Technical Data on Resinating Fiberglass Expansion Liners

Overview

Below is a summary of some of some of the important technical data which, when combined with Resinating LLC’s installation procedures and other factors, enable Resinating Fiberglass Expansion Liners to be warrantied for 20-years with a likely useful life of 100 years.

The following Technical Reports are summarized below with links to the actual Technical Reports following each summary:

  • ASTM C497 tests of Resinating vs Class III RCP
  • Pull test of Resinating’s bond to concrete
  • ASTM C497 tests of Resinating vs Hobas
  • ASTM D790 tests of Resinating vs Hobas

Simply stated, these test results confirm the extraordinary strength of Resinating’s Fiberglass Expansion Liners…they are STRONG!

  • Class III RCP that had failed, when lined with a Resinating Liner was 50% +/- stronger than new RCP.
  • In the Resinating “Pull Test”, the weakest link broke first…the concrete.
  • Hobas 46 that had failed, when lined with a Resinating Liner was 98% stronger than new Hobas.
  • Resinating Liners withstood up to 72,000 PSI before breaking, 3.5 times the pressure that liners from a leading global manufacturer of fiberglass liners could withstand.

There is clearly no need to Trench & Replace RCP or Hobas or any other type of pipe or manhole when it fails…Resinate it.  Likewise, the CIPP and SIPP sections of The Better Choice tab are not adequate solutions for failing pipes or manholes either…Resinate them.

The specific data and the actual photos in the actual reports from the testing labs tell quite a story about the strength and durability of the Resinating Fiberglass Expansion Liners.

To avoid any confusion, you will see that the tests were conducted for AFE, who Resinating is partnering with, and also in the name of Shumard Corp.  Shumard is the legal corporate name of the company that does business as AFE.

ASTM C497 Tests: Resinating vs Class III RCP

These ASTM C497 tests were performed by Applied Technical Services of Marietta, Georgia The RCP used in the test was a Class III RCP, 36” in diameter, made by a major RCP manufacturer.  In the photos below, you can see the cracks in the RCP running between each pair of arrows.

Test 1 – RCP alone:  New RCP failed (long crack inside) at about an average load of 7786 pounds/linear-foot (lbf).

Test 2 – Cracked RCP from Test 1 with a Resinating Liner inside, but not bonded as in Test 3: The failed RCP from Test 1 developed cracks on the outside (inside cracks couldn’t be seen due to the liner) at an average load of 12,024 lbf…that’s 54% stronger than Test 1. The failed RCP lined with an unbonded Resinaitng Fiberglass Expansion Liner inside was substantially stronger than new RCPbetter than new.

It is also notable that while the RCP failed at this increased load, there were no cracks or damage to the Resinating Fiberglass Expansion Liner.

 

Test 3 – Retest cracked RCP from Test 1 with a Resinating Fiberglass Expansion Liner bonded to the inside of the RCP: In this test, the RCP from Test 1 generated cracks on the outside of the RCP at about an average load of 11,314 lbf. That’s 45% stronger than Test 1 with the RCP alone.  As in Test 2, the failed RCP, lined with a Resinaitng Fiberglass Expansion Liner now bonded to it, was substantially stronger than new RCPbetter than new.
Again, It is notable that while the RCP failed at this increased load, there were no cracks or damage to the Resinating Fiberglass Expansion Liner.
 

Test 4 – Resinating Liners tested by themselves: This test was an effort to determine the point at which a Resinating Fiberglass Expansion Liner itself would fail.  Unfortunately, from a testing perspective, but fortunately from the perspective of the Resinating Liners, the test equipment reached its capacity before the Resinating Liners could fail.  The Resinating Liners showed no damage as the 36” liners were compressed 6 inches for a 17% Deflection.  The test equipment could not exert any more pressure at that point because with that deflection, the Resinating Liner hit the frame of the equipment.

View ASTM C497 RCP Test Report

Resinating “Pull Test”

As the test report linked below shows, the Resinating Liner and its bonding agent held tight to the concrete it was bonded to until the concrete itself separated.

Resinating Pull Test Result

VIEW TEST REPORT ON RESINATING “PULL TEST”

ASTM C497 Tests: Resinating vs Hobas

These ASTM C497 tests were performed by Metallurgical Engineering Services, Inc of Richardson, Texas. Two sets of tests were conducted.

The tests conducted on February 18, 2020 tested both new 30” Hobas 46 and Hobas 72 pipe without a Resinating Liner inserted and then additional new Hobas 46 and Hobas 72 pipe with a ½” Resinating Fiberglass Expansion Liner inserted.

  • The new unlined Hobas 46 pipe failed with an average load of 9615 lbf whereas the new Hobas 46 lined with a Resinating Liner withstood 20646 lbf before it failed. The new Hobas 46 lined with a ½” Resinating Liner was 115% stronger than the Hobas 46 by itself.
  • The new unlined Hobas 72 pipe failed with an average load of 14161 lbf whereas the new Hobas 72 lined with a Resinating Liner withstood 23938 lbf before it failed. The new Hobas 72 lined with a ½” Resinating Liner was 69% stronger than the Hobas 72 by itself.
  • There was no noticeable damage to the Resinating Liners when the Hobas failed.
VIEW ASTM C497 TEST REPORT ON NEW HOBAS

The second test session conducted on February 27, 2020, also conducted by Metallurgical Engineering Services, Inc tested the strength of the failed Hobas 46 pipe from the February 18th test when they were lined with ½” Resinating Liners.

  • Whereas the new, unlined Hobas 46 pipe from the February 18th test failed at an average load of 9615, in this test with the Resinating Liner inserted, it withstood an average load of 19,073 lbf. The failed Hobas 46 pipe was 98% stronger than when it was new…better than new and better than the 36” RCP covered above…it failed at 7786 lbf.
  • There was no noticeable damage to the Resinating Liners when the Hobas failed.

As the results of the ASTM C497 tests of Resinating vs Hobas below show, 30” Resinating Liners showed no damage when compressed 7.29” for a 24.6% Deflection which is the point at which the Hobas 46 failed.  The maximum deflection for a Resinating Liner is still unknown.

 Here’s a photo of a failed Hobas pipe from the report:

Sample Hobas Failure

Sample Hobas Failure

VIEW ASTM C497 TEST REPORT ON LINED, FAILED HOBAS

ASTM D790 Tests

In the D790 tests done by Dallas Laboratories, Inc in Dallas, Texas, the strength of two sizes of Resinating Fiberglass Liners was tested vs two sizes of liners from a leading global manufacturer of fiberglass liners. The D790 test applies pressure as shown in the pictures below to determine the load and the PSI that creates a complete failure in the liner material.

D790 Test Setup

Under pressure but not breaking

More pressure…delamination starting as we approach 70,000 PSI and the final breakdown. This is 3 ½ times the pressure that broke the Competitive Liners.

This table below summarizes the overall test results for the liners of a leading global manufacturer versus Resinating Fiberglass Expansion Liners:

As the test results above show, in the Axial Direction, while the Average Load was approximately the same in all tests before serious damage occurred, in the Transverse Direction, the Resinating Liners handled about 75% more load before fracturing than the samples from a leading global manufacturer of fiberglass liners.
From a PSI perspective, the Resinating Liner can accommodate approximately 2x the PSI in the Axial Direction and more than 3x the PSI in the Transverse Direction compared to the other fiberglass liners tested before failures start to occur.

View ASTM D790 Test Report

The BOTTOM LINE

Resinating Fiberglass Liners are extremely strong when compared to any other alternative for the rehabilitation of pipes and manholes.  That strength, combined with the fact that the liners are completely non-porous and impervious to the chemical or biological agents found in waste water or storm water systems, is why Resinating LLC warranties Resinating Fiberglass Expansion Liners for 20-years.

With the 45 years of experience that AFE, Resinating LLC’s partner, has had manufacturing liners using the same manufacturing technology with no warranty claims, no-post warranty requests for repair and no liners having been taken out of service that AFE knows of, it is clear that the likely useful life of a Resinating Liner is 100 years, perhaps more.  Resinating’s fiberglass is virtually indestructible.