1,219 mm) and 54-inch (1,372 mm) diameter intake pipelines. The 54-inch (1,372 mm) option,
which provided approximately 70% increase in capacity was only 17% higher in cost than the
base bid 42-inch (1,067 mm) diameter option.
Early intake designs provided a simple approach of an up-turned tee or elbow fitted with a
screen for some protection from debris. Some designs provided a series of up-turned tees located
© ASCE
4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Pipelines 2018
5
along the pipeline route. These design of these intakes paid little attention to the system
hydraulics and often resulted in operational difficulties, such as sand ingestion and frazil ice
issues. These operational difficulties are particularly pronounced on intakes constructed with upturned tees installed in a series along the intake pipeline. The tee closest to shore with the
shortest distance to the shorewell, therefore the lowest headloss, produces the largest flow with
the highest velocity. This increased velocity results in sand flowing into the intake pipeline and
in winter conditions will result in frazil ice plugging. In turn, the next tee will plug as the
velocity increases and the problems will just continue to progress down the line.
Figure 1- Cone Section Schematic
Figure 2 – Cone Section Being Installed
Great Lakes intake designs over the decades have included a wide variety of approaches,
from the simple up-turned fittings referenced in the preceding paragraph to complex above
surface structures with living quarters. Today, practically all new intakes are designed as
submerged facilities and utilize wedge wire tee head screens, hydraulically balanced cones and
cribs. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages and is sometimes driven by the client’s
experience and preferences. Regardless, of the selected design type, Zebra Mussel and frazil ice
mitigation practices will need to be implemented.
In selecting the type of intake inlet, the designer must keep inlet velocities sufficiently low
enough to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic life at maximum demand flows, and below 0.25 fps
© ASCE
Pipelines 2018
6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(0.08 mps) during winter demands to minimize frazil ice problems. These requirements must be
taken into account for all types of submerged intakes. When selecting tee head screens and
cones, the designer must hydraulically balance the inlet piping design/headloss to avoid
excessively high flow velocity variations. Failure to balance the hydraulics can lead to sanding or
icing issues.
Figure 3 - Timber Crib Plan
Figure 4 – Timber Crib Construction
A number of utilities have used hydraulically balanced cones successfully for many decades.
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, each cone inlet is equidistant from the terminating cross, thereby
providing equal headloss and equal entrance velocity. Initially, many of these types of inlets
were equipped with screens to prevent debris from entering the intake system, but icing issues
led many operators to remove them. This type of design approach can also be used with tee head
screens to balance the headloss and flows.
A very successful type of inlet structure design for the Great Lakes is the wood crib type
structure. This type of crib is a polygon shaped timber structure with multi-peripheral intake
ports which allow the water to enter the structure at low velocities and accelerate slowly towards
a central inlet connected to the intake drop shaft. The inlet ports are generally located
approximately 8 feet (2.4 m) to 10 feet (3.0 m) above lake bottom to minimize the entrance of
sand. Timber cribs designed for flows of about 60 MGD (227 ML/day) or less are usually square,
structures with eight inlet ports, and usually smaller than 40 feet (12.2 m) by 40 feet (12.2 m).
Larger cribs are usually octagonal in shape with eight or twelve inlet ports on four of the sides.
For example, a crib designed for 200 MGD (757 ML/day) maximum flow will be 80 feet (24.4
m) feet by 80 feet (24.4 m) in size. The largest crib of this type of design is a twelve-sided
© ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Pipelines 2018
polygon approximately 150 feet (45.7 m) across, 13 feet (4.0 m) high and has a rated capacity of
800 MGD (3,027 ML/day). Figures 3 and 4 show a typical octagon shaped timber crib with the
center cover removed for clarity.
These types of cribs are built on shore of mainly 12 inch (305 mm) by 12 inch (305 mm),
Select Structural Grade, Rough Cut, Heavy, Douglas Fir timbers, bolted and drift pinned together
and designed to be floated to the site before setting over the intake shaft. The design includes
concrete and stone ballast so that initially the crib it has a slightly positive buoyancy for towing.
The freeboard above the water should be desirably small so as to facilitate towing to position
with a minimum of wind and wave interference.
Once at the site, the intake structure is lowered to its final position, weighted, with crushed
rock ballast, and firmly bedded on a crushed stone mat on the lake bottom and directly above the
intake shaft. Blocks of concrete or rip-rap of varying sizes will surround the intake structure. The
structure surrounds a bell-mouth drop pipe, which is connected to the intake conduit.
INTAKE CONDUIT
There are two methods available for installing an intake conduit, open cut or tunneling. In
order to make a final determination on the most cost effective method of installation,
geotechnical borings must be made into the lake bottom at locations along the proposed route to
obtain samples for laboratory testing and analysis. The geotechnical properties of the materials
encountered will then be utilized to analyze the various options.
The engineer must consider construction methods in this phase of the design. American
Bureau of Shipping (ABS) rated marine barges, of the size required for this work will draft 8 feet
(2.4 m) to 10 feet (3.0 m). Therefore, the design of the intake conduit will have to account for the
lack of sufficient water depth from the shoreline to approximately 10 feet (3.0 m) of depth. In
some instances, such as the case study presented later, a combination of soft ground tunnel and
open cut may be used for the marine pipe installation. This type of connection can create
significant challenges for the Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) retrieval and subsequent pipe
connection.
The intake conduit should be built on a continuous slope following the natural grade of the
lake bottom, and avoiding the constructing of any high points in the conduit. A high point in the
line can possibly cause a partial blockage due to trapped air and thereby reduce the capacity of
the intake conduit.
For open cut installation, the general practice is to construct the intake conduit in a trench
along the lake bottom and to provide approximately four feet of cover over the pipeline. The
total volume of trench excavation will be influenced by the results of the geotechnical
investigation. Depending on trench conditions, foundation blocking with timber sills and chocks
may be required for the installation to set the grade of the conduit. Granular material, such as pea
gravel, will be used for bedding and backfilling along the pipeline from the trench bottom to one
foot above the top of the conduit. Suitable excavated material would be used to fill the remaining
portions of the trench up to the existing lake bottom level and generally mounded about two feet
above the trench to allow for some settlement. The historical practice of placing rip-rap on top of
the trench is no longer allowed by the permitting agencies.
If tunneling is required, the designer must account for a number of technical issues for
tunneling under the lake. The soils encountered in this region around the Great Lakes consist of
glacial till which contains silty clays, silty sands, fine to medium sands, gravel and sand
mixtures, and boulders. Due to the granular nature of some of these materials, groundwater
© ASCE
7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Pipelines 2018
control must be provided. While all of these issues can be addressed, the mitigation methods are
expensive and the potential for problems and failures during the tunneling operations are high.
Steel, concrete cylinder, reinforced concrete, and ductile iron piping materials have been
successfully used for open cut marine pipe. In selecting the piping material, the designer needs to
account for the different loading conditions that will be experienced in the marine trench. For
example, the contractor will use the installation supports with chocks to align and hub the pipe
joint. This type of construction results in beam loading on the pipe that must be taken into
account in designing the pipe. Also, the days of using draw bolts to hub the pipe are gone and
have been replaced with the Hydro-Pull. The Hydro-Pull creates a lower internal pressure
condition inside the pipe that must be accounted for in the pipe design.
CASE STUDY – KAREGONDI WATER AUTHORITY
Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam, Inc. provided design engineering and construction
management services of a new water supply intake system for the Karegondi Water Authority
(KWA), headquartered in Genesee County, Michigan. This new intake is located on the western
shore of Lake Huron between Sanilac and St. Clair counties. The new 85 MGD (322 ML/day)
water supply intake system consists of two intake structures (timber cribs), an intake pipeline [78
inch (1,981 mm) and 60 inch (1,524 mm)], an onshore junction structure and a zebra mussel
control system.
Each wooden intake crib is an octagonal shape (48 feet Long x 48 feet Wide x 14 feet High)
(14.6 m L x 14.6 m W x 4.3 m H) with a rated capacity of 65 MGD (246 ML/day). Two cribs
were provided for system redundancy with each crib located at different distances from shore, at
approximately 3,355 feet (1,023 m) and 5,600 feet (1,707 m), to account for seasonal variations
in water quality. The main intake pipeline is 78-inch (1,981 mm) diameter, has a capacity of 85
MGD (322 ML/day), and extends to the furthest intake, Crib #2. At approximately 3,200 feet
(975 m) from shore, a wye fitting on the 78-inch (1,981 mm) pipeline branches off and reduces
to a 60-inch (1,524 mm) intake pipeline to Crib #1. Two submerged steel stop log chambers
where provided on the upstream run and branch of the wye fitting for isolation of each intake
crib. Frazil ice mitigation was addressed in the design by providing large intake port openings
and maintaining 0.25 foot per second (0.08 mps) or less velocity at anticipated winter water
demand flow rates. Mitigation of ice formation was further addressed with the selection of wood
as the primary material used in the construction of the cribs as its low thermal conductivity
minimizes the formation of anchor ice on its surface. The cribs were constructed with 12 inch x
12 inch (305 mm x 305 mm) Douglas Fir timbers that were connected with timber frame joints
secured with steel tie rods and drift pins. The cribs were designed to resist hydrodynamic forces
and to be floated partially submerged from shore to their final location. Once towed to their final
locations, the cribs were sunk by adding ballast stone and centered over the vertical intake cones
installed in the intake pipeline. Once set on the lake bottom, three feet of backfill is placed to
restore the original lake bottom elevation and heavy riprap is added around the perimeter to the
top of the crib to protect against wave action.
Selection of the intake pipeline materials was driven in part by the method of construction.
For approximately the first 1,310 feet (399 m) from the junction chamber out to a proposed
cofferdam in the lake, the 78-inch (1,981 mm) intake pipeline was designed to be installed by
soft ground tunneling using an earth-balanced TBM. The junction chamber was used as the
launching pit for the TBM and for jacking 78-inch (1,981 mm) diameter reinforced concrete pipe
(RCP), Class V equivalent. The RCP jacking pipe was specified with solid rubber O-ring gaskets
© ASCE
8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Pipelines 2018
and steel joint rings rated for a minimum hydrostatic head of 50 feet (15.2 m) without leakage.
The lake cofferdam was designed for retrieval of the TBM and for making the transition from
tunnel pipe installation to open-cut marine construction using excavating equipment on barges.
The intake pipeline for open-cut marine installation was designed as prestressed concrete
cylinder pipe (PCCP) or steel pipe at the contractor’s option, both of which have been installed
successfully for intake pipelines in the Great Lakes. Special pipe adapters were custom designed
to make the transition from RCP to PCCP or steel pipe at the lake cofferdam, and access
manways were provided along the intake pipeline alignment for inspection and maintenance
purposes. It should be noted that the preceding describes the design, however the contractor
offered a savings to eliminate the cofferdam and perform the connection in the “wet”. The owner
elected to accept the savings. The contractor experienced costly delays due to construction issues
with the “wet connection”.
Zebra mussel infestation, a significant problem with water supply intakes in the Great Lakes,
is to be controlled with a chlorine solution feed to each intake crib. Two dual wall HDPE
containment pipes were designed to be installed via horizontal directional drilling (HDD) to a
location in the lake from which point the chlorine piping is installed by open-cut marine
construction and secured to the intake pipeline. Each dual wall HDPE pipe terminates at the
intake cone of the crib and transitions to single-wall CPVC piping for distribution to each of the
eight crib intake ports. Pipe diffusers are mounted across the port openings with diffuser orifices
designed with minimum jet velocities of 10 feet per second (3.0 mps). The direction of the
solution jets is perpendicular to the flow through the port openings to promote maximum mixing
efficiency. At a dosage range of 0.3 to 1.5 mg/L chlorine, the piping materials were selected to
handle high strength chlorine solutions greater than 2,000 mg/L chlorine.
CASE STUDY BY THE NUMBERS
The following selected details represent final quantities and costs for the project.
Pipe
700 LF (213 m) Tunnel (RCP)
1310 LF (399 m) Marine Tunnel (RCP)
4875 LF (1,486 m) Marine Open Cut (PCCP)
78-inch PCCP – 20 Tons (18 Mg) per 20-ft (6.1 m) Section
Cribs (each)
98,000 b-ft Select Structural, Rough Cut, Heavy, Douglas Fir
132 Tons (120 Mg)
350 Tons (317 Mg) of Ballast
900 Tons (816 Mg) of Riprap
0.25 fps (0.08 mps) Winter Inlet Velocity
0.50 fps (0.16 mps) Maximum Inlet Velocity
Stop-Log Chambers (each)
Dimensions - 10-ft x 6-ft x 23-ft (3.0 m x 1.8 m x 7.0 m)
Weight - 21,000 pounds (9,526 kg)
Costs
Bid Date - February 2013 (ENR – 9453)
Engineer’s OPC – $27,800,000
Five Bids
© ASCE
9