IKT-Linerreport 2008: Current Test Results Brochure (PDF 940 KB)

Nr. 1 Februar 2009 11,- € Reprint UmweltBau IKT-LinerReport 2008IKT-LinerReport 2008Tube liner quality:Tube liner quality:Variegated trendVariegated trendSanierung2 Reprint bi UmweltBau 1 | 09From Dipl.-Ök. Roland W. Waniek and Dipl.-Ing. Dieter HomannThis fifth LinerReport by the independent and neutral IKT – Institute for Underground Infra-structure is based on the test results obtained from just on 1,400 on-site samples taken in Ger-many, the Netherlands and in Switzerland. The aim is that of providing clients with a compre-hensive overview of the repair quality achieved on their sites.Data-baseThe IKT’s liner data-base for 2008 has been evaluated for this purpose. The overall results obtained from repair and refurbishing contrac-tors from whom IKT has received not less than twenty-five liner specimens from five different sites are shown. Twenty contractors fulfilled this requirement in 2008, four more than in the preceding year.In 75% of cases, clients (or their engineering consultancies) commissioned IKT directly to perform laboratory testing of liner samples taken on site. Only 25% of orders originated from the contractors themselves (see Table 1).IKT-LinerReport 2008Tube liner quality: Variegated trendTube liners improved on a broad front in 2007, whereas 2008 has brought both advances and retreats. Where are the potentials for improvement in individual liner systems?Test engineer Tatjana Kijan preparing a three-point bending testSanierung 3Reprint bi UmweltBau 1 | 09Target/Actual analysisThe IKT test body analyzes the mechanical cha-racteristics data and water-tightness of the tube liners on the basis of liner samples. The actual data thus obtained for modulus of elasticity and flexural strength is then com-pared against target data from the DIBt appro-vals and/or against any other target specifica-tions made by the client for individual projects, where this client desires this.Target wall-thickness data is determined by means of static calculations or is specified by the client. Water-tightness is determined in accordance with the APS test and inspection code; the only possible result here is either “tight” or “not tight”. The most recent result obtained by IKT is the definitive result in case of repeat tests.Overview of test and inspection criteriaModulus of elasticity (short-term flexural modulus)• Tube liners must be capable of withstanding loads such as those arising from groundwater, road traffic and soil pressure, for example• The modulus of elasticity is an indicator of load-bearing capability• If it is too low, stability may be endangered• Test method: Three-point bending test as per DIN EN ISO 178 and DIN EN 13 566, Part 4ÎResults: see Table 2Wall thickness (mean combined thickness)• Minimum value is specified in the stress analy-sis calculation• Wall thickness and modulus of elasticity jointly determine the stiffness of the liners• Excessively low wall thickness can endanger stability• Test method: Mean combined thickness is mea-sured in accordance with DIN EN 13 566, Part 4, using a precision slide gaugeÎResults: see Table 4Flexural 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 deformation 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) ÎResults: see Table 3Water tightness (in accordance with APS test andinspection code)• Cut is made into inner film and the outer film (if any) is removed• Water containing a red dye is applied internally• A 0.5 bar (7.25 psi) partial vacuum is applied externally• The liner is „not tight“ if water penetrates through• Test period: 30 min.ÎResults: see Table 5Table 1: Installation contractors and liner systemsInstallation contractor Liner systems Liner type Number of samplesIKT test orderedbyInstallationcontractor %Project client%ARKIL INPIPE GmbH Berolina Liner GRP 60 3 97Arpe AG (Switzerland) Brandenburger Schlauchliner GRP 31 0 100Brandenburger Kanalsanierungs-GmbH Brandenburger Schlauchliner GRP 72 24 76Diringer & Scheidel Rohrsanierung GmbH Saertex-Liner GRP 170 63 37Erles Umweltservice GmbH Impreg-Liner GRP 33 0 100Frisch & Faust Tiefbau GmbH Brandenburger Schlauchliner GRP 30 3 97Insituform Rohrsanierungstechniken GmbH Insituform SchlauchlinerImpreg-LinerNFGRP23530*0 100Jeschke Umwelttechnik GmbH Brandenburger Schlauchliner GRP 88 0 100Karl Weiss GmbH & Co. KG Brandenburger Schlauchliner GRP 52 67 33Kleen GmbH Saertex-Liner GRP 69 13 87KMG Pipe Technologies GmbH Impreg-Liner GRP 29 0 100KS-Kanalsanierung GmbH Brandenburger Schlauchliner GRP 33 15 85Linertec GmbH Euroliner GRP 34 53 47NordiTube GmbH UniLiner NF 48 100 0Rainer Kiel Kanalsanierung GmbH UniLiner NF 30 27 73Swietelsky-Faber GmbH Kanalsanierung Berolina Liner GRP 100 26 74TKT Troisdorfer Kanalsanierungstechnik GbR Brandenburger Schlauchliner GRP 47 19 81U&W Umwelttechnik u. Wasserbau GmbH Brandenburger Schlauchliner GRP 122 16 84Umwelttechnik Jenni GmbH (Switzerland) Berolina Liner GRP 35 0 100van der Velden Rioleringsbeheer B.V. (Netherlands) Brandenburger Schlauchliner GRP 48 94 6Total 1,396 25 75GRP: Glass-fiber support materialNF: Needle-felt support material* From four sitesSanierung4 Reprint bi UmweltBau 1 | 09Tab. 3: Test results for flexural strengthShort-term sfbInstallation contractor 2008 2007TendencyNo. of samplesTarget* achievedin % of testsTarget* achievedin % of testsErles Umweltservice GmbH 33 100.0 (100.0) – – –Frisch & Faust Tiefbau GmbH 30 100.0 (100.0) 77.9 (32.5) Ï***Insituform Rohrsanierungstechniken GmbH mit Impreg-Liner (GRP) 30 100.0 (100.0) – – –Jeschke Umwelttechnik GmbH 88 100.0 (100.0) 100.0 (100.0) ÍÎLinertec GmbH 34 100.0 (**) 100.0 (**) ÍÎNordiTube GmbH 48 100.0 (100.0) 100.0 (100.0) ÍÎTKT Troisdorfer Kanalsanierungstechnik GbR 47 100.0 (100.0) – – –van der Velden Rioleringsbeheer B.V. (Netherlands) 48 100.0 (100.0) 100.0 (100.0) ÍÎARKIL INPIPE GmbH 60 98.3 (96.7) 97.0 (97.0) ÏDiringer & Scheidel Rohrsanierung GmbH 169 98.2 (98.8) 97.2 (87.3) ÏU&W Umwelttechnik u. Wasserbau GmbH 104 98.1 (100.0) 100.0 (100.0) ÐKleen GmbH 69 97.1 (97.1) – – –KMG Pipe Technologies GmbH 29 96.6 (96.6) 87.1 (87.1) Ï***Rainer Kiel Kanalsanierung GmbH 25 96.0 (96.0) – – –Swietelsky-Faber GmbH Kanalsanierung 99 96.0 (94.9) 95.9 (94.5) ÏKarl Weiss GmbH & Co. KG 52 94.2 (96.2) – – –Arpe AG (Switzerland) 31 93.5 (96.8) 92.0 (92.0) ÏAverage 92.9 92.5 ÏKS-Kanalsanierung GmbH 33 90.9 (97.0) 97.1 (94.1) ÐBrandenburger Kanalsanierungs-GmbH 72 90.3 (91.7) 100.0 (95.5) ÐUmwelttechnik Jenni GmbH (Switzerland) 35 88.6 (97.1) – – –Insituform Rohrsanierungstechniken GmbHwith Insituform-Schlauchliner (NF)233 72.5 (83.3) 78.0 (78.0) ÐFLEER-TECH GmbH – 95.7 (95.7) –Rose Kanal- und Umwelttechnik – 100.0 (100.0) –* Target data in accordance with client‘s information (stress analysis/sample traveller card)** No DIBt approval*** The liner system used in 2008 was different to that used in 2007( ) Result of comparison against DIBt target– Not evaluated, insufficient liner samplesTable 2: Test results for modulus of elasticityShort-term flexural modulusInstallation contractor 2008 2007TendencyNo. of samplesTarget* achievedin % of testsTaget* achievedin % of testsFrisch & Faust Tiefbau GmbH 30 100.0 (100.0) 84.4 (57.1) Ï***Insituform Rohrsanierungstechniken GmbH with Impreg-Liner (GRP) 30 100.0 (100.0) – – –Jeschke Umwelttechnik GmbH 88 100.0 (100.0) 98.7 (98.7) ÏKarl Weiss GmbH & Co. KG 52 100.0 (100.0) – – –KS-Kanalsanierung GmbH 33 100.0 (100.0) 100.0 (97.1) ÍÎLinertec GmbH 34 100.0 (**) 100.0 (**) ÍÎNordiTube GmbH 48 100.0 (100.0) 100.0 (100.0) ÍÎSwietelsky-Faber GmbH Kanalsanierung 99 100.0 (100.0) 100.0 (100.0) ÍÎTKT Troisdorfer Kanalsanierungstechnik GbR 47 100.0 (100.0) – – –Umwelttechnik Jenni GmbH (Switzerland) 35 100.0 (100.0) – – –van der Velden Rioleringsbeheer B.V. (Netherlands) 48 100.0 (100.0) 100.0 (100.0) ÍÎDiringer & Scheidel Rohrsanierung GmbH 169 98.8 (97.6) 97.2 (94.4) ÏBrandenburger Kanalsanierungs-GmbH 72 98.6 (97.2) 98.5 (98.5) ÏARKIL INPIPE GmbH 60 98.3 (98.3) 100.0 (100.0) ÐU&W Umwelttechnik u. Wasserbau GmbH 104 98.1 (98.1) 100.0 (100.0) ÐKleen GmbH 69 97.1 (97.1) – – –Erles Umweltservice GmbH 33 97.0 (97.0) – – –Arpe AG (Switzerland) 31 96.8 (96.8) 100.0 (96.0) ÐAverage 96.8 94.1 ÏKMG Pipe Technologies GmbH 29 96.6 (96.6) 96.8 (96.8) Ð***Rainer Kiel Kanalsanierung GmbH 25 96.0 (100.0) – – –Insituform Rohrsanierungstechniken GmbHwith Insituform-Schlauchliner (NF)233 86.3 (86.3) 88.7 (88.7) ÐFLEER-TECH GmbH – – 60.9 (60.9) –Rose Kanal- und Umwelttechnik – – 97.1 (97.1) –* Target data in accordance with client‘s information (stress analysis/sample traveller card)** No DIBt approval*** The liner system used in 2008 was different to that used in 2007( ) Result of comparison against DIBt target– Not evaluated. insufficient liner samplesSanierung 5Reprint bi UmweltBau 1 | 09Table 4: Test results for wall thicknessmean combined thickness in accordance with DIN EN 13 566, Part 4Installation contractor 2008 2007 Ten-dencyNo. of sam-plesTarget* achie-vedin % of testsTarget* achie-vedin % of testsJeschke Umwelttechnik GmbH 86 100.0 98.7 ÏKleen GmbH 69 100.0 – –Linertec GmbH 34 100.0 100.0 ÍÎInsituform Rohrsanierungstechniken GmbH with Insituform-Schlauchliner (NF)225 99.6 97.1 ÏNordiTube GmbH 48 97.9 84.6 Ïvan der Velden Rioleringsbeheer B.V. (Netherlands)48 97.9 96.9 ÏARKIL INPIPE GmbH 55 96.4 82.5 ÏDiringer & Scheidel Rohrsanierung GmbH 169 95.9 95.8 ÏTKT Troisdorfer Kanalsanierungstechnik GbR47 95.7 – –Swietelsky-Faber GmbH Kanalsanierung 96 94.8 56.2 ÏBrandenburger Kanalsanierungs-GmbH 71 94.4 89.5 ÏInsituform Rohrsanierungstechniken GmbH with Impreg-Liner (GRP)30 93.3 – –Average 92.1 87.8 ÏRainer Kiel Kanalsanierung GmbH 25 92.0 – –Frisch & Faust Tiefbau GmbH 26 88.5 100.0 Ð**KMG Pipe Technologies GmbH 28 85.7 100.0 Ð**Karl Weiss GmbH & Co. KG 48 83.3 – –KS-Kanalsanierung GmbH 22 81.8 76.9 ÏUmwelttechnik Jenni GmbH (Switzerland) 30 76.7 – –U&W Umwelttechnik u. Wasserbau GmbH 101 72.3 74.0 ÐArpe AG (Switzerland) 31 71.0 56.0 ÏErles Umweltservice GmbH 33 54.5 – –FLEER-TECH GmbH – 84.8 –Rose Kanal- und Umwelttechnik – 79.4 –* Target data in accordance with client´s information (stress analysis/sample traveller card) ** The liner system used in 2008 was different to that used in 2007– Not evaluated, insufficient liner samplesTable 5: Test results for water-tightnessin accordance with APS test and inspection codeInstallation contractor 2008 2007 Ten-dencyNo. of sam-plesWater-tight in % of testsWater-tight in % of testsARKIL INPIPE GmbH 60 100.0 97.8 ÏDiringer & Scheidel Rohrsanierung GmbH 169 100.0 100.0 ÍÎErles Umweltservice GmbH 33 100.0 – –Jeschke Umwelttechnik GmbH 88 100.0 94.8 ÏKleen GmbH 69 100.0 – –Linertec GmbH 34 100.0 97.4 ÏSwietelsky-Faber GmbH Kanalsanierung 100 100.0 100.0 ÍÎU&W Umwelttechnik u. Wasserbau GmbH 119 100.0 100.0 ÍÎvan der Velden Rioleringsbeheer B.V. (Netherlands)48 100.0 100.0 ÍÎBrandenburger Kanalsanierungs-GmbH 64 98.4 100.0 ÐNordiTube GmbH 48 97.9 96.2 ÏKS-Kanalsanierung GmbH 33 97.1 97.1 ÍÎKarl Weiss GmbH & Co. KG 52 96.2 – –TKT Troisdorfer Kanalsanierungstechnik GbR47 95.7 – –Umwelttechnik Jenni GmbH (Switzerland) 35 94.3 – –Arpe AG (Switzerland) 31 93.5 100.0 ÐInsituform Rohrsanierungstechniken GmbH with Impreg-Liner (GRP)30 93.3 – –Average 92.6 93.8 ÐFrisch & Faust Tiefbau GmbH 30 90.0 97.4 Ð**KMG Pipe Technologies GmbH 29 89.7 75.0 Ï**Insituform Rohrsanierungstechniken GmbH with Insituform-Schlauchliner (NF)a) in accordance with APS test and inspection codeb) with reference to APS test and inspec- tion code with lower test pressures and times in some cases*2141868.794.470.892.0ÐÏRainer Kiel Kanalsanierung GmbH 30 50.0 – –FLEER-TECH GmbH – 86.1 –Rose Kanal- und Umwelttechnik – 100.0 –– Not evaluated. insufficient liner samples* At the request of one individual client** The liner system used in 2008 was different to that used in 2007 Liner wall-thickness is measured using a precision slide caliper gauge Tightness testing: water containing a red dye is applied to the inner side of the linerSanierung6 Reprint bi UmweltBau 1 | 09Assessment against previous yearThe result averages for modulus of elasticity, flexural strength and wall thickness in 2008 ex-hibited slight improvements compared to 2007. They rose on average by up to 4.3 percentage points (%P); only the flexural strength of nee-dle-felt liners dropped, by 5%P (see Table 7).A conspicuous feature is the significant upward trend in wall thickness, which has been the weak point of GRP liners, in particular, in pre-vious years. The scores attained by the GRP li-ners are, it is true, still significantly below those of the NF liners, but the contractors are obviously addressing this problem, and have already achieved an improvement of 5%P. The average quality level in terms of water-tightness has regressed slightly (-1.2%P). Tightness testing: liner tight Tightness testing: liner not tightTable 6: Test results classified by liner types Water-tightness Modulus of elasticity Flexural strength Wall thicknessLiner typeLiner system No. of samplesWatertight** in % of testsNo. of samplesTarget* achieved in % of testsNo. ofsamplesTarget* achieved in % of testsNo. ofsamplesTarget* achieved in % of testsGRP Euroliner 34 100.0 34 100.0 34 100.0 34 100.0Saertex-Liner 238 100.0 238 98.3 238 97.9 238 97.1Berolina Liner 194 99.0 194 99.5 194 95.4 181 92.3Brandenburger Schlauchliner 512 97.9 505 99.2 505 96.6 480 87.7Impreg-Liner 92 94.6 92 97.8 92 98.9 91 76.9NF UniLiner 78 79.5 73 98.6 73 98.6 73 95.9Insituform Schlauchliner 214 68.7 233 86.3 233 72.5 225 99.6Average 92.6 96.8 92.9 92.1Dies 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 codeTable 7: Test results compared to results for previous yearLiner type Watertight**in % of testsModulus of elasticityTargets achievedin % of testsFlexural strength*Targets achievedin % of testsWall thickness*Targets achievedin % of tests2008 2007 +/– 2008 2007 +/– 2008 2007 +/– 2008 2007 +/–Averages• of all samples 92.6 93.8 -1.2 Ð 96.8 94.1 +2.7 Ï 92.9 92.5 +0.4 Ï 92.1 87.8 +4.3 Ï• GRP 98.3 98.5 -0.2Ð 99.0 97.4 +1.6 Ï 97.0 96.0 +1.0 Ï 90.1 85.1 +5.0 Ï• NF 71.6 77.4 -5.8 Ð 89.2 86.0 +3.2 Ï 78.8 84.1 -5.3 Ð 98.7 94.2 +4.5 ÏGRP: 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 codeSanierung 7Reprint bi UmweltBau 1 | 09A considerable improvement of 5%P was reg-istered here in the preceding year, and a good 7%P in the case of the needle-felt liners. In 2008, on the other hand, GRP liners remained practically at the level of the previous year, at -0.2%P, while needle-felt liners fell back by -5.8%P. Can liners still get better? On an overall view, the IKT-LinerReport 2008 in-dicates a pleasing quality level on the tube liner market. The test results for modulus of elasti-city stand out, in particular, with an average of just on 97%; the three other criteria of flexural strength, wall thickness and water-tightness also indicate a comparatively good state of af-fairs, however, with an average of just on 93% tests passed.So have we already reached the end of the road? Will it be possible at all to improve on these averages, which have steadily become better and better in recent years? Analysis of the results for individual support materials shows where there are, nonetheless, still potentials for improvement:• GRP liners pass laboratory tests for water-tightness, modulus of elasticity and flexural strength in 97 to 99% of cases, whereas the needle-felt liners pass only in 72%, 89% and 79% of cases, respectively.• This picture is precisely reversed in the case of wall thickness; here, needle-felt liners score significantly better, at 99%, than GRP liners, at 90%.It is thus apparent that scarcely any further great improvements are to be anticipated from GRP liners in water-tightness, modulus of elas-ticity and flexural strength, whereas needle-felt liners still have adequate room for improve-ment in these three sectors. And, as we have seen, the situation is precisely reversed in the case of wall-thickness.The quality of installation of both GRP and nee-dle-felt liners must still improve further, if it is to satisfy the demands of quite justifiably critical clients. The manufacturers will therefore need to convince the market, by means of genuine technical innovations, in the next few years.The extent to which the reduction of require-ments or additional functions for existing liner components will actually be able to achieve this will be shown by future quality checks and guarantee acceptance procedures.Dipl.-Ök. Roland W. WaniekDipl.-Ing. Dieter HomannIKT – Institute for Underground Infrastructure gGmbH non-profit InstitutExterbruch 1, 45886 GelsenkirchenGermanyTel.: +49 (0)209 17806-0, E-Mail: info@ikt.deHomepage: www.ikt.deReference: 16184 ?BrandenburgerBrandenburgercured-in-place-liningwww.brandenburger.deBrandenburger 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 quick, environmentally sound and durable rehabilitationof sewer pipes circle profiles DN 150 - 1000 and egg-shaped profiles 200/300 - 800/1200. More than 2.0million metres of installed liners in 26 countries since 1993.A system with many years of installation experience, all aspects of the system developed from one company:Liner production, equipment, technology, service & support.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 documentation using the control software Reline Control 3.0- Several types of UV equipment for different conditionsand requirements at the construction siteGFRP pipe liner- Seamlessly wound with high and durable strength- Uniform resin distribution by unique impregnation- Factory-prepared, employing Advantex® E-CRglass fibre and special resins- Quality management acc. DIN EN ISO 9001:2000