Getting CIPP Installation Paperwork Done Faster with Chain of Custody Forms

The Job Is Not Finished Until The Paperwork Is Done.

So, your crew has just completed your latest CIPP installation. Even though cured-in-place-pipe has become a routine rehabilitation technology for underground sewer and water infrastructure, many CIPP installations can still present unique challenges. This last installation was full of those “unique” challenges.

Not only was equipment deployment adjacent to a the golf course tricky to begin with, the weatherman didn’t quite get the forecast right too and your bypass pumps barely kept up with all of the rain that fell from the “partly cloudy” sky.

But that’s all behind you now. The liner is installed and you’re done for the day. Good planning and an experienced crew got the job done and you’re back at the shop putting away your equipment, finishing off your paperwork and planning your next day’s deployment.

Hopefully you haven’t forgot to identify and document your field sample for the day’s installations. The owner or the contract administrator of the project will be looking for the test report for these field samples in order to confirm that the CIPP liners that you’ve installed complied with their contract requirements.

Frequently the testing laboratory will receive a CIPP field sample which has insufficient information for the laboratory to process the sample and provide a test report. This can cause delays while the laboratory makes inquiries to obtain the missing information. Occasionally the work instructions will be unclear and the wrong tests might end up being performed. One other common problem becomes evident at the end of a contract when the owner or the contract administrator comes looking for missing test reports and you don’t have a ready list of samples which you’ve submitted for testing.

To prevent these types of hang-ups, it’s always preferable that field samples be accompanied by a chain of custody (COC) form. At a minimum the COC form should describe who the client is, the purchase order number for the testing work, a description of the tests which are required, the identity of the field sample and the identity and contact information of the test report recipients and finally the identities of individuals who prepared the form and who received the samples on behalf of the testing lab. The laboratory should receive an original COC form with each sample or batch of samples and you should retain a copy for your records.

This can seem to be a lot of work, especially since most of it is usually done at the very end of the work day when everyone just wants to get home. So to simplify the workload for our clients, Paragon Systems Testing provides CIPP project specific chain of custody forms to its clients. The COC form is configured to make it easy for a crew supervisor to document all of the information which the laboratory requires to quickly and efficiently process the field sample and to identify the specific installation to the owner or contract administrator in the final test report.

If you haven’t got one yet, give a shout or drop us an email and we’d be happy to get you one of our CIPP chain of custody forms.

 

Get white papers, updates and event invites straight to your inbox,
Will you get the 50 year plus life you expect from your CIPP installation? A video inspection and thickness measurement of your completed installation will not tell you this. Each CIPP installation encounters variables that affect its initial cured-in-place mechanical properties. The present state-of-theart in mechanical inspection techniques uses a destructive flexural test to determine the initial flexural strength and modulus of each installation. This data, along with the final thickness is then used to confirm that the installation complies with the liner’s design, such as by F1216 Appendix X1 calculations. Normally variation can be expected between the results obtained for specimens from lab prepared samples and results obtained for specimens from field prepared samples. It is also not unusual for results obtained from different labs to present additional scatter. The sources of this latter variation have not been well-documented, and consequently, they create unnecessary doubt about the method used to determine these properties. This paper describes the ASTM D790 test method that is used to determine flexural strength and modulus; and examines the sources of variation that exist from specimen preparation techniques as opposed to CIPP sampling techniques. The D790 method provides guidance on test specimen selection based upon the material to be tested. CIPP is not a specific material configuration in the D790 method. As a result, it is left to the user (or test lab) to interpret which D790 material configuration most closely matches the CIPP material. This ambiguity in D790 can lead the tester to choose from a wide selection of different specimen types. This paper documents the results of experiments designed to quantify the effect of 1) specimen types and 2) testing directions on the flexural modulus and strength of CIPP field samples.