I am a Project Manager/designer/construction manager for a water District just east of Seattle, WA for 25-years. We have required profiles on water mains for almost 15-years if not longer. We even require Contractors to survey (horizontal and vertical) all bends and fittings. At first I thought this was not needed, but now I don't see an issue with this. Assuming a utility is "shallow buried" doesn't mean it was built with 36-in of cover. Without profiles Contractor's seem to treat water mains like power lines or other dry utilities, I find they never seem to go in straight and seem to wander as the will. Our District has a very active asset management program and knowing the depth of our utilities is vital to future replacement, maintenance, and repair.
It isn't that much more money to have profiles created. The Engineer of record should be looking at the "profile" to determine issues with existing and proposed crossing of other utilities. To have a drafter (or engineer) show this on a profile is still a small cost. And, with most plans now being printed on paper and PDFs the costs of printing plans is insignificant compared to the past when we had actual blue lines and mylar construction plans (we still use "mylar" asbuilts). Electronic files has allowed us more space to show things on plans that in the past were to difficult and/or costly.
Additionally, in Washington State, the Department of Health requires water mains to be installed OVER all non-potable conveyance systems, including storm culverts. Or the water and conveyance need to be encased. We are having a very difficult time trying to get Engineers to realize that storm drain systems should be put in deeper than what has happen in the past. They "burn" grade and then force water main deeper than necessary. Also, when you show the profile, especially with replacement projects, you find areas where you might be under cutting parallel utilities.
When we have profiles, we can push our requirements, make sure that there aren't conflicts with other utilities, and make sure Contractors construct the utility as required by the Engineer. Again, the cost of paper plans, PDFs and printing plans on 11x17 sheets make the extra costs for extra sheets small, and I believe, insignificant, when compared to the benefits. I believe the lack of profiles is just an easy out.
Show the profiles and all crossings. And, have the as built locations of bends and fittings surveyed during construction. For long pipe runs without bends, survey the as built main location every 100-ft.
------------------------------
James Konigsfeld P.E., M.ASCE
Principal Engineer
Seattle WA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-04-2019 21:07
From: Will Bulloss
Subject: Omitting Profiles from Waterline Construction Plans?
My organization is contemplating if/when it is appropriate to show profiles versus plan-only on water main construction plans. Our projects are predominately urban in nature (alignment within roadway with numerous utility crossings), are 3,000-5,000 linear feet in length, and are both distribution system extension or replacement in nature. Pipe diameters are generally 8" and 12". We also have rural projects that are generally extensions along the shoulder of roadways.
I am wondering if others have a decision framework to support the concept of omitting profiling water lines in similar circumstances. The argument is that omitting profiles on relatively smaller and less complex projects allows for more rapid plan development and construction.
I would appreciate any insight you all may have.
------------------------------
Will Bulloss
Blacksburg VA
(540) 207-2323
------------------------------