Investigation of Plastic Pipes for Highway Applications, HR-373A, Phase II, 1997

It is generally accepted that high density polyethylene pipe (HDPE) performs well under live loads with shallow cover, provided the backfill is well compacted. Although industry standards require carefully compacted backfill, poor inspection and/or faulty construction may result in soils that provide inadequate restraint at the springlines of the pipes thereby causing failure. The objectives of this study were: 1) to experimentally define a lower limit of compaction under which the pipes perform satisfactorily, 2) to quantify the increase in soil support as compaction effort increases, 3) to evaluate pipe response for loads applied near the ends of the buried pipes, 4) to determine minimum depths of cover for a variety of pipes and soil conditions by analytically expanding the experimental results through the use of the finite element program CANDE. The test procedures used here are conservative especially for low-density fills loaded to high contact stresses. The failures observed in these tests were the combined effect of soil bearing capacity at the soil surface and localized wall bending of the pipes. Under a pavement system, the pipes' performance would be expected to be considerably better. With those caveats, the following conclusions are drawn from this study. Glacial till compacted to 50% and 80% provides insufficient support; pipe failureoccurs at surface contact stresses lower than those induced by highway trucks. On the other hand, sand backfill compacted to more than 110 pcf (17.3 kN/m3) is satisfactory. The failure mode for all pipes with all backfills is localized wall bending. At moderate tire pressures, i.e. contact stresses, deflections are reduced significantly when backfill density is increased from about 50 pcf (7.9 kN/m^3) to 90 pcf (14.1 kN/m^3). Above that unit weight, little improvement in the soil-pipe system is observed. Although pipe stiffness may vary as much as 16%, analyses show that backfill density is more important than pipe stiffness in controlling both deflections at low pipe stresses and at the ultimate capacity of the soil-pipe system. The rate of increase in ultimate strength of the system increases nearly linearly with increasing backfill density. When loads equivalent to moderate tire pressures are applied near the ends of the pipes, pipe deflections are slighly higher than when loaded at the center. Except for low density glacial till, the deflections near the ends are not excessive and the pipes perform satisfactorily. For contact stresses near the upper limit of truck tire pressures and when loaded near the end, pipes fail with localized wall bending. For flowable fill backfill, the ultimate capacity of the pipes is nearly doubled and at the upper limit of highway truck tire pressures, deflections are negligible. All pipe specimens tested at ambient laboratory room temperatures satisfied AASHTO minimum pipe stiffness requirements at 5% deflection. However, nearly all specimens tested at elevated pipe surface temperatures, approximately 122°F (50°C), failed to meet these requirements. Some HDPE pipe installations may not meet AASHTO minimum pipe stiffness requirements when installed in the summer months (i.e. if pipe surface temperatures are allowed to attain temperatures similar to those tested here). Heating of any portion of the pipe circumference reduced the load carrying capacity of specimens. The minimum soil cover depths, determined from the CANOE analysis, are controlled by the 5% deflection criterion. The minimum soil cover height is 12 in. (305 mm). Pipes with the poor silt and clay backfills with less than 85% compaction require a minimum soil cover height of 24 in. (610 mm). For the sand at 80% compaction, the A36 HDPE pipe with the lowest moment of inertia requires a minimum of 24 in. (610 mm) soil cover. The C48 HDPE pipe with the largest moment of inertia and all other pipes require a 12 in. (305 mm) minimum soil cover.

Evaluation of DuroTrim Vegetation Control Mats, HR-2090, 2002

The routine maintenance along Iowa's highways and roadways during the summer growing season is a time consuming and costly endeavor. Trimming around guardrail posts and delineator posts is especially costly due to the handwork required. Trimming costs account for approximately 50% of the shoulder mowing costs according to expense figures obtained from the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of Maintenance. The FY 2001 statewide trimming costs for the Iowa DOT was approximately $430,000 ($305,000 labor, $125,000 equipment and materials). This product would be required to perform well for 9-21 years, on average, in order to recoup the cost of installation. This includes the durability of the product, but not the cost of repair due to traffic damage, snowplow and wing damage, or damage caused by mowing operations. Maintenance costs associated with vegetation creep over the mats and repair costs would extend the required service life. As a result of resource realignment, the Iowa DOT roadside maintenance policy, for FY 2003 and the future, will be to eliminate trimming around delineator posts unless the reflector is obstructed. This policy change will effectively eliminate the need for weed control mats due to the significant reduction in trimming. The use of the weed control mats could be justified in areas that are dangerous to maintenance workers such as guardrail installations in high traffic areas. Because the delineator posts are further from the edge of the traveled roadway, there is a reduced risk to the maintenance workforce while hand trimming. Because the DuroTrim Vegetation Control Mats appear to have performed adequately in the field trial, they could be considered for use, where safety conditions warrant. That use should be limited, however, due to the considerable initial cost and changes in Iowa DOT roadside maintenance policy. Application should be limited to instances where the use of the DuroTrim Vegetation Control Mats would have a significant impact on the safety of the roadside maintenance workers. The cost savings, due to the elimination of the trimming and mowing alone, is not enough to justify their use in most situations at their current cost. The test sections will continue to be monitored periodically so that approximate service life can be determined.