York Peel Feeder Main Condition Assessment Project Review & Results Presentation

Transcription

1 York Peel Feeder Main Condition Assessment Project Review & Results Presentation May 28, 2014 Junjie Tu (Thomas) P.Eng. Infrastructure Engineer, Strategy & Business Planning, Environmental Services Department The Regional Municipality of York Ramzi Khalaf MBA, P.Eng., PMP Program Manager Pure Technologies Ltd.

2 Table of Contents Project Background Feeder Main Overview Project Scope & Inspection Details Scope SmartBall Leak Detection PipeDiver EM Inspection Transient Pressure Monitoring Engineering Services Results SmartBall Leak Detection PipeDiver EM Inspection Transient Pressure Monitoring Engineering Services

3 York Region Water System Upper Tier Municipality Serving Nine Lower Tier Municipalities: Markham, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Aurora, Whitchurch Stouffville, King, East Gwillimbury, Georgina and Newmarket - Population: Approx. 1.1 Million Water Infrastructure: Watermain: 330 km Surface WTP: 2 Pumping Stations: 20 Elevated Tank: 29 Reservoir: 15 Groundwater Wells: 40

4 Project Background Feeder Main Overview Airport Road Pumping Station in Peel Region to Maple Reservoir in York Region, ~25 KM, built in mm PCCP, two Manufacturers: Hyperscon now Hanson & Munro Managed and operated by Peel Region (OCWA) and York Region Critical fresh water supply asset for York Region: 21% (165 MLD) in 2013; 32% (331 MLD) in 2031 One surfacing leak in 2009, 135m main diversion upstream from East Humber River

5 Project Background Feeder Main Overview Contd.

6 Project Scope Untethered Live Leak Detection Using SmartBall Technology Untethered Live Electromagnetic (EM) Inspection Using PipeDiver Technology Engineering Condition Assessment, Risk Assessment and Recommendations

7 Planning Deliverables Project Scope

8 Inspection Details SmartBall Inspection: Launch

9 Inspection Details SmartBall Inspection: Extraction

10 Inspection Details PipeDiver Inspection: Launch

11 Inspection Details PipeDiver Inspection: Tracking (SmartBall & PipeDiver) 27 Tracking Sites 2 Hydrophone tracking sites (Special ARV location)

12 Inspection Details PipeDiver Inspection: Extraction

13 Inspection Details Transient Pressure Monitoring Chamber Y8: Proximity to Lowest Point on Main Chamber Y20: Proximity to Highest Point on Main Chambers Accessible without Need for Traffic Control

14 Project Scope Engineering Services Consequence of Failure (COF) Score Finite Element Analysis (Curves) Likelihood of Failure (LOF) Score Risk Score (COF * LOF) Recommendations

15 Results: SmartBall Leak Detection Survey Duration: 19:20 Average Velocity: m/s Leak Anomalies: 7 Gas Pockets: none Summary of Leaks and Field Investigation Results Leak # Location Estimated Size Investigation and Field Verification Results 1 Chamber CH2 Medium Drain valve left open during SmartBall inspection, addressed by OCWA 2 Chamber Y8 Small Leak noise most likely generated by PRV connected to Y8 via 750mm lateral 3 Chamber Y9 Medium Leaking drain valve picked up by SmartBall, York Region closed it after field investigation 4 477m DS of VC2; 169.1m US from VC3 Medium 5 VC3 Medium m Downstream of VC3 Chamber 23m Upstream from 65 degree bend US from Maple PS Medium Ground microphone did not pick up the leak from above ground Leaking flange used to insert tool tracking hydrophone, uninstalled after inspection Ground microphone did not pick up the leak from above ground Recommended Action None None None To Be Addressed None To Be Addressed Small Surfacing leak located around the area To Be Addressed

16 Results: SmartBall Leak Detection Leak 4: 169m US from VC3, under roadway (Rutherford Road) Leak 5: Leaking flange used for SBR insertion into water column Leak 6: 25m DS from VC3, under roadway (Rutherford Road)

17 Results: SmartBall Leak Detection Field Verification Excavation/Repair* *: Adjacent parallel 1200mm line, same axial location Leak 7: 23m US from 65 Degree Bend near Maple PS, surfacing leak

18 Results: PipeDiver EM Inspection Distress

19 Results: PipeDiver EM Inspection Rank Pure Ref No. Piece No. STA Pipe Length (m) Break Position (m) # WB by Region Total #WB Distressed Pipes in Regional Municipality of Peel 1 50 N/A * C-E * 3 84 N/A C-E N/A Distressed Pipes in Regional Municipality of York N/A * N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A W-E N/A N/A

20 Results: PipeDiver EM Inspection Wire Breaks (WB) <25

21 Results: PipeDiver EM Inspection 25<WB<50 (Orange); WB>50 (Red)

22 Results: Transient Pressure Monitoring (Y20)

23 Results: Transient Pressure Monitoring (Y20) Table 2.7: Summary of Transient Pressure Data Chamber Y-20 Number of Monitored Pressure Events Greater than 8 psi 16 Number of Monitored Pressure Events Greater than 10 psi 4 Average Monitored Maximum Pressure, psi 3.95 Median Monitored Maximum Pressure, psi 4.08 Minimum Recorded Pressure, psi Date and Time of Minimum Recorded Pressure May 27, :00 AM Maximum Recorded Pressure, psi Date and Time of Maximum Recorded Pressure May 27, :00 AM Number of Monitored Pressure Events with a Difference Greater than 10 psi (Maximum minus Minimum Pressure) 1 Greatest Difference Between Minimum and Maximum Recorded Pressure, psi Minimum Pressure at Greatest Difference, psi Maximum Pressure at Greatest Difference, psi Date and Time of Greatest Difference May 27, :00 AM

24 Segment Start End Results: Engineering Services COF Consequence of Failure: Segments, Score, and Total Score Legal & Regulatory Health & Safety Nature & Environmental Performance Weight (%) IIP Score Change Final Change Final Change Final Change Final Change Final Main Road Main Road River/Rail Net Under Road Urban/Rural Net 1 Airport Rd. Pump Station Line Valve at Chamber Line Valve at Chamber 23-1 Line Valve at Chamber 23-P Line Valve at Chamber 23-P13 Line Valve at Chamber 23-P Line Valve at Chamber 23-P19 Line Valve at Chamber 23-P Line Valve at Chamber 23-P25 Line Valve at Chamber Y Line Valve at Chamber Y3 Line Valve at Chamber Y Line Valve at Chamber Y6 Line Valve at Chamber Y Change 8 Line Valve at Chamber Y8 Line Valve at Chamber VC from IIP 9 Line Valve at Chamber VC-2 Line Valve at Chamber VC Score for 10 Line Valve at Chamber VC-4 Line Valve at Chamber VC each of 11 Line Valve at Chamber VC-5 Line Valve at Chamber VC the 12 Line Valve at Chamber VC-7 Line Valve at Chamber Y segments 13 Line Valve at Chamber Y-10 Line Valve at Chamber Y Line Valve at Chamber Y-11 Line Valve at Chamber Y Line Valve at Chamber Y-13 Line Valve at Chamber Y Line Valve at Chamber Y-14 Line Valve at Chamber Y Line Valve at Chamber Y-17 Line Valve at Chamber Y Line Valve at Chamber Y-20 Line Valve at Chamber Y Line Valve at Chamber Y-21 South Compartment-Maple Res Financial Total Scores Color Coding Segment Score<=80 80<Segment Score<=85 85<Segment Score<=90 90<Segment Score<=95 95<Segment Score<=100 90<Segment Score<=95 95<Segment Score<=100

25 Results: Engineering Services FE Analysis Pure Ref # STA Wire Break Range < >50 Wire Breaks (WB) Pipe Class Nearest Chamber from the Distressed Pipe Distressed Pipes: York-Peel Feeder Main Distance: Nearest Feature to the end of the distressed pipe (distress pipe length included) (m) Chamber No. 2 Drain STA * U Munro 3.1 Yes Segment Chamber No. 2 Drain STA U Munro 1.5 No Segment Valve Chamber No D Munro 3 No Segment Chamber No P D Munro 2.8 Yes Segment Drain chamber No U Munro 2 No Segment Chamber No.Y U Munro 4.4 Yes Segment AV Chamber No.Y D Munro 3.9 No Segment AV Chamber No D Hanson 2.6 Yes Segment BFV Chamber No D Hanson 6.4 Yes Segment BFV. Chamber No ** U Hanson 3.4 Yes Segment BFV. Chamber No U Hanson 5.2 Yes Segment BFV. Chamber No D Hanson 3 Yes Segment AV. Chamber No U Hanson 3.5 Yes Segment BFV. Chamber No D Munro 2.8 Yes Segment AV. Chamber No. Y D Munro 3.6 Yes Segment BFV. Chamber No. Y D Munro 3.9 No Segment BFV. Chamber No. Y D Munro 2.4 No Segment-17 Total Number Elevation basis (m) 260 Within Peel Region Flow Direction (U/D) Manufacturer Within York Region Total No. of Inspected pipe = 4280 * Pipe is 279m Upstream from feature in column G Total No. of Distressed pipe = 17 ** Distance from the nearest flange on the BFV Distress % 0.40 Peel Region Hanson Munro * The head loss was estimated based on a flow of 165 ML/Day through analysis of the pressure and flow data from the Airport Road Pump Station during the months of May and June 2013 Depth (m) Under Road (Yes/No) Invert Elevation (m) Elevation Pressure (PSI) Estimated Head Loss (Applied Uniformly Along the Pipeline) (PSI)* Total Pressure (Elevation + Est. Head Loss) (PSI) Consequence of Failure Segment (CoF) Pressure values to be adopted as current opearating conditions during the FE Analysis.

26 Results: Engineering Services FE Analysis: Curves

27 Results: Engineering Services Recommendations Leaks Address Leaks 4, 6, and 7 (Surfacing leak) 169.1m 25m 23m Leak 4: Located and addressed Leak 6: Located and addressed Leak 7: Located and addressed, located at parallel adjacent 1200mm line

28 Results: Engineering Services Recommendations Pipe Repair/Replace & Leaks Repair

29 Results: Engineering Services Recommendations Proactive Long Term Management of York Peel Feeder Main Pure Recommends One of Two Alternatives: A Installation of a Continuous Monitoring System (AFO) Live Detection and Reporting of Wire Breaks Continuously Monitor Risk (EM, AFO, Engineering ) Recommend Repeat Inspections (Leak/EM*) every 5~7 Years; Reset Re Inspection Frequency According to Results B Periodic Internal Re Inspections: Leak and EM Inspections Every 2~3 Years Reset Re Inspection Frequency According to Results

30 Questions and Discussions