Tài liệu Pipelines 2018 planning and design

  • Số trang: 466 |
  • Loại file: PDF |
  • Lượt xem: 19 |
  • Lượt tải: 0
quocphongnguyen

Tham gia: 21/04/2015

Mô tả:

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 permissions@asce.org 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: jwgreen@lan-inc.com 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
- Xem thêm -