BACKGROUND

State departments of transportation (DOTs) are increasingly using trenchless strategies to rehabilitate and repair aging infrastructure. Performing pipe repairs to existing systems, as compared to pipe replacement, significantly reduces the construction time and maintenance of traffic operations and roadway reconstruction. With reduced construction time and roadway construction, pipe repairs can increase public safety and cost savings to the state DOTs. One of the most common pipe rehabilitation methods is cured in-place pipe (CIPP) liners. CIPP liners are a trenchless technology that provides a method to structurally rehabilitate existing pipes and conduits with minimal impact to the traveling public. The liner consists of a resin-impregnated material that is inserted into the existing damaged host pipe.

Research is needed to substantiate that CIPP liner technology provides the structural characteristics and durability to extend the service life of the asset. 

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to develop a guide for design, installation, and acceptance of CIPP liners for structural rehabilitation of existing pipelines and conduits and test methods for CIPP liner material. 

Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following tasks.

TASKS

Task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for conducting the research. The NCHRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and contract time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meeting the research objective.

Note: Proposers shall include the schedule for each phase in their research plans. The sequencing of tasks and deliverables (such as technical memorandums or summary reports) shall be structured for delivery in quarterly progress report submissions.

PHASE I—Planning

Task 1. Conduct a critical review of NCHRP Project 18-20, “AASHTO LRFD Design, Installation, and Standard Practice of Testing for Cured In-Place Pipe Liners” (see Special Note A). In addition, the review should include published and unpublished documentation, and research conducted through the NCHRP; the Federal Highway Administration; other national, state, and local agencies; international organizations; and industry groups. 

Task 2. Synthesize the results of Task 1 to identify knowledge gaps related to the research objective. These gaps should be addressed in the final product or the recommended future research, as budget permits.

Task 3. Based on the work performed in Tasks 1 and 2, prepare a detailed research plan to be executed in Phase II to achieve the project objective. At a minimum, the research plan shall include an approach to:

• Incorporate, validate, and update the results from NCHRP Project 18-20, “AASHTO LRFD Design, Installation, and Standard Practice of Testing for Cured In-Place Pipe Liners.”
• Conduct an experimental program. At a minimum, the program should consider (1) structural properties, (2) different pipe diameters and shapes, (3) host pipe type and condition, (4) design service life, (5) materials properties of liner and resin, (6) existing standards, (7) sampling and laboratory test methods, (8) installation process including preparation and curing methods, (9) testing procedures to develop the standard practice, and (10) installation anomalies and deficiencies that would be identified during post installation inspections. In addition, testing specimens for design verification should (1) replicate in situ condition and (2) consider the scale effect on the accuracy of the results.
• Develop design procedures of CIPP liners based on the load and resistance factor design (LRFD) method.
• Develop a laboratory test method to verify the proposed structural capacity of rehabilitated conduits using CIPP liner technology for the different materials for liner and resin, and curing methods.
• Develop an accelerated laboratory test method to predict liner service life for the different materials for liner and resin, and curing methods.
• Develop design examples to demonstrate the application of the design for CIPP liner technology. The design examples will be prepared in Phase III.
• Develop criteria for post installation acceptance.
• Develop draft language for consideration by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to incorporate the research results in a future AASHTO guide (herein called the AASHTO Deliverable).

Task 4. Provide an annotated outline of the proposed AASHTO Deliverable including examples to demonstrate the application of the proposed deliverable.

Task 5. Prepare Interim Report No. 1, which documents Tasks 1 through 4 and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the research. The updated plan must describe the process and rationale for the work proposed for Phases II through IV.

Note: Following a 1-month review of Interim Report No. 1 by the NCHRP, the research team will meet in person with the project panel to discuss the interim report. Work on Phase II of the project will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP.

PHASE II—Execution

Task 6. Execute the research plan according to the approved Interim Report No. 1 and update the annotated outline of the AASHTO Deliverable after consideration of the panel’s review comments.

Task 7. Develop a complete sample section of the AASHTO Deliverable to be selected by the NCHRP. This section should be publication-ready with an appropriate level of detail. The format shall meet the current AASHTO formatting guidelines and it shall include commentary.

Task 8. Prepare Interim Report No. 2, which documents Tasks 6 and 7 and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the research. The updated work plan must describe the process and rationale for the work proposed for Phases III and IV.

Note: Following a 1-month review of Interim Report No. 2 by the NCHRP, the research team will meet with the project panel to discuss the interim report. Work on Phase III of the project will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP.

PHASE III—Draft AASHTO Deliverable

Task 9. Develop the remaining sections of the AASHTO Deliverable according to the approved Interim Report No. 2.

Task 10. Prepare design examples according to the approved Interim Report No. 2.

Task 11. Prepare Interim Report No. 3, which documents Task 9 and 10 and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the research. The updated work plan must describe the process and rationale for the work proposed for Phase IV.

Note: Following a 1-month review of Interim Report No. 3 by the NCHRP, the research team will meet with the project panel to discuss the interim report. Work on Phase IV of the project will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP.

PHASE IV—Final Products

Task 12. Revise the draft AASHTO Deliverable and design examples after consideration of the panel’s review comments.

Task 13. Prepare a stand-alone technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Special Note L for additional information).

Task 14. Submit the final deliverables, including (1) the AASHTO Deliverable, (2) a final report that documents the entire research effort, (3) the design examples, and (4) the stand-alone technical memorandum, Implementation of Research Findings and Products.

Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, the remaining 3 months shall be for NCHRP review and comment and for research agency preparation of the final deliverables. The budget for Phase IV shall be $40,000.

SPECIAL NOTES

A. Proposers are required to review the agency interim reports prepared under NCHRP Project 18-20, “AASHTO LRFD Design, Installation, and Standard Practice of Testing for Cured In-Place Pipe Liners.”

B. The research team should anticipate making three presentations to appropriate technical committees at AASHTO meetings.

C. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs were revised in May 2024. Please take note of the new and revised text which is highlighted in yellow.

D. Proposals must be submitted as a single PDF file with a maximum file size of 10 MB. The PDF must be formatted for standard 8 ½” X 11” paper, and the entire proposal must not exceed 60 pages (according to the page count displayed in the PDF). Proposals that do not meet these requirements will be rejected. For other requirements, refer to chapter V of the instructions.

E. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs have been modified to include a revised policy and instructions for disclosing Investigator Conflict of Interest. For more information, refer to chapter IV of the instructions. A detailed definition and examples can be found in the CRP Conflict of Interest Policy for Contractors. The proposer recommended by the project panel will be required to submit an Investigator Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form as a prerequisite for contract negotiations.

F. Proposals will be rejected if any of the proposed research team members work for organizations represented on the project panel. The panel roster for this project can be found at https://www.mytrb.org/OnlineDirectory/Committee/Details/4995. Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest.

G. Proprietary Products - If any proprietary products are to be used or tested in the project, please refer to Item 6 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals.

H. Proposals are evaluated by the NCHRP staff and project panels consisting of individuals collectively knowledgeable in the problem area. The project panel will recommend their first choice proposal considering the following factors: (1) the proposer's demonstrated understanding of the problem; (2) the merit of the proposed research approach and experiment design; (3) the experience, qualifications, and objectivity of the research team in the same or closely related problem area; (4) the plan for ensuring application of results; (5) how the proposer approaches inclusion and diversity in the composition of their team and research approach, including participation by certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprises; and, if relevant, (6) the adequacy of the facilities. A recommendation by the project panel is not a guarantee of a contract. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS - the contracting authority for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) will conduct an internal due diligence review and risk assessment of the panel’s recommended proposal before contract negotiations continue. 

Note: The proposer's approach to inclusion and diversity as well as participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises should be incorporated in Item 11 of the proposal.

I. Copyrights - All data, written materials, computer software, graphic and photographic images, and other information prepared under the contract and the copyrights therein shall be owned by the National Academy of Sciences. The contractor and subcontractors will be able to publish this material for non-commercial purposes, for internal use, or to further academic research or studies with permission from TRB Cooperative Research Programs. The contractor and subcontractors will not be allowed to sell the project material without prior approval by the National Academy of Sciences. By signing a contract with the National Academy of Sciences, contractors accept legal responsibility for any copyright infringement that may exist in work done for TRB. Contractors are therefore responsible for obtaining all necessary permissions for use of copyrighted material in TRB's Cooperative Research Programs publications. For guidance on TRB's policies on using copyrighted material please consult Section 5.4, "Use of Copyrighted Material," in the Procedural Manual for Contractors.

J. The text of the final deliverable is expected to be publication ready when it is submitted. It is strongly recommended that the research team include the expertise of a technical editor as early in the project timeline as possible. See Appendix F of the Procedural Manual for Contractors Conducting Research in the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Program for technical editing standards expected in final deliverables.

K. Proposals should include a task-by-task breakdown of labor hours for each staff member as shown in Figure 4 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals. Proposals also should include a breakdown of all costs (e.g., wages, indirect costs, travel, materials, and total) for each task using Figures 5 and 6 in the brochure. Please note that TRB Cooperative Research Program subawards (selected proposers are considered subawards to the National Academy of Sciences, the parent organization of TRB) must comply with 2 CFR 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. These requirements include a provision that proposers without a "federally" Negotiated Indirect Costs Rate Agreement (NICRA) shall be subject to a maximum allowable indirect rate of 10% of Modified Total Direct Costs. Modified Total Direct Costs include all salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each lower tier subaward and subcontract. Modified Total Direct Costs exclude equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs and the portion of each lower tier subaward and subcontract in excess of $25,000.

L. The required technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” should (a) provide recommendations on how to best put the research findings/products into practice; (b) identify possible institutions that might take leadership in applying the research findings/products; (c) identify issues affecting potential implementation of the findings/products and recommend possible actions to address these issues; and (d) recommend methods of identifying and measuring the impacts associated with implementation of the findings/products. Implementation of these recommendations is not part of the research project and, if warranted, details of these actions will be developed and implemented in future efforts.

The research team will be expected to provide input to an implementation team consisting of panel members, AASHTO committee members, the NCHRP Implementation Coordinator, and others in order to meet the goals of NCHRP Active Implementation: Moving Research into Practice, available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP_ActiveImplementation.pdf

M. If the team proposes a Principal Investigator who is not an employee of the Prime Contractor, or if the Prime Contractor is proposed to conduct less than 50% of the total effort (by time or budget), then section five of the proposal should include: (1) a justification of why this approach is appropriate, and (2) a description of how the Prime Contractor will ensure adequate communication and coordination with their Subcontractors throughout the project.

N. All budget information should be suitable for printing on 8½″ x 11″ paper. If a budget page cannot fit on a single 8½″ x 11″ page, it should be split over multiple pages. Proposers must use the Excel templates provided in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs.

O. The National Academies have an ethical and legal obligation to provide proper attribution whenever material from other sources is included in its reports, online postings, and other publications and products. TRB will review all Cooperative Research Programs draft final deliverables using the software iThenticate for potential plagiarism. If plagiarized text appears in the draft final deliverable, the research team will be required to make revisions and the opportunity to submit future proposals may be affected.