09.01.2013 Views

Retrospective Evaluation of Cured-in-Place Pipe - (NEPIS)(EPA ...

Retrospective Evaluation of Cured-in-Place Pipe - (NEPIS)(EPA ...

Retrospective Evaluation of Cured-in-Place Pipe - (NEPIS)(EPA ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Figure 4-34. Flexural Stress-Stra<strong>in</strong> Curves for Denver 48-<strong>in</strong>. Downstream Sample<br />

4.3.7.2 Upstream Sample. Specimens were cut from the retrieved upstream CIPP l<strong>in</strong>er and tested for<br />

flexural strength and flexural modulus <strong>of</strong> elasticity <strong>in</strong> the same manner as specimens from the<br />

downstream sample (Table 4-16). The results <strong>of</strong> test<strong>in</strong>g are provided <strong>in</strong> Tables 4-17 and 4-18 and Figures<br />

4-35 and 4-36.<br />

For this particular set <strong>of</strong> samples, the flexural test results, particularly the flexural modulus, were<br />

unusually low compared to the other samples tested <strong>in</strong> this project. It was decided to repeat a new set <strong>of</strong><br />

five samples to see if an error <strong>in</strong> the test<strong>in</strong>g procedures or a localized weak spot <strong>in</strong> the l<strong>in</strong>er might have<br />

caused the low values. The orig<strong>in</strong>al test results are termed “Set 1” and the repeated tests are termed “Set<br />

2”. It can be seen that there is a significant difference between the two sets <strong>of</strong> results with the second set<br />

meet<strong>in</strong>g all <strong>of</strong> the ASTM m<strong>in</strong>imum values for a new l<strong>in</strong>er and the first set meet<strong>in</strong>g the peak bend<strong>in</strong>g stress<br />

value, but fall<strong>in</strong>g significantly below on the flexural modulus. It appears most likely that the area <strong>of</strong> the<br />

l<strong>in</strong>er used for the first set <strong>of</strong> tests was <strong>of</strong> poorer quality than for the second set <strong>of</strong> tests. The <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />

<strong>of</strong> these results <strong>in</strong> comparison with the test results for all the retrospective sites is discussed <strong>in</strong> Section 6.<br />

Table 4-16. Geometric Data for Flexural Test Specimens for Denver 48-<strong>in</strong>. Upstream Sample<br />

Sample<br />

ID<br />

Span<br />

(<strong>in</strong>.)<br />

Dimension<br />

W (<strong>in</strong>.) D (<strong>in</strong>.)<br />

53<br />

Moment <strong>of</strong> Inertia<br />

(<strong>in</strong>. 4 )<br />

1 4 0.490 0.540 0.0064298<br />

2 4 0.470 0.540 0.0061673<br />

3 4 0.478 0.558 0.0069207<br />

4 4 0.534 0.556 0.0076486<br />

5 4 0.518 0.568 0.0079103

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!