IKT-Linerreport 2007: Current Test Results Brochure (PDF 912 KB)

Nr. 1 Februar 2008 11,- €Reprint UmweltBau IKT-LinerReport 2007IKT-LinerReport 2007Tube liner quality in 2007:Tube liner quality in 2007:An improvement An improvement over last yearover last yearReprint bi UmweltBau 1 | 08Rehabil i tat ion2by Roland W. Waniek and Dieter Homann*The cured-in-place liner market has, for some time, been experiencing an intensive debate on quality. A good twenty-five years after the intro-duction of this renewal technology in Germany, discussion is livelier than ever. This is not sur-prising, when one remembers that tube lining has become established as the leading renova-tion method for waste-water conduits.The CIPP technology competes directly with pipe replacement and has now managed to cap-ture a highly respectable market share (around 20% of the overall market, and some 80% of the renovation market). This success story has been made possible, among other factors, by the fact that it provides customers with prop-erties and service-lives equivalent to those of new pipes, but in most cases at lower cost.Quality the guarantee of cost-efficiencyIn the field of quality-assurance, however, CIPP liners have a built-in system disadvantage com-pared to factory-manufactured pipes: they are produced on-site, i.e., generally under signi-ficantly more difficult production conditions than those found in a pipe mill. The end pro-ducts are therefore submitted to strict quality testing. Random samples are taken from the cured liners and examined in the test labora-tory. The reason for this: if the properties and characteristics promised are not achieved in a renewal project, achievement of the expected service-life, and thus the overall cost-effective-ness of the renewal project, becomes dubious.TransparencyThere is no doubt that the annual IKT Liner-Report, which is here presented for the fourth IKT-LinerReport 2007Tube liner quality in 2007: An improvement over last yearA pleasing trend: This year‘s IKT LinerReport is pleased to announce higher on-site quality levels. Test results have, on average, improved. The ongoing quality debate is starting to produce results.*IKT – Institut für Unterirdische Infrastruktur gGmbH, Tel.: +49 209/17806-0, email: info@ikt.de, www.ikt.deReprint bi UmweltBau 1 | 08 Rehabil i tat ion 3Target/Actual analysisThe site samples submitted are examined at the IKT test center for two crucial properties of tube liners: stability and water-tightness. For the former, the following mechanical and geo-metrical characteristics data are determined, in detail:· Modulus of elasticity (short-term flexural modulus)· Flexural strength (short-term sfb)· Wall thicknessThe data determined is compared in the context of a Target/Actual analysis against the speci-fied minimum values. The sample is considered to pass the test pro-vided these values are equal to or better than the target. The results are shown in aggregated form in Tables 2 to 4.Modulus of elasticity and flexural strengthThe target values for modulus of elasticity and flexural strength are based on:a) the characteristics data from the National Technical Approval by the Deutsches Insti-tut für Bautechnik (German Institute for Con-struction Technology, a government body, German abbreviation: DIBt), where the liner system has successfully passed the ap-proval procedure orb) site-specific minimum specifications set by the client for his specific renewal project; this data may deviate from that of the DIBt approvalWall thickness and water-tightnessTarget values for wall thickness are defined, or are specified by the client, on the basis of stress analysis calculations. The property of water-tightness is nowadays determined in accordance with the APS test and inspection code. The result is stated either as „Tight“ or „Not tight“ (see Table 5 for results).Contractual agreementsTarget mechanical data and the water-tight-ness requirement are generally an integral component of the contractual agreement bet-ween the client and the installation contrac-tor. More and more contracts nowadays pro-vide precisely specified sanction mechanisms, in the form, for example, of repair or reworking obligations, or of price reductions, in case of failure to achieve target data. Great importance therefore attaches to laboratory inspection and testing of tube liners.time, makes a significant contribution to the heated debate on quality. Its aim is to achieve clarity and transparency and to provide project clients with an objective overview of the tube liner qualities actually achieved.The extensive liner data-base operated by the independent and neutral IKT Testing Center is evaluated for this purpose. This generates a comprehensive overall picture of tube liner quality as actually achieved on project sites.Data-baseThe IKT LinerReport 2007 covers the January to December, 2007, inspection period and is based on a total of just on 1,000 on-site sam-ples. This year, the input results have, for the first time, been obtained not only in Germany, but also from other European countries, with the application of identical test and inspection standards in all cases. In order to avoid sta-tistical outliers, only installation contractors for whom not less than twenty-five liner sam-ples from five different project sites are avail-able are included in the survey. A total of six-teen installation contractors (see Table 1) ful-filled this minimum requirement for this year‘s reporting period, five more than in the previ-ous year. In the case of repeat tests, the final result obtained applies, provided the relevant tests were also performed at IKT.Table 1: Installation contractors and liner systemsInstallation contractor Liner systems Liner type Number of samplesIKT Test ordered byInstallation contractor%Project client%ARKIL INPIPE GmbH Berolina Liner GRP 89 0 100Arpe AG (Schweiz) Brandenburger Liner GRP 25 0 100Brandenburger Kanalsanierungs-GmbH Brandenburger Liner GRP 67 10 90Diringer & Scheidel Rohrsanierung GmbH Saertex-Liner GRP 71 82 18FLEER-TECH GmbH CityLiner NF 46 0 100Frisch & Faust Tiefbau GmbH Saertex-Liner GRP 77 0 100Insituform Rohrsanierungstechniken GmbH Insituform Schlauchliner NF 182 0 100Jeschke Umwelttechnik GmbH Brandenburger Liner GRP 77 1 99KMG Pipe Technologies GmbH KM Inliner NF 31 19 81KS Kanal Sanierung Friedrich e. K. Brandenburger Liner GRP 34 38 62Linertec GmbH Euroliner GRP 39 36 64NordiTube GmbH UniLiner NF 26 100 0Rose Kanal- und Umwelttechnik Brandenburger Liner GRP 34 91 9Swietelsky-Faber GmbH Kanalsanierung Berolina Liner GRP 73 7 93U&W Umwelttechnik u. Wasserbau GmbH Brandenburger Liner GRP 73 74 26Van der Velden Rioleringsbeheer B.V. (Netherlands) Brandenburger Liner GRP 32 100 0Total 976 25 75GRP: Glass-fiber support materialNF: Needle-felt support materialReprint bi UmweltBau 1 | 08Rehabil i tat ion4Overview of test and inspection criteria Modulus of elasticity (short-term flexural modulus)· Tube liners must be capable of withstan-ding loads such as those arising from groundwater, road traffic and soil pres-sure, for example· The modulus of elasticity is an indicator of load-bearing capability· If it is too low, stability may be endan-gered· Test method: Three-point bending test as per DIN EN ISO 178 and DIN EN 13 566, Part 4 Î Results: see Table 2Flexural strength (short-term sfb)· This indicates the point at which the liner fails due to excessively high stress· If bending strength is too low, the liner may fracture before the permissible defor-mation is reached· Test method: Increase of load up to failure in the three-point bending test; as per DIN EN ISO 178 and DIN EN 13 566, Part 4 (short-term flexural strength) Î Results: see Table 3Wall thickness (mean combined thickness)· Minimum value is specified in the stress analysis calculation· Wall thickness and modulus of elasticity jointly determine the stiffness of the li-ners· Excessively low wall thickness can endan-ger stability· Test method: Mean combined thickness is measured in accordance with DIN EN 13 566, Part 4, using a precision slide gaugeÎ Results: see Table 4Water tightness (in accordance with APS test and inspection code)· Cut is made into inner film and the outer film (if any) is removed· Water containing a red dye is applied in-ternally· A 0.5 bar (7.25 psi) partial vacuum is ap-plied externally· The liner is „Not tight“ if water penetrates through· Test period: 30 min.Î Results: see Table 5Figure 1: Liner sample undergoing the three-point bendig testTable 2: Test results for modulus of elasticityShort-term flexural modulusInstallation contractor 2007 2006 TendencyNo. of samplesTarget* achieved in % of testsTarget* achieved in % of testsARKIL INPIPE GmbH 66 100.0 (100.0) 99.5 ÏArpe AG (Switzerland) 25 100.0 (96.0) – –KS Kanal Sanierung Friedrich e. K. 34 100.0 (97.1) 98.8 ÏLinertec GmbH 39 100.0 (**) 100.0 ÍÎNordiTube GmbH 26 100.0 (100.0) – –Swietelsky-Faber GmbH Kanalsanierung73 100.0 (100.0) 89.5 ÏU&W Umwelttechnik u. Wasserbau GmbH73 100.0 (100.0) – –Van der Velden Rioleringsbeheer B.V. (Netherlands)32 100.0 (100.0) – –Jeschke Umwelttechnik GmbH 77 98.7 (98.7) – –Brandenburger Kanalsanierungs-GmbH67 98.5 (98.5) 100.0 ÐDiringer & Scheidel Rohrsanierung GmbH71 97.2 (94.4) 93.9 ÏRose Kanal- und Umwelttechnik 34 97.1 (97.1) – –KMG Pipe Technologies GmbH 31 96.8 (96.8) – –Average 94.1 89.9 ÏInsituform Rohrsanierungstechniken GmbH168 88.7 (88.7) 84.2 ÏFrisch & Faust Tiefbau GmbH 77 84.4 (57.1) 88.3 ÐFLEER-TECH GmbH 46 60.9 (60.9) 63.4 Ð* Target data in accordance with client´s information (stress analysis/sample traveller card)( ) Result of comparison against DIBt target** No DIBt approval– Not evaluated, insufficient liner samplesReprint bi UmweltBau 1 | 08 Rehabil i tat ion 5Table 3: Test results for flexural strengthShort-term sfbInstallation contractor 2007 2006Ten-dencyNo. of sam-plesTarget* achieved in % of testsTarget* achieved in % of testsBrandenburger Kanal-sanierungs-GmbH67 100.0 (95.5) 100.0 ÍÎJeschke Umwelttech-nik GmbH77 100.0 (100.0) – –Linertec GmbH 39 100.0 (**) 100.0 ÍÎNordiTube GmbH 26 100.0 (100.0) – –Rose Kanal- und Umwelttechnik34 100.0 (100.0) – –U&W Umwelttechnik u. Wasserbau GmbH73 100.0 (100.0) – –Van der Velden Rioleringsbeheer B.V. (Netherlands)32 100.0 (100.0) – –Diringer & Scheidel Rohrsanierung GmbH71 97.2 (87.3) 87.9 ÏKS Kanal Sanierung Friedrich e. K.34 97.1 (94.1) 100.0 ÐARKIL INPIPE GmbH 66 97.0 (97.0) 92.4 ÏSwietelsky-Faber GmbH Kanalsanierung73 95.9 (94.5) 86.1 ÏFLEER-TECH GmbH 46 95.7 (95.7) 85.4 ÏAverage 92.5 83.5 ÏArpe AG (Switzerland) 25 92.0 (92.0) – –KMG Pipe Technologies GmbH31 87.1 (87.1) – –Insituform Rohr-sanierungstechniken GmbH168 78.0*** (78.0) 56.3 ÏFrisch & Faust Tiefbau GmbH77 77.9 (32.5) 78.9 Ð* Target data in accordance with client´s information (stress analysis/sample traveller card)( ) Result of comparison against DIBt target** No DIBt approval*** DIBt approval modified with effect from June 15, 2007 DIBt; target now lower than in preceding year– Not evaluated, insufficient liner samplesFigure 3: Measurement of liner-wall thicknessTable 4: Test results for wall thicknessmean combined thickness in accordance with DIN EN 13 566. Part 4Installation contractor 2007 2006Ten-dencyNo. of sam-plesTarget* achieved in % of testsTarget* achieved in % of testsFrisch & Faust Tiefbau GmbH77 100.0 100.0 ÍÎKMG Pipe Technologies GmbH31 100.0 – –Linertec GmbH 39 100.0 97.7 ÏJeschke Umwelttechnik GmbH77 98.7 – –Insituform Rohr-sanierungstechniken GmbH175 97.1 80.8 ÏVan der Velden Rio-leringsbeheer B.V. (Netherlands)32 96.9 – –Diringer & Scheidel Rohrsanierung GmbH71 95.8 100.0 ÐBrandenburger Kanal-sanierungs-GmbH66 89.5 89.5 ÍÎAverage 87.8 82.7 ÏFLEER-TECH GmbH 46 84.8 95.0 ÐNordiTube GmbH 26 84.6 – –ARKIL INPIPE GmbH 63 82.5 68.6 ÏRose Kanal- und Umwelttechnik34 79.4 – –KS Kanal Sanierung Friedrich e. K.26 76.9 62.5 ÏU&W Umwelttechnik u. Wasserbau GmbH73 74.0 – –Swietelsky-Faber GmbH Kanalsanierung73 56.2 63.2 ÐArpe AG (Switzerland) 25 56.0 – –* Target data in accordance with client´s information (stress analysis/sample traveller card)– Not evaluated. insufficient liner samplesFigure 2: Cut made into inner film, with limitation of cut depthReprint bi UmweltBau 1 | 08Rehabil i tat ion6Table 5: Test results for water-tightness in accordance with APS test and inspection codeInstallation contractor 2007 2006 Ten-dencyNo. of samplesWatertight in % of testsWatertight in % of testsArpe AG (Switzerland) 25 100.0 – –Brandenburger Kanalsanierungs-GmbH 63 100.0 100.0 ÍÎDiringer & Scheidel Rohrsanierung GmbH 71 100.0 100.0 ÍÎRose Kanal- und Umwelttechnik 34 100.0 – –Swietelsky-Faber GmbH Kanalsanierung 73 100.0 100.0 ÍÎU&W Umwelttechnik u. Wasserbau GmbH 73 100.0 – –Van der Velden Rioleringsbeheer B.V. (Netherlands)32 100.0 – –ARKIL INPIPE GmbH 88 97.8 97.8 ÍÎFrisch & Faust Tiefbau GmbH 77 97.4 93.3 ÏLinertec GmbH 39 97.4 100.0 ÐKS Kanal Sanierung Friedrich e. K. 34 97.1 98.8 ÐNordiTube GmbH 26 96.2 – –Jeschke Umwelttechnik GmbH 77 94.8 – –Average 93.8 88.8 ÏFLEER-TECH GmbHa) in accordance with APS test and inspection codeb) with reference to DIN EN 1610*361086.1100.061.9 ÏKMG Pipe Technologies GmbHa) in accordance with APS test and inspection codeb) with reference to DIN EN 1610*24775.085.7– –Insituform Rohrsanierungstechniken GmbHa) in accordance with APS test and inspection codeb) with reference to DIN EN 1610*c) with reference to APS test and inspection code with lower test pressures and times in some cases**113442570.875.092.068.8 Ï– Not evaluated. insufficient liner samples* State of the art is nowadays testing in accordance with the APS test and inspection code. Only a few clients insist on tests with reference to DIN EN 1610. which tolerates a certain amount of permeation of water through the liner wall.** At the request of one individual client.Table 6: Test results classified by liner types Water-tightness Modulus of elasticity Flexural strength Wall thicknessLiner typeLiner system No. of sam-plesWatertight** 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 39 97.4 39 100.0 39 100.0 39 100.0Berolina Liner 161 98.8 139 100.0 139 96.4 136 68.4Brandenburger Liner 338 98.5 342 99.1 342 99.1 333 84.4Saertex-Liner 148 98.6 148 90.5 148 87.2 148 98.0NF Uniliner 26 96.2 26 100.0 26 100.0 26 84.6KM Inliner 24 75.0 31 96.8 31 87.1 31 100.0CityLiner 36 86.1 46 60.9 46 95.7 46 84.8Insituform Schlauchliner 113 70.8 168 88.7 168 78.0 175 97.1Average 93.8 94.1 92.5 87.8Dies ist above averageDies ist below averageGRP: Glass-fiber support materialNF: Needle-felt support material* Targets in accordance with client´s data (stress analysis/sample traveller card)** in accordance with APS test and inspection codeFigure 4: Tightness testnot tighttightReprint bi UmweltBau 1 | 08 Rehabil i tat ion 7Summary of 2007 test resultsThe test results obtained in 2007 produce an all-in-all more positive picture than in the pre-ceding year. The averages for all four test crite-ria and for all samples rose by no less than 4 to 9 percentage points (see Table 7).A particular leap forward was achieved by the needle-felt liner group. Their averages im-proved by around 7 to 15 percentage points, but remained below the overall averages for water-tightness, modulus of elasticity and bending strength. They are clearly above average only in terms of their wall thickness.GRP liners also improved on average, whereby the increases here were significantly more mo-dest than those for needle-felt liners, admit-tedly from an already higher starting level. As in previous years, wall-thickness remains the problem area, and is below the overall average.A glance at the individual results (see Tables 2 to 5) in some cases reveals extremely diver-gent performances by the contractors, how-ever. Performance was, in some cases, better, but in some cases poorer, than last year. The same also applies to the individual liner types (see Table 6).Table 7: Test results compared to results for previous yearLiner typeWatertight** in % of testsModulus of elasticity*Targets achieved in % of testsFlexural strength*Targets achievedin % of testsWall thickness*Targets achievedin % of tests2007 2006 +/– 2007 2006 +/– 2007 2006 +/– 2007 2006 +/–Averages· of all samples 93.8 88.8 +5.0Ï 94.1 89.9 +4.2Ï 92.5 83.5 +9.0Ï 87.8 82.7 +5.1Ï· GRP 98.5 97.4 +1.1Ï 97.4 95.3 +2.1Ï 96.0 90.7 +5.3Ï 85.1 82.2 +2.9Ï· NF 77.4 70.1 +7.3Ï 86.0 79.3 +6.7Ï 84.1 69.2 +14.9Ï 94.2 84.0 +10.2ÏGRP: Glass-fiber support materialNF: Needle-felt support material* Targets in accordance with client´s data (stress analysis/sample traveller card)** in accordance with APS test an inspection codeConclusionsThe higher overall quality level of tube liners in 2007 is pleasing. It remains to be seen whether these improvements compared to 2006 consti-tute a sustainable trend or are merely „once-only“ effects. A whole series of signals from the market does, however, indicate that the in-stallation contractors are taking the continu-ing quality debate extremely seriously. Work is being invested in product and process innova-tions, and these companies are taking steps to tackle systematically the weak points outlined in previous IKT LinerReports.These constructive responses by the renewal sector must be expressly welcomed and en-couraged; one thing is certain: clients want tube liner technology. The coming years will feature many renewal projects, and reliable methods are needed for them. System opera-tors have, however, become significantly more sensitive to the question of quality than in pre-vious years, a positive result of the continuing quality debate. ?BLUETEC® UV equipment- Quickest resin curing by using several performancelevels 400/600/1000 W at various diameters- Newly developed UV lamps with high output- Permanent quality control and documentationusing the control software Reline Control 3.0Brandenburger Liner GmbH & Co. KGTaubensuhlstraße 6D - 76829 Landau/PfalzTel. +49 63 41 / 51 04 -0Fax +49 63 41 / 51 04 -155e-mail:info@brandenburger.deThe High Tech procedure with UVA light-curing process for trenchless rehabilitation ofsewer pipes circle profiles DN 150 - 1000 and egg-shaped profiles 200/300 - 800/1200.A system with many years of installation experience, all aspects of the system developedfrom one company: Liner production, equipment, technology, service & support.More than 1.8 million metres of installed liner in 26 countries since 1993.Other advantages:BrandenburgerGFRP pipe liner- Seamlessly wound with high and durable strength- Uniform resin distribution by unique impregnation- Factory-prepared, employing Advantex®ECR glassfibre and special resins- Quality management acc. DIN EN ISO 9001:2000www.brandenburger.deBrandenburgercured-in-place-lining