Proposed Practice for Alternative Bidding of Highway Drainage Systems (2015)

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.

N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP REPORT 801 Proposed Practice for Alternative Bidding of Highway Drainage Systems Michael Maher Gregory Hebeler Andrew Fuggle Colby Caywood Golder AssociAtes Atlanta, GA Kenneth Avery Joseph VanKerkhove BerGmAnn AssociAtes Rochester, NY Ian D. Moore GeoenGineerinG centre At Queen’s university – rmc Kingston, Ontario Subscriber Categories Construction  •  Hydraulics and Hydrology  •  Materials TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2015 www.TRB.org  Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 801 Project 10-86 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 978-0-309-30859-5 Library of Congress Control Number 2015936491 © 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 10-86 by Golder Associates Inc. (Golder), in conjunction with Bergmann Associates Inc. (Bergmann), and Dr. Ian Moore with Queen’s University. Dr. Michael Maher, PhD, PEng, Principal and Global Transportation Sector Leader for Golder was the Prin- cipal Investigator. The other principal authors for this report were Dr. Gregory Hebeler, PhD, PE, Associate and Senior Geotechnical Engineer for Golder; Colby Caywood, PE, CPESC, Senior Engineer for Golder; Andrew Fuggle, PhD, Geotechnical Engineer for Golder; and Joseph VanKerkhove, PE, Project Manager for Bergmann. Dr. Ian D. Moore, PhD, PEng, Professor at Queen’s University provided technical direction and support for this project. Other acknowledgments include Kenneth Avery, PE, CFM, Water Resources Business Segment Leader for Bergmann; and Edward Morales, PE, Senior Structural Engineer for Bergmann. Invaluable cooperation and support were provided by Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) and Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) for participation in the full pilot project phase of this research. Participation in the baseline pilot project studies was also provided by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO), Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR), New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), and Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). The authors would like to thank the NCHRP Project 10-86 panel for its direction, advice, and support. CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 801 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Christopher Hedges, Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Edward T. Harrigan, Senior Program Officer Anthony P. Avery, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Kami Cabral, Editor NCHRP PROJECT 10-86 PANEL Field of Materials and Construction—Area of Specifications, Procedures, and Practices Mostafa Jamshidi, Nebraska DOR, Lincoln, NE (Chair) David D. Ahlvers, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City, MO Josiah W. Beakley, American Concrete Pipe Association, Irving, TX Daniel Currence, Plastic Pipe Institute, Kansas City, MO Norman D. Dennis, Jr., University of Arkansas - Fayetteville, Fayetteville, AR Cecil L. Jones, Diversified Engineering Services, Inc., Raleigh, NC James M. Long, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg, PA Leslie A. McCarthy, Villanova University, Villanova, PA Michael McGough, National Corrugated Steel Pipe Association, Arlington, VA John Schuler, Virginia DOT, Richmond, VA Brian R. Syftestad, California DOT, Sacramento, CA Eric R. Brown, FHWA Liaison Kathy Malusky, AASHTO Liaison Frederick Hejl, TRB Liaison

F O R E W O R D By Edward T. Harrigan Staff Officer Transportation Research Board This report presents a proposed practice for alternative bidding of highway drainage systems. Thus, the report will be of immediate interest to engineers in state highway agen- cies and the construction industry with responsibility for the design, construction, and maintenance of these systems. Traditionally, transportation agencies have used a “means and methods” approach for selection and specification of products such as drainage pipe systems. In this approach, the owner-agencies specify a particular drainage pipe system during the design process, and the cost of the specified system is included in the contractors’ bids for the project. This research investigated an alternative approach, the use of a performance-based pro- cess for selection of drainage pipe systems. Such a selection process is based on satisfying performance criteria for the drainage system while considering the full range of suitable pipe materials. This approach has the potential to foster competition among various pipe types judged to be of satisfactory quality and equally acceptable on the basis of engineering and cost analyses. Giving contractors the ability to choose from among alternative drain- age pipe systems during the bidding process on the basis of performance and cost can help agencies promote competition that will lower agency costs while achieving satisfactory performance. The objective of NCHRP Project 10-86 was to develop a proposed practice suitable for adoption by AASHTO to guide owner-agencies and industry in implementing a performance- based process for contractor selection and delivery of drainage pipe systems on highway construction projects. The research was performed by Golder Associates Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, in conjunction with Bergmann Associates Inc., Rochester, New York, and Dr. Ian Moore of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The key product of the research is the proposed practice presented in Appendix A of the report. The practice applies rational, performance-based criteria to the selection, installation and post-construction acceptance of highway drainage pipe systems. It spe- cifically addresses the selection of pipe solutions by evaluating the hydraulic capacity, structural capacity, and durability of pipe systems in distinct stages. Since durability is predicted in terms of estimated service life, the practice emphasizes proper characteriza- tion of the site conditions and comprehensive post-installation inspection to confirm construction quality. The practice was tested and refined through comparisons in nine states to standard agency procedures for pipe specification and was shown to satisfac- torily consider the wide variety of factors required to successfully bid alternative pipe systems.

This report fully documents the research and includes the following two appendixes: Appendix A: AASHTO Recommended Practice for Alternative Bidding of Highway Drain- age System and Appendix C: Summary of Durability Evaluation Methods and Software Applications. In addition, Appendix B: Worked Example of the Recommend Practice is available to download from the NCHRP Project 10-86 web page at http://apps.trb.org/cms feed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=2964.

C O N T E N T S Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions. 1 Chapter 1 Background 3 Chapter 2 Research Approach 6 Chapter 3 State of the Practice Summary 36 Chapter 4 Summary of Gaps in Knowledge and Practice 41 Chapter 5 Introduction to the Recommended Practice 46 Chapter 6 Preparatory Agency Actions Prior to Implementation  of the Recommended Practice 48 Chapter 7 Project Definition 51 Chapter 8 Hydraulic Evaluation 53 Chapter 9 Structural Evaluation 54 Chapter 10 Durability Evaluation 63 Chapter 11 Final Check and Policy Application 64 Chapter 12 Results and Bidding 67 Chapter 13 Installation, Maintenance, and Tracking 69 Chapter 14 Implementation of the Recommended Practice 75 Chapter 15 Future and Parallel Research  78 Chapter 16 Conclusions 80  Bibliography 83 Appendix A   Recommended Practice for Bidding Alternative  Drainage Pipe Systems 115 Appendix B  Worked Example of the Recommended Practice 116 Appendix C  Summary of Durability Evaluation Methods