When Size Matters: CCCP Solution For Large Inverted Siphons Rehab

By Angus W. Stocking, L.S. | June 2011 Vol. 66 No. 6

The finished thickness was calculated according to projected loads, and the minimum thickness was determined to be two-inches. SRA opted for 2.75-inch thickness under the railway crossing as a hedge against heavier loads and vibration. These thicknesses were applied in five full-length, continuous passes.

Despite the multiple passes, CCCP was still efficient compared to CIPP. “On the 78-inch crossing -- which was two, basically identical, siphons -- we did one with CIPP and one with CentriPipe,” Harris explains, “It’s hard to compare precisely, because there was a learning curve with both processes, but I’d say the CentriPipe was faster.”

Cost comparisons are also favorable. For larger diameter pipe, CentriPipe clearly cost less per foot than CIPP. “We also considered spot repairing as an option, and that would have cost less than either CIPP or CentriPipe,” Harris says, “But if we’d done that, we wouldn’t have ended up with a fully lined pipe.”

By being open to a relatively new infrastructure solution, Sabine River Authority ended up with fully rehabilitated pipes that are smooth, structurally sound, and completely sealed with minimal flow disruption during the procedure. Carr is still waiting to see how CentriPipe performs in the long run, but is very satisfied with the initial results.

About the author: Angus W. Stocking, L.S. is a licensed land surveyor who writes full-time on infrastructure topics. He can be reached at www.InfrastructureWriting.com.

AP/M Permaform, (515) 276-9610, http://permaform.net/site/
Boh Bros. Construction Co., (800) 284-3377, www.bohbros.com
Meyer & Associates Inc., (337) 625-8353, http://meyerassociates.com

Buyer's Guide