IKT-Linerreport 2006: Current Test Results Brochure (PDF 1.007 MB)

Reprint bi UmweltBau 2 | 07 1from Roland W. Waniek and Dieter HomannIndustry experts are increasingly questioning which are the best liner types and the best pipe lining methods. Two „families“ of technologies compete in the marketplace: Tube liners em-ploying glass-fiber, and those employing nee-dle-felt, as the support material.It is no surprise that the various manufacturers emphasize only the benefits of their own sys-tems. But what are the facts? What results are actually achieved on the building site? The IKT-LinerReport 2006 provides answers to these questions on the basis of laboratory re-sults obtained by the independent and neutral IKT Test Center for Pipe Liners. Material and Man Pipe liners are, in principle, new pipes pro-duced from ultra-modern composite materi-als. They are manufactured and cured at the construction site, however. Unlike pipes pro-duced in a factory, these onsite cured pipelin-ers are subject to adverse conditions which fre-quently prevail on such sites. These conditions will differ significantly from location to loca-tion but the correct installation and cure must, nonetheless, be mastered at each location to achieve expected results and success.This necessitates the highest qualities in the raw support materials and resins used. Only a highly experienced and well coordinated team, fully in control of the complex installation and curing processes, can produce from the raw materials, a tight fitting, structural and leak-proof liner which will stand up to several dec-ades of pipeliner service.Cured-In-Place Pipes: Glass Clearly Ahead?IKT-LinerReport 2006Is the material the only important factor in cured-in-place pipe rehabilitation? What quality standards do installers (contractors) achieve, and with what types of liner? The independent and neutral IKT Test Center for Pipe Liners now submits, for the third time, its IKT-LinerReport. This paints for 2006 a differentiated picture based on test results obtained from more than one thousand on-site samples.Reprint UmweltBau 2 | 07Rehabil i tat ionReprint bi UmweltBau 2 | 07Rehabil i tat ion2Data-baseThe data for all installation companies for whom the IKT has performed at least twenty-five liner tests from five different sites in the course of the year (January to December, 2006) has been incorporated into the 2006 LinerReport. In case of repeat tests, the most recently obtained re-sult is used, provided the repeat tests were also performed at IKT. This report is based on a total of 1084 site samples taken at construction sites throughout Germany and thoroughly tested at the IKT laboratory.The 2006 IKT-LinerReport submitted herewith provides an overall view of tube liner quali-ties, classified by installation companies and liner systems. It follows the 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 LinerReports, and is therefore the Institute‘s third report of this type (see IKT-eNewsletters for September 2004 and January 2006 on www.ikt.de).Significance and Limits of InformationThe laboratory results, obtained from site sam-ples, cannot be used as the sole criteria for as-sessment of specific lining projects, since site specimens are only, at best, random samples. They are normally taken in the manhole or, in exceptional cases, directly from the pipe.The overall condition of a renewed pipe can be evaluated only if further acceptance inspection procedures, such as camera inspection or in-ternal manual inspection, are also included. Only these other methods detect wrinkles, in-correctly re-opened service connections and physical defects in the pipeliner.The IKT-LinerReport can therefore, not consti-tute the only standard for comparative assess-ment of installation companies and their liner systems. It provides results based on only one – but extremely important – aspect of quality assurance: laboratory testing.Specified/Actual AnalysisAt least four different parameters are generally used for the assessment of building site sam-ples: • Modulus of elasticity (short-term flexural modulus)• Flexural strength (short-termsfb)• Wall thickness• Impermeability to water (water tightness)In the case of the first three (mechanical) pa-rameters, the specified results are compared against those actually achieved (Specified/Ac-tual analysis). The fourth criterion, water-tight-ness or porosity, is determined in accordance with the APS test and inspection code. The re-sult is either „Porous“ or „Non-Porous“.Installation Company Liner System Liner TypeNo. of SamplestestedIKT test commissioned byInstallation company %Munici-pal client%ARKIL INPIPE GmbH Berolina Liner GRP 213 40 60Boger Kanalsanierung GmbH iMPREG-Liner GRP 40 0 100Brandenburger Kanalsanie-rungs-GmbHBrandenburger TubelinerGRP 57 14 86Diringer & Scheidel Rohrsa-nierung GmbH & Co. KGUniliner (NordiTube) NF 36 6 94CityLiner (RS Technik AG) NF 69 0 100Saertex-Liner GRP 33 100 0FLEER-TECH GmbH CityLiner (RS Technik AG) NF 42 17 83Frisch & Faust Tiefbau GmbH Saertex-Liner GRP 180 0 100Hans Brochier GmbH & Co. KG Saertex-Liner GRP 35 66 34Insituform Rohrsanierungs-techniken GmbHInsituform Tubeliner NF 215 3 97KS Kanalsanierung Friedrich e.K.Brandenburger TubelinerGRP 83 37 63Linertec GmbH Euroliner GRP 43 28 72Swietelsky-Faber GmbH KanalsanierungBerolina-Liner GRP 38 0 100Total 1,084 18 82GRP: Glass-fiber-reinforced support materialNF: Needle-felt support materialTable 1 – Installation Companies and Liner SystemsFigure 1: Liner sample undergoing three-point bending testReprint bi UmweltBau 2 | 07Costumers Must TestThe clients for tests in 2006 included both mu-nicipalities and installers. IKT has, however, al-ways emphatically recommended that munici-pal clients (or their consultant engineers), rather than the installers, should select and commis-sion the testing institute directly. The testing function must not be left to those who’s products are being tested. In this way, potential attempts at influence, by such companies, can be elimi-nated from the beginning. The majority of tests performed at IKT, a total of 82 %, were conducted on behalf of the municipal client (see Table 1).Modulus of ElasticityPipe liners are required to withstand locally differing loads (groundwater, traffic loads, soil pressure etc.). They therefore need to be de-signed specifically for these loads in each case, and to possess adequate load-bearing capabil-ity. A central mechanical characteristic param-eter in this context is modulus of elasticity. The test method applied in the case of site samples is the three-point bending test, which IKT per-forms in the form of a short-time test with refer-ence to DIN EN ISO 178 and DIN EN 13566, Part 4 (see Table 2).Installation Contractor 2006 2004/2005 TrendNo. of SamplesTarget* achievedin % of testsTarget* achievedin % of testsBrandenburger Kanalsanierungs-GmbH 57 100.0 97.6 ÏHans Brochier GmbH & Co. KG 35 100.0 99.1 ÏLinertec GmbH 43 100.0 97.1 ÏARKIL INPIPE GmbH 210 99.5 97.3 ÏKS Kanalsanierung Friedrich e.K. 80 98.8 97.1 ÏKMG Pipe Technologies GmbH 22 – 96.2 –Diringer & Scheidel – Saertex-Liner 33 93.9 – –Average 89.9Swietelsky-Faber GmbH Kanalsanierung 38 89.5 – –Frisch & Faust Tiefbau GmbH 180 88.3 – –Boger Kanalsanierung GmbH 40 87.5 – –Insituform Rohrsanierungstechniken GmbH 215 84.2 87.8 ÐDiringer & Scheidel – CityLiner 65 75.4 – –Diringer & Scheidel – Uniliner 36 75.0 – –FLEER-TECH GmbH 41 63.4 77.8** Ð* Target values as per stress analysis or client’s data on the sample traveller card** Applies to RS RoboLiner– not evaluated (too few liner samples)Table 2 - Test Criteria: Modulus of Elasticity (Short-term flexural modulus)Installation Contractor 2006 2004/2005TrendNo. of SamplesTarget* achievedin % of testsTarget* achievedin % of testsBoger Kanalsanierung GmbH 40 100.0 – –Brandenburger Kanalsanierungs-GmbH 57 100.0 100.0 ÍÎKS Kanalsanierung Friedrich e.K. 80 100.0 98.5 ÏLinertec GmbH 41 100.0 91.2 ÏDiringer & Scheidel – CityLiner 65 98.5 – –ARKIL INPIPE GmbH 210 92.4 97.3 ÐHans Brochier GmbH & Co. KG 35 91.4 96.4 ÐDiringer & Scheidel – Saertex-Liner 33 87.9 – –Swietelsky-Faber GmbH Kanalsanierung 36 86.1 – –FLEER-TECH GmbH 41 85.4 100.0** ÐAverage 83.5Frisch & Faust Tiefbau GmbH 180 78.9 – –Diringer & Scheidel – Uniliner 36 75.0 – –Insituform Rohrsanierungstechniken GmbH 215 56.3 74.0 ÐKMG Pipe Technologies GmbH 22 – 50.0 –* Target values as per stress analysis or client’s data on the sample traveller card** Applies to RS RoboLiner– not evaluated (too few liner samples)Flexural StrengthFlexural strength indicates the point at which the liner fails as a result of excessively high stress. If this point is too low, the liner does not pos-sess adequate load-bearing capability and may fail before the permissible load is reached. Test method: The load in the three-point bending test Table 3 - Test Criteria: Flexural Strength (short-time sfb)Installation Contractor 2006No. of SamplesDiringer & Scheidel – Saertex-Liner 33Frisch & Faust Tiefbau GmbH 180Hans Brochier GmbH & Co. KG 34KMG Pipe Technologies GmbH 22Linertec GmbH 43FLEER-TECH GmbH 40Brandenburger Kanalsanierungs-GmbH 57Diringer & Scheidel – Uniliner 26Diringer & Scheidel – CityLiner 48AverageInsituform Rohrsanierungstechniken GmbH 193Boger Kanalsanierung GmbH 38ARKIL INPIPE GmbH 210Swietelsky-Faber GmbH Kanalsanierung 38KS Kanalsanierung Friedrich e.K. 80* Target values as per stress analysis or client’s data on the sa** Applies to RS RoboLiner– not evaluated (too few liner samples)Table 4 - Test Criteria: Wall Thickness (Mean Combined Rehabil i tat ionFigure 2: Measurement of liner wall thickness3Reprint bi UmweltBau 2 | 072004/2005TrendTarget* achievedin % of testsTarget* achievedin % of tests100.0 – –100.0 – –100.0 96.9 Ï– 100.0 –97.7 97.1 Ï95.0 90.5** Ï89.5 67.9 Ï88.5 – –85.4 – –82.780.8 92.0 Ð73.7 – –68.6 90.0 Ð63.2 – –62.5 47.3 Ïample traveller card Thickness em as per DIN EN 13566, Part 4)is raised at a constant rate of deformation up to the first fall in loading. This indicates the incep-tion of liner failure (short-time test, see Table 3).Wall ThicknessThe third criteria relevant for assessment of the load-bearing capability of liners is wall thickness Figure 3: Water (stained red) permeates through: Liner is not water-tightInstallation Contractor 2006 2004/2005TrendNo. of SamplesNon-porous in % of testsNon-porous in % of testsBoger Kanalsanierung GmbH 38 100.0 – –Brandenburger Kanalsanierungs-GmbH 57 100.0 100.0 ÍÎDiringer & Scheidel – Saertex-Liner 33 100.0 – –Linertec GmbH 43 100.0 100.0 ÍÎSwietelsky-Faber GmbH Kanalsanierung 33 100.0 – –KS Kanalsanierung Friedrich e.K. 83 98.8 100.0 ÐARKIL INPIPE GmbH 184 97.8 98.6 ÐHans Brochier GmbH & Co. KG 35 97.1 98.2 ÐFrisch & Faust Tiefbau GmbH 180 93.3 – –Diringer & Scheidel – CityLiner 53 92.5 – –Average 88.8KMG Pipe Technologies GmbH 22 – 75.0 –Insituform Rohrsanierungstechniken GmbH192 68.8 62.6 ÏFLEER-TECH GmbH 42 61.9 81.8** ÐDiringer & Scheidel – Uniliner 27 48.1 – –** Applies to RS RoboLiner– not evaluated (too few liner samples)Table 5 - Test Criteria: Water-Tightness (in conformity with APS test and inspection code)(Mean Combined Thickness em as per DIN EN 13566, Part 4). A specified figure (for the stress-analysis calculation, for example), is made for this and must be achieved during production of the liner on site. Test method: The statically load-bearing wall thickness is measured at six points using a precision slide gauge. Inner and outer films and non-structured layers consisting purely of resin (surplus resin layers) are not taken into account in this measurement (see Table 4).Water-Tightness as per APSTest method: Any outer film is firstly removed from the sample and a specified pattern is cut into the inner film. Water containing a red dye-stuff is then applied to the inner side and an „underpressure“ (partial vacuum) of 0.5 bar is applied to the exterior side. The liner is „Po-rous“ (not water-tight) if droplets, foam or mois-ture form on the outer side (see Table 5).Liner Types and Liner SystemsAnalysis of the liner types and systems evaluated and tested indicates the following (see Table 6):•GRP liners systematically achieve better test re-sults than needle-felt liners for the criteria of water-tightness and modulus of elasticity. This correlation is slightly less pronounced in the case of bending tension. No systematic correla-tion between liner-type and test results is discer-nible in the case of the wall-thickness criteria.•Quality differences, of considerable signifi-cance in some cases, become apparent within the two materials groups, i.e., GRP and needle-felt; the results obtained with needle felt for the criteria of water-tightness and flexural strength, for example, fluctuate greatly. They are tightly grouped only for wall thickness. The results for GRP products scatter much less, the sole excep-tion being wall thickness, where a significant bandwidth exists.Rehabil i tat ion 4Reprint bi UmweltBau 2 | 07 Water-Tightness Modulus of Elasticity Flexural Strength Wall ThicknessLiner TypeLiner System No. of Sam-plesNon-Po-rous in % of testsNo. of Sam-plesTarget achieved in % of testsNo. of Sam-plesTarget achieved in % of testsNo. of Sam-plesTarget achieved in % of testsGRP Euroliner 43 100.0 43 100.0 41 100.0 43 97.7Brandenburger Tubeliner140 99.3 137 99.3 137 100.0 137 73.7Berolina Liner 217 98.2 248 98.0 246 91.5 248 67.7Saertex-Liner 248 94.8 248 90.7 248 81.9 247 100.0iMPREG-Liner 38 100.0 40 87.5 40 100.0 38 73.7NF CityLiner (RS Technik)95 78.9 106 70.8 106 93.4 88 89.8Uniliner (NordiTube)27 48.1 36 75.0 36 75.0 26 88.5Insituform Tubeliner192 68.8 215 84.2 215 56.3 193 80.8Averages• of all samples• GRP samples• NF samples88.897.470.189.995.279.383.590.769.282.782.284.0Dies ist above overall averageDies ist below overall averageGRP: Glass-fiber-reinforced plastic support materialNF: Needle-felt support materialFigure 5: Test engineer explaining test procedure: Dipl.-Ing. Jens Fuchs in the IKT laboratoryInstallation ContractorsThe quality of execution by the installers is however, also a critical factor in the achieve-ment of success. This is apparent, in partic-ular, in the case of liner systems which are used by more than one company, i.e., Bero-lina Liners, Brandenburger Tube Liners, City-Liners and Saertex-Liners. The scatter band-width of rates of success (percentage of tests passed) per liner system is significant for a number of test criteria (see Table 7).ConclusionPipe lining continues to provide project customers with a suitable and reliable re-newal method. The majority of installation contractors performed work which can be classified as good to extremely good in the twelve months of 2006. This is documented by high rates of testing success, ranging up to 100 %. Comparison with the 2004/2005 LinerReport indicates that many companies have actually succeeded in improving their performance, or at least keeping it at a con-stant high standard. This constant high standard is extremely positive with a view to achievement of tech-nically sound, cost-efficient and environ-mentally safe renewal of drain and sewer pipelines. It does, however, become exceed-ingly clear that a number of installation con-tractors still have adequate margin for im-provement of their liner quality and work. This applies particularly to those companies using needle-felt liners. This group of tech-nologies needs to improve their quality to catch up with the GRP liners in the fields of water-tightness, modulus of elasticity and flexural strength.In the case of the „GRP liner companies“ however, the picture is also not totally per-fect; here, too, the scatter bandwidths dem-onstrate that on-site quality is not always at a consistently high level. Intensified efforts in the fields of product im-provement, development and quality assur-ance are now at the very top of the agenda, if the tube lining „family“ is not to fall behind competing methods as the pipe rehabilita-tion market continues to grow. ?Liner System Water-TightnessNon-Porous in % of testsModulus of ElasticityTarget achieved in % of testsFlexural Strength Target achieved in % of testsWall ThicknessTarget achieved in % of testsBerolina Liner 97.8 – 100.0 89.5 – 99.5 86.1 – 92.4 63.2 – 68.6Brandenburger Tubeliner 98.8 – 100.0 98.8 – 100.0 100.0 – 100.0 62.5 – 89.5CityLiner 61.9 – 92.5 63.4 – 75.4 85.4 – 98.5 85.4 – 95.0Saertex-Liner 93.3 – 100.0 88.3 – 100.0 78.9 – 91.4 100.0 – 100.0Table 6 - Results Classified by Liner TypesTable 7 - Bandwidth of Test Results (where liner system used by more than one installation contractor)Rehabil i tat ion5MATERIAL TESTINGCIPP-TUBE LINERresearch testing consultingApproved by German Government (DIBt)Initial type and suitability testsCertificateDetermination of material characteristicsIKT buildingExterbruch 1D-45886 Gelsenkirchenphone: +49 (0) 209 17806-0 fax: +49 (0) 209 17806-88www.ikt.de | info@ikt.de