EPA-600/2-80-009
March 1980
IMPREGNATION OF CONCRETE PIPE FOR
CORROSION RESISTANCE AND STRENGTH IMPROVEMENT
by
Allen C. Ludwig
Southwest Research Institute
San Antonio, Texas 78284
Grant No. S802651
Project Officer
Hugh Masters
Storm and Combined Sewer Section
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory (Cincinnati)
Edison, New Jersey 08817
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names of commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled
land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of the environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem
solution and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and
searching for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
develops new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treat-
ment, and management of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant
discharges from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and
treatment of public drinking water supplies, and to minimize the adverse
economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publi-
cation is one of the products of that research; a most vital communications
link between the research and the user community.
Under this program field evaluations of sulfur impregnated and
hydrofluoric acid treated concrete sewer pipe were made. In addition, the
strength improvements due to sulfur impregnation were investigated with a
view towards reducing pipe costs.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This program was undertaken to field test impregnated concrete sewer
pipe as a follow-on to a previous laboratory study sponsored by the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency at Southwest Research Institute. The laboratory
tests indicated that impregnation of concrete pipe improved both strength and
corrosion resistance at an economically attractive cost.
Impregnation vats were fabricated for treating concrete pipe with either
molten modified sulfur formulations, or dilute hydrofluoric acid solutions.
Approximately 1400 ft (427 m) of concrete pipe were impregnated and installed
in four Texas cities.
The City of Dallas installed approximately 1000 ft (305 m) of 10 in.
(25.4 cm) and 12 in. (30.5 cm) diameter pipe at two separate locations. One,
an industrial line, serves a battery plant, while the second line serves a
residential area, including an orphans' home with its own water well which is
high in sulfate salts. Beaumont installed 200 ft (61.0 m) of 10 in. (25.4
cm) diameter pipe in a domestic line, and Harlingen installed 100 ft (30.5 m)
of 12 in. (30.5 cm) diameter pipe in a domestic line. Pecos installed 100 ft
(30.5 m) of 6 in. (15.2 cm) diameter line where principal concern was with the
external corrosion caused to concrete because of the high sulfate content in
the soil and groundwater.
The four principal types of pipe installed in each city included un-
treated concrete as a control, concrete impregnated with modified sulfur (i.e.
with 2% by weight of dicycopentadiene as a prohibitor against bacteria attack
on elemental sulfur), concrete impregnated with modified sulfur with bacteri-
cide (i.e. 0.5% by weight of sodium pentachlorophenate), and concrete impreg-
nated with dilute hydrofluoric acid. Other types of pipe also installed in
certain locations included ductile iron, plastic, and clay. Special epoxy
lined concrete manholes, fiberglass manholes, plastic manhole rings and shrink-
fit joint material were also included at most of the sites.
Internal diameter measurements were taken for each type of pipe and sam-
ples of the effluent were also collected and analyzed. The monitoring was con-
ducted in an attempt to determine measurable differences between the concrete
controls and the impregnated concrete pipe. After a three year in situ eval-
uation program, a trend appeared to develop which indicated less corrosion in
the impregnated sections than the untreated controls. However, it is felt that
the sites should continue to be monitored until more pronounced results or some
failure occurs.
iv
-------
In the strength evaluation portion of the study, it was found that sulfur
impregnated nonreinforced concrete pipe approaches the ultimate strength of
reinforced concrete pipe. This dramatic strength improvement, coupled with
increased corrosion resistance, provided by sulfur impregnation leads to the
possibility that impregnation of concrete pipe could provide more than ade-
quate strength at lower pipe costs. For example, considerable material sav-
ings can be realized by eliminating the reinforcing steel in concrete pipe
and substituting it by sulfur impregnation. These savings can vary from
$0.14 to $0.27 per linear foot (.3 m) of 12 in. (30.5 cm) pipe to $0.83 to
$2.08 per linear foot (.3 m) of 27 in. (68.6 cm) diameter pipe. This degree
of material savings will more than cover any additional labor costs, particu-
larly if automated systems are incorporated into the impregnation operation.
Also, the projected availability of elemental sulfur will increase signifi-
cantly over the next few decades as desulfurized coal becomes a major source
of energy. The impregnation of concrete sewer pipe could well benefit from
such an availability.
Federal and State surveys project that over 90,000 miles of new sewage
collection pipe, at a cost of approximately $17 billion will be required na-
tionally by 1990. In developing these costs, it was assumed that conventional
construction methods and materials would be used to place the sewer pipe.
Obviously, even a minor improvement in these methods could result in a signifi-
cant savings in the overall EPA Construction Grants Program and other con-
struction programs and, thus, ultimately to the individual tax payer.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. S802651 by the
Southwest Research Institute under sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This report covers the period April, 1974 to April, 1979,
and work was completed as of March, 1979.
v
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Abstract ^v
Figures viii
Tables ix
Acknowledgements
x
1. Conclusions i
2. Recommendations 3
3. Introduction 4
4. Impregnation Processes 7
5. Installation and Sampling 10
6. Results to Date 13
7. Impregnation for Strength Improvement 17
8. Economic Tradeoffs 25
Appendix
A. Analyses for Individual Sites 28
Glossary 49
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number
Page
1 Concrete, Sulfur Impregnated, and Sulfur/Bactericide
Impregnated rings exposed for 2 years in the vapor space
in a sewer 5
2 Pipe being extracted from the Sulfur Impregnation Vat .... 8
3 Some of the impregnated pipe awaiting shipment 9
4 Measuring inside diameter with calipers 12
5 Pipe Weight Gain as a function of time for Sulfur
impregnated pipe 18
6 Three edge bearing test as a. function of sulfur absorption
for 2 year old 8 in. (20.3 cm) diameter pipe 19
7 Three edge bearing tests as a function of impregnation
time compared to specification standards for nonreinforced
pipe 22
8 Three edge bearing test as a function of sulfur absorption
compared to reinforced pipe specifications 23
9 Modulus of rupture for porous concrete specimens as a
function of sulfur absorption 24
viii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Anticipated/Incurred Costs 11
2 Industrial Line-Kendall Drive/Macatee-Dallas Site 14
3 Domestic Line-Showbend-Dallas Site ^
4 Domestic Line-Bob St.-Beaumont 15
5 Domestic Line-Harlingen 15
6 Results of 12 in. (30.5 cm) Diameter Impregnated Concrete Pipe . 21
7 Materials Savings Using Sulfur Impregnation vs. Reinforcing
Steel or Extra Wall Thickness 26
8 Materials Savings Using Sulfur Impregnation vs. Reinforcing
Steel or Extra Wall Thickness 26
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The success of this project is due to the efforts of many organizations.
Southwest Research Institute is indebted to the Texas Water Quality Board who
was the grantee in the early stages of this program. Special thanks are
also due the Dallas Water Utilities and Mr. Jim Cowgill and his staff; the
City of Beaumont and Mr. Underwood Hill and his staff; the City of Pecos and
Mr. S.B. Hunt; and the City of Harlingen and Mr. Charlie Urban, formerly
with that city.
Special thanks are extended to Gifford-Hill Pipe Company and Mr. Harry
T. Peck, who furnished the concrete pipe and transportation of the materials
to the participating cities. They also furnished special reinforced and
nonreinforced pipe for the strength improvement studies.
Owens-Corning supplied a number of fiberglass manholes, Polyfoam
Industries furnished polyethylene manhole rings, and Ray-Chem supplied heat
shrinkable plastic jointing materials. United States Pipe and Foundry
furnished ductile iron and cement lined pipe. For all of these materials we
are grateful.
We would also like to acknowledge Mr. Hugh Masters, EPA Project Officer,
for his cooperation and assistance on this project.
-------
SECTION 1
CONCLUSIONS
1. A three year time span has not been sufficient to observe measurable
differences between the concrete controls and the impregnated concrete
pipe. With few exceptions the final measurements are the same as the
initial measurements.
2. For optimum corrosion protection, impregnation should initiate at the
inside diameter and progress to the outside diameter. It has been found
that due to certain concrete pipe manufacturing techniques, the inside
diameter is very nearly impermeable and hence, impregnation has pro-
gressed from the outside diameter to the inside diameter. Therefore, un-
less saturation has occurred it is possible for impregnated pipe to have
the same corrosion rate initially as the concrete control, since cor-
rosion normally originates at the inside diameter and progresses to the
outside diameter.
3. Preheating the concrete pipe to 300 F (150 C), improves the absorption
rate of the sulfur. The length of time required to heat and dry the
concrete pipe directly in the molten sulfur bath would be prohibitive
for commercial consideration. Pipe, preheated to 300°F (150°C) had ad-
equate sulfur absorption after two hours submersion. Impregnating the
pipe under a liquid head of 10-20 ft (3-6 m) should further reduce the
time of impregnation.
4. The age or curing of the concrete pipe can dramatically effect the de-
gree of impregnation. Pipe that has been exposed to the elements for two
years was found not to absorb sulfur to the same extent as new pipe and
consequently, strength improvements were not as dramatic as for new pipe.
5. The strength of sulfur impregnated concrete pipe is a function of the
sulfur absorbed. Generally, a 4 to 5% increase in weight yields a
strength increase of 80% over that of the concrete control. For ex-
ample, a 12 in. (30.5 cm) diameter nonreinforced concrete control will
fail at a load of 2500 Ibs/linear ft (36.5 KN/m) as opposed to approxi-
mately 4500 Ibs/linear ft (65.7 KN/m) for a sulfur impregnated nonrein-
forced concrete pipe.
6. A "D" load of 4500 Ibs/linear ft (65.7 KN/m) for the sulfur impregnated
pipe is still in excess of the 3750 Ibs/linear ft (54.7 KN/m) ultimate
load specification for Class V 12 in. (30.5 cm) diameter pipe. (See
page 20 for explanation of "D" load).
-------
Considerable material savings can be realized by eliminating the rein-
forcing steel in concrete pipe and substituting sulfur impregnation.
These savings can vary from 14 to 27 cents per linear foot (.3m) of
12 in. (30.5 cm) pipe to 83 cents to $2.08 per linear foot (.3m) of 27
in. (68.6 cm) diameter pipe. This degree of material savings will more
than cover any additional labor costs, particularly if automated systems
are incorporated into the production.
The projected availability of elemental sulfur will increase signifi-
cantly over the next few decades as desulfurized coal becomes a major
source of energy. The impregnation of concrete sewer pipe could well
benefit from such an availability.
-------
SECTION 2
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The unanimous recommendation of all parties involved in the subject
program has been to continue to monitor the sites until some failure
occurs. In most of the domestic lines, exposure of the aggregate is
beginning to occur and certainly over the next five years, some dra-
matic changes should begin to be observed. Accelerated field testing
by proper pH adjustment of the sewage in a controlled section of line'
could shorten this waiting period. '
2. When dramatic changes begin to occur, or when failure of the pipe is
detected, samples of the pipe materials should be retrieved and analyzed.
3. Special studies should be initiated to determine the improvements pos-
sible with 18 to 27 in. (45.7 to 68.6 cm) diameter by sulfur impreg-
nation. This effort would require the close cooperation of industry
since special joints of reinforced and nonreinforced pipe would have
to be supplied for the impregnation studies.
4. Any additional studies should also investigate a change in the cement
aggregate ratios and aggregate gradations for optimum strength/cost
relationships.
5. A study should be made on the optimum time/strength relationships
of steam cured pipe.
6. Once these relationships are established, a semi-commercial endeavor,
with a comprehensive cost analysis should be undertaken to produce some
of this intermediate size pipe and install it for performance evaluations
-------
SECTION 3
INTRODUCTION
The corrosion of sewer lines poses a double threat. In badly corroded
lines the sewage or wastes can exfiltrate, contaminating groundwater. In-
filtration can also occur where there is a high water table or in cases of
severe rainstorms, thus causing a burden on the sewers and treatment plants.
While more corrosion resistant types of sewer pipe are on the market (i.e.,
PVC, reinforced plastic mortar, etc.) they are generally more expensive than
concrete pipe and they are currently limited in size.
The work discussed in this report is a follow-on to a laboratory study
completed earlier by Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) under U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) Contract No. 14-12-835. During this study,
covered in an EPA report entitled, "Impregnation of Concrete Pipe" 11024 EQE
06/71, several promising materials were developed in the laboratory for im-
pregnating concrete pipe. Further testing indicated corrosion resistance was
improved ten fold or greater at an economically attractive cost. It was re-
alized that field testing would be required to verify this improvement under
service conditions and further laboratory studies would help characterize and
optimize the impregnation concepts.
During the latter part of the above-mentioned laboratory study, a num-
ber of samples of 6 in. (15.2 cm) diameter pipe coated or impregnated with
various material were placed in the vapor space of a diversion box in Harlin-
gen, Texas. After a two year exposure period, the specimens were retrieved.
The concrete control was badly corroded, losing from 0.125 to 0.25 in.
(0.3 to 0.6 cm) of material from its surface. A modified sulfur formulation,
by contrast, was completely intact and showed no signs of corrosive attack.
The hydrofluoric acid treated sample was erratic in its performance, having
some areas where no attack had occurred and other areas where some corrosion
had taken place. Overall, it was in much better condition than the concrete
control. One sample impregnated with elemental sulfur was as badly corroded
as the concrete control. It had been anticipated that the bacteria might use
the elemental sulfur in the pipe as a source of food and this indeed appears
to have been the case.
A comparison of corrosion between the concrete control, the sulfur im-
pregnated, and the modified sulfur impregnated specimens are shown in Figure
1. For the most part, the rest of the samples were no better than the con-
trol with the exception of one vinyl chloride-acrylic copolymer coating which
had remained intact. The principal function of the coatings was envisioned
as linings for manholes or other structures rather than as linings for con-
crete sewer pipe.
-------
-------
A grant to cover field testing was originally awarded to the Texas Water
Quality Board, but in July of 1976 was transferred to SwRI. The results of
this study are presented in this report.
-------
SECTION 4
IMPREGNATION PROCESSES
The pipe was impregnated by simply submerging it into either the sulfur
formulation or the acid solution. The length of time required to obtain
adequate protection is dependent on many variables. With the sulfur formu-
lations, the moisture content of the pipe has a direct effect on the time of
impregnation since all of the moisture must be raised to temperature and
boiled off since the sulfur vats are normally held at 300°F (150°C). There
is a significant color difference between moist pipe and dry pipe that has
been observed, due to the moisture reacting with the sulfur to form sulfides
with the iron and other constituents in the concrete. Further study will be
required to determine whether any significant performance difference exists.
The wall thickness and mass of the pipe also affect the time of impregnation.
The pipe temperature also has a great influence on the time and degree of
penetration.
Until vats large enough to accommodate full joints of pipe were fabri-
cated and operational, it was not known that a joint of concrete pipe could
be impregnated in molten sulfur without fracturing or suffering some damage.
Once the vats were operational, experiments using 6 in. (15.2 cm) and
10 in. (25.4 cm) diameter nonreinforced and 12 in. (30.5 cm) diameter rein-
forced concrete pipe were conducted. No problems were encountered and it was
found that substantial strength improvement had been accomplished.
Because of the 5 year time limit of the grant, it was desirable to place
the impregnated pipe under test as early as possible. This would then give
the longest possible evaluation period.
Since it was important to prepare the pipe in the quickest manner, an
arbitrary decision was made to work a split shift and impregnate the pipe for
12 hrs. Facilities were not available to predry the pipe before impregnation,
therefore, all plpe were taken directly from the yard, irregardless of the
weather, and submerged in the molten sulfur bath or HF vat for 12 hrs or 24 hrs
depending on the wall thickness.
Since there was little or no gas generation from the pipe after 12 hrs,
it was assumed that near saturation of the pipe had been accomplished.
Studies conducted later in the program, indicate this may have been correct
for the 6 in. (15.2 cm) and 10 in. (25.4 cm) diameter pipe with wall thickness
of approximately 1 in. (2.5 cm). However, depending upon moisture content in
the thicker walled 12 in. (30.5 cm) pipe, less than saturation was accomplished
even after 24 hrs. A more detailed discussion on this aspect occurs on page
-------
12. In all cases the liquid head of molten sulfur varied between 12 (30.5)
and 24 in. (61 cm) maximum. This process took approximately two months to
accomplish and was completed during February, 1975. Pipe shipments to the
various test sites occurred between April, 1975 and August, 1975.
Figure 2 shows the sulfur impregnation facility while Figure 3 shows some
of the impregnated pipe awaiting shipment. The white pipe has been treated
with HF while the dark pipe is sulfur impregnated.
Figure 2. Pipe being extracted from the Sulfur Impregnation Vat
-------
PL,
H
H
M
H
Oj
03
PU
H
a,
(U
-P
03
S
§
H
0)
O
CO
t-O
a)
3
H
U,
-------
SECTION 5
INSTALLATION AND SAMPLING
Installation of the experimental sewer lines began in April, 1975, in
Dallas. The first site was the 12 in. (30.5 cm) line on Macatee Drive. This
site included clay, ductile iron, modified sulfur impregnated, hydrofluoric
acid treated, and reinforced concrete control. A rubber "0" ring gasket was
used on all the concrete and impregnated concrete joints.
In addition this site includes two epoxy lined concrete manholes, a
fiberglass manhole, a latex coated manhole, and a plastic manhole cover ring.
The second site in Dallas was constructed during April and May, 1975 on
Showbend Street. This line used the 10 in. (25.4 cm) diameter, nonreinforced
concrete controls, modified sulfur impregnated, hydrofluoric acid treated,
polyvinyl chloride, ductile iron, and a double treated pipe - hydrofluoric
acid treated followed by modified sulfur impregnation. This line had one
epoxy lined manhole, two latex coated manholes, one plastic manhole cover
ring, and a shrink-fit gasket jointing the PVC pipe to the ductile iron.
In July, 1975, Beaumont installed 200 ft (61 m) of nonreinforced con-
crete control, hydrofluoric acid treated, and modified sulfur impregnated, 10
in. (25.4 cm) diameter pipe on Bob Street. This site included an epoxy lined
manhole, a fiberglass manhole, and a latex coated manhole. The impregnated
pipe was tied into a new line of truss pipe that was being installed at the
same time.
During September and October, 1975, approximately 100 ft (30.5 m) of
modified sulfur impregnated, hydrofluoric acid treated, and nonreinforced
concrete control 6 in (15.2 cm) diameter pipe was installed in Pecos. This
line is to ultimately service five houses that will be built by the Pecos
High School crafts class. The first house was completed in May, 1976. No
additional houses have been built, but since principal concern is with cor-
rosion caused to the exterior of the concrete pipe due to high sulfate con-
centrations in the soil, the location is adequate.
The corrosion of concrete in the Pecos area can be extremely severe.
The perimeter curbing around the parking lot at one motel has been corroded
approximately 1/2 in. (1.3 cm) in five years. Depending on the depth of the
water table, some areas are worse than others. On the initial visit to
Pecos, a concrete meter box which was fabricated by city crews, was returned
to the Institute and impregnated with the modified sulfur formulation. In
June, 1975, the meter box was returned to Pecos for installation.
10
-------
The final site in Harlingen was installed during December, 1975, and
January, 1976. Modified sulfur impregnated, hydrofluoric acid treated,
double treated-hydrofluoric acid treated followed by modified sulfur impree-
nated and reinforced concrete control were installed. One hundred feet (30.5
m) of 12 in. (30.5 cm) diameter reinforced line were placed. One manhole was
epoxy lined, one manhole was fiberglass, and one manhole was coated with latex
In addition, one plastic manhole cover ring was installed.
The total costs of installation, materials and transportation were
increased considerably over original estimates. In Table 1 the incurred
costs are compared with the anticipated costs that had been submitted with
the grant proposal.
TABLE 1. ANTICIPATED/INCURRED COSTS
Participants Anticipated Incurred
Southwest Research Institute $ 3,200.00 $ 7,575.30
City of Dallas 17,990.00 39,858.86
City of Beaumont 2,350.00 4,246.55
City of Harlingen 600.00 2,466.05
City of Pecos 500.00 800.00
Gifford-Hill Pipe Co. 5,400.00 16,846.01
United States Pipe § Foundry - 2 299.32
(ductile iron and cement
lined pipe)
Owens-Corning _ 950.00
(Fiberglass Manholes)
Polyfoam, Inc. _ 250.00
(Polyethylene Manhole Rings)
Ray-Chem _ 100.00
(Heat shrinkable plastic
jointing materials)
An initial visit was made to each site as soon after construction as
was practical, to sample the flow and measure the inside diameters of each
type of pipe. Sampling was accomplished using N-Con Sentry 500 automatic
samplers and flow measurement was done (except in Dallas where they used
their own device) with a Manning Dipper level recorder. The detailed
analyses for each of the sites is included in Appendix A.
The inside diameters were also measured for each type of pipe at each
site. These measurements were taken with calipers on the vertical diameter
of each end of exposed pipe in the manhole as shown in Figure 4. By far the
most extensive sampling and analyses was conducted by the City of Dallas. A
11
-------
seven day scheduling program was established and samples were gathered and
then analysed for BOD, TSS, pH, sulfates, nitrates, sulfides, etc. TV
inspections were made of each line prior to implementing the sampling schedule
and the internal diameter measurements of the various types of pipe in the
test lines. The detailed data are listed in Appendix A.
Figure 4. Measuring inside diameter with calipers
12
-------
SECTION 6
RESULTS TO DATE
The impregnated pipe has been in service approximately three years. To
date the corrosion against the concrete control has not been as severe as
originally anticipated and as a result, the data is inconclusive.
Tables 2 to 5 list the inside pipe diameter for the different pipe in
each location. The data is not well defined since some impregnated pipe ap-
pears to be corroding the same as the concrete control while others are de-
cidely better. The reason for this did not become apparent until after the
optimization studies commenced. From the observations of the laboratory spec-
imens cut from pipe in the original laboratory study, the impregnation of the
sulfur has proceeded from the outside to the inside fairly uniformly. Once
the strength studies were underway on the subject program and specimens were
broken, observation of the impregnation of the pipe joints revealed an inter-
esting fact. The pipe was being impregnated from the outside diameter, to-
wards the inside diameter since the inside diameter is mechanically worked
and nearly impervious. This is good for everything, except impregnation!
For corrosion resistance against sewerage, the protection of the inside dia-
meter is the most important factor. Thus, what appears to have happened is
that unless saturation occured, the corrosion rate for impregnated pipe will
be the same as for concrete, until the impregnated surface is exposed. Thus,
until significant loss occurs or until complete failure of the control can
be ascertained, definite conclusions will be difficult to make.
Another difficulty encountered was the build-up of sediment at the bottom
of the manholes and in lines making measurements very difficult to take. For
the final inspection, a request was made to have the lines flushed and the
manholes cleaned as was the practice in Dallas which always made the inspec-
tion much easier.
Final inspections were made in March, 1979. The only line showing sig-
nificant damage was the industrial line in Dallas on Macatee Drive. Consid-
erable difficulty was encountered in cleaning the sewer and only after per-
sistent effort could the TV camera cable be fished through a section of the
line. Upon TV inspection, it became apparent why there had been such a prob-
lem. The bottom half of the line was badly eroded, so much so, that the re-
inforcing wire was exposed and had prevented the high pressure nozzle of the
cleaning hose and the TV cable from progressing smoothly through the sewer.
All concrete sections at this location, both impregnated and control were in
the same deteriorated condition. The inspection showed the crown of the pipe
to be in excellent condition indicating that excessively corrosive liquids
had flowed through the line causing bottom deterioration. Sulfuric acid is
13
-------
h 1
CO
CO
rH
Q
_J
-J
Q
2;
PJ
i
w
i i
rj
^
, \
e
o
^ '
c/j
CD
X!
O
H
1
f,
M
CD
P
(1)
*±t
H
Q
CD
PH
H
C
O
H
CN
rH
rH
GT
to
to
\ /
CN
to
rH
rH
CN
to
v£>
CN
, ,,
O
rH
to
CN
CN
f N
00
0
»^f
.
o
^
rH
to
>. /
T^J.
.
CN
rH
CN
rH
to
CN
CN
, ,,
\O
O
to
o
CN
, ^
en
o
»^j-
.
o
CN
rH
to
V '
to
.
CN
rH
cn
o
to
CN
CN
, v
r^
o
to
rH
.
CN
, s
vO
.
rH
00
o
en
rH
to
v /
vO
.
CN
rH
LO
rH
to
<3-
CN
, ^
oo
o
to
rH
CN
oc:
H
CO
OQ
r^
"
X
rH
1-3
rH
O
to
en
rH
0*
rH
to
CN
CN
/ \
0
to
rH
CN
Co
o
to
o
CN
r \
to
o
to
en
rH
to
O
to
en
rH
X
o3
P
O
U Q CO
CN
1
rH
P
Mn
rH
3 PH
co ac
o
rH
C
O
u
CD
P
CD
rH
O
C
O
u
^
T3
CU
O
S-i
o
MH
c
H
OJ
j_(
^^
*&
rH
CO tf)
CD
CO X
5 %
t-J -H
Q I
I
Qt,
Z CD
\T\ ^_)
no
LO
CN
rH
O
vO
LO
CN
rH
O
LO
LO
CN
O
o
t-L,
x;
to
o
CN
O
oo
LO
CN
CN
O
rH
to
LO
CN
O
o
vO
LO
CN
rH
0
LO
LO
CN
O
o
CO
UH
O
rH
O
to
CN
^
O
rH
LO
CN
^
O
cn
LO
CN
CN
O
to
LO
CN
O
o
Concrete Control ]
(nonreinforced)
14
-------
u
CQ
I
CO
CQ
O
CQ
I
ULJ
U
rH
CO
o
Q
W
HJ
CQ
V)
CD
O
O
U
a)
o
M
o
-------
suspected since a battery plant is upstream. Further inspection of the
ductile iron pipe indicated that the bottom was completely gone in some
areas. The City of Dallas has bypassed this portion of the line and will be
digging up the line so that sections can be returned to the laboratory for
inspection.
16
-------
SECTION 7
IMPREGNATION FOR STRENGTH IMPROVEMENT
During the summer of 1978, the strength studies were initiated using
some 8 in. (20.3 cm) diameter pipe that was on hand. This pipe had been
obtained two years earlier and had been exposed in the yard for the entire
duration.
In addition, as the result of another program, two improved impregnation
vats were available. One was used as a dryer to preheat the pipe and the
second was used for impregnation.
Initial work employed the 8 in. (20.3 cm) diameter nonreinforced pipe.
The pipe was placed in the dryer and dried to a constant weight. The maximum
weight loss was approximately 2% for all the joints tested. This pipe was
then placed in the molten sulfur bath and weight gain as a function of time
was determined and is shown in Figure 5.
These values were approximately half of what was expected. In the
previous laboratory study*, water absorption of 4 to 5% was achieved and
sulfur absorptions of 7 to 8% due to liquid sulfurfs specific gravity of 1.8
were obtained. Attempts to increase the water absorption of this two year old
pipe using air pressure above a liquid head yielded only 2-3% weight increase
with water. Continued hydration of the cement has long been known as one of
the most effective means of increasing the watertightness of concrete. It
was not appreciated that such dramatic changes could occur within a two-year
period.
Selected joints of the impregnated pipe were tested and the results are
plotted in Figure 6. It was appreciated that the age of the pipe was an
important factor for strength improvement. For example, it had been deter-
mined that air dried pipe had to be 20-28 days old before dramatic strength
improvements would be seen by impregnation. Thus, the optimum time to
impregnate concrete is as soon as desired strengths are obtained and before
further hydration causes sealing.
The three edge bearing test as defined by ASTM C497, Standard Methods of
Testing Concrete Pipe or Tile, consists of supporting the pipe barrel on two
parallel longitudinal strips and applying the load throughout a top bearing
beam also extending the full length of the barrel. The test load is expressed
*Ludwig, A.C., and J.M. Dale. Impregnation of Concrete Pipe. EPA 11024EQE
06/71. 73 pp.
17
-------
DO
\ \
\ \
1 1 rt
I CD -a
rC Cti
i 1 h *
t|"' ^
CN
^
. * '^v^^ *"( ^"^^V
*^W x^. , *-^ \»
^^/^\^/-«v ^ ^
\ , '3 -o
I cr -H
\ ' -H 3
1 --H a
\ i - -
i i s -E
LO O
1 I O i t
t^O \O
\ \ . .
/-N C C
0) . -H -H
PH
H ' ri - »
O
O ' I
o '
1 I
CD '
I ' 1
2 1 ,
TT3 |
'P \ .
M * *
^ \
* ft 1
o t '
CN
^ \ \
s \ \
" \ 1
.^J 1 1
^ 1 1
0 \ '
fH O O
rt .
tt> \ \
X
\ V
^- ' DO
\ \
\ ^
\ X
\ \
* 1 1 "*"" O" -x..
^
o
Csl
}-i
O
M-l
1
4J
14-1
^D !/) ^
r-H rH £
o 9
£/ ^
o
CD %
G
, 4 1
'^ a)
12
npregnation
;ht Gain as
^ -H
00 0)
I2
cu
p,
H
PH
m
vO S
toO
H
Pn
^.
O ^D rt Csi c
0)
H
a
rtJ
cu
4->
:ur impregna
<-H
3
Cfl
(%)
18
-------
4000
-.58.36
M
t/)
3000
43.77
C -M
H 4-1
^
Cti ?H
0) 03
m 2000
29.18
1000
14.59
4 6
Sulfur Absorption (%)
10
Figure 6. Three edge bearing test as function of sulfur absorption
for 2 year old 8 in. (20.3 cm) diameter pipe
19
-------
in pounds-force per linear foot of pipe (newtons per linear, meter).
ASTM Standard C 76 for reinforced concrete culvert, storm drain and sewer
pipe specifies strength classes based on "D" load at 0.01 in. (0.0254 cm)
crack. The 0.01 in. (0.0254 cm) crack "D" load is the three-edge bearing
test load in pounds per linear foot for foot of inside diameter (newtons per
linear meter per millimeter of inside diameter) which produces a crack 0.01 in,
(0.0254 cm) wide for a length of 12 in. (30.5 cm).
Attempts to obtain new joints of 8 in. (20.3 cm) diameter pipe were un-
successful. The concrete pipe industry has dropped production of the smaller
diameter pipe and consequently none was available. The smallest diameter con-
crete pipe currently available is 12 in. (30.5 cm) reinforced. A local con-
crete pipe manufacturer volunteered to specially make some 12 in. (30.5 cm)
diameter without reinforcing wire and ultimately supplied 12 joints of this
nonreinforced and 12 joints of reinforced.
These 12 in. (30.5 cm) nonreinforced joints were dried at 300°F (150°C)
for 24 hours and then impregnated for various times in a molten bath of sul-
fur with only 1 ft (30.5 cm) liquid sulfur head. These results are presented
in Table 6. The results were also compared against other nonreinforced pipe
that were tested early in the program. When comparing all of the impregnated
pipe against the standard strength and extra strength nonreinforced pipe of
the same diameters, there is a substantial improvement in the strength. These
results are presented in Figure 7. In Figure 8, impregnated reinforced and
nonreinforced pipe are compared against different classes of reinforcdd pipe.
The load required to initiate the 0.01 in. (0.025 cm) crack is approximately
twice as great with the impregnated pipe as for the controls or Class IV pipe
and considerably above that for Class V pipe. With the 12 in. (30.5 cm) di-
ameter pipe these loads varied from 3750 (54.7) to 5000 Ib/linear ft (73 KN/
m) with the average being approximately 4500 Ib/linear ft (65.7 KN/m).
In contrast to the good quality concrete used in pipe, some efforts were
directed to impregnating a very poor quality concrete product used for garden
curbs and stepping stones. These products are very porous and as shown in
Figure 9, the sulfur absorption was in the area of 20%. With these specimens
the Modulus of Rupture was increased from approximately 200 psi (1.38 MPa)
to between 500 (3.45) and 1000 psi (6.89 MPa). The difficulty encountered
with these specimens was that the concrete was too porous. Although the
sulfur flowed very readily into the blocks, it flowed away just as readily
when the specimens were removed from the bath.
Because of the improved strength imparted by impregnation, two alter-
natives for reducing costs without sacrificing performance may be possible.
Impregnated nonreinforced pipe, particularly in the 12-36 in. (30.5-91.4 cm)
diameter pipe range, could prove to be a replacement for steel reinforced
pipe. A second consideration is to reduce the wall thickness and/or quantity
of cement by reducing the cement/aggregate ratio and thereby reduce costs and
yet retain the minimum strengths by impregnation.
The next section considers the economics of such a tradeoff.
20
-------
O r>-
LO tO
LO
vO
r^ r^« oo o
tO LO LO v£>
o- 6
pi ^
w ^*
OS *"O
U 03
2 0 -
O -4 +j
U 4n
rH
O Oj rH
U .p 03
H O
Tfr
00
to
vO
LO
to
en
2
o
rH
to
t^
LO
o
LO
LO
vO
vO
O
LO
LO
\O
vO
O
vO
LO
t^
LO
O
o
LO
O 00
to to
h>. vO
O LO
^D t*^
o to
LO rf
U4
OS
CL,
2
OS
H
UJ
u
LO
o
to
2
rH
CM
txO
CM CM
X X
^f Tt
to
X
00 00 tO
t/5 (/)
X X
rt rt
UH
O
CQ
<
H
C
o
H
H
*"O
C
0
u
T)
o
reinfoi
c
0
C
1
rH
O
+J
PI
o
u
nforced
H
(U
1
rH
O
-M
C
o
u
nforced
H
4)
j_j
I
rH
O
rH
^_>
C
0
u
0)
o
rH
O
C
-nonrei
n
""O
o
i j
nj
o>
j_(
p
e
rH
O
rH
= r o r
C
H
0)
rH
1
- - - -
forced
c
-nonrei
T3
fli
, t
rt
C
4)
QJ
g
rH
O
rH
-reinfo
=
-o
0>
o
rH
O
C
-nonrei:
-
21
-------
1^1 \
LO \o r^
d to r-
CM CO tO
r~- LO ^f
o n
id
o
CJ
JH
0
4-i
C
H
D
f-i
C
o
2
, !
E
o
LO
C3^
to
^ '
C
H
CM
r 1
.t~;
t_>
00
C
CD
SH
^ 1
CO
rt
f-i
M
.*
<
^1
O O
© 0
1 1 1
CO
a-i
CM
O
O
4-i
H
0
£
O
2
^
CJ
^t~
LO
CM
v '
C
. i
C
i i
t-C7
, \
E
o
to
.
c
CM
^ '
c
H
oo
, N
E
o
CM
LO
r (
^ '
C
rH
4->
00
C
o
cO
4->
X
U-4
T3
CD
CJ
J-i
0
4-i
C
H
CD
f-,
C
O
2
/ N
E
CJ
LO
c
to
^ /
.
c
H
CM
! 1
r-;
M
OO
p
CD
fn
4_)
CO
t3
f_i
o3
T3
C
cO
ij
CO
T3
CD
CJ
£_i
0
4-1
C
iH
CD
£H
C
O
^
, s
E
CJ
to
0
CM
V /
C
H
oc
wr"t
4->
00
C
CD
f-i
4_i
cr>
T3
f_i
cO
T3
cO
CO
1
id
CD
O
fH
0
H-i
c
i
CD
f-i
C
O
, N
E
U
CM
LO
i-H
v. /
.
C
H
vC
J2
^_»
00
c
CD
f_i
4-»
CO
13
I*
cO
13
p^
cO
CO
1
~(
-O
^!
-H
f-i fn CD CD
CD CD 4-* 4->
4-1 4_> 0 O
CD CD E E
E E cO cO
cO cO -H -H
H -H Q Q
f~i Q
/ \ i \
, v , ^ g g
E E o cj
CJ CJ
^f" LO
CM to
LO C
LO C CM to
i i CM v ' v '
* ' \ '
. .
C P
C C -H -H
H -I-H
C CM
\£5 OO i 1 i 1
n < 0
-
i
o <±> o o o c
to
CM
-
C
o o o o o
O 0 O C O
LO rf to CM , i
X
03
C.
v '
CD
E
rH
c
o
H
cO
£
00
CD
f-i
E
i i
QJ
6 CD
H OH
4-) -H
a
c
O T3
H QJ
4-i a
cO >-i
C 0
&o u-i
0) C
f. ,_J
rH n
ex QJ
B n
H C
0
O
C 0
O "4-1
H
4-1 CO
cj 13
C 5-i
3 cO
cO cO
i
CO CO
CO
C
CO O
4-J «H
CO 4-1
QJ CO
4-1 O
H
COD 4-<
C -H
H a
V-l QJ
co ex
QJ CO
QJ QJ
QJ CO
QJ CX
>-i 6
rZ O
H O
3
GO
H
PN
22
-------
6,000r
5,000
4,000
C/l
E-
txO
C <->
o3 ^
« £ 3,000
^ c
o
£
2,000
1,000
A
o
/
0
0
°
0
S
New 12 in. (30.5 cm)
Diameter Pipe
O nonreinforced/impregnated
A reinforced/impregnated
Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Class IV
Class III "
Class II
Class I
% Sulfur Absorption
Figure 8. Three edge b.earing test as a function of sulfur
absorption compared to reinforced pipe specifications
72.95
58.36
43.77 E
.18
.59
10
23
-------
looor
800
600
M
PH
400
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
/
o
D
6.890
5.512
4.13-4
a.
2.756
200
1.378
10 15 20
% Absorption with Sulfur
Figure 9. Modulus of rupture for porous concrete specimens
as a function of sulfur absorption
24
-------
SECTION 8
ECONOMIC TRADEOFFS
The dramatic strength improvement provided by sulfur impregnation leads
to the possibility that impregnation of concrete pipe could provide more than
adequate strength at lower pipe costs.
This could be achieved in a number of ways, from reducing material costs
to reducing weight and ultimately reducing transportation costs, to allowing
longer lengths and hence lower installation costs. The principal costs to be
addressed will consider reducing material costs and reduced weights to reduce
transportation costs.
To discuss in great detail the economics of concrete pipe would require
proprietary information which was neither sought nor desired. For purposes
of this discussion, however, general figures would suffice as long as there is
a considerable difference in cost between impregnation and the other systems
of reinforcement or strength improvement. These data are presented for 12 in.
(30.5 cm) and 27 in. (68.6 cm) diameter pipe which are at this time, thought
to be the extremes of the most promising sizes to immediately benefit from
sulfur impregnation. Certainly greater economic benefit would be realized in
the larger diameter pipe, perhaps to 48 in. (122 cm) diameter and this should
ultimately be pursued.
In the first consideration the reinforcing steel would simply be elim-
inated and the standard wall thickness would remain the same. The pipe would
be impregnated to give strength improvements comparable to those presented
earlier in Figures 7 and 8. This then becomes an economic tradeoff between
the cost of steel and the cost of sulfur. A comparison of these material
costs is presented in Tables 7 and 8.
The data in Tables 7 and 8 are presented for both Class III and Class V
pipe for each of the two diameters considered. The materials savings for the
12 in. (30.5 cm) diameter pipe range from 14 to 27 cents per linear foot
(30.5 cm) of pipe or put another way, from 56 cents to $1.08 per 4 ft (1.22 m)
joint of pipe. The savings for the larger diameter pipe are greater, ranging
from 83 cents to $2.08 per linear foot (30.5 cm) or $6.64 to $16.64 per 8 ft
(2.6 m) joint. These greater savings in the larger diameter pipe are due to
the fact that the quantity and hence cost of reinforcing steel rises
dramatically as the pipe diameter increases.
An alternative to sulfur impregnation for strength improvement would be
to increase the wall thickness. To obtain strengths comparable to those from
25
-------
co
£>
2
0
rH
E <
< CO
2 CO
cj m
PJ 2
oS 1^
OH CJ
2 rH
h- 1 2C
C «
OS
^3 > 3
PH l-J
3 3=
CO
CJ OS
2 E-
. , ^^
co PJ
^
OS
CO O
CJ
2 -J
rH PJ
> PJ
< H
co co
CO CJ
i-J 2
<£ HH
HH CJ
OS OS
PJ O
E~* PH
^ 2
^^ h~H
PJ
OS
r-!
PJ
t_3
OQ
P CO
PJ CO
1
P! rH
O O rH
CJ P cj
3=
4-1 CD
O P CD
CD rH
P rH XI
to o 3
o o
CJ Q
to
rH CO
co bfl
H p!
rH -H
CD >
P CO
co co
S
4-H rH
O 3
4-H
1 * |M^
to 3
O CO
CJ
C X
4-H -H rH
o o \
rH **-
P O LO
tO 4-1 CM
O p!
CJ -H <3)
CD
OS
bO
C
H
4-1 CJ rH
O rH CD
O CD
4-1 p
P P! CO
3= -H
OS
to
to
CD
rH P!
cj o
3= -H
r"l
H
to
to
CO
CJ
rH
CD
CD P
PH CD
*rH EH
OH CO
H
Q
P
4-1
5 rH CM
oj r-
CD
C
H
rH
P
4-H
rH OO
CO 00
CD
P:
H
rH
-^
V*
P
4-H
rH ^t" t^
Cj rH CN
CD
H
rH
\,
V5-
.
p
rH SO SO
Cj rH i 1
CD
H
rH
W-
P
4-1
rH O tO
CO tO rt
CD
H
rH
v^
V3-
«
P
rH
oj CN r^
CD
P! rH rH
H
i 1
^
rH
. .
c c
H -H
CM CM
HH
HH
HH ;>
. .
PI C
H -H
CM CM
rH rH
rH
T^-
.
CM
00
CO
CM
to oo
00 O
, ,
CM
r^ r~--
^j~ ^3"
9 ,
O LO
tO LO
. .
rH CN
rH CM
LO O
l 1
. .
C P!
H -H
_!. _^.
«« ^V^
rH rH
1 I
to to
HH
HH
HH ;>
. .
c c
H -H
t~~- t"^
CM CM
co
I>
2
O
HH
H
< CO
2 CO
CJ PJ
PJ 2
OS ^4
OH CJ
S n
HH X
H
OS
^3 »-J
PH nJ
co "*
os
CO O
CJ
2 i J
HH pj
> PJ
P co
oj co
S
C f"H
O O rH
CJ P CO
jg
4-1 CD
O P CD
CD rH
P rH X
to o p
O O
CJ Q
CO
rH CO
cj b/
H p;
rH -H
CD >
P CO
CO CO
s
s
rH
) co r-
CD to
c
H CM
i 1
^v^
ee-
e
rH
cj O~>
CD OO
P!
H CN
I 1
^^
*9-
S
rH
cj sO CT)
CD ^- OO
P!
H
rH
v^
(^T)
4-1 rH
0 3
P rH
to 3
O CO
CJ
bO
pj b^G
4-1 *H ,X
O 0 ^v.
rH ~y-
P O LO
to 4^ CN
0 C
CJ -H C2J
CD
OS
g
rH
CO CN CN
CD LO LO
c
H
i 1
»^^_
^9"
E
rH
CO
CD
P! 00 rH
H O~> ^t
i I
*v^ rH
bO
C
H
4-1 O rH
O rH 0
O CD
4-1 P
P P! CO
3= -H
CD
os
£2
t_ i
CJ
CD 00 LO
P:
H rH CN
rH
^^
bO
to
CO
CD
*~* C
CO O
3= -H
H
to
co
rt
CJ
rH
CD
CD .»_>
PH CD
CX cl
H
Q
S E
0 0
rH rH
.
LO LO
HH
HH >
c e
0 0
LO LO
o o
to to
rH
C7i
.
[^
LO
.
O)
to to
r^ oo
CM \O
^4. ^H-
LO LO
rH rH
t^- h~~
CN tO
H- 00
SO CM
t^ LO
rH
e E
0 0
to to
« .
oo oo
HH
HH
HH |>
S E
O O
\o \o
00 00
vO SO
26
-------
impregnation would require doubling the wall thickness. These costs are also
included in Table 7 and it can be seen that the savings using sulfur impreg-
nation are even more favorable than in eliminating the reinforcing steel. The
concrete costs used for this comparison were $30 per cubic yard (.76 m3) for a
1:3 mix.
A second consideration would be to retain the reinforcing steel and
reduce the wall thickness by half. When impregnated, the pipe would still
meet strength specification. This assumes, of course, that a concrete pipe
with half the normal wall thickness would still have enough green strength to
be handled. The material savings on concrete would then amount to approxi-
mately $1.37 less 27$ for sulfur impregnation, giving a net materials savings
of $1.10 per 4 ft (1.2m) joint of 12 in. (30.5 m) pipe. Concrete savings
of $9.50 less $1.90 for sulfur impregnation would give a net savings of $7.60
per 8 ft (2.4 m) joint of 27 in. (8.2 cm) pipe. In addition, this pipe would
weigh approximately half that of the conventional pipe and as a result,
freight costs would be cut in half.
Pipe is shipped and freight is paid on a weight basis. In other words
if the pipe weight could be cut in half without sacrificing quality or
strength, twice as many pipe could be shipped by the same truck, reducing
freight costs to 1/2.
Other potential areas of savings using sulfur impregnated pipe would be
in cement costs if leaner concrete mixes could be used. Another potential
area of savings would be in reduced labor costs if the strength improvement
from impregnation were great enough to allow joints of twice the conventional
length to be manufactured.
The really significant advantage of using sulfur, however, is in the
fact that sulfur will be readily available in contrast to ever increasing
shortages of steel and cement, not to mention escalating prices. The
Department of Energy estimates that the sulfur available in 1985 from coal
gasification/liquefaction will be 84 million tons/year (7.6xl06 Kg/year) and
an annual consumption in this country of 12 million tons (1.1x10 Kg). By
the year 2000 there should be 156 million tons (1.4X1011 Kg) available
annually. Thus in a world where supplies are constantly shrinking, sulfur
offers the potential of growing availability.
In addition, EPA has estimated that over 90,000 miles of new sewage col-
lection pipe, at a cost of approximately $17 billion, would be required na-
tionally by 1990. In developing these costs, it was assumed that conventional
materials and construction methods would be used to manufacture the sewer pipe,
Obviously, even a minor improvement in these methods could result in a sig-
nificant savings in the overall Construction Grants program and, thus, ul-
timately to the individual tax payer.
27
-------
00 O
CM
rH
r^
O
rH
cn
00
.
o
co 2:
H CD
rH rH
CO P,
-J oj
<£ co ^0
l"*"l
Q
*£ rH
X rH
rH Q LO
Q IZ
p^| rH
w
a, c£
a, o
< tU Tfr
co
w
CO
i-J to
§
<
CM
rH
r^ oo o
LO
r*^ CD
vO LO O
LO
CM O
r^ vo CD
^
CM O
r-- to o
^H/
CM O
f~- LO O
LO
'st O
.
t^ v^ CD
CM O
r^ t^ CD
to
rH 0
1^ rH O
O O
r-- oo o
rH/
LO rH
t^ -st O
LO
00 O
*
CM r^ o
^i"
CM CM
t^s, fsj CD
^O
f N
nJ ,N CD
\ -J >
b/) \^ «H
£ &0 4-J
v-/ E nJ
V"-""/ ^
Crt rH
to
H
to
X
rt
5
0 t/5 CD
T3 CD V)
rH -H fH
0 <4H 0,
rH rH
X -C 3 0
PH U CO 2
LO
^
O
o
LO
o
r--
00
l^
Tt
tv>-
LO
00
oo
f^,.
00
oo
00
oo
LO
cn
o
rH
O
*
rH
0
t^
^
^^
bO
E
^^ ^
to
CD
&
rH
CO
'sT
rH
rH
VD
LO
rH
00
vO
CM
to
^-
'^-
oo
00
00
o
CM
^
vO
CM
vO
00
cn
TJ
CD
""O f \
C nJ
PI^ bO
v) E
CO
rH 13
Oj -H
P rH
O O
E- CO
t^
10
r~-
LO
CM
M
to
O
rr
to
c'\
o
1^
o
[S,.
o
r:
^t
.
LO
r--
to
LO
\o
r-
,-j! ^Q
vO
c
CD
bO
X
X
/ > ^^^
j"
CD bO -4-1
> E -H
rH , \ ' ' C/)
O -J O
C/) ^^^ LO PH
to bo Q E
HE O O
Q v ' CQ U
E
O
fn
^
Cj
CD
^
CD
H
fn
Q
CD
CD CD
P >
OJ -H
0 rH
OJ Q
rH
C oj
H W
c
CD CD
C CQ
H
rH O
^
'iT to
O AS
0
LO Oj
rH
O P
to
J
o
C rH
H rH
H
CM Oj
rH rH
o
^ E
E
PH
PH
O
O rH
rH *
rH rH
LO LO
t^ tSN^
1 1
t^ 00
1 1
LO LO
. ,
CD
i i
CTJ
a
CD
rH
g
CO
28
-------
CM
rH
rH
o
rH
CTl
00
o
p**!
F
CD
rH
PH
£
cd
CO v£>
LO
rj-
to
CM
rH
CM
OO rH
vO
vO
CTl \O
LO
00
CTl rH
^
LO VO
rH \Q
rH
,-
rH CM
rH Is-
LO
Is-- *^
to
LO
Is- 00
to
LO
Is- CTl
to
00
"
Is- OO
^t"
oo
Is rH
Is-
Is vO
LO
00
Is-- I**-
LO
/^~~\,
^
bO
e
X '
to
Analysis
PH
Chloride
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
*
o
o
o
o
0
/-> CD
-J >
"--. -H
bO P
S cd
" £
Sulfides
No Prese
tO Tt
LO 00
rH O
\D OO
rH
0 0
CM 00
rH
CM CN
rH CTl
rH rH
LO VO
O 00
rH CM
Is-- CM
Is rH
\Q O
I-~- CM
tO CM
r~- "^t
r-- ^j-
LO LO
LO CM
rH 0
oo oo
r-- CM
LO rH
rH
I CD
~~- ""U ' x
bp fi _]
& CD \
^ PH bO
g
Sulfates
Total Su
Solids (
00
Tj-
o
LO
CTl
00
o
oo
r-
Is-
o
Is-
00
vO
CTl
^Jr
r--
"
CM
O
to
v£>
T^-
rH
T^
C
CD
bO
X
X
o
T3
Dissolve
(mg/L)
O
rH
rH
_!
\ CD
bfl P
e -H
^ ' in
o
in PH
Q e
O 0
OQ U
f~~n
e
cd
o
o
rH
v
LO
|
CTl
1
LO
0
p
6
P
o
o
CM
rH
LO
1
oo
i
LO
CD
P
cd
Q
CD
i l
P-
CO
CM
rH
i-H
rH
O
rH
CTl
OO
O
2
CD
rH
e
cd
CO vD
LO
^-f-
to
CM
, 1
CM
Is- CM
"fr
CM
Is- CM
CM
Is CTl
to
CM
Is- CM
^
CM
I--- CM
r^-
CM
.
t-~» \o
OO
CM
.
Is- CM
H/
CM
r- c--
LO
CM
Is-- CM
Is-
rH
Is- \O
^0
0
r- oo
t--
o
Is- LO
TH/
rH
^ -^
^
bO
^
in
to
H
X
rH
cd
pH
Chloride
o
.
O Is-
r-
o
o to
00
o
O LO
00
o
o to
OO
o
O rH
oo
o
.
o to
oo
o
.
O LO
OO
o
O CM
00
o
O LO
r
o
O rH
^
o
O 00
o
^D r*^-
^o
t-j C?
bfl bQ
^ ^/ v^,^/
Sulfides
Sulfates
^-J.
CTl
^^
^*O
CM
LO
CM
LO
CM
vO
00
^-J.
o
rH
O
00
I 1
CM
LO
rH
"3-
1 1
rH
CM
to
rH
O
OO
rH
CD
13 < x
CD \
3 v '
CO
rH 13
Cd 'H
4-> rH
O O
H CO
O
\o
to
MD
^.
.
vO
t^
\o
^
v^
^o
.
\£)
f-^
g
o
cd
o
o
00 O
rH
LO
CTl 1
o
\O rH
1
LO
^ 0
p
^~7
to
cd
o
o
rH rH
rH
rH
tO LO
1
CTl
C i
CD LO
bO
X
X
O ^v CD
-] p
riC3 "**'*"%. CD cd
CD bO -P Q
> £ -H
rH f > ^-s m CD
0 *J 0 rH
to bO Q E g
H g O O cd
Q V_^ 03 r_j ^
29
-------
CM
rH
rH
0
rH
cn
00
0
l^
CD
tt
i*
cd
CO v£>
LO
^h
to
CM
rH
rH O
r^ o o
Tj*
rH O
r- r^ o
to
rH O
t^- O O
Tf
rH O
r-- cn o
to
rH O
t-^ en o
to
rH O
r--* F^ ^^
to
rH 0
r- o o
^3-
rH O
^ LO O
^j-
0 0
r- to o
^f
0 0
t^~ \o o
t~^
o o
r-« ^j- o
cn
00 O
^Q ^J" O
vO
^-v
H-3 ^""N
\ i-J
bo ^^
H
CO
X
rH
cd
E g>
to
CD CO
""O CD
H T3
O S .H
CO rH , \ v ' CO
rH T3 O i-J O
cd -H (/) -^ in PL|
P rH CO bO Q E
O O -H B O O
E ' CO Q ^ ' CQ U
^
g
cd
o
o
rH
cl/
LO
1
rH
,4
1
LO
O
p
, ^
c
o
o
e
o
o
CM
v_^
LO
1
O
rH
1
LO
CD
P
cd
Q
i i
PH
CO
CM
rH
rH
rH
O
it
cn
00
o
^ ^
CD
PH
e
o3
CO vO
LO
rj-
to
CM
rH
CM
.
t^ rH
LO
rH
t-- o
LO
to
.
t-- en
LO
^-
r~~ rH
\^
^o
00 LO
LO
O
r^ r~-
to
o
.
r-- to
to
o
r--' ^r
to
o
t~^~ o
to
0
r- en
CM
en
vO 00
CM
00
\O 00
to
^-^
, ~]
^^
bO
to
H
to
X
,1
cd
CO
CD
H
o
rH
3C rC
PH CJ)
O
.
O 1
o
O 1
o
O 1
o
O 1
o
O 1
0
O 1
0
0 1
o
O 1
o
O 1
o
O 1
0
0 1
o
O 1
^-^ /'~~1\
,-J _J
''x^ *v^
bo bfl
co co
0 CD
-d P
H Cd
rH rH
co co
to
O vO
to
to
^
O vO
\Q
to
LO
oo r^
CM
to
t^
oo r^
to
to
^
OO vO
rH
o ^o
LO
cn
O vO
\o
0
\o r^^'
^o
t^
i
\D \O
LO
\o
c
\O LO
\o
o
,
vO LO
LO
vO
CM \O O
to o
^1-
J-H
"d CD
CD bfl
rn 13 X
CD ^- O f~ N
pi ( tuO tJ
to S 13) \ CD
3 ^^ CD bO p
CO > E -H
CO rH / s v ^ tO
rH rrj Q ,J Q
Cd -H to ^»>» m f!X|
P rH to bfl Q B
O O -H S O O
E- CO Q v ' CQ U
,*.
^
.
cd
0
o
rH
rH
LO
1
CM
rH
1
LO
o
^ N
p<
o
o
o
o
CM
rH
LO
'Y
rH
rH
1
LO
CD
P
cd
Q
CD
rH
CO
30
-------
CM
r^
O
rH
O1
00
.
O
CD
rH
rt vo
CO
LO
^
to
CM
rH
CM
^'
IO
r^.
LO
t~-~
00
cn
to
o
rH
CM
r^'
cn
vO
.
vO
00
vO
^
vO
vO
vO
^
vO
Analysis
ex
CM
vO
CM
LO
rH
LO
r-
vO
00
^Q
1 1
^^"
to
^
00
LO
LO
I 1
LO
CM
vO
Chlorides (mg/L)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O £
rt
p
0
-------
*!.
X
rH
Q
§
OH
(X
CM
O
en
oo
Q
CD
[ 1 ,__j
0 &
U oi v£>
* ' CO
co
E-
t H
co LO
tH*
-J
too ^~»
E too
v~- ' E
v '
00
H
X
rH
1
CD t/)
13 CD
H 13
o 4-t
rH rH
ac x 3
fX C_J CO
en
en
o
en
o
en
en
en
0
rH
,-j.
0
rH
^
OO
o
en
to
en
to
CO
, N
i3
"^^
too
S
v '
to
CD
M
rt
UH
rH
CO
oo
rH
0
to
CM
O
rH
O
rH
rH
LO
to
\0
t**.
to
v£)
O
to
o
en
CM
^0
vO
^^
^J.
rH
^t
13
CD
13 ^
C -J
CD \,
p , fO
00 £
CO
rH 13
Oj -H
M rH
0 0
E-1 CO
rH
LO
to
r-
r-
LO
rH
r-
^
^'
c
rJ
oo
I\
to
oo
LO
t^'
co
I~^- O
r^-
CM
c
CD
bO
X
X
O r~,
_j
13 \ CD
CD too -M
> S -H
o C? o
t/J ^ in p.
w to Q E
H E o 0
ine near Showbend Drive and Symphony
rim Miller Pump Station
rH ^-3
r^ CD
E X
O -M
rl- 13
LO -H
CM X
^ ' CD
C >
H CD
o cd
rH i_J
O
4-1
/ ^ ^_^
§a
0
C oJ
o o
o o
CM rH
rH rH
LO LO
t^ r^
i i
LO VO
rH rH
| |
LO LO
CD
P
oj
Q
CD
p|
03
CO
32
-------
CM
rH
i-H
1 1
o
i-H
en
00
* t^
o
CD
i-H
g"1
m ^
co
LO
^3"
to
CM
i-H
^t o
r~"^ \& co
rf
LO O
r- to o
T^~
^t O
r-. CM o
TJ-
^t o
r^ to o
^j-
-* o
r^ LO o
"^
LO O
t-^ LO o
^f
LO O
r~- en o
"*
LO O
r-- CM o
LO
LO O
r^ \o co
rj-
\D O
r^ LO o
^3"
LO O
r- LO o
^3"
^ o
r-~ to o
^
^^
i-J /< \
^^ i-J
bQ ^N,
£ bC
^ S
^ '
01
H
01
X
i-H
03
01
CD 01
T3 CD
H T3
rH -H
O MH
rH i-H
a: x: P
ex u co
to
o
rH
^O
oo
\D
00
LO
en
\o
en
rH
O
i 1
o
o
rH
rH
en
00
en
r-.
en
0
en
^D
en
, v
_3
*^.
bO
S
v-^
01
CD
P
oj
i-H
co
LO
CM M3
rH
LO
CM
oo r~-
en
rH
en
CO t^*
r^
to
^t- oo
o
rH
rH
oo oo
to
i-H
^
vO l^
en
CM
CM
CO t^
i-H
to
00
00 vO
rH
en
\O ^J"
i-H
to
LO
oo r--
^)-
CM
CM
CM [^
^O
to
r-
o r^ o
t"~~ T^-
r-- to
C
13 0
CD bO
T O /^~\ ^»
C i5 X
CD \ O / \
ex bO i3
W1 6 TJ ^-^ CD
3 v ' CD bO P
CO > S -H
01 rH / v ^-S 01
rH T3 O t-J O
oj -H 01 -^s. ^ ex
+-> i 1 01 bfl Q g
O O -H S O O
H CO Q v ' OQ CJ
, ^
e
03
O
O
rH
^
LO
f-~-
1
J^*
|HH^
1
LO
o
4.)
^
O
o
e
o
0
CM
i-^
v '
LO
1
rH
1
LO
. .
CD
P
03
Q
CD
rH
ex
i
co
CM
rH
rH
rH
O
rH
en
oo
o t--
CD
ex
e
CO
LO
1^
to
CM
rH
«3" o
. .
F^- r^* CM
^
^t" ^O
. .
h- en I-H
to
^t en
r-- LO o
-*
^r en
. .
r-~ CM o
^
"* r--
r^ oo o
^
^t 00
r~^ \Q co
vsO
^t r^
r^ CM o
*>
^f \O
.
r-~ CM o
LO
rj- to
r^ en o
LO
* 00
t^ to o
\Q
to LO
.
r^ to o
LO
CM CM
r^- CM o
LO
f ^
i-3 i \
""^ i3
bO *^>.
6 bfl
v ' G
^ '
01
H
01
^
i-H
Oj
e
01
CD W1
'O e -H
rH / * *-- ' 01
O .-3 O
01 ^-^ m Pi
01 bO Q S
H e o o
Q ^-^ CO C_J
, ^
6
oj*
O
O
rH
rH
LO
r-~
i
oo
i
LO
O
P
'c"
o
o
0
o
CM
tt
\ /
LO
^
rH
1
LO
. .
CD
P
03
O
CD
rH
1
CO
33
-------
CM
rH
rH
O
"I
CT>
00
O l~~-
CD
r (
PH
6
OJ v£3
CO
LO
^t
to
CN
rH
o
t~~- ^
^
o
r^ LO
^3"
o
r^ ^t
^
cn
\o o
^
cn
\D CM
^
cn
VO ^
cn
\o ^.o
^^"
cn
^o 0*1
^
cn
VO rH
LO
oo
vO OO
to
cn
"
vO LO
LO
oo
vO tO
*sl"
Analysis
PH
Chlorides (mg/L)
oo
rH LO
I
0
tO LO
r^
to
CN t^
^
rH
tO vO
vO
O
to o
oo
CN
LO LO
00
CM
CN LO
00
Tt
CM OO
oo
Cn
rH 00
cn
o
CM LO
LO
rH O
oo
o
CM tO
vO
Sulfides (mg/L)
Sul fates (mg/L)
00
CM
CM
^0
rH
CM
O
rH
vO
1^
rH
oo
-NJ"
r~H
O
cn
t^-
o
LO
CM
vO
rH
O
CM
CN
vO
O
CN
CN
*3"
CM
^t
vO
CN
Total Suspended
Solids (mg/L)
oo
^t-
oo
LO
CM
vO
to
r--
to
i^
to
^
rH
vO
CM
LO
to
LO
to
^
\o
CN
oo
CN
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/L)
o
to
to
BOL>5 (.mg/L)
Composite
, N
e
Oj
0
O
1 1
^
LO
h--
1
cn
i i
i
LO
o
c
o
o
c
o
o
CN
^
LO
I" ~
1
oo
1
LO
CD
-M
03
Ci
rH
PH
E
oJ
CO I
CM
rH
i (
rH
0
rH
cn
CO
O t~-~
CD
iH
PH
E
o3 \O
CO
LO
T^-
to
CN
rH
CM LO
r~~- vo to
to
CM CM
r~- co to
rj-
rH ^«
. .
t^ \O CM
to
rH cn
t~~~- ^jr o
^j-
CN LO
r- co o
rj-
CN \O
r- CM o
rH \O
. 1
r^ co to
CM CO
. ,
I^- O to
LO
rH O
,
r-- LO to
to
rH vO
r^ ?} CM
to
O vO
»
t~~~ \£) CM
to
oo to
vO O CN
LO
Analysis
PH
Chlorides (mg/L)
Sulfides (mg/L)
t^. oo
cn to
rH
CN "vj-
cn o
rH
r CD
00 vO
rH
OO O
00 CM
CM
t^ ^j.
00 -^t
to
vO 00
to
LO CM
00 \O
CN
CN 00
r- cn
o oo
LO CM
r-- LO
CM O
00 v£>
o o
cn LO
to
Sul fates (mg/L)
Total Suspended
Solids (mg/L)
v£>
LO
to
IT,
to
LO
vC
LO
Cxi
vC
CN
vO
to
LO
v£>
LO
a-
,
LO
04
vo'
rH
vO
rH
\o o
LO
CM
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/L)
BOD5 (mg/L)
Composite
f
.
&
rrj
. ,
o
rH
rH
LO
1
rH
CM
1
LO
O
r<
H
O
Q
O
0
Cxi
rH
LO
t--
1
o
1
LO
CD
P
Q
CD
rH
PH
B
aj
CO
34
-------
CM
> <
r^
O
iH
cn
oo
O f^
z
o
rH
i4
Oj sO
co
LO
^t
to
CM
rH
rH
f -v
03
O
o
r^
' '
LO
r~^-
i
CM
CM
1
LO
o
LO O 00 4-)
t^- rH O CM CM O , >
"3- 00 O 4->
rH _<~'l
rH GO
H
C
"^ O CO -X)
H
t^ to o CM CM o E
** 00 LO
t^- o
o
oo o o~t rsi
sOsOOCnn- rt O x '
tO 00 sO O
r- CM LO
i
rH
CM
^ C 1
i J / \ / x TJ
w to E *"d ^>. (L> cd
0) W W 3 v ' Q
T3 O E -H
H"d4-> t/)r_(/^ ^ \~r u)
oo
O t^»
-^
sO sO
to
/ \
J
00
£
H
10
X
ol
pH
Chlorides
CN
o
to
o
^
o
CM
O
0
o
0
o
00
rH
LO
O
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
0
r \
Kj
00
E
Sulfides (
SO
O
rH
SO
0
rH
00
CTi
^
CT>
r^
CTi
rH
0
rH
rH
O
rH
LO
O">
IO
00
CM
00
l^
oo
rH
00
, N
_J
oo
e
Sulfates (
CM
LO
rH
0
to
CM
00
0
LO
CM
5
00
00
sO
CM
SO
O
CM
00
rH
to
^
LO
rH
OO
rH
rH
SO
,3-
CJi
sO
T3
(D
T3 f~\
C -J
CM
*=t
^
O
sO
0
t^
sO
sO
LO
sO O
rH
to
p;
tu
00
X
X
O /-^
_J
T3 "\
> S -H
rH r, ^s
Cti
Q
rH
rt
co
35
-------
<£
X
rH
Q
2
LU
Cu
Cu
<
r~N tO
Q
O
H 2
2
O --/ PH
co e3
P4 CO
E-
rH CM
CO
_J
<3j
l~*i
Q
i i
£>
rH
Q
2
rH
C*
0
LO
t-^ LO
rH
rH
^t
r- o
00
UH
CO
PJ
co
_J
<£
2;
/
y)
(S)
H
V)
X
rH
Cj
C
<1> CO > S -H T3
P (/) rH ,. x v ^ (/) -H
CTj i 1 T3 O J O rH
4-t rt-H t/5--^. LnOnO
rH 4-* rH (/) DO Q E 3
P OO'HgOOrH
CO HCO Q ' CQ U IX,
1/5
oj
rH
rH
rt
Q
f-i
Q
rH
rH
OJ
c
.
£
PH
0
o
00
v /
o
^
^~N
6
PH
O
to
CN
00
r--
i
to
CN
1
rH
s
03
Q
CL)
rH
PH
TO
CO
36
-------
^J"
to
o
2:
CD
rH
PH
E
Oj
CO
CM
rH
H
to
X
rH
Oj
, ^
LO o cn CM E
. .
r^ o o vD Tj- cn o rH p ,
rH tO O ^t
CM tO tO CM O
0
CM
v '
O
tO O ^t to ,-,
t~^ O O rH O O rH £
cn oo CM rH
CM tO Oj
o
o
en
oo
4
CN
' > C i
i-J / -\ /- \ rQ CD i \ rH
~~^ >-J i-J CD DO p-J
DO "-». "* ""U <- \ X "^v.
EDODOCJX DO--
^ £ £ CD \ O / > E CD
v ' v ' PH DO H 3 v ' 4->
to to E ""O ~~ . CD crj
CD to to 3 ^ CD DO-PCD Q
T3 CD CD CO > E-HT3
H "d »-> to rH / N v ' to -H 0
?H -H Cti r- ( T3 O 1-J OrH rH
O t4-( t^_( nJ . H (/) *^. m p., O PH
rHrHrH+-)rH tOOJ)QE 3 E
ErC P 3 OO'HEOOrH Cti
P-,O CO CO HCO Q v ' OQ U ti. CO
r^-
to
o
CD
I t
PH
E
cti
CO
CM
rH
H
to
X
rH
Oj
1
^t rH
O LO O LO OO
rH VO rH O
LO cn
tO rH
cn o o CM o
oo o n-
t^ cn
to o
vO LO O t^ CM
cn to ^t
tO rH
LO O
o o o o ^j-
-t o to cn
rH tO LO
, ^
>-J /-~\ r~~\ T3
^^ J J CD
DO "^^x ***» TJ
E DO DO C
v ' E E CD
^ v ' PH
to w
CD W tfl 3
T3 CD CD CO
H T3 +->
r-l -H Oj i 1
O 4-1 tj_i oJ
i 1 rH i 1 4->
n: x 3 3 o
PH O CO CO H
1 1
o o
rH Tf
rH
^
O
rH
cn
cn
rH
cn
C
CD
oo
/""""^ ^\
J X
\ O ^
t^O [ "]
E T3 ^. CD
x ' CD DO 4->
> E -H
tO rH , v * ' t/)
T3 O > 3 O
H tO Ln p |
rH t/) 00 Q E
O -HE O O
CO Q ^ CQ C_3
O
rH
O
rH
0
.
rH
rH
rH
, ^
rJ
DO
v '
CD
H
rH
rH
PL,
E
Cu
O
to
. .
rH
rH
1
E
PH
O
o
2,
1
, N
.
E
oj
0
to
o
ci/
^~,
£
oj
O
O
£
oo
LO
CM
1
rH
CD
OS
a
CD
rH
PH
W
OJ
CO
37
-------
Tf
to
o
2
O
rH
C,
E
rt
CO
(N
rH
to
r^ o
0
rH
rH
r- c
o
rH
LO
r-- o
c
rH
TTJ-
»
r*** ^D
c
rH
/ \
t_3
1 ..
00
E
75
H
75
X
rH
ed
C
75
O
H
rH
rH
"£. C3
to
o
CM
0
CN
o
rH
C
/ v
_3
"--^
1°
*"* ^
V5
O
Sulfid
LO
CM
rH
OO
(N
LO
rH
to
to
c
C">
LO
r^
,_J
~~^
00
v^y
75
O
Sulfat
o
00
o
LO
CsJ
(N
rH
to
^
r*»
CM
"O
o
" sj /*"N
C -3
^^ ^0
1/5 xE
CO
Total
Solids
en
c o
rH tO
rvj
^
rH
rH
0
0
rH
00
c
rH
C
o
00
X
X
o /->
J_J
T3 \ 0
O 5Q 4->
> E -H
rH / > ^-^7)
O J O
75 \ in CX
75 CO CJ E
H E O O
S '^ SO C_3
OO "*"
o
C to
OO
v- '
1
l N
e
^
o ""
o
to
r\J
v '
1
t
.
oo E
o ex.
o
o
r-H
1
r- ^
E
o
rt
0
^
r-H
OO
II
o
OJ
1
f~~\ r-H
_3
«
00
E O
^"~"/ 4^
rt
o o
-" O
rH rH
O C.
3 E
< rt
co
^j-
to
o
z:
o
rH
e
Cj
CO
(N
p H
LO O
t^- LO O rH
C*, LO
^j-
\O rH
1^ O O (N
c r-
rH t^^
tO rH
. .
r~^ O C rH
c^ *~*
^
rH O
r^ LO c c^
C^i O
, ^
, 1 , s
~v» i-J I-H
oo ^>.
E 00 00
^ E E
^*~S \^*S
.13
75
X
rH
rt
C
75
O 75 75
-o o o
i -3 -M
rH -H 03
O <+- . ^s.
c -J x
o ^>. o >->
rX 00 3
75 E T3 ^^ O
3 ^ O 00 -M
CO > E -<
75 rH r-^ ^-J tf
( T3 O J O
rt -H 75 ^^ in CH
+J rH 75 OO E
.OO -^ E O rO
00
.
r^
CT,
^.'
r~.
, .
oc
^
-.
^^
E
O
O
3
c
O
to
CO
1
^
E
^
^
to
CM
% '
1
B
E
_
'
^
to
00
1
/ v
,
e
rt
o
to
(N
00
1
Cxi
I
r-^
O
_rt
rH
if
CO
38
-------
^"
to
o
2:
0)
rH
CH
03
CO
CN
1 1
0 0
CO O O LO
r-H O
rH r 1
t^ O
r^ LO o CN
00 r-l
CN
to o
t^- o o to
Cn r 1
to
Analysis
pH
Chlorides (mg/LJ
Sulfides (mg/L)
Sulfates (mg/L)
o
CN
cn
CN
O
O
f 1
Total Suspended
Solids (mg/L)
0
i i
r 1
i 1
t 1
vO
O
1 1
Dissolved Oxyger
(mg/L)
co E
o o ex,
to
o
CO
cn
E
o
ex
o
to
CN
1
O f v
r-H E*
cx
0
o
r-H
CO
1
CO
CN
BOD5 (mg/L)
Composite
Fluoride (mg/L)
Sample Date: 1-
-3-
to
.
Q
O
1 1
CX
CO
CN
t 1
LO
t*"* O
vO
LO
r- o
LO
r^ o
<=r
r- o
o
Analysis
pi I
Chlorides (mg/L)
o
O f-
00
o
0 r-l
cn
o
C 00
cn
.
2 0
i i
Sulfides (mg/L)
Sulfates (mg/L)
CN
LO
CN
^
00
o
1 1
Total Suspended
Solids (mg/L)
vO
O
1 1
vO
O
1 1
o
0
r-H
CN
f 1
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/L)
r-
o o
o
00
o
00
C
0
-<
B01)5 (mg/L)
Composite
Fluoride (mg/L)
E
CX
o
to
00
V /
1
/ N
E
0,
to
CN
v '
1
E
03
_
to
00
1
^-^
E
rt
C^
to
CN
CO
1
cn
CN
1
r- 1
o
o
ex
E
00
39
-------
PH
CO
^
to
CN
rH
r^- CN
Q
LO LO f^ \O O
VO P^j tO Csl rH
oo to
i I O *
t^ O O rH CM O
VD rH Ol rH
to
, , p;
i-J / \ /-~s T3 CD
^v. i-J 13 CD bO
bfl ^^v. "*»«, 'd /~ > X
E bfl bfl C ,-J X
^- ' g g CD ->s. O
Analysis
to I/) g T3
CD t/) to 3 ^ ' CD
Td
H T3 P tf) r-l s\
rH -H OJ rH Tj O i-J
O UH ^H nJ -H to ^^
rH rH rH P rH tO W)
rex 3 3 oo-Hg
PnCJ CO CO E-CO Q^-'
oo
S
0 0
oo nj
rH
O
to
co
* '
1
00 /-N
O £5*
aj
O
to
CM
v '
OO
r~~
i
o
i
' \ rH
l-J
-
CJ) '
^-N e
(NJ
CTi
p.
CD
bO
X
X
0
Dissolved
(mg/L)
CM
S
O rH
I^~ p ,
CN
O
O
oo
1
rH f-^
, ,
i S
.
PH
O
O
CM
1
rH
rH
g
aj
O
0
00
00
f^.
1
1
!_J
-^^
bO
^ S CD
i-J ^ ' p
^x CD aJ
bO -P CD Q
S -H T3
v ' (/) -H CD
0 H rH
m PH O PH
Q e 3 g
O O rH OJ
DQ LJ UH CO
40
-------
<
X
I-H
Q
Z
OH
O-
-
^ to
Q
H O
Z Z
o
U CD
PH
co 6
U4 03
E- CO
rH CM
CO
^
| i
Q
HH
(1
a
z
rH
c£
o
s
w
rt
rH
rH
Cj
Q
i
CD
rt
PH
CD
Z
O
CO
CT> i 1 \O / \
VOOOLOrH Tf O Q S
to oo oo o%
rH CM Z PH
o
0
Q
1
tO rH tO i \
r^oor^to vo Q E
to CT> CN
rH CM Z Oj
o
CO f>
w
£ -
< 00
Z r-
< 1
0
^ PH '
i-J , \ / N T3 CD '"^ to
\ _J _J CD W> i-1
GO "*^, *^x. *^3 A~^ X ^SN-
etxObflpSJX ^
^-^6S-J 4->
C/) t/1 £ rT*3 ^**1** C^ Cw
C/)
H
t/5
X
aJ
c
5
CD W t/) 3 v ' CD bO *-* CD Q
T3CDCDCO > S-HT3
HT3-P W i-H r-\ ^ ' tf) -H CD
r^-HrtrHTJOh-l OrH rH
O'+H'H-I CJ-H t/)^^ inp^O PH
rHrHrH-PrH V) 00 O B 3 B
E^^^OO-HSOOrH Cd
PHUCOCOHCOQV 'OQCJUn CO
41
-------
rt
to
*
O
2:
CD
rH
PH
E
c3
CO
CM
rH
LO
r^ o
CM
rH
CM
r- o
to
rH
to
r^ co
rH
rH
to
r^. LO
CM
rH
f ^
i-J
^s^.
bO
vE
Analysis
pH
Chlorides
rH O LO
.
O vO O LO O O
cn t^ vo
to
rH O \D
4
C^ C^^ l^~ vQ O>
to vD
rH CM
O ^jr \O
.
O vO LO vO O
LO 00
rH CM
rH Tj- f^
O \O LO vO O
tO rH
rH tO
£
f \ / "\ *"d CL) ' >
! 1 | 1 Q) ttQ , 1
"^ "~^ 'd ^ \ x "~~^
bO bO C _3 X bO
& G V ^ O r-v S
^ ' ^ PH bO J '
(/)(/) 3 * ' CD DO P D
CD CD CO > S -H -d
Td P t/) rH, x ^ ' (/) .H
HdJrH'dOi 3 Of-l
MH^H CTJ-H to-^^ mpnO
rHrHPrH tObOQg 3
3 3 OO-HEOOrH
CO CO HCO Q ^' CQ CJ -L,
E
PH
O
O
00
V J
1
t \
E
PH
O
O
eg
i
,,,
fi
O
O
0
o
CM
rH
^
S*
Oj
O
o
en
oo
i
rH
, (
1
to
a)
P
aj
Q
(!)
rH
PH
^rj-
to
o
CD
rH
PH
TO
CO
CM
rH
to oo
Q
r^ LO i i vo ^o
cr> 2; to r^
rH f^^
^^t" t^^ en
t^- LO O CN O LO
cn to \o
rH tO
^- LO O
.
r^ LO o ^ ^j" t--»
cn CM CM
rH Tj"
^- rH OO
r^ LO o cn ^t r--
t^- rH
rH
f ^ ,H
i-J i \ i \ T3 3 CD bO
E bO bO £ C? X
^ ' v / CL, bO
Analysis
w w E id
CD tfl to 3 v ' CD
Td CD CD CO >
H -d P t/) rH , v
rH -H CTj rH T3 O >-J
O ^ «W Oj -H tO \
rH rH rH P rH t/) bO
n:^ 3 3 oo -HE
PnU CO CO [-"CO Q1-^
.
E
00 PH
O O O
rH 0
rH
OO
1
^
cn E
. ,
0 PH
O
0
CM
I
N
0
E
rH
OJ
0
O
OO
CM ^-^
rH E
OJ
O
0
CM
00
1
CM
^H
/ x tO
..
bO
' ^ E CD
\ CD 0}
bO P (D Q
E -H T3
v ' t/) -H d>
O rH rH
irt P^ O PH
Q S 3 E
O O rH 05
CQ U UH CO
-------
Tf
to
o
z
CD
rH
PH
e
Oj
co
CM
,_,
*sj" O vO
. . .
t*-- LO rH \O *t LO
O CM CT>
rH rH CM
to h-~ O
. . *
r-- O O LO ^t LO
O ^ rH
rH rH CM
CM tO LO
.
t^~ LO O rH *Cf \D
O LO ^t
rH rH tO
O rH
r-» o i i oo vo O}
en CM en
2: rH rH
' s CH
"^ i5 i3 CD bO
bO ^^ *~ . ""O i \ X
g bo bo C J X
^ S 6 CD \ O
\ ' v ' p., bO
(/) to £ "O
to
H
to
X
rH
cd
5
CD in (A 3 ^ '
H T) -M tO rH , \
fn -H OJ rH T3 O ,-J
O MH MH rt -H to -^
rH i ( r I -M rH tO (30
X rC 3 3 0 0 -H S
PnU CO CO HCO Q ^^
^
o o
r--
o
rH
00
0
0)
o
f \
I_J
^_
e
I-J ^^ '
\ CD
bO -M CD
g -H T3
^ ' tO -H
O rH
tn pL, O
f~^ ^ ^3
O 0 rH
03 U PU
6
«
PH
0
o
oo
1
^7
e
PH
O
o
CM
1
, ^
e
nj
o
o
CO
1
^N
e
cj
o
o
CM
00
1
to
rH
1
to
CD
-M
CJ
a
CD
, 1
PH
£3
Gj
^j-
to
o
z
0
rH
PH
E
nj
CO
CM
,_,
o r^- to
. . .
r- 00 rH 00 CM CM O
o to LO ^t
rH rH rH rH
to to to
.
t^ O i 1 O OO t^-
o to en
rH rH CM
CM rH CO
.
t^ LO rH VO CM LO
O LO 00
rH rH 1^-
>-H LO en
r-- o o o oo r^-
en I-H \o
rH rH
>~^ c
.-j ^-N ^-N -d CD
^^ >-J _) CD bO
bO \ ^x» T3 / > X
g bO bO C J X
^-> < ' PH bO ^
in in G T3 "^^ CD
to
H
to
X
rH
rt
5
CDl/)to;3v-^CD b04->
-d CD CD co > £ -H
H-d-P tOrH, x v_^ (/J
rH-HOJrHT3Oi-J O
O ^H MH Oj -H tO ^-^ tn PH
rH rH rH 4->rH tObOd£
KX 3 3 OO-HgOO
PnU CO CO HCO Q^-^CQCJ
6
PH
o
o
o
CO
1
co
6
o
p-
o
o
«
CM
1
,. ^
r-~-
6
o
rt
o
0
00
,
vO / N
o s
aJ
o
o
CM
co
1
^f
r I
1
, 1
>^
bO
S CD
V» / 1 ^
aJ
CD Q
H CD
?H rH
O PH
rH C^
PU CO
43
-------
rj"
to
o
CD
rH
PH
E
CO
CM
,_,
CM
r^ CM
rH
rH
CM
h- LO
o
rH
rH
r^ oo
0
i i
0
t**^- ^^
O*i
t \
_J
v^
bO
E
\ >
to
to
H
to
X
rH
rt
5
CD
rrj
H
f_l
o
rH
oc x:
PH U
m
Q
2J
^
CM
Q
«
2
O
rH
r N
i_J
~x^_
bO
e
^- '
(O
CD
TJ
H
*-H
rH
CO
r-
vD
rH
VO
LO
rH
vO
^
rH
i 1
to
rH
f~^
i_j
"v^
bO
E
* '
to
CD
P
nj
MH
rH
CO
to
^ LO
LO
vO
1 1
00
VO Tt
LO
vO
rH
00
CM t^
tO
CT>
rH
VO
CM 00
OO
CM
c
T3 CD
CD bO
rrj ^-^ ^
C J X
CD O
f"^ t OJQ
to E *d
3 v_^ d,
CO 'r*
tO rH r^
rH T3 O *-J
Oj -H IO ->»
P rH tO b(
O O -H g
H CO Q v
tO PH
0 00
LO O
CM
00
1
t \
to E
0 PH
O
O
.
CM
1
,-~^
LO
E
o
OJ
o
o
00
,
*^" /""""**
o E
rt
o
0
CM
00
1
LO
rH
/ x tO
_a
~v^
bO
^-N S Q
E 'H "C)
x v ' to -H CD
O f-t rH
^ PH O PH
3 Q E 3 E
O O rH rt
' CO U PU CO
^J-
to
o
rZ
CD
rH
Q.
g^
cS
CO
CM
rH
/""*\
to o^ ^o
Q E
f^O'O^f v£3 O O'
O Z tO tO 1^- PH
rH rH OO CM
O
0
CM
1
CM LO Tt LO f~\
t^LOCMCT>CM LO OE
O K> rH
rH rH LO Oj
i i
0
0
00
v /
00
1
vO
/ N C "V
>-J / \ / \ T3 CD / \ to
\ _j _j E'HT3
HTJP torH^ x^ 'to-H CD
rH-HOjrH'dOi-3 OrHrH
O^H^P. OJ-H tO^->. uipnO PH
rHrHrHprH tObOQE D E
2CX 3 3 OO-HEOOrH cti
PnU CO CO HCO Q^-'OQU ti, CO
44
-------
0)
ii
I
CO
O
en
to
(Nl
o
(N
tn
oo
O
e
cU
o
o
00
r^
i
to
H
to
X
bO
13
H
PL, U
W)
P
CO
to
0>
-M
3
CO
0)
C 3
0) \
f*i ( t^jQ
to g
3 v'
CO
O
C/D
0)
bO
X
X
o
O i-J
to ~^.
to bO
H S
Q ^'
\ (U
bO -P
S -H
v_^ to
O
in fx
Q S
O O
CQ CJ
O
(X
i
to
rt
a
PH
45
-------
^
X
I-H
Q
2
UJ
Cu
Cu
^
T^
f-^ to
Q
H 0
2 2
O
U CD
^ * rH
ft
co e
W oj
H CO
I-H CM
CO
_J
<£
3
Q
I-H
J>
I-H
Q
2
I-H
rH
LO
LO oo to vo o r~-
. .
I*"* O O i-H t^~ O vO
OO OO CM OO
i-H CM
O
i 1 tO CM OO O t^-
. . . .
r-» r^ o ^o to o \o
r~~- t^ *$ to
1 tO i-H
O
rt CM LO 00 O O
. . . .
f-- \O O O O O O
rH o *st r~~-
CM i-H CM i-H
LO
\D OO \D CM O to
. . ,
C^- O O i-H ^t O to
Q- 00 CT> 00 t
O i-H i 1 i-H
UH
CO
OJ
CO
>-l
_J
z
5!
^ c
i J / -\ /^^ ""C3 CD
\ _J i I CD DO
DO "*. ""^ ""O <"\ X
g DO DO C -J X
^-^ S 6 CD ^ O /-^
v ' v ' ft DO J
10 t/) £ 13 "^» CD
in
H
to
X
rH
rt
c
^
0 to to 3 *" ' cu DO +-*
t3 CJ CD CO > 6 -H
H T3 +J 10 rH , v v > tO
fH-HnJi-HTJOi-J O
O^H^H nJ-H to--^ "->ft
rH i 1 i-H -Mf-H (ODOQg
3C^ 3 3 OO-nSOO
ftCJ CO CO E-«CO Q^ 'CQCJ
e
ft
o
o
1 1
i-H
1
£
ft
o
o
\D
\ i
f^
1
X
^H
S *
ft CD
DO
0 C
0 -H
i-H
CM £H
v ' nJ
DC
CD
-H
6 rH
CTJ /-~\
e
0 O
o
LO
o
rH 0
* ' tO
v-^
t^
i C
^D -H
CM
1 CM
CM i 1
.
CD
-P
oJ
a
CD
,_(
ft
CO
CO
46
-------
.
o
Oi
LO
00
6
P.
o
o
m
rH
O>
00
O O LO
o o
00
o
e
p.
o
o
/ \
\ C-T i-j
bO \ \
S bO bQ
^ S 6
v J v '
t^
Cfl
V) rH ,N
rH T3 O -4
Oj -H V) ^->
4-> i i c/> bO
00 -H S
H CO Q *-^
/ s
J
\ 0
bO P
S -H
^-J t^
O
in PH
0 E
O 0
CO U
10
0)
P
Q
rH
ol
^^ C CN
i3 / \ / \ T3 tt) I
\ J hJ 0) bO to
b<0 ^x. ^^ -^ ,_ N j>^
E bO bO C rJ X
v-^66Q
H T3 0) 0) CO > S -H
t/5 .HT3-P (/) rH / N ^^ U) 0>
X fH-Hrtt-HTaOfJ OrH
i 1 O HH MH oj «H 10 ^-^ «" PH PH
CTj rH rH rH -P i 1 (ObOQg 6
CKX 3 P 00 -H 600 rt
< PnUCOCOE-COQ^-'CQUCO
47
-------
X
II
Q
UJ
D-
(X
O
CJ
CO
II
CO
_5
Q
Q
2
O
PL,
CO
UJ
CO
0>
II
d.
co
\O
CO
o
o
o
o
og
CM
O
O
0)
a,
* '
V)
tO
H
t/)
X
i i
Cu
c
^J"
0>
T3
H
f-i
O
r 1
K i^n
PH U
E
^ /
to
o
-P
oi
*4H
r I
j3
CO
o>
-M
cti
c
0
£_l
01
u
0)
P
rt
c
o
>H
O
H
CO
£3
2
H
O
r-H
03
U
P
a
CD
-H
OH
E
CTl
co
48
-------
GLOSSARY
1. Bactericide
2. "D" Load
3. Impregnation
4. Modified Sulfur
5. Three Edge Bearing Test
sodium pentachlorophenate
Test load divided by the pipe diameter
expressed in pounds-force per linear
foot of diameter (newtons per linear
meter per millimeter of diameter).
Absorption of sulfur by concrete
products.
Sulfur, containing 1-5% dicyclopentadiene
or bactericide
ASTM C497, Standard Methods of Testing
Concrete Pipe or Tile, consists of
supporting the pipe barrel on two
parallel longitudinal strips and
applying the load throughout a top
bearing beam also extending the full
length of the barrel.
49
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Inflictions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-80-009
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
IMPREGNATION OF CONCRETE PIPE FOR CORROSION
RESISTANCE AND STRENGTH IMPROVEMENT
7. AUTHOR(S)
Allen C. Ludwig
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road, P.O. Drawer 28510
San Antonio, Texas 78284
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory--Cin. ,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSI ON-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
March 1980 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
SwRI Project No. 11-5016
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BC822, SOS #1, Task #29
11.XKNXR*CKR'GRANT NO.
S802651
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report 4-74 to 4-79
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES See also EpA Report entitled MImpre tion of Concrete Pipe
11024EQE 06/71."
Project Officer: Hugh Masters. (201} 321-6678: (8-540-66781
16. ABSTRACT
This program was undertaken to field test concrete sewer pipe that had been impreg-
nated with sulfur or hydrofluoric acid. This program was a follow-on to a previous
laboratory study sponsored by HPA entitled, Impregnation of Concrete Pipe, 11024EQE
06/71. In a subsequent grant extension to the program, strength improvements using
the sulfur formulations were investigated with a view to reducing costs by elim-
ination of the steel reinforcing in certain sizes of concrete pipe.
In 1975, nearly 1400 feet (427 m) of impregnated sewer lines were installed in
four Texas cities, including Dallas, Beaumont, Pecos, and Harlingen. These lines
have been monitored since that time and the results of this monitoring, as well as
a discussion of the strength improvement due to sulfur impregnation, are reported.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Concrete pipes, Impregnating, Sulfur,
Hydrofluoric acid, Sewers
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Impregnated concrete
sewer pipe, Strength
improvement, Soil high
in sulfate salts
c. COSATI Field/Group
_____
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
60
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
50
------- |