In-situ Scour Testing Device

Print
General Information
Study Number: TPF-5(210)
Lead Organization: Federal Highway Administration
Contract Start Date: Jul 01, 2011
Solicitation Number: 1167
Partners: CA, CO, KS, NC, NY, TX, UT, WI
Status: Closed
Est. Completion Date: Sep 30, 2016
Contract/Other Number:
Last Updated: Jun 14, 2021
Contract End Date: Jun 05, 2013
Financial Summary
Contract Amount:
Total Commitments Received: $290,000.00
100% SP&R Approval: Approved
Contact Information
Lead Study Contact(s): Kornel Kerenyi
kornel.kerenyi@dot.gov
Phone: 202-493-3142
FHWA Technical Liaison(s): Kornel Kerenyi
kornel.kerenyi@dot.gov
Phone: 202-493-3142
Organization Year Commitments Technical Contact Name Funding Contact Name Contact Number Email Address
California Department of Transportation 2008 $15,000.00 Steve NG Sang Le 916-227-0701 sang.le@dot.ca.gov
California Department of Transportation 2009 $15,000.00 Steve NG Sang Le 916-227-0701 sang.le@dot.ca.gov
California Department of Transportation 2011 $30,000.00 Steve NG Sang Le 916-227-0701 sang.le@dot.ca.gov
Colorado Department of Transportation 2009 $15,000.00 Aziz Khan aziz.khan@state.co.us
Kansas Department of Transportation 2008 $15,000.00 Brad Rognlie Rodney Montney 785-291-3844 rodney@ksdot.org
Kansas Department of Transportation 2009 $15,000.00 Brad Rognlie Rodney Montney 785-291-3844 rodney@ksdot.org
Kansas Department of Transportation 2011 $15,000.00 Brad Rognlie Rodney Montney 785-291-3844 rodney@ksdot.org
New York State Department of Transportation 2008 $30,000.00 Wayne Gannett Gary Frederick 518-457-4645 gary.frederick@dot.ny.gov
New York State Department of Transportation 2009 $15,000.00 Wayne Gannett Gary Frederick 518-457-4645 gary.frederick@dot.ny.gov
North Carolina Department of Transportation 2008 $15,000.00 Jerry Beard Mrinmay Biswas 919-508-1865 biswas@ncdot.gov
North Carolina Department of Transportation 2009 $15,000.00 Jerry Beard Mrinmay Biswas 919-508-1865 biswas@ncdot.gov
Texas Department of Transportation 2008 $15,000.00 John Delphia Ned Mattila 512-416-4727 ned.mattila@txdot.gov
Texas Department of Transportation 2009 $15,000.00 John Delphia Ned Mattila 512-416-4727 ned.mattila@txdot.gov
Utah Department of Transportation 2008 $10,000.00 David Stevens David Stevens 801-589-8340 davidstevens@utah.gov
Utah Department of Transportation 2009 $10,000.00 David Stevens David Stevens 801-589-8340 davidstevens@utah.gov
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2008 $15,000.00 Najoua Ksontini Ethan Severson 608-266-1457 ethanp.severson@dot.wi.gov
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2011 $15,000.00 Najoua Ksontini Ethan Severson 608-266-1457 ethanp.severson@dot.wi.gov
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2015 $15,000.00 Najoua Ksontini Ethan Severson 608-266-1457 ethanp.severson@dot.wi.gov

Study Description

Current methodologies for predicting scour depths around bridge piers typically employ empirical equations derived from physical model studies using non-cohesive, uniformly graded sands. This approach represents a worst-case condition since non-cohesive sands are one of the most erodible soils found in nature. In practice, these equations are commonly applied to all soils that cannot be strictly classified as non-erodible. Since very little, easy-to-apply information is available to evaluate potential scour in erosion resistant soils, a great deal of engineering experience is necessary for one to feel confident about quantifying any reduction of the scour estimated from these equations. Consequently, because of the risks involved, predictions of scour in erosion resistant soils are frequently conservative, resulting in overly deep and expensive pier foundations.

The unlimited range of soil types and combinations of soil types found in nature creates a full continuum of erodibility from the easily erodible, very fine silts to the non-erodible, competent rock. If even possible to fully describe this erodibility continuum, it will take significant time, effort, and money to develop reliable, practical methodologies and models for doing so. More immediate assistance is needed in this regard. An effective in-situ scour testing device could provide this assistance now on a project-by-project basis. Such a field device could more accurately define the scour potential for a given set of hydraulic design conditions and pier type, regardless of the foundation soil type or types present.

Objectives

The objective of this research is to prove or disprove the viability of such an in-situ scour testing device for use as a foundation design aid by the highway engineering community. The field device for the proposed study could consist of a water jet directed vertically downward into the soils that are to support the bridge pier foundations. The jet would be calibrated through physical model testing and computer simulation to produce the predicted scour depth in a sand-bed channel for the design hydraulic conditions and proposed pier geometry. The water jet would be run until equilibrium conditions are reached in the resulting scour hole, or until some maximum period of time has elapsed (such as the expected cumulative time the foundation will be exposed to the design discharge over the life of the bridge). The in-situ soils would thereby be exposed to the energy necessary to develop the scour depth, as predicted by the currently used equation. Any equilibrium or maximum scour depth resulting from a field test that is less than the predicted depth for a sand-bed channel would be attributable to the erosion-resistant characteristics of the in-situ soils. It is envisioned that this scour-testing device would be used for foundation analysis and design in a manner similar to present-day soil borings in that several tests would be conducted across the channel and floodplain area to be occupied by a proposed new or replacement bridge. The scour hole information resulting from the field test(s) would be used, in conjunction with the subsurface soil boring information, to adjust the design scour depth predicted by the equations for sand-bed channels, as appropriate, for the actual soil conditions at the bridge site. The TFHRC Hydraulics Laboratory will collaborate on this proposed research and will provide Lab capabilities and technical assistance.

Scope of Work

The scope of work consists of researching practicality of in-situ scour testing to predict scour and to improve scour prediction equations. The research will be based on a combination of data obtained from the historical scour research literature, laboratory experiments, field-testing, data collection, and data evaluation.

Tasks

The project will consist of the following tasks:

Task 1: Assemble a technical advisory committee that will provide oversight and guidance on all aspects of the project.

Task2: Identify a practical combination of prototype jet size (pipe/hose/nozzle) and variable speed pump (or throttle) that can be scaled down for laboratory use. Acquire and/or manufacture this scaled-down apparatus.

Task 3: Replicate a set of design hydraulic conditions (discharges, flow depth) and sediment sizes in a laboratory flume that have been used in past physical models and augment tests using high performance computing.

Task 4: Fix the scaled-down jet at the level of the sediment bed in the flume flow field. Orient the jet to direct the flow of water vertically downward. Record the resulting equilibrium scour depths over a range of jet discharges, sediment sizes produced by the variable speed pump (or throttle). Determine the jet discharge and total energy required to duplicate the depth of pier scour hole produced in past physical model tests. Repeat tests for 75, 50, 25, and 0 percent of design hydraulic conditions in the laboratory flume.

Task 5: Conduct a search of an appropriate database to locate a stream site with suitable sediment characteristics to test a full-scale prototype of the in-situ scour testing device.

Task 6: Conduct several full-scale field tests at various sites with known scourable material to calibrate the in-situ scour testing device.

Task 7: Compare field test results to those obtained from the laboratory for all total jet energies tested. Evaluate the impact of scale effects and other factors on the results. Identify and define the types of adjustments and/or correction factors that may be necessary to achieve a good, consistent correlation between the lab and field test scour depths.

Task 8: Evaluate the results of Task 7 and draw a conclusion on the viability of the in-situ scour testing device as a practical field tool for establishing more appropriate and economical bridge pier foundation design scour depths. Prepare a report outlining the study approach, results and resources needed to extend the laboratory and field testing to cover a full range of anticipated scour depths, sediment gradations, and stream flow conditions.

Comments

Suggested contribution: $15,000/year

The Federal Highway Administration will serve as the coordinator for this pooled-fund project. State DOT's will be solicited for their interest and participation in this study. FHWA will issue a task order contract to the support services contractor to conduct the study. Periodic reviews will be arranged to keep participating states and agencies up-to-date on current developments. These reviews may include meetings in Washington D. C. during the annual TRB Session, e-mail submittals and conference calls.

Documents Attached
Title File/Link Type Privacy Download
Final Report for In-situ Scour Testing Device (1) feng2000017_offprint.pdf Final Report Public
Final Report for In-situ Scour Testing Device (2) 20032.pdf Final Report Public
Final Report for In-situ Scour Testing Device (3) 21025.pdf Final Report Public
Final Report for In-situ Scour Testing Device (4) 21029.pdf Final Report Public
Acceptance Memo acceptance_memo.pdf Memorandum Public
Approved Closeout Memo TPF-5(210) Closeout Memo.pdf Memorandum Public
Progress Report: January - March 2010 report_jan_march.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2010 ProgressforTPF-5(210)fromApr_to_Jun2010.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - September 2010 JultoSep2010.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Report: October 2010 - December 2010 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2010.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Report: January - March 2011 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2011.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Report: April - June 2011 ProgressforTPF-5(210)fromApr_to_Jun2011.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - September 2011 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jul to Sep 2011.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2011 Progress_for_TPF-5(210)_form_Oct_to_Dec_2011.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: January - March 2012 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2012.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2012 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Apr to Jun 2012.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2012 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2012.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
ogress Report: January - March 2013 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2013.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2013 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Apr to Jun 2013.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - September 2013 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jul to Sept 2013.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2013 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2013.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: January - March 2014 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2014.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2014 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Apr to Jun 2014.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - September 2014 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jul to Sept 2014.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2014 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2014.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: January - March 2015 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2015.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2015 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Apr to Jun 2015.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - September 2015 Progress for TPF-5(210) from July to Sept 2015.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2015 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2015.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: January - March 2016 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2016.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2016 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Apr to Jun 2016.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - Sept 2016 Progress for TPF-5(210) from July to Sept 2016.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2016 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2016.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: January - March 2017 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2017.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2017 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Apr to Jun 2017.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - September 2017 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jul to Sept 2017.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2017 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2017.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: January - March 2018 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2018.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2018 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Apr to Jun 2018.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - September 2018 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jul to Sept 2018.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2018 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2018.docx Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: January - March 2019 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2019.docx Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2019 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Apr to Jun 2019.docx Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - September 2019 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jul to Sept 2019.docx Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2019 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2019.docx Quarterly Progress Report Public

In-situ Scour Testing Device

General Information
Study Number: TPF-5(210)
Lead Organization: Federal Highway Administration
Contract Start Date: Jul 01, 2011
Solicitation Number: 1167
Partners: CA, CO, KS, NC, NY, TX, UT, WI
Status: Closed
Est. Completion Date: Sep 30, 2016
Contract/Other Number:
Last Updated: Jun 14, 2021
Contract End Date: Jun 05, 2013
Financial Summary
Contract Amount:
Total Commitments Received: $290,000.00
100% SP&R Approval:
Contact Information
Lead Study Contact(s): Kornel Kerenyi
kornel.kerenyi@dot.gov
Phone: 202-493-3142
FHWA Technical Liaison(s): Kornel Kerenyi
kornel.kerenyi@dot.gov
Phone: 202-493-3142
Commitments by Organizations
Organization Year Commitments Technical Contact Name Funding Contact Name Contact Number Email Address
California Department of Transportation 2008 $15,000.00 Steve NG Sang Le 916-227-0701 sang.le@dot.ca.gov
California Department of Transportation 2009 $15,000.00 Steve NG Sang Le 916-227-0701 sang.le@dot.ca.gov
California Department of Transportation 2011 $30,000.00 Steve NG Sang Le 916-227-0701 sang.le@dot.ca.gov
Colorado Department of Transportation 2009 $15,000.00 Aziz Khan aziz.khan@state.co.us
Kansas Department of Transportation 2008 $15,000.00 Brad Rognlie Rodney Montney 785-291-3844 rodney@ksdot.org
Kansas Department of Transportation 2009 $15,000.00 Brad Rognlie Rodney Montney 785-291-3844 rodney@ksdot.org
Kansas Department of Transportation 2011 $15,000.00 Brad Rognlie Rodney Montney 785-291-3844 rodney@ksdot.org
New York State Department of Transportation 2008 $30,000.00 Wayne Gannett Gary Frederick 518-457-4645 gary.frederick@dot.ny.gov
New York State Department of Transportation 2009 $15,000.00 Wayne Gannett Gary Frederick 518-457-4645 gary.frederick@dot.ny.gov
North Carolina Department of Transportation 2008 $15,000.00 Jerry Beard Mrinmay Biswas 919-508-1865 biswas@ncdot.gov
North Carolina Department of Transportation 2009 $15,000.00 Jerry Beard Mrinmay Biswas 919-508-1865 biswas@ncdot.gov
Texas Department of Transportation 2008 $15,000.00 John Delphia Ned Mattila 512-416-4727 ned.mattila@txdot.gov
Texas Department of Transportation 2009 $15,000.00 John Delphia Ned Mattila 512-416-4727 ned.mattila@txdot.gov
Utah Department of Transportation 2008 $10,000.00 David Stevens David Stevens 801-589-8340 davidstevens@utah.gov
Utah Department of Transportation 2009 $10,000.00 David Stevens David Stevens 801-589-8340 davidstevens@utah.gov
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2008 $15,000.00 Najoua Ksontini Ethan Severson 608-266-1457 ethanp.severson@dot.wi.gov
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2011 $15,000.00 Najoua Ksontini Ethan Severson 608-266-1457 ethanp.severson@dot.wi.gov
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2015 $15,000.00 Najoua Ksontini Ethan Severson 608-266-1457 ethanp.severson@dot.wi.gov

Study Description

Study Description

Current methodologies for predicting scour depths around bridge piers typically employ empirical equations derived from physical model studies using non-cohesive, uniformly graded sands. This approach represents a worst-case condition since non-cohesive sands are one of the most erodible soils found in nature. In practice, these equations are commonly applied to all soils that cannot be strictly classified as non-erodible. Since very little, easy-to-apply information is available to evaluate potential scour in erosion resistant soils, a great deal of engineering experience is necessary for one to feel confident about quantifying any reduction of the scour estimated from these equations. Consequently, because of the risks involved, predictions of scour in erosion resistant soils are frequently conservative, resulting in overly deep and expensive pier foundations.

The unlimited range of soil types and combinations of soil types found in nature creates a full continuum of erodibility from the easily erodible, very fine silts to the non-erodible, competent rock. If even possible to fully describe this erodibility continuum, it will take significant time, effort, and money to develop reliable, practical methodologies and models for doing so. More immediate assistance is needed in this regard. An effective in-situ scour testing device could provide this assistance now on a project-by-project basis. Such a field device could more accurately define the scour potential for a given set of hydraulic design conditions and pier type, regardless of the foundation soil type or types present.

Objectives

The objective of this research is to prove or disprove the viability of such an in-situ scour testing device for use as a foundation design aid by the highway engineering community. The field device for the proposed study could consist of a water jet directed vertically downward into the soils that are to support the bridge pier foundations. The jet would be calibrated through physical model testing and computer simulation to produce the predicted scour depth in a sand-bed channel for the design hydraulic conditions and proposed pier geometry. The water jet would be run until equilibrium conditions are reached in the resulting scour hole, or until some maximum period of time has elapsed (such as the expected cumulative time the foundation will be exposed to the design discharge over the life of the bridge). The in-situ soils would thereby be exposed to the energy necessary to develop the scour depth, as predicted by the currently used equation. Any equilibrium or maximum scour depth resulting from a field test that is less than the predicted depth for a sand-bed channel would be attributable to the erosion-resistant characteristics of the in-situ soils. It is envisioned that this scour-testing device would be used for foundation analysis and design in a manner similar to present-day soil borings in that several tests would be conducted across the channel and floodplain area to be occupied by a proposed new or replacement bridge. The scour hole information resulting from the field test(s) would be used, in conjunction with the subsurface soil boring information, to adjust the design scour depth predicted by the equations for sand-bed channels, as appropriate, for the actual soil conditions at the bridge site. The TFHRC Hydraulics Laboratory will collaborate on this proposed research and will provide Lab capabilities and technical assistance.

Scope of Work

The scope of work consists of researching practicality of in-situ scour testing to predict scour and to improve scour prediction equations. The research will be based on a combination of data obtained from the historical scour research literature, laboratory experiments, field-testing, data collection, and data evaluation.

Tasks

The project will consist of the following tasks:

Task 1: Assemble a technical advisory committee that will provide oversight and guidance on all aspects of the project.

Task2: Identify a practical combination of prototype jet size (pipe/hose/nozzle) and variable speed pump (or throttle) that can be scaled down for laboratory use. Acquire and/or manufacture this scaled-down apparatus.

Task 3: Replicate a set of design hydraulic conditions (discharges, flow depth) and sediment sizes in a laboratory flume that have been used in past physical models and augment tests using high performance computing.

Task 4: Fix the scaled-down jet at the level of the sediment bed in the flume flow field. Orient the jet to direct the flow of water vertically downward. Record the resulting equilibrium scour depths over a range of jet discharges, sediment sizes produced by the variable speed pump (or throttle). Determine the jet discharge and total energy required to duplicate the depth of pier scour hole produced in past physical model tests. Repeat tests for 75, 50, 25, and 0 percent of design hydraulic conditions in the laboratory flume.

Task 5: Conduct a search of an appropriate database to locate a stream site with suitable sediment characteristics to test a full-scale prototype of the in-situ scour testing device.

Task 6: Conduct several full-scale field tests at various sites with known scourable material to calibrate the in-situ scour testing device.

Task 7: Compare field test results to those obtained from the laboratory for all total jet energies tested. Evaluate the impact of scale effects and other factors on the results. Identify and define the types of adjustments and/or correction factors that may be necessary to achieve a good, consistent correlation between the lab and field test scour depths.

Task 8: Evaluate the results of Task 7 and draw a conclusion on the viability of the in-situ scour testing device as a practical field tool for establishing more appropriate and economical bridge pier foundation design scour depths. Prepare a report outlining the study approach, results and resources needed to extend the laboratory and field testing to cover a full range of anticipated scour depths, sediment gradations, and stream flow conditions.

Comments

Suggested contribution: $15,000/year

The Federal Highway Administration will serve as the coordinator for this pooled-fund project. State DOT's will be solicited for their interest and participation in this study. FHWA will issue a task order contract to the support services contractor to conduct the study. Periodic reviews will be arranged to keep participating states and agencies up-to-date on current developments. These reviews may include meetings in Washington D. C. during the annual TRB Session, e-mail submittals and conference calls.

Title File/Link Type Private
Final Report for In-situ Scour Testing Device (1) feng2000017_offprint.pdf Final Report Public
Final Report for In-situ Scour Testing Device (2) 20032.pdf Final Report Public
Final Report for In-situ Scour Testing Device (3) 21025.pdf Final Report Public
Final Report for In-situ Scour Testing Device (4) 21029.pdf Final Report Public
Acceptance Memo acceptance_memo.pdf Memorandum Public
Approved Closeout Memo TPF-5(210) Closeout Memo.pdf Memorandum Public
Progress Report: January - March 2010 report_jan_march.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2010 ProgressforTPF-5(210)fromApr_to_Jun2010.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - September 2010 JultoSep2010.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Report: October 2010 - December 2010 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2010.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Report: January - March 2011 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2011.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Report: April - June 2011 ProgressforTPF-5(210)fromApr_to_Jun2011.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - September 2011 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jul to Sep 2011.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2011 Progress_for_TPF-5(210)_form_Oct_to_Dec_2011.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: January - March 2012 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2012.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2012 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Apr to Jun 2012.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2012 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2012.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
ogress Report: January - March 2013 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2013.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2013 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Apr to Jun 2013.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - September 2013 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jul to Sept 2013.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2013 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2013.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: January - March 2014 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2014.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2014 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Apr to Jun 2014.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - September 2014 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jul to Sept 2014.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2014 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2014.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: January - March 2015 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2015.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2015 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Apr to Jun 2015.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - September 2015 Progress for TPF-5(210) from July to Sept 2015.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2015 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2015.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: January - March 2016 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2016.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2016 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Apr to Jun 2016.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - Sept 2016 Progress for TPF-5(210) from July to Sept 2016.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2016 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2016.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: January - March 2017 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2017.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2017 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Apr to Jun 2017.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - September 2017 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jul to Sept 2017.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2017 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2017.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: January - March 2018 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2018.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2018 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Apr to Jun 2018.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - September 2018 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jul to Sept 2018.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2018 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2018.docx Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: January - March 2019 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jan to Mar 2019.docx Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: April - June 2019 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Apr to Jun 2019.docx Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: July - September 2019 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Jul to Sept 2019.docx Quarterly Progress Report Public
Progress Report: October - December 2019 Progress for TPF-5(210) from Oct to Dec 2019.docx Quarterly Progress Report Public

Currently, Transportation Pooled Fund is not supported on mobile devices, please access this Web portal using a desktop or laptop computer.