A comprehensive database of all infrastructure is essential for long term planning and maintenance. Many municipalities in Ontario are using the Municipal Dataworks (MDW) to manage their infrastructure assets. MDW was developed on behalf of Ontario Good Roads Association and received financial support from the Government of Ontario represented by the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Ministry of Transportation.

In September in Washington, D.C. the House of Representatives transportation appropriations subcommittee voted to cut federal highway and transit funding by 34 per cent for next fiscal year. John Horsley, AASHTO executive director stated: “The cuts proposed in the House bill would eliminate 500,000 jobs, not to mention putting the nation further behind on many critical transportation improvements.”

The United States is facing unique challenges. However, this action by the subcommittee in question should be a warning to us in Ontario that we can never allow our politicians at all levels to take infrastructure for granted. Hopefully, the next time the leaders debate they will address questions related to infrastructure in Ontario.

The Concrete Pipe Journal is published three times a year by the Ontario Concrete Pipe Association and is distributed throughout Ontario and across Canada and the United States. It is also available online at ocpa.com. Address inquiries or

comments about the Concrete Pipe Journal to: Editor: Concrete Pipe Journal, Ontario Concrete Pipe Association, 447 Frederick St, Second Floor, Kitchener, Ontario N2H 2P4, Email: journal@ocpa.com, Phone: 519.489.4488, Fax: 519.578.6060

40051061

Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to:Ontario Concrete Pipe Association, 447 Frederick St, Suite 200, Kitchener, Ontario N2H 2P4

Infrastructure was NOT a Major ElectionIssue in Ontario

N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L O F T H E C O N C R E T E P I P E I N D U S T R Y P U B L I S H E D B Y T H E O N T A R I O C O N C R E T E P I P E A S S O C I A T I O N

concretepipejournal fall2011

A leaders’ debate was televised on September 27 during the recent Ontario provincial election. Six questions were solicited from voters across Ontariofor the three party leaders. None of those six questions related directly to infrastructure. This was disappointing for those of us involved in infrastructure in Ontario. The importance of our highways, roads and streets cannot be overstated. At the recent annual conference of the Transportation Association of Canada some speakers hailed the highway system as the backbone of an economy. “We use the transportation system everyday from before we are born until after we die.”

The Province of Ontario released its ten year infrastructureplan, Building Together, in late June. Ontario Concrete Pipe Association recognizes that the Ministry of Infrastructure is investing record amounts of money into Ontario’s infrastructure and we applaud the Ministry for this. The Ministry of Infrastructure is committed to investing $35 billion in Ontario’s infrastructure over the next three years. We are keenly aware that there are many demands for infrastructure investment and maintenance across Ontario including transportation, transit, hospitals, schools, energy and water. We are also sensitive to the fact that spending on health, education and interest on the provincial debt accounts for over 70 per cent of the Government of Ontario’s current budget. Currently, spending on health care in Ontario is increasing by six per cent per year.

We are encouraged by the appointment of the HonourableBob Chiarelli as Minister of Infrastructure and Minister of Transportation. Minister Chiarelli was instrumental in the development of Building Together and his experience as Mayor of Ottawa gives him insight into the challenges that municipalities across Ontario are facing with their aging infrastructure. The article on page two of this edition of the Concrete Pipe Journal, “Bridge Blues on the Way”, could apply to almost any municipality in Ontario. Some estimates peg the total current infrastructure deficit in Ontario at $100 billion.

P2 | �Bridge�Blues�on�the�Way

P3 | �Munro�Designs�&�Supplies� Jacking�Pipe�to�the�City� of�Windsor

P4 | ��New�Product,�More�Concerns:�Polypropylene�vs.�Polyethylene

P5 | ��Designers�Need�to�do�More� Than�Reference�a�Standard

P6 | �OCPA�Concrete�Pipe����������Installation�Pocket�Guide����������

Educate�your�staff�on�topics�such�as�MTO�Gravity�Pipe�Guidelines,�Protecting�Yourself�as�a�Gravity�Pipe�Designer,�the�Marston�Span-gler�Method�or�PipePac�Software�with�a�free�Lunch�&�Learn�from�OCPA.�You�pick�the�topic�and�in-vite�key�staff,�and�we�bring�lunch�and�a�60-minute�presentation—at�no�charge�to�you.

Call 519.489.4488 or email resources@ocpa.com to book your Lunch & Learn today.

Lunch & Learns

In This Issue...

PipePac�software�has�a�user�friendly�design�program�that�enables�designers�to�determine�the�class�of�concrete�pipe�for�any�installation�conditions�that�may�be�anticipated.�

To�download�PipePac�Software�for�free,�visit�the�Technical�Re-source�Centre�at�www.ocpa.com.

PipePac Available at OCPA.com

Join Us OnFacebook

Join�the�OCPA�on�Facebook�for�timely�updates�and�news�items�that�impact�the�Ontario�Concrete�Pipe�Association,�its�members,�suppliers�and�the�travelling�public.�Go�to�https://www.facebook.com/ocpa.fb�and�click�“Like”.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli

Bridge Blues on the Way

Representatives from 60 various stakeholder groups immediately recognized that the long-term sustainability of roads and bridges requires continued investment by all levels of government. Most importantly, this same group agreed that asset management plans are needed to ensurethat sound long-term road and bridge infrastructure decisions are made. This would require a tool that allowed municipalities to take that last step from explanations to what Mr. Godin called priceless accurate forecasts and insightful intuition.

OGRA’s Municipal DataWorks (MDW) is just such a tool. Since developing MDW, OGRA has been pushing stakeholders to adopt the “right time, right place, right option” approach associated with asset management.As the more than 370 Ontario municipalities who have adopted MDW can attest, no other tool on the market provides them with the ability to identify their infrastructure needs, determine their priorities and long-term costs and ultimately calculate how they will invest in the renewal and maintenance of an asset over its lifecycle... for free.

The Government of Ontario has invested in MDW, recognizing the benefits outlined above, as well as the fact that this tool helps smaller municipalities that may not have the existing resources or corporate culture to adopt asset management practices. The return on this investment has been handsome. Since the work of the Roads and Bridges Review began, the number of bridges and culverts catalogued in MDW has tripled to almost 16,000.

With this critical mass of assets, OGRA can now provide accurate forecasts that all levels of government need when making their annual capital plans, setting budgets and determining priorities. Elected officials and the public can understand and explain the basis of investment decisions. And a free tool that allows Ontario municipalities to offer transparent, accurate forecasts? That is truly priceless.

By S.R. ButlerOntario Good Roads Association

“Good excuses, even really good ones, don’t help very much. Explanations, on the other hand, are both scarce and useful. And accurate forecasts and insightful intuition are priceless.” - Seth Godin, 2011

Although he was referring to contemporary business culture, Seth Godin could have just as easily been writing about Canada’s recent approach to managing its infrastructure. After all, it is rather hard to accumulate an infrastructure deficit that runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars, without also learning how to excel at making excuses that allow such a thing to happen.

However, recently in Ontario there has been a significant shift in the approach that governments, business, academics and stakeholders have taken to infrastructure management. Gradually excuses have given way to explanations. And rather than trying to justify previous non-decisions, a culture has emerged that is explaining the need to reprioritize infrastructure investments.

Nowhere is this shift as evident as with the Ontario’s Provincial-Municipal Road and Bridges Review, which came about as a result of the broader Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review (PMFSDR) that also identified the need to upload social services to the province.

One of the stated goals of the PMFSDR was to develop options that would address the long term sustainability of municipal road and bridge infrastructure. To that end, it was determined that municipalities were facing an investment gap of approximately $60 billion over the ten years. Road and bridge investment needs accounted for almost half ($28 billion) of this gap. Explanations began to replace excuses.

Beginning in January 2010, the Government of Ontario, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the City of Toronto launched the Provincial-Municipal Roads and Bridges Review.

PG2

By Stephen Vance

The following article was published by The Meaford Independent on October 12, 2011. It is republished here with permission.

Nearly $20 million needs to be spent on bridges and culverts within the Municipality of Meaford over the next 10 years. So says a report submitted to council by Director of Operations, Stephen Vokes on Tuesday, October 11.In his report, Vokes identifies 118 required bridge and culvert maintenance projects including 15 full bridge replacements, which will need to be funded over the next 10 years.

In the immediate future $1.1 million is required over the next two years in order to complete 56 bridge maintenance projects.

The report made to council was the result of the most recently completed bridge inspections as required by provincial regulations. They dictate that: all structures with a span greater than three metres shall be inspected every two years by a qualified structural engineer. According to the report submitted by Vokes, Meaford has 84 structures that meet criteria.

“Ainley & Associates Limited conducted the 2008 to 2011 inspections of the Municipality’s structures using the OSIM format. As part of the

inspection, Ainley and Associates prepared a summary report of the findings,” wrote Vokes.

Vokes advised council that his department will be seeking funding in the 2012 budget to begin the process of establishing a bridge rehabilitationand reconstruction program which will address the coming need for maintaining or replacing bridges in Meaford.

“Bridge rehabilitation and reconstruction is not presently included in the 2012 Capital Budget but will be submitted as an expansion request during budget deliberations,” Vokes wrote in his report.

The Municipality of Meaford is well aware of what can happen when a bridge fails and no plan is in place. In October of 2008 a bridge spanning Walter’s Creek in Bognor was closed after it was determined the bridge was no longer safe. The cash-strapped municipality scrambled to secure funding and initiate the engineering and design process. The replacement bridge was not ready for traffic until 15 months later when the bridge was officially reopened on January 21, 2010. Vokes told The Independent at that time that he did not want to see a repeat of that experience.

“The need for increased bridge rehabilitation and reconstruction funding is evident, as identified in the summary of OSIM reports. The status quo level of rehabilitation expenditure is not adequate and staff is recommending that the level of expenditure be increased through the development of a Bridge Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Program,” wrote Vokes.

How much the municipality will need to fund itself for the required repairs is unknown at this time and will depend on what infrastructure grant funding the municipality will be eligible for. Having a program in place would help Meaford be ready when grant opportunities present themselves.

“While operations staff are constantly researching funding opportunities for all infrastructure programs, staff are concerned that the Municipality may not be prepared or eligible for funding programs as a result of no ‘shovel ready’ projects,” Vokes said in his report.

While the price tag for repairing bridges in the municipality may have come as a shock, the need for such maintenance was not unexpected.

“We have over 100 bridges in our municipality, many of them older than I am, and some are starting to deteriorate,” offered Deputy Mayor Harley Greenfield.

MDW: Calculating the Cost of Priceless

Flotation Concerns

Final installation conditions should always be considered during design. The plastic pipe industry has always claimed that its product is lightweight and therefore easy to install. While being lightweight may help the contractor, PP has a specific gravity of 0.90 compared to a specific gravity of 0.94 for HDPE. Thus, any installation benefit is greatly outweighed by the fact that the plastic pipe product can float in a high water table, a flood situation, a wet trench, or even where flooding is used to consolidate the backfill.

HDPE is well known to float, and this new PP product will be even more susceptible to the risk.

Hydraulic Concerns

Another claim by the HDPE industry is superior hydraulic flow due to a smooth inner liner. The hydraulic performance of HDPE pipe tends to be more in line with a corrugated pipe, such as corrugated metal pipe, than a smooth pipe like concrete. One hundred percent of installed HDPE pipelines suffer from corrugation growth,8 or plastic deformation in the pipeline’s liner due to the transfer of stress from the outer corrugatedwall to the inner liner. As shown in the photo, PP experiences corrugationgrowth similar to HDPE.

Thus, corrugation growth should be taken into consideration when evaluating the hydraulic performance expectations for PP.

PG3

An educational document from the American Concrete Pipe Association for users and specifiers

Public Risk for Industry Reward

According to the Plastics Pipe Institute(PPI), the plastic pipe industry has tak-en risks to come up with new products to “improve” the storm water industry

and “these changes were very risky as they involved major redesigns and significant investments in equipment and tooling that if incorrect, would result in very expensive boat anchors for the manufacturers.”1 PPI mocks the very real concerns that these risks pose to the public, labelling them “scare tactics.” The ACPA and prudent engineers consider those risks legitimate factors to be weighed in the decision to use or restrict the use of plastic products.

Throughout its history, the plastic pipe industry has developed a startling array of unsuccessful pipe products that have failed to live up to performance expectations. For example, Type D / honeycomb profile HDPE pipe is no longer made due to numerous fundamental performance problems. HDPE open bottom chambers experienced field performance issues and have seen significant redesign. Plastic pipe industry representatives minimize this history with the excuse “we don’t make it that way anymore.” Unfortunately, the use of these products has caused real expense and danger to the public.

The newest plastic pipe product on the market is polypropylene (PP) pipe. Engineers can choose between the risk of failed performance, or protecting the public welfare and safeguarding against failure. Obviously, the easiest choice would be to completely prohibit using PP in any situation. However, if you choose to calculate the risk, consider these precautions if your agency is considering a PP project:

• Due to installation sensitivity, plastic pipe systems should be directly designed for each installation by a third party licensed professional engineer. Don’t rely on pipe designs prepared by a plastic pipe manufacturer. This is a conflict of interest.

• Require installers and inspectors to use ASTM D2321 installation criteria. ASTM D2321 is the nationally recognized and most comprehensive practice for the installation of HDPE pipe in sewers and other gravity flow applications.

• Require extended warranty bonds that offer protection of your project beyond the standard manufacturer’s warranty.

• Conduct and evaluate post-installation inspections for pipe deflection, buckling, cracking, and other problems.

Even with the above safeguards significant engineering concerns remain. A few are listed below.

Deflection Concerns

In a manufacturer’s press release, an HDPE producer states, “While ADS officials are confident that their existing corrugated HDPE products are equally adept at performing the drainage functions of their concrete and steel counterparts, language in certain codes and standards have set a five per cent deflection limit in various applications.”2 This five per cent deflection criteria was established by AASHTO3 in order to ensure that the product would serve the public as intended. To ensure long term deflections don’t exceed the five per cent criteria, a near perfect installation and backfill are required.

Polypropylene has approximately 1.5 times the elastic modulus, or toughness, of HDPE. However, the yield stress of PP is very similar to HDPE, and thus the PP pipe will reach its capacity at a lower strain level (and therefore lower deflection level) than HDPE pipe. In other words, a PP pipe with an equivalent profile to currently-produced HDPE pipe would deflect less with the same applied force, due to its stronger modulus of elasticity. But if the PP pipe is improperly installed like many HDPE pipelines have been, design forces will be exceeded. If allowed to deflect to the five per cent limit of HDPE, PP would likely experience a brittle failure. Therefore, a smaller post-installation deflection limit of three per cent would be more appropriate for PP.

Oxidation Concerns

Another concern to keep in mind is that “polypropylene is one of the most susceptible polymers to thermal and photo oxidation.”4 Oxidation, or chemical chain degradation, of PP is caused by UV radiation breaking

New Product, More Concerns:Polypropylene vs. Polyethylene

down particular carbons. UV light causes embrittlement, loss of strength and surface damage to the product.5 PP is also susceptible to the same oxidation that HDPE experiences. Thus, neither product should be manufactured without antioxidants and additional antioxidants must be added each time the material is reprocessed or reground to prevent brittleness in both products.

While antioxidants are vital to the service life of both HDPE and PP, utilizing the proper amount and type of antioxidant is even more important in PP due to the vulnerable carbon found in the polymer. While carbon black is a common antioxidant, the press release states that the industry’s new PP pipe product will be grey1 – an indication that carbon black is not utilized. Choosing the right antioxidants for this product will be critical.

The best way to protect against oxidation failures is to require a specific antioxidant package and routine testing to ensure the desired life span is achieved.

Sub-freezing Concerns

Have you ever left a plastic bucket outside during the winter, and found that it cracks or breaks far more easily than it would in the summer? What you experienced was the phenomenon known as the glass transition. Each polymer has its own glass transition temperature, or Tg for short. As the polymer cools and approaches its glass transition temperature, it becomes increasingly hard and brittle, like glass.6 Not only is PP damaged by UV rays, it also becomes increasingly brittle with colder temperatures and has a glass transition temperature of 14°F.7

This relatively mild transition temperature should be of concern where the water table is at risk of freezing, or a shallow buried culvert where ground growth similar to HDPE.

continued on page 4

Corrugation Growth in Polypropylene Pipe

PG4

Munro Ltd. Designs and Supplies 2.3 Km of Jacking Pipe

Mario Recchia, P.Eng. Technical Director, Munro Ltd.

The City of Windsor’s riverfront has been marked for parkland since the 1950s and the city has been reclaiming land for parks and recreation over the years, such that now there are five kilometers of green space and civic plazas along the riverfront.

But with Windsor being an older city, some areas are serviced by a combined sewer system. A combined sewer system is a wastewater collection system that conveys a mixture of wastewater and stormwater through a single pipe to a treatment plant. When there is a major storm it is impossible to have all the water conveyed to the wastewater treatmentplant in a short period of time and treated before it is discharged to a natural waterway. As a result, excess untreated water is discharged

directly to the natural waterway. This is defined as a combined sewer overflow (CSO). This is the situation in Windsor from Ouellete Ave. to Walker Road. During large storms, untreated water is discharged directly into the Detroit River.

The solution to this problem devised by the City of Windsor engineers and their consulting engineers was the installation of a Retention Treatment Basin (RTB). The RTB Project included construction of an underground tank to hold and treat water and a new collection sewer to be installed by tunnelling from Hiram Walker’s to Ouellette Avenue.

Tunnelling determined the need for jacking pipe to be used in the new collection sewer. Jacking pipe must be designed for the installation method and the soil conditions during the installation as well as the ground cover load. Most importantly, jacking pipe must withstand the longitudinal forces encountered as the pipe is jacked through the ground.The design and specification of a class of jacking pipe is based on correlating field requirements (jacking machinery and installation process) to the required pipe strength. The pipe must be designed to take the jacking forces with a reasonable factor of safety so that it will not be damaged during the installation.

In this project, two sizes of jacking pipe were required. There were 820 pieces of 1650 mm jacking pipe amounting to two kilometers in total and 125 pieces of 2250 mm jacking pipe comprising 1/3 of a kilometer. For the majority of the job, distance between maintenance holes was 200 m but in some cases it was as much as 300 m. Munro Ltd. also supplied the maintenance holes and maintenance hole tees for the project.

Using the contract drawings, the Munro Ltd. in-house engineering team set to work to determine the appropriate jacking pipe design. The PIPECAR program was used to perform a three-edge bearing design and analysis. Munro’s senior design engineer reviewed the results of the program and specified the wall thickness of the pipe and the reinforcement. In both diameters of pipe, Class 100D pipe was required based on the loading. The results of the analysis on the 2250 mm pipe showed that stirrup mats were also required all the way around the pipe (360 degrees) to provide additional reinforcement for the loading. Stirrup mats are special reinforcing mats that are shaped to conform to the reinforcing cage. The Munro engineer provided a stamped drawing confirming the loading the 1650 mm and the 2250 mm pipes could withstand when jacked with one or two pieces of cushioning material in the installation process.

After completion of the design and the approval of their customer, Munro Ltd. proceeded to manufacture the jacking pipe with slight modificationsto their reinforced concrete pipe manufacturing process. According to CSA standards (CSA A257.2), jacking pipe must only be made with circular reinforcing cages and the inner cage reinforcement must extend into the spigot. Munro Ltd. also added steel bands to each of the pipes to protect the bell of the pipe during the jacking process. In addition every other pipe manufactured contained holes cast in for pumping bentonite slurry to reduce the friction during the jacking process.

The Windsor Retention Treatment Basin Project was completed this past summer and a parking lot and decorative seating area were constructed on top of the basin.

New Product, More Concerns continued from page 3

Meltability & Flammability Concerns

Meltability is as much of a concern as flammability since both can result in collapsed pipe. Melt temperature indicates the onset of dripping, and the deformation of a plastic material creating moving and falling flamingelements.9 Both HDPE and PP will melt at temperatures above 340° F and ignite at temperatures above 772° F.9 As a reference, a candle flame burns at an average of 1,800° F.10

Many state DOTs require concrete end treatments, concrete aprons and non-flammable end segments to minimize the flammability and meltability concerns, but these measures do not eliminate them. Some DOTs have experienced road failures caused by burning pipe during actual fires, and have implemented limits on the use of thermoplastic pipe in at-risk areas.

The risk of flammability should not be underestimated. There are numerous cases of HDPE pipe catching fire and collapsing that demonstrate the serious potential for melting and burning. This should be carefully considered when specifying HDPE or PP that will be installed under roadways.Pipelines under roads usually have open access, making them susceptible to arson and other fire sources.

Serious Concerns or Scare Tactics?

The plastic industry may call these issues scare tactics, but the issues raised above are all concerns that a prudent engineer should evaluate when determining whether to specify HDPE or PP pipe.

References

1. Risk versus Progress, Standing Still Means Falling Behind, Tony Radoszewski, January 2007.

2. ADS Has High Expectations for New PP Pipe, Matt Griswold, April 25, 2008.

3. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification, Section 12, 4th Edition, 2008

4. Property Comparison Between Polypropylene and High Density Polyethylene Pipe, J. Scheirs, March 2003.

5. Why Use Antioxidants, Ciba, 2008, http://www.specialchem4polymers.com/ tc/Antioxidants/index.aspx

6. The Glass Transition, 2005 http://pslc.ws/macrog//tg.htmL

7. Polypropylene 2001, http://www.polymerprocessing.com/polymers/PP.html

8. Evaluation of HDPE Pipelines’ Structural Performance, University of Texas at Arlington, http://www.uta.edu/ce/aareports2.php

9. Flammability of Plastic Pipe, J. G. Quintiere, December 2008

10. Flame, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame, September 22, 2010.

Designers Need to do More ThanReference a Standard

Gerrard F. Mulhern, P.Eng. OCPA, Executive Director

On a regular basis the professional engineers at Ontario Concrete Pipe Association are presented with specifications for drainage systems that do little more than reference a national or provincial manufacturing standard for a particular type of pipe. Typically in Ontario, the referenced standards are developed by the Canadian Standards Association or Ontario Provincial Standards. Design engineers charged with designing our province’s infrastructure need to do more than just reference a standard. Specifically for drainage systems and sanitary sewers, designers need to recognize that successful projects demand three key elements:

• Quality pipe

• Sound engineering and design

• Proper installation and post installation inspection

In order to achieve this, comprehensive specifications are required that address all three elements regardless of the pipe material or pipe system that is being used. For the purposes of this article the designer is urged to consider the following information and disclaimer from Canadian Standards Association (CSA).

The Canadian Standards Association is a not-for-profit, membership-based association serving business, industry, government and consumers in Canada and the global marketplace.

CSA standards are developed through a consensus development process approved by the Standards Council of Canada. This process brings together volunteers representing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve agreement and develop a standard. Although CSA administers the process and establishes rules to promote fairness in achieving consensus, it does not independently test, evaluate, or verify the content of standards.1

The following Disclaimer and exclusion of liability is included in the standards developed by CSA.

“This document is provided without any representations, warranties, or conditions of any kind, express or implied, including, without limitation, implied warranties or conditions concerning this document’s fitness for a particular purpose or use, its merchantability, or its non-infringement of any third party’s intellectual property rights. CSA does not warrant the accuracy, completeness, or currency of any of the information published in this document. CSA makes no representations or warranties regarding this document’s compliance with any applicable statute, rule, or regulation.

IN NO EVENT SHALL CSA, ITS VOLUNTEERS, MEMBERS, SUBSIDIARIES, OR AFFILIATED COMPANIES, OR THEIR EMPLOYEES, DIRECTORS, OR OFFICERS, BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, INJURY, LOSS, COSTS, OR EXPENSES, HOWSOEVER CAUSED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, LOST REVENUE, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOST OR DAMAGED DATA, OR ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL OR ECONOMIC LOSS, WHETHER BASED IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), OR ANY OTHER THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING FROM ACCESS TO OR POSSESSION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT, EVEN IF CSA HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, INJURY, LOSS, COSTS, OR EXPENSES.

In publishing and making this document available, CSA is not undertaking to render professional or other services for or on behalf of any person/entity or to perform any duty owed by any person/entity to another person/entity. The information in this document is directed to those who have the appropriate degree of experience to use and apply its contents, and CSA accepts no responsibility whatsoever, arising in any way, from any and all use of, or reliance on, the information contained in this document.

CSA is a private not-for-profit company that publishes voluntary standards and related documents. CSA has no power, nor does it undertake, to enforce compliance with the contents of the standards or other documents it publishes.” 2

The user of such a standard, namely the design engineer, should be under noillusion: The Canadian Standards Association or any similar body is NOT accepting any responsibility for his/her design.

The engineers at Ontario Concrete Pipe Association have over 60 years combined experience in the gravity pipe and precast industries. We make this experience availableto designers and project managers through our Lunch and Learn program. We addressthe three essential elements listed above for successful drainage and sanitary sewer projects and provide recommendations to the designers to protect himself or herself from litigation.

References:

1. www.csa.ca

2. Canadian Standards Association – Legal Notice for Standards

PG5

PROVIDING QUALITY PRECAST PRODUCTS THROUGHOUT BC.CONCRETE PIPE • OIL INTERCEPTORS • MUNICIPAL CAST IRON • BOX CULVERT • 3 SIDED CULVERT • MANHOLE & CATCH BASINS • BARRIERS • POLE BASES • PRECAST MANHOLE BASES • CUSTOM PRECAST • STORMCEPTOR®

Call BC toll-free 1.800.667.9600 www.langleyconcretegroup.comLANGLEY CONCRETE LTD PARTNERSHIP20142 Logan Avenue Langley, BC V3A 4L6 Ph 604.533-1656 Fax 604.533-8191

LOMBARD PRE-CAST LTD PARTNERSHIP661 Lombard Drive Victoria, BC V9C 3Y9Ph 250.478.9581 Fax 250.478-0353

BESTGOOD. BETTER. CON CAST PIPE.

The best product. The best service. The best design.

Con Cast Pipe goes beyond the norm, providing innovative infrastructure solutions

and unparalleled expertise, backed by 20 years in the precast concrete business.

Contact us today and let’s make it happen.

Visit concastpipe.com, call 1 800 668 PIPE or email sales@concastpipe.com.

PG6

The following is an excerpt from the Ontario Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Installation Pocket Guide.

Editors Note: Ontario Provincial Standards (OPS) implemented the reallocation of some specifications in OPS Volume 1 after this Pocket Guide was published. OPSS 514 – Construction Specification for Trenching, Backfilling, and Compacting has been relocated to OPSS 401.

Foundation Preparation

A stable and uniform foundation is necessary for satisfactory performance of any pipe. The foundation must have sufficient load bearing capacity to maintain the pipe in proper alignment and sustain the mass of the backfill, or fill material placed over the pipe. The trench bottom foundation should be checked for hard or soft spots, due to rocks or low load-bearing soils. Where undesirable foundations exist, it should be stabilized by ballasting or soil modification.

Ballasting requires removal of the undesirable foundation material and replacing it with select materials such as sand, gravel, crushed rock, slag, or suitable earth backfill. The depth, gradation, and size of the ballast depend on the specific material used and the amount of stabilization required, but usually the ballast should be well graded.

Soil modification involves the addition of select material to the native soil. Crushed rock, gravel, sand, slag, or other durable inert materials with a maximum size of 75 mm, is worked into the subsoil to the extent necessary to accomplish the required stabilization.

In rock, shale or other hard, unyielding soils, the excavation should be continued below grade, and the over-excavation replaced with select material to provide a cushion for the pipe.

Pipe Bedding

Once a stable and uniform foundation is provided, it is necessary to prepare a bedding in accordance with the bedding requirements set forth in the plans, specifications or standard drawings.

An important function of the bedding is to level out any irregularities in the foundation, and assure uniform support along the barrel of each pipe section. The bedding is also constructed to distribute the load bearing reaction, due to the mass of the backfill or fill material, around the lower periphery of the pipe. The structural capacity of the pipe is directly related to this load distribution, and several types of bedding have been established to enable the specification of pipe strengths during the design phase. The following general requirements should be followed:

• When bell and spigot pipe is to be laid, recesses should be shaped to receive the bells.

• Bedding material placed in the haunches must be compacted prior to continued placement of cover material.

• Bedding requiring compacting should be placed in layers not exceeding 200 mm in thickness, loose measurement, and compacted to 95 per cent of the max. density before a subsequent layer is placed.

• Bedding on each side of the pipe should be completed simultaneously. At no time should the levels on each side differ by more than the 200 mm un-compacted layer.

For trench installations, where space is limited, tamping or pneumatic and mechanical impact tampers kneading action, are primarily useful for soils containing clays. Granular soils are most effectively consolidated by vibration. Compaction equipment can generate significant dynamic forces capable of damaging installed pipe.

Bell holes should be excavated to accommodate projecting joints, and to provide support along the barrel of the pipe.

This guide describes the Class B and Class C bedding types since these are the only types used in the Ontario Provincial Standards for rigid pipe. Other bedding types, such as Standard Installations, are described in the OCPA Concrete Pipe Design Manual and the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CSA S6).

Bedding Materials

Materials for bedding should be selected on the basis that uniform contact can be obtained between the bed and the pipe. Since most granular material will shift to attain this uniform contact as the pipe settles, an ideal load distribution can be realized.

OPSS 514 specifies that bedding material be Granular A or B, Type I, II, or III, 25 mm or less in size, or un-shrinkable fill, as specified in the contract documents.

Class B Bedding

Granular Foundation:

• A granular foundation without shaping is used only with circular pipe.

• The pipe is bedded in compacted granular material placed on the flat trench bottom.

• The granular bedding has a minimum specified thickness, and should extend at least half way up the pipe at the sides.

• The remainder of the sidefills, and a minimum depth of 300 mm over the top of the pipe, should be filled with densely compacted material.

Shaped Subgrade:

• For a shaped subgrade with granular foundation, the bottom of the excavation is shaped to conform to the pipe surface but at least 50 mm greater than the outside dimensions of the pipe.

• The width should be sufficient to allow 0.6 times the outside pipe diameter for circular pipe, 0.7 times the outside span for arch and elliptical pipe, and the full bottom width of box sections to be bedded in fine granular fill placed in the shaped excavation.

• Densely compacted backfill should be placed at the sides of the pipe to a depth of at least 300 mm above the top of the pipe.

Class C Bedding

Granular Foundation:

• Used only with circular pipe, the pipe is bedded in loosely compacted granular material, or densely compacted backfill placed on a flat bottom trench.

• The bedding material should have a minimum specified thickness, and should extend up the sides for a height of at least 0.15 times the outside diameter.

• For trench installations, the sidefill and area over the pipe to a minimum depth of 150 mm should be filled with compacted backfill.

Shaped Subgrade:

• The pipe is bedded with ordinary care in a soil foundation, shaped to fit the lower part of the pipe exterior with reasonable closeness for a width of at least 0.5 times the outside diameter for a circular pipe, 0.15 times the outside pipe rise for elliptical pipe, and full bottom width of box units.

• For trench installations, the sides and area over the pipe are filled with lightly compacted backfill to a minimum depth of 150 mm above the top of the pipe.

• For embankment installations, the pipe should not project more than 90 per cent of the vertical height of the pipe above the bedding.

Cover

OPSS 514 specifies that cover material be Granular A or B, Type I, II, or III, 25 mm or less in size, or native material, as specified in the contract documents.

• Cover material should be placed so that damage to or movement of the pipe is avoided.

• Cover material requiring compacting should be placed in layers not exceeding 200 mm in thickness, loose measurement, and compacted to 95 per cent of the maximum dry density before a subsequent layer is placed.

• Cover material should be placed on each side of the pipe and should be completed simultaneously. At no time should the levels on each side differ by more than the 200 mm un-compacted layer.

When single cell boxes are used in parallel for multi-cell installations, positive lateral bearing must be provided between the sides of adjacent units. This is accomplished with grout to fill the 50 mm annular space.

Backfill

OPSS 514 specifies that backfill material be Granular A or B, Type I, II, or III, 25 mm or less in size, or native material, as specified in the contract documents.

• Backfill material should be placed in uniform layers not exceeding 300 mm in thickness for the full width of the trench and each layer should be compacted to 95 per cent of the maximum dry density before a subsequent layer is placed.

• Backfill should be placed to a minimum depth of 900 mm above the crown of the pipe before power operated tractors or rolling equipment should be used for compacting. Uniform layers of backfill material exceeding 300 mm in thickness may be placed with the approval of the contract administrator.

• If the contract specifies native backfill material, acceptable earth backfill material may be substituted with the approval of the contract administrator. In areas within the roadway, for a depth equal to the frost treatment, the earth backfill material should have frost susceptible characteristics similar to the adjacent material.

This booklet is simply a guide and is not intended to supersede the project specifications. Contact the OCPA to obtain a free copy.

OCPA Concrete Pipe Installation Pocket Guide

PG7

Broken sewer wrecked library

By Mike Whitehouse

The following article was published in the The Sudbury Star on August 17, 2011 and is republished here with the permission of the Sudbury Star.

A “perfect storm of circumstances” culminating in a heavy summer rainstorm, was responsible for condemning and demolishing the south end branch of the Greater Sudbury Public Library, The Sudbury Star has learned.

The south end library closed for good March 6, 2009, on an order from the city’s chief building controls officer, who cited “structural changes in the building that had escalated to such a degree that the building was deemed to be unsafe.”

No explanation has ever been given by the city for condemning the building, but documents obtained by The Star indicate parts of the building sunk by 15 inches in a matter of weeks, much of it likely in a few days. Evidence of this movement was apparent by walking on the main floor of the library and noted by staff.

The building, at the intersection of Old Burwash Road and Regent Street South, was built in 1989 and leased by the city as a library branch in 1992. The city purchased the building outright in 2002.

Twenty years after it was built, eight years after the city bought it and one year after it closed suddenly, the library building was demolished. It was gone in one day and the rubble was carted away. A new library will be built at a cost to the city of $4.8 million.

It has been widely speculated the construction of the rock sewer tunnel under the building undermined its foundation. But a geotechnical report commissioned by the city weeks after the building was closed for good suggested tunnel blasting played only a small role in the building’s demise.

The principal cause was an influx of storm water from a broken storm sewer and manhole connection located near the northwest corner of the property. Water from the broken sewer flowed onto and under the site, carrying the finer fill material down into the voids in the larger fill underneath the site. The voids in the larger base fill, made of large chunks of blasted rock, were in the range of 20 to 30 per cent, the report said.

The finer engineered fill material had likely been washing into the rock fill below for years, but may have been exacerbated by vibrations from blasting the rock sewer tunnel, construction of which started in 2005.

Cracks in the library’s walls alerted the city to problems in 2006. An engineering report commissioned at the time indicated the building had been settling, but remained structurally sound.

In July 2008, intense rain led to the collapse of a manhole catch basin in the library’s parking lot.

A camera inspection indicated the bottom of the steel culvert between the manhole structure and Regent Street had corroded and was allowing water to seep into the ground and flow toward the library building.

The city lined the corroded pipe with plastic and repaired the manhole, but the process of erosion of the fill underpinning the building was likely too far along at that point to be stopped, the report said.

Within months, the corner of the building closest to the manhole had sunk 18 inches and in March 2009, the building was condemned. Because of the inadequate foundation, the consultant did not recommend repairing the building.

City chief administrative officer, Doug Nadorozny, said the city filed an insurance claim when the building was demolished.

“The claims were denied,” he said, “due to a standard exclusion to all property insurance policies which relates to: ‘Loss or damage caused by settling, expansion, contraction, moving, shifting or cracking unless caused by or resulting from a peril not excluded elsewhere’.”

In July 2009, city council approved plans to build a larger, $4.8 million replacement library on the old site. Of that, $1.3 million will come from dedicated reserves and $3.5 million from debt financing to be repaid largely through development fees and property tax hikes.

Construction began this week, more than a year late, largely because of site preparation work needed to stabilize the fill problem.

mailto:mwhitehouse@thesudburystar.com

PG8

Concrete Pipe/Drainage Products Producer

Con Cast PipeLocation: Guelph, ONTel: 1-800-668-7473Fax: 519-763-1982Email: sales@concastpipe.comWebsite: www.concastpipe.comContact: Brian Wood or Jason Spencer

Hanson Pipe & Precast, Ltd.Locations: Whitby, Cambridge, Windsor, OttawaTel: 1-888-888-3222Fax: 519-621-8233Email: mike.leathers@hanson.comWebsite: www.hansonpipeandprecast.comContact: Mike Leathers

Inland Pipe LimitedLocations: Calgary, Edmonton, WinnipegTel: 780-448-1351Fax: 780-448-1354Email: rpowers@lehighcement.comWebsite: www.inlandcanada.comContact: Robert Powers

LafargeLocations: Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Thunder BayTel: 403-292-9502Fax: 403-255-2677Email: tina.larson@lafarge-na.caWebsite: www.lafargecorp.comContact: Tina Larson

Langley Concrete GroupLocations: Langley, Victoria & Abbotsford, BCTel: 604-533-1656Fax: 604-533-8191Email: pipeman@langleyconcretegroup.comWebsite: www.langleyconretegroup.comContact: Mark Omelaniec

M-Con Products Inc.Location: Carp, ONTel: 1-800-267-5515Fax: 613-831-2048Email: sales@mconproducts.comWebsite: www.mconproducts.comContact: Carlo Taverna

M-Con Pipe & Products Inc.Location: Ayr, ONTel: 519-632-9112Fax: 519-632-7440Email: dgalloway@mconproducts.comWebsite: www.mconproducts.comContact: Doug Galloway

Munro Ltd.Location: Barrie, ONTel: 1-800-461-5632Fax: 705-734-2920Email: jmunro@munroltd.comWebsite: www.munroltd.comContact: John Munro

Rainbow Concrete Industries Ltd.Locations: Sudbury, ONTel: 1-800-461-6281Fax: 705-566-4813Email: sales@rcil.caWebsite: www.rcil.comContact: Dave Carter

Gaskets and ConnectorsHamilton KentLocation: Etobicoke, ONTel: 1-800-268-8479Fax: 416-674-6960Email: bergre@hamiltonkent.comWebsite: www.hamiltonkent.comContact: Bernard Gregoire

Press-Seal Gasket CorporationLocation: Fort Wayne, INToll-free: 800-348-7325Cell: 617-803-1750Email: mtomkinson@press-seal.comWebsite: www.press-seal.comContact: Matt Tomkinson

Reinforcing SteelLaurel-LEC Steel Inc.Location: Brantford, ONTel: 519-759-2300Fax: 519-759-1570Email: grant@lecsteel.comWebsite: www.lecsteel.comContact: Grant Fraser

Numesh Inc.Location: Laval, PQTel: 1-800-363-0847Fax: 450-663-9049Email: m.mongeau@numesh.comWebsite: www.numesh.comContact: Michel Mongeau

StelCrete Industries LimitedLocation: Niagara Falls, ONTel: 1-866-924-0837Fax: 905-735-3955Email: rnichols@stelcrete.comWebsite: www.stelcrete.comContact: Robert Nichols

Safety Climbing EquipmentMSU Mississauga Ltd.Location: Mississauga, ONTel: 1-888-220-2213Fax: 905-823-4947Email: sales@msumississauga.comWebsite: www.msumississauga.comContact: Virginia Junkin

Stepcon Industries Inc. Location: Mississauga, ONTel: 1-888-783-7266Fax: 905-897-6001Email: stepcon@on.aibn.comWebsite: www.stepconindustriesinc.comContact: Michael Greer

Precast Manufacturing Equipment and AccessoriesMel C. Marshall Industrial Consultants Inc.Location: Delta, BCTel: 604-943-8512Fax: 604-943-2738Email: melmarshall@telus.netWebsite: www.precastconcretebc.comContact: Mel Marshall or Braden Marshall

J D Industrial SalesLocation: Cambridge, ON Tel: 519-267-4340Cell: 519-841-2554Fax: 888-463-7598Email: drewblack@jdindustrialsales.comWebsite: www.jdindustrialsales.comContact: Drew Black

businesspipeline OCPA fall meetings

Ontario Concrete Pipe Association held its 2011 Fall Meetings at Queen’s Landing, Niagara-on-the-Lake from September 28 - 30. The theme of this year’s meeting was Ontario’s Infrastructure – The Road Ahead. This theme was influenced by the release of the Province’s 10-year Infrastructure Plan, Building Together, on June 24, 2011.

“The infrastructure ministry’s long-term plan is more about the ‘how’ and not about the ‘what’,” Minister Bob Chiarelli said during a conference call with media.

“Today we announced the criteria and vision for howOntario will build its infrastructure needs for a 10-year planning period.We will focus on economic growth, improved asset management, an expanded role for Infrastructure Ontario and identified preconditions for capital ministries to come forward and ask for new capital.”

A new vocabulary has developed around infrastructure in recent times. Infrastructure deficits, asset management plans,Tangible Capital Assets (TCA), Alternate Financing and Procurement (AFP) and Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) arewords that are used every day to describe infrastructure challenges and solutions. What does this all mean and how will it impact your business in the years ahead? Ontario Concrete Pipe Association invited key experts from across Ontario to make sense of it all and to put things in perspective.

• Mathew Kattapuram, P.Eng., Senior Vice President, Civil Infrastructure, Infrastructure Ontario

• Barry Steinberg, P.Eng., President and Chief Executive Officer Consulting Engineers of Ontario

• Andy Manahan, Executive Director, Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario (RCCAO)

• Al Kostiuk, P.Eng., Product Director, Capital Planning, Altus Group

• Dino Bagnariol,M. Eng., P. Eng., Acting Director, Investment Strategies Branch Ministry of Transportation

• Sam Sidawi, P. Eng.,Member and Chair, Advocacy Committee, Ontario Public Works Association

Ontario Concrete Pipe Association appreciates the time and efforts of each speaker to make our meetings a success. One delegate accurately summed it up by saying, “Any one of those six speakers could have been the keynote speaker for a similar conference.”