Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
124 INTRODUCTION The use of various quantitative methods for estimating material service life is demonstrated in this appendix. The use of a number of available software programs to assist in the estimating of service life is also demonstrated. Each material type with a quantitative estimation method will be analyzed for three different example cases; namely, an aggressive case, a moderate case, and a nonaggressive case. The three different cases differ in the assumed environmental parameters, as indicated in Table C1. The assumed environmental values represent the worst case for either the soil side or water side of the culvert. TABLE C1 ASSUMED ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS Case pH Resistivity (Ω-cm) Sulfates (ppm) Chlorides (ppm) Nonaggressive 7.5 2,000 250 25 Moderate 6.5 1,000 500 50 Aggressive 4.5 500 1,000 100 Additional parameters that have been taken as constant regardless of the material type being analyzed are summarized in Table C2. TABLE C2 ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS REQUIRED FOR DURABILITY ASSESSMENT Parameter Value Invert slope 1% Pipe length 50 ft Inside pipe diameter 36 in. Abrasion level Low, mildly abrasive, K = 1.19 (with abrasive flow) Sacks of cement per cubic yard (concrete pipe) 6 sacks Total percentage of water in aggregate mix (concrete pipe) 9% Steel depth in concrete (concrete pipe) 0.5 in. Sediment depth (concrete pipe) 1/8 in. Gage (metal pipe) 16 APPENDIX C Example Service Life Calculations
125 NONAGGRESSIVE CASE The following results were obtained by using the aforementioned equations and charts to estimate material service life for the nonaggressive case (Table C3). TABLE C3 ESTIMATED MATERIAL SERVICE LIFE FOR NONAGGRESSIVE CASE Pipe Material Approach EMSL (years) Concrete Hurd Model >500a Hadipriono Model 94 ODOT Model >500 FDOT Method 116 Galvanized Steel California Method 43 AISI Method 86 FLH Method 54 FDOT Method 42 Aluminized (Type II) FDOT Method 78 Aluminium FDOT Method 171 a For pH values greater than 7.0, the Hurd model is not explicitly applicable, with the commentary on the method indicating a conservative estimate of EMSL can be taken as less than the calculated value for the pH 7.0 condition holding other parameters constant. MODERATELY AGGRESSIVE CASE The following results were obtained by using the aforementioned equations and charts to estimate material service life for the moderate case (Table C4). TABLE C4 ESTIMATED MATERIAL SERVICE LIFE FOR MODERATE CASE Pipe Material Approach EMSL (years) Concrete Hurd Model >500 Hadipriono Model 84 ODOT Model >500 FDOT Method 90 Galvanized Steel California Method 16 AISI Method 31 FLH Method 19 FDOT Method 15 Aluminized (Type II) FDOT Method 63 Aluminium FDOT Method 149
126 AGGRESSIVE CASE The following results were obtained by using the aforementioned equations and charts to estimate material service life for the aggressive case (Table C5). TABLE C5 ESTIMATED MATERIAL SERVICE LIFE FOR AGGRESSIVE CASE Pipe Material Approach EMSL (years) Concrete Hurd Model 519 Hadipriono Model 58 ODOT Model 366 FDOT Method 54 Galvanized Steel California Method 0 (not allowed) AISI Method 0 (not allowed) FLH Method 0 (not allowed) FDOT Method 0 (not allowed) Aluminized (Type II) FDOT Method 0 (not allowed) Aluminium FDOT Method 39 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS A number of observations can be made based on these results: ⢠Wide variability exists in the EMSL values for different pipe types. ⢠A wide range of values can be obtained for a single pipe type depending on the service life method used. ⢠Taking an average value of multiple methods is not recommended given the potential for significant variation in calcu- lated values across methods. ⢠As seen from the results of the concrete EMSL calculations, many of the current methods produce unstable and unreal- istically high results for certain environmental values and must be used with appropriate engineering judgment. ⢠The variability of results from available methods for concrete and metal pipe and the lack of available service life meth- ods for other pipe material types reinforce the need for continued fundamental research into the topic of material service life prediction for culverts. Use of Software for EMSL Calculations Three software programs are demonstrated to show how EMSL calculations can be implemented in an efficient and reliable manner. These software programs are ⢠HiDISC 1.0 developed for the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) (not yet publically released) ⢠CSLE (Culvert Service Life Estimator) 2014 developed by FDOT Available: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/Drainage/ManualsandHandbooks.shtm ⢠AltPipe v 6.08 developed by Caltrans Available: http://dap1.dot.ca.gov/design/altpipe/
127 HiDISC and CSLE are stand-alone software programs, while AltPipe is an online tool. The following screenshots show the use of these programs for the nonaggressive case (Figure C1).
128
129
130
131
132
133
NEED SPINE WIDTH TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2015 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS Chair: Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis Vice Chair: James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, TX Executive Director: Neil J. Pedersen, Transportation Research Board MEMBERS VICTORIA A. ARROYO, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center; Assistant Dean, Centers and Institutes; and Professor and Director, Environmental Law Program, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC SCOTT E. BENNETT, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA MALCOLM DOUGHERTY, Director, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento A. STEWART FOTHERINGHAM, Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, University of Arizona, Tempe JOHN S. HALIKOWSKI, Director, Arizona DOT, Phoenix MICHAEL W. HANCOCK, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort SUSAN HANSON, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA STEVE HEMINGER, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA CHRIS T. HENDRICKSON, Professor, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA JEFFREY D. HOLT, Managing Director, Bank of Montreal Capital Markets, and Chairman, Utah Transportation Commission, Huntsville GERALDINE KNATZ, Professor, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles MICHAEL P. LEWIS, Director, Rhode Island DOT, Providence JOAN McDONALD, Commissioner, New York State DOT, Albany ABBAS MOHADDES, President and CEO, Iteris, Inc., Santa Ana, CA DONALD A. OSTERBERG, Senior Vice President, Safety and Security, Schneider National, Inc., Green Bay, WI SANDRA ROSENBLOOM, Professor, University of Texas, Austin HENRY G. (GERRY) SCHWARTZ, JR., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO KUMARES C. SINHA, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN KIRK T. STEUDLE, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing GARY C. THOMAS, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Dallas, TX PAUL TROMBINO III, Director, Iowa DOT, Ames PHILLIP A. WASHINGTON, General Manager, Denver Regional Council of Governments, Denver, CO EX OFFICIO MEMBERS THOMAS P. BOSTICK (Lt. General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC TIMOTHY P. BUTTERS, Acting Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. DOT ALISON JANE CONWAY, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, City College of New York, NY, and Chair, TRB Young Members Council T. F. SCOTT DARLING III, Acting Administrator and Chief Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. DOT SARAH FEINBERG, Acting Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. DOT DAVID J. FRIEDMAN, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. DOT LeROY GISHI, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC JOHN T. GRAY II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC MICHAEL P. HUERTA, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. DOT PAUL N. JAENICHEN, SR., Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. DOT THERESE W. McMILLAN, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT MICHAEL P. MELANIPHY, President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC GREGORY G. NADEAU, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. DOT PETER M. ROGOFF, Acting Under Secretary for Transportation Policy, Office of the Secretary, U.S. DOT MARK R. ROSEKIND, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. DOT CRAIG A. RUTLAND, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA GREGORY D. WINFREE, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Office of the Secretary, U.S. DOT FREDERICK G. (BUD) WRIGHT, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC PAUL F. ZUKUNFT (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security * Membership as of February 2015.
92+ pages; Perfect Bind with SPINE COPY = 14 pts Service Life of Culverts NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP SYNTHESIS 474 N CH R P SYN TH ESIS 474 Service Life of Culverts NEED SPINE WIDTH Job No. XXXX Pantone 202 C TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 500 F ifth S treet, N .W . W ashing to n, D .C . 20001 A D D R ESS SER VICE R EQ UESTED TRB A Synthesis of Highway Practice
