Riverway Drive Duplication

Planning Study
Allambie Lane to Dunlop St

Protection Requirements for Trunk

Water Main (TWM)
 Setting – Riverway Drive & Trunk Water Main

Water Ross River Dam

Treatment Pipeline
Current Road
Plant Route
Project Extent

Dunlop St
 Design Features of 1200 mm Trunk Water Main
Background History
• Constructed 1975 (43 years old)
• Arbitrary Vertical Datum
• Located within Ross River Road (Riverway Drive) road
corridor
• No ‘As Cons’ available
• Several subsequent roadworks projects - widening,
realignment (Vertical & Horizontal)

Characteristics of Trunk Water Main (TWM)

• Hybrid Pipe – RCP with Prestressed Wire Straps + Gunite
Cover
• 9.1 km long, Dam to Treatment Plant
• 80 % of Townsville’s Raw Water Supply
• 1200 mm internal dia PCP Rocla Pipe
• Concrete core with longitudinal steel wires, 5 mm dia
• Prestressed 5 mm dia wire wrapping
• Gunite coating to prestressed wires
• Only several across ANZ
• However, this Pipe type still has application in the U.S.
Design Features of 1200 mm Trunk Water Main
• Actual 1210 mm internal
• 1390 mm external
• 90 mm thick walls
• Standard 5.16 m lengths
• 48 Longitudinal Wires
• Wire wrappings are at ≈25 mm
spacing
• ≈ 70 mm core + 20 mm Gunite
• Bell and spigot ends
Factors Controlling Integrity of Pipe
Failure Modes Live Load
• Cracking of inner core
• Cracking/degradation of Gunite Dead Load =
f(Depth of Cover
• Breaking of Prestressed Wires & Soil Density)
• Joint leaks No. of Wire
Breaks?
• Pipe (steel reinforcement) yield Internal Water
• Complete Pipe collapse failure Pressure
 Recap on Investigations Undertaken to Assess
Pipe Condition & Capacity
Investigations included:
1. Local
 Survey pick-up, potholing and an excavation test pit collected information on the position, depth
and trench condition of the TWM.
2. Pure Technology
Instrumentation evaluated:
• Length of each individual pipe segment
• Internal pipe condition
• Leak detection
• Extent of Prestressed Wire Break for each pipe length [Calibrated against test Pipe in Yard]

Outcomes:
1. Leakage – No significant leakage
2. Internal Condition – No significant damage to internal face evident
3. Wire Breaks – Multiple Pipe lengths with varying numbers of Wire Breaks
4. External Face – Unknown
 Recap on Assessment for Current Duplication
Gollogly Lane to Allambie Lane
Key Design Parameters & Criteria
1. Pipe External Load Capacity
 Examined 27 months Pumping data 2014-2016 to establish governing range of Internal Pressures
 Adopted 97.5 %ile highest daily average Pumping Pressure & 97.5 %ile of highest daily maximum
recorded pressure as characteristic values [see excerpt from PT Report next Slide]
 Allowed for friction and head loss along the Pipe, to assign governing Internal Pressures along Pipe
 Modelled Pipe in FEA to determine threshold external loads to cause “failure” (for a range of
Internal Pressures & a range of no. of Wire Breaks),
 “Failure” is not a distinct condition. PT defined progressive stages as (1) External load to cause 1st
Visible Cracking (internal or external) and (2) External load to cause Yield of Pipe (reinforcement)
 Early on in the design phase we contemplated adopting a “failure” condition somewhere between
External Load causing “Visible Cracking” and “Pipe Yield”
 Given the relatively modest extent of Protection required for Gollogly La to Allambie La,
conservatively adopted the “Visible Cracking” external load limit
2. Computation of D.L. + L.L.
 External loads were estimated according to Code AS3725 (RCP’s), as most applicable
 Used AS5100 live load dispersion, which is more conservative
 Generally an M1600 loading on finished pavement surface was the max Live Load condition
 This exceeded typical Construction Loading (& checks ensured this for all Plant used on site)
 Excerpt from Pure Technology’s Current Report Regarding
Selection of Design Internal Pressure & Pipe Failure Condition

 “In Pure’s analysis, no factor of safety or load factor has been included so it is
reasonable to select a design pressure that would not normally be exceeded.
Since the criteria against which this design pressure is being applied, namely
visible cracks and yield of the pre-stressing wire, are not catastrophic failures, this
design pressure does not have to be the highest ever observed either. Pure
selected a design pressure level that corresponds to a 95% confidence limit. That
is, only 2.5 % of the measured pressures would exceed this value.”

 Note that a 95% confidence means it is the pressure at a statistical value out from the mean
corresponding to a 95%ile value (i.e. Mean + 1.96 x Std Dev). This means that the values > Mean +
1.96 Std Dev plus the values < Mean – 1.96 Std Dev amount to a total of 5 %. The total values >
mean + 1.96 Std Dev will amount to only 2.5 %. Conversely, 97.5% of values will be ≤ Mean + 1.96
Std Dev.

 It is important to acknowledge that the original TWM (1975) was Gravity fed. It was pressurised by
Pumps at about Ch 560 in 2001. If the Pipe was still Gravity fed, most of the current capacity
exceedances would disappear (as Internal Pressures would be reduced substantially), and the Pipes
currently detected with a high number of Wire Breaks (indicating they have Yielded), would have
been less likely to have experienced these Wire Breaks. There is no available evidence that Council
assessed the structural adequacy of the Pipe at the time, for the Pressurising created by the
Pumps.
 Design External Loading as Function of Depth of Cover
Combined External Pipe Loading (DL + LL)
140

130

120

110

100
Max Line Load on Pipe (kN/m)

90

80

70

60 In-Service Traffic

50 Dead Line Load

40 Max. Live Line Load

30

20

10

0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
Depth of Cover Below FSL (m)
 Extent of Protection for Current Duplication
Gollogly Lane to Allambie Lane
• Alignment in places extended under existing road/median and elsewhere in verge
• Decision was that some form of Protection was required where calculated Design
External Load > Theoretical External Load that would cause “Visible Cracking”
• Protection has taken the form of a ‘flowable’ Lightweight Cementitious Fill “slab”
above the TWM (density = 640 kg/m3, UCS Strength 2 MPa @ 28 days)
Two categories of Protection:
 Individual Pipes where the number of Wire Breaks meant the design DL + LL exceeded capacity
 Zones with no Wire Breaks where the depth of cover indicated the design DL + LL exceeded
capacity
 Comparisons Between the Current & Future Project
Differentiators between Gollogly Lane to Allambie Lane (3085 m) and
Allambie Lane to Dunlop St (2927 m):
– Depth of Cover generally greater for Allambie Lane to Dunlop St, although there is also a
zone of very low cover
– As get closer to Pump Station, Internal Pressures become significantly higher, meaning
External Load Capacity is less than for Gollogly Lane to Allambie Lane
– There are significantly more Pipe Lengths with recorded Wire Breaks
– There are a far greater number of Pipe Lengths with a high number of Wire Breaks
– Note: Wire Breaks imply Pipe distress and a much reduced External Load capacity

No. Of Pipe Lengths with Wire Breaks

No. Wire Breaks
Gollogly - Allambie Allambie - Dunlop
5 11 20
10 1 9
15 0 7
20 0 3
25 1 0
Excerpt – Typical Alignment of TWM Alongside Riverway Drive
Dunlop St to Allambie Lane
TWM is Positioned Outside Current Lane Edge of Southbound Lane
 Where are the Wire Breaks Occurring?
Dunlop St to Allambie Lane
Location & Number of Wire Breaks and Road Features
25.0 5.000
Dunlop St Allambie La
≈ End of Gollogly to Allambie Job No. of Individual Pipe Wire Breaks
22.5 Road Widening for Turning Lane Road Crossing 4.500
Depth of Cover (m)

20.0 4.000

17.5 3.500

Depth of Cover Over TWM (m)

Number of Wire Breaks Detected

15.0 3.000

12.5 2.500

10.0 2.000

7.5 1.500

5.0 1.000

2.5 0.500
TCC Special
Protection Zone??
0.0 0.000
2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 5200 5400
TWM Chainage, meters
 Pattern of Wire Breaks & Pipe Deterioration
Dunlop St to Allambie Lane
1. Relationship between Wire Breaks & Road Features
 There is no clear and consistent correlation between the Wire Break locations and:
 Road Features (either where there are Widenings for Turning Lanes or where the TWM
crosses perpendicular to roads that intersect Riverway Dr)
 Particularly deep Depths of Cover or particularly shallow Depths of Cover – Wire Breaks are
apparent at both
 Cannot detect a root cause – Wire Breaks appear somewhat randomly
2. Modes of Pipe Deterioration
 Pure Technology have informed us that historically these Pipes tend to deteriorate by:
 Progressive increases in number of Wire Breaks within individual Pipes with age
 Joint leaking
 Internal and external cracking (which can contribute to &/or accelerate Wire Breaks)
3. Likely Causes of Wire Breaks at Random Locations
 Weakness at fabrication
 Excessive stresses in handling & transport
 Excessive stresses at installation & backfilling
 Excessive stresses from Construction Plant at installation OR in subsequent roadworks
 Damage/deterioration to gunite cover of pre-tressed wires, leading to corrosion of Wires
 Extent of Protection for Current Duplication
Protection Needed Where Green Line Above Brown
Comparison of External Load Capacity (Visible Crack Load Limit) vs Design DL + LL
200 5.000

PT Trench Load Est. Visible Crack Load Limit

DL + LL (kN/m) Dunlop St 4.500
175
Allambie La Gollogly La
Cul-de-sac ≈ End of Gollogly to Allambie Job
4.000
Depth of Cover (m)
150
3.500

Depth of Cover Over TWM (m)

External Load (DL + LL)

125
3.000
, kN/m

100 2.500

2.000
75

1.500
50
1.000

25
TCC Special
0.500
Protection Zone??
0 0.000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500
TWM Chainage, meters
 Extent of Protection for Current Duplication
Protection Needed Where Green Line Above Brown
Comparison of External Load Capacity (Pipe Yield Load Limit) vs Design DL + LL
200 5.000
PT Trench Load Est.
Pipe Yield Load Limit 4.500
175 DL + LL (kN/m)
Dunlop St
4.000
Allambie La
150 Gollogly La
Cul-de-sac 3.500

Depth of Cover Over TWM (m)

External Load (DL + LL)

≈ End of Gollogly to Allambie Job

125
Depth of Cover (m) 3.000
, kN/m

100 2.500

2.000
75

1.500
50
TCC Special 1.000
Protection Zone??
25
0.500

0 0.000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500
TWM Chainage, meters
 Extent of Protection for Current Duplication
Dunlop St to Allambie Lane Only
Comparison of External Load Capacity (Visible Crack Load Limit) vs Design DL + LL
160 Visible Crack Load Limit DL + LL (kN/m) 5.000
Dunlop St Allambie La
≈ End of Gollogly to Allambie Job DL + LL (+ 0.3 m)
4.500
140 DL + LL (- 0.3 m) Depth of Cover (m)

4.000
120
3.500

Depth of Cover Over TWM (m)

External Load (DL + LL)

100
3.000
, kN/m

80 2.500

2.000
60

1.500
40
1.000

20
0.500
TCC Special Protection Zone??
(≈ Ch 3950 to 4425 m)
0 0.000
2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 5200 5400
TWM Chainage, meters
 Extent of Protection for Dunlop St to Allambie La Duplication
Required Extent of Lightweight Fill [Default = to match Visible Cracking Limit; see also cases at Pipe Yield Limit]
2400
2300
2200 Current Gradeline 'As Is'
2100 Current Gradeline 'As Is' - Wire Break Locations
2000
Current Gradeline 'As Is' - Wire Break Locations & Pipe Yield
1900
1800 Current Gradeline 'As Is' - Wire Breaks @ Max Ltwt Fill
1700 Current Gradeline 'As Is' - Wire Breaks @ Max Ltwt Fill & Pipe Yield
Thickness of Lightweight Fill (mm)

1600
Dunlop St Intersection
1500
1400 Allambie Lane - End of Current Riverway Dr Duplication Project
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000
Trunk Water Main Chaiange (m) [From Dam Outlet]
 Extent of Protection for Dunlop St to Allambie La Duplication
Required Extent of Lightweight Fill [Default = to match Visible Cracking Limit; see also cases at Pipe Yield Limit ]
2400
Current Gradeline 'As Is'
2300 Current Gradeline +0.3 m
2200 Current Gradeline -0.3 m
2100 Current Gradeline 'As Is' - Wire Break Locations
Current Gradeline +0.3 m - Wire Break Locations
2000 Current Gradeline -0.3 m - Wire Break Locations
1900 Current Gradeline 'As Is' - Wire Break Locations & Pipe Yield
Current Gradeline 'As Is' - Wire Breaks @ Max Ltwt Fill
1800
Current Gradeline 'As Is' - Wire Breaks @ Max Ltwt Fill & Pipe Yield
1700 Current Gradeline +0.3 m - Wire Breaks @ Max Ltwt Fill
Thickness of Lightweight Fill (mm)

1600 Current Gradeline -0.3 m - Wire Breaks @ Max Ltwt Fill

Dunlop St Intersection
1500
Allambie Lane - End of Current Riverway Dr Duplication Project
1400 Gollogly Lane - Start of Current Riverway Dr Duplication Project
1300 Pump Station Outlet
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000
Trunk Water Main Chaiange (m) [From Dam Outlet]
 Extent of Protection – Full Length
Required Extent of Lightweight Fill [Default = to match Visible Cracking Limit; see also cases at Pipe Yield Limit]
2400
2300 Current Gradeline 'As Is'
Current Gradeline +0.3 m
2200 Current Gradeline -0.3 m
2100 Current Gradeline 'As Is' - Wire Break Locations
Current Gradeline +0.3 m - Wire Break Locations
2000 Current Gradeline -0.3 m - Wire Break Locations
1900 Current Gradeline 'As Is' - Wire Break Locations & Pipe Yield
1800 Current Gradeline 'As Is' - Wire Breaks @ Max Ltwt Fill
Current Gradeline 'As Is' - Wire Breaks @ Max Ltwt Fill & Pipe Yield
1700 Current Gradeline +0.3 m - Wire Breaks @ Max Ltwt Fill
Thickness of Lightweight Fill (mm)

1600 Current Gradeline -0.3 m - Wire Breaks @ Max Ltwt Fill

Dunlop St Intersection
1500 Allambie Lane - End of Current Riverway Dr Duplication Project
1400 Gollogly Lane - Start of Current Riverway Dr Duplication Project
1300 Pump Station Outlet
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000
Trunk Water Main Chaiange (m) [From Dam Outlet]
 If Adopt “Visible Cracking” Load Limit
What are the Protection Requirements?
Dunlop St to Allambie La
Assume Gradeline stays ‘As Is’ & if Lightweight Fill is chosen to protect the TWM:
Summary Extent of Lightweight Fill Requirements
Chainage (m) Continuous (From Excessive Individual Pipes with Wire Breaks
Depth of Cover)
From To Length (m) Thickness Number Length Thickness
(mm) (m) (mm)
2060 2180 120 100 to 800 1* 15 1200
2180 2440 - - 1 15 650
2440 3340 900 100 to 1750 9* 115 1350 to 2000
12* 140 500 to 950
3721 4892 - -
13 185 100 to 300
* - Indicates that at these Pipes the maximum permissible Lightweight Fill thickness is still inadequate
 Summary of Critical Pipe Locations – Where
Theoretical Pipe Yield Has Already Occurred
Pipes with Wire Breaks where External Load > Pipe Yield Capacity
No.
North of Gollogly Allambie - Dunlop South of Dunlop
1 Ch 676 (10 WB’s)
2 Ch 722 (15 WB’s)
3 Ch 2596 (20 WB’s)
4 Ch 2957 (20 WB’s)
5 Ch 4792 (20 WB’s)
6 Ch 8129 (25 WB’s)

Note:
• External Load at Pipe Nos. 1, 2 & 5 can be reduced to Pipe Yield Capacity by
placement of Lightweight Fill. [Nos. 1 & 5 have not Yielded for DL alone]
• Even with the maximum practical thickness of Lightweight Fill, External Load
cannot be reduced to Pipe Yield Capacity at Pipe Nos. 3, 4 & 6.
• Note Ch 2596 is at Yvette St Widening & Ch 2957 is at Jennifer St crossing
 Design Criteria to Adopt?
Dunlop St to Allambie Lane
1. If Select “Visible Cracking” Load Limit:
 Requires around 1360 m length of Lightweight Fill treatment, at thicknesses varying from as thin as 100 mm up to
a maximum 2000 mm.
 At the location of 22 Individual Pipe Lengths with Wire Breaks, the maximum permissible thickness of Lightweight
Fill is still inadequate. [The number could potentially be reduced by layering the Lightweight Fill into different
grades. But this would only relieve a minor proportion].
 Compare with Gollogly La to Allambie La – 229 m length, 300 to 1700 mm thick, with one Pipe where the
maximum permissible Lightweight Fill was inadequate.
2. If Select “Pipe Yield” Load Limit:
 Only need to place Lightweight Fill at 3 individual Pipe Lengths. A total of say 45 m length.
 However, at 2 of these 3 Pipes, the maximum permissible thickness of Lightweight Fill is still inadequate.
3. Could consider an alternative Criteria:
 If consider Wire Breaks occurs somewhat randomly, according to factors not directly related to current external
load, then the Pipe would appear to be capable of supporting a Dead Load of 3 m cover (around Ch 900 m). This
equates to an External Load capacity (DL only) of about 120 kN/m @ a Design Internal Pressure of about 400 kPa
for no Wire Breaks. [Refer Slide 14]. Note Yield capacity at 400 kPa & no Wire Breaks is 190 kN/m.
 If we use this Load Limit (for DL + LL) and interpolate PT’s data for different Internal Pressures and different Wire
Breaks, we can compute the amount of Protection needed (assume gradeline ‘as is’).
 If we adopt this strategy, then we would only need to place Lightweight Fill at about 5 individual Pipes with Wire
Breaks [Ch 2596, 2728, 2860, 2957 & 4792 m]. However, at 2 of these 5 locations, the maximum permissible
Lightweight Fill thickness will still be inadequate.
4. Alternative to Lightweight Fill [where maximum thickness is insufficient]
 Only practical option is a “bridging” structure – i.e. Slab on Pier and Beams, with capability for removal.
 Note Ch 2596 is at Yvette St Widening & Ch 2957 is at Jennifer St crossing .
5. Caution noted for Zone Ch 3680 to 4520 m (840 m), where Cover ≈ 1.2 m. Limits on
Construction Plant @ Subgrade Level may be significant [Refer Slide 16]
6. Caution – need to confirm depths of cover.