DRAFT (1) FACIORS AFFECTING CONSTRUCTION cosr oF MUNICIPAL SEWER PROTE crs By Robert L, Michel Avgust 1970ENVIRONMENTAL, PROSTINTAT /STUCYINFRODUCTION ‘The Construction Grants Program of the Federal Water Quality Administration (FWQA) provides grant-in-aid funds for municipal wastewater ‘treatment plants and interceptor-outfall sewers. In the course of admini- stration of these municipal projects, detailed bid data 1s obtained showing ‘the contract price of many components including the installed cost of interceptor sewers, the subject of this study. Although this cost analysis is for the most part Limited to bid data received in nine months of 1968, statistical relationships were derived for order-of-megnitude estimating of current costs for installing vitrified clay, cast iron, and reinforced concrete sewer pipe at a wide range in diameters and depths of cut. EFFECT OF PIPE DIAMETER Cost per Linear foot increases by a constant percentage (or ratio) with incressed pipe diaueter at a constant depth of cut. As shown in Figure 1 (for vitrified clay pipe), Figure 2 (for cast iron pipe), and Figure 3 (for reinforced concrete pipe) such a relationship plots as a straight line on semt-logeritimie cherts. On the top half of these sare figures the "handbook" weight per Linear foot 4s Likewike plotted against dieneter, tote that the divergency of slopes in both weight end cost occurs near the sane dianeter--a logical effect if you assume cost is directly associeted with product weight, Somewhat similar observationsgf 5. & E E geapep sgi” are ina study of installed costs of outside piping for the chemical process industries as related to suell-dieneter clay and cast iron pipe(t), The cost estimates developed from these statistical relationships includes: (2) normal excavation, (b) cost of pipe, (e) placing and joining of pipe, (a) backfilling of the trench. Rock excavation, sheeting and shoring, cradle or encasement of pipe, gravel foundation, and surface restoration are excluded, Tables I, I, ana IIT give the cost trend equations (from regreseion analyeis) and some resulting point estimates. Equations (1) and (2) from Table I can be converted to the following more "natural" form (free of logarithns) by taking anti-logarithims of the original equation constants: (aa) ¥ = (2.882) (2.202)* (2a) ¥ = (2.718) (1.082)* where Y = Installed Cost ($/linear ft.) at 0-6 ft. cut of vitrified clay pipe. and X= Nominal pipe diameter (1n.) The above equations read that estimated pipe cost increases approximately 10.1 percent with each inch of diameter up to 12 inches} while at 15 to 36 in, for vitrified clay pipe, the rate of change reduces to 8.2 percent per inch, Table IV sumarizes the indicated rate of increase for each added inch of diameter for all three types of pipe. The low rate of cost inereese for reinforced concrete pipe above 12 in. explains vhy this pipe is more conmonly used at larger dieneters than vitrified clay pipe.TABLE I. INSTALLED COST OF VITRIFIND CLAY PIPE AT 0-6 FP. cUr Polmy Estimati flominal ~ a oe Installed Cost _(Narch 1968 Dollars). Diameter (inches) Exp Value Upper Limit, 8 $ 3.97 $ 4.88 10 4.82 5,93 12 5.8 718 5 8.87 10.20 18 1.25 12.94 2h 18.08 20.79 30 29.03 33.38 36 46.6h 53.64 Regression Egustions Bie Bastion Sanple Range Size (1) 8-12 in. Log ¥ = 0.04175x + 0.2653 31 Bias (2) 15-36 in. Log ¥ = 0.03431X + 0.4336 7. Whore Y = Inctalled Cost ($/Lincar foot) X = Nominal, Pipe Dieneter (in.)TABIE II. INSTALLED COST OF CAST IRON PIFE AT 0-6 FT. CUT Point Estimates Nominal Installed Cost (March 1968 Dollars) Pipe Diameter (inches) | Tower Limit | Hxpected Value | Upper Limit 6 $ 4.02 $5.18 $ 6.68 8 5.18 6.68 8.62 20 6.68 8.62 nu a2 8.62 1.12 1k. 33, uy 9.28 1.51 UBT 16 10.90 13.52 16.76 18 12.81 15.89 19.70 2h 20.73 25.71 31.88 Regression Equations Sige Range Correlation Sample (inches) Equation Coefficient Size (3) 612 Log ¥ = 0,05526K + 0.3628 0.72 3 Bids (4) lh-ek Tog Y = 0,03499X + 0.5712 0.80 qq Where Y = Installed Cost ($/linear foot) x= Dismeter (in.)PIPE AT 0-8 FP, cur NFORCED CO! TABLE IIT. INSTALLED COST OF Pol ts Ape Installed Cost _(Narch 1968 Dollars) (inches) “Tower Bxpected Value Upper Ti 12 $ 6.25 $ 6.82 8 743 15 7.52 8.20 8.9 18 9.03 9.85 10.7 aL 10.9 11.9 13.0 al 15.2 17.2 19.4 et 16.3 18.4 20.8 30 17.5 19.8 22.4 33 18.9 21,3 al. 36 20.3 22.9 25.9 io 23h 26.4 29.8 48 27.0 30.5 34.5 5h 31.1 35.2 39.7 60 35.8 40.5 45.8 Siue Range (inches) Equation (5) 12-21 Log ¥ = 0,02668X. + 0.5234 0.92 8 bias (6) 24-60 Log ¥ = 0.01036X + 0.9863 0.96 a2 where ¥ Installed Cost (3/linear foot) : ar Nominal Pipe x (in.)TABLE IV. INDICATED RATZ OF INCREASE IN INSTALIZD PIPE cost BECAUS® OF DIAGSTER ‘Dype of Pine Reinforced Concrete Vitrified Clay Cast Tron Reinforced Concrete Vitrified Clay Cast Tron Estinated Percent Cost Increase for Each Addstiounl Inch 6.8 10.1 33.5 21 8.2 By Dianeter Range (inches) 12-21 8-12 6-12 24-60 15-36 1-24fo A stuay(2) in 1964 of sewer costs on a basis of cost per dianeter inch per foot reported that there was a coustant difference in price between pipes of varying diameter--an arithmetic progression. To test this relationship, unit-length costs from a selling price quotation sheet (dated October 1968) for undelivered reinforced concrete pipe (ASM C-76 Class 2) were converted to dollars per @ianeter inch and plotted egainst nominal pipe diameter in feet. Figure 4, the resulting linear plot, shows this relationship to be still valid. The other main quantitative factors in the interceptor cost picture are slope and depth. These variables are inter-dependent with @iameter as they affect the capacity and velocity required for a given project flow, Consequently, depth-of-cut is the next subject for statistical analysis.as) ToRower sdzq Te ATOR, SO ~ (as /uee T-TOYSUPTP/S) F809 poLsarTopUN | e é |COMBINED EFFECT OF PIPE DIAMETER AND DEPTH OF UT Previous discussion revealed the effect of dianeter, per se, on cost of sewer pipe. However, this gives only a fraction of installed coste with excavation and backfill contributing, 18 a minimm, over half of most pipe-in-trench costs. A simple linear regression analysis of cost vs. depth of given pipe diencters provides e measure of the effect of these variables. Thus, given a fixed diameter of pipe and proposed depth of cut, a quick non-definitive estimate of installed costs can be made for uany combinations of dianeter and depth for vitrified clay and reinforced concrete sever pipe. In addition, adjustments can be made for regional costs and price escalation. Table V gives the estimating equations for "average United States" costs, while Tables VI and VII gives the resulting point estinates. Tables VIII and IX gives the cost index values required for escaletion— location corrections. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the depth of cut effect on installed cost of vitrified clay and reinforced concrete clay pipe.19 (3903) ano Jo uydeq (q003 TeUTI/$ QOST WOAH) 4909 POTTDIOUT x A aqua, a 260° 160 «GOTT «GREG T + TE00'0 = K30T —09._—@aaxOUOD psONOgUTON st 960 g6°0 ZO'T = BTSs ROH'T + NEQOO'O = K BOT Bh — e3ea0U0g peosozuTOY oT 66°0 96°0 zort ee G162°T + X6900°0 = X SOT ee eqerou0g pedsoyuT]Y ee £9°0 g8°0 evr Te JEET'T + X6600°0 = X BOT dz aqexouog peodoyuTey, ee 0 60 att «=A sAg€0°T + XBTTO“O = X BOT TZ eaezonep peorosutoy ee 19°0 alto 96'T—o@——«CDBEQYO + oSTO‘O = BOT Gt eqezoucg peozosnTey ee 46°0 £60 got. S$ ~~ aQLE'T + eHTO'O = X07 of kero veTETIVTA vs eo 260 GOT. TTS + x62z0°0 = X BOT *@ AOTO DOTEEIOTA got 960 GLO sA"1~—«E_C EERO + ¥OKHO'O = R BOT ot foro porsTayTA vt seo ghro «ET oh HGOEO + xO = XBT og fet9 BOTsTEaTA TST JO FOOT WSIS TIO) OTIEN —OTFEN _SzTS WorpEneE SaTRUTIST (CUT) SET FS SLAG TeuoTaTepy —«uOT|BTeZI0D ATUTT qTUTT oTdueg soqoueTa peta Zot teadn ata aswerour 3800 aa SHAT INGHEGETC LV CSTIVISII SISOD Gala WOE SNOLD a NVAve TABLE VI. ESTIMATES F_INSTALIE! FFERENT te oe a ae 5 $3.5 $5.2 $18.4 $28.1 cy 6.6 9.5 5.3 34.3 15 10.2 Ub.3 31.2 39.0 19 15.7 21.3 35.8 wh 1/ U.S. Average Cost in March 1968 Dollars.TABLE VII. ESTIMATES OF INSTALIED COST OF REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE / AG DIFFERSITT DEPTHS AND DIA Depth of Cut Expected Cost et Nominal Diancter (feet) 3g Inch Al Inch 27 Inch ‘Tnch 48 Tneh 60 Inch 5 $8.2 $12.5 $15.2 $21.5 $31.7 $1.6 n 10.2 U.T 17.5 23.6 3h.6 Le 15 1.8 16.4 19.1 25.1 36.6 46.8 wy ao ee nbs 21.0 26.9 38.8 49.0 23, 15.9 20.4 23.0 28.5 we Sl 1/ U.S. Average Cost in March 1968 Dollars.‘TABI VITT ANT AND $3 1957-1959 March 1968 ay WeO-5 City WEC-SIP __WPO-8 Wo. Cities Values No. Cities Values Values 01 Atlanta 109.4 11 Kansas City 2.93 118.52 02 Baltimore 123.51 12 Los Angeles 128.59 137.37 03 Birmingham 107.34 101.30 13° ‘Minneapolis 125.0 137-77 ok Boston 121.95 126.42 14 New Orleans 120.25 125.30 05 Chicago 125.3. 123.47 15 New York 139.77 159.38 06 Cincinnati 118.63 (121.37 16 Philadelphia 29.36 130.92 OT Cleveland 128.01 128.11 1 Pittsbureh 123.07 133.59 08 Dallas 106.42 102.03 18 St. Louis 125.95 128.42 09 Denver a.gh 107.75 19 San Francisco 233.52 14.25 10 Detroit 129.67 137.46 20 Seattle 130.66 Uhh. National Index Values..... 121.21 127.0hTABI OX SEWAGE TR PLAN? and SEWER CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX 1957-195: April 1970 cy WEO-SEP __ Ghange WPo-S__F Change To. Cities Values April 1969 Values April 1969 01 Atlanta 129.29 + 9.2 132.05- + 8.7 02 Baltimore 1ah.66 + 3.6 128.09 +#:1.3 03, Birmingham 116,00 + 3.0 119.99 +18 Ok Boston 1he.86. + 8.8 150.16 +95 05 Chicago 143.84 + 8.8 146.75 +10.8 06 Cincinnati 10.87 + Tl 155.05 + 6.6 Of Clevelana 16.86 +5.2 57.78 + 6.2 08 Dalles 12h.10 + 6.5 119.06 + 6.6 09 Denver 128.70 +76 1er.23 #8 10 Detroit 152.08 + 8.6 156.95 +11.2 11 Kansas city 128.09 +5.6 135.260 + 5.4 12 Ios Angeles 137.92 +16 we.83 00 +1 13 Minneapolis UU. + 5h 150.26 + 5.8 24 New Orleans 126.91 + 5.8 137.16 + 5.8 15. New York 160.87 +83 170.33 +:1.8 16 Philadelphia 136.99 ae 153.0 15.8 AT Pittsburen 149.21 412.1 154.55 + 7.9 18 St. Louts ati + 7.0 wae + 7.8 19 San Francisco 150.43 +5.8 168.34 42.2 20 Seattle + M719 tS 162.33 + 4.8 National Index Values 138.49, + 6.5 1s. 7h +67 79 Figures 5 and 6 and the corresponding tabulated data show different constant relative increases of cost with depth “depending on @ianeters, i.c., as diemeter increases the relative amount of cost increase per foot of depth decreases, This is due to the fact that at longer pipe sizes, Gianeter accounts for a greater portion of the overall installed cost than does, depth, per se.> Figure 5. Effect of Cut Depth (sarch 1968 $) On Installed Cost of Vitrified Clay PipeOn Installed Cost of Reinforced Conerete Pipe (March 1968 $) Effect of Cut Depth Figure 6.COST OF ANCTLIARY WORKS vs. PLANT COST and PLANT CAPACITY In most previous studies few, if any, attempts have been made to perform regression analysis of costs for appurtenances that are ancillery to the central treatment plant. By using total eligible cost and plant construction cost data from plant-interceptor projects for previously unsewered communities, a significant association vas found between costs of ancillary works and size of plant, This relationship was found by (1) subtracting plant construction cost from Total Eligible Cost, (2) denoting the resultant value as "Y" or Ancillary Costs", and (3) comparing this with plant size "KX". Both costs were converted to 1957-1959 dollers prior to analysis ty using the Plant Cost Index for X and Sever Index for Y. The ¥ variable is assumed to be predominetely the cost of ancillary works (pumping stations, force mains, interceptors and outfalls) as required for a given project although there is a fraction of this cost earmarked for legal, administrative and engineering costs of the entire project. By using this rationale for computing costs, the ancillary costs were compared with plant design capacity (population equivalent) from projects wherein a complete treatment system was installed. Linear regression and scatterdiagram (Figure 7) analysis showed @ log-linear relationship between these two variables. The results of the regression analysis are described in Tables X through XIII for waste stabiliza- tion ponds, primary, trickling filter and activated sludge plants. The lover ancillary cost for ponds is probably due to the greater mmber of gravity-type interceptors in communities using pond treatment.Quite frequently cost for interceptor piping and other ancillary equizmemt is expressed as a flat percentage of totel plant cost. A modification of this approach is the comparing of construction costs for ancillary works (interceptors, force mains, outfall, end lift stetions) vith construction cost of various size treatment plants, as is done in Figure 8. The relatively low cost of interceptor sewers serving small Plants is probably due to the lower cost-expansion exronent (slope of ine on log-log plots) at the top of the range in small diameters and the shorter runs of interceptors. In general, a cost of two miles at a given depth and diameter is about twice the cost of one mile leaving Little economy-of-scale in construction cost because of distance alone. Therefore, interceptor costs apparently reach a point (at approximately 30,000 FE) as shown in Figure 8 where they rise above plant costs as greater diameters and distances are required to intercept the greater volumes of sewage. Table XIV data teken from other contract cost sumaries also shows @ similar change for ratio of interceptor cost to Plant cost because of population served size groups. Of course, addition of collection sever cost to the ebove-noted interceptor costs would exceed plant costs in all cases.— * 8 i,boosoc "106,000 Plant (¥E) 16,000 Population o! 1,000, Design S FIGURE T. SCATTERDIAGRAK, ANcrBLARY cosr KS. PLAN? POFULATION EQUIVALEIT--ACTTVATED SITABLE 1X CORRELATION OF PLANT CAPACITY AND ANCILLARY cost FOR COMPLETE TREATMENT SYSTEM WITH ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANTS Point Estimates of Ancillary Costs Design Total Ancillary Costs (1957-1959 Dollars) Population valent Lower Iimit cted Value Upper Limit 1,000 $ 17,000 $ 37,700 $ 83,300 2,500 39,000 86,700 191,600 5,000 73,400. 163,000 360, 200 10,000 136,800 301,000 50,800 25,000 315,000 700,000 1,547,000 50,000 598,500 1,330,000 2,939,000 75,000 865,400 1,923,000 4,249, 800 pe Regression Equation Tog Y= 0,912 Log + 1.843 Where Y = Ancillary Cost (Difference between Plant Cost end Total Eligible Cost) X = Design Population Equivalent of Plant Valid Size Range = 1,000 ~ 75,000 Semple Size = 689 Lower Limit Ratio = 0.45 Upper Limit Ratio = 2.21 Correlation Coefficient = 0.84TABI XT CORRELATION OF PLANT CAPACITY AND ANCILLARY COST FOR COMPLETE TREATMENT SYSTEM WITH PRIMARY PLANTS myn Point Estimates of Ancillary Costs Design = a Total Anctllary Costs (1957-1959 Dollars) Eautvalent Tower Limit Expected Value Upper Limit 1,000 $ 29,300 $ 53,200 $ 96,800 24500 57,900 105,200 191,500 5,000 97,000 176,300 320,900 10,000 162,500 295,500 537,800 25,000 321,700 584,900 1,064,500 50,000 539,200 980,400 1,784,300 75,000 729,300 1,326,000 2,413,000 Regression Equation Tog ¥ = 0.7450 Log X + 2.1906 Where Y = Ancillary Cost (Difference between Plant Cost and Total Eligible Cost) X = Design Population Equivalent of Plant Valid Size Range = 1,000 ~ 75,000 Sample Size = 18 Tower Limit Retio = 0.55 Upper Limit Retio = 1.82 Correlation Coefficient = 0.89TABLE _XIT CORRELATION OF PLANT CAPACITY AND ANCILLARY COST FOR COMPLETE TREATMENT SYSTEM WITH TRICKLING FILTER PLANTS Point Estimates of Ancillary Costs Ponnstion Total Ancillary Costs (1957-1959 Dollars) Equivalent Jower Limit uted Value Upper Limit 1,000 $ 25,300 $ 47,700 $ 90,200 2,500 51,800 91, TOO 184,600 5,000 89,200 168, 300 318,100 10,000 153,400 289,500 54T, 200 25,000 314,500 593,100 1,121,500 50,000 512,100 1,021,100 1,929,700 75,000 743,600 13403,000 25,652,000 Regression Equation Tog XY = 0.7832 log X + 2.3288 Where Y = Ancillary Cost (Difference between Plant Cost and Total Eligible Cost) X = Design Population Equtvalent of Plent Valid Size Range = 1,000 - 75,000 Sample Size = 9 Tower Limit Retio 0.53 Upper Limit Ratio = 1.89 Correlation Coefficient = 0.82TABIE XTIT CORRELATION OF PLANT CAPACITY AND ANCILLARY COST FOR COMPLETE TREATMENT SYSTEM WITH WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS nyt Point Estimates of Ancillary Costs ae Total Ancillary Costs (1957-1959 Dollars) Eguivalent “Tower Lindt Expected Value Upper Limit 1,000 $10,100 $ 32,500 $77,000 2,500 20,600. 66,400. 157,300 5000 35,300 114,000 270,200 10,000 60,400 195,000 14625200 25,000 123,700 399,000, 96,000 Regression Fouation Log Y= 0.779 log X + 2.175 Where Y = Ancillary Cost (Difference between Plant Cost and ; ‘Total Eligible Cost) X = Design Population Equivalent of Plant Valid Size Range = 1,000 ~ 30,000 Semple Size = 317 Tower Limit Ratio = 0.31 Upper Limit Ratio = 2.37 Correlation Coefficient = 0.63RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANCILLARY WORKS AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION cost eet eee eee i pAneillery Yorks * Treatment Plant <5 ial *5>"¥ taboo Design Population Hquivalent of Plant * "10000 Includes interceptors, force mains, liftistations and their engineering costs but ludes collection system.TABLE XIV. INTERCEPTOR COST AS A RATTO TO NEW PLANT cos? A Population Served Ratio to Plant Cost at Each Location Group 1 2 4 6 | netioner 500 1532] 29h | 373. | 249 | 5h | 450 | «373 500- 999 | .5kB | 302 | 1384 | wti38 | 565 | M50 | 38h 1,000 - 2,499 | .710 392 498 438 +733 450 +498 2,500-- h,999 | 1.030] .568 | .722| 607 | 1.063 | ser | 722 5,000 - 9,999 | 1.127 622 +790 607 | 1.163 52 +790 10,000 - 24,999 | 1.512 83h 1.060 -718 1.560 806 1.060 25,000 - 49,999 | 2.120] 1.270 | 1.487 | 1.079 | 2.189 | 1.496 | 1.487 50,000 - 99,999 | 2.186 | 1.207 | 1.533 | 1.079 | 2.496 | 1.496 | 1.533 100,000 - 249,999 | 2.514 1.388 1.763, 1.712 2.595, 1.496 1.763 250,000 3.527] 1.916 | 2.073] 2.712] 3.6h0 | 1.496] 2.473 Overall, 1.800 +994 | 1.256 -882 | 1.858 9283] 1.262 Fun e = California, Idsho, Nevada and Oregon. = Towa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, W:Dakota, S.Dakota & Wyoming. Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, N.Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas & Utah. = Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginie. 5 = Delaware, Illinois, Indians, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, W.Virginia & Wisconsin. 6 = Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Veruont.COST OF MUNICIPAL COLLECTION SEWERS Sanitary sewer systems vhich collect wastewater from individual @vellings comprise several components starting with the house sever. ‘This house drainage plumbing empties into the street or lateral sewer. Branch sewers receive sewage from a few laterals ina small area and empty into @ sub-main sewer which, in turn, empties into @ trunk sewer--these sewers in conjunction with manholes make up the so-called collection sever system which is exclusive of interceptor and outfall sewers, For the purpose of this study, force mains and pumping stations are considered as part of the interceptor system. Isard and Coughin(3) developed a collection sewer cost model based on population density (persons per acre), Their model showed exponential decrease in unit cost ($ per capita) with increased population density (persons/acre), These two variables, consequently, plot as a straight line on logerithmic paper. Although analysis of lend use parameters in terms of population density and average daily flow per acre is the best vay to accurately determine size and subsequent cost of sewers, a correlation between population served and installed cost in 100 communities yields order-of-megnituie cost estimates of collection sewer systems on an overall populetion basis. Tables XV and XVI and Figure 9 give the results of the correlation of logarithm of the total cost with the reciprocal of the logarithm of the Population served. As throughout this report common logarithms (base 10) are used.Following is o rough comparison of given per capita cost levels as related to population density (Coughlin-Isard study) and population served (2rom the sbove Tables): Per Capita Cost © Fopuletion Population Density 1968 $) Served eople/acre) 50 25,000 36 100 7,500 1s 200 800 6.TABLE XV CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF COLLECTION SEWERS IN SMALL COMMUNITIES nq" . Point Estimates for Cost of Collection Sewers Construction Cost (Dollars) Population Expected Served Lower Limit Expected Values Upper Limit Per Capite Cost 250 49,900 69,100 106,000 216 500 T1300 119,000 183,000 238 750 101,000 155,000 239,000 206 1,000 120,000 184,000 283,000 18h 1,250 135,000 207,000 319,000 166 "B Regression Rquatiion Log ¥ = 6.9529 - 5.0685. : Togk Where ¥ = Total Installed Cost (1968 $) X = Population Served Valid Size Range = 100 - 1,250 Sample Size = 57 projects lower Limit Ratio = 0.65 Upper Limit Ratio = 1.54 Correlation Coefficient = - 0.85TABLE XVI CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF COLLECTION SEWERS IN INTERMEDIATE SIZE COMMUNITIES Point Estimates for Cost of Collection Sewers Construction Costs (Dollars) Population Expected Served Jower Limit Expected Values Upper Limit Per Capita Cost 2,500 236,000 AU, 000 T2k,000 166 5,000 356,000 624,000 1,090,000 125 7,500 43h, 000 762,000 1,340,000 102 * 10,000 4495 ,000 868,000 11,520,000 & 25,000 712,000 1,250,000 2,190,000 50 nt Regression Equation og Y = 7.6979 - 7.0382 Toek Where Y = Total Installea cost (1968 $) X = Population Served Valid Size Range = 1,500 ~ 25,000 Sample Size = 9h projects Lower Limit Ratio = 0.57 Upper Limit Ratio = 1.75 Correlation Coefficient = - 0.77FIGURE 9. Population Served Correlation of Collection Sewer Cost with Population ServedThe population densities for the above ranges in costs varies from thet categorized for low density residential to high density residential. Both procedures, although on a different basis, produce cost estimates of the same order of magnitude, INSTALLED COST PER MILE A gross approach to a non-definitive estimate of interceptor cost is the analysis of cumulative cost per mile vs. the largest diameter pipe used in a particular project (most interceptor projects use 3-K different size pipes). Moreover, with other costs in the date, there is a more integrated cost picture as shown in Figure 10, including Teble XVII. For exemples of the number manholes used with interceptors are plotted in Figure 11, In spite of this different approach, the resulting cost curves are similar to the refined unit cost curves discussed earlier in the report--both showing the geometric progression effect of diameter on pipe cost per unit length installed. Converting the largest diameter in an interceptor project to a flow-capacity value end comparing this to cost-per-mile forms another statistical relationship as shown in Figure 12. ‘This is termed "log-linear" or exponential, a rather comuon type of association between cost and capacity.» oF TABLE‘ XYII, COST PER MILE OF INTERCEPTORS Point Estimates Targest Pipe Tustalled Cost (1967 Dollars) Diameter (inches) Tower Limit, Expected Value | Upper Limit 8 $ 26,800 $ 42,900 $ 65,800 20 29,600 46,300 72,00 12 32,800 52,300 80,500 5 38,100 59,600 93,600 18 4,400 69,400 109,000 2h 60,200 glt000 348,000 30 81,300 127,000 199,000 36 123,000 176,000 252,000 he 141,000 202,000 289,000 48 162,000 231,000 330,000 oh 185,000 261,000 378,000 60 207,000 296,000 423,000 12 279,000 398,000 569,000 90 427,000 596,000 852,000 Regression Equations Correlation Size Range Equation Coefficient Sample Size __ inches) (Projects*) 8 - 30 Log ¥ = 0.0219 + 4.47 0.75 aL 36 - 90 Tog Y = 0.0098X + 4.893 0.73 ub Where Y = Installed Cost ($/mile) of Entire Project X = Nominal Pipe Diameter (in.) of largest pipe laid. * Projects requiring force mains and pumping stations excluded from estimate preparation. 21pone +) Nominal Diameter of Largest Pipe (in, NSTALLED. COST PER MILE BASED ON LARGEST DIAMETER OF. INTERCEPTOR PIPE PIGURE_10._1ah I I OL) YaBUeT zogdadcequT fees TOT seToumeH Jo° requ TeI0L(p8u) woqsks acydooaoqul uy adtg 4saB107 yo Ayyoedeg — . 000'T, vot ot a ot “ 1 ‘pau /eTTu/oos‘€$ 9800 47uN’ piu /oTTW/000'oS$ 3809 | iu eB , 4@ a i obt i % i ¥ fe soyouy 06 5 000°T ¢ s “ 3 adyg ysoBe7 yo ze49WeTG vo posal eTyA aad 490g aoydeoseqUI “Bt aunoldRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COST AND CAPACITY The study so fer primarily correlates cost of a unit length of pipe with single dinensions, i.e., the depth of trench and the dianeter of pipe. By converting the diameter dimension to a volune-capacity equivalent, an exponential relationship evolves as indicated previously in Figure 12. This relationship was tested again by converting to "equivalent carrying capacities" with 12" = 100 by using handbook") values, and calculating unit length costs at an installed depth of 0-6 feet for the various Gieneters. ‘the resulting data, plotted in Figure 13 gives the log-linear exponential relationship between installed cost per foot and relative carrying capacity. A characteristic of this "log-linear" relationship is thet each doubling of capacity increases cost by a uniform percentage. The approximate percentage cost increases taken from this plot are as follows for each doubling of capacity: Reinforced clay _Cast. Concrete Smaller Diameters 30 2h 236 Larger Diemeters 90% 556 eke With these nondefinitive estimates, the trend, per se, for increase in cost with capacity is less in the smaller diameter ranges with a doubling in capacity costing only 30 more for clay pipe up to 18-inch diameter, while above this pipe diameter, a 904 increase in cost buys a double capacity. Engineers generally concede that vitrified cley pipe isrelatively expensive in lerger diameters. The curves in Figure 12 show this graphically. Conversely, the economy-of-scale is high and ‘the cost low for this type of pipe in smaller diameters attesting to the need for careful economic analysis of each construction situation to select the optimum diameter and type of pipe. The uniform “cost-expansion" factor within a fairly broad range of diameters for a given type of pipe should provide e useful tool for sewer system cost analysis.* cost-capacity Relationships FIGURE 13. for Different Diameters and Types of Plants (oar fe) Vitrified Clay undod ‘97 a-n 28 1800 DeTTENSUT Cast Iron sore pepe Concrete Lio ftatorcea i | | Inch diameter - 36 eerie 30 FFF e FO Relative Carrying Capacity (4)3 LOCATION FACTORS . There are other determinative factors that affect interceptor cost other then depth of cut and diameter of pipe. Soil type at the construction sites can vary from plastic clay to almost pure send. Some areas with high water tebles require extensive well-pointing. Rock excavation is very expensive compared to normal soil excavation. Table XVIII, accordingly, illustrates the order-of-magnitude effect of special installation require- ments, which increase unit costs in some cases by e factor of ten. A study published in 1964 of sewer installation costs stated thet pipe-in-trench accounts for only 46.624 of the overall cost with only 25.5% of this fraction going for the pipe itselt.(5) go iiustrate, three recent large interceptor projects were noted to have the following percentages of pipe cost: Cost of Pipe Project Cost (percent) $ 426,000 25 61,332,000 7 "2,134,000 5SIBTTOT QQ6T UOTE x queueswoug ‘uz-9F EQ" HOT e°6 UOZT 4889 YOUT-OT poaog Of "SE 00°S uosy 46% youT-g Bursep ur z0°9S Soret oar 4sep youT-gt pasog JE"06 £6°6 uoxT 4889 yDUT-2T snosrbeaqng BH'99 £6°42 edtg [e709 peqwIns109 yoUT-Te pesvour pue pasog sth 26°E quausp soysoqsy youT-g snosn taqng o1'eg $ Teg $ wort BTFIONC YoUT-ZT C3578) C3578) UOTIBTTAISUL , UOT|TPYCD suOT|TPUCD yadeq etTqeaeduog adtg yo ad4y, yetoady Jo AnsuTpsowayg ge SuoTaTpUCD uoyady2990q stpun_4809 xAzeurp10 29pun 3800 TS00 GHTIVESNI NO SNOISIGNOO NOLIVTIVISNT RAVNIGUOVELME G0 MOGGEM “ITTAK STEVETHE COS? OF PUMPING STAPTONS Pumping stations are installations which pump or lift sewage from a lower level in a sever system into a higher sewer or a receiving chenber for transportation to a treatment plant or point of discharge. Most municipalities find it necessary or economical to pump et least part of their sanitary sewage. Pumping stations are cheaper than laying sewers at increasingly greater depths. The topography of the area of a sewer systen my require the systen to include several snall pumping stations at various points and one or more large stations. A sewage pumping station hes a wet well, which receives the sewege, and a dry well, in which are placed the pumps, motors, and switches. A house is usually placed over the dry well, although some small stations are placed entirely underground. Most pumping stations have a mumber of pumps of various capacities. he array of pumps are necessary to permit flexibility of operation to meet verious rates of sewage flow with reserve pump capacity to allow for breakdowns. The stations are usually lighted and ventilated; heating’ is also required in more severe climates. Standby power generators and remote alara and flowmeter systems are other auxillary equipment that can affect the cost of pumping station installations. This section of the interceptor study provides cost information vhich can be used in preparing preliminary estimates of investment required for a puuping station (connected to a municipal interceptor-force main sewer system) in terms of:pesk sewage flow, installed pump capacity, number of pumps, and actual construction contract cost. A simple linear regressione -2- analysis vas utilized to assess the effect on cost of total available pump capacity and pesk flow on installed cost of pumping stations. The resulting cost estimates includes the complete installed construction cost for the station but excludes the cost of acquiring the station site or right-of-way. Date for the analysis were extracted from FWQA project contract files. Most contract statements were for builders to furnish and install complete, factory-built automatic stations with all necessary equipment factory-installed and factory-tested. The principle items of equipment usually include:pumps and motors or compressors, valves, internal piping, central control panel with circuit breakers, motor stations and automatic level controllers, lighting, sump pup, motor driven ventilation, dehumidifier, end all internal wiring. The unit cost data secured from project records was converted from a regional basis to a national basis and then updated from construction time to April 1970 dollars by using the Sewer Construction Cost index. A considerable variation in project-to-project costs of pumping stations was observed with no real clue to the explanation of the variences. However, there exists some statistically significant relationships between total costs and totel installed pump capacity2/ that allows crude estimation of the investment required for station costs. Y/ Total installed pump-cepacity is the sum of the capacity of individual pumps in the station, Capacities less than 500 gpm -had 1-2 pumps.Tables XIX and XX contain the results of the log-linear regression analysis; while the corresponding Figure 1! shows the costs for pumping stations up to 500 gpm and over 500 gpm, respectively. This graphic analysis (Figure 14) indicates that cost is an exponential function of the variable "total capacity.” These figures indicate a tfend without. a wide scatter. Not shown were several scatterdiagrams of cost versus the highest single pump capacity, and cost versus average sewage design flow. In both cases the data points were too widely scattered to Justify further analysis.TABLE XIX . ve RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR CONSTRUCTION costs OF PUMPING STATIONS an Point Estimates for Cost of Pumping Stations Up To 500 GPM Capacity Design Unit Construction Costs (April 70 Dollars) Flow (Gem) Lower Limit Expected Values Upper Limit 100 11,326 15,470 21,132 200 14, 752 20,150 27,525 300 19,628 26,810 36,622 400 22,658 30,950 42,278 500 25,332 3,600 47,264 op Regression Equation Log ¥ = —.5000 (10g x) + 3.1896 Where Y= Cost _per Pumping Station X= Installed capacity GPM Valid Size Range = 50 - 500 GEM Sample Size = 13 Lower Limit Ratio = 27321 Upper Limit Ratio = 1,366 Correlation Coefficient = .78TABLE XX RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF PUMPING STATIONS nan Point Estimates for Cost of Pumping Stations of more than 500 gun Capacity Pee) “ire inte “geal talus tu ne ‘700 27,807 46,633 78,204 800 31,12. 52,190 87,523 1,000 37,501 62,890 105,467 1,200 43,689, 73,267 122, 869 1,500 52,653 88, 300 148,079 3,000 9k ,096 157,800 264,631 5,000 ‘Ub, bole 2x2, 200 406,169 110,000 257,959 432,600 125,470 12,000 300, 237 503,500 hk, 370 upt Regression Bou Tog Y = — .8373(1ogx) + 2.2868 Where ¥ = Cost per Pumping Station x Installed Capacity (gpm) Valid Size Range = 700 ~ 12,000 gm Semple Size Lower Limit Ratio Upper Limit Ratio Correlation Coefficient ay +5963 = 1.677 = 87Figure i Regression Line of Unit Cost vs. Total Pumping Capacity (Under 500 gpm and over 500 gpm) * 580" 7 "00 Total Capacity - Gallons per MinutePeak Flow Regression Analysis A log-linear regression analysis was also performed using peak sewage flow, which the stations are designed to transport, as the Independent varleble. Figure 15 is a graphic representation of the sample, the regression line derived, and the upper and lower limits. Table XT shows the results in deta{l including a very high corveletion coefficient (0.96). Table XXIZ is a comparison of cost estinates generated by the regression equations developed. ‘The estimates are for various gpm peak flows and pump capacities. he first column of estinates is based on formilee in a report of Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Ine. (anv). (6) ‘The AMV formilae was converted from a cfs to gum basis. ‘A fair comparison can be made between the AMY and FHA peak flow estimates since they seldom vary more than 20% of each other, as shown by Figure 6. One differing aspect of the AMV estimates is thet they reportedly include land cost which should, in reality, cause the AMV costs to be higher than the -FWQA estinates. Further observation of the FiMA cost estimating analyses indicated that for the peek flow regression; as the flow is doubled, costs increased ty approximately 71%. For the installed cepecity regression (up to 500 em) a doubling of the capacity increases costs 1s and approxinately 80f for . the 500 gim and over regression. ALL three of these expansion factors Andicate econony-of-scale in pumping station installations.(mda) ognury zd suottep - mots aeeq 000%0T 000‘T (18) note aeed “eA 3809 3700 Jo SUPT uoTSseaBoE \ St sane oot 4809 qTun - uorzeag SupdumgTABLE 207 RESULIS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS . OF PUMPING STATIONS Point Estimates for Cost of Stations vs. Peak Flow ‘Peak Construction Costs (Apr 70) Dollars Flow ‘Expected, (Gem) Lover Limit Values Upper Limit 100 10,911 15,035 20,718 300 25,516 35,160 48,450 500 37,853 52,160 71,876 800 5h, 428 75,000 103,350 1000 64,696, 89,150 122,849 1200 74,493 102,650 152 1500 88,100 121,400 167,289 3000 151,098 208,210 286,913 5000 22h 648 309,560 126,57 12,000 ka bog 608,280 838,210 ge Regression Equation Log ¥ = _.7730 (og x) + 2.6321 Where ¥ Cost per Puitping Station x Peak Flow (GPM) Valid Size Range © - 12,000 GPM Sample Size = 18 Lower Limit Ratio = 7257 Upper Limit Ratio = 1.376 Correlation Coefficient NRTABLE _XOCTT COMPARISON ~ PEAK FLOW AND INSTALLED PUMP CAPACITY FWQA VS, ALAN M, VOORHEES AND ASSOCIATES COST ESTIMATING RELATIONSHIPS FH AMV® Total Installed ort Peak Flow x Cay 100 19,399 15,035 15,470 300 45 ,2bh, 35,160 26,810 500 53,829 52,160 3h, 600 800 50,406 75,000 52,190 1,000 62,651 89,150 62,890 1,200 Th, 750 102,650 73,267 1,500 92,633 121,00 88, 300 3,000 177,198 208,210 157, 800 5,000 2TT hor 309,560 2lk2, 200 12,000 515,199 608, 280 503,500 * Includes cost of land.Figure 16 Comparison of FWQA and Alan M, Voorhees & Assocs., Inc.* Peak Flow Estimating Relationships I *5,006 ”*1bjooo Peak Flow (gpm) Includes Cost of Land pee cia piFUTURE PRICE ESCALATTON Most of the cost equations developed in this study used the sewer construction cost index of FW0A for conversion to a conmon basis. ‘The exception is the"dollers-per-mile" relationship which used raw cost data without adjustment to a base date. Some fairly recent cost index values are in Table IX. However, for most cost estimates even current cost indexes are not sufficient because many months usually elapse before the first bid quotations are received. For this reason, Figure 17 shows past trends in the sewer cost index and attempts from these to extrapolate into the near-term. Although actual future price escalation may or may not exhibit a constent ratio of increase with time as did the previous two indicated trends, the predicted values should suffice through 1970. A regression analysis of trend lines similar to Figure 17 gave the following equations indicating the varying rates of change in escalation: Period Equation Sept, 1963 - Dec. 1965 ¥ = 133 (2,0026)* Jan, 1966 - Dec. 1967 ¥ = 128 (1.0028)* Sept. 1968 - Jan. 1970 ¥ = 131 (1.0055)* Sept. 1969 - June 1970 Y = 1h0 (1.0055)* Where Y = Sewer Construction Cost Index X 100 X = Months in perioa The above equations show a monthly escalation of the National sewer cost index ranging from 0.16% in 1964 to 0.55% a month at present.6 Calendar Year : OeCoNcTusTONS Im spite of being exploratory and limited in time (and corresponding amount of data) this study indicates that interceptor costs follow certain statistical patterns. These different relationships for installed interceptor cost per unit length were observed: ae 2 Installed pipe cost per unit length increases at a constant ratio with pipe diameter at a constant depth of cut and within a given range of diameters. After a certain diemeter is reached, the ratio of increase in unit length cost with diameter changes. This is related to a change in the rate of increase in weight per unit length with diameter, Tnstalled pipe cost per unit length increases exponentially with pipe capacity at a constant depth of cut. This means that each doubling ‘of capacity within a given diameter renge increases pipe cost by a uniform percentage. This exponential relationship depends on a range in pipe sizes for after @ certain pipe dianeter is reached, ‘there is a higher exponential rate of cost increase with capacity.4 These cost-size associations characterize economy-of-scale because of pipe diameter. For example, analysis of projects with the largest interceptor dianeter equivalent to 1.0 med capacity indicate a cost of approximately $50;000/mile/mga while projects with 100 mgd lines going to the treatment plant average $3,500/nile/mgd, @ considerably lover unit- capacity cost of installation. There is, however, little evidence of any economy-of-scale for interceptor construction cost because of total length of lines. The ratio of total wastewater treatment plant cost to interceptor cost (including other ancillary works) varies according to the design population of the plant or the population of the community served. In low population areas (e.g., 1,000) the ancillary works are about one-third the cost of a new plant, at 25,000 population the costs are approximately equal while at 100,000 the ancillary works are approximately 1.5 times the plant cost. Collection sewer unit costs (per capita basis) are very sensitive to population (total population served and popula- tion density). Very small areas (250 population) have over five times the per capita cost than large communities (25,000 population).Actual pipe cost is rarely over 10-15 percent of total cost for large municipal interceptor projects. In fact, the base pipe-in-trench cost itself is usually only about one-third to one-half the total cost of interceptor projects. Special installation requirements such as crossing roads, railroads or river beds increase cost per unit length almost ten fold over pipe~in-trench requiring common excavation and normal ‘back fill.Bavdrensontal. Pestesh ea Ave Be Mea 25 - Chiesesy B22"REFERENCES Bosworth, C.A., "Installed Costs of Outside Piping." Chemical Engineering, (March 25, 1968). “Sewer and Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index." CWE-1, page 52, Federal Water Quality Administration, (December 1967). Isard, Walter and Coughlin, R.E., "Municipal Costs and Revenues Resulting from Community Growth." Changler-Davis Publishing Company, 1957. National Cley Pipe Institute, "Cley Pipe Engineering Manual.” Federal Water Quality Administration, op. cit., p.18ff. Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc., "Sewer System Cost Estimation Model." (April 1967).a Agency