agenda 2015 1. - concrete pipe committee agenda pipe... · agenda technical committee american...

Agenda Technical Committee

American Concrete Pipe Association Pipe School

March 6, 2015

1. 8:00am – 8:10am: General

a. Call to Order

b. Roll Call – See Attachment 1 for the Roster

c. Antitrust Statement

The American Concrete Pipe Association assigns the highest priority to full

compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the antitrust law, and it is vital

that this meeting be conducted in a manner consistent with that policy. It is

Association policy that members shall not discuss prices, bids, market allocation,

production capacities or output, or any other matters relating to competition

among the members. If at any time during the course of the meeting, ACPA

staff believe that a sensitive topic under the antitrust laws is being discussed, or

is about to be discussed, they will so advise the meeting and halt further

discussion. As attendees at this meeting, you should likewise not hesitate to

voice any concerns you may have in this regard

It is important to bear in mind that those in attendance at this meeting may be

your competitors. Any discussions of commercial matters with one’s

competitors may create the appearance of an antitrust violation, even though

there is none. Therefore, such discussions should be avoided.

2. 8:10am – 10:45am: Task Group Updates

a. Design and Standards (40 min)

Chair ‐ Tyson Hicks Vice Chair – Ashley Wilson

Oliver Delery, Joe Lundy, Edwin Kling, Hugh Martin, Bruce Spatz, Chuck Curry, Wayne Hodge, Ryan Finley, Jake Jyrkama, Pardeep Sharma, Mark Webb

i. Arema Specifications for Pipe and Box update (David Matocha) – Revisions are

close to being finalized. Group will be updated with any changes.

ii. Army Corp of Engineering Standards Revisions (Walt Catlett)

1. Paul Dicker contacted Walt informing him that the consultant that

reviews “requests for revision” is finally reviewing our submittal. He

expects them to reach out to us for clarification of our

RFR. Additionally, since we kept our RFR focused on our product

specifically and not competitor products, the process will go

smoother/quicker.



March 6, 2015

iii. Box Culvert Standards (Josh Beakley)

1. ASTM C1577 and AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specification correlation – Item

to be developed in the next month.

2. ASTM Segmental Box Culvert Standard updates – The updates are

finished and open for comments.

iv. Rigid Culvert Liaison Live Load Ballot Items from KU research update (Josh – 5

min)

v. ASCE (10 min)

1. ASCE LRFD Box Culvert Standard

2. Benefits of ASCE Design Standards transferring to ASTM – Kim will

follow up with ASCE following the Pipe School.

vi. Sloped Trench Design Update for Pipe School (Josh Beakley – 5 min)

vii. Updated PIPECAR Live Load Equations (Attachment 2 – 15 min)

1. Josh Beakley has put together equations to model the latest LRFD

Standards in PIPECAR

viii. Manhole Reducing Cone Limits Suggested language (Matt Jackson – 5 min)

1. Suggested language is “cones are not intended to be deeply buried”

b. Technical Resources (35 min)

Chair ‐ Wayne Hodge Mike Blackham, Steve Gentry, Corey Haeder, George Hand, Jake Jyrkama, Mel Marshall, Hugh Martin, Larry Miller, Ed Page, Brian Schram, Ryan Finley

i. The design data will be continually updated.

1. DD 26 formerly DD22 has missing information and needs to be

reviewed.

2. DD3 need to be updated to show the height of cover originating from

the bottom of the rail. DD3 currently states height originating from

bottom of tie.

3. This year’s DD to be reviewed are DD's 1, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18.

ii. CP Info on Concrete Pipe Durability needs to be reviewed and updated. (Kim – 5

min)

iii. ET Culvert (Josh and Brian Barngrover – 10 min)

iv. Update on Pipecar’s future with Eriksson Technologies (Josh – 10 min)



March 6, 2015

1. Task Group to aid Brian Barngrover include Matt Jackson, Wayne

Hodge, Corey Haeder, Joe Zicaro and Josh Beakley

2. A review session to walk through the direct design equations needs to

be set‐up

v. Pipepac Update ‐ The latest Live Load bedding factors need to be incorporated

into PIPEPAC. Discuss updating and whether there should be an option to use

the current or new factors. (Attachment) (Josh – 5 min)

vi. ACPA Apps updates – The Apps can be found on the App Store for Apple devices

or the Android Market. The list of Apps can be found at http://www.concrete‐

pipe.org/pages/apps.html

vii. Concrete Pipe Handbook‐ The handbook is still a lower priority item until

significant changes need to be made.

c. Competitive Products (15 min)

Chair ‐ David Matocha Oliver Delery, Jeff Hite, Enrico Stradiotto

i. Monitoring Trends of the Plastic Industry

ii. Pipe Failure Database

1. Corey Fraser is putting the database on Smartsheet for easier access to

members.

iii. Tubecon Stiffness Testing on Polypropylene Update – Nathalie Lastnier will

update the committee when testing begins.

iv. ACPA Polypropylene Research Update – A researcher is still being determined to

perform the testing.

v. Competitive Products Task Group Volunteers (Corey H – 5 min)

d. Research (40 min)

Chair ‐ Hugh Martin

Oliver Delery, Ryan Finley, Bob Folser, Steve Gentry, Corey Haeder, Mel Marshall, Joe Lundy, Bruce Spatz, Wayne Hodge, Mark Webb, Heidi Helmink

i. Proposed



March 6, 2015

1. Corrosion in Cracked Concrete – (Group – 20 min)

ii. Funded

1. Joints Research by Ian Moore – Final report is out for review by the

panel. Once it is approved, there will be a suggested AASHTO Materials

Standard for Joint Testing.

2. Bidding of Alternate Materials – The schedule has be received to

develop a computer program from their research.

3. Service Life of Drainage Structures – There is not industry involved with

the research. It is a synthesis topic surveying DOT and others.

4. Culvert Inspection Manual – (Al Hogan)

5. Large Diameter Thin Wall RFCP ‐ (Josh – 5 min) Most of the testing has

been completed and FEM Analysis will be performed to determine

effective variables.

6. Long Term Strength of FRCP– (Josh – 5 min) ‐ This research is still being

developed by Dr. Abolmaali

7. Shear in Long Span Box Culverts– (Josh – 10 min) UTA plans to have a

report by the Annual Convention.

iii. Research Ideas

1. Lightweight Aggregate

2. Admixtures Released by Concrete Crack

e. Joints (15 min)

Chair ‐ Ed Page Joe Lundy, Oliver Delery, Corey Haeder, Wayne Hodge, Mark Webb, Pardeep Sharma, Weldon Marshall, Jim Skinner

i. Review Joint Drawings (Ed page – 5 min) Attachment 3

ii. Research Proposal update for Joints in Thin Wall Pipe (Pardeep Sharma – 10

min)

1. Develop an array of joint for manufacturers to select from

2. Gravity

3. Pressure tested

3. 10:45am – 11:15am: New Business (20 min)



March 6, 2015

a. Discuss having Jesse Beaver give a 30 minute presentation at Committee Week on what

research SG&H can provide to benefit the ACPA. (Kim Spahn – 5 min)

b. Electrokinetic nanoparticle treatments applied to concrete pipe from Henry Cardenas

research at Louisiana Tech University. (Attachment 4 – review and if interested contact

Corey F)

c. Modulus based soil QC vs compaction, moisture and density ‐ RNS on AFS40 committee

– how would this impact SIDD – (Corey H – 5 min) Attachment 5

4. 11:20am – 11:50 am: Presentations (30 min)

a. Presentation from MI DOT personnel on Michigan Pipe Study (30 min)



March 6, 2015

Attachment 1 – Roster



March 6, 2015

Attachment 2 – Pipecar Live Load Equations

Recently AASHTO incorporated new live load bedding factors into the design of concrete pipe. AASHTO has never contained equations in it from which to calculate the live load moments using the direct design method. However, until the live load bedding factors were recently revised in AASHTO, the previous live load bedding factors were developed using the same direct design method that is utilized in PIPECAR. Thus there was never a problem with the indirect and direct design moments being equivalent. One very important thing to keep in mind with the newest bedding factors, is that AASHTO incorporated them as a compromise to the concrete pipe industry. The DOT’s knew their live load distribution was incorrect, but did not want to admit it, so they tweaked the bedding factors to try and make things work. Thus, there is really no technical justification for the current live load bedding factors in AASHTO. However, in order to keep agreement amongst the direct and indirect design method, we are revising our live load moment equations in accordance with the latest live load bedding factors.

1

These are the latest live load bedding factors in AASHTO. They are higher than the previous bedding factors, which maxed out at 2.2. As was already mentioned, the bedding factors were increased to reduce the effect of the live load on the pipe, which is now more concentrated than in previous versions of AASHTO. Thus, the current AASHTO live load design method results in very high live loads (which the concrete pipe industry has told AASHTO are unreasonable) and AASHTO is trying to correct for this by increasing the live load bedding factors to reduce the effect of the live load on the pipe. The goal here is to develop direct design equations for the live load applications in AASHTO that will result in moments that correlate to these bedding factors (knowing that the bedding factor is a function of the moment in the pipe in the field to the moment in the pipe in the three‐edge bearing test)

2

We will start out with the 2.2 bedding factor, which applies to all pipe 30 inches and greater at all fill heights. If we assume the live load application over the top 120 degrees of the pipe, and that the bedding reaction occurs at the bottom 120 degrees of the pipe, then we get a 2.2 bedding factor for the live load. In thinking about how we justify using this load distribution, the first justification is simply that the results match the 2.2 bedding factor in AASHTO; keeping in mind that there is not a strong technical justification for this bedding factor to begin with. However, another potential consideration, is that this bedding factor applies to the larger diameter pipes, and with the tire footprint above them, it is likely that the load may not spread over the entire diameter for shallow pipe, where live load is most critical anyway. It is true that we are not taking credit for any lateral pressure from live load, but once again, if the axle is directly over the pipe, then under shallow situations, there will probably not be any lateral live load.

3

Using the 120 degree load distribution at the top and bottom of the pipe, the resultant moment coefficient at both the invert and the crown is 0.144. If we take the moment coefficient for the three‐edge bearing test and divide it by the moment in the field, then we get the live load bedding factor of 2.2. Thus, we match the AASHTO bedding factor.

4

This is really the critical part in terms of how we incorporate equations in the PIPECAR program that give the equivalent bedding factor. The bedding factor deals with the maximum moment at either the invert or the crown of the pipe. PIPECAR needs an equation for the moments, thrusts, and shears all the way around the pipe. Thus, for PIPECAR we are not simply putting in a single moment coefficient, but an entire equation for each one of these design values. This slide shows the equations for moment and thrust that would be used for live load on pipe sizes of 30 inches at any depth. Directly above the equations are the graphs of their results around the circumference of the pipe. Simply put, the highest moments are at the invert, crown, and springline as expected, and the thrusts is maximum at the springline as expected.

5

Above is the shear equation when applying the uniform load across 120 degrees of the top and bottom of the pipe. The maximum shear value occurs at 45 degrees, and 135 degrees. However, at this location the moment is very small. Thus, when you follow the direct design requirement of evaluating the ratio of the moment to shear values, the critical location for designing shear is somewhere inbetween 20 and 25 degrees from the invert. This is consistent with most uniform load designs. In running some evaluations which are included later, the shear value from live load was never high enough to govern over the flexure limit state when an AASHTO HL‐93 load was applied.

6

The second bedding factor we are looking at is 2.4 for the pipe diameters less than 30 inches, and fill heights equal to or greater than 2 feet. This value is only slightly higher than the 2.2 value that was just analyzed, and only requires an additional spreading of the load to achieve it. In large diameter pipe under shallow fills, it is often the crown of the pipe that governs live load design. However, since this bedding factor is for smaller diameter pipe under at least 2 feet of fill, I think it is appropriate to have the 150 degree loading angle at the top, and the 120 degree bedding angle below. When using the 1.15 live load distribution, at 2 feet below the soil the live load spread would be 1.15 x 24 inches + 10 inches = 37.6 inches, which is wider than the outside diameter of the pipe. Thus, I think the load application is appropriate for this bedding factor. It matches the bedding factor for the indirect design method, which is the first justification of it. Secondly, it uses a 120 degree bedding, essentially assuming that you can’t get good compaction under the entire bottom of the pipe, and uses a 150 degree load application at the top that accounts for a relatively wide spread of the load in comparison to the small diameter of the pipe.

7

Using the 150 degree load distribution at the top and the 120 degree reaction at the bottom of the pipe, the resultant moment coefficient at the invert is 0.133. If we take the moment coefficient for the three‐edge bearing test and divide it by the moment in the field, then we get the live load bedding factor of 2.4. Thus, we match the AASHTO bedding factor.

8

These are the equations that would be incorporated into PIPECAR for pipe sizes less than 30 inches in diameter, and at a depth of 2 ft. or greater. Directly above the equations are the graphs of their results around the circumference of the pipe. The highest moment is at the invert, as noted earlier, and the thrust is maximum at the springline.

9

Above is the shear equation when applying the uniform load across the top 150 degrees, and across the bottom 120 degrees of the pipe. The maximum shear value occurs at 45 degrees. However, at this location the moment is very small. Thus, when you follow the direct design requirement of evaluating the ratio of the moment to shear values, the critical location for designing shear is somewhere inbetween 20 and 25 degrees from the invert. This location is consistent with the results from the equations used for the other two bedding factors. In running some evaluations which are included later, the shear value from live load was never high enough to govern over flexure when an AASHTO HL‐93 load was applied.

10

The third and final bedding factor we are looking at is 3.2 for pipe diameters less than 30 inches, and fill heights less than 2 feet. This value is quite‐a‐bit higher than the previous values of 2.2 and 2.4. As previously mentioned, the bedding factors were developed to help offset the poor soil/pipe distribution of the live load provided in AASHTO. Since the pipe is under shallow fill, there is very little live load distribution before it reaches the pipe. Since the pipe is small diameter, and the live load distribution in AASHTO is a function of the pipe diameter, there is also very little live load distribution assumed within the pipe. Thus, the live load bedding factor must be relatively high to offset the errors in these AASHTO design assumptions. You can not get a bedding factor of 3.2 by simply spreading the load across the entire top and bottom of the pipe. You must include some lateral pressure to get a bedding factor this high. I seemed the most reasonable thing to do was to keep the 120 degree loading and bedding angle used for the 2.2 bedding factor and apply a lateral load. We could increase the load and reaction angle to 180 degrees, but we would still need to apply a lateral pressure, and would get essentially the same results. Thus, I kept the vertical reactions at 120 degrees, and utilized a lateral pressure over 120 degrees of the pipe (for ease of calculation) and calculated the lateral pressure ratio required to get a bedding factor of 3.2. The resulting lateral pressure is 0.235 of the vertical live load pressure.

11

In the calculation of the previous two bedding factors, neither the three‐edge bearing test, or the live load pressure applied any lateral force to affect the amount of tension in the reinforcing steel in the invert. However, for this case, we are assuming lateral pressure on the pipe, which in turn results in a compressive thrust at the invert that must be taken into account in the development of our bedding factor. This is accomplished by using Equation 8 in Design Data #9, “Standard Installations and Bedding Factors for the Indirect Design Method”. This is the same equation used to develop all the bedding factors for the Standard Installations. Using this equation, with the previously displayed pressure distribution gives us the bedding factor of 3.2.

12

These are the equations and graphs representing the results from incorporating the 120 degree load application at the top and bottom of the pipe, along with applying a lateral pressure of 0.235 times the vertical pressure on the middle 120 degrees at the side of the pipe. Obviously, the moments are lower than the other bedding factors for the same vertical load (a higher bedding factor results in a lower moment in the field). Additionally, as can be seen on the graph for the thrust values, there is now beneficial thrust at the invert and crown of the pipe. As mentioned previously, a 3.2 bedding factor could not be obtained without the benefit of the lateral pressure and its resulting thrust at the invert.

13

The shear values are also lower with this pressure distribution, but the location of maximum shear, and the critical location remain the same.

14

The next several slides will show some graphs of comparisons that I made between the latest AASHTO live load application and design method versus the previous LRFD Design Method. Also, for confirmation of the design equations, there will be some comparisons between the indirect and direct design methods using the proposed equations. One thing to keep in mind, is that these comparisons are for the latest version of AASHTO LRFD versus the previous version of AASHTO LRFD, which included a live load distribution factor of 1.15. I have not gone all the way back to the AASHTO Standard Code, when the live load distribution factor was 1.75. Because I am assisting PennDOT in updating their pipe design to LRFD, all of the comparison graphs you will see are for a Type 1 Installation, which is what they use. In this graph we are comparing the live load used in design of the pipe for the two methods at 1 foot of cover. The new AASHTO loads “Mload” are higher than the previous AASHTO loads using a PIPECAR design “Pload”. We knew this was going to be the case, because the whole intent of the modified bedding factors in AASHTO is to take this higher load and try to reduce its effects down to what we saw in the past AASHTO LRFD Standard. The pipe are only under 1 foot of fill, so distribution through the soil is not the key element here. The primary driver for the difference in the load is the live load spread through the pipe of 1.75 x 0.75 x R that ACPA has always used (and is used in PIPECAR) versus the 0.06 x D spread through the pipe in the newest AASHTO (which results in very little live load distribution through the pipe).

15

Above is the comparison of live moments resulting from the live loads on the previous page. Remember that this is at 1 foot of depth. The live load moments for the pipe diameters of 24 inches and less are basically the same as what they used to be under the old LRFD design. This is because of the really high 3.2 bedding factor (and equivalent moment equation used here) for pipes less than 30 inches, and under less than 2 feet of fill. Once you get to the pipe sizes of 30 inches and greater, the new live load moments are higher than the previous ones due to the dropping of the bedding factor back down to 2.2.

16

This is a comparison of the live load moments from the new AASHTO LRFD vs. the previous version (which includes the ACPA spread through the pipe) for 3 ft. At this point, the comparison is much closer. The new LRFD provisions increase the live load spread for larger diameter pipe, and now that we are 3 feet below the surface, the benefits of that can be seen. Previously, the highest live load bedding factor was 2.2, but we had more distribution through the pipe. For small diameter pipe, the previous distribution through the pipe was not that large, and the increase in bedding factor from 2.2 to the new 2.4 roughly compensates for this. For large diameter pipe, we have lost quite‐a‐bit in terms of how the load spreads through the pipe. However, the previous bedding factors for larger pipe were less than 2.2 at this fill height. Thus, in the latest AASHTO, the larger live load bedding factor, and the increase in the live load distribution through the soil from a uniform 1.15 to an increasing distribution factor up to 1.75 for larger pipe, roughly compensates for the loss of distribution through the pipe itself for the larger sizes.

17

This graph is a comparison I performed simply to see if the live load equations were making sense in comparison to the live load bedding factors. This is the case at 1 foot of fill. The blue line is the D‐load values for the various diameters. The D‐load initially goes down as the pipe diameter increases from 12 inches to 24 inches. It then goes back up at 30 inches because the live load bedding factor greatly reduces at this pipe size. It then trends downward again as pipe diameter increases. There is a slight uptick around 60 inches in diameter. I believe this is primarily a result of the tandem axles having more influence on the larger pipe sizes. It would be impossible for the steel areas to trend the same way as the D‐loads. With an increase in pipe diameter, you get an increase in steel area for the same D‐load (the moment increases as a result of the larger moment arm). However, I tried to normalize this out, by taking the ratio of the required steel area divided by the pipe diameter. That is what is represented by the red line. You can see that it trends the same way as the D‐loads, thus indicating that the live load moment equations (at least at the invert) are following the same trend as the D‐loads.

18

One of the questions we always tend to ask ourselves is, “Are the pipe requirements below a Class III D‐load?”. Our industry has become used to a Class III pipe being sufficient for Highway loads, even when only under 1 foot of fill. This graph represents the results of the latest AASHTO requirements versus a Class III pipe. A key thing to remember here is that this graph was done for a Type 1 Installation. A Type 2 Installation actually gives you better results. The Type 1 Installation in AASHTO requires that you multiply the results by 1.1 to account for the fact that 95% compaction is extremely difficult to achieve (even though no such conservatism is applied to flexible pipe). The unfortunate thing here is that although the soil compaction has basically nothing to do with the live load distribution, AASHTO makes no differentiation between live load and soil load, and the 1.1 factor is applied across all loads. This is something we should address with AASHTO. In looking at this graph and chart, if you take these numbers and divide them by 1.1, that would essentially be your D‐load for a Type 2 Installation. Getting back to the purpose of this graph, it is once again to compare the trend of the D‐loads versus the trend of the required steel areas. The red line represents the ratio of the D‐load to a Class III D‐load. Thus, anything below 1 indicates that a Class III pipe of this size would be sufficient for HL‐93 loading under 1 foot. The blue line represents the ratio of the steel area required for direct design versus the steel area recommended for a Class III pipe in ASTM C76. Once again, if the steel area is less than 1, than it means the direct design pipe would require less steel than a Class III pipe. For the larger sizes, the D‐load and steel area trends are very similar. For the smaller sizes, this is not the case. However, this is not because the recommended direct design equations for live load are incorrect, it is a result of the conservatisms within the direct design process for small diameter pipe that we have all become aware of over the last few years.

19

We have looked at the effect of the new live load design of various pipe sizes under 1 foot of fill. Now we will take a look at individual pipe sizes with increasing fill height. We will start with a 24 inch diameter pipe. The graph above shows the relationship between the old (PIPECAR) version and the new AASHTO live load design method. The blue line (associated with the vertical axis on the right) shows the ratio of the new live loads to the PIPECAR live loads. You see at 1 foot of fill, the new live load is 1.6 times the PIPECAR live load. By the time you get down to 8 feet of fill, the ratio is actually less than 1. This is more than likely because the new AASHTO live load is based on a single lane load only in the perpendicular direction, whereas the old AASHTO live load design included up to 4 lanes, which governed for deeper fills. The red line represents the ratio of steel areas with the new method versus PIPECAR. You can see that at 1 foot of fill, although the live load itself is 1.6 times higher, the steel area required is just under 1. This is a direct result of using the higher 3.2 live load bedding factor that is incorporated into the new AASHTO design for less than 2 feet of fill. Once you get to 2 feet however, the live load bedding factor goes back down to 2.4, and the ratio of the steel areas jumps back up and never makes it below 1.15.

20

This is the same graph, only for a 48 inch pipe. However, this graph is tricky to use as a comparison because the scale of the load ratios (right axis) is different than the scale of the steel area ratios (left axis). At 1 foot of fill, the ratio of the steel areas is roughly 1.4 (red line compared to the left axis) versus 1.55 for the ratio of the live loads (blue line compared to the right axis). This is once again a function of the live load bedding factors. Only, in this case a 48 inch pipe in the previous AASHTO design method would have a bedding factor of 1.5 (accounting for the live load pressure being concentrated over an area less than the outside diameter of the pipe) whereas the new AASHTO live load design method utilizes a bedding factor of 2.2 for all sizes 30 inches and up, and all depths. Thus, the new AASHTO method requires less steel for this pipe size and depth. At 2 feet of fill, the old bedding factor is 2.0 versus once again a value of 2.2 for the new AASHTO Design method. The ratio of loads and the ratio of steel areas are roughly equivalent (even though the load ratio line is higher in the graph) at just over 1.5 for both. At 4 feet of fill, the ratio of the live loads is roughly 1, and the ratio of the steel areas is just over 1. At this point the live load bedding factors in AASHTO are the same (2.2). Technically if the loads are roughly the same, and the bedding factors are roughly the same, you would expect the steel area ratios to be roughly the same. In reviewing the PIPECAR output as you go deeper, the equivalent live load bedding factors go beyond 2.2. This is not in accordance with AASHTO, but I am assuming PIPECAR has been this way for years. It is not that critical because at the point where the PIPECAR live load moments would convert into live load bedding factors greater than 2.2, the live load is not that significant anyway. However, this anamoly in PIPECAR has more to do with the steel areas for the new live load method being higher than the older method than does the difference in the AASHTO design methods and the applied live loads.

21

For the larger diameter pipe, ratio of live loads using the new AASHTO live load design method versus the old AASHTO design method actually goes below 1 at approximately 4 feet. While the live load spread through the pipe is much higher in the old AASHTO design method (using the ACPA spread through the pipe) the higher bedding factors in the new AASHTO method at intermediate depths, and the increased live load distribution for larger diameter pipes (1.75 versus 1.15 for this pipe size) help to keep the steel area ratio from getting too high despite the high ratio of live load at the intermediate fill heights. At deeper fill heights, the increase of the live load spread through the soil results in live loads that are less in the new version of AASHTO than they were for the previous version of AASHTO, even with the higher live load distribution through the pipe in the old method. The steel areas are slightly higher according to these graphs, but once again, this is attributed more to the equivalent live load bedding factors in PIPECAR being higher than the 2.2 values given in AASHTO. Otherwise, the steel area ratios would be roughly the same as the live load ratios.

22



March 6, 2015

Attachment 3 – Joint Drawings



March 6, 2015

Attachment 4 – Electrokinetic Nanoparticle Treatments

Concrete Improvement Technology (LTU ID #2004-25 and 2004-27)

Description

We have developed a practical way to radically enhance precast concrete after it has been cast or to rehabilitate

older concrete to achieve results that are not possible from a traditional mix design. This method involves

electrokinetic nano-scale pozzolan treatment that can penetrate over 12 inches of cover. The process has wide

applications including mitigation of rebar corrosion, concrete strengthening, abrasion toughening, crack

prevention, crack repair, sealing and reversal of sulfate and freeze-thaw damage.

Advantages

Relatively low cost process.

Can be applied to already poured and hardened concrete.

Can be adapted to seal concrete, strengthen concrete, and mitigate corrosion.

Repair and/or radically extend the service life of existing structures to while avoid rebuild costs.

Areas of Application

Corrosion Mitigation:

This process can be utilized to prevent or stop corrosion of reinforcement in concrete structures such

as, roadways, tunnels, pipelines, and building facilities.

Concrete Sealing:

This process can be used to seal concrete structures from water penetration, or chemical migration

with permeability reductions that are as high as a factor of 10,000 achieved several inches deep.

Concrete Strengthening:

The process can also be used to improve the strength of hardened concrete, accelerate the hardening

or hardening to specific areas.

Patent Status

Two pending patent applications covering different aspects of the invention ranging from strength

enhancement to corrosion protection.

Current Pilot Projects

Super abrasion resistant concrete (Louisiana, 2 locations)

Chloride removal and corrosion prevention in concrete (UK)

City of Shreveport water/waste water systems rehab

Counter systems, Sidney Australia

A MEMBER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM

OFFICE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMMERCIALIZATION

509 WEST ALABAMA · PO BOX 3145 · RUSTON, LA 71272 · TEL (318) 680-8362 · FAX (318) 257-4703 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

Applied Electrokinetics

Laboratory



March 6, 2015

Attachment 5 – RNS for Modulus Based Soil QC vs

Compaction, Moisture and Density

AFF70RNS33811

RESEARCHNEEDSSTATEMENT–AFF7033811

I. TITLE

StructuralDesignMethodsforAlternateCulvertSystemsBasedonEquivalentRiskFactors

II. BACKGROUND/DESCRIPTION

TheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecificationusesdifferentloadandresistancefactorsforthedesign of culvertsmade fromdifferentmaterials. The goal of LRFD is to include variability ofloads,materials, and installationprocedures into the specifications toensure thedesign is safeand that the level of safety is uniform across the various culvertmaterials. The focus of thisproject is toreviewLRFDloadandresistance factors forculverts tosee if theyareappropriateandconsistentlyapplied.Itisbelievedthatsomeoftheloadandresistancefactorsarecalibratedtohistoricpracticethatmayormaynotbejustifiedbytheloads,knownresistanceoftheculvertmaterials, and the resistance of various types of backfill materials and compaction levelcombinations.

TherelativereliabilityofcurrentdesignpracticesisnotexplicitlydefinedorstatedintheLRFDdesign code, which is in contrast to the reliability of bridges designed to the same code.InvestigationstocompareandcontrastthecurrentstateofthepracticeandresultingReliabilityIndices (ameasure of the probability of failure) for the various culvertmaterials is necessary.Theinvestigationsneedtoaccountforthedepthandbreadthofassumptionsrelatedseparatelyto culvert materials and installations, and must be correlated to historical performance ofinstalledculvertsystems.

Evaluationandcalibrationof load factors should focuson thevariabilityof soil loads since thevariability of live loads is explicitly defined for the design of bridges and relatively wellunderstood. Resistance factors are statistically‐based multipliers applied to the nominalresistancethatneedtoaccountforvariabilityintheculvert(materials,structuraldimensionsandworkmanship) andbackfillmaterials (soil‐structure interaction). Additional considerations forculverts would include contractor installation inspection controls and need for and degree ofpost‐installationinspectionthatisusedtoverifytheintegrityoftheinstalledculvertsystem.

III. OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research project is to calibrate load and resistance factors for culverts toensureuniformreliability across thevarious culvertmaterials for applicableLRFD limit states.Thiswill be accomplished by evaluating the basis of the currentAASHTOLRFD culvert designspecifications(methods),theirdegreeoftechnicalsubstantiationaswellastheirdependencyon(any)differingloadingassumptions,theeffectofvariationsinspecifiedbackfillmaterials,andthedependencyoftheculvert’sperformanceoncontractorworkmanship.

Forexample,theLRFDStrengthILimitStatehasbeencalibratedforatargetreliabilityindexof3.5withthecorrespondingprobabilityofexceedanceof2.0E‐04duringa75‐yeardesignlifeoranannualprobabilityofexceedanceof2.7E‐06withacorrespondingannualtargetreliabilityindexof4.6.Theloadfactorsforthislimitstateareusedforallculverts,butthereliabilityindexisnotuniformlysetto3.5.Designmethodscontinuetoberevisedtoreflectnewresearch,buttheloadand resistance factors are not affected by these changes, showing no conformance to anequivalentriskfactor.

AFF70RNS33811

The AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures (SCOBS) released a strategic plan inAugust 2013whichprovided five global focuses and eightprogramobjectives. The five globalfocusesare:

1. Improvesafety&mobility2. Implementassetmanagement3. Fosterinnovation4. Evaluateimpactonpractice&performance5. Improvecommunicationandcollaboration

Thisresearchwilladdressglobalfocuses1,2,3,and4.

Theprogramobjectives(inorderofimportance)are:

1. ExtendingBridgeServiceLife2. AssessBridgeCondition3. MaintainandEnhanceaKnowledgeableWorkforce4. MaintainandEnhancetheAASHTOSpecifications5. AccelerateBridgeDeliveryandConstruction6. OptimizeStructuralSystems7. ModelandManageInformationIntelligently8. ContributetoNationalPolicy

Thisresearchwillsignificantlyaidinachieving1,2,4,and6oftheprogramobjectives.InadditiontoachievingtheobjectivesoftheStrategicPlanoftheAASHTOSCOBS,thisresearchalso addresses the Transportation Research Board’s “Critical Issues in Transportation”, 2013Update,whichliststhefollowingcriticalissues:

1. The performance of the transportation system is neither reliable nor resilient, yettransportation’s role in economic revival and in global economic competitionhasneverbeenmoreimportant.

2. Thenation suffers significant, avoidabledeaths and injuries every year, although safetyhasimprovedmarkedly.

3. Although essential in meeting economic and social goals, transportation exerts large‐scale,unsustainableimpactsonenergy,theenvironment,andclimate.

4. Inadequatefundingsourcesforpublicinfrastructureimpedetheperformanceandsafetyof the transportation system, but alternative sources of funding may place a largerfinancialburdenonuserswhoareleastabletopay.

5. AlthoughtheUnitedStatesisknownforitscreativityanditsproblemsolving,innovationinpassengermobilityservicesandinpublic‐sector infrastructurelagsfarbehindthat intheprivatesector.

6. Theresearchanddevelopment(R&D)investmentnecessaryforfindingandadoptingnewsolutionsislowanddeclining.

This research will specifically address critical issues 1, 2, and 5 on performance, safety, andinnovationrespectively.

IV. POTENTIALBENEFIT

AFF70RNS33811

Implementation may involve changes or additions to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge DesignSpecifications(Sections3and12)andtheLRFDBridgeConstructionSpecifications(Sections26,27,and30)ormayconfirmcurrentpracticestoprovideclaritytousers.Theresultsareexpectedto provide DOT designers with an improved basis for design of culvert systems to meet thedefinedAASHTOLRFDlimitstates. Thepublishedcalibrationoftheloadandresistancefactorsfor culverts will allow extension to shorter or longer service life designs, which can furtherimproveselectionofculvertsforspecificapplicationsofdefinedlifecycle.

TheresultsoftheproposedresearchwillbenefitAASHTO,FHWA,APTA,FAA,U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers, all stateDOTs, counties, cities and other public and private engineering and designorganizations.

V. RELATEDRESEARCH

RelevantworkofthisnatureisresearchcompletedtoaddresscalibrationofothersectionswithintheLRFDcodesuchassteelandconcretebridgesandgeotechnicalelements.

VI. TASKS

Task1–Identifyandselectrepresentativecomponentsandculvertsystemstobeconsideredintheinvestigationofcodeprovisions.Developadatabaseofculvertsystemstobeusedfortheinvestigation.Includedataforculvertsystemsalreadyinstalledandinventoriedandaugmentthedatabasewithnewones.

Task2–Investigatesoil‐structureinteractionloadmodelsthataccountforstatisticalparametersforloadsforvarioustimeperiodsandvarioustrafficparametersaswellasculvertmaterialsandinstallationvariations.

Task3–CollectrecentlymeasuredstatisticaldataforculvertmaterialsfromstateDOTMaterialsDepartments,industryandthirdpartycertificationentities.

Task4–Performreliabilityanalysistocomparestatisticaldataandcontrastcurrentcodeloadandresistancefactorsandproviderecommendationsformodificationsasappropriate.Createdetailedtablesshowingallassumptionsthatbecomestatisticallysignificantfactorsinthereliabilityanalysissuchthattheeffectoffuturedesignrevisionscanbeassessed.

Task5–Draftspecificationsandcommentarytoaccountforproposedchangesortofurtherclarifycurrentstateoftheartasappropriateforpanelreviewandcomment.

Task6–RevisespecificationsandcommentaryforadoptionintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecificationsandtheAASHTOLRFDBridgeConstructionSpecifications,ifappropriate.

Task7–Prepareafinalreportdocumentingtheentireresearcheffort.

VII. IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation may involve changes or additions to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge DesignSpecifications(Sections3and12)andtheLRFDBridgeConstructionSpecifications(Sections26,27,and30)ormayconfirmcurrentpracticestoprovideassurancetousers.Considerationmustbe given to public perception of proposed changes as to not generate an unexplainable and

AFF70RNS33811

unwarranted disconnect between current state and future state thatwould lead to distrust ofexistingculvertsystemsdesignedandinstalledadequatelypertheexistingcodes.

Thisresearchcouldsetthefoundationnecessarytoevaluatetherelativeculvertsystemreliabilityduring extreme events such as earthquakes, flotation caused by floods or sea‐level rise,environmentalchangessuchasfreezing/thawingandfrostheave,andculvertmaterialdamagecausedbyfire.

VIII. ESTIMATEOFPROBLEMFUNDING

Thisresearcheffortisanticipatedtocost$750,000.

IX. RESEARCHPERIOD

Thisresearcheffortisanticipatedtotake3years($250,000peryear).

X. RESEARCHPRIORITY

High

XI. RELEVANCE

The focusof this research is tomodifyand/or substantiate currentAASHTOspecifications thatcurrently are based on historical guidelines rather than statistically based structural analysis.The results of this effort would be relevant to all DOTs and municipal agencies in evaluatingculvert design to ensure a safe and reliable design is achieved, consistent with the designphilosophyoftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications.

XII. SOURCEINFORMATION

Committeemembersandfriends

XIII. RNSDEVELOPER

JohnO.Hurd,P.E.Consultant17567ClaridonTroyRoadBurton,OH44021440‐834‐[email protected],P.E.ChiefEngineerCretexConcreteProducts605‐209‐4194cell763‐694‐3271officeKevinWhite,P.E.E.L.RobinsonEngineeringofOhioCo.WaterResourcesGroupManager1801WatermarkDrive,STE310Columbus,OH43215

AFF70RNS33811

p.614.586.0642c.614.306.6468f.614.586.0648StevenFolkman,Ph.D,S.E.4130OldMainHillMech.&Aero.Eng.Dept.UtahStateUniversityLogan,UT84322‐4130Office:435‐797‐2879

XIV. SponsoringCommittee(s)

AFF70,CulvertsandHydraulicStructuresAFS40,SubsurfaceSoil‐StructureInteraction

XV. DATEANDSUBMITTEDBY

5January2015JesseL.Beaver,P.E.SimpsonGumpertz&HegerandChairofTRBCommitteeAFF7041SeyonSt,Bldg1,Ste500Waltham,MA02453781‐907‐9272(office)360‐888‐0116(cell)[email protected]

XVI. SubjectCategories

Highways,Construction,Design,BridgesandotherStructures,Pipelines

agenda 2015 1. - concrete pipe committee agenda pipe... · agenda technical committee american...

Documents