committee on materials and pavements - minutes · 2020. 8. 31. · tech subcommittee 4b annual...

Tech Subcommittee 4b Annual Meeting 2020 of 14

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS AND PAVEMENTS - Minutes

Meeting (Annual or Mid-Year) Annual Date July 31, 2020 Scheduled Time 2:00 – 3:30 P.M. Technical Subcommittee & Name Flexible and Metallic Pipe Chair Name and (State) Tim Ruelke (FL) Vice Chair Name and (State) Ian Rish (GA) Research Liaison Name and (State)

I. Introduction and Housekeeping

II. Call to Order and Opening Remarks

Tim shared that Ian will be taking over as Chair of TS 4b after this meeting as Tim will be taking over the Chair of the AASHTO re:source Administrative Task Group.

III. Roll Call of Voting Members

Present Member Name State Present Member Name State ☒ Ruelke, Tim FL ☐ Tran, Quoc V OH ☒ Rish, Ian GA ☒ Seward, Kenny R OK ☒ Ingram, Steven AL ☒ Ramirez, Timothy PA ☐ San Angelo, Michael AK ☒ Short, Temple SC ☐ Pinkerton, Jennifer M DE ☐ Egan, Brian TN ☒ Tobias, Daniel H IL ☒ Lawrence, William J UT ☒ Barezinsky, Richard A KS ☒ Schuler, John VA ☐ Davis, Jason LA ☒ Williams, Kurt R WA ☐ Bradbury, Rick L ME ☐ Stanevich, Ron WV ☒ Fung, Clement MA ☐ Kemp, Peter J. WI ☐ Staton, John F. MI ☐ Holt, Anne Ontario ☒ Trautman, Brett Steven MO ☒ Heiser, Steven NY

Quorum Rules Met? Annual Meeting: Simple majority of voting members (☒y/ ☐n)

A. Review of Membership (New members, exiting members, etc.)

Todd Whittington from NC has volunteered to be Vice Chair. Steven Heiser (NY) is a member of the TS and was on the 2019 minutes, but not currently listed on the AASHTO COMP website, AASHTO will be asked to add him.

IV. Approval of Technical Subcommittee Minutes

The mid-year meeting minutes were reviewed. Oklahoma made a motion to accept the Mid-Year meeting minutes and Pennsylvania seconded. No comments and no dissent.

V. Old Business

A. Updates to standards 1. M 252 – Corrugated Polyethylene Drainage Pipe


a. M252 References ASTM F405 which has been replaced with F667 need to work on resolving this issue with a TS ballot to come. This was not taken care of with reconfirmation for M 252-20.

This item is left over item from last meeting minutes. A proposal was submitted by Jennifer Pinkerton prior to the meeting and introduced by Dan Currence in the meeting. Proposal includes updates only, does not include recycled resins now. Joe Babcanec walked through a presentation on this topic. Included reference document updates, added terminology that was in M294, and other revisions to harmonize M 252 and F 667. Chair noted the proposed changes need to be balloted. It was suggested that the M252 changes could be done as a Concurrent ballot since most of the changes are from another AASHTO standard. Pennsylvania made the motion to move the proposed changes to M 252 to Concurrent ballot and Oklahoma seconded. No discussion and no dissent. Dan Currence noted that there is a new Industry handbook (PPI Drainage Handbook) at Plasticpipe.org under the Drainage Pipe Division. The handbook follows AASHTO Design guidance. In putting together the handbook they identified a concern with stub compression testing that is in M 293. They will plan to prepare a presentation on this issue for the mid-year meeting. 2. M 330 – Polypropylene Pipe, 300- to 1500-mm (12- to 60-in.) Diameter

a. Below e-mail shows last minute change made it to publish about Method A or B From: Ruelke, Timothy J. <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 8:10 AM To: Knight, Chase <[email protected]>; Baryluk, Greg <[email protected]>; Bluman, Matt <[email protected]>; Rish, Ian <[email protected]>; Short, Temple <[email protected]>; Meggers, Dave <[email protected]>; Ashurst Jr., Kean <[email protected]> Cc: Kim, Deborah D <[email protected]>; Malusky Katheryn <[email protected]> Subject: M330 Method A or B Thank you all for identifying this conflict and offering solutions. Based on all the input, I would like to proceed with Procedure B and if at all possible, add he clarifying language below proposed by Chase Knight. Deb, Is it too late to publish that as part of this year’s changes? 6.1.1 Extruded Pipe and Fittings—Pipe and fittings shall be made of virgin polypropylene compounds meeting the minimum properties as shown in Table 1. Compounds that have higher performance properties shall be permitted provided the density of the base resin shall not exceed 0.950 g/cm3 (0.0343 lb/in3) and all other product requirements are met. Polypropylene compounds shall be comprised of the base polypropylene resin and all additives, colorants, UV inhibitors, and stabilizers. Conditioning, sampling, preparation, and testing of specimens shall be in accordance with the requirements in ASTM D4101, with the exception that Procedure B of ASTM D790 will be used to measure Flexural Modulus. Status: 7/5/20 – Revised and Published M 330-20

Chair shared the results of this change to M 330 to the Members. The changes were made to eliminate the unintended conflict that was identified. NTPEP and other experts were consulted prior to making the changes noted in red above. No one voiced a concern with the changes. No action required.

B. Technical Subcommittee Ballots TS Ballot # Standard

Results (neg/affirm) Comments/Negatives Action

1 M 294 0 / 23 M294 was updated for v-holder

mailto:[email protected]












TS Ballot # Standard


Chair shared that NTPEP noted that some labs were using the v-holder where it was specified as a flat plate specimen in the standard. The TF recommended removing the language “flat plate specimen holder”, therefore it now allows flat plate or v-holder or any other type. One comment questioned if there was a concern that there is no requirement. Chair explained the reasoning why without details on the v-holder no requirements can be added now. Pennsylvania made a motion to move the TS Ballot item to COMP ballot and Maryland seconded, No comments and no dissent.

2 M 196 1 / 18 NCSPA Comment: Our industry recommends the following revision - 13.2. Within 0.5 m to 1.0 m on the interior of each end and rotated at least 90 degrees from each other, the finished pipe shall be identified by showing the following: PA Comment: Affirmative with comments:1) On cover page and on page M 196-1, revise designation from "M 196-20" to "M 196-21" as this change will not be published until 2021.2) In Section 11, revise from "INSPECTION AND RETEST" to "INSPECTION AND REJECTION" as there is no language proposed to address or define a retest procedure/requirement.3) In Section 13.2, consider adding another subsection to include the fabricator shift number in the markings (first, second, third shift) similar to how most M 294 manufacturers include this information (although shift information is not specified in the marking requirements of M 294).4) In Section 13.3, consider revising from "shall be applied to the sheet by a permanent method, such as coining, in accordance with ASTM B666/B666M" to "shall be applied to the sheet according to the basic marking requirements in ASTM B666/B666M". The basic marking requirements in ASTM B666/B666M seem the most appropriate here. Current M 196 language mentions "coining", but ASTM B666/B666M seems to only reference "impression stamping" (a.k.a., coining) for ingots or cast products and not sheet materials. ASTM B666/B666M, Section 4.4 also indicates that "Impression stamping is considered detrimental and shall not be used except on ingot, castings, forging, and certain tube products, or when required by prior agreement between the producer and purchaser." KS Comment: Will 13. Product Marking will be revisited for the annular corrugated pipe based on Michael McGough's e-mail? MO Negative:

Proposed Marking language to be updated and discussed for future ballot




We have issues with Section 13.2 requiring each corrugated sheet used in annular (i.e. riveted) corrugated pipe show the following information: - Name of fabricator (Section 13.2.1) - Identification of the location for the fabricating facility (Section 13.2.2) - Fabricator's date of corrugating or forming into pipe (Section 13.2.3) - AASHTO designation number (Section 13.2.4) These requirements will have a significant impact on the CMP manufacturers located in Missouri who produce riveted pipe. The sheets are produced at one location and shipped to another facility to be corrugated and riveted together to form a pipe. One manufacturer has two facilities that produce sheets used for producing riveted pipe. These sheets are used by seven separate facilities for making riveted pipe. When the sheets are being cut to size, they do not necessarily know which facility the material is going to be shipped to. They also have no idea when the pipe will be manufactured by these facilities. This will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to mark each sheet with the required information. The company indicated they are not opposed to marking the riveted pipe, on both ends, with the required information after the pipe is fabricated. Missouri proposes the pipe be marked on both ends with the required information immediately after the pipe is fabricated. The manufacturer had no issues with marking helical corrugated pipe (i.e. helical lock seam) with the required information at the specified frequency. The information will be placed on the pipe as the pipe is being produced.

minutes for item 2

Vice Chair noted that the NCSPCA comments were considered. VC also discussed comments related to marking and how some standards have different language for different pipe types, and how this was intending to start coordinating these marking requirements. Mike McGough described some of the




differences between the different types of pipe and some of the issues related to manufacturing of aluminum and steel pipe. Recommendation is to mark each end of the pipe within a certain distance of the end of the pipe, instead of each sheet- therefore this can be done consistently. Missouri shared their concerns about the sheets marking also. It was noted that the markings on the end of the final pipe would solve their concern. Original goal was to be able to tell that the finished product was marked from the end of the pipe. The negative was considered persuasive and more work will be done on the standard for a future ballot.

3 M 36 1 / 18 TRI Comment: Poor workmanship is not defined. NCSPA Comment: Per discussions, our industry recommends the following language - 14. Product Marking 14.1. All sheet shall continue to conform to the marking requirements set forth in Section 6.1. When specified in the purchase order or contract, a fabricator shall mark individual pipe as described in Section 14.2, during the course of fabricating the pipe. 14.2. Within 0.5 m to 1.0 m on the interior of each end and rotated at least 90 degrees from each other, the finished pipe shall be identified by showing the following: 14.2.1. Name of fabricator; 14.2.2. Identification of location of the fabricating facility; 14.2.3. Fabricator's date of corrugating or forming into pipe by a six-digit number indicating, in order, the year, month, and day of the month; and 14.2.4. AASHTO designation number. We would also like to suggest that for consistency, similar language be adopted for M245. PA Comment: Affirmative with comments:1) On cover page and on page M 36-1, revise designation from "M 36-20 (2020)" to "M 36-21" as this change will not be published until 2021.2) In Section 12, revise from "INSPECTION AND RETEST" to "INSPECTION AND REJECTION" as there is no language proposed to address or define a retest procedure/requirement.3) In Section 14.2, consider adding another subsection to include the fabricator shift number in the markings (first, second, third shift) similar to how most M 294 manufacturers include this information (although shift information is not specified in the marking requirements of M 294).4) In Section 14, include language specifying that the marking has to be durable, not easily rubbed off, and remains after handling and storing. Consider adding similar language contained in ASTM B666/B666M, Section 4.3, for consistency with requirements for M 196.5) In the




Annex, add back in the language "(Mandatory Information)". TRI Comment: Poor workmanship is not defined. KS Comment: Will 14. Marking will be revisited for the annular corrugated pipe based on Michael McGough's e-mail? MO Negative: We have issues with Section 14.2 requiring each corrugated sheet used in annular corrugated pipe (i.e. riveted) show the following information:- Name of fabricator (Section 14.2.1)- Identification of the location for the fabricating facility (Section 14.2.2)- Fabricator's date of corrugating or forming into pipe (Section 14.2.3)- AASHTO designation number (Section 14.2.4)These requirements will have a significant impact on the CMP manufacturers located in Missouri who produce riveted pipe. The sheets are produced at one location and shipped to another facility to be corrugated and riveted together to form a pipe. One manufacturer has two facilities that produce sheets used for producing riveted pipe. These sheets are used by seven separate facilities for making riveted pipe. When the sheets are being cut to size, they do not necessarily know which facility the material is going to be shipped to. They also have no idea when the pipe will be manufactured by these facilities. This will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to mark each sheet with the required information. The company indicated they are not opposed to marking the riveted pipe, on both ends, with the required information after the pipe is fabricated. Missouri proposes the pipe be marked on both ends with the required information immediately after the pipe is fabricated. The manufacturer has no issues with marking helical corrugated pipe (i.e. helical lock seam) with the required information at the specified frequency. The information will be placed on the pipe as the pipe is being produced.

See discussion under TS ballot Item 2- similar issue. TF will continue to work on the changes for this standard also.

C. Reconfirmation – Upcoming that need work


Standard Title ASTM Equivalent Steward Action

M 167-17 Corrugated Steel Structural Plate, Zinc-Coated, for Field-Bolted Pipe, Pipe-Arches, and Arches

A761-04 Georgia, Alabama

M 190-04 (2017)

Asphalt-Coated Corrugated Metal Culvert Pipe and Pipe-Arches

Michigan, Pennsylvania

M 219-92 (2017)

Corrugated Aluminum Alloy Structural Plate for Field-Bolted Pipe, Pipe-Arches, and Arches

B746-92 Washington, Tennessee

M 243-96 (2017)

Field-Applied Coating of Corrugated Metal Structural Plate for Pipe, Pipe-Arches, and Arches

New York, Maine

M 274-87 (2017)

Steel Sheet, Aluminum-Coated (Type 2), for Corrugated Steel Pipe

Ontario, Maine

M 289-91 (2017)

Aluminum-Zinc Alloy Coated Sheet Steel for Corrugated Steel Pipe

Louisiana, Pennsylvania

R 63-13 (2017)

Solid Wall High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Conduit for Non-Pressure Applications Used for the Protection of Power and Telecommunications Cables

Louisiana, Tennessee

R 82-17 Pipe Joint Selection for Highway Culvert and Storm Drains

Virginia, Alabama

VC requested the stewards to review their standards. It was also noted that in looking at the Standards it appears they have consistency and formatting issues. VC will ask AASHTO Pubs if this is something that Pubs can fix or do the stewards need to look at revising.

D. Task Force Reports Task Force # Title Members Status/Update 01-19 M294 V-Holder Dan Currence (PPI), Doug Baker

(Springfield Plastics), John Kurtzel (ADS), Greg Baryluk (ADS), and Michael Pluimer (Crossroads Engineering), and Temple Short (South Carolina), Paul Leukerela (California). Temple will be the lead

Passed Ballot (Sunset) Changes moved to COMP ballot

02-19 M 197 Metric Equivalency

Florida and Tennessee No progress

Status: Issues related to this are more complicated than expected. Soft and hard rounding has been identified as an issue. TF could use assistance with a metric expert.

03-19 M 245 Errors Florida, Illinois, ASTM, and Mike McGough

No progress

Status: Precoated steel standard has some issues. Daniel Tobias is working on this, the ASTM standard A762 also has issues, need to work with ASTM to clear up theirs before addressing M 245

04-19 Pipe Labeling Washington, Michigan and Mike McGough

Worked on language and balloted with TS. Discussion and Updates to language to be discussed

Status: Discussed under TS ballot items 2 and 3 earlier. TF continues. 05-19 M 294 Blow Mold

Fittings R or V label Virginia and North Carolina Need update

Status: Marking vs virgin or recycled for the pipe is noted in spec but not specifically noted for the fittings. Joe Babenic and Doug Baker with Springfield Plastics volunteered to assist in revisions to address. VC will touch base in a month for status, TF to update at MYM.

VI. New Business

A. AASHTO re:source/CCRL/NTPEP Matt Bluman noted that they sunset the program for steel reinforced polypropylene pipe.


Dan Currence noted that the M 330 work plan does not address polypropylene resins. Industry thinks it can be worked through NTPEP – potentially add PPI third party plan for polypropylene resins to the NTPEP M 330 Work Plan or will come back to TS 4b for changes to M 330. Polypropylene resins are in the M 294 NTPEP workplan. Temple noted that NTPEP does have a concern in having guidelines in NTPEP that are not in the standards, at least would like to have in the Standard at some point. NTPEP can be an opportunity to test out changes and then add to standard in the future as the details are worked out. Recycled M 294 pipe- D4218 has 3 and 10 minute carbon burn which gives drastically different results. NTPEP is specifying the 3 minute burn based on industry input. Matt will provide some language to modify M 294 to address. ACTION ITEM Kean Ashurst – SPRE was sunset due to seeing low participation. But users are starting to increase (NY and Kansas noted as new users). ACTION ITEM – send survey to COMP- are you planning on using this product, would you require NTPEP? Robert Sarcinella shared that MP 40 has restrictions, in that it only covers one manufacturer. Dan Currence: M294R low participation- concern for industry also. Would encourage more States to allow M294R materials. May add question on M294 R to survey.

B. Presentation by Industry/Academia

C. Revisions/Work on Standards for Coming Year Standard # Title Task/Summary Assigned to MP 40-19 Steel-Reinforced Polyethylene (SRPE) Corrugated Pipe 300-

to 1800-mm (12- to 72-in.) Diameter Start Revise or 2-Yr. Reconfirm Review

Georgia. GA needs another state who uses SRPE to also assist.

If you are actively using or specifying- please let Ian know – needs assistance in revising the standard. M 252-20 Corrugated Polyethylene Drainage Pipe Resolve F405 ASTM

Reference Alabama, Delaware

See discussion under Old Business A.1.- M 252 going to concurrent ballot to address. M 196-16 Corrugated Aluminum Pipe for Sewers and Drains Resolve Rivet alloy

issue that prevented finalization of 2020 reconfirmation. Was pulled after ballot passed from publishing due to this error by TS

Kansas, AASHTO are stewards, Need Industry as well.

M 196 does not specify the alloy needed for rivets. Appears there is also an error in the current ASTM (A745). Mike McGough noted that they are still working on a ballot for ASTM. Mike will update the TS on ASTM progress at the mid-year meeting. M 196 may also need additional revisions to align with the current ASTM.

Mike McGough volunteered to assist with CSP standards.

D. ASTM Equivalent Work

Standard Title ASTM Equivalent

Latest ASTM Steward Action

M 36-16 (2020)

Corrugated Steel Pipe, Metallic-Coated, for Sewers and Drains

A760/ A760M-01a

A760/ A760M-15

Washington, Michigan

Find new revisions and add in revised Marking language for potential COMP 2020 Concurrent Ballot or TS Ballot for after mid-year and COMP Ballot 2021.

M 167M/M 167-17

Corrugated Steel Structural Plate, Zinc-Coated, for Field-Bolted

A761/ A761M-04

A761/ A761M-18

Georgia, Alabama

A 761 has had some significant changes since 04. Reconfirmation is due so make any minor updates to


Standard Title ASTM Equivalent

Latest ASTM Steward Action

Pipe, Pipe-Arches, and Arches

format etc and discuss COMP reconfirmation. Work towards TS ballot after mid-year for potential ballot of changes in COMP 2021.

M 196-16

Corrugated Aluminum Pipe for Sewers and Drains

B745/ B745M-95

B745/ B745M-15

Kansas, AASHTO

B 745 has had significant edits since 95 (97 is oldest version on ASTM Compass) Work toward future ballot after mid-year or at COMP 21. Work with TS to see if can incorporate changes soon to also coincide with ballot for marking standard.

M 197-20

Aluminum Alloy Sheet for Corrugated Aluminum Pipe

B744/ B744M-05

B744/ B744M-15

Florida, Tennessee

B 744 has some updates since 05. Work toward future ballot after mid-year or at COMP 21.

M 219-92 (2017)


B746/ B746M-92

B746/ B746M-16

Washington, Tennessee

B 746 has had significant edits since 92. (95 (2000) is oldest version on ASTM Compass) Work toward future TS Ballot after mid-year meeting.

M 245-20

Corrugated Steel Pipe, Polymer-Precoated, for Sewers and Drains

A762/ A762M-98

A762/ A762M-19

Florida, Illinois

A 762 has had significant edits since 98. (00 is oldest version on ASTM Compass) Work toward future TS Ballot after mid-year meeting.

M 246-15 (2019)

Steel Sheet, Metallic-Coated and Polymer-Precoated, for Corrugated Steel Pipe

A742/ A742M-13

A742/ A742M-20

Connecticut, Louisiana

A 742 appears to have minor changes from 13 to 20. Work toward future ballot after mid-year or at COMP 21

E. Review of Stewardship List (List of subcommittee’s standards flagging those requiring action; include as separate attachment.)

VC will send out an email to the stewards to ask them to check the ASTM updates.

F. Proposed New Standards 1. ASTM A1113/A1113M – 20 “Standard Specification for Corrugated Steel Structural Plate,

Polymer-Coated, for Field-Bolted Pipe, Pipe-Arches, and Arches”

Presentation by Pete Ault with KTA-Tator on - new ASTM standard A1113, a combination of A761 and A742. Similar content as A761, differences in polymer coating in Sections 8 and 11. Chair and the COMP Secretary described the options for the standard based on our MOU with ASTM. If the TS is interested in using the standard and they are good with it, it can be added under the ASTM reference section to appropriate AASHTO standards. If the TS would like to use the standard but there are changes needed, those changes would need to be brought to the ASTM committee for them to consider the changes. If we cannot come to agreement on changes that will have to be addressed at that time. We cannot just take the same wording and make a new AASHTO standard.

https://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/resolver.cgi?A1113A1113M-20

https://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/resolver.cgi?A1113A1113M-20


The TS was asked to review the ASTM and provide comments and thoughts by MYM. He asked them to review it for consideration as is or if changes are needed.

G. NCHRP

H. Correspondence, Calls, Meetings 2. M36 Test Frequency E-mail from Tim

VC requested the TS to review – recommending that these testing requirements be added to M 36. Decision will need to be made at MYM- adopt changes or not


I. Proposed New Task Forces (Include list of volunteers to lead and/or join TF.) None

J. New TS Ballots

As the meeting went long the Chair did not have time to present the proposed changes to M 243 that were developed by Pennsylvania. The changes will be submitted for TS ballot in the coming year.

VII. Open Discussion

A. ASTM Equivalency Specifications and Harmonization – Stewards are encouraged to review AASHTO Standards for any equivalent ASTMs and any needed updates.

VIII. Adjourn Meeting was adjourned after 3:30 pm


TS 4b – Flexible and Metallic Pipe

Stewards Std Sort Designatio

n No Title ASTM Eq Stewards

M 036-16 M 36-16 Corrugated Steel Pipe, Metallic-Coated, for Sewers and Drains

A760/A760M-01a


M 167M/M 167-17

M 167M/M 167-17

Corrugated Steel Structural Plate, Zinc-Coated, for Field-Bolted Pipe, Pipe-Arches, and Arches

A761/A761M-04

Georgia, Alabama

M 190-04 (2017)

M 190-04 (2017)


Michigan, Pennsylvania

M 196-16 M 196-16 Corrugated Aluminum Pipe for Sewers and Drains

B745/B745M-95

Kansas, AASHTO

M 197-06 (2016)

M 197-06 (2016)


B744/B744M-05

Florida, Tennessee

M 218-03 (2016)

M 218-03 (2016)

Steel Sheet, Zinc-Coated (Galvanized), for Corrugated Steel Pipe

New York, Pennsylvania

M 219-92 (2017)

M 219-92 (2017)


B746/B746M-92

Washington, Tennessee

M 243-96 (2017)

M 243-96 (2017)


New York, Maine

M 245-16 M 245-16 Corrugated Steel Pipe, Polymer-Precoated, for Sewers and Drains

A762/A762M-98

Florida, Illinois

M 246-15 (2019)

M 246-15 (2019)


A742/A742M-13

Connecticut, Louisiana

M 252-18 M 252-18 Corrugated Polyethylene Drainage Pipe

Alabama, Delaware M 274-87 (2017)

M 274-87 (2017)


Ontario, Maine

M 278-15 (2019)

M 278-15 (2019)

Class PS46 Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Pipe

Connecticut, Washington

M 289-91 (2017)

M 289-91 (2017)


Louisiana, Pennsylvania

M 294-18 M 294-18 Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe, 300- to 1500-mm (12- to 60-in.) Diameter

Virginia, North Carolina

M 304-11 (2019)

M 304-11 (2019)

Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Profile Wall Drain Pipe and Fittings Based on Controlled Inside Diameter

Maine, Tennessee

M 326-18 M 326-18 Polyethylene (PE) Liner Pipe, 300- to 1600-mm Diameter, Based on Controlled Outside Diameter

Delaware, Virginia


M 330-19 M 330-19 Polypropylene Pipe, 300- to 1500-mm (12- to 60-in.) Diameter

Florida, Missouri

M 335-19 M 335-19 Steel-Reinforced Polyethylene (PE) Ribbed Pipe, 300- to 1500-mm (12- to 60-in.) Diameter

Michigan, North Carolina

R 063-13 (2017)

R 63-13 (2017)


Louisiana, Tennessee

R 082-17 R 82-17 Pipe Joint Selection for Highway Culvert and Storm Drains

Virginia, Alabama

R 093-19 R 93-19 Service Life Determination of Corrugated HDPE Pipes Manufactured with Recycled Content

Florida

T 241-95 (2017)

T 241-95 (2017)

Helical Continuously Welded Seam Corrugated Steel Pipe

Missouri, Louisiana

T 249-03 (2016)

T 249-03 (2016)

Helical Lock Seam Corrugated Pipe

Missouri, Georgia

T 341-10 (2019)

T 341-10 (2019)

Determination of Compression Capacity for Profile Wall Plastic Pipe by Stub Compression Loading

South Carolina, Kansas

Std Sort Designation No

Title Prov Yr 1

MP 040-19

MP 40-19 Steel-Reinforced Polyethylene (SRPE) Corrugated Pipe 300- to 1800-mm (12- to 72-in.) Diameter

2019 Georgia


IX.

TS Meeting Summary

Meeting Summary Items Approved by the TS for Ballot (Include reconfirmations.)

Standard Designation Summary of Changes Proposed Ballot Type

M 252 Included updates, added terminology that was in M294, and other revisions to harmonize M 252 and F 667 ☐TS ☐COMP ☒CONCURRENT

M 294 M294 was updated to address v-holder issue ☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT RECONFIRMATIONS: ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT M 167-17 Corrugated Steel Structural Plate, Zinc-Coated, for Field-

Bolted Pipe, Pipe-Arches, and Arches ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT M 190-04 (2017) Asphalt-Coated Corrugated Metal Culvert Pipe and Pipe-

Arches ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT M 219-92 (2017) Corrugated Aluminum Alloy Structural Plate for Field-

Bolted Pipe, Pipe-Arches, and Arches ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT M 243-96 (2017) Field-Applied Coating of Corrugated Metal Structural Plate

for Pipe, Pipe-Arches, and Arches ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT M 274-87 (2017) Steel Sheet, Aluminum-Coated (Type 2), for Corrugated

Steel Pipe ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT M 289-91 (2017) Aluminum-Zinc Alloy Coated Sheet Steel for Corrugated

Steel Pipe ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT R 63-13 (2017) Solid Wall High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Conduit for

Non-Pressure Applications Used for the Protection of Power and Telecommunications Cables ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT

R 82-17 Pipe Joint Selection for Highway Culvert and Storm Drains ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT

M 196-16 Reconfirmation was held-up last year – need to reconfirm

TS BALLOT:

M 243 (Bituminous Coated Pipe) revisions prepared by PennDOT ☒TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT

New Task Forces Formed Task Force Name Summary of Task TF Member Names and (States) NONE

Research Proposals (Include number/title/states interested.) NONE

Other Action Items Add NY (Steven Heiser) to TS roster on web VC will ask AASHTO Pubs if Pubs can fix formatting issues or do the stewards need to look at revising. VC will touch base with TF 05-19 in a month for status, TF to update at MYM. Matt Bluman will provide some language to modify M 294 to address the 3 or 10 minute carbon burn issue in M 294. Chair to send survey to COMP- 1) are you planning on using SPRE, if so would you require NTPEP? 2) Do you allow M294R materials, or are you planning to? The TS was asked to review ASTM A1113 and provide comments and thoughts by MYM. Review for consideration as is or if changes are needed.

Tech Subcommittee XX Annual or Mid-Year Meeting 20YY Page 1 of 22

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS AND PAVEMENTS

Meeting (Annual or Mid-Year) Mid-Year Webinar Agenda Date December 11th, 2019 Scheduled Time 1:00 to 3:00 PM EST Technical Subcommittee & Name Flexible and Metallic Pipe Chair Name and (State) Tim Ruelke (FL) Vice Chair Name and (State) Ian Rish (GA) Research Liaison Name and (State)

I. Introduction and Housekeeping

II. Call to Order and Opening Remarks

III. Roll Call of Voting Members

Present Member Name State Present Member Name State ☒ Ruelke, Tim FL ☒ Fung, Clement MA ☒ Rish, Ian GA ☐ Stanton, John MI ☐ Widdington, Todd NC ☐ Trautman, Brett MO ☐ Ingram, Steven AL ☐ Heiser, Steve NY ☐ San Angelo, Michael AK ☐ Wutzke, Scott ND ☒ Pinkerton, Jennifer M. DE ☐ Lane, Becca Ontario ☒ Pfiefer, Brian (Danial Tobias) IL ☒ Ramirez, Timothy PA ☐ Hanson, Justin KS ☒ Short, Temple and Merrill

Zwanka SC

☐ Davis, Jason LA ☒ Egan, Brian (Mike Doran, Danny Lane)

TN

☐ Bradbury, Richard L ME ☒ Williams, Kurt (Garett Webster)

WA

☒ Babish, Andy (John Schuler) VA ☐ Seward, Kenny OK Stanevich, Ron WV ☒ Lawrence, William UT

Quorum Rules Met? Annual Meeting: Simple majority of voting members (☐y/ ☐n) | Mid-Year Meeting: Voting members present (☒y/ ☐n) 11/24 voting members

A. Review of Membership (New members, exiting members, etc.)

1. New Members- None 2. Exiting Members - None

IV. Approval of Technical Subcommittee Minutes – 2019 Mid-Year Webinar – Jan. 22nd, 2019

Posted to https://materials.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2019/09/TS-4b-–-Flexible-and-Metallic-Pipe-2019-Annual-Meeting-Minutes.pdf

Motion to approve meeting minutes by Pennsylvania

Seconded by Tennessee

Motion passed

https://materials.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2019/09/TS-4b-%E2%80%93-Flexible-and-Metallic-Pipe-2019-Annual-Meeting-Minutes.pdf

https://materials.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2019/09/TS-4b-%E2%80%93-Flexible-and-Metallic-Pipe-2019-Annual-Meeting-Minutes.pdf

Tech Subcommittee XX Mid-Year Meeting 20YY Page 2 of 22

V. Old Business

(Outstanding or action items from previous meeting; use Heading 1 through Heading 6 styles to get outline format.)

A. Items remaining unresolved from Fall Ballot COMP Item No. 13: Concurrent ballot to revise M196. M196 was up for reconfirmation this cycle and the stewards identified several items that needed to be addressed. Ballot Results: Affirmative= 44, Negative=0, Comments=Yes – Editorial Stewards – Kansas and AASHTO to provide edits to publications by ? Kansas was not on the call no date was decided COMP Item No. 14: Concurrent ballot to revise M197. M197 was up for reconfirmation this cycle and the stewards identified several items that needed to be addressed. The changes in this ballot are modest in keeping with a reconfirmation. More significant changes will be coming in a future TS ballot. Ballot Results: Affirmative= 44, Negative=0, Comments=Yes – Editorial Stewards – FL and Tennessee The question before the TS is do we want to make M197 dual units. I think that’s just a matter of gutting it out line-by-line and making the conversions.

The bigger question I have is M197 takes excerpts for two specific alloys from a much larger table in ASTM B209 and reprints them in M197 (See Section 7.1 and Table 3 in M197 and the clip from B209 below). Why would we do that? Have you seen this technique before? Are DOTs so restrictive that we only allow two alloys? Even if we are, why not just specify the two alloys and tell the reader to go find the allowable properties in B209? Is it about DOT’s not having access to the ASTMs?

Notes: New task force will work on metric equivalency for fall comp ballot. AASHTO will keep the current formatting only calling out two alloys. Task force members Florida and Tennessee.


COMP Item No. 15: Concurrent ballot to revise M245. M245 was up for reconfirmation this cycle and the stewards identified several items that needed to be addressed. The changes in this ballot are modest in keeping with a reconfirmation. More significant changes will be coming in a future TS ballot. Ballot Results: Affirmative= 44, Negative=0, Comments=Yes – Editorial

Stewards – FL and Illinois Dan Tobias - However, there a few other things that are bothering me concerning the ballot which could cause a significant delay. I think I found something like around 12 mistakes in ASTM A762/A762M in various places. Maybe 9 of these I am sure are mistakes. There also seems to be major issues with M 245’s Table 12 and its ASTM A762 counterparts (Tables 12 and 13). You’ll see in the attached draft revised M 245 that there is major “blood on the page”. I am not sure the M 245 revisions are “right” and am also not sure exactly how wrong ASTM actually is. Both could be very wrong…….

So, again, these last two issues are kind of sticky wickets that may need some time to resolve. The Chair propose a task force to resolve – FL, Illinois and ASTM Notes: New Task force approved, Florida, Illinois ASTM and, Mike McGough ([email protected]) COMP Item No. 16: Concurrent ballot to revise M252, Section 9.1.1. Ballot Results: Affirmative= 44, Negative=0, Comments=Yes – Editorial COMP Item No. 17: COMP ballot to revise M330, Table 1 to eliminate the maximums. Ballot Results: Affirmative=41, Negative=0, Comments=Yes – Editorial Recon. Item No. 1: M 36-16 - Standard Specification for Corrugated Steel Pipe, Metallic-Coated, for Sewers and Drains. Ballot Results: Affirmative=19, Negative=0, Comments=Yes – Editorial Stewards – WA and MI Notes: Washington agreed to be steward Michigan was not on the call. Mike Mcgough requested to be added to this group. Recon. Item No. 2: M 218-03 - Standard Specification for Steel Sheet, Zinc-Coated (Galvanized), for Corrugated Steel Pipe. Ballot Results: Affirmative=19, Negative=0, Comments=No Recon. Item No. 3: T 249-03 - Standard Method of Test for Helical Lock Seam Corrugated Pipe. Ballot Results: Affirmative=19, Negative=0, Comments=No

B. COMP Ballot Items (Include any ASTM changes/equivalencies, including ASTM standards’ revision years.) COMP Ballot # Standard



B. COMP Ballot Items (Include any ASTM changes/equivalencies, including ASTM standards’ revision years.) COMP Ballot # Standard


C. Technical Subcommittee Ballots TS Ballot # Standard


D. Reconfirmation Ballots Reconf. Ballot # Standard


E. Task Force Reports Task Force # Title Members Status/Update 2017-01 Review/Update M 190

and M243 Ramirez (PA) and Kemp(WI)

M190 no changes recommended M 243 recommended to add note 1 to section 4.1: “The minimum thickness of asphalt mastic may be measured with a penetration type thickness go /no go or wet film thickness gauge” Tim Ruelke & Tim Ramirez will provide a redline document for an TS ballot

01-19 Propose revisions to M294 to allow the option of the V-holder.

Dan Currence (PPI), Doug Baker (Springfield Plastics), John Kurtzel (ADS)< Greg Baryluk (ADS), and Michael Pluimer (Crossroads Engineering), and Temple Short (South Carolina), Paul Leukerela (California). Temple will be the lead.

Task force will remain in place until Dan Currence provides a presentation on their proposed changes.


VI. New Business

A. AASHTO re:source/CCRL/NTPEP (Observations from assessments, as applicable.)

1. Discussion of NTPEP evaluation of Labs that test plastic pipe. There is no accreditation for these tests. Need an update and discussion. Katheryn Malusky explained AASHTO is in the process of working with AASHTO leadership to identify how AASHTO moves forward with providing pipe audits to the state DOT labs. Action Item #1: Katheryn Malusky will provide an update on this at the next mid-year webinar. Update from Katheryn: NTPEP will no longer check the state labs. Any state wishing to have their lab reviewed needs to contact AASTO Re:source. Re:source will determine if they can/will do it during inspections. Re:source (Lenker) indicates there are few DOT labs that want to be reviewed. Willing to discuss options. Notes: Florida and Illinois wanted it to continue. Disappointed that it is going away The lab audits were out of the scope of the NTPEP so it was decided to discontinue

B. Presentation by Industry/Academia 1. Proposed changes to M 330 by Dan Currence and/or Greg Baryluk – Plastic Pipes Institute Proposed changes to AASHTO M330 to make it more consistent with ASTM F2881.

The changes we’ve proposed were initiated by Greg Baryluk with ADS, then reviewed & approved by the industry. The primary change is to eliminate the upper limit of resin strength. This topic was discussed last week at the NTPEP meeting for Thermoplastic Pipe. NTPEP believes this change will eliminate a point of confusion for their auditors. Slides for this presentation are attached to these minutes.

Changes will require COMP Ballot. Motion made by ME; MO seconded. All were in favor of moving this to COMP ballot.

Update: Item was balloted (See Item No. 17). Ballot passed. Affirmative=41, Negative=0

C. Revisions/Work on Standards for Coming Year

D. Review of Stewardship List See Attachment C

R 93- FL MP 40- GA

E. Proposed New Standards None

F. NCHRP Issues None

G. Correspondence, Calls, Meetings From Temple Short (SC)

At the recent NTPEP meeting, the auditors brought an issue to the Thermoplastic Pipe (THP) Technical Committee that the group would like TS 4b to consider. Manufacturers are typically using a V-holder to test M294 pipe brittleness by impact testing as described in ASTM D2444. ASTM D2444 section 5.4 allows the use


of either a V-holder or flat plate. However, M294 specifies the flat plate be used so they are technically not following the spec. It appears the V-holder is considered safer as well as being a more severe test of brittleness. The THP TC would like TS 4b to discuss whether M294 should be revised to allow the option of the V-holder. Industry would like harmony across all related standards. Perhaps wording can be put in to provide clarity and consistency. PPI can provide proposed wording at mid-year webinar. The Chair believes this wording needs to be added for safety and consistency reasons. Perhaps a note to include what type of wedge is acceptable can be included in M294 and F2306. Task Force 01-19: Dan Currence (PPI), Doug Baker (Springfield Plastics), John Kurtzel (ADS)< Greg Baryluk (ADS), and Michael Pluimer (Crossroads Engineering), and Temple Short (South Carolina), Paul Leukerela (California). Temple will be the lead.

Status Report - Temple has given the recommendation to allow the V-holder. She proposed language to allow it. A TS Ballot has been drafted a will go out with any other TS Ballot from the December 11th Webinar.

Also, M252 references ASTM F405 which has been replaced by F667. F667 has been revised to using a tup for brittleness testing instead of parallel plates. Should the technical subcommittee consider revising M252 for harmonization with ASTM? Either Matt Mueller or Sarc can provide much more detail on the matter. AL and DE are stewards for M252. DE will take the lead on this. Industry will provide track changes to DE and AL and then a TS ballot will be ready for the mid-year webinar.

Status Report (Pinkerton Del DOT) - Industry was going to work on the changes and they will not have it ready until January. They did not realize the mid-year call was going to be this early and hadn’t planned for that. They are now aware of the 12/11 deadline but likely won’t have it for us, nor is their rep (Dan Currence) available.

Section 9.9.9.1- Revise specimen length to no less than 300 mm, etc. Brian Chestnut will provide language to Chair. This revision would be done first. NTPEP would be in support of this. This TS will send out a TS ballot this fall and then the results will be available to NTPEP so the work plan can be changed before the end of 2019. OK makes motion, seconded by ME. All were in favor. All audits will be done in accordance to this change in 2020.

See COMP Ballot Item 16 - Ballot Results: Affirmative= 44, Negative=0, Comments=Yes – Editorial

H. Proposed New Task Forces (Include list of volunteers to lead and/or join TF.)

01-19 – Sunset? Notes: Leave in place until Dan presents

I. New TS Ballots 1. Reconfirmation Ballots a. M 167 GA-AL - Corrugated Steel Structural Plate, Zinc-Coated, for Field-Bolted Pipe, Pipe-Arches,

and Arches b. M190 MI-PA - Asphalt-Coated Corrugated Metal Culvert Pipe and Pipe-Arches c. M 219 WA-TN - Corrugated Aluminum Alloy Structural Plate for Field-Bolted Pipe, Pipe-Arches, and

Arches d. M243 NY-ME - Field-Applied Coating of Corrugated Metal Structural Plate for Pipe, Pipe-Arches,

and Arches e. M274 ONT- ME - Steel Sheet, Aluminum-Coated (Type 2), for Corrugated Steel Pipe f. M289 LA-PA - Aluminum-Zinc Alloy Coated Sheet Steel for Corrugated Steel Pipe g. R063 LA-TN - Solid Wall High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Conduit for Non-Pressure Applications

Used for the Protection of Power and Telecommunications Cables h. R082 VA-AL - Pipe Joint Selection for Highway Culvert and Storm Drains


i. T241 MO-LA - Helical Continuously Welded Seam Corrugated Steel Pipe Notes : states need to review the reconfirmation for next summers meting

2. New Ballots J. Open Discussion

K. NTPEP Items: Recycled materials is able to be used only in blow-molded fittings. Concur: M 294 -11.2 should be updated. Proposed Language - Fittings shall be marked with the designation number of this specification, M 294, and with the manufacturer’s identification symbol. Blow molded fittings must indicate V or R depending on recycle content. Change 11.1.5 to - If the extruded pipe was manufactured with only virgin materials, it shall be marked with the code “V”; if the pipe was manufactured with recycled PE materials (PCR or PIR, or both), it shall be marked with the code “R” and the phrase “Contains Recycled Resins”; NTPEP Corrugated steel pipe: sheet manufacturer markings, but nothing is included about fabricator markings. Suggest this TS take a look at this. Verified M036 does not include marking requirements. Concrete Pipe (M 170-16 requires it. What is the pleasure of the TS? Do we need it? Do we need a TF to look at this requirement for all pipe. L. FL is a big proponent of recycling. They want to make a data driven decision. Where is this data going

to come from? For those states specifying virgin only, what would you need to see in the future to make an informed decision to use recycling? Requirement the manufacturers certain things, do a research project which includes sampling and documenting the recycling percentage and the results of the performance test. GA would like to compare it to the virgin resin. Can NTPEP provide this data? Every manufacturer documents the % of recycling. ME believes we should start by comparing the virgin pipe vs. the recycled pipe. Action Item #2: FL and GA will work with NTPEP to see what data is available and if this satisfies the questions or concerns these states may have. FL will report back on this at the mid-year webinar. Update: NTPEP has supplied data to the Chair (thank you Ryan). Currently seeking FDOT approval to

access Drobox. Notes: Item K Section 11 covers fittings, there are multiple types of fittings and they to be called out how to label them Industry will need to review the minutes and provide comments. Ian and Tim will put together a TS ballot Item K sheet metal M036 Set up task force to lead marking steel pipe with R or V Task force will include Washington and Michigan Item L Labels are on the outside of the pipe so they are not useful after they are installed

VII. Adjourn

TS Meeting Summary

Meeting Summary Items Approved by the TS for Ballot (Include reconfirmations.)

Standard Designation Summary of Changes Proposed Ballot Type

☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT

☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT





Meeting Summary ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT



☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT New Task Forces Formed Task Force Name Summary of Task TF Member Names and (States)

01-19 Propose revisions to M294 to allow the option of the V-holder.

Dan Currence (PPI), Doug Baker (Springfield Plastics), John Kurtzel (ADS)< Greg Baryluk (ADS), and Michael Pluimer (Crossroads Engineering), and Temple Short (South Carolina), Paul Leukerela (California). Temple will be the lead.

02-19 / M197 Work on metric equivalency Florida & Tennessee

03-19 / M245 Resolve multiple errors in M245 Florida, Illinois ASTM and, Mike Mcgough

04-19 / M36 Discuss if it is necessary to label steel pipe consistent with plastic and concrete

Washington, Michigan and Mike Mcgough

05-19/M 294

Discuss if it is necessary to mark blow molded fittings with R or V to indicate if it is recycled material was used in production Virginia and North Carolina

Research Proposals (Include number/title/states interested.)

Other Action Items Action Item #1: Katheryn Malusky will provide an update on this at the next mid-year webinar on how AASHTO is going to provide plastic pipe audits to state DOTs being in 2020. Action Item #2: FL and GA will work with NTPEP to see what data is available and if this satisfies the questions or concerns these states may have. FL will report back on this at the mid-year webinar.

Notes: Peter Kemp had some possible revisions to M 36 that changed the testing frequency on multiple things. He will send a redline copy to Tim to review and forward to the TS. If there is e-mail concurrence that most people like the changes then Tim will set up a TS ballot for the changes.


Attachment A – 2019 Mid-Year minutes

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS and Pavements 2019 Mid-Year Webinar Tuesday January 22nd, 2019 1:30 to 3:30 PM EDT TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE 4b Flexible and Metallic Pipe Agenda I. Call to Order and Opening Remarks II. Roll Call Voting Members Name State Present Virginia Peoples, Christopher A. North Carolina X Ingram, Steven Alabama San Angelo, Michael Alaska X Pinkerton, Jennifer M. Delaware Tim Ruelke Florida X Douds, Richard Georgia Trepanier, Jim (Dan Tobias) Illinois X Niehaus, Curt (Rick Barezinsky) Kansas X Davis, Jason Louisiana Bradbury, Richard L Maine Fung, Clement Massachusetts Kline, Therese R. Michigan X Trautman, Brett Missouri X Streeter, Donald A. New York X Horner, Ron North Dakota Lane, Becca Ontario Ramirez, Timothy Pennsylvania Short, Temple and Merrill Zwanka South Carolina X Egan, Brian (Mike Doran, Danny Lane) Tennessee X Williams, Kurt Washington West Virginia requested to become a member of Technical Subcommittee 4B Friends and Non-Voting Members Technical Subcommittee 4b Page 2 of 10 Name Affiliation Present Malusky, Katheryn AASHTO - Liaison X Fragapane, Ryan AASHTO - Liaison X Clawson, Chad AASHTO Lenker, Steven E. AMRL Uherek, Greg AMRL


Knake, Maria AMRL McGough, Michael NCSPA X Chestnut, Brian W BTB Consulting Currence, Daniel PPI X Christensen, Heather Prinsco, Inc. Beakley, Josiah W ACPA X Pluimer, Michael Crossroads Eng. Delery, Oliver Forterra X Paredes, Mario TRI/ENV X Baryluk, Greg ADS X Sarcinella, Robert AASHTO X California Kemp, Peter Wisconsin X Henry Lacinak AASHTO X III. Approval of Technical Subcommittee Minutes Approval of Minutes from the 2018 Cincinnati Ohio SOM Meeting – Minutes sent by e-mail -Motion made by NC, seconded by NY. All were in favor of approving the minutes. IV. Old Business A. SOM Ballot Items – Rolling Ballot Group 2 Item 1: Propose a new Standard Practice for Service Life Determination of Corrugated HDPE Pipes Manufactured with Recycled Materials R XX. This standard practice details the procedure for determining the service life of corrugated high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes manufactured with recycled materials relative to brittle failures via the slow crack growth mechanism. This standard practice is applicable for pipes containing recycled materials and manufactured in accordance to M 294. It is applicable both for pipes manufactured with post-consumer recycled (PCR) materials and post-industrial recycled (PIR) materials. It is not intended for pipes manufactured with virgin materials. Ballot Results: Affirmative =44 Negative=0 No Vote=8 Comments from PA PA comments sent to Michael Pluimer and Chase Knight (FL) for review. PA Comments: 1) In Section 5.1, 1st line, suggest revising from "sticks of pipes" to "sticks of pipe". Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial. All were in favor. 2) In Section 5.3, 4th line, revise from "(176ºF)and" to "(176ºF) and" [i.e., add space between "(176ºF)" and "and"]. Technical Subcommittee 4b Page 3 of 10 Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial. All were in favor. 3) In Section X1.6, 2nd line, suggest revising from "temperature of 23ºC, the" to "temperature of 23ºC (73.4ºF), the" for consistency with Section X1.6, 4th line. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial. All were in favor. 4) In Section X1.7, 4th line, suggest revising from "to a service condition of (93.0)(499.2)" to "to a service condition of 23ºC (73.4ºF) calculated as (93.0)(499.2)" as something seems to be missing here. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive. Seems to be editorial. Need input from Michael Pluimer. All were in favor of making this editorial change. 5) In Table X1.1, footnotes a, c, d, f, g and i, are the correct Equations referenced in each of these footnotes? They don't seem to match up. For example, in footnote a, it references "Average of the 5 log failure times" and "Equation X1.4", but Equation X1.4 is for the Stress Shift Factor. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive. Need input from Michael Pluimer. All were in favor of making this editorial change. 6) In Section X2.8, I was not familiar with the term "ceiling". I read the minutes and the discussion on this term. I also found it is a function in Microsoft Excel. In Section X2.8, 1st line, suggest revising from "Using the rounding procedure specified" to


"Using ceiling rounding to a 1 h significance" as the required significance is not clear and is important especially since the examples show values with different decimal places (33.1 and 17.33). Suggested Outcome – Persuasive. Need input from Michael Pluimer. Chase Knight agrees a definition can be used here. The Chair proposes to clarify what this is, add a sentence to specify what “ceiling” means. Vice-Chair recommended “Use the ceiling rounding method to a 1 h significance…..” All were in favor of making this editorial change. The Chair will make the editorial changes once he makes follows up with Mike on any clarifications. Item 2: Propose a new Provisional Standard Specification for Steel-Reinforced Polyethylene (SRPE) Corrugated Pipe MP ZZZ. This proposed new specification covers the requirements and methods of tests for steel-reinforced polyethylene (SRPE) corrugated pipe, couplings, and fittings for use in surface and subsurface drainage applications. This new proposed Polyethylene pipe with a corrugated structure contains two reinforcing steel profiles. One steel profile for SRPE pipe is proposed for diameters 300 to 1050 mm (12 to 42 inches) and a separate steel profile is proposed for pipes 1200 to 1800 mm (48 to 72 inches). Ballot Results: Affirmative =43 Negative=1 No Vote=8 Comments from PA and FL As discussed at the SOM meeting and reflected in the minutes, the Negative is administrative from Virginia (See specifics below) Technical Subcommittee 4b Page 4 of 10 PA and FL comments sent to Michael Pluimer. Chase Knight (FL) reviewed PA’s comments. Sent FL’s comments to Chris Peoples (NC) for a staff review. PA Comments: 1) In Section 6.1.3, 1st line, revise from "Injection Molding Fittings and Couplings" to "Injection Molded Fittings and Couplings" for consistency with subsection title in Section 6.1.2. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial. All were in favor of making this editorial change. 2) In Section 6.4, 2nd line, revise from "cut pipe end" to "cut pipe ends" to match plural tense of "repairs" and "joints". Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial. All were in favor of making this editorial change. 3) In Figure 2 Caption, the term "Wall Thickness" is used, but in Figure 1, the "Valley" seems to be a combination of the "Outer Wall" and "Liner". In the Figure 2 Caption, it is suggested to revise from "Wall Thickness" to "Valley Wall Thickness" for clarification. Also, it is suggested to revise Figure 1 by adding a label and arrow for "Valley Wall" since this is not exactly the same as the "Outer Wall", "Inner Wall", or "Liner". The term "Valley Wall" is used in Section 9.8.2. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial. In addition, since Figure 2 also indicates steel thickness, the title should be revised to “Steel, Encapsulation, and Valley Wall Thicknesses”. All were in favor of making this editorial change. 4) In Table 2 and the column 2 header, a footnote, "a", is included in the column 2 header, but there is not a footnote a at bottom of table. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial. Michael Pluimer needs to confirm no footnote is needed. All were in favor of making this editorial change. 5) In Section 7.8, 5th line, the term "steel plate" is used, but in Section 6.2.1, the term "steel sheet" is used. These terms should be consistent and the same for clarity. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial. Let’s use “steel sheet”. All were in favor of making this editorial change. 6) In Section 7.11.2.2.1, 1st line, at beginning of line, delete space before the word "Geotextile". Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial. All were in favor of making this editorial


change. 7) In Section 7.11.2.2.1, "M 288" is referenced for geotextile, but M 288 does not specifically address an application and requirements for "geotextile wraps" for pipes. The closest Technical Subcommittee 4b Page 5 of 10 application in M 288 is for Subsurface Drainage Requirements (M 288, Table 2); however, none of the M 288, Table 2 requirements specify AOS > 70. Suggest either providing specific geotextile requirements within Section 7.11.2.2.1 or reference a specific M 288 geotextile class (from M 288, Table 1) with specific requirements for each parameter in M 288 Table 2 if they will be different for the "geotextile wrap" application. Agreed, specifying minimum AOS would be consistent with M 335 Section 7.12.2.2. Revise to “no greater than 70” and it is a subsurface drainage utilization. Josh Beakley (ACPA) mentioned this language is in R82. NC will take a look at this and resolve this. 8) In Section 9.1.3, 2nd line and at end of 2nd sentence, delete the space between the text "(1/8 in.)" and the period ("."). Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial. All were in favor of making this editorial change. 9) In Section 9.1.5 at end, delete the space between the text "(+0.001 in.)" and the period ("."). Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial. All were in favor of making this editorial change. 10) In Section 9.3, last line, revise from "atmosphere" to "conditioning temperature". Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial. All were in favor of making this editorial change. 11) For Sections 9.5 and 9.6, revise Section numbers from "9.5" to "9.4.1" and from "9.6" to "9.4.2". Revise remaining Section 9 numbers for proper sequencing. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial. All were in favor of making this editorial change. FL Comments reviewed by NC: 1) Table 1 (7.4) includes requirements for "Minimum Inner Wall Thickness" Looking at Figure 1, the thickness of the "inner wall" could correspond to "encapsulation thickness" identified in Figure 2. Was the intent to specify "Minimum Liner Wall Thickness"? This needs clarification. As we reviewed it, we thought we understand it to say that encapsulation thickness can be measured at any point in which the steel reinforcement is encapsulated by PE. Figure 2 just happens to show that dimension on the inner wall so it is not saying that encapsulation thickness is the same as inner wall thickness in our opinion. While reviewing this we noticed that 7.4.4. references 9.6.4. which does not exist. We believe this should have been 9.8.4.. Note 4 in 9.8.4. goes on to further explain how to measure both inner wall and outer wall encapsulation thickness. As with any other AASHTO standard there is a lot of jumping back and forth but I think overall the intent is that encapsulation thickness is the same whether measured on the inner or outer wall. The one thing we can’t reconcile is why wouldn’t encapsulation thickness and inner wall thickness be the same in the table? As we looked through this we noticed that there is no definition for inner wall thickness. Maybe Technical Subcommittee 4b Page 6 of 10 defining the inner wall thickness measurement and how to do it and explaining how that is not the same as encapsulation thickness would clarify it. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial. All were in favor of making this editorial change. 2) The pipe joint specification (7.11) has been modified to preclude the polyurethane bell/spigot. In response to previous comments, additional details have been included on the replacement joint system(s). The screw-on collar will be a single piece of molded HDPE.


However, I would request more details be specified on the fastening method for the splitcollar bands. i.e. what type of hardware will be used to lock/fasten? We agree with this. We understand they use zip ties but it would be nice to have that explained or maybe even specified in the standard. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive. TS proposed language? Additional technical language needs to be added. FL will work with Tim to get this improved in more detail. 3) Recommend adding the pipe diameters to the Title, to be consistent with the other corrugated/ribbed plastic pipe standards. 100% agree. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial. All were in favor of making this editorial change. VA comments Virginia places an administrative negative on this item for TS 4b Chair such that the standard will not be published unless the pipe design for this standard is covered by the LRFD Bridge Design Guide requirements and passes AASHTO Bridge Committee ballot. In addition, testing on a 72” diameter pipe will have to be completed and submitted to the Bridge Committee for review. If these requirements are met then the negative will be withdrawn. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive. Status report - Tim Toliver indicated testing for the Bridge Committee is ongoing on 24 and 48 inch pipe diameters and profiles. This test data will be sent to the bridge committee once complete. Testing must be complete by January 2019 for the Bridge Committee to consider. The AASHTO bridge specification is expected to be voted on and approved by May 2019. Concerns were expressed that the largest diameter pipe (72”) was not being tested; 48” is the largest diameter being tested. This is a departure from the way this has been handled in the past, where the technical subcommittee has required that the largest diameter pipe be tested. Item No. 3 - Concurrent Ballot Revise Standard Specification for Steel-Reinforced Polyethylene (PE) Ribbed Pipe, 300- to 1500- mm (12- to 60-in.) Diameter M335 -18 to increase the wall thicknesses in Table 1. This standard M 335 will first published in June 2018 after several years as provisional standard MP 20. Based on Tennessee’s observation that the thicknesses in the standard are not consistent with the product currently being manufactured in the United States the standard is being revised to specify thicker walls in Table 1. A couple of other changes to Figures 1 and 2 were made to correspond with common terminology used in other AASHTO HDPE pipe standards. See page 15 and 19 of TS 4b minutes for the comments and discussion on this Standard. Ballot Results: Affirmative =44 Negative=0 No Vote=8 Comments from PA and FL PA and FL comments sent to Tim Toliver. Chase Knight (FL) reviewed PA’s comments. Sent FL’s comments to Chris Peoples (NC) for a staff review. Technical Subcommittee 4b Page 7 of 10 PA Comments: 1) In Section 7.6, Table 2, 2nd column heading, there is a footnote, "a", included as part of the 2nd column heading. The footnote a at bottom of Table 2 is in regard to the conversion of SI units to U.S. Customary units. It is suggested to move the footnote, "a", from the 2nd column heading to the end of the Table 2 Caption as it appears the footnote a applies to the entire table. Or, as alternative, add a footnote, "a", to the 1st column heading and the last column heading. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial 2) In Section 7.10, 2nd line, the term "lap seam" is used, but in Figure 1, there are two labels for "weld seam", but none for "lap seam". In Section 7.10, suggest revising from "lap seam" to "weld seam" for consistency with labeling in Figure 1. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial 3) In Section 7.10, last line, suggest revising from "lapped seam" to "weld seam" for consistency with labeling in Figure 1. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial


FL Comments Under 1.2, Note 1 should be changed to match the wording in the proposed Standard from ballot item 2. NC review of FL comment: It looks like Bill put this wording in Note 2 for this standard. I think Note 1 here can go away if the title contains the pipe diameters covered and then Note 2 could replace Note 1. I think this might have been due to Darrell’s original intent was to add these sizes to the original standard and not have two standards. That was not the direction the TS wanted to take if I recall correctly and it was decided we needed a second standard. Item No. 4 - COMP Ballot Propose a New Provisional Standard Specification MP XXX for Steel-Reinforced Polyethylene (PE) Ribbed Pipe, 1650- to 3000-mm (66- to 120-in.) Diameter - COMP ballot This Provisional Standard Specification MP XXX is Steel Reinforced PE Ribbed pipe (M 335) with increased diameters 66 to 120 inches. The deep burial research report by Ian Moore Ph.D. P.E. at Queens University in Ontario Canada is contained in the TS 4b Annual meeting minutes as Attachment #4. This provisional standard is the same as M 335 with increased diameters. The TS is in favor of advancing this standard with increased diameters as a provisional standard. See pages 14 through 19 of TS 4b minutes for the comments and discussion on this standard. Ballot Results: Affirmative =44 Negative=0 No Vote=8 Comments from PA Chase Knight (FL) reviewed PA’s comments. PA’s Comments: Technical Subcommittee 4b Page 8 of 10 1) In Section 1.1, Note 1, 1st line, revise from "AASHTO M335" to "M 335". Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial. (Check if this is AASHTO publication format). In Section 2.1, a space is also missing in “M335.” Ryan will check with publications to see what the standard format is. 2) In Section 1.1, Note 1, second line, revise from "diameters 12" - 60"." to "diameters 300 to 1500 mm (12 to 60 in.).". Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial, This would match the title of M 335. All were in favor of making this editorial change. 3) In Section 7.6, 5th line, revise from "per AASHTO M145" to "in accordance with M 145". Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial (Check if this is AASHTO publication format). Ryan will check with publications to see what the standard format is. 4) In Section 7.6, Table 2, 2nd column heading, there is a footnote, "a", included as part of the 2nd column heading. The footnote a at bottom of Table 2 is in regard to the conversion of SI units to U.S. Customary units. It is suggested to move the footnote, "a", from the 2nd column heading to the end of the Table 2 Caption as it appears the footnote a applies to the entire table. Or, as alternative, add a footnote, "a", to the 1st column heading also. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial. Add footnote reference “a” to 1st column heading and remove “in inch-pound measurement” from the end of the footnote. All were in favor of making this editorial change. 5) In Section 7.10, 2nd line, the term "lap seam" is used, but in Figure 1, there is a label for "weld seam", but none for "lap seam". In Section 7.10, 2nd line, suggest revising from "lap seam" to "weld seam" for consistency with labeling in Figure 1. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial All were in favor of making this editorial change. 6) In Section 7.10, 3rd line, the term "lap area" is used, but in Figure 1, there is a label for "weld seam", but not a label for "lap area". In Section 7.10, 3rd line, suggest revising from "lap area" to "weld seam" for consistency with labeling in Figure 1. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial All were in favor of making this editorial change. 7) In Section 7.10, 4th line, suggest revising from "lapped seam" to "weld seam" for


consistency with labeling in Figure 1. Suggested Outcome – Persuasive and editorial All were in favor of making this editorial change. Item No. 5 - Concurrent Ballot Revise Standard Specification for Polypropylene Pipe, 300- to 1500-mm (12- to 60-in.) Diameter M 330-18 to match the inside diameter tolerances for HDPE inside diameter tolerances. M 330 Technical Subcommittee 4b Page 9 of 10 Section 7.2.3. Inside Diameter Tolerances will be revised to read: Inside Diameter Tolerances— The tolerance on the specified inside diameter shall be 4.5 percent oversize and 1.5 percent undersize, but not more than 37 mm (1.5 in.) oversize when measured in accordance with Section 9.6.1. See Proposed New Task Forces pages 20 and 21 of TS 4b minutes for the comments and discussion on this standard. Ballot Results: Affirmative =44 Negative=0 No Vote=8 NO COMMENTS B. TS Ballots Reconfirmation Ballots: M 246, M 278, M 304 and T 341 were balloted to the TS for reconfirmation. Results for all: Affirmative =20 Negative=0 No Vote=2 NO COMMENTS C. Task Force Reports Task Force 2017-01 - Assignment was to review the corrugated metal pipe specification for M190 and consider adding a subsection for determining the coating thickness to Section 7. The task force was also asked to review M243 and to determine if a method should be specified to measure the coating thickness of 1.27 mm. Should the specified measurement be modified to “minimum of 1.3 mm” given this is a field applied asphalt mastic coating? Task Force Members are Mike McGough (NCSPA), Tim Ramirez (PA) and VA. Progress report – The task force has not yet met. Tim Ramirez will take the lead on this task force and will coordinate how to move forward. Pete Kemp (WIDOT) will also join the task force as well. Task Force to reconcile the ID tolerances in M 294 and M 330. John Kurdziel briefly discussed the issue: It was proposed that the tolerances in M 294 and M 330 be the same. John will send a recommendation to Chair and stewards of M 330 and M 294. The group will review and agree on the recommendation. A motion was made by North Carolina and a Second by Maine to ballot the recommended change concurrently to both standards. The motion passed unopposed. Note: On August 17, 2018, John recommended that the inside diameter tolerances for M 330 be changed to match the M 294 inside diameter tolerances. This change will be sent to Missouri and Florida the stewards for M 330 for concurrence with John’s recommendation. Once concurrence is obtained, then M 330 will be placed on COMP ballot. Progress report – Change was balloted and passed without a negative or comment. Task Force Complete – This task force’s work is complete and the will now be sunset. V. New Business A. Research Proposals 1. 20-7 RPS 2. Full NCHRP RPS New proposals – None AASHTO Re:Source/CCRL - Observations from Assessments – None C. NCHRP Issues - None D. Correspondence, calls, meetings, webinar, - None E. Presentation by Industry/Academia - Any presentations? –None F. Proposed New Standards – None G. Proposed New Task Forces – None H. Standards Requiring Reconfirmation M 036, M 167, M 190, M 196, M 197, M 218, M219, M 243, M245, M 274, M 289, R 063, R


082, T 241 and T 249 are required to be revised or reconfirmed this year. The stewards will review the standards and bring any changes to the in person meeting in August. The list of the stewards was attached the calendar invite. If you need the list please contact Casey. I. COMP Ballot Items (including any ASTM changes/equivalencies) NTPEP has a few suggested changes. They will get these suggestions over to Tim within the next week. VI. Open Discussion – None VII. Comment – None VIII. Adjourn


Attachment B - Proposed changes to M 196 by Rick Barenzinsky (KS)

AASHTO M196 Corrugated Aluminum Pipe for Sewers and Drains

Review

Note that comments concerning values in the Tables are primarily compared with ASTM B745/B745M table values

Cover Sheet Change ASTM Designation Year to 15 M 196-1 Change ASTM Designation Year to 15 M 196-1 2.2 Add Reference ASTM A796/A796M REV A It’s referenced in Note 1. M 196-1 2.2 Change ASTM C990 to ASTM C443. Section 9.3 refers to Rubber Gaskets and not Preformed Flexible Joint Sealants M 196-2 2.2 To F738M add (withdrawn 2014) M 196-3 6.3 Alloy 6053-T4 is not in ASTM B316M. Suggest using verbiage in ASTM B745/B745M as follows: alloy 6053-T61 and alloy 5056 H32, to meet or exceed the following mechanical properties: M 196-4 6.3 The Elongation in ASTM B316/B316M uses Table 5 for SI units. M 196 is using the Elongation for inch-pound units with the incorrect value. It should be Elongation in 5 x Diameter 5.65√A with a min % of 12 for 6053-T61. M 196-4 6.3 Bolts and Nuts Table: Capitalize Steel and Alloy. Add the Letter M behind F568, F738, and F836 M 196-4 6.5 Suggest using ASTM C443 in lieu of ASTM C990 M-196-4 7.1.2 Places where a ‘-‘ is placed between the number and “mm” 7.2.2 It is not consistent through the spec and should be removed Table 1, footnote e 7.3.1 8.3.2.2 Note 9 9.1.7 9.3 Tables 6, 7 & 8 M 196-5 Table 1 Change first word in title to “Corrugation” M 196-5 Note 1 ASTM A796/A796M is not referenced M 196-5 Table 2 remove the 0.1875 in and the parenthesis around 4.8 mm Footnote a M 196-8 Table 5 Several values for the min Outside Circumference seem to be off. I Don’t have the equation used, but these should be checked. 375 mm should be 1148 mm and not 1226 mm 525 mm should be 1620 mm and not 1540 mm 675 mm should be 2091 mm and not 2169 mm 750 mm should be 2325 mm and not 2483 mm 1500 mm should be 4675 mm and not 4875 mm


M 196-8 Table 5 change Rib size to Rib sizes Footnote b M 196-9 Table 6 Not sure why the span for 885 by 610 is 870 and not 885 M 196-9 Table 7 Span for 1850 by 1400 should be 1850-85 and not 1150-85 Span for 2050 by 1500 should be 2050-95 and not 2050-90? M 196-11 Table 9 Using the equation in footnote c, the L for the 525 mm dia pipe should be 336 and not 338. M 196-11 Note 8 Seems inconsistent to use 500 mm pipe when the spec has been using 525 mm pipe throughout. M 196-11 8.3.2.3 Inconsistent use of 12.7 mm when 13 mm is used in 7.5 & 8.3.2.2 M 196-13 Table 11 Several differences in the Nominal Pipe Inside Dia range as compared to ASTM M 196-15 15 Suggest adding Sections 15 and 15.1 for Keywords similar to the ASTM


Attachment C – Stewards

Std Sort Designati

on No Title ASTM

Eq Immediate Action Needed?

Stewards

M 036-16

M 36-16 Corrugated Steel Pipe, Metallic-Coated, for Sewers and Drains

A760/A760M-01a

Revise or Reconfirm


M 167M/M 167-17

M 167M/M 167-17

Corrugated Steel Structural Plate, Zinc-Coated, for Field-Bolted Pipe, Pipe-Arches, and Arches

A761/A761M-04

No Georgia, Alabama

M 190-04 (2017)

M 190-04 (2017)


No Michigan,

Pennsylvania

M 196-16

M 196-16

Corrugated Aluminum Pipe for Sewers and Drains

B745/B745M-95

Revise or Reconfirm

Kansas, AASHTO

M 197-06 (2016)

M 197-06 (2016)


B744/B744M-05

Revise or Reconfirm

Florida, Tennessee

M 218-03 (2016)

M 218-03 (2016)

Steel Sheet, Zinc-Coated (Galvanized), for Corrugated Steel Pipe

Revise or Reconfirm

New York, Pennsylvania

M 219-92 (2017)

M 219-92 (2017)


B746/B746M-92

No Washington, Tennessee

M 243-96 (2017)

M 243-96 (2017)


No New York, Maine

M 245-16

M 245-16

Corrugated Steel Pipe, Polymer-Precoated, for Sewers and Drains

A762/A762M-98

Revise or Reconfirm

Florida, Illinois

M 246-15 (2019)

M 246-15 (2019)


A742/A742M-13

No Connecticut, Louisiana

M 252-18

M 252-18

Corrugated Polyethylene Drainage Pipe

No Alabama,

Delaware M 274-87 (2017)

M 274-87 (2017)


No Ontario, Maine

M 278-15 (2019)

M 278-15 (2019)

Class PS46 Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Pipe

No Connecticut,

Washington

M 289-91 (2017)

M 289-91 (2017)


No Louisiana,

Pennsylvania


M 294-18

M 294-18

Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe, 300- to 1500-mm (12- to 60-in.) Diameter

No Virginia, North

Carolina

M 304-11 (2019)

M 304-11 (2019)

Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Profile Wall Drain Pipe and Fittings Based on Controlled Inside Diameter

No Maine, Tennessee

M 326-18

M 326-18

Polyethylene (PE) Liner Pipe, 300- to 1600-mm Diameter, Based on Controlled Outside Diameter

No Delaware, Virginia

M 330-19

M 330-19

Polypropylene Pipe, 300- to 1500-mm (12- to 60-in.) Diameter

No Florida, Missouri

M 335-19

M 335-19

Steel-Reinforced Polyethylene (PE) Ribbed Pipe, 300- to 1500-mm (12- to 60-in.) Diameter

No Michigan, North

Carolina

R 063-13 (2017)

R 63-13 (2017)


No Louisiana,

Tennessee

R 082-17 R 82-17 Pipe Joint Selection for Highway Culvert and Storm Drains

No Virginia, Alabama

R 093-19 R 93-19 Service Life Determination of Corrugated HDPE Pipes Manufactured with Recycled Content

No

T 241-95 (2017)

T 241-95 (2017)

Helical Continuously Welded Seam Corrugated Steel Pipe

No Missouri,

Louisiana T 249-03 (2016)

T 249-03 (2016)

Helical Lock Seam Corrugated Pipe

Revise or Reconfirm

Missouri, Georgia

T 341-10 (2019)

T 341-10 (2019)

Determination of Compression Capacity for Profile Wall Plastic Pipe by Stub Compression Loading

No South Carolina,

Kansas

Std Sort Designation No

Title Prov Yr 1

Immediate Action Needed?

MP 040-19

MP 40-19

Steel-Reinforced Polyethylene (SRPE) Corrugated Pipe 300- to 1800-mm (12- to 72-in.) Diameter

2019 No


Attachment D - Proposed changes to M 197 by Eagan (TN) and Knight (FL)

- suggest adding the US Standard/English units to the tables and throughout the standard - suggest revising section 5 to be the same as section 7 in ASTM B 744/B 744M - suggest adding Alclad Alloy 3004-H32 into the title for Table 3 - suggest updating Table 3 to be consistent with ASTM B209/B209M. (B744 references B209)


Attachment E - Proposed changes to M 245 by Tobias (IL) Cursory Review of M245-16 (July 2019) The ASTM designation for this standard is A762/A762M-98, but the last update to this ASTM standard is 2015. As such, harmonization issues with M245-16 and A762 were investigated in a cursory fashion. If it is decided by TS 4b that the two standards should be “re-harmonized”, then a more rigorous comparison of the two standards should be conducted. The following were the issues identified:

1. Section 2.2: Cited ASTM Standards in M245 do not all match up with A762. 2. Section 6.5: M245 cites ASTM C990, but A762 cites ASTM C443. 3. Section 7.1.2: M245 lists corrugations with pitches of 68 and 75 mm wile A762 lists

corrugations of 68, 75 and 125 mm. 4. Section 7.2: M245 lists pipe diameters smaller than 500 mm but A762 lists pipe diameters

less than 525 mm. 5. Table 4, M245: Last entry looks like there is a typo. “25 by 25” should probably be “125 by

25”. 6. Table 5, M245: First entry in M245 is “19 by 19 by 190”, but in A762 it is “19 by 19 by 180”. 7. Table 8, M245: Nominal inside diameter in M245 is 525 and is 500 in A762. In addition,

M245 does not have columns for “19 by 19 by 190” and “19 by 25 by 216”. Also, Min. Outside Circumference is 284 in M245 and is 264 in A762. Looks like there are 1 to 2 more discrepancies as well.

8. Section 8.1.2: AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specs are referenced in M245 and the old AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges are indirectly referenced in A762.

9. Note 9: Similar to list item 8 above. 10. Table 11, M245: This table is good for 75 by 25 mm corrugations in M245, but not 125 x 25

also like A762?? 11. Table 12, M245: There are a number of discrepancies between this table and the corresponding

table in A762. 12. Table 13, M245: The last entry for “L” is 338 in M245 and is 336 in A762.

Table 15, M245: There are a number of 285 entries in M245 that are 265 in A762.

Standard Specification for

Corrugated Polyethylene

Drainage Pipe

AASHTO Designation: M 252-1820

Technical Subcommittee: 4b, Flexible and Metallic Pipe

Release: Group 2 (June)

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol555 12th Street N.W., Suite 2491000 Washington, D.C. 2000120004

TS-4b M 252-1 AASHTO

Standard Specification for

Corrugated Polyethylene Drainage Pipe

AASHTO Designation: M 252-1820

Technical Subcommittee: 4b, Flexible and Metallic Pipe

Release: Group 2 (June)

1. SCOPE

1.1. This specification covers the requirements and methods of test for corrugated polyethylene (PE)

pipe, couplings, and fittings for use in subsurface drainage systems, storm sewers, and in surface

drainage (culverts), where soil support is given to the pipe’s flexible walls in all applications.

1.1.1. Nominal sizes of 75 to 250 mm (3 to 10 in.) are included.

1.1.2. Materials, workmanship, dimensions, pipe stiffness, environmental stress-crack resistance,

perforations, joining systems, brittleness, and form of markings are specified.

Note 1—When PE pipe is to be used in locations where the ends may be exposed, consideration

should be given to combustibility of the PE and the deteriorating effects of prolonged exposure to

ultraviolet radiation.

1.2. Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. Within the text, the

U.S. Customary units are shown in parentheses, and may not be exact equivalents.

1.3. The following precautionary caveat pertains only to the test method portion, Section 9.3 of this

specification. This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any,

associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate

safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS

2.1. ASTM Standards:

D618, Standard Practice for Conditioning Plastics for Testing

D883, Standard Terminology Relating to Plastics

D1693, Standard Test Method for Environmental Stress-Cracking of Ethylene Plastics

D2122, Standard Test Method for Determining Dimensions of Thermoplastic Pipe and

Fittings

D2412, Standard Test Method for Determination of External Loading Characteristics of

Plastic Pipe by Parallel-Plate Loading

D3350, Standard Specification for Polyethylene Plastics Pipe and Fittings Materials

D4218, Standard Test Method for Determination of Carbon Black Content in Polyethylene

Compounds by the Muffle-Furnace Technique


F667/F667M, Standard Specification for 3 through 24 in Corrugated Polyethylene (PE) Pipe

and Fittings F405, Standard Specification for Corrugated Polyethylene (PE) Pipe and Fittings

(withdrawn 2015; replaced by F667/F667M)

F412, Standard Terminology Relating to Plastic Piping Systems

2.2. Federal Standard:

Fed. Std. No. 29, CFR 1910.1200 OSHA Hazard Communication Standard; see also

Permissible Exposure Limits—Annotated Tables, available at

https://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-pels/

3. TERMINOLOGY

3.1. The terminology used in this standard is in accordance with the definitions given in ASTM D883

and ASTM F412 unless otherwise specified.

3.2. buckling—During pipe flattening testing, any decrease or downward deviation in the pipe load-

deflection test curve shall be considered a buckling point.

3.3. crack—any break or split that extends through the wall or liner.

3.4. crease—a visible irrecoverable indentation.

3.5. reworked material—a plastic from a processor’s own production that has been reground,

pelletized, or solvated after having been previously processed by molding, extrusion, etc.

(ASTM D883).

3.6. delamination—A separation between the liner and outer corrugated wall of Type S pipe as

evidenced by a visible gap extending completely through at least one corrugation valley at any

point around the circumference of the pipe.

3.7. polyethylene (PE) plastics—plastics based on polymers made with ethylene as essentially the sole

monomer (ASTM D883).

3.6.

4. CLASSIFICATION

4.1. The corrugated PE pipe covered by this specification is classified as follows:

4.1.1. Type C—This pipe shall have a full circular cross section, with a corrugated surface both inside

and outside. Corrugations may be either annular or helical.

4.1.1.1. Type CP—This pipe shall be Type C with Class 2 perforations.

4.1.2. Type S—This pipe shall have a full circular cross section, with an outer corrugated pipe wall and a

smooth inner liner. Corrugations may be either annular or helical. Type S pipe is not available in

nominal sizes of less than 100 mm (4 in.).

4.1.2.1. Type SP—This pipe shall be Type S with either Class 1 or Class 2 perforations.

4.2. Class 1 and Class 2 perforations are as described in Sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.2.

Formatted: No bullets or numbering


5. ORDERING INFORMATION

5.1. Orders using this specification shall include the following information as necessary to adequately

describe the desired product:

5.1.1. AASHTO designation and year of issue;

5.1.2. Type of pipe (Section 4.1);

5.1.3. Diameter and length required, either total length or length of each piece and number of pieces;

Note 2—Type C and CP pipe less than 200 mm (8 in.) in diameter may be supplied coiled;

coiling of Type C and CP pipe 200 mm (8 in.) in diameter or greater is not recommended; Type S

and SP pipe is not supplied in coils.

5.1.4. Number of couplings;

5.1.5. For Type SP pipe, class of perforations (Class 2 is furnished if not specified) (Section 7.4); and

5.1.6. Certification, if desired (Section 12.1).

6. MATERIALS

6.1. Basic Materials:

6.1.1. Extruded Pipe and Blow Molded Fittings—Pipe and fittings shall be made of virgin PE resin

compounds meeting the requirements of ASTM D3350 and cell classification 424420C, except

that the carbon black content shall not exceed 5 4 percent when tested in accordance with D4218.

Resins that have higher cell classifications in one or more properties are acceptable provided

product requirements are met.

6.1.2. Rotational Molded Fittings and Couplings—Fittings and couplings shall be made of virgin PE

resins meeting the requirements of ASTM D3350 and cell classification 213320C, except that the

carbon black content shall not exceed 5 4 percent when tested in accordance with D4218. Resins

that have higher cell classifications in one or more properties are acceptable provided product

requirements are met.

6.1.3. Injection Molded Fittings and Couplings—Fittings and couplings shall be made of virgin PE

resins meeting the requirements of ASTM D3350 and cell classification 314420C, except that the

carbon black content shall not exceed 5 4 percent when tested in accordance with D4218. Resins

that have higher cell classifications in one or more properties are acceptable provided product

requirements are met.

6.2. Reworked Material—In lieu of virgin PE, clean reworked material may be used, provided that it

meets the cell class requirements as described in Section 6.1.

7. REQUIREMENTS

7.1. Workmanship—The pipe and fittings shall be free of foreign inclusions and visible defects as

defined herein. The ends of the pipe shall be cut squarely and cleanly so as not to adversely affect

joining or connecting.


7.1.1. Visible Defects—Cracks, creases, delamination, and unpigmented or non-uniformly pigmented

pipe are not permissible in the pipe or fittings as furnished. There shall be no evidence of cracking

or delamination when tested in accordance with Section 9.2.

7.1.2. Liner—For Type S and SP pipe, the liner shall be fused to the outer corrugated wall at all internal

corrugation crests.

7.2. Pipe Dimensions:

7.2.1. Nominal Size—The nominal size for the pipe and fittings is based on the nominal inside diameter

of the pipe. Nominal diameters shall be sized for Type C and CP pipe in not less than 25-mm

(1 in.) increments from 75 to 250 mm (3 to 10 in.). Nominal sizes shall be sized for Type S and SP

pipe in not less than 50-mm (2 in.) increments from 100 to 250 mm (4 to 10 in.).

7.2.2. Liner Thickness—For Type S and SP pipe, the liner shall have a minimum thickness of 0.5 mm

(0.02 in.) for pipe of 100 mm (4 in.) and 150 mm (6 in.) nominal size and a minimum thickness of

0.6 mm (0.025 in.) for pipe of 200 mm (8 in.) and 250 mm (10 in.) nominal size, when measured

in accordance with Section 9.5.4.

7.2.3. Inside Diameter Tolerances—The tolerance on the specified inside diameter shall be +4.5, –1.5

percent when measured in accordance with Section 9.5.1.

7.2.4. Length—Corrugated PE pipe is an extruded product and may be sold in any length agreeable to

the user. Lengths shall not be less than 99 percent of the stated quantity when measured in

accordance with Section 9.5.2.

7.3. Fitting and Coupling Dimensions:

7.3.1. The maximum allowable gap between fitting or coupling and pipe shall not exceed 3 mm (0.1 in.)

unless otherwise specified.

7.3.2. All fittings and couplings shall be within an overall length dimensional tolerance of ±12 mm

(0.5 in.) of the manufacturer’s specified dimensions.

7.4. Perforations—When perforated pipe is specified, the perforations shall conform to the

requirements of Class 2, unless otherwise specified in the order. Class 1 perforations are for pipe

intended to be used for subsurface drainage or combination storm and underdrain. Class 2

perforations are for pipe intended to be used for subsurface drainage only. The perforations shall

be cleanly cut so as not to restrict the inflow of water. Where circular perforations are preferred,

the drill shall not penetrate the side walls of the corrugations. Pipe connected by couplings or

bands may be unperforated within 100 mm (4 in.) of each end of each length of pipe.

Note 3—Pipe ordered under Class 1 perforations has no requirement as to inlet area because it

specifies size, number, and location of holes. Alternate perforation patterns should be agreed to

between the purchaser and manufacturer.

7.4.1. Class 1 Perforations—The perforations shall be approximately circular and shall have nominal

diameters of not more than 5 mm (0.2 in.) for 100- and 150-mm (4- and 6-in.) diameter pipe and

not greater than 10 mm (0.4 in.) for 200- and 250-mm (8- and 10-in.) diameter pipe. The holes

shall be arranged in rows parallel to the axis of the pipe. The location of the perforations shall be

in the valley of the outside corrugation and in each corrugation. The rows of perforations shall be

arranged in two equal groups placed symmetrically on either side of the lower unperforated

segment corresponding to the flow line of the pipe. The spacing of the rows shall be uniform. The

distance of the centerlines of the uppermost rows above the bottom of the invert and the inside

chord lengths of the unperforated segments illustrated in Figure 1 shall be as specified in Table 1.

All measurements shall be made in accordance with Section 9.5.3.


Table 1—Rows of Perforations, Height H of the Centerline of the Uppermost Rows above the Invert, and Chord

Length L of Unperforated Segment, for Class 1 Perforations

Nominal Diameter,

mm (in.) Rows of Perforationsa

H, Max,b,

mm (in.)

L, Min,b

mm (in.)

75 (3) 2 35 (1.4) 50 (2)

100 (4) 2 45 (1.75) 65 (2.5)

150 (6) 4 70 (2.75) 95 (3.75)

200 (8) 4 94 (3.7) 130 (5.1)

250 (10) 4 120 (4.7) 160 (6.3

a Minimum number of rows. A greater number of rows for increased inlet area shall be subject to agreement between purchaser and manufacturer. Note that the

number of perforations per meter in each row (and inlet area) is dependent on the corrugation pitch. b See Figure 1 for location of dimensions H and L.

Figure 1—Requirements for Perforations

7.4.2. Class 2 Perforations—Circular and slotted perforations shall conform to the maximum

dimensions as shown in Table 2. Perforations shall be placed uniformly in the outside valleys of

the corrugations. The water inlet area shall be a minimum of 20 cm2/m (1 in.2/ft) of pipe. All

measurements shall be made in accordance with Section 9.5.3.

Table 2—Maximum Perforation Dimensions

Nominal Pipe

Diameter, mm (in.)

Drilled Hole

Diameter, mm (in.)

Slotted Holes

Width, mm (in.) Length, mm (in.)

75 (3) 4.75 (0.19) 3 (0.12) 25 (1)

100 (4) 4.75 (0.19) 3 (0.12) 25 (1)

150 (6) 4.75 (0.19) 3 (0.12) 25 (1)

200 (8) 6.25 (0.25) 3 (0.12) 30 (1.2)

250 (10) 8.00 (0.3) 3 (0.12) 30 (1.2)


7.5. Pipe Stiffness—Type C pipe, as described in Section 4.1.1, shall have a minimum pipe stiffness

(PS) of 240 kPa (35 psi) at 5 percent deflection; and Type S pipe, as described in Section 4.1.2,

shall have a minimum PS of 340 kPa (50 psi) at 5 percent deflection when tested in accordance

with Section 9.1. The pipe tested shall contain perforations, if specified.

7.6. Pipe Flattening—There shall be no visual evidence of buckling (a decrease or downward

deviation in the load-deflection curve), cracking, splitting, or delamination when the pipe is tested

in accordance with Section 9.2.

7.7. Environmental Stress Cracking—There shall be no cracking of the pipe when tested in accordance

with Section 9.3.

7.8. Brittleness—There shall be no cracking of the pipe wall or liner when tested in accordance with

Section 9.4 except as specified in Sections 7.8.1 and 7.8.2.

Note 4—The brittleness test is similar to that described in ASTM F405.

7.8.1. Cracks with a maximum chord length of 10 mm (0.4 in.) that originate at a perforation or at either

end of the sample shall not be cause for rejection.

7.8.2. Splitting along a seam or mold parting line is not caused by brittleness and should be evaluated

as a workmanship defect as described in Section 7.1.1 if no split exceeds 50 mm (2 in.) in

chord length.

7.9. Fitting and Coupling Requirements:

7.9.1. The fittings and couplings shall not reduce or impair the overall integrity or function of the

pipe line.

7.9.2. Common corrugated fittings include reducers, tees, wyes, and end caps.

Note 5—Only fittings and couplings supplied or recommended by the pipe manufacturer should

be used.

7.9.3. Fittings and couplings shall not reduce the inside diameter of the pipe being joined by more than

5 percent of the nominal inside diameter. Reducer fittings shall not reduce the cross-sectional area

of the smaller size.

7.9.4. Pipe connected by in-line couplers shall not separate when tested in accordance with Section 9.6.1.

7.9.5. The coupling shall not crack or crease when tested in accordance with Section 9.6.2.

7.9.6. The design of the couplers shall be such that when connected with the pipe, the axis of the

assembly will be level and true when tested in accordance with Section 9.6.3.

8. CONDITIONING

8.1. Conditioning—Condition the specimen prior to test at 23 ± 2°C (73.4 ± 3.6°F) for not less than

24 hours in accordance with Procedure A in ASTM D618 for those tests where conditioning is

required, and unless otherwise specified.

8.2. Conditions—Conduct the test in a laboratory temperature of 23 ± 2°C (73.4 ± 3.6°F) unless

otherwise specified herein.


9. TEST METHODS

9.1. Pipe Stiffness—Select a pipe specimen and test for PS as described in ASTM D2412, with the

following exceptions.

9.1.1. The test specimen shall be 300 ± 10 mm (12 ± 0.4 in.) long, cut to include full corrugations. The

test specimen shall be no less than 300 mm (12 in.), and cut to include full corrugations. The

loading plates must exceed the length of the test specimen.

9.1.2. Locate the specimen in the loading machine with an imaginary line connecting the two seams

formed by the corrugation mold (end view) parallel to the loading plates. The specimen must lie

flat on the plate within 1 mm (0.04 in.) and may be straightened by hand bending at room

temperature to accomplish this.

9.1.3. The deflection indicator shall be readable and accurate to ±0.03 mm (0.001 in.).

9.1.4. The residual curvature found in corrugated pipe, especially that furnished in coils, frequently

results in an erratic load-deflection curve. When this occurs, the beginning point for deflection

measurements shall be at a load of 20 ± 5 N (4.5 ± 1 lbf). This point shall be considered as the

origin of the load-deflection curve.

Note 6—The parallel plates must exceed the length of the test specimen as specified above.

Note 7—Additional pipe specimens may be tested at other orientations for PS and flattening if

desired.

9.2. Pipe Flattening—Flatten the pipe specimen from Section 9.1 until the vertical inside diameter is

reduced by 20 percent. The rate of loading shall be the same as in Section 9.1. The specimen shall

fail if buckling (a decrease or downward deviation in load-deflection curve), cracking, splitting, or

delamination is observed with the unaided eye at 20 percent deflection. Immediately after the

specimen has started to unload, check for visible evidence of cracking, splitting, or delamination.

9.3. Environmental Stress Cracking—Test sections of the pipe for environmental stress cracking in

accordance with ASTM D1693, except for the following modification:

9.3.1. Two specimens shall be tested.

9.3.2. Each specimen shall consist of a 90-degree arc length of pipe without perforations as shown in

Figure 2.

Figure 2—Specimen Configuration for Environmental Stress Cracking

9.3.3. Bend the specimens to shorten the inside chord length 20 ± 1 percent and retain in this position

using a suitable holding device. Determine the arc chord dimension (B) of the specimen under test

as follows:


0 8B . A= (1)

where:

A = the inside chord dimension before bending, and

B = the same dimension taken after bending (see Figure 2).

9.3.4. Place the bent specimen in a container of suitable size and cover completely with the

preheated wetting agent 100 percent “Igepal CO-630,” a trade name for nonylphenoxy

poly(ethyleneoxy)ethanol, at 50 ± 2°C (122 ± 3.6°F). Maintain this temperature for 24 h, and

then remove the sample and inspect immediately. For recommended practices on using specific

chemicals to test plastic pipe, refer to R 16.

9.4. Brittleness—Test two samples of pipe at an impact of 45 J (35 ft-lbf) between two flat parallel

plates using the apparatus depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3—Brittleness Test Device

9.4.1. Cut the sample specimens 150 mm (6 in.) long from one continuous length.

9.4.2. Condition specimens at –4 ± 2°C (25 ± 3.6°F) for a minimum of 1 h.

9.4.3. Set the 9.5-kg (20-lb) top plate for a free fall of 500 mm (20 in.) to the uppermost surface of the

specimen.

Release Mechanism

Guide Shaft

Guide Shaft

9.5-kg Mass Is Releasedto Test Pipe

Graduation forObtaining Fall Height

Adjustable to Allow500-mm Drop

Slot to Hold Pipe

241 mm

BA

Formatted: Heading 2


9.4.4. Locate the specimen on the bottom plate with the longitudinal pipe axis parallel to the slot. Rotate

the pipe sample such that the imaginary plane through the two longitudinal seams formed by the

corrugation mold is parallel to the plate.

9.4.5. Drop the upper plate and impact test the specimen within 30 s of removal from the conditioning

environment.

9.4.6.9.4. Remove and inspect in accordance with the requirements of Section 7.8.Brittleness—Test pipe and

fitting specimens in accordance with Test Method D2444, except six specimens shall be tested.

Use Tup B weighing 2.5 kg [5.5 lb]; the height of the drop shall be 1.5 m [5 ft] for nominal pipe

sizes 200 mm [8 in.] and 250 mm [10 in.]; the height of the drop shall be 0.55 m [1.8 ft] for

nominal pipe sizes 75 mm [3 in.] though 150 mm [6 in.]. Use a flat-plate specimen holder.

Condition the specimens for 24 h at a temperature of −3.9 ± 2°C [25 ± 3.6°F], and conduct all

tests within 60 s of removal from this atmosphere. The center of the falling tup shall strike on a

corrugation crown for three specimens and between crowns for three specimens. Five nonfailures

are acceptable. Fittings shall be assembled on appropriate size pipe for testing.

9.5. Pipe Dimensions:

9.5.1. Inside Diameter—Measure the inside diameter of two sections of pipe with a tapered plug in

accordance with ASTM D2122. Alternatively, measure the inside diameter of two sections,

with a suitable device accurate to ±0.2 mm (0.008 in.) the mold part-line and 90 degrees to it, and

average the measurements.

9.5.2. Length—Measure pipe with any suitable device accurate to 0.2 percent. Make all measurements

on the pipe while it is stress-free and at rest on a flat surface in a straight line. The length

measurements may be taken at ambient temperature.

9.5.3. Perforations—Measure dimensions of perforations on a straight specimen with no external forces

applied. Make linear measurements with instruments accurate to 0.2 mm (0.008 in.).

9.5.4. Liner Thickness—Measure the thickness of the liner with a digital micrometer or ultrasonic

thickness gauge in accordance with ASTM D2122.

9.6. Couplings:

9.6.1. Joint Integrity—This test is limited to Type C and Type CP pipe supplied in coils. Assemble

couplings to appropriate pipe in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Use pipe

samples at least 150 mm (6 in.) in length. Vertically suspend two pipe lengths connected by the

joint couplings along their longitudinal axis. Then hang a tare mass from the lower end of the

assembled pipe specimen for 3 min. Apply the test mass gently. Verify that the joint will support a

mass along the pipe axis equal to 0.090 kg/mm (60 lb/ft) of the nominal inside diameter, without

separating. Test two couplings of each type.

9.6.2. Strength—Assemble each coupling to the appropriate pipe in accordance with the manufacturer’s

recommendations. Use pipe samples at least 150 mm (6 in.) in length. Load the connected pipe

and coupling between parallel plates at the rate of 12.5 mm/min (0.5 in./min) until the vertical

inside diameter is reduced by at least 20 percent of the nominal diameter of the coupling. Inspect

for damage while at the specified deflection and after load removal, and report the results of this

inspection.

9.6.3. Alignment—Assure that the assembly or joint is correct and complete; if the pipe is bent, it should

be hand-straightened prior to performing this test. Lay the assembly or joint on a flat surface and

verify that it will accommodate straight-line flow.


10. INSPECTION AND RETEST

10.1. Inspection—Inspection of the material shall be made as agreed upon by the purchaser and the

seller as part of the purchase contract.

10.2. Retest and Rejection—If any failure to conform to these specifications occurs, the pipe or fittings

or couplings may be retested to establish conformity in accordance with agreement between the

purchaser and seller. Individual results, not averages, constitute failure.

11. MARKING

11.1. All pipe shall be clearly marked at intervals of not more than 3.5 m (11.5 ft), and fittings and

couplings shall be clearly marked, as follows:

11.1.1. Manufacturer’s name or trademark,

11.1.2. Nominal size,

11.1.3. The specification designation AASHTO M 252,

11.1.4. The plant designation code, and

11.1.5. The date of manufacture or an appropriate code. If a date code is used, a durable manufacturer

sticker that identifies the actual date of manufacture shall be adhered to the inside of each length

of pipe.

Note 8—A durable sticker is one that is substantial enough to remain in place and be legible

through installation of the pipe.

12. QUALITY ASSURANCE

12.1. A manufacturer’s certificate that the product was manufactured, tested, and supplied in accordance

with this specification, together with a report of the test results, and the date each test was

completed, shall be furnished on request. Each certification so furnished shall be signed by a

person authorized by the manufacturer.

12.2. Manufacturer Records―Manufacturers shall keep records of the following: (1) resin

manufacturer’s data sheets and certification that the base resin meets minimum cell class

requirements of the product specification; (2) manufacturer’s data sheets and quantities for all

additives blended with the resin by the pipe manufacturer; (3) test results to demonstrate that,

if resins of two different cell classifications are blended, the resulting mixture meets the

requirements of the specified cell classification; (4) correlation of resin shipment source with

pipe markings.

12.1. A manufacturer’s certification that the product was manufactured, tested, and supplied in

accordance with this specification shall be signed by a person authorized by the manufacturer.

13. KEYWORDS

13.1. Crack; corrugated; crease; drainage; polyethylene pipe; reworked material.

committee on materials and pavements - minutes · 2020. 8. 31. · tech subcommittee 4b annual...

Documents