Evaluation of Rapid Acoustic Pipe Inspection for Prioritizing Cleaning and CCTV Resources

Transcription

1 Evaluation of Rapid Acoustic Pipe Inspection for Prioritizing Cleaning and CCTV Resources George Selembo InfoSense, Inc. Stephen Orticello Directrik, Inc. Silvano Piluso Toronto Water Colbert Clifford Toronto Water TRENCHLESS TECHNOLOGY ROADSHOW May 28-29, 2014 Scotiabank Convention Centre, Niagara Falls, ON

2 PRESENTATION OUTLINE Acoustic Inspection Overview Project Background and Objectives Summary of Results Conclusion

3 SEWER LINE INSPECTION METHODS Manhole Inspection ACOUSTIC Zoom Camera CCTV/Robotic Camera Pipe Wall Defect Scanners Pipe Profiling / Robotic Multi Sensor Push Camera

4 ACTIVE ACOUSTIC PIPE INSPECTION BACKGROUND Patented technology Gravity fed sewer focus Developed in Charlotte with CMUD as key partner Over 7.5M feet inspected Rapid assessment helps better focus cleaning and CCTV resources

5 ACOUSTIC INSPECTION TECHNOLOGY How Does it Work? Transmitter Yells Receiver Listens

6 ACOUSTIC INSPECTION TECHNOLOGY Scoring System

7 ACOUSTIC INSPECTION TECHNOLOGY Scoring System

8 KEY FEATURES OF ACOUSTIC INSPECTION No Flow Contact / No Confined Space Entry Simple to use train operators in minutes Low Cost Pennies/foot Rapid Onsite Results Under 3 min./segment Portable < 30 lbs

9 ACOUSTIC INSPECTION APPLICATIONS Focus Cleaning Effort Reduce Cleaning by Over 50% and Enable Condition Based Maintenance Eliminate Repeat and Downstream Overflows Post Cleaning Quality Assurance Quick Collection System Condition Assessments When Taking Over New Areas

10 PRESENTATION OUTLINE Acoustic Inspection Overview Project Background and Objectives Summary of Results Conclusion

11 District Operations PROJECT BACKGROUND Trial Area: Etobicoke York District (east of Parklawn Rd and north of The Queensway) Pipe diameter ranging from 200mm to 375mm Pipe material included: concrete, PVC, AC and UNK Drainage area consist of mixture of single residential, low rise apartments and a commercial plaza Sanitary sewers have been identified by O&M as problem area Total length of sewer tested approx. 2,400 m Sewers constructed mid late 50 s PVC sewers constructed 1996 Weather condition sub zero temp. (Feb/Mar 2013)

12 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Evaluate the economics and accuracy of a rapid acoustic pipe inspection technology Compare acoustic inspection results with CCTV results to verify results Evaluate productivity (inspection rate) for acoustic inspections

13 PRESENTATION OUTLINE Acoustic Inspection Overview Project Background and Objectives Summary of Results Conclusion

14 SUMMARY OF RESULTS Legend 0 3 Poor/Blocked 4 6 Fair 7 10 Good

15 SUMMARY OF RESULTS Decision to clean or not clean using CCTV can be highly subjective, and generally conservative Good agreement seen for Good and Poor/Blocked Cleaning decision for Fair scores largely dependent on operator training and policies SL RAT = Good Riverwood Parkway Dr 17 legs of sanitary sewer tested CCTV Agree CCTV Disagree SL RAT = Fair Riverwood Parkway Dr 11 legs of sanitary sewer tested CCTV Agree CCTV Disagree SL RAT = Poor/Blocked Riverwood Parkway Dr 10 legs of sanitary sewer tested CCTV Agree CCTV Disagree 12% 10% 88% 45% 55% 90%

16 SUMMARY OF RESULTS Straight Pipe Partial Pipe Sags Full Pipe Sag

17 SUMMARY OF RESULTS Cost Comparison CCTV vs SL RAT inspection CCTV test area = $5,793.00, SL RAT = $533.50* *Hansen rate for 2 people labour, vehicle, and SL RAT rental That is 9% of CCTV cost Based on the test trial 2.4 km/5hrs = 3.84 km/day, to inspect the entire district estimated time is 1.54 years with one crew and piece of equipment

18 SUMMARY OF RESULTS Reduction and Efficiency Pipe tested with Good Rating was m = 32% of the tested area Flushed the entire tested area and costing from Hansen was $2, = $1/meter Saving of $772.95, however, the saving is not in cost but the resource utilization to areas that required cleaning West District has 1,467km of Sanitary/Combined sewer, 20% or km required cleaning to meet the industry standard, applying the reduction rate then cleaning required = 199.5km Based on the flushing accomplishment of 1.2km/day, it will take 166 working days to complete Without the reduction it would take 245 working days to complete the 20% requirement

19 PRESENTATION OUTLINE Acoustic Inspection Overview Project Background and Objectives Summary of Results Conclusion

20 CONCLUSION Limitations of Acoustic Inspection Does not indicate what is causing the blockage Does not assess the condition of pipe walls Does not pinpoint the blockage or number of location(s) Some concern with drop pipes, but works fine if TX unit is placed on that end Fair rating (score of 4 6) was inconsistent with CCTV inspection. A more conservative cleaning policy addresses the issue, while still resulting in substantial gains in efficiency.

21 SL RAT inspection of a sewer can be completed in as little as 3 minutes (mobilization to demobilization) SL RAT provides a conservative estimate of percent blockage Prioritizes cleaning and provides flexibility in balancing risk with cost (with ability to defend claims) Low cost basin assessment CONCLUSION (cont.) Assessment correlated with cleaning and CCTV requirement Improve performance and adhere to TW Strategic Plan Guiding Principle

22 CONCLUSION (cont.) Inspection is much Cheaper than Cleaning Acoustic Inspection is an Effective Method to Make Blockage Assessments o Quick o Cheap o Easy / Safe Acoustic Inspection Does Not Replace Cleaning or Detailed Inspection o Helps Determine how to Effectively Deploy Cleaning and CCTV resources

23 QUESTIONS? George Selembo Steve Orticello