MR87-1_REDUCED.pdf

TABLE OF CONTENT SPageI n troductionConclusions a nd Recommendations ... .• • . .. ••• .• • • ...•..Scope ........ . . . . . . . .... . . . . .. . . . ..• . . . . •..... .. ..•..DiscussionAppendices135638- iv -

LIST OF TABLESTableI.II.III.IV .V.Roadbeds Constructed Year Shown OrEarlier And Still In Service ... .. . .. .. .. 9Five Year Weighted Cost Per Linear FootFor Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe .. . 16Five Year Weighted Cost Per Linear FootFor Corrugated Steel Pipe (GRP I, GRP II ,And eMP) ....... . . .. ...... ... ............. 17Replacement or Rehabilitation byContract ....... . ............... .. . .. . .. .. 21,Corrugated Steel Pipe Used ByMain tenance ................... ...• ... ... 26- v -

Valdresrittet 2010Resultatliste Aldersklasser24.07.2010Fullførte: 11Påmeldte: 12Startende: 12M 20-24PlassNavnKlubb Start nr. Tid Etter1 Sander Ensink ck Valdresekspressen 121 1:44:45,4 00:00,02 Olav Ulven ck Valdresekspressen 139 1:46:27,9 01:42,53 Fredrik Skjeggerud Ringerike SK 137 1:46:43,1 01:57,74 Gunnar Disch BOC 138 1:58:02,1 13:16,75 Vetle Thyli Raufoss IL / Team Norgeshus 119 2:15:25,6 30:40,2Fullførte: 2Påmeldte: 2Startende: 2M 25-29PlassNavnKlubb Start nr. Tid Etter1 Vegard Fredheim Lillehammer CK 361 1:41:16,0 00:00,02 Espen Østlien Raufoss & Gjøvik sykkel klubb 115 1:43:06,7 01:50,73 Øyvind Hasli Eina Sportsklubb 116 1:48:28,8 07:12,84 Rune Andre Bjørnerud Eina SK 118 1:49:57,5 08:41,55 Arve Sæthre Sogn ck 117 1:56:58,2 15:42,26 Espen Rygge VAG RACING/ IF FRØY 141 2:09:37,7 28:21,77 Marius Rusten Jensen Gol IL 143 2:13:42,2 32:26,28 Andre Hoff Modum CK 142 2:16:20,4 35:04,49 Marius A. F. Pettersen Strømsgodset IF 144 2:19:28,1 38:12,1Fullførte: 4Påmeldte: 5Startende: 4M 30-34PlassNavnKlubb Start nr. Tid Etter1 Thomas Dahlsrud BOC 111 1:41:17,0 00:00,02 Tor-Atle Fuglerud HardRocx Racing Team/Raufoss o1121:41:20,0 00:03,03 Hans Ivar Festad Raufoss & Gjøvik Sk / KLUBB id 114 1:43:12,7 01:55,74 Ronnie Frydenlund Hansen Raufoss & Gjøvik sk 110 1:43:15,9 01:58,95 Å ge Bunde Tromsø sykkelklubb 113 1:47:26,8 06:09,86 Pål Arne Jensen Raufoss & Gjøvik sk 145 1:48:27,3 07:10,37 Ole Thomas Fladby Romeriksåsen SK 151 1:49:57,0 08:40,08 Aslak Botten Andebarkji TSK 163 1:52:02,2 10:45,29 Trond Helge Myrvang VAG RACING / GJESTRUD 154 1:52:04,6 10:47,610 Espen Hagen RGSK 146 1:52:23,1 11:06,111 Hans Jørgen Lundby CK Toten Tråkk 381 1:54:57,3 13:40,312 Roar Sollie Telenor BIL Lillehammer 166 1:55:39,7 14:22,713 Oddbjørn Grimsbø Raufoss & Gjøvik sk 150 1:58:29,4 17:12,414 Tor Nordås ck Valdresekspressen 155 1:59:01,1 17:44,115 Thorbjørn Skamo SK Rye 167 2:00:30,5 19:13,516 Lars Melgaard Christensen Atmel 356 2:02:00,3 20:43,3eTiming Utskrevet:27.07.2010 11:44:20 Side:5

INTRODUCTIONThe Department ' s current policy for selection of typeof culvert pipe to be used has been in effect for many yearsand is contained in Chapter IX ,Section 9-10 of the Surveysand Plans Design Manual .A copy of that policy is shown inAppendix A. Briefly , the policy allows corrugated metalpipemetalfor all entrances but restricts the use of corrugatedpipe for crossroad installation to roadways with lessthan 400 ADT regardles~ of surface and roadways with morethan 400 ADT that do not have a concrete or asphalticconcrete surface .Corrugated metal pipe has only been permitted forculvert installations in those areas that when the needforreplacement occurs, it is not detrimental to or does notseriously impede the flow of traffic . Examples areentrances, approaches and crossroad culverts on thosefacilities with lower traffic volumes and which do not havea high type pavemen t surface . On the remainder of thehighway system , only those culvert materials which will givethe greatest known life expectancy are permitted . Forculverts and storm water conveyance,concrete .that materialisThere were several reasons for the development of thecurrent design policy .The first being to maintaintheintegrity of the facility .It was thought that if a culvertpipehad to be replaced under a high traffic volume roadway- 1 -

there would be an unacceptable disruption of traffic .Second , in many cases , the initial lanes of construction mayultimately serve as part of a multi- lane facility andtheculvert pipe needs to have as long a life as possible .Third , when an existing highway facility is no longer neededby the Department it is normally relinquished to localgovernmental agencies such as counties or cities where itcontinues to serve for many years.Due to the necessi~y for replacement of corrugatedsteel pipe by contract and due to the increasing quantity ofcorrugated steel pipe being purchased and installed by theDepartment ' sown forces this study was initiated to reviewthe use , durability , a nd cost of zinc-coated corrugatedstee"l pipe .- 2 -

CONCLU S I ONS AND RECOMMENDAT IONSIt isapparentfromthequantity ofzinc-coatedcorrugatedsteelpipe(CSP)beingreplacedbytheDepartment ' s own forces and the quantity being replaced bycontract, that a major problem exists with the durability ofCSP. In 1986 , the Department ' s personnel placed 37 , 583linear feet of CSP at a cost of $968 , 890. Also, the CSPwere replaced or lined by contract on 94 . 653 miles ofroadway at a cost of S450~094 .TheDepartment ' s culvert type selection policy allowsas much or more use of CSP as the adjoining Statessurveyed, except Kansas .Inselectedrelocate.Missouri , roadbeds and highway corridors areand designed with no foreseeable intent toAt the present time, approximately 25 percent ofthe Department ' s roadbeds are already 50 years or older and74 percent are over 25 years of age. Current field reportsshowthat CSP is being replaced as early as 20 years of agedue to rusting out of the lower portion of the flowline(invert) .Zinc- coatedcorrugated steel pipe is less durable thanRCP with Missouri soils and drainage .The mode offailureis different for the two types of pipe .nearly always due to a material failure ,Failure of CSP isrusting out of theinvert .Failure of Rep is normally due to disjointed pipesections , a mechanical failure .- 3 -

It is recognized that CSP has a lower initial installedcos t than RCP .However , CSP is expected to be replaced oneto four times during the anticipated life of an RCP .At this time ,it is concluded that in order for CSP tobe an equal alternate to Rep for culverts under roadwayscarrying high volumes of traffic , the pipe should have anexpected life of at least 100 years.Current coatings for corrugated steel pipe are allsusceptible to degradation , under certain conditions,particularly abrasion .Several types of coatings have beenproposed for use and have been tested by the Department .The only coatings for steel pipe accepted, to date, are zinca nd aluminized Type 2 .It is recommended that age and condition ofreplacedor rehabilitated CSP continue to be recorded , that costdata continue to be collect ed and analyzed and a State-wideculvert condition survey be performed .It is further recommendedthe data collected betabulated and reported for a Department reviewof policyconcerning culvert materials used on the Highway System .- 4 -

SCOPEThe proposed method of study was to review theDepartment's current design policy, determine the age of theroadbed of the Department's existing highway system,reviewthe economics of concrete and corrugated steel pipe placedby con trac t • review some recent contracts that requiredlining or replacing the corrugated steel pipe , review thequantity and cost of corrugated steel pipe being purchasedand placed by the Departmen t ' s own forces , conduct atelephone survey of six adjoining states , and conduct aliterature search of research pertaining to concrete andcorrugated steel pipe .Field data of corrugated steel pipe was obtained byDistrict personnel and the Materials and Research Division ' sField Office .Quantities and cost were obtained from variousDivisions within the Department .- 5 -

DISCU SS I ONCur rent Design Polic y -The Department ' s current policyfor selection of type of culvert pipe to be used has been ineffect for many years .The policy allows corrugated metalpipe (CMP) under a l l entrances , under roadways with lessthan 400 average daily traffic (ADT) regardless of surfacetype ,and under roadways with more than 400 ADT that do nothave a portland cement concrete or asphaltic concretesurface. A copy of the Department ' s curren~ design policyis contained in the Surveys a nd Plans Design Manual , ChapterIX , Section 9 - 10 and is shown in Appendix A.TheDepartment ' s design policy also requires that whenGroup I or II pipe is specified , the hydraulic design is tobe based on CMP . Due to CMP having a higher roughnesscoefficient a nd lower full flow capacity t ha n reinforcedconcrete pipe (Rep). basing the hydraulic design on CMFresults in a larger diameter pipe than if the hydraulicdesign were based on RCP .The size , shape , and direction ofcorrugations, i.e., annular or helical, will also affect thecoefficient of roughness . Coatings such as bituminous orpolymer materials cannot be used to lower the coefficient ofroughness for CMP because the coating will be lost firstleav ingCMP .the hydraulic condition controlled by theuncoatedCorrugatedmetal pipe in this report means zinc- coatedcorrugated steel pipe (CSP) , aluminized Type 2 - coated- 6 -

corrugated steel pipe, or corrugated aluminum alloy pipe.Pipe is specified as Group I when corrugated metallic- coatedsteel pipe, RCP, or vitrified clay pipe is allowed.Pipe isspecified as Group II when corrugated metallic-coated steelpipe, Rep, or aluminum alloy pipe is allowed . Zinc- coatedcorrugated steel pipe is almost always furnished when CMPisspecified or when Group I or II pipe is allowed. Data inthis report pertains to CSP and CMP will only be usedwhenreferring to policy or specifications.Corrugated metal pipe is permitted only for culvertinstallations in those areas that when the need forreplacement occurs, it is not considered to be detrimentalto or does not seriously impede the flow of t raffic .Examples are all entrances, approaches , and crossroe.dculverts on those facilities with lower traffic volumesandwhich do not have a high type pavement surface (portlandcement concrete or asphaltic concrete).On the remainder ofthe highway system, only those culvert materials with thelongest known life are permitted . For culverts and stormwater conveyance, that material is portland cement concrete,at this time .There were several reasons for current design policy.The first being to maintain the integrity of the facility .It was thought that if a culvert pipe had to be replacedunder a high type pavement surface there would be anunacceptable disruption of traffic .Second, in many cases,- 7 -

the initial lanes of construction may eventually serve aspart of a multi-lane facility and t he culvert pipe needstobe made of a material with as long a known life as possible .Third, when an existing highway facility is no longer neededby the Depart ment it is normally relinquished to localgovernmental agencies such as counties or cities where itcontinues to serve for many years . Fourth, in the case ofabandonment , there may be need for the culvert to functionindefinitely to prevent f100di n g of adjacent " property .Roadbed Li fe - The design life of a roadbed cannot bedefined as a specific number of years and the roadbedlifefora low traffic volume road is not necessarily less thanthat of an Interstate .Corridors for highways are selectedwith no foreseeable intention to relocate . There may beaddition of lanes ,straightening of curves and resurfacingbut the roadbed and corridor remain essentially the same .Approximately 25 percent of the roadbeds in the Department ' shighwaysystem are already 50 years or older and 74 percentare over 25 years in age .Table I shows the age - mileage distribution of theroadbeds in the Department ' s current highway system asobtained from the 1986 Service Ratings . Figures land 2graphically display the same data . Information vIas notavailable on roadbeds turned over to cities or countiesfortheir continued use .Reinfor ced Concrete Culve r t Pi p e - This study was- 8 -

TABLE IROA08EOS CONSTRUCTED YEAR SHOWNOR EARLIER ANO STILL IN SERVICEINTERSTATEPRIMARYSUPPLEMENTARY.TOTALYEAR MILES PERCENTHILES PERCENT HILES PERCENTMILESPERCENT'"1921192619311936 7.0 .31941 7.6 .31946 9.' .41951 46. 8 2 . 01956 285.7 12.31961 652. 1 28.21966 1317. 6 56 . 91971 1703.1 73.61976 2132.5 92.21981 2215.3 95.71986 2313.8 100. 025.9 .3 86.2 .4551. 7 7.2 334.9 1.41741.9 22.7 942, 6 3.83491.5 45.5 4967.1 20.23977.3 51.9 7099. 1 28.94215.2 55.0 7517.1 30.64489.4 58. 6 9944.7 40. 54762.4 62.1 13972.0 56.85314.7 69 . 3 19432.1 79.159 13 . 7 77 . 1 22846.2 92.96489.2 84.6 23822.3 %.97121.8 92. 9 24226.0 98.67404.3 96.6 244 18.2 99.37667.3 100.0 24579.5 100.0112. 1 .3886.5 2 . 62684.5 7.88465.6 24.511084.0 32.111741.6 34.014480.9 41.919020.1 55.025399.0 73.530077. 5 87.032014 . 5 92.633480.3 %.934037.8 98.534560.5 100.0

"7o::r::(I)wO:::u 00 0c :. 0C'.) 0r"r;, C~S3llV,1- 10 -'\\l \\"'",­'+\0 o00~1861- ' 61 tiLIL6119611'0619,,61ItO I9£611>:61IZ61

f-7'' ~ ~;~ wUc.::wCL10080504020F:U,ilDBEDS COf\l STRUCTED YEAR c: H 11 \l\/ I\ I'..-! \J ~' .1OR E,ll,RLlER ,t,I~DSTILL IN SERVICE, /_-X-~>~u) ,." OJ ",,,,,]')~-~YE.A,R~-~~ ~FIGURE 2

initiated to review the use and cost of zinc-coatedcorrugated steel pipe .However, the economics and years ofsatisfactory service expected from culverts by theDepartment must necessarily include some reference to Rep asit is the standard against which all other culverts arecurrently measured .Although they had been used since the mid 19th centuryas sanitary sewers,irrigation pipes, and storm sewers , Repbegan to be used extensively as highway culverts with thegreat e xpansion of the nation ' s highway system, about 1915 .Specific chemical and physical factors which can bedetrimental to concrete pipe are 1) acids,chlorides, 4) freeze-thaw weathering, 5)2) sulfates, 3)abrasion, and 6)structural failure . Locations in Missouri where theseconditions are severe enough to result in durabilityproblems for Rep used as highway culverts are rare .Missouri does have acidic flow (low pH) in some areasthat ove r a long period of time does erode Rep .The degreeof loss of service life is not yet known .Sulfates, chlorides , and freeze-thaw weathering havenot been detrimental to Rep culverts on the Department ' shighway system . Freeze-thaw action may be detrimental tothe culvert as mentioned later in this section,however, itis not considered detrimental to the concrete material .The abrasive action of aggregate particles over anymaterial causes erosion . However, in Rep abrasive wear is- 12 -

minimal and is not a cause for concern on the Department ' shighway system .Reinforced concrete pipe used as highway culverts inMissourihavenot exhibited failure of the concretematerial.Any Rep installation rated as failed has been dueto disjointed pipe sections sometimes accompanied byfaulting and infiltration or exfiltration. This may becaused by freeze-thaw action,high velocities at the outletcausing undercutting of t~e pipe ,or differential fillsettlement.Proper compaction, modern day longer lengths of Repsections ,failures .and end protection for the culve rt have minimizedInstallations on steep slopes or unstable soilsmay, in special cases, necessitate the pipe sections beingmechanically tied together .Research reports by some other State highway agenciesindicate that Rep can be expected to have a service life inexcess of 100 years .The Department ' s experience indicatesaservice life of100+ years . Life predictions aretypically based on material condition and age of the pipe atthe time of inspection . Reinforced concrete pipe has beenextensively used as a highway culvert for approximately 75years and since there is generally very little materialdeterioration, the true life expectancy cannot yet beaccurately predicted . However , there is every reason tobelieve that the useful life of Rep is much in excess of 100- 13 -

years .The Ohio Department of Transportation inits CulvertDurability Study , Report No. ODOT/L&D/82-1 datedJanuary 1 982 , developed service life p r ediction curves forRCP based on pH of the flow and slope of the pipe . FromFigure 30 of that report , a n RCP o n a one percent slope witha pH of 3 . 0 would have a service life of 80+ years .With apH of 7 . 0 a nd slope of one percen t , the service life wouldbe expec t ed to be a lmost indefinite (mul t iple hundreds ofyear s) .In addition to having a long s e rvice life, RCP cangenerally be reclaimed and reused if location o r size of aninstallation needs to be changed .Mode of Failure of RCP a nd CSP - These twa tvnes .. ofhighway culvert are of totally dissimilar materials withouta commo n characteristic except they are both designed tocarry wate r from one point to a nother . It should be notedthat the two types of culverts deteriorate and fail indifferent ma nner s .As already stated, RCP is affected by certainchemicals , freeze- thaw action , and physical or structuraldisjointing . In Missouri , under the Department ' s currentdesign practices , Rep failures have been minimized . Theservice life of RCP may be shortened by the low pH ofdrainagein parts of the State but low pH is virtually the.only environmental agent that affects RCP as a material .- 14 -

Steel, as a material, and the coatings used for culvertpipe are attacked by water and a variety of otherenvironmental agents .Corrugated steel pipe fails primarilyby rusting through the lower flow lin e section of the pipe(invert) .The protective coating over the steel is removedby water , abrasion , delamination, low or high pH drainage ,or a variety of other reasons, allowing the base steel to beexposed . The steel then rusts and eventually is penetrated ,,nearly always in the invert . The causes and mechanics ofsteel corrosion are not addressed in this study .Review of Economics - Unit bid prices for Group I,GroupII, CMP and Class III RCP pipe installed by contractfor each of the past five years, 1982 through 1986, werereviewed and a weighted average of the five years inclusive,was calculated for each size .The five year weighted costs per linear foot for ClassIII RCP through 36 inch diameter are shown in Table II .Thecorresponding values for CSP are shown i n Table III . Over91 percent of all the Class III Rep and CSP installed bycontract inthe five year period were 36 inch diameter orless .Costs of pipe over 36 inch diameter were not includedin the tables because of the limited usage of those sizes .With small quantities, consideration of the actualinstallation conditions would greatly affect bid prices andthose conditions were not available for this study .- 15 -

TABLE II5 YEAR WEIGHTED COST PER LINEAR FOOT FORCLASS III REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPEDiameter Total We ighted Weighted Average(inches) Linear Feet Cost Cost/Foot12 91,648 $1,680 , 368 . 11 $18 . 3415 81 , 648 $1,625,313 . 91 $19.9118 105,759 $2,385 , 410.41 $22 . 5621 12 , 353 $355,136 . 77 $28.7524 58 , 054 $1 , 673 , 746 . 63 $28.8327 2,928 $101,633.86 $34 . 7130 33,815 $1,226 , 652 . 48 $36 . 2833 16 $560 . 00 $35 . 0036 31 , 772 $1,588,704 . 74 $50.00GrandTotal 417,993 $10,637,526 . 91 $25 . 45NOTE: All original data obtained from 1982 through 1986Unit Bid Prices issued by Missouri Highway andTransportation Department. Average low bid pricesand annual quantity in linear feet were basefigures.- 16 -

TABLE I II5 YEAR WEIGHTED COST PER LINEAR FOOT FORCORRUGATED STEEL PIPE (GRP I, GRP II &C.M.P . IDiameter Total Weighted Weighted Average(inches) Linear Feet Cost Cos t /Foot12 21,632 $325 , 635 . 18 $15 . 0515 56 , 283 $848,670 . 25 $15 . 0818 61 , 041 $1,034,100 . 02 $16 . 9421 2,970 $56,108 . 25 $18.8924 24 , 065 $494, 948 . 37 $20 . 5727 0 0 030 9,468 $222 , 772 . 75 $23 . 5333 0 0 036 8,703 5260,111. 52 $29 . 89GrandTot al 184 , 162 $3 , 242 , 346 . 34 $17 . 61NOTE : All original data obtained from 1982 through 1986Unit Bid Prices issued by Missouri Highway andTransportation Department . Average low bid pricesa nd annual quantity in linear feet were basefigu res.- 17 -

The costs of the pipe are discussed here on a sizebasis even though they are not hydraulically equivalent.As expected, the initial installed cost of CSP was lessthan Class III RCP in all sizes. In the sizes 12 through 36inch diameter,the initial installed cost of CSP was 60 to82 percent of the RCP with an average of 69 ' percent . Asimilar calculation of all Class III RCP and CSP placedbycontract in 1986 showed a weighted average initial installed,cost of CSP to be 78 percent of RCP .Standard economic formulas may be used to attempt toequate the present worth of RCP and CSP . However, theseformulas require bidding of both types of pipes for the sameinstallation, hydraulically sizing each type of pipe,assuming a service life for each type of culvert for thatlocation, and assuming an inflation factor and rate ofreturn on money for the analysis period . This type ofeconomic analysis could not be performed on the Department ' sculverts because 1) the life of CSP is too variableand would require a different analysis period for eachinstallation , 2) where pipe are bid as alternates, theDepartment sizes the pipe on the basis of CSP whichgenerally oversizes the Rep, and 3) selecting an inflationfactor or interest rate is beyond the scope of this study .Another problem with any economic prediction attemptingto equate the two types. of pipe is , it has to be assumed theDepartment would have the money and manpower to replacethe- 18 -

culverts at time of failure .The Department neither loansnor borrows money, therefore , all expenditures are on a ~payas you go " basis . The current financial and manpowerproblems with replacement of CSP discussed elsewhere in thisreport highlight this problem.Regardless of the manipulation of data or economicprojections , the data previously collected by the Departmentand the data collected to date in 1987,shows clearly thatCSP can be expected to be replaced from one to four timesduring the anticipated service life of RCP,least 100 years .whichis atThe cost of repeated replacements cannot yet beestimated with any degree of accuracy. The cost ofreplacement of any pipe will be greater than the initialinstalled cost because replacementrequires c utting thepavement surface , excavating the existing fill, andgenerally more traffic control .The height of existing fillabove the culvert pipe and type of material in the filldirectly impact the replacement costs .The project discussed later in this report which waslet only for the purpose of replacing CSP had a weightedcost per linear foot approximately three times that ofCSPon projects where grading, paving, etc., are included.Those costs do not reflect the cost and inconvenience to thetraveling public , the i mpaired roadway surface, and theincreased safety hazards involved in culvert failure .- 19 -

Replaceme nt Or Re ha bilitatio n By Contract -Many of theCSP and pipe arch (PA) installations are being replaced orlined with a polyethylene pipe as a part of a contractproject . In 1986 , five contracts for rehabilitation orreplacement of CSP and PA were let .Four of these contractstotaling 75 . 613 miles of roadway were primarily to resurfacethe roadway . However, they included 14 , 253 linear feet ofCSPand PA to be replaced or rehabilitated at an added costof $365,897 . 80 .The fifth contract was let solely for the purpose ofreplacing 1,384 linear feet o f CSP on 19 . 04 miles of r oadwayat a cost of $84 , 196 . 50 .No attempt has been made to identify or quantifycontracts which only included replacement of a portion ofthe CSP or PA and contracts let prior to 1986 are nottreated in this report .There are currently at least 30 miles of roadwayscheduled for contract letting including replacement orrehabilitation of CSP or PA .Followingis a brief description of the five contractslet in 1986 which typify the type of work that can beexpected to i ncrease in the future .The data is summarizedi n Table IV .Project 9 - 5- 68-270, Route 68 , Dent County was letto contract in January 1986 . It was primarily awidening and resurfacing project . The origina l CSP were- 20 -

TABLE IVREPLACEtlENT OR REHABIL lTATION BY CONTRACTWeightedTotal Cost ofAge of Linear Cost of Cost/Ft . Lining or Total CSPCSP or PA Feet of Lining or of Lining ReplaCing CSP and PA CostRoute Lined or CSP or PA Replacing or Replacing or PA and End To tal Cost of as Percent ofand Replaced Lined or CSP or PA CSP or PA Sections Project Total ProjectCounty (yrs.) Replaced (S) (.1.> (S) (S) ( %)68 Dent 52-54 2824 $ 53,549 . 50 $18.96 $ 63 , 371.50 S 730 , 744 . 61 98 Cra\~[or d 49 1786 $ 32,490.00 SlB.19 $ 49 , 140.00 $1,111,559.21 4~~19 Gasconade 49-56 4809 S122 , 427.00 S2S.46 S 99,099.00 $2 , 102 , 088 . 46 5Itl2 Oregon 35-36 4834 $ 90 , 942.50 $18 . 81 $113 ,419. 30 S 925 , 133.63 12T St. Charles 37-51 1384 $ 84 , 196 . 50 $60 . 84 $ 84,196 . 50 S 84,196.50 100

adly deteriorated with a high percentage of thepipehaving the invert totally rusted out . The originalpipe couldnot be extended due to its condition andneeded replacement .The CSP were originally installedon this project in 1932 - 34. Two crossroad CSP hadbeen replaced prior to this project by the Department ' sMaintenance personnel .This project was 9.633 miles long and required2 , 824 linear feet of pipe. The 2,824 linear feet ofCSP was placed at a cost of $53,549 . 50 or a weightedaverage cost of $18 . 96 per linear foot .Total cost ofthe pipe installation ,including end sections , was$63,371.50.In addition to the cost of total replacement by age54 years , replacing the pipe created another problem .It is very difficult to recompact a cut trench withoutgetting some settlement at a later date .installations have now settled andMost of thesethere is adepressionin the roadway surface which is noticeableto the traveling public .Project F-8- 1(9) Secs A and B, Route 8, CrawfordCounty was let to contract in June 1986. It wasprimarily a resurfacing project . The project was16.596 miles long . The CSP were originally installedon this project in 1937 . No record of maintenancereplacement prior to 1986 was available .- 22 -

This project required lining of 580 linear feet ofCSP and replacement of 1,206 feet of CSP . Lining wasperformed by inser ting asmooth wall polyethylene pipeinto the deteriorated esp . Lining of the 580 linearfeet was completed at a cost of $10 , 282.00 or aweighted average cost of $17 . 73 per foot. The 1,206linear feet of CSP was replaced at a cost of $22 , 208 . 00or a weighted average cost of $18 . 41 per linear foot .Total cost of the pipe lining and pipe installation ,including end sections , was $49 , 140 . 00Lining of the crossroad pipe provided analternative to closing the road to through trafficwhere high fill or other conditions made replacementdifficult. However , the plastic lin i ng reduces theopening in the pipe and can only be used where itshydraulic capacity is adequate.Projects F- 19-3(5) Secs A and B, F-19-2(9) Secs Aand B, and RS-68l(5), Route 19 , Gasconade County werelet to contract in November 1986 .They were primarilyresurfacing projects .These projects were 37 . 891 mileslong. The esp on these projects \.,rere originallyinstalled between 1930-37 . No record of replacementprior to 1986 by Maintenance was available .These projects required lining of 1 , 675 linear feetof CSP at a cost pf $40,868.00 or a weighted averagecost of $24 . 40 per linear foot .It is interesting to- 23 -

note the bid prices for these projects, which is thesecond time polyethylene lining was specified,increased from S16 . 00 to S23 . 00 per foot for 14 inchdiameter liner and from S22 . 00 to S34 . 00 per foot for20 inch d iameter liners . Bid prices from more projectswould be requ ired to establis h the level of cost o fpolyethylene lining.There was 3 , 134 linear feet of CSP replaced withCSP on these projects at a cost of $81,559 . 00 or awe ighted average cost of $26 . 02 per linear foot .Totalcost of the pipe installation,includi ng end sections ,was $99,099.00.Project RS-BHS - I098(2) Secs A and B, Route 142 ,Oregon County was let to contract in November 1986 .The project was primarily a resurfacing project .Theproject was 11 . 493 miles long .The project required replacement of all the CSP andPA within the project limits . The CSP and PA wereoriginally installed in 1950 and 1951 .There wa s 4,834 linear feet of CSP and PAreplacedat a cost of $90,942 . 50 or a weighted average cost ofS18.81 per linear foot. Total cost of the pipeinstallation , i nc luding end sections , was $113 , 419 . 30 .Project 6-S-T-787, Route T , St . Charles-WarrenCounties was let to contract in July 1986 . Thisproject was let solely for the purpose of replacing- 24 -

CSP . The project was 19 . 04 miles long .The project required 1 , 384 linear feet of pipe at acost of S29,544 . 00 for the CSP and placement .However,thetotal cost of the project including mobilization,repair of the pavement,etc., have to be included inthe CSP cost since the project was solely foereplacement of esp .The total cost of the project was$84,196 . 50 or a weighted average cost per linear footfoe the CSP of $60 . 84.Replacement Or Rehabilitation By Maintenance Personnel­Maintenance of CSP is increasing in frequency and cost. TheCSP deteriorates at variable rates , however, the largequantity of CSP placed between 1930 and 1965 havedeteriorated to the point where they are now requiringreplac~ment by Maintenance personnel or by contract .TableV shows the linear feet of CSP actually replacedby Maintenance personnel in 1984 ,1985 , and 1986 along withthe total cost and cost per linear foot .This table shows adramatic increase in maintenance replacement of CSP at anincreasing unit cost . The annual cost of CSP replaced bythe Department ' s ow n forces has increased from approximately$400 , 000 in 1984 to approximately $1 , 000,000 in 1986 .Actual u sage figures were only a vailable for the pastthree years , however , quantities purchased by the Departmentwere available for the past five years and are shown inFigure 3 .This figure also shows an increasing quantity of- 25 -

TABLE VCORRUGATED STEEL PIPE USED BY MAINTENANCELinear FeetofPrice PerYear CSP Used Linear Foot Total Cost1984 16 , 902 $23 . 33 $394 , 32 41985 21 , 889 $23.74 $519 , 6451986 37,583 $25.78 $968 , 890- 26 -

0WU)

CSP being purchased. A small , fairly constant quantity ofRCP is purchased each year.The Department purchases and places approximately 1,500linear feet of RCP per year .Most of the RCP is being usedin District 7 to replace CSP that has failed due toacidicdrainage conditions.In addition to the replacement of CSP, it is commonpractice in some maintenance areas to rehabilitate CSPbyplacing concrete in the invert where the metal has rustedout . No cost data or number of pipe rehabilitated in thismanner are available at this time .Culvert Replaceme nt Survey - In January of 1987, theDivision of Materials and Research, as a result of risingconcerns about culvert age and condition at the time ofreplacement, r equested that the Districts gather and providecertain information on crossroad pipe being replaced eitherby Maintenance or by contract. The p urpose of the survey isto establish the condition and age of the culverts replaced.The location , route , county, size and year of installationare recorded and the information received from January 1,1987 through May 1 2 , 1987, is attached as Appendix E.An analysis of the information reveals that during thisperiod , based on 515 reports from Districts 1, 3 , 4, 5 , 6,8 , 9 and 10 , the newest CSP replaced was 20 years of age andthe oldest was 59 years \... ith an average age of 46 . 6 years.The data also indicates the CSP being replaced havepartial- 28 -

or totally mis sing inverts.It does not reveal at what agethe inverts rusted out. This survey is an ongoing projectand information is still being compiled.This survey also does not reveal the pipe with missinginverts that are not immediately scheduled for replacementdue to availability of money and manpower .OneDistrictreports it has a large percentage of CSPthat havetheinverts missing but are not being replaced until theworkload and financial condition allow.Research - As a portion of this report, a literaturesearch was performed. A list of the pUblications reviewedis attached as Appendix F . Some quotespublications are attached as Appendix G.fromToselectedbrieflysummarize the results of these reports as o ne authorstatesin a 1984 report , " . . . it can be anticipated tha t \ .. i thproper care the primary and Interstate roadways couldwellbe in service 100 years from no w. " Durability problemsexist with all protective coatings now commonly used onCSP and no nationally acceptable relationship betvJeenculvert service life and corrosion parameters has beendeveloped.Most researchers give a life e xpectancy of 100+ years toreinforced concrete pipe . The Department ' s e xperiencesi ndicate a life expectancy of 100+ years for RCP.Looseningand faulting of end joints was the primary type of failure .Zinc- coated corruga t ed steel pipe has been around a long- 29 -

timeand has been the subject of many studies to determinewhy it fails and to t ry to predict life expectancy indifferen t environments . Zinc-coated steel is affected bywater , low pH ,anaerobi c bacteria ,low electrical resistivity of soils,abrasive material, chlorides, sulfates ,and many other factors .Predictions of life expectancy aregenerally based on only part of the environmental factorsand therefore the predictive procedures should be consideredlocal i n nature. For i nstance , California uses pH andelectrical resistivity to predict life expectancy .Thismethod of trying to predict e xpected life has been thesubject of several States ' research and at least inthereports revi ewed ,the States have not been able to make theCalifornia method correlate \",ith actual experience .The pHandelectrical resistivity are important factors in settingthe stage for corrosion but are not the only factors andinsome cases are not considered significant .Wisconsin foundbacteria to be a contributing factor in corrosion in 31percent of the study sites .Maine and Ohio found little , ifany , correlation between electric resistivity and actualcondition . Utah found that approximately 14 pH tests werenecessary in the field to obtain the true pH value within ±1/2 unit . They also found the Department of Agriculture isomaps to not be accurate enough to use .They recommended pHbe a lab test , not a field test . Neither California orWisconsin gave weight to abrasion which is considered a- 30 -

major factor by New York .Coatings The Department has checked various types ofcoatings over the years in an attempt to find a coating thatwould increase the life expectancy of a corrugated steelpipe to a point where it would approach that of RCP . Toobtain faster results, pipes with various coatings have beenplaced in an area in District 7 known to have an acidicrunoff and in areas in Districts 8 and 9 with abrasivetyperunoff .The following discussion of various pipe coatings is ageneral summary of Department observation a nd researchperformed by others. In general, all the coatings have adurability problem when exposed to abrasion."Epoxy Coated Corrugated Steel Pipe : B~o x y coatingsare affected by direct sunlight. The Department testedepoxy coated CSP in an area with severe exposure (pH 3 . 0 ±o . 3) . The acidic test section was abandoned as a failureafter five years of exposure .The invert was approximatelyone-half gone and the top inside coating was brittle andblistered with the deterioration beginning at the cut edgesof the individual sheets and at areas where exposed todirect sunlight .Bituminous Coated and Bituminous Coated a nd Paved CSP :Bituminouscoatedpipeis reported assubject to pooradhesion,abrasion,andsalts .Lifee xpectancy ofthecoating ranges from 0 to 7 years. Bituminous coated and- 31 -

paved is subject to the same problems as bituminous c oatedbutif the paving extends far enough around the pipe morelife is gained -eight years according to Maine , at 30 yearsaccording to New York 100 percent would have failed , andOhio ga ve a median life of 10+ years for paving that wasovertopped by flow .Kansas DOT has reported only 12 percentof inside bituminou s coatings were good in three and sevenyear old pipe .The Depar t ment ' s i nves t iga t ion in 1965 concluded thatplain bituminous coating added t wo years of life and coatingand paving added about five years . The use of bituminouscoating or paving was discontinued by the Departme nt .Asbestos Bonded Bituminous Coated and Paved Pipe :Thispipe was reported by Ohio DOT to be performingsatisfactorily after 12 years .This coating appears to bethe best of the coatings reported on esp .to abrasion and high salt concentrations .It is susceptibleNo prediction ofservice life was made i n these reports .Missouri has a test i nstallation ofthis typepipeplaced in 1974 in an acidic drainage area . The latestinspection in December of 1986 shows the exterior coating isdeteriorating to t he e x ten t that small pieces are looseenough to be pulled up from the asbestos . The asbestos isnow starting to debond from the pipe . Within four yearsafter i nstallation , the bituminous coating was severelycracked , both inside and out , wit h the cracks varying in- 32 -

width from minute to 1 /8 i nch or more .The invert itself isapparentlystarting torust at the edges whereaslightamountofdebonding has occurred. The smallamountofdebonding is apparently the r esult of abrasion or mechanicaldamage .Asbestos bonded coating is no longer available dueto environme ntal controls .Polymer Coated Corrugated Metal Pipe : New York DOTreported polymer coatings as particul a rly susceptible toabrasive flow. Polymer coatings are immune to acidic flowandwhen the coating is not broken or penetrated it offersprotection to the CSP .It is reported that problems due todelaminat ion d uring fabricatio n still exist .of service life were made .Noes tima tesThe Depar tme nt has o ne pol ymer tes t installation in anon - a brasive , acidic drainage . It is a r iveted pipe and atage six months all rivets were gone from the invert andapproximately 1/8 inch of the e xposed inlet edge of theme tal sheet was gone . Delamination started at that point .After 15 years the deterioration has advanced a nd metal lossand delamination increases with each annual inspection .Current fabricating practice would probably be a lock seampipe to protect agains t e xposed rivets and cut edges .Aluminum Coated Corrugated Steel Pipe :several aluminum coated culverts were installed ,In 1952 ,e valuatedand reported in 1981 with results a s follows :"Overall performance of pipe c ulverts is based on small- 33 -

sample size and test data having wide variability whichmay have con tributed to inconsisten t fi ndings .Ho wever , statistical a nalyses of measured a nd s ubjecteddata as obtained f rom 28 year old pipe indicatedoverall performance of a luminum coated corrugated steelpipe culverts was equal to or better thanzinc-coatedcorrugated steel pipe culverts . "The Departme n t has accepted this pipe as equal tozinc- coated steel.Aluminum - Zinc Alloy Coated Pipe : Bethlehem Steelreports based on laboratory tests and limited fieldi nstallations , s t ate t his coating is equal to or better thanz i nc galvanizing .The coating is a mixture of approximately55 percent aluminum and 45 percent zinc and appears to havethe same probl ems as zinc - coated pipe .No prediction ofservice life was reported .Mi ssouri has not yet had this coating proposed for testor use .Survey Of Mos t Adjoining States - A telephone surveyof six of the ad join ing States was made toascertain whatpolicy for culver t type selection ,culvert design life, androadbed design life is being used by those States . Thesurvey form as completed by t he telephone solicitor for eachof the States is shown in Appendix H. A summary of theresponses of each of the states, Arkansas , Illinois, Iowa ,Kansas , Nebraska and Oklahoma , is as fo l lows :- 3 4 -

Arkansas requires concrete for all c rossroaddrainage structures under all interstate and primaryroutes and allows a n alternate of concrete and steelunder secondary routes , side roads, and entrances .They do not have a set number of years as design lifeexpectancystructures .for either the roadbed orThey have trial installations ofdrainagepolymercoated steel and corrugated polyethylene pipe . TheFHWA in Arkansas has told them polymer coated steelpipe is not an equal alternate to concrete.Illinois requires concrete for all crossroaddrainage structures under high type pavement . Theyallow analternate of concrete or corrugated metalunder entrances, minor s ide roads and 10\'" typepavements . They consider a roadbed design life to beat least 50 years .Iowa requires concrete for all crossroad drainagestructures under interstate and primary routes .Secondary roads are a county responsibility and t hecounties generally follow Iowa DOT specifications a ndprocedures. Iowa allows an alternate of concrete orcorrugated steel under all e ntrances and secondary sideroads . They do not have a set number of years asdesign life expectanc y for either the roadbed orculverts .Kansas allows concrete a nd corrugated metal as- 35 -

equal alternates for all drainage except only concreteis specified for six counties in Southeast Kansas ,locations where water stands in the culvert ,or wherecontinuous flow is expected . They do not have a setnumberof years for design life e xpectancy for eitherthe roadbed or drainage structures . Kansas foundbituminous coated pipe to have no significant benefit .Nebraska requires concrete for all crossroaddrainage structures under interstate routes, allconcrete pavements , and all asphaltic concretepavements with a 20 year projected traffic of 800 ADTor greater.Asphaltic concrete pavements in the · sandhills " may have either concrete or steel piperegardless of traffic .Alternate materia ls arc allowedon entrances . They do not have a set number of yearsas design life e xpectancy for either the roadbed orculverts .Oklahoma requires concrete for all crossroaddrainage structures . They allow either concrete orcorrugated metal for entrances.Oklahoma does not havea set number of years as design life expectancy foreither the roadbed or culverts . In specialenvironments , they may allow bituminous coated orpolymer coated steel pipe for entrances but not ascrossroad.Only one of the adjoining States, Illinois, has a- 36 -

design life for the roadbed which one could assume wouldalso apply to drainage structures .Kansas allows corrugatedmetal to be used as crossroad drainage in more situationsthan the other States. As stated by Nebraska in relation totheir "sand hills , " corrosion of steel is not a problemingranular well drained soils where corrosive drainage is notpresent .- 37 -

APPENDIX ADESIGN POLICY- 38 -

((SECTION 9-109-) 0. \ GENERAL Drainage structures are located anddesigned /0 adequately handle runoff across improvementsand to handle runoff from the improvement The locationof cuJvcns i ~ covered in Chapter IV of this Manual ThehydrauliC design of culverts and othel drainage faci litiesis discussed in preceding sections In rhis section criteri~peltaining to the selection of culver[ and storm sewermaterial and appurtenances are presented.9- 10 2 lyr ES Permissible culvert types are concrelebox, remforced concrete pipe, vitrified clay pipe ,corrug3 red metal pipe. corrugated aluminum alloy pipe,and cOHugared metal pipe-arch In general. there are IWOmerhods of ~p ecifying the permissible culvert Iypesdependent upon !he design traffic and rhe surface type.TIle first method is· to specify one particular culvert typeand Ihe second melhod is ro specify a group of culvertIypes as deH:·ibed in succeeding sections. The finalselection of the structure type is based on requirementsin the Standard Specifications, on good engineeringjudgmen' , and economy with consideration of 5ervice andmaintenance cosrs(I) ROADWAYS WITH LESS mAN 400 ADTAND ENTRANCES, Permissible types of culveltsacceplable for use under all loadway~ with less than 400ADT and all ent rances regardless of traffic or pavemenlsurface type are concre te box, reinforced concrete pipe,corr ugated metal pipe, cOJlugated aluminum alloy pipe.and cOIJugared melal pipe·arch. Concrete box structuresare considered for structures larger 'han 60 inches indiameter The most economical sr.ucture type may beused Corrugated metal pipe arch suuctures in sizes 8 -Sand larger are used where necessary because of limitedallowable srruc ture height The T ype 8 ·1 through 8-4corrugated melal pipe arch is nor acceptable A balleryof round pipe 0' $Ingle elliptical reinforced concrete pipemay be conside·ed in lieu of B· I through 8 -4 cOfluga tedmelal pipe arch Twelve· and fift een ·rnch pipes ale nOIu ~e d for cro~sroad culverts. cxcepr whe:e the use of anI S-inch pipe will creale an umightly or implaclicabledrainage condllion lJeveted · ends ale specified forcorrugated melal pipes la.ger rhan 4S·inch dianlelerCOllugared metal pipe·arches are not beveled In general.Ihe bevel ohould nOI be flatter .han 2'1 nor should 'heskew exceed I S degrees If these controls are exceeded.special con$ideration i~ given to Ihe use of headwalls.dplap. 'or slope pavement fa stiffen the strUClure againstuneven loading from the embankment and Ihe dynamicforces of the walel Proposed designs fOl .hese conditionsare ~ub mlHed to Ihe ~bln Office for approvalCHAPTER IXHYDRAULICS AND DRAINAGENON-HYDRAULIC ASP ECTS OF DRAINAGE DESIGNIn general. full circle pipes are specified on the plans by"Groups" These groups give the contraclor the permissiveoption of furnishing anyone or a combination of the ptpeIypes within Ihe specified group One group of pipe(Group II) is provided for crossroad culvens for roads withdesign ADT of less !han 400 and for side drainage suchas under enl/ances legaldless of the tramc Concrcte pipeis used fo r locations where high acidity or alkallllllY ofsoil s or waters or other cOHosive elements are plesent.The pennissi\'e pipe Iypes in Group II are (I) reinforcedconClele. (2) corrugated melal. (3) cOHug:lIed aluminumaUoy When Group II pipe is specified hyd.aultc designcomputations should be based on corrugated meTal pipeIn, special cases as described in a subsequent seclion "hereone pipe type has a peculiar advan1age over olhc. pipetypes, the particular pipe Type may be speciiied in lieuof $pecify ing groups(2) ROADWAYS WITH 400 OR MORE ADT WITHSURF ACE TYPE OTHER THAN ASPHALTICCONCRETE OR PORTLAND CEJl.I ENT CONCRETE.Permissible types of culve ll s accepTable for use unde!roadway~ with 400 ADT or mOle with surface Iypc orherthan asphaltic concrele O! portland cement conCICle arcconcrete box. reinforced concrete pipe. cOllugated mel~~pipe, and vjllified clay pipe (exII:! stlengl h) Box culveilsmspecified only when it is mOle economlC3l ro bUIldIhe box than it is to prov.de an equivalenr p.pe cui vel •in general. full circle pipes are spec. lied on Ihe plans by"Group" The gTOUp designation gives 'he COntraCfOl .hepermi5sive oplioll of furnishing anyone o r a combinaTionof Ihe pipe types wilhin Ihe specified group One groupof pipes (Group [) i5 prOvided. The permissive pipe Iype~in Group I a!e ( I) reinforced con'crete. (~) co. ruga redmetal. (3) vi r"fied clay (exIra ~ Irenglh) When Group Ipipe is specified hydraulic design compura.ions should t.ebased on corrugated mela] pipe In spec.al rases asdescribed in a subsequenr secrion where one pipe Iypehas a peculiar advantage over other pipe Iypes. thepaflicular Iype may be ~pec ified In lieu ot speCIfYing Ihegroup 12" and 15" pipes ale nOI used e.'(cepl as outlersfrom drop inlets Elhplrcal reinforced concrele prpe maybe used in special case~. u~ually fOl SIOfTn sewer ~. \\lterenecessary b\!cau$e or' Ijntil~d allowable "Tucture height(3) ROADWAYS WITH SU RFACE TYPE OFASPHALTiC CONC RETE O R PORTLAND CE~IENTCONC RETE PelmiSSlblc types 01 culveJls accepTable fOIuse under roadways wrrh sur(ace type of a~ph a l"c concrereor ponland cemenl conClete are conClete bOx. andreinforced concrete 01 vlfllfled day pipe lextra stlength)- 39 -Rev J·16·81

The type of pipe to be used is specified on the plansThe plans usually specify reinfOlced concrete pipe for allpipe strUClures except enHance pipe Villified day pipeis used only for se ..... ers · Box culvells are specified onlywhen it is more economical to build the box than it isto provide an equivalent pipe culvetl12" and 15" pipes are not used except as ou tlets fromdlop inlets and in stonn sewer systems. The requirementsfOl using reinforced conctete pipe or vitdfied day pipefor structures may be waived if conditions warrant. suchas poor st ructute foundation conditi ons. high fi lls.simplificarion of handling traffic. etc Corrugated metalpipe is specified fOl rhe portion of median outle t pipesoutside the edge of pavement ..... here such pipes are locatedon high fiUs requiring a break in nowline grade DetailsfOl such Installations ale illustrated on Figure 9-10 ICorrugated metal pipe may also be specified 10 drain dlopinlels into crosstoad drainage structures when suchinstallation necessitates a steep flowline grade and whenthe pipe will not extend under the pavement.(4) ENTRANCE PIPE Permiss1ble Iypes of pipeused fo r enHances are d~ribed in Section 9-10 2(1) andale usually specified by respective group Flared endsections ale not lequired.(5) SIDE ROAD APPROACH STRUCTURESPermissible rype ~ of st ructures acceptable fOI use underside road approaches ar e dependent on traffic volume 0 1pavemenr surface type as described in Sec 9·10.2(1) thruSec 9·10 2(3) Flared end sections are required wherethe side road design liafflc exceeds 750 vpd(6) OUTER ROADWAY DRAfNAGESTRUCTURES. Permi ssible types of culvert pipeacceptable for use under outer roadways ate dependenton tr affic volu me o r pavement surface type as describedin Sec . 9-102(1) thru Sec 9-10.2(1) except thatconrinuous drainage stlUctures extending under outerroad ..... ays :ue designed to the same standard as requiredfor Ihe portion of The slI ucture under the main roadwaySince a conrinuous drainage structure usuall y increases thestandard fo r the portion under the outer roadway. it isusually mOle economical to use independent structuresWhere contlnuous SlTuc tures ale used. the runoff betweenthe outer roadway and lhe main roadway is usually carriedinto Ihe clOssroad structure by drop inleTS and pipeWhete the crossload structure is a relatively small pipe.the drop inlet is consl1ucted in the crossroad structureFlared end sections ale specified at both ends of pipestiUclures 66" or le~5 in diameter regard less of the pipeIype In special cases where low clearance exists and rhestructure ic essentially at rig/II angles on loads with lessthan

((9· 10

of crossroad structures i~ constructed above final flow-linegrade to compens:lIc fo r anticipated settlemenl. Typicaldetails for cambering culverts are shown on Drawing726.30 of the Standald Plans A structure designed withproper camber will se ttle to near flowline grade andelevation when it reaches final seulement. All culverts,except those on non·yielding foundati ons, are camberedat a minimum rate of 001 foot per foot of overftllCambers of 0 I foot or less are not shown on plans. Wherethe fin settlement is known, culverts are designed witha camber equal to the an ticipated se ttlement. The camberis shown on the culvert section at the roadbed shouldersby amount and fl ow-Hne elevation as illustrated in ChapterIV.9·10. 10 CULVERT EXTENSIONS. AU culvertexte nsions. both boxes and pipes. are extended withstlUctures mee ting current design requirements andstandards, regardless of the type of standard of the existingstructure. Pipe collars as detailed on Drawing 60440 ofthe Standard Plans are used to connect different typesof pipe, and concrete pipe to concrete pipe Box culvertsare extended in accordance with details shown on Drawing7033S of Ihe Standard Plans and Figure 9- 10.2Additional Hils on existing box culverts m3Y require astructural analysis of the existing structure by the Divisionof Bridges If so" lhe Division of Bridges is fu rnished aprint of the completed culvert sec tion and the st andardto which the existing slmcture waS designed. if known,for their use in making the analysis9- )0.1 I OVERFILL HEIGHTS(1) MINIMUM FILL HEIGHTS. The minimumallowable fill or cover for all structures is one foot at theshoulder line , with the following exceptions: Theminimum fill for structural-plate pipe structures islabulated in Figure 9-107 In addition, the minimumclearance from the top of st ructures to the bottom ofbases is six inches. Excep tions are special box culvertsdesigned to carry traffic on the top slab. Where low typesurfaces are used. the minimum fi ll at the shoulder onthe inside of super-eleva led curves is 18 inches MinimumfiU heights for vitrified cl ay pipe (extra slJ ength) are 4feet for Ihe 8" through 21" diameters and 3 feet for the24 " through 36" diameters Overfill heights which areless than Ihose indicated as allowable for anyone pipeIype are not considered as justification fo r the el iminationof specifying pipe types by "Groups" provided othercriteria are satisfactory .(2) DESIGN FILL HEIGHTS. ]f any questiondevelopes regarding the fin heigh ts 10 be used, and wherethe fil l heigh t is between values labulated for design, thedesign fill height is laken to the next incremen t requiringthe higher design Pipe culverts are designed throughout- 42 -the ir length for the maximum design condilion except inIhe case of structural plate pipe Box culver t extension sand box cu lverts in secti ons are designed for the hei~1of fill over individual sections in accord ance wilh detailsshown on Figu re 9-102 Box culverts are designed forall fill heighTS Design fill heigh ts for al l pipe culvertsspecified by "Groups " are shown on th e "B" shee ts Theallowable overfill heights for cOllugated meta] pipe-a rchesand structural plate pipes are tabulated in Figures 9·\0 6and 9-10 7, respectively These overfill heights Indicateboth a minimum and a maximum. nelthel of which shouldbe exceeded The column headed "STandald" under gagefOl pipe-arches in Figure 9· 10 6 lefels 10 Ihe gage le'luhedfor the particular structure by the Standard SpecificationsIf overfill heights exceed the lange shown . a diffelent gagemay be necessary and a special design is requested ftOmthe Main Office A special deSign is also le'lueSled fOIpipe-arches of a size nOI liSTed in FigUie 9 10 6 If adifferent gage is necessary, the plans specify fhe gagerequired Where overfill helghrs are glealel than shownin the figure, conside ration should be given 10 :ound pipeThe gage for structural plate pipe is speci fIed on the plansand may be changed thr oughout the lengrh of thesTructUie. where economically feasible. depe nden l on thefill heights in accordance with Figure Q·]O 7(3) MAXIMUM FILL HEIGHTS(a) BOX CU LVERTS If The fI ll height excee.:ls thevalues tabulaled on the Standard Plan s. special deSIgn s alerequired.•In such cases, the District furnishes the Di\'ISIOnof Bridges with one copy of FOTm SP·8 and one pTinrshowing the completed culvert seel ion A form issubmitted fo r each section of the culvell requinng specialdesign . The Division of Bridges adds the design da ta tothe form and '(elurns it to the Di str ict for thei r use incomputing quantities An example of a com pie led FormSP·8 is shown on Figu re 9·10 3 (see also Chapter IV)(b) PIPES. Design ove rfIll hei gh ts which al e inexcess of those indicated as allo ..... able fOI anyone pipetype are not considered as juslification fOI the eliminalLonof specifying pipe types by "Groups" provided othercriteria are sat isfactOiY9- 10.12 CU LVERT GRADES (iOssroad drainagestructures are usually placed on a glade eljual 10 Ihenatural ditch grade or the di tch grade 10 which the culvertis being placed ContlOlllng grades for stolm and saniTarysewers are given in preceding sections ErOSIon may bea problem at the outlet end of culvetls on Sleep glades.which some limes can be leduced by breaking the gradethrough the culve rt Grade breaks can be used TO reducestlucture excavation Drop stlUc lU res can be used at Iheinlet end of cu lverts TO reduce The grade Through Theculve rt Drop structures ar e used with discreITon becauseRev 4·16·8 1

of the ponding upstream. and because of the unstablecondition that may be created by the ponding. The gradefor pipes for median drop inlets is broken in accordancewith the requirements and details illustrated on Figure9· 10.1.9·10.13 CULVERT LENGTHS(I) GENERAL. Culvert lengths are detenninedgraphically by scaling from the culvert sections. Thelengths are obtained by intersection of the structure withslope lines as shown on the culvert Standard Plans, andas described in the following sections. Precise lengths arenot computed. In questionable cases a longer length isused. Skewed slopes used for culvert sections are shownon Figure 9·10.4. Intennedi3te values are interpolated.(2) BOX CULVERTS. The length of box culvertSis the distance between headwalls, and is scaled to thenext higher foot. Headwalls are designed sloped alongthe flow-line grade. Box culverts over 75 feet long, andextensions, are built in sections, and the sections aredesigned to meet the requirements shown on Figure9-10.2. The minimum length fo r box culverts is two feetgreater than the roadbed width measured normal to thecenterline of the roadbed.(3) PlPES. The length of pipe culverts withheadwalls is two feet longer than the distance betweenheadwalls. Pipe headwalls are designed on a flat grade.regardless of the grade of the pipe. The length of pipeculverts not beveled and without headwalls is the distancebetween the slope lines at the flow line. Metal pipe lengthsare scaled to the next higher even foot. Other pipe lengthsare scaled to the next higher foot. The length of metalpipes with beveled ends is two feet longer than thedistance between the intersection of the slope lines andthe centerline of the pipe scaled to the next higher evenfoot. Pipe bends and special connections are not listedas a pay item on the plans. The plans do include notesto the effect that such items are required and that theircosts are included in other items. The plans include ,usually on the culvert sections, sufficient dimensions anddetail to fabricate pipe with bends or special connections.9·10.14 CLASS 3 EXCAVATION. Class 3 Excavationis measured and computed in accordance with detail sshown in Figure 9·10.5, supplemented by Figure 9-10.1and applicable Standard Plans. Since the StandardSpecifications provide for lhe payment of plan quantitiesof Class 3 Excavation. care is exercised in computing thequantities. Each structure is checked carefully on the fieldchecks, and appropriate notes are made to insure that thequantities are as accurate as possible. A common erroris to compute only the quantities below the ditch flowline where the structure approaches or exceeds the widthof the natural ditch. Class 3 Excavation is computed toinclude the removal of only that part of an ex.istingstructure within the normal limits of Class 3 ExcavationThe plans include a removal item for the removal of theportion or portions of ex.isting structures outside thenonnal limits of Class 3 Excavation. Care is exercised toavoid duplicate payment fo r the same excavation. suchas computing Class 3 Excavation where channel changequantities or roadway excavation has been computed.9-10.15 CONNECTIONS. The plans provide forconnecting new structures to existing structures. andconnecting different types of new structures. The plansdo not include an item for the connection of pipes toexisting manholes, box culverts, drop inlets, or sewerpipes. The plans do include the pipe collar item forcon nec ting different types of pipe or different sizes ofpipes. Details for pipe collars are shown on Drawing604.40, of the Standard Plans.- 43 -Rev. 4-16·81

APPENDIX BROADBED LIFE- 44 -

a. .? .:::.";":\, !" .... c ~ r> ,\ ' ~ "r."'I ";"OX I ~ v V ' ,n . ,,'{ "l': "n q APq 14. l QR 7t h . "HPfl l);\FA nA~~ TS ~ n A~q F ~ HA S n F ~ ~ f~ PLA: E ! T l~ ~ S T ~u r~ l~ " ~S YS T F!-A __L.F"IGII-J~·_~c~n ,,", u .. t:; ~ T. __ _ ____ _T MTS --~ 6 .. QQ1 C')NST 1916 ,,\ir: PPTnttT NTS 7.

APPENDIX CPIPE QUANTITIES USED BY MAINTENANCE•- 46 -

n.' _______ 1 t,_q -!, ~ ___ . __ .. __ 4 . ,, ____ . __ . _________ ,"'·1 t. ') . 1") .... . 0n·, ., ~ , ~ ..(.'e, • ,O ? . J ~") 0 °'1 7 . ,", 7t.. . nn ? 4- '1 " . r'l 1 , " 11.n(F! I , "i!.

'1 1. ,'"• elf''' , r(';",."• ("1 L,r • I'.01 < , 1 "' ? • •)"'- --.. ------- ----------.--- -... f". ~(:' O"'

APPENDIX DPIPES REPLACED OR REHABILITATED BY CONTRACT- 4 9 -

lITEMIITEMIZED PROPOSAL18 IN. PIPE CULV ER T GROUP IUN ITQUANTITY9 - 5-68-210RTE 6 8CO DENTUNIT PRICE125- Jl. H I . OQZ 18 250 19929 ~ OOI,''" , 22 . 00,911:i? - OO . ) :'0, "c, ,30 I N . Flt,U;:O "'·!O ,,0, " c>a'"I000 1400 . JOI II ,- 50 -

i I ITEMI DESCRIPTION36 IN. FUR ED END seC TI ONITEMIZED PROPOSALUNITQUANTITY1 732-00.36 Z. '00"""TYP E , .w ULCHZ 80Z - 30 .00S EEe I NGDIOQoI.CIl F3 805-10 . VO Zl•TOTAL FOR PROJEC TIIID"" ACJP:ZIII ,

ITEMIZED PR OPOSALF- !l-ll q , S=C ,\jHecnaCR,\ .... F ORO~ IITEMI DESCRI PTIONITVP!: In Od J iOC r ~A

ITEMIZED PROPOSAL~ I! DESCRIPTION, I 'TEMOUANTlTVIUNITP1l: [M E LI OU [ e A$;>HAlT" " o.'C )0I 10 0 3-11).10 )90P!: ;l. ,> ALL')NF IEL D LAB OR AT OR I ESz bO t-l 0 . COI";UAR:J KA[L ; "tP F. ,>E'LW'IP SU:1] 60~ -I O . 1'J '006 06- 3C. OO• ZP ER LIN Frr :: K~[~Al secT r I NPER '" "'(:1.'tOC!(, LI .'HN;;6H-l 'J . OO 00".:o~s nu-:TIuN :;){GNSPER cu ' 00 '!I l ':' -l O. r. 'i (j t dPC:R. 5 :,)TVI' : III Od.J :': C r "A~";:~ "., 1:> 1 ~ - li~ . 47"F-a-l l 'HSEC J'HE a(R..\wfOROcoI U NI T PRICE , AMOUNTDOLL,o,RS m OOLV,IlS,.,'-I ILoa: 4':':1 . 00I ,!I, II)J31 . 600 3J)3 Lc:II1 3 1'500!1I""oF,I60:).000 1 2.:10 . 00II ,11 8 .00 0 100O . UOIJ '0'II ,28 •.,) . 0 ')I ,11 t . 25

ITEMIZED PROPOSALF- !l - li9I SEC aFI T E 3CO (R,!,WFOROi I ITEM1 OESCRIPTION'!'LfEk NAT E, , '0(~CHUNITQUANTITYUNIT PAIC EDOllARSI zz aoo lI, I"'" l I .~ . FT . ,ll~{.'~ G F v ll."AMOUNT'" ,DOLLARS . c r ~!fIS:=R TtON LIN ER. I II 1 00 - 99. Z!'J 161)6H . OU.ALT : !HIAE'. INCH CU LVERT PIP: !, TOO-99. Qa no, 0 00 I.,P'OA LIN . FT ..\UfrtNATE U "; [ 'o'-; F ::; il..INCH CULV ER T PIPE " I1 1I'lO- 99. QQ 161 . 000P ER LI .... FT.18 IN. P IP': CU LvERT G~OUP I, 7 2 'S- Ot . t ll 100 1 8 . 000P':~ L iN FT.- IN • PIP!: CUl'/ !: R T GR)U;:> III12.60010;)i., 72S- 0 1. l" 50 lZ~OOO tl 00 . COP":R L" FT' ld HI. PPE CU l Y': R T G!U)UPI" I6 nS- 02 . li 66 ZJ 000 t lZO~ .)lJ1 1)l- OO. HI>f'q LIN FT I I" I.'l . FLAIl- EO [ .".: :ii:CTf ON I" , ,"~II:"' ,!,eMI)T 'i . I} O O 10500 . ')0;" '" ., F L .\i( eLI t ', J SECT I ON I1Jl- ·1O·"1, 4'i 1l . 00 ') 91) 0 . :1':, 1" 2. - :"O . oc~p~q E .!..(n Ii ry~ !:: ! 0' TYPe 1 MULCHi I , .I1 2. .1 ~ 1 :' . 0 00 J 1iJ l . 'iJIi! :.CqEI IP ER.- 54 -

ITEMIZED PROPOSALF-19- 3 1 5 I SEC "-ATE 1 qCO GASCONADE-rITEMI DESCRIPTIONUNIT PRiceQUANTITYI AMOUNT11 UNIT DO~V.I'IS m I OOLL""S l eTSMOBIL IZATI ON1 618-\0 4 '::0 1 20000 0 0 0IPER l U."II> SU:04 ,TE IoIP'1IUA,Y ?AvE"'EtH .'04A KK I NG200 00 1002 bZZ-1 O .. GO 9. ' 60 000 552 . ,)-)P eR; Jo4IL =~ L T:il.NA TE 14 1 N. INSER TI ONLI .'I E.:t "J 7 0C- QQ.14 101$8"r°oZ~6J1t _JOPC;iI: lPl~ l T':O,'IA 1' ;o l on:. I WieR. (i"""LIN!:""[a"4 7CC- .·~U-:. .... r : I ; !: T ~L 0' 1 1' _ Is Le)?E~l " n .. " L,I, :l",v .: ,cc ,9 . n1- .:'· ~ .L ·'l 1UN or"!I IJo l e . )"I",". i I" .tC-iI I I12 0 000 : 6 l Zr.. . O':,--- 55 -

ITEMIZED PROPOSALF-19- 3 15 I SEC aRTE 19CO GASCONADE,..",.,"flO ~,~ITEMIUNITQUANTITY622-10 . 0u 9.bZ 125- 0 1. 18H'"I Id I .'. "'" n " OU' I;>ERUN FTI lZ l'. . "EHL ' "1:25-1 0 .1 2 55'"~ II" ODD,,516100", " NFTI " l". , "'" s> c w.I 7) ?-t:O . l a b1, ror :'l FO::l "R a J ~ c rPo. "'"'b'O) "I- \I , ,IIII,III•,.,II,II I- 56 -

ITEMIZED PROPOSALF-19- 2f9 I SEC A~ BATE 1'1CO GASCO NA DE1; ITEMI DESCRIPTIONI UNIT PRICEQUANTITYI AMOUNTUNIT OOll-'''S m I OO U.AA$ mRElOCA TlNG Tc",pmU,lW TRAFFICBARRIERI1 6 11-S0.10 1. 3141 '00 : L INI /IG F:1R I d I N.cut. V E ~ T P [ I>E, 7 00 - 99 .

ITEM IZED PROPOSALF-I Q-2f'HSEC At.8RTE 19CO ~ASCONAOE~ITEMDESCRIPTION UNIT PRIce AMOUNTQUANTITYUNIT DOLLARS en DOU .... RS18 IN. flARED END SeCTION, 73Z-00.18""0'"000 3360 00"PER EACHIN. FLARED ENLl SECTION2 7J Z - I)O . Z ~ Z 1;'0 00 Z'O COSOO D t ~G?ER EACHJ 'Ol- l O. :lO ZOO to 000 lZOO 00P ~ R 50 YO$EC'O PIG, ~C'i -l J . CC 11 . 7 '00 0 00 Ie 5]0 coP"R l.C~t:, SU6T:TAL ~IJA;) W ':' ''5421,,) 116cR I :>o;e ... Il • J-'.i381( AT S TATI ON• D2+oid'iPEC IAl '.t OR" I ;lRI OGE S !T 202-i:' . 5('\, 15 0 0 OOoJ150 0 1 00PcoR LU~" SUH tl.Sr .... l T 'tC: ""'J Al ( 3 '11O-;"RT ;, Zr: ? -3 ~ •, I.) ~ l .J ll " . OO() 1 :::;0 . ('')z...',40J·" ""1 "I000 ] IPEA. LU "" SUH.'I S PHJ.L r (

ITEMI ZED PR OPOSAL~S - 68 1 1 5 1RTE 1 qCO GASCONADE~ . I DESCRIPTION UNIT PAlce AMOUNTITEMaUANTlTYTEMPOR ARY PAVE wENT ~A ::tK INGUNITIDOtl,O.QS'" OOll,,\.ASl 622- 10. 00, .0 000 480 100" "'" "lILE[,'1 • ['1SEiI. TI.JN'\l T e~ N,HJ:U NH, 700- 9

ITEMIZED PROPOSALRS - 68 1 ( 5 1RTE 1 qCO GASCONADE1 ITEMI DESCRIPTIONUNIT PRICE I AMOUNTQUANTITYUNIT OOll..olilS• '" OOllAIi S l eTS18 I N. FLARED E ~ O SEC TI ON1 13Z-00 . 18., 120 000"PER e ACH[N. FLAR ED END SECTIJ IIIso.o 1"02 732-00 . 210, >;, oeo 87. 00) 0 ...FLAPER ElCH~E O E"I O SE C n O N) 13Z- 00 .. 3 0 2 2 30 oe o

ITEMIZED PROPOSALRS - SH S - I O~8 1 2 t .. t sRT E H ZCO OREGON,I DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT,• ITEMUNITTYPE III OBJEC T MARl( Ell:QUANTIT Y•OOlu\~S1 6 16 -1 0 ."" 1 0 15 000PER E4.CH, IoIAR'4tNG LI GH T, TY PE 8, 6 1 6- 1 0 . 'i~

,ITEMIZED PROPOSAL, I DESCRIPTIONITEM•UNIT,. IN. PIP E CULV:R r GRIJUP II 125-Cl~H ".P!: R UN FT, ) 0 [ N. PIPE CULV ERT GROUP IOUA NTIT Y2 1l5 - 0 1 ~) " IZ6,I,RS-8HS- l OQS I 2 1 0\ t 8U E H ZCO OREGO NUNIT PRICE I AMOUNTOOLLARS'" I OOLL., 12'5- t;2. 1 S"'")6 750 1 $ 10 )\4.70C"1" 1605216 ' 00 3 E -.l.~ (HTV!> :;: 'J- 9 OR :1- 0:1 "'ER LIN FT.," ) ,) 0 '''] 6 '2lLs!)I, IQ'513.0:I ,I56 . boe I 53'11.20III- 62 -

ITEMIZED PROPOSALII.S-8H5- 1098 1 2 1 It. , 6ATE 10\ 2CO OREGON, I DESCAIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNTITEMQUANTITY• I UNIT OO ~ I"A RS m oot.L..II "'s I CTSCORRUGAT ED META L PI P E-ARCHTYP E 9-1 0 OR 8- 1JA1 7l 5-2!l . l O '0" 60039/:1 8 1 00P"'11. EACH I.3326L"5 4 5 1600 l. 16Z1,.op~~ :: ACH I ,oeo l" • H Z-I C. t ,} 728,ZGllZ loc,'" FAC H I I!I- 63 -

ITEMIZED PROPOSAL6-$-T-7117RTE TCQ ST. CHARLESAND WARRENi I ITEMI DESCRIPTIONRE/'IOVAL OF I"'PROVE"'E N SUNIT PRICEaUANTITYI AMOUNTUNIT OOlLARS CTS I OOU .... RS CT~1 202-20.10 1 3000 000 30001 00PE R LUI''''' SU,",CLASS ) E){CAVATI::JN.2 206-30. 00 1.0 46 17 000 171'82 00IIi>~PER CU YOTYPE 1 OR TTPE Z AGGREGATE FORBASE 17 tN. THIC!('31000. ) )04-00. n 53' 1 599 00ASPHALT CEI'IENTPER SQ vo, , Z)6.S0"jooo..t 9I TU"'tHOUS PAV E ~ EN TJ 85-100" 4 0t-l O.ll OR AC-l0PE R TON >MINERAL AGGREGAT:(BITUMINOUS PAVe ~ eH TJ GRADe C'i 401-20.10TO4lZ51oo" 000PER TONPR (:-!F.-LIQU1 O A ~ PH ALT ~c 10 UR" C3100) 0; 1 0 100"I>,PER GALLONCCNSTRUCTI0'i S IGNS•• 408-1('.10 170 ,7 f!l!>-ll) . O!, 176 25.000 't 4 00. 0 0i>PER SO FT >:.oOS ll HAT ( ON8 !t18-1 C. 1'J1l 1 23000 .. 000 -!JOO') . "J ·'"IIP Elt lU!'4P SUM IIj l Z !N . ?(PE (UlVf"R T GrillUP II"q 7 .::'!:R l.[N FT I,II- 64 -

ITEMIZED PROPOSALSHEET 2 OF 2 6-S-T-7B1ATE TCO ST. CHARLESAND WARREN.! I ! ITEM oeSCRIPTlONUNIT PRIceOUANTITYI AMOUNT, UNIT OOll .... RS'" I OOUARS j CT'l5 IN. PIPE CULVE RT GROUP 11l 725- 02.15 .0 16 000 1620 00P"'R LIN FTL8 I N. PIPE CULVERT GROU P II2 725- 02. HI ..0 l' 000 7 7QO 00PER LIN FT2l IN. PI PE CULVE AT GRO UP II3 725-0 2. Zl 3 0 20 000 bOO 00PER LIN FT.- IN • PIPE ( UlVERT GROUP 11... 725-0 2 . 2,,", ]LO Zl 000 ,65 10 L oP!'OR LI~ FT I30 IN. PIPE CULV ";R

APPENDIX ECULVERT SURVEY OF CROSSROADREPLACEMENTS OR REHABILITATION- 66 -

CULVE~T SURVEY OF CROSSROAD REPLACEMENTS OR REHABILITATION Me" 12, 1987Dia. LENGTH YEAR VEAR AGEOIST~ICT COUNTY ROUTE LOCATION IN . Foet. Gage INSTALLED REPLACED (YEARS)"1 Oekalb0.5 Mi. E of Rt. A 36 .2 12 1957 1987 301 Oek.olb C 2 Mi. N of Rt. 36 30 38 ,. 1956 1987 313 Knox 156 3.01 Mi. E of Rt. IS 36 32 10 1935 1987 523 Knox 156 2.03 Mi. E of Rt. 15 30 32 10 1935 1987 52Bon ton T 0.1 Mi. S of Rt C 70x"'l6 "18 unknown 1950 1986 36Cess 8 6 Mi. E of Rt 71 18 '"15 unkno .... n 1936 1986 50Cess 8 '"1.1 Mi. E of Rt 71 3. "'10 unkno .... n 1936 1986 50Ce:5:5 7 2.0 Mi. Io! of Rt. 8 19.5 unkno .... n 1937 1986 Henry H 2 Mi. Io! of Jot K 8.: H 63.5x'"12 "'16 unkno .... n 1950 1987 .••37Hgnry M 2 . 051 Mi. a.! of Rt 13 36 12 1934 1987 53MMH",nry M 2 .53 Ni. '" of Rt 13 2. 1. 1934 1987 53:':MHgnry M 0 . 15 Mi. j.J of Rt 13 2' unkno .... n 1934 1987 53**Hgnry M 0 . 962 Mi '" of Rt 13 3. 12 193'"1 1987 53lEMHgnry M 2 . 275 Mi . &.! of Rt 13 2. 1. 1934 1987 53lEMHonry M 2 . 275 Mi. a.! of Rt 13 2. 1. 1934 1987 53MMHonry M 2 . 689 Mi. W of Rt 13 18 unkno .... n 1934 1967 53*MHenry M 2 . 984 Mi. W of Rt 13•18 unknown 1934 1997 53MM193 4 1987 53MMHo",-y N 0.322 Mi . E of C.o:5:5 Co Ling 2. ,. 1966 1987 21)1;MHonry N 0 . 923 Mi. E of C&:5 :5 Co Ling .8 12 t966 1987 21MMHenry N 2.785 Mi. E of C.o:5:5 Co Ling 30 ,.. 6 1987 2 1MMHgnry N 3.09 Mi. E of C&:5:5 Co L ing 30 ,. 1955 1987 32MKHonry N "l • .q81 Mi. E of C&$$ Co Line 30 H 1955 1987 32MMHgnry N 4.535 Mi. E of C&$$ Co Line 3. 12 1966 1987 21l0(Henry N 5.023 Mi. E of C&$:5 Co Lino 3. 12 1955 1987 32l1elleHgnry N 5.204 Mi E of C&:5$ Co Lino 51x31 12 1955 1987 32l1eMHenry N 7.957 Mi. E of Cess Co L ino 18 16 193"l 1987 53MMHonry N 6.6 1 Mi. E of Cess Co Line 18 16 193.q 1987 53l1eMHonry N 6.83 Mi. E of Ces:5 Co Line ~ " I. 193"'1 1987 53lf:MHgnry N 6 . 693 Mi. E o f C&$$ Co Ling; '" I. 193"'1 1987 53)1;MHonry N 7.41 Mi E of CeS$ Co Lino E.6 12 1934 1997 53lf:MHenry N 7.8'"12 Ni E of C&S$ Co Ling 36 12 193"'1 1987 53*MHonry N 9.118Ni. E of Cas$ Co Ling " 2' I. 1934 1997 53*MHonry N 9.276 Mi. E of Ce$s Co Ling 30 I. 1934 1997 53lf:MHenry N 10. 051 Ni. E of Cess Co Line 18 16 1934 1997 5 3 lf:M•Honry N 10.79.q Mi. E of Cess Co Lino .8 12 1934 1997 53)1;101193'" 1987 53lf:M'" •Henry N 6.5"'15 Mi . E of Ca:5:5 Co Ling 2. ,. 1934 1987 5~j)E*" •Honry N 6. "l5 Mi. E of C.os:5 Co Lino 18 I.•Honry N 11 . .q35 Mi. E of CO$$ Co Lino 18 I.Henry N 12.219 Mi. E of CO$$ Co Ling 30 I. 193"l 1987 53:':MHenry N 12.51.q 111 E o f C.o$$ Co Line 3. 12 1934 1987 5 3 lf:MHonry N 13.719 Mi . E of Ces$ Co Lir.g• 2' I. 193.q 1987 5 3 **•Hemry N 13.246- Mi E of Ce$$ Co Ling 2 ' unkno .... n 1934 1987 5 3 lf:)E4 Henry N 1""1.040 Mi. E o f C ~ $$ Co Line 3. 12 193"l 1987 5 3:':M196""1 1997 23:':M•Hgnry N 20. 81B ~1i E of C.o$$ Co Ling .0 I.

4 Heoonry N 21.135 Hi E o~ C~~~ Co Ling 24 14 1966 1987 2PUE4 Honry N 21.370 Hi E o~ C~~5 Co Ling 30 14 1966 1987 21j,()(4 Hgnry N 21.930 Mi. E of C~~5 Co Lin" 3. 12 1966 1987 2 1NM4 Honry 2 0.25 Mi. E of Jet. :2 & JJ 32)(63 42 12 1956 1987 3 1)(M4 Honry 2 0.25 Mi. E of Jet 2 So JJ 56)(38 40 12 1956 1987 3 14 H"nr.., 2 0.6 Mi. E Jet :2 60 JJ 32)(63 38 12 1956 1987 3 1M)!;4 Honr'::j 2 0.6 Mi. E Jet 2 e. JJ 56x 38 "!Q unkno .... n 1956 1997 314 HQnry 2 0.55 Mi . E of" Rt. :2 a. NN 20)(38 40 14 1956 1967 31MN4 Hgnr'=l 2 0. 5 5 Mi. E Jet. Rt 2 8. NN 35.5x23.5 "lQ unknoun 1.56 1'387 314 Johnson 0 1.1 Hi. No of Rt. 0 8. EE 30 50 unknown 19"'17 1986 3 .4 Johnson 88 1.5 Mi. 1.1 o f" Rt 13 2 4 "lQ unknown 1957 1996 294 Johnson 00 1.6Ni. E of" Rt M 28x 20 "lQ unknoun 1961 1996 254 L~f.oy"tt" 0 1. 3 Mi. N of Rt 1-70 30 "10 unknOloln 1935 1997 52)()(4 Lcfo4 L~f'a""o;;.tto 23 1-8Mi. S of Rt PP 24 .q0 unkno ... n 193.q 1986 5 24 Lafayroott.o 23 1. 9 Mi . S of Rt. PP 24 .q0 unkno .... n 193.q 1986 5 24 L~f'ayroott.o 23 0.5 Mi. S of Rt. PP 30 .q0 unkno .... n 193.q 1986 524 L~FayfOltto 131 O.8S Mi. S of Fi!t U 18 .q0 unkno ... n 1931 1986 5 54 LoFoyQt.to;;. 131 0.75 Mi. S of" Fi!t. U 18 .q0 unknoun 1931 1986 554 LoFoyrootto;;. 131 0.35 Mi. S of" Fi!t. 00 2 4 14 1931 1987 56MM4 LoFayfOltto FF 1.1 Mi . E of John50n Co Lino 24 "'14 unkno .... n 1949 1987 38MM4 Po;;.t.t i5 0 1. 9 Mi. E of Rt. 127 2 4 34 14 1934 1987 S a MM4 PfOlt.ti5 0 1. 7 Mi. E of Rt 127 18 40 1. 1934 1987 5 3 MM4 PfOlt.ti5 0 1. 5 t1L W of Rt 127 30 45 14 1934 1997 5 3 MJII4 PfOlt.t.i:5 0 6.4 Mi. E of Fi!t 7 29x 42 .qQ unkno ... n 1934 199e. 5 24 PQt.t.i:5 a 3.6 Mi E of Rt T 3 . 12 1934 1997 5 3 J11M4 PQt.t.i5 a 2.3 Mi. E of Rt. T 2 4 14 1934 1987 53J11M4 PQtt.i5 a 2.3 Hi. E of Rt. FF 30 14 1934 1987 53MW4 PQtt. i :5 a 1. 7 Mi. of Rt FF 2 4 unkno .... n 1934 1987 53MW4 Potti5 a 4 Mi. E of Rt Ff 3. 12 1934 1987 5 3J11io(4 Pot.ti5 0 2 Hi. E of Rt Ff 3. 12 1934 1987 53iM":4 PQt.ti:5 J 8.4 Hi. E of Rt 65 2 4 60 unkno .... n 1932 1996 544 PQtt.i15 J 9.3 Mi- E of Rt. 65 18 44 1. 19"" 1986 474 PQtt. i 15 J 0 . 2 Hi. E of' Rt. 65 3 0 14 1933 1987 5 .qMiM4 PfOltti5 J.N At Jet RtQ:5 J a. N 3 . 7 3 14 1932 1986 5 44 POt.t.i5 M .3 Hi. E of Rt. V 15 "'16 unkno .... n l'SO 1986 3.4 Pgt.t.i:5 M 0. :3 Mi. W of Rt V 15 .q6 unkr'o .... n 1940 1986 4 .4 Pgtt. i15 V J e t Rt U a. V (Wg5t ) 36x2 1 14 19SO 1987 37MloE4 Pott is V J e t Rt V a. U (EelSt) 15 1. 1950 1987 37M;';4 Pgtti:5 V 1. 7 Mi. E of Rt U 3 0 unkr'o .... n 19 50 19B7 37M>':

~ PlPtti:s V 0 . 5 Mi. E o~ R:t. 65 30 14 1950 1987 37Jo1M~ PlPttis Y 1 Mi. E of Rt 127 ~8 3~ 12 1953 1987 34MM~ PlPtti:s Y 1.0 Mi. E of JOhn:son Co Lin ... 5~ unknown 1955 1987 32Jo1M~ PlPttis RR 0.6 Mi. W of" Rt 127 30 unkno .... n 1952 1987 35"MPvtt i:s RA 0 .9 Mi. W of' Rt 127 2. .0 16 1952 19B7 35M;.o:PlPtti:s RR 1.04 Mi. W of Rt 127 2. .0 16 1952 1986 3.•Pvtt.i:s RR 1.5 Mi. W of Rt 127 30 .5 1. 1952 1987 35PlPttis ee 2.2 Mi. E of Rt K .8 60 ."mknololn 1956 1986 30•PlPtti:s ee 0.65 Mi E of Rt k 2. 0

5 Boon~ 2 19.09 Mi. S of" fO!t 1-70 1. 3. 1. 1936 1997 515 Callo .... ay 0 5.0"'0 Mi. S of" Rt 1-7 0 15 "12 unknoun 1932 1987 555 Coll.ellwo!IY 0 5.786 Mi. 5 of Rt. 1-7 0 15 "'1O unknown 1932 1987 5 55 Collouoy 0 7.061 Mi. S of Rt. 1-70 15 "'10 unknoun 1932 1997 555 C.elll.e.woy 0 9 . 307 Mi. S of Rt. 1-70 15 3 7 .... nknoun 19:32 1997 5 55 Calloway O. 0 . 804 Mi. S of Rt. 1-70 30 3 8 unkl"lOun }962 1987 2 55 Callo .... ay 0 1.269 Mi. S of Rt. 1-70 2. -'12 unknown 1962 1':187 2 55 Montgorn~,..y A 7.30 Mi . E of Rt 19 1. 38 unknown 1936 1987 515 Montgo mg,-y A 7.81 Mi. E of' Rt. 19 1. unk n o un 1936 1987 51...1933 1997 5 4~6 Franklin 185 1.0.q Mi. N of' Rt 50 1. 36 16 1938 1997 .9'6 Frankl in 185 3.8 Mi. N of · Rt 50 1. 36 16 1938 1987•Fronlod in H 0 . 74 Mi. S of' Rt 50 15 2.,.6 Frer"lklin 185 "1 . 01 Mi. N of Rt 50 1. 36 16 1938 1987 .9'6 GO lllconod,", A 11. 69 Mi. S of Rt. 50 1. 36 16 1932 1987 55'6 Go:sconodo A 7.13 Mi. S of Rt . 50 36 36 12 1952 1':187 35'6 Geolllconedo A 7.·6 6o:sco nodo 100 3 . B9 Ml. H. of Rt 19 30 36 ,. 1934 1987 53.6 GO:5conodo 10 0 11.30 Mi. W o f Rt. 19 1. 60 16 1935 198? 5 2.6 s t. Chol""l o :s 0 0.86 Mi. E of Rt. T 1. 3 . 16 193 6 1987 51'Worrl;ln U 1.60 ~1i. 5 01' Rt. 11M 2 . 3 .•1. 19 S5 1987 3 2)(6 Worron .7 1.1 7 t1i. 5 0 1' Rt . f< 2 . "18 unknoun 1932 1987 5 5 •_ro 8E REPLACED DURING THE S UMMER OF 1987

..., •St Charles T st~ . 639+06 18 32 Unkno .... n 19"" 1986 37~•NOTE: Th9 following li~t i~ pipe replaced in Oi~trict 6 ~der Contr~ct in 1986ProjQct 6-s-T-787. Data tekQn from 28 ~hQ8t5.st Ch~rle~ T Ste . 110+76 .0 3"" Unknown 1935 1986 5 1st Ch~rlv5 T Ste. 1 17+6"1 18 3~ Unk ..... own 1935 1986 51st Charles T st~ . 165+1'9 2. 68 Unk ..... own 1935 1'986 51st Charles T ste. 165+78 2. 76 Unknown 1935 1'96e. 5 1st Char-Ies T Ste. 226+97 2. 34 Unkno .... n 1935 1'96e. 51st Cher-Ies T st.ell. 251+68 2. "10 Unknown 1 '935 1'986 51st Ch.or-IQS T St.ell. 262+30 18 "10 Unknown 1935 1'966 5 1st Cht!r- Ie ~ T St.ell. 270+3 1 .8 36 Unkno .... n 1935 1'966 51st Cht!r-Ie~ T St.ell. 332+50 18 34 Ur,kno .... n 1 '935 1'986 51st Cher-le~ T St.ell. 34"1+47 18 46 Unkno .... n 1935 1'986 51St Charles T Ste. 390+59 2. 34 Unknown 1935 1986 51St Cherles T Sta. 438+53 18 34 Unknown 1'935 1'986 51St Ch",r-Ies T Ste. 4"11+18 ••"12 Unknown 1'935 1'986 51St Ch~rle~ T Sta. 51"1 +00 18 32 Unknown 1935 1986 51St Ch.ellr-Ie5 T Ste. 5"10+88 12 30 Unknown 1 '949 1986 .7St Ch~r-I G :5 T Ste. 556+70 2. 34 Unknown 19"" 1986 '7St Charles T ste.572+6 3 2 1 30 Unkno .... n1 ."" 1986 .7St Charlos T ste. 602+66 12 28 Unkno .... n 1949 1986 .7St Charles T ste. 620+33 12 28 Unknown 19"" 1986 .7St Charles T ste. 632+70•15 30 Unknown 1949 1986 .7St Ch~rIG:5 T sta. 650+82 18 30 Unknown 1986 .7St Charles T Sta . 661+14 . 8 12 30 Unkno .... n I''''' 19"" 1986 .7St CharlG:5 T ste. 670+82.5 12 36 Unknown 1949 1986 .7St Ch~rlo:5 T ste. 687+00 12 34 Unknown 19"" 1986 37St Ch~r-Ie:5 T stt!. 741+54.5 34 Unkno .... n•• 19"" 1986 .7St Ch~r-IQ:5 T st.ell. 749+53.8 .2 38 Unkno .... n 1949 1986 .7St Ch~r-Ie:5 T Ste. 756+19 .8 76 Unknown 1949 1986 '7St Ch~r-Ie:5 T st.e. 761+80 .2 32 Unknown 1949 1986 '7St Char-Ie:5 T St.e. 793+95 18 30 Unkno .... n 19"" 1986 .7St. Ch~r-Ie:5 T St.ell. 807+57.9 12 30 Unkno .... n 19"" 1986 .7St. Ch~r-le:5 T st. ~. 895+00 18 30 Unknown 19"" 1986 .7St Charle:5 T Ste. 852+S7 2. 24 Unkno .... n 19"" 1986 '7St Charle5 T Ste. 865+65 18 30 Unkno .... n1986 .7st Charie5 T Ste. 882+22 15 30 Unkno .... n 19"" 1 ."" 1986 .7St Cht!r- IQ:5 T sta . 886+6"1 15 30 Unkno .... n1 .""1986 37St CherlQ:5 T sta . 9"15+00 12 36 Unkno .... n 19"" 1986 .7St Ch~rle5 T•sta. 979+00 18 38 Unknown 1949 1986 .7NOTE: ThQ follo .... ing li s t is pipe roplocGd under contr-oc t in 1987,ProjQct F- 19-3(S) Stile 8G~:5 conodtil sta . 538+"lOI'18 40 Unknown 1930 1987 57Gosconodtil sta. 538+75I'18 .1 Unknown 1930 1987 576osconadtil• I. sta. 5"17+50 18 "14 Unknown 1930 1987 57NOTE: ThQ follo .... ing Ii st i:5 pipe rGpl~ c Gd or relinod undQr contrac t in 1987 ,Project Rs-681 ( S)G ... s conadtil st.el. 12+00• I'18 .1 I. 1'36 1'987 51

6 Ge:=;coned~ 19 St.e. 27+98 18 46 16 1936 1987 516 Gesconedg 19 St..eI. 38+00 18 45 16 1936 1987 516 Gosconodg 19 St..e.. 87+65 18 52 16 1936 1987 516 6e:sconed ... 19 St..e. 9

,.Sto. '31+50 IS 55 16 1931 1987 566S Unknown 1'331 1987 566 Gasoonoeld,.,Sto. 112+30 51 Unknoun 1931 1967 566 Ge:5con.e.do ,. "Sto. 127+30 52 Unknoun 1931 1987 566 G.eII::5oonl!ldoStb. 136+25 ,.68 Unkno .... n 1931 1'387 566 Go'!I:5co nad..,Sta. 139+75 51 Unkno .... n 1931 19 87 566 Go'!I:5con.eld ... "St.a. 147+20 76 Unknown 1931 19B? 566 GO::5oonod ... Sto. 14

8 L.e.clgdo J 2.9 Mi . W of' Jet. 5 e. J 18 36 unkn own 19"'19 1987 3.8 LeclodQ J 1."1 Mi. I-! of' Jet 5 & J 30 "10 unknown 1948 1987 3.8 PhGlp:5 72 "l.3 Mi. S of' Jet 72 e. p 18 2 "'1 unkno .... n 193"1 1997 538 Stong 13 .2 Mi. S of Jet 13 e. 248 15 :30 unknown 193"" 1987 53No t ... : Tho following li:5t is pip ... roplecod undor contract in Oist. (Job No. 9 -5-68-270)Doto tekon from 2 8 :shggt:s•Ognt 68 Ste. 3+18•18 "'16 u n known 1933 1986- 539 Dont 68 St.a . 15+95 2 . 56 unknown 1933 198& 539 Dont. 6 8 Sto . 39+35 2 . 56 unknown 1933 1986 539 Dont. 68 St.a. "!5+1S 18 "'10 unknoun 1933 1986 53Dont. . 8 St.a. 046+30•18 "'10 unkno .... n 1933 1986 539 Dont. 68 Steo . 52+60 18 36 unknown 1933 1986 539 Dont 6 8 Sta. 59+9"'1 2. 38 unknown 1933 1996 539 Dont 68 Sta. 71+34 18 32 u nknown 1933 1986 539 Qgnt . 8 Ste. 99+40 18 38 unknown 1933 1986 539 Cont. . 8 Sta . 93+70 18 39 unknOl..ln 1933 1986 539 Don t 68 St-ll. 1 15+00 18 36 unknown 1933 1996 539 Dont Sta. 136+00••18 36 u nknown 1932 19869 Dont 6 8 St~ . 148+75 18 32 unkno .... n 1'332 19869 Dont .8 S t ~ . 190+22 2. 34 ~ n k no .... n 1932 19 8 6 5.9 Dont 68 St~. 197+31 18 82 '-nkno.... n 1932 1996 5.9 Dont 68 St~ . 200+30 18 .q6 unknown 1932 19969 Do nt 68 St~ . 2 10+95 18 32 unknown 1932 19869 Do;nt .8 St~. 213+12A2. .q0 unkno .... n"1932 1986 5.Dont .8 St~. 215+95•2. 36 unknown 1932 1986 5 .9 Dont .8 St~. 234+90 18 34 .... nknown 1932 19869 Dont .8 St~. 244+50 2. .q0 unkno...n 1932 1986 5 .9 Oont .8 St~. 2 4 6 +50 2. 32 unkno .... n 1932 19969 Dont 69 St~. 250+25 18 40 unkno .... n 193.q 1986 529 Do n t 68 St~. 269+45 18 32 unknown 193.q 1'396 529 Do n t 68 St ~. 271+40 18 38 unkno .... n 193.q 1996 529 Dont 68 St ~. 285+00 30 4 0 unkno .... n 1934 1986 52Oont 68 St~ . 291+35•30 32 unkno .... n 1934 1986 529 Dont 68 S t~. 302+95 2. 4 0 unkno .... n 193 419"52Oont .8 Ste. 305+60 18 38 unkno .... n 1934 1986 52Do;nt•.8 Ste. 307+40 18 44 u nkn o .... n 1934 1'386 529 Oont 68 St~. 3 13+00 18 42 u,-,kno .... n 1934 1986 529 Dont 68 Ste. 331+50 2 . 32 unknoun 193< 1996 529 Dont 68 Ste. 335+95 18 3 4 unknoun 1934 1986 529 Oo;nt 68 Ste . 3"11+58 2. 3 4 unkno .... n 1934 1996 529 Oo,-,t Ste . 3 4 5 +0 0 2. .q0 unknoun••1934 1986 529 Dont 68 Ste. 359+62 30 33 unknown 1934 1986 529 Dont 68 Ste. 386+25 18 39 unknoun 1934 1996 52Do;nt .8 St./!. 389+15•18 38 unkno .... n 193 4 1986 529 Dont 68 St../!. 397+30 18 36 unkno .... n 1934 1986 5 29 Dont 68 St..!!>. 412+50 30 .q6 unknown 1934 1986 5 29 Dont .8 St..!!> . .q22+9S 18 32 unknown 1934 1986 529 Dont .8 St..eI . 447+70 18 32 unkno wn 1934 1986. 529 Dont 68 St..eI. 450+06 18 34 u.-.known 1934 1'386 529 Oo;nt .8 St..!!>. 4 68+28 2" 32 unknown 1934 1986 52""""""""

9 Ognt. 68 Ste. "175+86 18 32 unkno .... n 193"1 1986 529 Dont 68 Ste. 476+92 18 :32 unkno .... n 1934 1986 529 Dont 68 Ste. 481+80 18 :32 ... mknown 1934 1986 52NOTE: T~ foll0 .... in9 li5t of' in~tellation5 woro plecod undor contractin 1995 (Job No. 9-5-95-25"". Soc AOate takon from 28 5hoot~.9 Wright 95 Ste. 112+90 18 4"1 unkno .... n 1933 1985 529 \.olright. 95 Ste. 116.+60 18 38 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright. 95 Sto. 121+25 18 40 unknown 1933 1985 529 L-Jright 95 Ste. 17"'1+"10 18 42 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright. 95 St/!!!. 179+50 2. "'12 unknown 1933 1985 52Wright.•95 St,(!l. 236+00 18 72 unkno .... n 1933 1985 529 W,-ight 95 Ste. 2"'11+45 18 39 unknoun 1933 1985 529 wright 95 Ste. 260+00 18 "'18 unknown 1933 1985 529 l"right 95 Sto. 298+75 18 40 unknoun 1933 1985 529 Wright 95 Sto. 305+60 18 "'Ie. unkno ..,on 1933 1985 529 W..-ight 95 Ste. 309+80 2. 46 unknoun 1933 1985 52NOTE: ThQ following lilIIt of in~telletion~ w~re pleood under oontreotin 1985 (Job No. 9-5-95-254, Seo 8)Oete teken From 28 5heets.9 Wright 95 Ste. 317+10 18 38 unknown 1933 1985 529 t'lright 95 St.e. 330+00 18 38 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright"95 St.e. 333+30U>18 38 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright 95 St.e. 3""1+50 18 ""8 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright 95 St.e. 376+15 2. ""8 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright. 95 St.e. 382~85 18 38 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright. 95 St.e. 387+92 2' "16 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright 95 St..!!. "'106+00 18 38 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright 95 St..!!. "'119+00 2. "'10 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wr i ght 95 St.!!. "'134+50 18 "'16 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright. 95 St..!!. "'182+00 18 "'12 unknown 1933 1995 529 Wright. 95 Ste. 503+50 2. "'10 unknown 1933 1985 529 I~r ight 95 St.!!. 507+35 18 "'10 unknown 1933 1985 529 I~r ight 95 St.!!. 516+00 18 "'1"'1 unknown 1933 1995 529 Wright 95 St.e. 519+50 18 "'12 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright 95 Ste. 525+50 30 "'16 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright 95 St.e. 529+00 18 "'18 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright 95 St..!!. 537+75 18 "'10 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright 95 St.!!. 5"'12+00 18 "'l"'l unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright 95 St.!!. 5"'16+15 18 50 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright 95 Ste. 568+"'10 2. 38 unknown 1933 1985 529 t-lright 95 St.!!. 578+"'l0 19 "'l2 unknown 1933 1985 52ight 95 St.e. 583+00 18 "'lO unknown 1933 1995 52~lr•9 Wright 95 Ste. 609+52 30 "'l6 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright 95 St..!!. 61"'1+80 18 42 unknown 1933 1985 529 Wright. 95 St.!!. 622+50 2. "'l2 u nk."lown 1933 1985 5 29 Wright. 95 Ste . 6"'15+80 18 44 u..-.knoun 1933 1985 529 W ... ight 95 Sto. 649+70 30 50 unknown 1933 1985 529 W ... ight .5 St.!!. 662+00 2 4 "'12 u nkno wn 1933 1985 52

9 Wright. 95 Sta . 669+50 18 "10 .... nkno ..." 1 9:33 1985 529 Wright. 95 Stell. 680+65 18 46 unkno .... n 1933 1995 5 29 W .... ight 95 Sta . 687+00 18 46 unknown 19 .. 1985 529 Wright 95 Stell . 690+00 18 50 unknown 1933 1995 52NOTE: Tniii' follow i ng 1 ist. of instolleotions wvrv plocqd undgr centrectin 1997 ( Job No. 9-5-1 "12- 253, Rt . 1"'12, Qrggon Co . )Ceta teokvn from 28 shQots.9 Oregon ,.2 Sto. 177+25 2. .q4 unknoun 1950 1987 379 Oregon ,.2 Ste. 195+23 18 5"'1 unkno ... n 1950 1987 379 On;~gon ,.2 Sta. 1'95+25 18 52 unknown 1950 1987 379 OrlilgOrt ,.2 St.e. 200+50 18 .q2 unkno .... n 1950 1987 379 Or8gon '.2 Sta. 206+50 18 "12 unkno .... n 1950 1967 379 Oregon ,.2 Sta. 212+.q5 18 .q6 unkno .... n 1950 1987 379 O ....... g o n ,.2 St./!!. 217+00 18 "16 unknown 1950 1987 379 Or

"'16 unknoun 1951 1997 3.OrQgon "2 Sea. 556+50 ,."'''' unkno .... n 1951 1987 3."'14 unkno .... n 1951 1997 3.OrQgon• '"2 Sta. 581+70 ,. "'14 unkno .... n 1951 1987 3.8 unkno .... n 1951 1997 3."'I"" unkno ..... n 1951 1987 360"-"'90n• '"2 St.e. 598+50 ,. "'12 unknown 1951 1987 36.q2 unknown 1951 19137 369 Oni'gan ,"2 St.e. 613+50 .q2 unknown 1951 1987 36Or&gon• '"2 St..e!o. 6 2.q+50 ,. "1& unknoun 1951 1987 3."'1"1 unknoun 1951 19137 36"'I.q unknoun 1951 1987 3.Orggon• '"2 St.a. 642+00 ,. "'1"1 unknown 1951 1987 3.50 unkno ..... n 1951 1987 3."'10 unkno .... n 1951 1987 3.Oregon ,.'"2 St.e. 659+75 3. 12 unknown 1951 1987 3.58 unkno .... n 1951 1987 3.0,.-Q90 n• '"2 Sta. 672+60 2" 68 unknoun 1'951 1'987 369 Orogon '"2 Stel. 675+'90 5"l unkno ...." 1951 1967 36SO unkno .... n 1951 1997 3.S2 unkno .... n 1951 1987 3."lEI unkno .... n 1951 1987 3."l6 unkno .... n 1951 1987 3.4"l unknown 1'951 1967 3.2"l unkno .... n 1951 1987 3.46 unkno .... n 1951 1967 3.Orogon '"2 Ste. 761+09 2" "'16 unkno .... n 1'951 1987 3.Orogon• '"2 Ste. 772+25 ,. "lEI unkno .... n 1951 1997 3."'1"'1 unkno .... n,.195 1 1997 3.' 0 Bollingor N 0 .6 Hi. E of Jet N Be 51 30 "21932 1996 5.'0 Bollinger N Jet Rt N ~ Rt N(~pur) ,.,.3. '" 1'932 1996 5"'0 Bollinger N 4 Mi. E of Rt SI '5 321932 1997 55'0 Bollinger N I., Mi. E of Rt 51 '5""'" 1932 1997 5550 ' 2 1952 1987 3510 Bollingor 3" 0.2 Mi. W of Rt DO '5 321927 1996 5.'0 M8di~on H 0.9 Mi. E of Rt K B-. '0" ''",.2 1956 1985 2.'0 M i~~i~ ~i((i RR 1. 5 Mi. N of Rt 77 2" 381936 1997 5''0 Mi~~i:5~ippi '02 0.2 Hi . N of Rt A . 2" 3. '" H 1937 1987 50'Apgmi~eot 2 0 .7 11i. 5 of Rt J 2" 3.1932 1987 55'0 Weyne 2 "l.9 Mi. NE Jet Rt 2 8c 0 15 3. 1958 1987 2.,. ,.Or"'gon " 2 St.ero. 53'31+50 ,.0"''''9 0n "2 Sta. 577+50On~gon '"2 St.e. 589+00Or-Qgon ,.'"2 Ste. 593+90Oregon•,"2 Sta. 602+50,. Orogan '"2 Sta. 631+70Orogan ,.'"2 Sta . 638+00Orogan• "2 Ste. 652+00,. ,.0"-"9 0 1"1 '"2 Sta. 657+75• 0"-"'9 0 n '"2 Ste. 669+16 Orogon '"2 Stel. 681+50Orogon '"2 Ste. 688+00Orogon ,.H2 St~. 697+75Orogon H2 Ste. 703+35Orogon•,.H2 St~. 706+30Orogon• '"2 Ste. 758+18" •Orogon H2 Ste. 715+00,." •Oregon '"2 Stel. 750+00 2" 52 unkno .... n 1951 1987 3.•Orogon '"2 Stel. 3+00 ,.'0 Bol linger T 0.6 Mi. E of Rt 9 1".'"AVERAGE AGE (YEARS)""'16.6

APPENDIX FCULVERT PIPE REFERENCES- 78 -

CULVERT PIPE REFERENCESAluminum Culvert Corrosion - Technical Paper 76 - 5 , October 1976,Maine Dept. of TransportationAlternative Design s a nd Alternative Materials for HighwayDrainage Items , 1982 , Feder al Highway Administration, FHWATechnical AdvisoryCorrugated Metal Pipe Durability Guidelines, FHWA AdvisoryT 5040 . 2 , March 21, 1978 , Federal Highway AdministrationHandbook of Steel Drainage and Highway Construction Products,1971 , American Iron and Steel Instit uteStructural Design Practice of Pipe Culverts , New York State Dept.of Transportation, Highway Research Record 413 , Pages 57-66Culvert Life Study, Technical Paper 74 -1, January 1974 , MaineDept. of TransportationField Performance of Flexible Culvert Pipes, December 1977 , OhioDept. of TransportationPipe Corrosion and Protective Coatings, November 1974, Utah Dept .of HighwaysThe Structural Performance of Buried Corruga ted Steel Pipes,September 1969, Utah State UniversityEvaluation of Drainage Pipe by Field Experimentation andSupplemental Laboratory Experimentation (Interim Report No . 1),March 1977 , Louisia na Dept . of Transportation and DevelopmentEvaluation of Drainage Pipe by Field Experimentation andSupplemental Laboratory Experimentation (Interim Report No . 2) ,March 1978 , Louisiana Dept . of Transportation and DevelopmentEvaluation of Highway Culvert Coating Performance, June 1980 ,Federal Highway Admin istrationEvaluation of Drainage Pipe by Field Experimentation andSupplemental Laboratory Experimentation (Interim Report No. 3 ),November 1981, Louisiana Dept . of Transportation and DevelopmentDurability of Corrugated Me tal Culverts, New York State Dept . ofTransportation , Highway Research Record 242, Pages 41-66Culver t Durability Study, January 1982, Ohio Dept. ofTransportation- 79 -

A Study of the Durability of Corrugated Steel Culverts inOklahoma, 1971 , Oklahoma Dept. of HighwaysCorrosion of Corrugated Metal Pipe, 1971, Kansas State HighwayComm.National Su rvey of State Culvert Use a nd Policies, May 1980, NewYork State Dept. of TransportationDurability of Drainage Pipe, NCHRP No. 50, 1978 , TransportationResearch BoardDurability of Corrugated Metal Culverts, 1977 Survey, New YorkDept . of Transportation , The Quarterly R&D Digest No . 7 (NYDOTPublication)Performance Evaluation of Aluminum and Zinc Coatings onCorrugated Steel Pipe Culverts, October 1981, Missouri Highwayand Trans. Dept .Condition Survey Bituminous Coated Corrugated Metal Culvert Pipe,January 1965, Missouri State Highway Dept.Aluminized- Galvanized Cu lvert Inspection in Missouri, 1981,Armco Inc.HRIS Run No. HNJT549 Selections , Drainage DesignMHTD Investigation 80-7 , Performance Evaluation of Aluminum andZinc Coating on Corrugated Steel Pipe Culverts. Also seesubmittal dated 1/7/82 to RAC meeting of 3/24/82 .Symposium on Durability of Culverts and Storm Drains,Transportation Research Record 1001, 1984, TRBFinal Report - Durability of Bituminous-Lined Corrugated SteelPipe Storm Sewers, Ohio Dept . of Transportation, April 1985Durability of Asphalt Coating and Paving On Corrugated SteelCulverts in New York, Transportation Research Board AnnualMeeting, January 1964Evaluation of Highway Culvert Coating Performance, Report No .FHWA/RD - 80/059 , June 1980 Final ReportField Performance of Protective Linings for Concrete andCorrugated Steel Pipe Culverts , Ohio Dept. of Transportation ,Transportation Research Board Meeting , January 1984Metal Loss Rates of Uncoated Steel and Aluminum Culverts in NewYork State, Transportation Research Board Meeting , January 1984New York State Department of Transportation- 80 -

The Michigan Galvanized Metal Culvert Corrosion Study,Transportation Research Board Meeting, 1979 , Michigan Dept . ofState Highways and TransportationPrecast Concrete Pipe Durability -American Concrete Pipe AssociationState-of-the-Art , Mike Bealey,An Overview of Polymer Coatings For Corrugated Steel Pipe inNew York , Transportation Research Board Meeting, January 1984,New York State Dept . of TransportationUnderground Disposal of Storm Water Runoff - Design GuidelinesManual , February 1980, Federal Highway AdministrationFlexible Culverts Under High Fills , Highway Research BoardBulletin 125 , January 1955Small Drainage Structures - Compendium 3 - TransportationResearch Board, 1978Surface Drainage and Highway Runoff Pollutants, TransportationResearch Record 1017, 1985Culverts: Analysis of Soil-Culvert Interaction and Design,Transportation Research Record 1008, 1985Field and Laboratory Evaluation of Energy Dissipators for Culvertand Storm Drain Outlets, Volume II, Field Performance ofCorrugated Metal Culverts, University of Akron, December 1980Field and Laboratory Evaluation of Energy Dissipators for Culvertand Storm Drain Outlets, Volume I, Modular Energy Dissipators :Internal Energy Dissipators: Rock Channel Protection, Universityof Akron , December 1980Evaluation of Long-Span Corrugated Metal Structures, Ohio Dept.of Transportation and FHWA, May 1986Internal Energy Dissipators For Culverts, University of Akron,September 1984Handbook of Concrete Culvert Pipe Hydraulics, Portland CementAssociation, 1964Concrete Pipe Handbook , American Concrete Pipe Association, 1981Concrete Pipe Handbook, American Concrete Pipe Association, 1958- 81 -

APPENDIX GEXTRACTS FROM SELECTED REFERENCES- 82 -

Material s and Research Review of : Transportation Research Record 1001,Symposium on Durabi lity of Cul verts and Storm Drains, 1984Culvert Durabil ity: Where Are We? George W. Ring - FHWAThis paper is a general discussion of durability of culvert pipe.He stat es " .. • i t can be ant icipated t hat with p r oper care t heprimary and Interstate roadways coul d well be in service 100years from now . "He recognizes t hat prediction of the probabl e service life of alltypes of cul verts is d i fficul t because of continuing changes inmaterials, the use of various coatings, and the large number ofvariabl es that affect corrosion and erosion. No national lyacceptable rel ationship between culvert service life and corrosionparameters has been devel oped.Ring listed some conclusions from an FHWA sponsored study oncoatings:1. Durabilit y problems are encountered with all protectivecoat ings now commonly used .2 . Alternate methods are available to protect culverts, othert h an organic coatings , a nd coul d have been used to advantageat many of the locations inspected in the field study.3. Organic coatings are , by themsel ves, not satisfactory underabrasive stream f l ow condi tions .4. The durability of polymer coatings depends on the amount ofsalts in the soil or water, the continuity of the coating,the pH, and the abrasiveness of the bedload . Improvementsare needed in production techniques to prevent damage thatadversely affects performance . Pol ymer coatings are satisfactorywhere abrasive flows and high salt conditions arenot encountered.5. Asphal t adhesion to aluminum is poor . This coating wouldnot be satisfactory in abrasive or corrosive environments ._ Rl _

6. Epoxy coatings and vitrified clay liners are effective whenused on concrete in acidic streams. They might also beuseful on corrugated metal under certain severe conditions.7 . Adhesion between asphalt and galvanized steel can be improvedthrough the use of surface treatments and primers . Thebenefits of improved adhesion should be evaluated.8. Asbestos-bonded asphalt coating is more durable than plainasphalt coating, but it is also subject to deterioration inabrasiv e or high salt environments .9. The durability of asphalt coatings is influenced by applicationprocedures, adhesion to the substrate, seasonaltemperature changes, water absorption, turbulence in thestream flow, and abrasiveness of the bedload . Asphalt issatisfactory where abrasive flows and high salt conditionsare not encountered.10. Asphalt mastic is not a durable coating .11 . Asphalt composition varies widely depending on the source ofcrude oil . Performance variations of culvert asphalt areattributable to the water absorption and abrasion propertiesof asphalt and current methods of application.12 . There are several alternative coatings that should beevaluated for use on culverts. These coatings , while moreexpensive than current culvert coatings, could be costeffective for selected applications, such as on inverts .13. Many state and AASHTO specifications should be made morespecific.- 84 -

Durability of Polymer- Coated Corrugated Steel Pipe, Carl M. Hirsch -Nationa l Corrugated Steel Pipe Association.This paper discusses various polymer coatings. It also statesthe reason for coating the ga l vanized CMP is to increase itsservice life and to provide durability in severe environments.Hirsch describes field tests of Coal- Tar- Based Resins (Nexon) ,Ethylene- Acrylic Acid , and PVC Plastisol (Bethlehem ' s PC). Thefield tests are all rated good to excellent and the effects ofabrasion are minimized .This author differs considerably from the New York DOT paperwhich reviews the same test sections at Genessee, New York.New York DOT rated this coating as very poor.TheNo service l i fe predictions are made. All the disc~ssions arebased on 9 years or less exposure.Durability of Drainage Structures, Kenneth M. Jacobs -Maine DOTThe objective of this study was to evaluate the durability ofseveral culvert materials. Erosion or abrasion are not consideredproblems in Maine due to flat slopes.Galvanized CMP was estimated to be 28 years in 16 gage .Bituminous coating and paving was found to add approximately7 to 8 years to the life of galvanized CMP .Reinforced Concrete Pipe was estimated to have a service lifeof 65 to 70 years . Two problems were found, mechanical failureof the outside 4 foot lengths of pipe due t o frost heave anddeterioration in pH less than 5.3 .- 85 -

Clad- Alumi num Al loy Pipe was estimated to have a service life of100+ years in 16 gage. There were some problems with excessivedeflection , a l so, the pH was normal (7~) and e l ectrical resistivitywas high (1 0,000 ohms/ em or over). This pipe was found to bethe best of the metal pipe .Aluminum- Coated eMP was found to have the coating overstressed inthe rerolled ends. No service life estimated .Aluminum- Zinc Coated eMP has performed better than zinc- coatingsat sites where both coating systems were install ed. No servicelife estimated.polymeric coatings at 5 and 10 years were found to have no delaminationfrom the underl ying zinc and the water side was found to bein near original shape. No service life estimate .Epoxy Coated eMP at 2 years old were found to be in nearly originalcondition . No service l ife estimate .Overview of Polymer Coatings for Corrugated Steel Pipe in New York,Robert M. pyskadl o and Wallace W. Renfrew - New York DOTReports on the field performance of polymer coated pipe installedsince 1977.Within a few months of inst allation, Nexon coated pipe failed dueto abrasion and caused New York to cease use of polymer coatings.After six years the Beth- Cu- Loy PC coating were performing betterthan Nexon .- 8 6 -

After 6 years at the most abrasive test site , 11 of 57 pipe weregiven a " 5 11 rating (the worse rating possible in this study)meaning coating had peel ed off in sheets with coating removed atcrests of corrugations . Eight more were rated 3 or 4 whichindicated fair to moderate abrasion damage.In this report reference was made to 14 and 16 gage bituminouscoated and paved pipe being prohibited in Southern New York.Durability of Asphalt Coating and Paving on Corrugated Steel Culvertsin New York, Wallace W. Renfrew - New York DOTNew York concluded that bituminous paving adds approximately30 years life to round pipe and approximately 20 years on pipearches. The end point was considered to be when 50 percent ofthe bituminous paving was gone .The data presented in the report does not substantiate an expected30 year service. Of 127 pipe, 69 had failed at 15 years and theystarted failing at 5 years .This report refers to a Kansas DOT study by Worley that revealedinside bituminous coatings were good on only 12 percent of 3 and4 year old pipe . That report concluded bituminous coatings wereof little value. A 1978 survey of the other 49 states indicatedthat few states use coated pipe and those that do assign only7 to 9 years life to it.Field Performance ofSteel Pipe Culverts.ProtectiveJohn OwenLinings for ConcreteHurd - Ohio DOTand CorrugatedReport deals with a variety of coatings for concrete and corrugatedmetal pipe.No life expectancy was projected for any o fthe coatings.- 87 -

Found concrete pipe with an epoxy coating performed well at lowpH sites and with none to moderate abrasion. The epoxy coatingalso deteriorates in sunlight at the ends of the pipe.Found abrasion to be the major factor with polymer coated pipewith poor ratings achieved in as little as one year. Delaminationalong the lock seam has been noted on 24 of 48 pipe occurringfrom time of installation to 13 years.Found asbestos-bonded bituminous coated and paved CMP to beperforming satisfactorily after 12 years. Slow erosion of pavingdue to abrasion. Loss of coating occurs when paving is overtoppedby flow. Satisfactory protection in none to moderateabrasion.Fourteen concrete pipe with vitrified clay liners were found tobe in very good condition at ages 3 to 12 years, in extremelyacidic flow.Field Performance of Concrete and Corrugated Steel Pipe Culverts andBituminous Protection of Corrugated Steel Pipe Culverts.John Owen Hurd - Ohio DOTThis study found bituminous coatings to have an average life of3 years and a median life of 1.5 years.Bituminous paving was found to have an average life of 12+ yearsand a median life of 10+ years.Galvanized CMP was rated by metal loss. Graphs would indicatea 16 gage (0.064 inch thick) CMP would be eroded through in about42 years in an abrasive condition and a pH of 7. It was notedthat water pH and abrasion were the only environmental parametersaffecting CMP.- 88 -

Concrete pipe was projected to have a life expectancy of 100+ yearsexcept when pH was lower than 4. In less acidic flow, lifeexpectancy is projected to be much longer .ComprehensivePerformance.Eval uation of Aluminized Steel Type 2 Pipe FieldG. E. Morris and L. Bednar - Armco Steel Corp.Report shows a l uminum coating to perform better than zinc coatingsafter 30 year field tests .Even though the overall results show superiority of the aluminumcoating over zinc, it was pointed out that both coatings aresusceptible to abrasion.Armco discusses performance in severely corrosive environmentsbut the water pH was between 6 . 2 and 8.1 at all but two culvertsand they were 4 .• 6 and 5.5. The resistivity of the water wasgenerally in the " safe" range except at 3 culverts and at those3 the pH was 7.01, 7 . 30, and 7 . 90.MHTD evaluation of test sites in Missouri also would rate thealuminum coating equal or better than zinc.Metal Loss Rates of Uncoated Steel and Aluminum Culverts in New York.Peter J. Bellair and James P. Ewing - New York DOT .This was a study to establish a procedure for estimating lifeexpectancy based on metal loss. This was done in two zones,Northern and Southern .The metal l oss for corrugated steel pipe was estimated to be2 mils per year in the Northern zone and 4 mils per year in theSouthern zone . Aluminum alloy was found to have a loss rate of0.5 mils per year for both zones.- 89 -

If New York used a 50 year design life for corrugated steelculverts, it would rule out 14 and 16 gage steel in the Northernzone and rule out all corrugated steel in the Southern zone.Bacterial Corrosion of Steel Culvert Pipe in Wisconsin.Robert Patenaude - Wisconsin DOTWisconsin tried to use the California procedure to predictexpected culvert life, that is to use pH and soil resistivities.They were not successful. They then began a search for othercontributing factors for corrosion and came up with anaerobicsulfate-reducing bacteria.They found the bacteria did not affect concrete pipe or aluminumalloy pipe .The study showed that corrosion at most culvert sites can berelated singly or in combination to bacterial activity, l ow pH ,and low electrical resistivity of sailor water or both at thesite.Galvalume Corrugated Steel Pipe: A Performance Summary.A. J. Stavros - Bethlehem Steel Corporation.Laboratory and field tests were used to evaluate the performanceof Galvalume coating. Galvalume is 55 percent aluminum and45 percent zinc.Results of these evaluations show Al-Zn coatings superior tozinc.- 90 -

Corrosion25 Years.Resistance of Aluminum Drainage Products: The FirstT . J. Summerson - Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation.Aluminum Cl ad Al uminum Alloy pipe has been in ser vice approximately25 years. Maine found the corrosion rate to be 0.2 milsper year and New York found the corrosion rate to be 0.5 milsper year. At this rate , estimated life would be 300+ yearsand 120+ years respectively.The report concludes that Al- Clad Aluminum Alloy pipe shouldbe used where the pH is between 4 and 9 and the resistivitygreater than 500 ohm/em.Precast Concrete Pipe Durability: State of the Art. Mike Bealey -American Concrete Pipe Association •. Review of the use of concrete pipe. Presents Ohio DOT's graphshowing 100+ years of expected life.In response to discussion, the author's closure stated that aliterature search in 1983 showed that 33 states and numerousother researchers had published 1 31 reports of cul vert surveysand material evaluations. Of those reports, 63 percent areconcerned with the deterioration and short service life ofcorrugated metal pipe , 28 percent cover mu l tiple pipe materials,and only 5 percent deal only with concrete.For Want of Air, A Drainage System Was Nearly Lost .Glen M. Koontz, and Barbara J . Smith - Kansas DOTCarl F. Crumpton,This report, through example of one failure of a precast concreteflared end section, shows the need for air entrainment.- 91 -

InnovatedCulvert.Repair of a LargeCharles R. DuncanFailing- FHWAStructural Steel Plate Pipe ArchThis report is about the repair of a large structural platearch pipe originall y installed in 1 969 . The 12 gage materialhad an estimated life of less than 10 years . Repair waseffected by inserting a smaller arch pipe and grouting the voidbetween the 2 pipe .Invert Replacement of Corrugated Metal Structural Plate Pipe.Stephen R. Ikerd - FHWAReport of the replacement of an invert in an 84-inch diameterbituminous coated pipe . This pipe was installed in 1952, thebituminous coating failed soon due to abrasion. A 4- inch thickbituminous invert was placed but it a lso abraded quickly . In1 97 3 , a steel plate invert was placed with a mortar bed betweenthe new plate invert and the old pipe invert.- 92 -

Evaluation of Hi ghway Culvert Coating Performance; Report No .FHHA/BD- 80/059, June 1980 , Final Report.CONCLUSIONS1. Durability problems a re ,e ncountered with all protectivecoatings now commonly used .2.Al ternate methodsother than organicadvantage at r:lanyfield study .are available tocoatings and couldof the locationsprotect culvertshave been used toinspected in the3 .Organic coatings are,under abrasive streamby themselves ,flow conditi ons .not: satisfactory(4 .The durability of polymer coatings depends o n thealllount of salts in the soil o r water, the continuity ofthe coating, the pil and the abrasiveness of the bed ­load . Improvements are needed in production techniquesto prevent damage which adversel y affects performance.Polymer coatings a re satisfactory where abrasive f l O\~sand high salt conditions are not encountered.5.Asphalt adhesion to aluminum is poor.would not be satisfactory in abrasiveenvironments .This coatingor corrosive6. Epoxy coatings and vitrified clay liners are effectivewhen used on concrete i n acidic streams . They mighta l so be useful on corrugated metal under certain severeconditions .7 .Adhesion between asphalt and galvanized steel can beimproved through the use of s urface treatments andprimers . The benefits of improved adhesion should beeval uated .8 .Asbestos bonded aspha l t coating isab l e than plain aspha l t coating butdeterioration in abrasive or highsomeHhat more dur ­is also subject tosal t env ironments.9. The durability of asphalt coatings is influenced byapplication procedure , adhesion to the substrate ,seasonal temperature changes, water asorption, turbul ence in the stream flow and abrasiveness of thebedloilrl. Asphalt iE satisfactory ...,here abrasive flmoJ5and high sa1.t conditions arc not encountered.10. Asphalt mastic is not a durab l e coating.11. Asphalt compositionsource of crude oil.var ies Vlidely dependingPerformance variations ofon theculvert- 93 -

asphalt are attributable to the water absorption andabrasio n properties of asphalt and current methods ofapp l ication.12. There are several alternative coatings which shoul d beevaluated for use on culverts. These coatings, whiler.1ore expensive than current culvert coatings , cou l d becost effective for sel ected app l ication su·ch as o ninverts .13. t·lany state and AASHTO specifications should be mademore specific .((- 94 -

Durability of Corrugated Metal Culverts; New York State Departmentof Transportation, 1965 Survey; Highway Research Record No . 242,pgs 41- 55 .(CONCLUSIONSResults of the s tatewide survey of corrugated steel culverts in ser vice 2 to 35 yr indicatethe following:1. Uncoated cu1vp. d s have performed s atisfac torily from the standpoint of durability.ApPI'oximat('ly 70 p~ rccnt of those in service 25 yr or longcl" have lost less tha n onc­I::l lf of thC'ir origln;'!1 thlc!:nc!Js. The large majotity of exi:;t!ng unco::l.ted culverts cantherelore b(.! e:'pl'c;lcd to provide total ser vlcC! of at least 40 yr.2. Prot{'(:Uv.:! b ituminou$ co..1.lillss have r educed metaJloss :;ignificantly, coating/pa-:ing beinr, appreciably more effective than conting alone.3. 1':Ic::tal loSti docs not corcel;lte ·.dth pH, electrical resistivity, chemical concentration, or other soil :lad water prop~rtie~, within the limits usually encountered in New York.4. lvletalloss is primarily associated with normal corrosion, abrasion playing buta small part.5. Culve rts should be designed to satisfy durahility r equirements, in view o[ the thinnergages p ~ rmitt c d by current s tructura l design practices. A s uggested design procedure[or uncoated, coaled, and coated/ paved culverts Is outlined III this report.Results of !he comparison zurvey of corrugated aluminum and s teel culverts underessentially '> inlilac exposures from 1 to

IDurability of Drainage Pipe; National Cooperative Highway Resea rchProgram Synthesis No . 50; 1978.Bituminous coatings, Page 15 and 16 . Florida estimatesbituminous coatings add about 10 years life to galvanizedsteel pipe: Oklahoma uses to assure 50 years life of culvert;Tennessee found it cost too much to properly apply anddiscontinued bit c oatings; Kentuck y found 3 t o 6 years inhighly acid sites: Maine found "good" life span in soils withresistivity higher than 2400 ohm-em; Maryland and Kansasfound 3 to 4 years and di scontinued use. "The most commonestimates of the increase in service life through use ofreliable interio r asphalt coating range from 10 to 15 years."Problems are adhesion, abrasion, solubility in petroleumwaste, and bacterial attack .Bituminous - Paved Inverts, Page 16. Generally reported asadding up t o 25 years extra life. Problems are same asbituminous coated .(Precoated Galvanized Steel , Page 16 and 17. The main mo de o ffailure is abrasion . West Virginia - advantages of precoatedover bit c oated are lower damage susceptibility in shippingand fewer effects from temperature change and aging .Galvanizing, Page 17. Montana reports that zinc galvanizingis not an effective protection for steel in soils who se pHis outside the range o f 6.0 to 9 . 0 .RESEf\R:Ct-: Arm RECOMMENDATIONS• The :!.pp:Hent poor correl:lIion among corrosion indicatorsindicates Ih:lt Ihe collection o f additional d:lta onexisting culverts :l nJ coatings and the continuation ofresearch in this a rea arc desirable.• Transport:'l tion :lgencies with similar environment:l lconditions should work together to develop improved pipe iffi:lteri:tl selection c riteria.I• Coatings and treatme nts have been developed for pror~ etion of euh'ert pipes. Research is needed 10 determi ne: efIec!i \'l:ness o f Ih e~e cOlJ tings :md treatments. the spe­.... .:lrlC applic.lbitity of e:lch. :lnd their C1:onomic value.• A culvert located unde r a deep fill or under a highwaywith high tflffic volumes can not be easil y replaced. Reselrchinlo methods and materials that can be used tosatvage in.pl:lce cul vc rts would be highly desirable.• T herc should be a continuing search to identify culvertmaterials th:1I are res i ~ l :lIl t to corrosion and ::tbrasion undera wide range of condit ions and that possess the strengthnceded 10 meet structural requirements.• A fcw st:\te tfanspoft.ltion agencies h:\\'e corrosion en·ginee rs (lr spee i Olli~t~ on th.:i r sl;IfTs. Othcrs cO\lld bencfit(rom the :llklilio n of ~ lIch ~peci;Jl i s t !>. not o nly to anal)'7cpotcll tial or actu ;:d t;orTosion o f I: lIl v..:rts. hu t also 10 n s~cssc orro~io n l,r other f:lcililie~, such :.IS bfldgc decks and light .ing S }'S le ll l~ . Devcie'I'!:lenl o f in-hom..: expertise throughtrain in!; I' rog r :'ltn.~ b ;f sce o l1 d:tr~' means o f enlw tleingca pabi lity .• AI prcsetll. only :t fel'.' tra n ~ p.utOl l iC'>n :t gcncics arc ellgagedin :my major r~' ~ c;)rch O il pipe dttr:'lbil ity. T he re :Ifesome who bdicvc that a more int{'nsive rese;l rch efINI isdcsir::tblc: howcver. there is ~ome qucstion as to) how toorgani?e the research. One :Iprroach mi ght be :.I ",Ol jo rstud y with tl:ltillnwide support by :t il tfansport:ltion ;'Igen·dcs. A secC'ttd approach would combine the effo rt s :mdfunding o f tr: lI1 spoft :l tion agencies having common problems.lndi\'idu:l1 :lgcncics sho.lld continue 10 d\l':Uttlentconditions at n.:"' pipe installa tions :H1dto perform in-Jepthe:

Evaluation of Drainage Pipe by Field Experimentation and SupplementalLaboratory Experimentation ; Interim Report No.3: Louisiana DOT ;Nov . 1981 .CONCLUSIONSSix y~a rsof field exposure have provided mu ch information concerning the performance of various types of test culverts . The followingconclusions have been reached ~t this time:((1. The type of culvert providing the best r esistance to corrosionaft e r six years of field exposure is the aSbestos-bonded, asphaltconted, galv

corrosion of corrugated Hetal Pipe: Kansas State Highway Commissio n;1971.Page 12. "A life of 40 to 50 years or more may be anticipatedfor normal galvanized steel pipe in Kansas at most locationsother than near active coal mines . "From HRIS Abstracts , Accelerated Abrasion Tests of PolymericProtective Coatings For Corrugated Metal Pipe; California DOT ,Jan 77."It is concluded that polymeric coatings complying withM 246 do not necessarily possess abrasion resistance equalto that of hot-dipped asphalt coatings complying with M 190. "(A Study of the Durability of corrugated Steel Culverts in Oklahoma;Oklahoma Department of Highways; 1971 .Page 10, Recommendations . " In areas III and IV, all culvertsshould be coated inside and outside with bituminous materialat least five hundredeths (0 . 05 in) in . in thickness in orderto insure 50 years of culvert performance . "NOTE - Areas III & IV are about 9% of the state and arecorrosive to steel culverts and will require specialconsideration.Handbook of Steel Drainage and Highway Construction Products; 1971 ,Published by American Iron & Steel Institute: Page 214(l"It is recommended that coatings (without invert paving)only be used for: (a) Protection of pipe interiors. Add25 years (b) Pipe interiors in non-abrasive flows, freeof ice action. Add 6 to 10 years."- 98 -

Culvert Durability Study; Ohio DOT; January 1982 .Page 83 . "Therefore, bituminous coating without invet:tpaving , appears to be of little value ."Page 83 & 84. "From these relationships the average usefullife of bituminous coating and paving was determined to be19 years for all cases, ... "Page 88, Asbest os Bonded Bituminous Coating and Paving ."However, it would appear that the average life of thecoating and paving would exceed 25 years ... "Page 88. Thermoplastic Coatings. Forming of lock seamsappears to have detrimental effect on the bond betweencoating and metal . Rivets are unprotected to low pH flow .Thermoplastic itself is susceptible to abrasion.- 99 -

Cul vert Life Study , Technical Paper 74 - 1 , January 1974 , Departmentof Transpor tation - Bureau of Highways , Ma i ne .CONCLUSIONS. '>The results of the study based on statevide data, shov (1) reinforcedconcrete pipe to have a life e~pectancyof approximately 100 years. (2) bi.I ,tuminous coated corrugated metal pipe with bituminous paved invert, l4gage. to have 8life expectancy of approximately 48 years, and (3) corrugatedrmetal pipe, 14 gage. to have a life expectancy 38 years. Thus. ten yearslonger life may be attributed to the bit~inouscoating and pave d invert. al.though this drops to 6 plus years where there i s continuous stream flow.Although aluminum corrugated metal pipe has been in use only 10 years, theIIdata suggest the aluminum pipes are performing quite veIl in bo th vhatwould be considered relatively normal envtronmental conditions for inlandsites and sites vbich are exposed to s altwater.Asbesto cement pipe for highway construction in Maine has been in useapproximat e ly 10 years and thos e sampled were rated as being in excellantcondition.Re s i stivity and pH are factors in the deterioration of culverts as areother factors. which are difficult to measure such as , stream flow, velocity,land runoff and the periods of time which portions of the invert remains submerged.- 100 -

Durability o f Corrugated Me t a l Culvert s j New York St a te De p a rtme n tof Tran sporta tio n, 1 977 Survey ; The Quarterl y R&D Di gest, No . 7 ,(NYOOT Publicatio n ) .Field studies after the 1 965 survey ind icated, " ... i t a p p e a redthat meta l l o ss rates f ar exceeded t hose e stimated in the1965 survey." In 1975, a change was made in desig n po licy t opro vide greater pro tectio n o f inverts by providing a mi nimumof 8 gage plates o n inverts and coating a nd paving all 14and 16 gag e cross drains. "These changes p rovided suff i c ientmetal for an annual corros ion r ate o f 0 .004 inches, a ssumi nga 40-year design lif e and that c oating and paving protect apipe f o r 25 years . "((Having f: c l.::: c t: .:! d th ~ mCLoSU!"C::lcn t techn"l(jue 3ud sampling plan , 190 ptpes vere Eeleetcd r.o prov ide- brond eovcr .nr,c. i:.hroiir,hou t the s tll te , ft.mo n g the fiv e eor rosi venesszo nes p re.v i ol1:':J.y estf!bEs hcd . Har.n:i.tudcs of :i!etal loss were Dimil ar tot hose e ::; timated a nJ mc a sHt"!::! d in earl:i e r \.'ol.'k , but t h e distributi on of losses didno t correspond to the five zones .Figun~ 1 ShOW' D two probabi.lity curves c o rresponding to ttIO np.w 7.QU.:"!S shown :lorieun:' 2 . 'l11e~c l' ~ s l!lts inui.::ntc thnt si:'.!t~ l culverts corrode .:!t r.":

APPENDIX HSURVEY OF SURROUNDING STATES ' USAGEOF CORRUGATED METAL PIPE- 102 -

Arkansas Department of TransportationMr . Paul Bedusk, Roadway Design EngineerApril 17, 1987CULVERT PIPE USAGE SURVEY1. Does your State specify Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) orReinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) or do you allow the contractorthe option o f using either type of material for culverts onnew construction?All Primary System X-Road drainage structures arerequired to be concrete.Arkansas allows CSP a nd RCP as alternates onSecondary System.On s ide roads and entrances they allow alternate ofRCP, CSP and Corrugated Aluminum Pipe.2 . What is the policy used to determine which type of culvertpipe is used at various locations?They are planning a study on pipe durability .See Number 1.3. Do you have a specified design life for the following? Ifso, how long?a . Roadbed - No set policy. yrs.Considered indefinite.b . Pipe Culverts No yrs.c . Concrete Box Culverts-Structural Plate Pipe No yrs .4 . Do you use Coated Corrugated Metal Pipe? If so, whatcoatings are used and for what conditions ?5 . Whatpipe,They have some trial installations of plastic andpolymer coated pipes.Mr. Bedusk said the FHWA informed them PolymerCoated was not equal alternate to concrete .is the average cost per linear foot for the followingi nc luding installation:a.b .24" CMP SlB . 99/1in. ft. , 1986 Average Installed24" RCP $29.13/lin. ft. , 1986 Av e rage InstalledPricePrice- 103 -

Illinois Department of TransportationMr. Jim Gehler , Chief of Materials a nd ResearchApril 17 , 1987CULVERT PIPE USAGE SURVEY1 . Does you r State specify Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) orReinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) or do you allow the contractort he option of usin g either type of material for culverts onn e w construction?Illinois specifies concrete for all X-Road drainagestructures under high type pavements .Policy basically the same as Missouri. They allowalternate of concrete and CMP on entrances, minorside roads and low type pavements .2 . What is the policy u sed to determine which type of culvertpipe is used at various locations?See Number 1.3 . Do you have a specified design life for the following? Ifso , how long?a. Roadbed50 yrs.b .Pipe CulvertsNo yrs .c .Concrete Box Culverts-Structural Plate PipeNoyrs.4 . Do you use Coated Corru gated Metal Pipe? If so , whatcoatings are used a n d for what conditions?No.5. What is the average cost per l inear foot for the followingpipe , including installation:a .24 " eMPb. 24" RCP- 104 -

Iowa Department of TransportationMr. Bob Stoker, Assistant Road Engineer , andMr . Roger Bierbaum , Methods EngineerApril 17, 1987CULVERT PIPE USAGE SURVEY1. Does your State specify Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) orReinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) or do you allow the con tractorthe option of using either type of material for culverts onnew construction?All X-Road drainage structures on their Interstateand Primary systems are required to be concrete .The secondary or county system is designed,constructed , etc., by the coun ties who generallyfollow Iowa Department of Transportationspecifications and procedures.Iowa Department of Transportation allows CSP andRCP as alternate on entrance and secondary sideroad X-Road drainage.2 . What is the policy u sed to determine which type of culvertpipe is used at various locations?Based on past observed good performance of concrete .Do not do any special testing . Also, see Number 1 .3 . Do you have a specified design life for the following? Ifso, how long?a. Roadbed - They do not have a set policy. yrs .Co nsidered indefinite .b. Pipe Culverts No yrs.c. Concrete Box Culverts-Structural Plate Pipe4. Do you use Coated Corrugated Metal Pipe? If so, whatcoatings are used and for what conditions?Noyrs.Bituminous Coated , Polymer Coated and Aluminum CMPare allowed as alternates o n entrance , secondaryside roads when special conditions exist but areseldomly used .5 . What is the average cos t per linear foot for the followingpipe, including install ation :a .b .2 4" CMP24 " RCP- 105 -

Kansas Department of TransportationMr. Don Jarboe, Chief , Materials and Research , andMr. Cliff HeckathornApril 17, 1987CULVERT PIPE USAGE SURVEY1 . Does your State specify Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) orReinforced Concrete Pipe (Rep) or do you all o w the contractorthe option of using either type of material for culverts onnew construction?Kansas allows eMP and RCP as equal alternates forall drainage except for six coun ties in SoutheastKansas where concrete only is specified- - CMP , Steela n d Aluminum .CMP is typically required to be of larger diameterthan concrete based on flow c haracteristics .At locations where water will stand in the culvertor have cont inu o u s flow concrete is required.Al ternates allowed for intermittent drainage .2. What is the policy u sed to determine which type of c ulvertpipe is used at various locations?Kansas policy is based on field s tudies of pipedurability . They feel that eMP will serve for 50years under their environmental conditi ons .3 . Do you have a specified design life for the fol l owing? Ifso , how long?a. Roadbed - No set figure .b. Pipe Culvertsyrs .No yrs .c .Concrete Box Culverts-Structural Plate Pi peNo yrs .4. Do you us e Coated Corrugated Metal Pipe? If so , whatcoatings are used and for what conditions?They fou nd bituminous coating to be of nosignificant benefit .5 . What is the average cost per linear foot for the followingpipe, including installation:a. 24" CMPb .2 4" RCP- 106 -

Nebraska Department of TransportationMr . Monty Fredrikson, Roadway DesignApril 17 , 1987CULVERT PIPE USAGE SURVEY1 . Does you r Sta te specify Corruga t ed Metal Pipe (CMP) orReinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) or do you allow the contractorthe option of us i ng either type of material for culverts onnew construction?Policy adopted June , 1982 .Concrete Pipe specified for all X-Road drainageunder Interstate a nd PCCP and all asphalticpavements with design ADT of 800 or more (20 yeartraffic projection ) , except asphalt pavementsconstructed in the "sand hills " may use CSP or RCPregardless of traffic . They allow alternates forfield e n trances , etc. Side road connectionsgenerall y specified to be the same as mainline .Un usual soil conditions may dictate a specific typeof pipe .2 . What is the policy used to determine which type of culvertpipe is used at various locations?Experience . See Number 1.3. Do you have a specified design life for the following? Ifso , how long?a. Roadbed - Considered indefinite .Noyrs.b. Pipe CulvertsNo yrs .c .Concrete Box Cul verts- Structural Plate PipeI n ter state 32 to 35 years pavement design life .Other roads 20 year pavemen t design life .No yrs .4 . Do you use Coated Corrugated Metal Pipe? If so, whatcoatings are used and for what conditions?No .TheySoi ls in Nebraska do not represent a problem .are not having problems with CSP corrosion .5 . What is the average cost per linear foot for the followingpipe , incl uding installation :a. 24" CMPb .24 " RCP- 107 -

Oklahoma Department of TransportationMr . Jack Telford, Materials EngineerApril 17, 1987CULVERT PIPE USAGE SURVEY1. Does your State specify Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) orReinforced Co ncrete Pipe (Rep) or do y ou allow the contractorthe option of using either type of material for culverts onnew construction?Oklahoma specifies concrete for all X-Road drainagestructures . They allow alternate eMP, RCP, etc . ,for entrances, etc.2. What is the policy used to determine which type of culvertpipe is used at various locations?Sample soil for pH at the time of soil survey todetermine suitability of CMP for entrances , etc .See Number 1 .3 . Do you have a specified design life for the following? Ifso , how l ong?a. Roadbed - No set figure .Considered indefiniteb. Pipe Culvertsc. Concrete Box Culverts-Structural Plate Pipeyrs.yrs.yrs.4 . Do you use Coated Corrugated Metal Pipe? If so, whatcoatings are used and for what conditions?For special conditions allow Bituminous Coated ,Polymer Coated, RCP for entrances, etc., but notfor mainline X-Road drainage.5 . What is the average cost per linear foot for the followin~pipe, including installation:a. 24~ CMPb. 24 " Rep- 108 -