Final Draft - Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis Apprendix A April, 1999Final Report
City of Paris, Texas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
Table of Contents
Table of Contents i
Executive Summary
1
Background 1
Collection System Mapping and Data Base Development ........................................1
Basin Ranking, Alternative Projects and Costs Summary 2
Summary of Findings and Recommendations 4
Tools and Techniques 5
Sources of Data
5
Flow Metering
5
Analysis
5
Dominant Defect Flow Type
10
Assumptions
13
Design Storms
14
Modeling and Capacity Analysis
14
Derivation of Cost Estimates
15
Results
15
Reverse Slope Pipe Segments
15
Notes to Basin Summaries and Maps
16
Recommendations and Conclusions
16
Basin Summaries
17
Replacement Line Segment Report
17
Adverse Slope Pipe Table
20
Table of Figures and Tables
Figure 1- Basin Rehabilitation and Replacement Ranking 3
Figure 2- Average Dry Weather Flow Components 8
Figure 3- Wet Weather Flow Components 9
Figure 4- Inflow Dominated Response 10
Figure 5- Infiltration Dominated Response 11
Figure 6- Example Monitoring Period Graph 11
Figure 7- Example Dry Day Graph 12
Figure 8- Example Storm Event Graph 12
Table 1- Basin Priorities Ranked by Replacement and Rehabilitation Costs 4
Table 2- Replacement Line Segments 17
Table 3- Adverse Slope Segments 20
Final Report
City of Paris, Texas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
Ezecutive Summary
Background
The City of Paris, Texas owns and operates a sanitary sewer collection system far the
benefit of its citizens. To assure improved operations of the system, the City retained
ADS Environmental Services to perform sanitary sewer flow monitoring, physical
inspection, mapping, database construction and hydraulic modeling services for the City.
This is part of an improvements program that addresses capacity limitations of the
existing collection system. This document presents the problems and potential solutions
for these limitations found in the hydraulic modeling of the system. It also briefly
describes the modeling techniques that were used to reach those conclusions.
Known problems in the collection system have provided the City with the impetus to
gain a better understanding of the current state of the system. This information will be
used to address the fmancial investments that are required to bring the entire wastewater
system into good working order and to maintain it in that condition.
This report is organized by first describing briefly in an Executive Summary the fmdings
of the modeling efforts and the recommendations. Further technical details are found
following this summary.
This Technical Report is focused only on the portion of the program that relates to the
Alternative Project Development and the Hydraulic Modeling. Other portions of the
overall program are the subject of separate reports.
Collection System Mapping and Data Base Development
As a part of the overall effort to better understand the complexities of the collection
system, substantial field investigations were performed. These investigations produced
updated field maps which were then used to prepare a digital map of the collection
system.
Additionally, information related to the size and condition of the pipes was also gathered
and entered into databases. These two sources of information were then used to define
the overall system layout which was subsequently used as the basis of the collection
system model. The system representation was then combined with information collected
in the flow monitoring portion of the program to provide a calibrated model which
represents the current state of the collection system. These products should also be quite
useful in improving maintenance operations for the City. The maps presented in this
report are examples of the products now available to the City.
1
Final Report
City of Paris, Texas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
Basin Ranking, Alternative Projects and Costs Summary
Basin Ranking
To determine the best combination of funding required for the restoration of
hydraulic capacity to the system, various scenarios of replacement and
rehabilitation were considered. Rehabilitation programs reduce extraneous flows
into the system from defects and may subsequently reduce the funding
requirements for replacement pipes. By evaluating these combinations, we can
determine the best piping investments required to restore capacity to the
collection system.
In general, the overall capacity of the system is sufficient to handle dry weather
flows, but becomes overloaded during rainfall events. The inability of the system
to convey wet-weather flow is caused by a combination of insufficient hydraulic
capacity and leaks in the system. This inadequacy creates conditions conducive
to overflows and bypasses. To address these operational problems, hydraulic
modeling was used to evaluate various combinations of replacement and repair.
Cost estimates were prepared for each alternative and the overall effectiveness in
restoring system capacity was considered.
Physical inspection was performed on the system to determine the location and
nature of the system defects. Cost and flow reduction estimates related to
potential rehabilitation programs were prepared from the information gathered
during this phase of the project. During the flow momtoring of the system,
increases in the flow related to rainfall were recorded. In those basins with
observed wet weather response, the majority of the defects are of the inflow type
which are comparatively inexpensive to repair. This information is also included
in the collection system model which identifies areas where the pipes need to be
larger to convey the flow. Basin priorities for future work were based on the
combination of hydraulic replacements required and basin response to observed
rainfall events. The basins are ranked into 3 categories. These are:
• Top Priority (Capacity deficiencies and defect flow response)
• Medium Priority (Capacity deficiencies and rehabilitation needs)
• Low Priority (Basins with little or no capacity deficiencies)
These rankings are presented in Table 1 and are shown on an overall map of the
system in Figure 1. Note that these priorities are likely to be different from other
portions of the report as they consider costs of both pipe replacements and
observed defect flow response.
2
Final Report
City of Paris, Texas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
Figure 1- Map of Study Area with Basin Ranking
3
Final Report
City of Paris, Texas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
Table 1- Basin Priorities Ranked by Replacement and Rehabilitation Costs
Priority Ranki
ng by Compound De
fect Flow and Replacement Costs
Rank
tllgh
Moderate
- L
OW =
1
PR13
PR08
PR01
PR09
PR16
PR23
2
PR30
PR14
PR02
PR10
PR17
PR25
3
PR06
PR22
PR03
PR11
PR18
PR07
4
PR20
PR26
PR04
PR12
PR19
PR28
5
PR29
PR27
PR05
PR15
PR21
Alternative Projects
The effects of flow reductions on the replacement requirements through various
rehabilitation options were determined. Replacement program costs were
evaluated for the following scenarios: (1) No Rehabilitation (2) Rehabilitation of
all defects in the 5 highest rated basins (3) Rehabilitation of all defects in the 10
highest ranked basins and (4) Full Rehabilitation of all defects.
Piping System Investment Requirements
By using the costs associated with Scenarios (1) and (4) we have established the
impact of repairing none of the defects and replacing inadequately sized lines and
repairing all of the defects and replacing inadequately sized lines. Scenario (1)
establishes the highest replacement costs associated with performing no
rehabilitation work. Scenario (2) was the preferred option as it was fou.nd to
represent the most reasonable combination of replacement and rehabilitation
costs. Scenario (4) was the scenario that considered rehabilitation of all defects
and the associated replacement costs. This was by far the highest cost scenario
that was evaluated. The respective combined costs for each scenario were
approximately, $7.5 Million, $6.9 Million, $7.0 Million and $10.2 Million.
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
Much valuable knowledge was gained regarding the overall operational character of the
collection system. An up-to-date map of the system, along with an associated database
was prepared. Additionally, a collection system model was constructed, calibrated and
used to determine the effects of various improvement programs on the system.
Using industry standard hydraulic modeling techniques combined with detailed flow
reductions predicted by each rehabilitation program, a least-cost program to minimize
overflows was established.
By reviewing the hydraulic capacity of the system under design storm conditions and
under varying combinations of replacement and rehabilitation progams, an optimal
4
Final Report
City of Paris, Texas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
system investment program was identified. As shown above, rehabilitation of the Top 5
ranked basins combined with the associated replacements results in a restoration of
hydraulic capacity for the predicted design event.
It is recommended that the City commence with the rehabilitation program described in
the following sections. Further the City should consider the use of post-rehabilitation
flow monitoring to determine the overall effectiveness of the program and to update and
calibrate the model. The City should also pursue an aggressive maintenance program to
minimize local conditions that are not revealed by the model.
Tools and Techniques
This section describes the overall accumulation of data for the model as well as the
techniques used to analyze the data. This section is followed by the results section and
the basin summaries.
Sources of Data
In the modeling of collection systems, the primary representations are those for flow and
for the piping system. Each of these aspects of the model comes from several sources.
The following paragraphs describe how the information was accumulated and integrated
to provide an overall model of the collection system. Any assumptions that were made
are also described in this section.
Flow Metering
A temporary flow monitoring program was conducted for the City by ADS
Environmental Services in 1996. In this portion of the program, flow measuring devices
were installed throughout the system. These devices measured the flow in the sewers
throughout the monitoring period. The monitoring period included both dry and wet
weather conditions. This allows the system to be evaluated for system responses to
stressed conditions created by rainfall. Rain gauges were also installed throughout the
system to accurately measure the rainfall that fell in different areas of the system. This
data was used to determine the operations of the system in both normal dry weather
conditions as well as in stressed, wet weather conditions. These flows are subsequently
used as the basis for determining the capacity of the system.
Analysis
While the data sets created from the flow monitoring process are useful, additional
quantitative analyses of the data provided more valuable insights into how the system is
currently operating (1996). A baseline of performance was established by defining the
Average Dry Day flow patterns for each meter location. Once defined, this is used as the
basis to quantify what occurs in the system during a"stressed" state. This section
discusses the components of flow and the design storm projections.
5
Final Report
City of Paris, Texas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
Components of Flow
Average Dry Weather Flow
Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) is the average flow volume and shape
that occurs on a day that is not influenced by rainfall. Selection of the dry
days to develop the ADWF is important since this synthetic day becomes the
basis of wet weather calculations. Wet weather responses are the deviations
from the Average Dry Weather Flow or ADWF. Average dry weather flow
is determined by selecting days on which several conditions are met. These
are:
• Less than 0.10 rainfall occurred on the day (minimar respo. rhreshora)
• Rainfall did not occur in the preceding 3 days with more than 0.40 inches
Of CU111L111t1Ve flOWS (minimal antecedent conditions)
• Rainfall did not occur in the preceding 5 days with more than 1 inches of
CU1T1111c1t1Ve flOWS (minimal antecedent conditions)
• Flow volumes were within a specified range (Not less than 85% of
average or mare than 115% of average) (mr,,;mar aeviar,o„from orher dry aays)
The day of the week is also considered, since significant changes may occur
in the flow patterns from day to day. Once the dry days are determined, the
average volume and composite diurnal shape for each of the metered basins
was calculated.
The Average Dry Weather Flow is composed of two components. These are
Wastewater Production and Base Inflow and Infiltration. These two
components are discussed in the following section. The relationship is
shown in the following formula:
Average Dry Weather Flow = Wastewater Production + Base Inflow and Infiltration
or ADWF = WWP + BUI
Wastewater Production
Wastewater production (WWP) is the actual wastewater flow that is
generated as a result of water use. The volume of the wastewater
production is a function of the population and land use of the area. It is
also strongly related to the actual water consumption in the area.
To generate Wastewater Production based on water records alone is
inherently difficult due the averaging of monthly flows and the seasonal
variations in "return-ratios". As a result, other methods for determining
Wastewater Production and its counterpart Base Inflow and Infiltration
have been developed. The relationship between the average flow volume
6
Final Report
City of Paris, Texas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
and the nighttime minimum flow rates are fundamental to the calculation
of WWP and RDII.
The formula used for the determination of WWP is as follows:
Wastewater Production =(Average Dry Weather F[ow - Average Dry
Weather Minimum) / Wastewater Production Factor
or
WWP = (ADWF-ADMF) / R'WP Factor
Where the WWP factor varies from 1.0 to 0.75 and averages to 0.88 for
predominately residential basins. This factor is dependent on the land use
in the area and may require adjustment to reflect nighttime activities if the
actual flows measured indicate it.
Base Inflow and Infiltration
Base Inflow and Infiltration is the flow that exists in the system at all
times that is not a direct result of water usage. This flow is considered to
be constant and enters from such sources as cracked pipe below dry
weather groundwater levels and may occur from irrigation drainage or
faulty plumbing. This flow may represent a considerable operational cost
but it is very difficult to identify and eliminate.
The amount of Base Inflow and Infiltration in a metered basin is
calculated from the previous formulas rearranged:
Base Inflow and Infiltration = Avg. Dry Weather Flow - Wastewater Production
or
BI/I = ADWF - WWP
Typical components of flow in the Average Dry Weather Day are shown
in Figure 2.
7
Final Report
City of Paris, Texas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
Figure 2- Average Dry Weather Flow Components
Average Dry Weather Components
2.000
1.500
G
f
« 1.000
~
3
0
LL
0.500
0.000
Tim e of Day
N BUI M VYV11P
Once the Average Dry Weather Flows and the associated components
have been calculated, an assessment of the effects of rainfall on the system
is performed. The following section discusses the analysis of the wet
weather response.
Wet Weather Flow Components
The intent of wet weather analysis is to determine how discrete portions of
the collection system respond to rainfall events. Understanding these
responses allows subsequent efforts to be focused only in areas with the
greatest need. Conversely, those areas that are in relatively good condition
can be deferred.
Rainfall Dependent Inflow and Infiltration (RDII) or Defect Generated Flows
Rainfall Dependent Inflow and Infiltration is that additional flow (over
and above Average Dry Weather Flow) that occurs as a direct result of
rainfall. It is composed of :
• The inflow component from direct or indirect defects
• The infiltration component that generally results from defects
activated by elevated ground water.
8
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22
Final Report
City of Paris, Texas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
While this information is useful, a more detailed characterization of the
system can be performed by "netting" the flows. Subtracting the upstream
flows from the meter under study yields "net" flows. Note that under certain
hydraulic conditions netting flow rates that determine shape is not possible.
If the lines between the upstream and downstream meters are surcharged, the
hourly peak flow rates at one part of the system may be significantly delayed
in reaching the downstream site.
Dominant Defect Flow Type
A detailed look at the net "shape" or hourly variation of flow rates, yields detailed
information about the type of defects that are located in the metered basin. For example
a basin that responds quickly to a rainfall event and recovers quickly from that event is
dominated by inflow defects. While a metered basin that responds very slowly is more
indicative of rainfall induced infiltration. Of course the most desirable situation is to
have no response to the rain event. See examples of system responses in Figures 4 and 5.
Figure 4- Inflow Dominated Response
Inflow Dominated Response
3.00
2.50
p 2.00
~
a 1.50
a
3
~ 1.00
0.50
0.00
Time of Day ■ lnFlow ■ Rain
3.00
2.50
2.00 ~
~
c
7.50 _
~
c
1.00 ~
0.50
0.00
10
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22
Final Report
City of Paris, Texas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
Figure 5- Infiltration Dominated Response
IrYflow Dominated Re.sponse
1.00
G
t7
~
~ 0.50
~
3
0
U.
0.00
1
3.00
250
~
200 t
n
1.50 '
R
w
1.00.5
CC
0.50
0.00
As indicated by the previous paragraphs, the process for deriving useful information
regarding the nature of flows within a large system is very complex.
To aid in this analysis, ADS has developed a proprietary program to facilitate the
analyses. This program assures that the data is handled in a consistent manner and
provides tools for investigating the nuances inherent in large data collections.
One of the products of this program are graphs which illustrate the basis of calculations
for each site. There are three primary types of graphs that will be discussed here. These
are the monitoring period graph, the typical dry day graph and the storm event graph.
Examples of these graphs are shown in Figures 6, 7 and 8 respectively.
Figure 6- Example Monitoring Period Graph
Pipe Flow
PR08
2.5
2.0
0
~ 1.5
a 1.0
LL
0.5
0.7
0.6
~
0.5 ILI
0.4 ~
0.3 ~
0.2
0.1
t Apr 8 Mon 15 Mon 22 Mon 1 May 8 Wed 15 Wed 22 Wed
Apr 96 Date
11
4 7 10 13 16 19 22
Time of Day ■ InFI ■ Rain
Rainfall pfinal
Final Report
City of Paris, Texas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
The monitoring period graph shows the hourly average flow data and hourly accumulated
rainfall for the entire monitoring period. This allows easy interpretation of the overall
effects of rainfall on the system. Additionally, each day is colored as green or blue. The
color green denotes that the day was used in the calculation of a dry week day while blue
indicates a dry weekend day. Days that are not colored are either wet days or days that
were excluded from the dry day calculations because of the established dry day criteria.
In the area under each day you will also observe that some of the days are colored with
gray and various shades of purple. The gray period is typically the day prior to the storm
which is used in the determination of this days deviation from the calculated dry day
averages. The shades of purple indicate that the period was defined as a storm event. By
quantifying each part of the storm the total volume and the rate response can be
compared.
Figure 7- Example Dry Day Graph
Dry Weather Flow
PRO S
0.55
0.50
0.45
C) 0.40
~ 0.35
0.30
025
0.20
3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Hours
The Average Dry Day graphs indicate the hourly variations of flow that occur at the
monitoring site. This is used as the basis of the flow loading for a collection system
hydraulic model.
Figure 8- Example Storm Event Graph
1.5
~
~
E 1.0
3
0
~
o.s
21 Sun 22 Mon 23 Tue 24 Wed 25 Thu 26 Fri
Apr 96 1Dat.
0.20
0.15 A
m
~
,
d
0.10
~
°
0.05
~
n
N
-
0.5
i
1 G
Storm Event - 04/22/96 08:00
PR08
Final Report
City of Paris, Texas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
The Storm Event graph shows in greater detail the nature of the flows during the viewed
event. It includes all of the above parameters and additionally shows what portions of
the flows arise within that basin. This is again a very good way to determine the nature
of the dominant defects within the system.
System Data
The entire collection system was inspected during the physical inspection phase of the
program. This resulted in the accumulation of mapping information that was used to
update existing collection system maps. Additionally several techniques were employed
to locate and identify defects within the system. All of this information was captured
into digital maps and was used as the basis of the collection system model. Details of the
defects located are presented in the other portions of this report.
GPS Program
As a portion of the data collection, a limited GPS survey was performed. This
resulted in the establishment of elevations for approximately 270 manholes in the
system. Of these 240 were matched and based on these elevations, grade lines
were established where possible. 30 GPS points were not used as there was no
near matching XY coordinates. It was assumed that the enor in XY would likely
be observed in the Z elevation as well.
Assumptions
In all endeavors of this magnitude, certain assumptions must be made when data is
unavailable or of questionable origin. In these areas a conservative approach has been
taken to assure that the model represents the system under a"worst-case" scenario. It is
important to note that as the system data is updated and verified this can be incorporated
into the system model and its overall impacts assessed.
A common assumption or estimate of this type is in the roughness of the pipe. The
actual ability to measure this roughness may be possible in university laboratories but is
practically impossible in the field. The roughness coefficient that is employed tends to
generate a capacity number that is slightly less than would be measured in the laboratory
setting. This results in a conservative estimate of the flow.
Another example of this type of assumption would be in the determination of pipe slope.
Pipe slope is a very important parameter in the determination of the hydraulic capacity.
To acquire this information, field measurements are made which include the
measurement of the bottom of the pipe from the rim of the manhole. This is a difficult
task to accomplish in the field. A reasonable assumption (in the absence of field data)
would be that the pipe was laid at minimum slope. The capacity that would be calculated
would be the minimum that would be accepted by the local authority. The underlying
13
Final Report
City of Paris, Texas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
assumption is that if the pipe has the capacity to convey the flow at minimum slope it is
not really necessary to know the actual slope. In common field practice the slope is
almost always greater than this number and the corresponding capacity greater as well.
In some instances this slope was increased to calibrate the system to observed peaks in
the collection system. For example if a modeled reach of minimum slope showed a peak
occurring hours after that observed in the flow metering program, the slope was
increased to calibrate the model so that the peak more nearly occurred as observed.
All assumptions are subject to a certain element of risks. In this program all assumptions
that were made were within acceptable standards.
Design Storms
Another underlying assumption is the design storm. This is the predicted quantity of
rainfall that is used as the basis of the defect flows that enters the system. The design
storm used for the system is described as a 5-year 1-hour storm. This is a storm that
would produce an overall depth of 2.5 inches. The storm event of May 10/11, 1996 was
quite significant (1.5 inches) and created an overall pronounced wet weather response in
the system. For this reason the overall defect response of the system during this event
was used as the basis to predict the effects of the design event.
Modeling and Capacity Analysis
The overall goal of the modeling program is to determine the ability of the system to
adequately convey the flows that are imposed on it. By incorporating the flow and
system descriptions described above, the operations of the system can be observed. In
this process the system is calibrated such that the system behaves as observed during
known conditions. T'his process results in a model that portrays as accurately as possible
the conditions at the time of the flow measurement.
By observing the predicted depth of flow in the pipes, each segment in the system can be
evaluated to determine if the system has adequate capacity. If the segment has
inadequate capacity, a replacement diameter that would insure proper operation (non-
surcharge conditions) is calculated. This can then be used as the basis of preparing an
estimated cost to provide the capacity required.
The model is typically calibrated based on observed wet and dry conditions. Once these
calibrations are complete the design storm effects are imposed on the system. The
system is then inspected for hydraulic capacity during the projected event.
Rehabilitation Impact on Line Replacement
Hydraulic capacity may be restored by line replacement to provide adequate pipe
capacity to convey the defect flows. Another way that capacity may be provided
is by the reduction of upstream defect flows. The method employed will be based
on a number of criteria. For the purposes of this report, we will establish the
14
Final Report
City of Paris, Tezas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
combinations of replacement and rehabilitation that results in the least cost for the
scenarios evaluated.
Derivation of Cost Estimates
To develop the costs associated with replacement pipes, a table was developed which
reviewed the open cut construction costs for several communities in Texas. The cost for
each replacement section was based on the average depth of the segment and the
replacement pipe diameter. These estimates are of a general order of magnitude and only
a detailed pre-engineering study could recommend specific pipe diameters, depths and
distances required to alleviate restrictions. Estimated diameter increases that were less
than 6 inches were not considered in the estimates provided.
Costs to rehabilitate the defects that were observed were prepared by ADS
Environmental Services based on years of accumulated rehabilitation construction costs.
It is important to note that none of these costs in this report include design and project
administration costs.
Results
In general, the overall capacity of the system is good. There are a few areas that appear
to have inadequate capacity even during dry weather. These are areas with extremely
low slopes and include the downstream end of Basins 13 and 30. If there are many
observed overflow and backup complaints during dry weather this is most likely related
to local maintenance problems.
Based on the Design Event and No Rehabilitation Scenazio, there are 279 line segments
out of approximately 2500 that are predicted to have inadequate capacity. Of these only
87 line segments required upsizing by six inches or more. By performing rehabilitation
in only the Top 5 basins this number is reduced to 62 pipe segments. The combined cost
reduction is from $7.48 million dollars to $6.92 million dollars.
Based on the four rehabilitation and replacement programs evaluated, the costs for each
program was calculated and recommendations made for the lowest cost program which
was the Top 5 program. In this scenario all defects should be repaired in the Top 5
basins.
Reverse Slope Pipe Segments
Note that in the investigation of the system, there were 22 pipes that were reported
through a combination of GPS and field depth measurements to have adverse or reverse
slopes. That is the downstream invert elevation is higher than the upstream elevation.
Pipe segments in these configurations behave somewhat like siphons and aze likely to
create maintenance problems. For these reasons, a listing of the pipes and their
recommended sizes and costs are included following the Basin Summaries. The
15
Final Report
City of Paris, Texas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
recommended size is based on typical minimum slope criteria under the peak design flow
for the No Rehabilitation alternative and therefore represents the "worst-case" scenario.
Prior to any allocation of funds, these segments should be surveyed to confirm the
adverse slope.
Notes to Basin Summaries and Maps
Following the Report are a set of Basin Summaries which identify each line segment, its
required replacement diameters and costs for each of the flow scenarios. Also included
with the report, as inserts, are two maps. These maps show, using colors, the predicted
depth to Diameter ratios for the No Rehab and the Top 5 Rehabilitation programs.
Recommendations and Conclusions
It is recommended that the City:
(1) Rehabilitate and Replace as described in the Top 5 scenario.
(2) Perform post-rehabilitation flow monitoring to document effectiveness of repairs.
(3) Update the collection system model with data as it is collected from conventional
survey, especially the rgported adverse slope pipe se ments.
(4) Recalibrate the model as necessary to maintain accuracy under changing conditions.
In conclusion, a wealth of information related to the operational description of the
collection system has been accumulated. Further, this information has been analyzed and
an overall assessment of the conditions has been prepared. Using this data, estimates for
various repair/replacement scenarios have been prepazed. The City should capitalize on
this information by incorporating it into an aggressive rehabilitation and flow monitoring
program that reestablishes the proper operation of the system under design conditions.
16
Final Report
City of Paris, Tezas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
Basin Summaries
Replacement Line Segment Report
The section includes the list of pipes to be replaced under the No Rehabilitation Option.
Line diameters are for cost estimates only and are not to be used as design guidelines.
See discussion under assumptions above.
Table 2- Replacement Line Segments
Avg.
Exist.
No Rehab
No Rehab
Top 5
Top 5
Top 10
Top 10
Rehab All
Rehab All
BASIN
Segment
Depth
Length
Dia.
Dia.
Est. Cost
Dia.
Est. Cost
Dia.
Est. Cost
Dia.
Est. Cost
PRO6
06-0010M 06-0005M
16
320
24
36
$76,800
33
$76,800
30
$72,960
PRO6
06-0035M_06-0010M
9
480
24
33
$72,960
33
$72,960
30
$69,600
PR06
06-0036T 06-0035M
14
76
24
36
$16,340
33
$16,340
30
$15,580
PRO6
06-0045M 06-0036T
9
480
24
36
$72,960
33
$72,960
30
$69,600
PRO6
06-0070M 06-0055M
12
302
24
33
$57,380
30
$54,662
30
$54,662
PRO6
06-0075M OCr0070M
10
551
24
30
$86,507
30
$86,507
30
$86,507
PRO6
06-0080T 06-0075M
7
578
10
18
$58,956
PRO6
06-0125M 06-0115M
12
309
10
18
$44,805
PRO6
06-0130M 06-0125M
13
148
10
18
$22,792
PRO6
06-0145M 06-0135M
10
304
10
18
$38,912
PRO6
06-0650M_06-0645P
10
120
21
30
$18,840
30
$18,840
27
$18,840
PRO6
06-0655M_06-0650M
10
42
21
30
$6,594
30
$6,594
30
$6,594
PR06
06-0660M 06-0655M
12
521
15
27
$94,301
24
$83,360
24
$83,360
PR06
06-0665M 06-O660M
14
497
15
24
$88,963
24
$88,963
24
$88,963
PR06
Subtotal
;757,770
$577,986
$566,666
:0
PR08
08-0020M 08-0010M
16
800
15
21
$151,200
21
$151,200
PR08
08-0025M 08-0020M
13
975
S
18
$150,150
18
$150,150
18
$150,150
15
$143,325
PR08
08-0038T_08-0035M
15
425
12
18
$72,675
18
$72,675
18
$72,675
PR08
08-0040M 08-0038T
7
957
12
21
$102,399
21
$102,399
21
$102,399
PR08
1 Fr0005M 08-0050M
4
450
15
21
$44,100
21
$44,100
21
$44,100
PR08
Subtotal
$520,524
$520,524
$368,324
$143,325
PR13
13-0005M 13-0001M
14
250
24
39
$61,250
36
$53,750
36
$53,750
30
$51,250
PR13
13-0010M 13-0005M
19
900
24
33
$249,300
30
$237,600
30
$237,600
PR13
13-0015M 13-0010M
20
2300
24
45
$814,200
42
$761,300
42
$761,300
36
$667,000
PR13
13-0020M 13-0015M
16
1954
24
30
$445,512
30
$445,512
PR13
13-0050M 13-0045M
9
380
24
36
$57,760
33
$57,760
30
$55,100
PR13
13-0060M 13-0055M
8
250
24
36
$35,000
33
$35,000
30
$33,250
PR13
13-0070M 13-0065M
11
300
24
36
$53,100
33
$53,100
30
$50,700
PR13
13-0080M 13-0075M
20
400
24
33
$116,000
30
$110,400
30
$110,400
PR13
13-0095M 13-0090M
4
107
6
12
$8,239
PR13
Subtotal
$7,840,361
$1,754,422
$7,302,100
$718,250
PR14
14-0010M 14-0005M
8
300
12
21
$34,800
21
$34,800
18
$33,300
PR 14
14-0015T 14-0010M
10
305
12
21
$41,175
21
$41,175
18
$39,040
PR14
14-0020M_14-0015T
11
360
12
18
$49,320
18
$49,320
PR14
14-0035M 14-0030T
5
1237
12
18
$116,278
18
$116,278
PR14
140280M 140020M
7
1554
8
15
$150,738
15
$150,738
PR14
Subtotal
$392,311
$392,311
$72,340
:0
17
Final Report
City of Paris, Texas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
Table 2- Replacement Line Segments (Continued from previous page)
Avg.
Exist.
No Rehab
No Rehab
Top 5
Top 5
Top 10
Top 10
Rehab All
Rehab All
BASIN
Segment
Depth
Length
Dia.
Dia.
Est. Cost
Dia.
Est. Cost
Dia.
Est. Cost
Dia.
Est. Cost
PR20
13-0001M_20-0045M
17
210
27
39
$60,480
36
$52,920
36
$52,920
PR20
14-0005M_20-0275M
9
342
12
18
$40,698
18
$40,698
18
$40,698
PR20
20-0020M_20-0010M
12
800
27
36
$152,000
33
$152,000
PR20
20-0040M_20-0035M
15
1030
27
42
$267,800
39
$267,800
36
$233,810
33
$233,810
PR20
20-0041M_20-0040M
18
14
27
39
$4,242
36
$3,710
36
$3,710
PR20
20-0045M 20-0041M
13
1130
27
39
$261,030
36
$228,260
33
$228,260
PR20
20-0110M_20-0011M
9
325
12
18
$38,675
PR20
20-0275M 20-0270M
9
368
15
24
$48,576
24
$48,576
21
$46,000
PR20
20-0280M_20-0005M
11
1034
21
33
$183,018
30
$174,746
30
$174,746
27
$174,746
PR20
20-0285M_20-0280M
13
900
21
33
$181,800
30
$173,700
30
$173,700
27
$173,700
PR20
20-0290M_20-0285M
11
282
21
33
$49,914
30
$47,658
30
$47,658
27
$47,658
PR20
Subtotal
=1,288,233
;1,190,068
$1,001,502
;629,914
PR21
21-0010M_21-0005M
11
746
21
30
$126,074
27
$126,074
27
$126,074
PR21
21-0015M 21-0010M
9
339
18
27
$49,155
24
$44,748
24
$44,748
PR21
21-0020M_21-0015M
9
281
21
27
$40,745
PR21
Subtotal
:215,974
$170,822
$170,822
$O
PR22
22-0010M_22-OOO5M
14
900
21
27
$184,500
27
$184,500
PR22
22-0015M_22-0010M
10
750
21
27
$117,750
PR22
22-0020M 22-0015M
8
750
18
30
$99,750
27
$99,750
27
$99,750
24
$91,500
PR22
22-0030M_22-0025M
8
115
18
30
$15,295
27
$15,295
27
$15,295
24
$14,030
PR22
22-0035M_22-0030M
4
120
15
24
$12,360
21
$11,760
21
$11,760
PR22
22-0045M 22-0040M
9
500
18
30
$72,500
27
$72,500
27
$72,500
24
$66,000
PR22
29-OOOSM_22-0045M
7
595
18
30
$71,995
27
$71,995
27
$71,995
24
$67.235
PR22
Subtotal
$574,150
$455,800
$271,300
$238,765
PR26
26-0030M_26-0025M
12
500
12
18
$72,500
18
$72,500
18
$72,500
PR26
26-0035M_26-0030M
12
460
12
18
$66,700
18
$66,700
18
$66,700
PR26
26-0040M_26-0035M
13
280
12
18
$43,120
18
$43,120
18
$43,120
PR26
Subtotal
;182,320
$182,320
;782,320
$O
PR27
27-0010M 27-0005M
8
820
8
15
$86,920
15
$86,920
PR27
27-0015M_27-0010M
6
563
8
15
$50,107
15
$50,107
PR27
27-0020M 27-0015M
7
156
8
15
$15,132
15
$15,132
PR27
27-0025M_27-0020M
7
550
6
12
$48,400
12
$48,400
PR27
Subtotal
$200,558
;200,559
so
$O
18
Final Report
City of Paris, Tezas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
Table 2- Replacement Line Segments (Continued from previous page)
Avg.
Exist.
No Rehab
No Rehab
Top 5
Top 5
Top 10
Top 1 O
Rehab All
Rehab All
BASIN
Segment
Depth
Length
Dia.
Dia.
Est. Cost
Dia.
Est. Cost
Dia.
Est. Cost
Dia.
Est. Cost
PR29
26-0007M 29-0045M
10
353
18
24
$49,773
24
$49,773
24
$49,773
PR29
29-0010M 29-0005M
8
463
18
30
$61,579
27
$61,579
27
$61,579
24
$56,486
PR29
29-0015M_29-0010M
6
311
18
30
$37,631
27
$37,631
27
$37,631
24
$32,033
PR29
29-0020M_29-0015M
6
110
18
30
$13,310
27
$13,310
27
$13,310
24
$11,330
PR29
29-0025M_29-0020M
5
435
15
30
$52,635
27
$52,635
24
$44,805
24
$44,805
PR29
29-0040M 29-0035P
14
10
18
30
$2,050
27
$2,050
27
$2,050
24
$1,790
PR29
29-0045M_29-0040M
11
264
18
24
$39,864
24
$39,864
24
$39,864
PR29
29-0070M 29-0040M
9
553
10
18
$65,807
PR29
29-0075M_29-0070M
7
490
10
18
$49,980
PR29
29-OOSOM 29-0075M
9
427
10
18
$50,813
PR29
29-0085M 29-0080M
10
302
10
18
$38,656
PR29
29-0090M 29-0085M
11
514
10
18
$70,418
PR29
29-0095M_29-0090M
11
859
8
15
$111,670
PR29
29-0100M 29-0095M
8
295
8
15
$37,270
PR29
29-0110M_29-0100M
10
103
8
15
$12,566
PR29
29-0115M_29-0110M
10
400
6
15
$48,800
PR29
29-0120M_29-0115M
9
234
6
15
$26,676
PR29
29-0130M_29-0120M
8
188
6
12
$17,484
PR29
29-0150M_29-0145P
10
16
6
12
$1,664
PR29
29-0155M_29-0150M
11
307
6
12
$33,770
PR29
Subtotat
$816,416
$256,842
$249,012
$146,444
PR30
20-0005M_30-0030M
14
388
27
54
$150,544
45
$102,044
45
$102,044
39
$95,060
PR30
30-0010M_30-0005M
8
1590
27
36
$222,600
33
$222,600
33
$222,600
PR30
30-0025M_30-0020M
9
960
27
33
$145,920
PR30
30-0050M 30-0045M
8
635
8
15
$67,310
PR30
30-0055M_30-0050M
8
573
8
15
$60,738
PR30
30-0075M_30-0070M
9
398
8
15
$45,372
PR30
Subtotal
$692,484
$324,644
$324,644
595,060
Est. Rep
lacement Total
=7,480,442
$6,026,298
$4,510,030
$1,971,758
Est. Rehabilitation Total
$O
$899,551
$2,490,106
$8,252,372
Est. Program Total
$7,480,442
$6,925,849
$7,000,136
=10,224,130
No Rehab
Top 5
Top 10
Rehab All
19
Final Report
City of Paris, Tezas
Wastewater Collection System Capacity Analysis
Adverse Slope Pipe Table
The following table identifies the pipe segments current diameter, length and average
depth along with an estimated (not for design) pipe diameter and costs. Prior to any
allocation of funds for replacement of these pipe segments, a traditional survey should be
performed to confirm the existence of adverse slope conditions.
Table 3- Adverse Slope Segments
Segment Name
Diameter
Repl Diameter
Length
Depth
Est. Cost
03-0020M 03-0021M
15
12
35
4
$ 2,695.00
03-0025M 03-0021M
18
12
293
5
$ 22,561.00
03-0220M 03-0005M
12
15
120
10
$ 14,640.00
06-0005M 13-0080M
24
42
362
22
$ 130,320.00
06-0100M_06-0090M
10
21
169
13
$ 27,378.00
06-0115M 06-0110M
10
21
22
10
$ 2,970.00
06-0135M 06-0130M
10
21
174
11
$ 25,056.00
08-0010M_06-0665M
15
30
5
7
$ 605.00
08-0035M 08-0030M
12
21
701
22
$ 170,343.00
11-0015M 11-0010M
12
12
925
7
$ 81,400.00
13-0025M 13-0020M
24
42
310
11
$ 62,930.00
13-0145M 13-0140M
18
21
500
5
$ 49,000.00
17-0140M_17-0135M
8
8
375
3
$ 26,250.00
17-0785M 17-0780M
6
8
353
2
$ 24,710.00
20-0010M 20-0005M
27
54
275
15
$ 111,375.00
20-0055M 20-0050M
12
12
180
7
$ 15,840.00
22-0005M 21-0025M
21
36
900
15
$ 204,300.00
26-0005M 26-0001M
18
24
588
5
$ 60,564.00
26-0020M_26-0016M
15
21
250
6
$ 24,500.00
30-0015M_30-0010M
27
60
1980
8
$ 659,340.00
30-0020M 30-0015M
27
60
400
10
$ 140,800.00
30-0040M 30-0035M
10
24
320
7
$ 36,160.00
Total
$ 1,893,737.00
20