« PrejšnjaNaprej »
February 7, 1973 (g) The surfaces of the bell and spigot consolidation of concrete (Deposiin contact with the gasket, and adjacent
tion, p. 75) and it is clear that the surfaces that may come in contact with
Bureau regarded rocky bells as rethe gasket within a joint movement range of three-fourths inch, shall be free from
pairable,134 it is far from clear that airholes, chipped or spalled concrete, rocky bells are normally repairable laitance, or other defects, except that in- in accordance with the Concrete dividual airholes may be repaired as pro- Manual. However, the Governvided in Subparagraph j.(2).
ment's argument that rocky bells Cen-Vi-Ro relies on provisions of are not repairable appears to be the Concrete Manual providing that based solely upon Cen-Vi-Ro's alimperfections or damage which can
leged failure to take known correcnormally be repaired include the
tive action and we assume that following:
rocky bells are normally repairable (1) Rock pockets.
as rock pockets, exposed steel, or as (4) Broken bells containing circum- roughness in gasket bearing surface ferential reinforcement.
of bells. Although the Manual does (5) Impact damage over less than 45° of circumference' except for spigots.
not provide any area or size limita(7) Out-of-round bells, if not so far out
tions on the repair of the above deof round that reinforcement steel will be fects, we hold that all of such deexposed after the repair.
fects are not repairable and that (8) Air holes and roughness in gasket
some discretion may be exercised as bearing surfaces of bell and spigots (Exh.
to the extent of the area that is prop5N, p. 7). The Bureau's letter of May 13, in effect as early as April 30, 1965
erly repairable. Bureau instructions 1965, provided in part:
(note 133, supra), precluded the re3. Experience has been that extensive
pair of rocky bells in excess of six repairs to bells and spigots has impaired
inches. This restriction was conthe function of the joints. Pipe having
tinued in the May 13 letter which, imperfections or damaged areas that extend over six inches of gasket area in the as we have seen, provided that pipes
or four inches in the spigot will having imperfections or damaged be rejected. * *
areas of bells in excess of six inches 4. Extensive repairs to rock pockets in
would be rejected. Since the Manual bells and lack of consolidation of the con
allows the repair of impact damage crete that will result in poor bond between the concrete and the steel will not
to bells extending over less than be permitted.
45° of circumference (45° on the Although it appears that rocky
circumference of a 54-inch pipe is bells result from a lack of complete
in excess of 21 inches), the May 13
letter clearly prohibited repairs to 133 Instructions precluding repair of rocky bells in excess of six inches in gasket areas 184 A Pipe Rejection Certification, dated and fallouts in excess of one square foot were April 2, 1965 (App's Exh. E), clearly indiin effect as early as April 30, 1965 (note 26, cates that the Bureau regarded rocky bells supra). This restriction was reiterated in the as repairable. An Inspectors Dally Report, Tentative Instructions to Concrete Inspectors dated July 29, 1964, reflects that only bells dated May 7, 1965 (Id.).
regarded as "too rocky” were not repairable. to Cen-Vi-Ro, dated October 7, 1965 (Exh. 26) not impaired the function of the
impact-damaged bells which were erly made repairs to rocky bells and permissible under the Manual. damage to spigot ends should be al
While the Tentative Instructions lowed in accordance with the specito Concrete Pipe Inspectors of May fications without the restrictions in 7, 1965, allowed the repair of dam- the May 13 letter. The contracting aged spigot gasket areas of six officer found that the Bureau, in the inches and below, the May 13 letter early stages of the work, permitted precluded repair of imperfections extensive repairs to bells and spigots or damage to gasket areas of spigots but withdrew this concession when in excess of four inches. Since it was determined that such repairs breaks entirely through the shell in impaired the function of the joints gasketed spigots which extend into (par. 37, Findings of Fact). The or beyond the gasket bearing area only evidence supporting the conand extend more than four inches tracting officer's finding that repairs around the circumference under the to bells and spigots impaired the gasket are not normally repairable function of the joints is some rather under the Manual, it is obvious that vague testimony by Mr. Rippon to restrictions on repairs to spigots the effect that repairs to bells and were much less extensive than the spigots which
which were not accomrestrictions to repair of bells. How- plished within specification tolerever, read literally, the May 13 let- ances on other contracts resulted in ter precluded the repair of defects leaking joints (Tr. 1752), and some in spigot gasket areas in excess of testimony equally lacking in specfour inches irrespective of whether ificity by the resident engineer of the break extended entirely through reports to the effect that the laying the shell and to that extent was con- contractor experienced difficulty in trary to the Concrete Manual. joining pipes with rough bells.135
We find that some unconsolidated Hydrostatic tests on joints produced areas in barrels and spigots were satisfactory results (Page 4 of Spenormally repairable as rock pockets cial Report, dated May 21, 1965, in accordance with the Concrete note 24, supra). This is some eviManual.
dence that joints were not defective. In its letter of June 10, 1965 Roughness in gasket bearing sur(Exh. 5N, p. 15), Cen-Vi-Ro stated faces of bells and spigots, is, of that its experience was that properly repaired bells and spigots have 135 Tr. 1888, 1889. A letter from R. H. Fulton February 7, 1973 course, normally repairable under than rocky bells in excess of six the Manual.
states that because of the marginal quality joints and that pipes so repaired
of the bells Cen-V1-Ro had consigned repair
crews to the field in order to avoid laying were equal to pipes not requiring
problems. However, a memorandum written repairs. Cen-Vi-Ro also stated that by Mr. Herrera, dated October 11, 1965 (Cena certain number of rocky bells was
Vi-Ro Correspondence) states that he has
made periodic checks in the field, that pipes inherent in manufacturing pipe by were above arerage requirement and indicates
laying difficulties were attributable to practhe spinning process and that prop- tices of R. H. Fulton's laying crews.
inches in bell area.137 The Summary During the May 15 inventory 278 of Pipe Units Reclaimed (Exh. pipes were rejected for damaged 146) indicates that only 34 pipes bells or spigots which includes 233 previously rejected for bell or spigot rejected for rocky bells, and 31 defects were accepted in the reclaim pipes were rejected for rock program during the seven-month pockets. 136 There is no evidence that period November 1965 through any of these pipes had previously May of 1966. However, since there been accepted. It appears that prior were 146 pipes finally rejected for to May 15 inventory 143 pipes had rocky bells (Exh. 5Q), which in
) been rejected for bell and spigot cludes at least 22 rejects manudefects and 12 pipes had been re- factured subsequent to May 15, jected for rock pockets (Exh. 59). 1965, it is apparent that a minimum In early August 1965, the Bureau of 109 pipes previously rejected for relaxed the criteria for repair of rocky bells must have been accepted. Tocky bells stated in the May 13 The above figure does not include letter so that rocky bells which ex- any pipes rejected for rocky bells tended less than one-quarter of the prior to May 15, 1965, and we have circumference of the bell and which no doubt that a majority of the 143 did not extend beyond the rein- pipes rejected for bell and spigot forcing steel when chipped out defects prior to May 15 were for were repairable (Tr. 1289; memo- rocky bells. We have previously randum of Bureau Meeting, dated found that pipes marked for special July 9, 1965, Cen-Vi-Ro Corre- hydro in the May 15 inventory were spondence; Inspectors Daily Re- not listed as rejects in the summaport, dated August 4, 1965). The ries resulting from that inventory relaxation applied to pipes under- but that some of such pipes were, going review in the reclaim pro
nevertheless, included in the tabugram as well as to current produc
lations purportedly representing tion. Hydrostatic testing of these
the disposition of all rejects in the pipes does not appear to have been
May 15 inventory (note 95, supra). required (Inspectors Daily Report,
We conclude that most, if not all, dated August 4, 1965). The criteria in the May 13 letter for the repair
of the 233 pipes rejected for rocky of bells was not further relaxed and
137 Mr. Herrera is reported to have inquired the Bureau continued to reject pipes of Mr. Thomas why the Bureau was still rewith bell defects or damage other jecting pipes with rocky bells which could be
repaired. The response was that the extent of
defective concrete could not be determined 136 Pipe Units Rejected on May 15, 1965 until it was chipped out, the pipes were re. (Exh. 60), and tabulation attached to memo. jected until satisfactorily repaired, all such randum, dated May 27, 1965 (note 27, supra). pipes were not repairable and in any event, The tabulation indicates that 233 pipes were Cen-Vi-Ro would never repair all of such rejected for rocky bells and 25 for rock pipes. (Inspectors Daily Report, dated pockets during the May 15 inventory.
August 19, 1965.)
bells in the May 15 inventory were We turn to the question of Censubsequently accepted.
Vi-Ro's alleged failure to take Our examination of the Final In- known corrective action. Dr. Davis ventory of Rejected Pipe (Exh. attributed rocky bells to the failure 152) indicates that it contains 88 to have sufficient concrete in the bell final rejects for broken or impact due to lack of vibration during the damage to bells, of which five were spinning process (Deposition, p. charged to Fulton, and 72 pipes re- 75). The project engineer and the jected for broken or impact damage resident engineer considered that to spigots, of which four · were rocky bells were caused by difficul. charged to Fulton. It is not clear ties in properly filling the bells due how many pipes were rejected for to the relatively dry Cen-Vi-Ro these reasons prior to the May 15 mix (Tr. 1889, 1890, 2013). This inventory or how many, if any, of reason is supported by Mr. Murthe 45 apparently rejected for this ray's memorandum of July 8, 1965, reason in the May 15 inventory (note 127, supra). Irrespective of were accepted during the reclaim whether one or the other or both program.
of these reasons, may account for The Hydrostatic Test Study rocky bells, we conclude that there (Exh. 64) reflects that 25 percent
was a corrective action for rocky of 16-foot pipes subjected to special bells which Cen-Vi-Ro either knew hydrostatic tests for rock pockets
a reasonable skilled conor unconsolidated areas failed the
tractor is chargeable with knowing, tests and that approximately 16 per
namely, proper mix and proper fillcent of 16-foot pipes subject to ing of the bells. However, Dr. special hydrostatic tests for miscel
Davis testified that in spinning conlaneous reasons failed the tests.
crete pipe, segregation of aggregate Only three 20-foot pipes appear to
tends to occur (Deposition, p. 75) have been specially hydrostatically and we accept as accurate Cen-Titested for rock pockets or uncon
Ro's assertion (letter of June 10, solidated areas other than gyro
1965, Exh. 5N, p. 15) that a certain areas of which two passed and one
number of rocky bells is inherent in failed. Approximately 32 percent manufacturing concrete pipe by of 20-foot pipes tested for miscel- spinning methods. laneous reasons failed the tests.
The record reflects that 124 of While it may well be as Cen-Vi-Ro the 146 final rejects for rocky asserts that some of the above pipes bells were manufactured prior to classified as failures would have May 15, 1965 (Exh. 50). Ten of healed within seven days, we find the final rejects for rocky bells infra under the heading of "Testing were manufactured in September Criteria" that the contract placed (approximately 1.4 percent of pipe the burden of proof that dripping production), 24 in November (appipes would heal on Cen-Vi-Ro. proximately 2.4 percent of pipe
February 7, 1979 production), 37 in December 1964 a significant problem after May 15, (approximately 3.6 percent of pipe 1965 (only 22 final rejects for such production), four in January (ap
were manufactured after proximately 0.28 percent), three in that date) and we find that repairs February (approximately 0.27 per- to rocky bells normally permissible cent), three in March (approxi- under the Concrete Manual could mately 0.22 percent) and 13 in April not properly be refused after 1965 (slightly over one percent). May 15, 1965. Final rejects for rocky bells, con- We have identified 23 pipes in the sidered as evidence of defects, manu- Final Inventory of Rejected Pipe factured in November and Decem
(Exh. 152) manufactured after ber of 1964 were, of course, very May 15, 1965, for which the primary substantial. However, the reject-de
reason for rejection appears to fect rate for rocky bells declined have been rocky bells. Three of these significantly during the following pipes are indicated to have multiple three months, which is evidence that defects. Defective areas on two of corrective action was being taken to
the pipes (66AB50X16, No. 8N and reduce or eliminate rocky bells. 19D, mfg. 11-16-65 and 12-31-65,
Although we have considered that respectively) extended more than each defect must be examined sep- one-quarter of the circumference of arately to determine if the record the pipe (pp. 30 & 74, Vol. II, Exh. establishes a cause and a corrective 40). One other pipe (72A350, No. action therefor, we have noted an 6D, mfg. 1-28–66) upon which the inverse relationship between rocky defective area appears to extend bells and slump or fallouts (note less than one-quarter of the circum127, supra). This relationship is ference had exposed steel in the confirmed in part by the fact that rocky area (p. 91, Vol. II, Exh. 40). final rejects for fallouts manufac- We conclude that Cen-Vi-Ro should tured in January 1965 were 0.35 have been permitted to repair this percent of pipe production, 0.92 pipe. The rocky area on about eight percent in February, 1.5 percent in of a row of approximately sevenMarch and 0.54 percent in April teen 66-inch pipes which were re1965. We conclude that reject-defect jected for rocky bells and fallouts rates for rocky bells and fallouts appears to extend more than onemay be combined for the purpose of quarter of the circumference of the determining the question of "con- pipe (p. 42, Vol. III, Exh. 40). tinuing failure to take known cor- These pipes have not been identified rective action" and that these de
and it is not possible to determine fects continued for a sufficient if they are included in the Final period of time that Cen-Vi-Ro may Inventory of Rejected Pipe. The exproperly be charged with such a tent of the rocky area on the remainfailure prior to May 15, 1965. There der of the pipes rejected for rocky is no evidence that rocky bells were bells is not shown.