committee on materials and pavements...tech subcommittee 4d annual meeting 2019 page 5 of 8...

Tech Subcommittee XX Annual or Mid-Year Meeting 20YY of 8

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS AND PAVEMENTS

Meeting (Annual or Mid-Year) Annual

Date Monday August 5th

Scheduled Time 3:45PM – 4:45PM

Technical Subcommittee & Name TS4d - Safety Devices

Chair Name and (State) Ron Stanevich (WV)

Vice Chair Name and (State) Tim Ruelke (FL)

Research Liaison Name and (State) Curt Turgeon (MN)

I. Introduction and Housekeeping

II. Call to Order and Opening Remarks

A. Brief Summary of Activities Review and approve minutes from the January 8, 2019 Mid Year meeting. Tech Section Voice Vote to remove

T257, then move to COMP as a ballot item to remove. Assign Stewards to remaining standards. Review

Reconfirmation ballots and similar items.

III. Roll Call of Voting Members

Present Member Name State Present Member Name State☒ Tim Ruelke FL ☐ John Grieco MA

☒ Jason Davis LA ☒ Danny Lane TN

☒ Jim Tripanier IL ☐ Becca Lane Ontario

☐ Leo Fontaine CT ☒ Steve Heiser NY

☒ Amanda Dees KY ☒ Richard Barezinsky KS

☒ Jose Lima RI ☒ Ron Stanevich WV

☒ Neal Cole GA ☒ Scott George AL

☐ Kurt Williams WA ☒ Joe Robinson PA

☐ Andy Babish VA ☐

☒ Curt Turgeon MN ☐

Joe Robinson needs to be added as a voting member. Quorum Rules Met? Yes

Annual Meeting: Simple majority of voting members (☐y/ ☐n) | Mid-Year Meeting: Voting members present (☐y/ ☐n)

A. Review of Membership (New members, exiting members, etc.)

IV. Approval of Technical Subcommittee Minutes – Attachment A

Mid-Year webinar - Need to approve. Motion made TN, seconded by MN. All were in favor.

Summary of Meeting:

a. Reconfirmed and published M268

b. Reconfirmed and published M030

c. Reconfirmed and published M181

V. Old Business

A. T257

At Mid Year Meeting it was decided to propose a TS vote at Annual meeting to remove, then move to COMP

Ballot to remove. The original task (Task Force 18-01) was to see if AASHTO T 257 needed to be updated to

Tech Subcommittee 4d Annual Meeting 2019 of 8

match ASTM. Through her review, Kelly Morse (IL) discovered the only other AASHTO method to refer to T 257

was M 290 which has been deleted. Thus she proposes to eliminate T 257 as an outdated method that no one

uses. The Chair proposes to officially “sunset” Kelly’s TF. Motion made by MN, seconded by TN of sunsetting T

257. All were in favor. Voice TS ballot passes. Motion to move this forward to full COMP ballot- motion made

by RI, seconded by KS. All were in favor.

1.

B. Stewards for Standards and Tests

2. At the mid year Meeting it was decided to assign stewards to all the unassigned Standards and Tests.

a. M333 – WV is Steward

b. TP103 – FL is Steward.

a. COMP Ballot Items (Include any ASTM changes/equivalencies, including ASTM standards’ revision

years.)

COMP Ballot # Standard

Results (neg/affirm) Comments/Negatives Action

1 T 257 Affirm Deletion of T 257

2 TP 103 Affirm Move to full standard

b. Technical Subcommittee Ballots

TS Ballot # Standard


c. Reconfirmation Ballots

Reconf. Ballot # Standard


M333 recommends to affirm

TP103 Recommend to send to COMP ballot to Adopt


d. Task Force Reports

Task Force # Title Members Status/Update

18-01 Review of T 257 Kelley Morse (IL) - Lead Recommend deleting T 257 as obsolete. Sunset TF

3. New Business

a. AASHTO re:source/CCRL/NTPEP (Observations from assessments, as applicable.

No issues reported.

b. Presentation by Industry/Academia

Presentation from Roxanne Mukai- MD Transportation Authority- NCUTCD Presentation (Presentation attached)

c. Revisions/Work on Standards for Coming Year

None Submitted.

d. Review of Stewardship List Need New Stewards for remaining Standards. Please volunteer

- M 030- FL: Please let Tim Ruelke know locations and applications this standard is being used.

- M 180- FL

- M 181- LA

- M 268- MN/LA

- M 269- MD

- M 279- LA

- M 280- RI

- M 281- KS

- M 333- WV

- TP 103- FL

e. Proposed New Standards

- None

f. NCHRP Issues – Update on status of NCHRP 22-40 which involves the update to M180-18

and Associated Highway Guardrail specifications. Kick-off meeting will be August 19th. 24

month, $300k project. Complete rewrite of the standard and updates to be included in

new standard. New standard will be presented to this group.

The cable barriers got approved. NCHRP is being flexible. We can add this or RFP as an

independent research item. Approved at $250k.

g. Correspondence, Calls, Meetings

4. – Have been a few. Included in the minutes and presentations.

a. Proposed New Task Forces (Include list of volunteers to lead and/or join TF.)

- None

b. New TS Ballots Update - AASHTO M 280, Section 7.4 to include “mechanical splice” as

written in 7.4 of ASTM A 121-19 This change was requested by Dale King Engineering &

Customer Technical Relations Manager, Bekaert Corporation. The Vie-Chair reviewed this and is a simple change. Motion to make the suggested standard M 280 equivalent to ASTM


A 121- TS voice ballot- motion made by MN, seconded by TN. All were in favor. Motion made by MN, seconded by RI to move it to COMP ballot. All were in favor.

5. Open Discussion

a. LA asked if posts are being added to M 180. This will be included as a result of the research

NCHRP is doing. Katheryn Malusky (AASHTO) suggested this TS work with the NTPEP

Guardrail TC to put language into the NTPEP work plan so posts can be audited prior to

this standard becoming available.

b.

6. Adjourn

TS Meeting Summary

Meeting Summary

Items Approved by the TS for Ballot (Include reconfirmations.)

Standard Designation Summary of Changes Proposed Ballot Type

T 257 Deletion of T 257 ☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT

TP 103 Move to full standard ☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT

M 280 Revise to match ASTM A 121 ☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT

M 333 Revise or reconfirm ☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT

☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT







New Task Forces Formed

Task Force Name Summary of Task TF Member Names and (States)

Research Proposals (Include number/title/states interested.)

Other Action Items

-Sunset task force task force #18-01.


Attachment A – 2019 Mid-Year minutes

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS & PAVEMENTS 2018 - 2019 Mid Year Meeting (Webinar)

Tuesday, January 8th, 2019 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM EST

TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE 4d Safety Devices

Call to Order and Opening Remarks – Chair Intro and thanks and awards

1.Brief Intro

Roll Call (Voting Members) – Sign in Sheet & IntroductionsRon Stanevich WV Chair-Present

Tim Ruelke FL Vice Chair- Present

Jason Davis LA Member-

Dan Tobias IL Member-

Leo Fontaine CT Member -

OH Member-

Brandi Mitchell KY Member-

Jose Lima RI Member -

Richard Douds GA Member -

Kurt Williams WA Member-

Andy Babish, Jim

Swisher

VA Member- y

Curt Turgeon MN Member-

John Grieco MA Member-

TX Member-

Becca Lane ON Associate -

Danny Lane TN Member - Y

Friends of TS-4d & Introductions –(non Voting) Dennis Dvorak FHWA Ex Officio y

Chris Gaudette Orafol Am. Friend -

Todd Ballen 3M Friend - y

Robert Lutz AASHTO Liaison -

Tracy Barnhart AASHTO Liaison -

Kelly Morse IL Member – y

Steven Lenker AASHTO Member -

Maria Knake AASHTO Member -

Henry Lacinak AASHTO Member – y

David Ahlvers MO Member –

Art Bertol Wheelling-

Nisshin

Friend - y

Rick Barezinksy KS Y

Jonathan Sirianni AASHTO Y

Don Streeter NY Y


Approval of 2018 Annual COMP Minutes – 1.Can be downloaded at this link:

https://materials.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2018/07/TS4d-2018-AgendaAttachment.pdf

Motion to approve minutes: FL Second: VA Discussion: none; approved with no discussion

Old Business Any Outstanding Items from the OH SOM Meeting

1. T257 – comment by Illinois - ASTM has revised their standard since 2013 and the AASHTO standard should be compared to the current ASTM version to ensure that the language matches.

“Need to make sure to keep up with ASTM method changes. Current with the 2013 versions.”

-Kelly Morse with IL DOT will review this standard to make sure it reflects the current ASTM method changes. This will be task force 18-01. Is this referred to anywhere else in the AASHTO standards? If it is used in other places, are there any ASTM standards that have been updated since 2013 and if so, are the AASHTO standards current with the ASTM standards. LA will also volunteer on this task force. Chris Gaudette with ORAFOL Americas will also participate on this task force. There’s a tie btwn M290 to be removed and there was a negative that needed to be resolved (KS). There was a reference to T257 but was obsolete also. They may need to ballot T 257 to be removed, and if not, remove because of lack of use. FL: discussed a path forward. The group will wait until this TF is resolved and a decision is made. This will then be voted on at the annual meeting by a voice vote.

TS4d SOM Ballot Items 1. TP 103 – A COMP ballot outlining the changes to coincide with NTPEP work plan

SOM Ballot Completed – 43 affirmative, 1 Negative, 8 No Vote. Negative and comments related to inability to see test procedure on the ballot. Vice Chair has reached out to PA, SC and SD with the document and request review. Propose to review their comments for any persuasive items and move to publication assuming they are no more than editorial. New NTPEP work plan coming out and this is supposed to match that work plan. FL recommends opening the floor for comments with the 3 states above, making any editorial changes, then moving forward. The 3 states have

2. M290 – A COMP ballot was submitted for deletion of M290 – 43 Affirmative, 1 Negative and 8 No Vote The negative was withdrawn from KS and this will be withdrawn through the publications process.

3. KS negative appeared to indicate agreement with the deletion. Vice Chair will confirm and get a withdrawal or correction. Propose to move to delete from next publication.

Reconfirmation Report for standards: 1. M268 – Retroreflective Sheeting for Flat and Vertical Traffic Control Application

TS Ballot for reconfirmation – 14 Affirmative, 0 Negative, 2 No Vote Reconfirmed

ii. M 030 – Standard Specification for Metallic Coated Steel Wire Rope and Fittings for Highway Guardrail – 11 Affirmative, 0 Negative, 2 No Vote Note: Confirmed M030 is not referenced in any other AASHTO Standard, this was an action item from 2018 annual meeting, Publications confirmed it was not. The TS wanted to verify that it was not referenced in any other AASHTO standards. Pubs verified that it was not referenced and this is reconfirmed.

Tech Section Actions Required (Attachment C) i. M181-10 Chain Link Fence - Revise or Reconfirm

Will be sent out for a TS reconfirmation ballot


This item was originally left off the previous reconfirmation ballot. AI: Ron and Casey will send this out as a TS reconfirmation ballot

Task Force Reports – Update from 18-01 (Kelly Morse) see above

Research Proposals: 1.NCHRP 22-40 – Tim Ruelke will give update.

Link to project: http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4586This item was presented from another AASHTO Committee. This project was proposed regarding M 180 and it was not put forward by 4d or COMP. It speaks directly to M 180 and concerns with the standard not getting up to date. This project is currently being advertised with the deliverable being a ready-for-publications product that’s been revised The project participation window closes on January 29.

New Business “Material Requirements for High Tension Cable Barriers” Did not get recommended by COMP. However, NCHRP 22-40 indicated willing ness to extend based on performance of Researcher to include this. Decision is pending with the NCHRP panel.

This is a slight difference from the item above. Ed Harrigan (NCHRP) expressed a willingness to extend work to high tension cable barriers TN: they do brand registration guarantee; extended thanks for putting this together to include all the rest of the associated parts. How will this help with NTPEP? The researcher will have to reach out to NTPEP (and other involved parties) to evaluate that state of practice Can M 180 dovetail with NTPEP programs? NTPEP committee is making suggestions to M180. Ryan Fragapane will coordinate the NTPEP committee with the NCHRP researchers.

AMRL/CCRL – None – any comments from TS Members NCHRP Issues – -NCHRP 20-7 TF 374-M268. VA DOT: Looked at M268 and studied how people see signs and the angles to look at. TTI wanted to bring to this TS that we should be looking at how long signs last and recommends we do a performance study. Pooled fund by MN is currently going on. If you are interested in participating, contact Gene Hawkins with TTI. Did anyone offer to participate? Any comments? Jim Swisher (VA) has not volunteered in PFS but can update on the task force. The basic goal was to develop guidance for DOTs to use to select sign sheeting using M 268. There will be a conference call in a few weeks to ensure the course of research is still moving forward to ensure the geometry of signage is still in use. Andy Babish (VA) is this something that COMP endorsed? It sounds like the principal is coming back trying to expand the work. Lacinak – this was written and submitted a long time ago. We need to look at the original project statement and stick to those parameters unless the panel approves or the TS approves this expansion of this project. An expansion of the scope of work could possibly be problematic. If they want to expand this to a long term performance study they would need to proceed with caution as a 20-7 has limited funding. The group (and Gene Hawkins - TTI) is leaning towards sticking with the original proposal. If they want to change anything it would be much more prudent to go through the correct NCHRP channels Correspondence, calls, meetings - Any updates from the TS members?

3M – at the annual meeting there was a topic of daytime luminous factors and there’s a discrepancy btwn AASHTO/MUTCD and ASTM D4956 in that orange and yellow have lower values. There’s been an


ASTM ballot to raise the cap-y values to be in agreement with the MUTCD. There were negatives that the spec may be used for materials other than transportation-related usage. Those comments are currently under review with ASTM. The specific ballot is a red lined version of table 2 in D4956 reflecting the changes in values to increase the cap-y values.

Presentation by Industry/Academia – None – any comments from TS Members. NoneProposed New Standards-None – any comments from TS Members NoneProposed New Task Forces – None – any comments from TS Members NoneStandards Requiring Reconfirmation

i. M-180 being revised by NCHRP 22-40. Proceed with reconfirmation? FL: proceed with reconfirmation. The work will need to be laid out by the researchers before changes can be made. The outcome of the research will come after this administrative deadline. Art Bertol is available to give input to whomever becomes this standard steward.

ii. M - 333 Detectable Warning Surfaces. Steward Volunteer? WV volunteers to be Stewardiii. TP - 103 Confirm or Dump? FL will be Steward.

The Chair will reach out and assign other standards to states. Annual Meeting Agenda topics and issues

1. Please feel free to send me ([email protected]) any potential TS4D 2019 Annual meeting agenda topics. Ideas, etc industry presentations, anything. If anyone has ideas for presentations or agenda items in the coming months please get in touch!

Email about ASTM A 116 and A 121 – 1.Does this require changes to M 279 and M 280?

Should industry make changes and propose a draft revision to be balloted? Yes, the technical experts can recommend changes and the changes will be balloted and reviewed.

Open Discussion Wheeling Nisshin – thanks to the group for getting the changes to M 180 through. Tim is also the chair of 4b. There is a great opportunity for another state to be involved in this TS leadership. It’s important for there to be representation from across the country and from each state. It’s not ideal to have 1 person in multiple leadership roles. If you are interested in becoming the Vice Chair for this TS please get in touch with Ron and Casey.

Adjourn TN motion VA second Adjourned 12:52

GMI and RW Joint Task Force on Signs for CAVs

Co‐ChairsGMI RW

Roxane Y. Mukai Scott O. Kuznicki

RMukai:\NCUTCD\ Jun 2019\CAV Sign JTF GMI and RW JTF on Signs for CAVs 1

GMI and RW Joint Task Force on Signs for CAVs – PENDING MUTCD UPDATE

“FHWA, in partnership with key stakeholder associations and the practitioner community, is conducting research and device experimentation for overall improvements to the manual, and to better understand the specific needs of the emerging automated vehicle technologies. Incorporating existing interim approved devices, experimentations, and other identified proposed changes into the updated MUTCD will help humans and emerging automated vehicles to interpret the roadway…FHWA will pursue an update to the 2009 MUTCD that will take into consideration these new technologies and other needs.”

AV 3.0, pg 11


GMI and RW Joint Task Force on Signs for CAVs – Task Force Goal

Develop an action plan to identify needs, develop proposals for RWSTC and GMITC review in order to “advise FHWA on the MUTCD” by “initiating recommended changes, reviewing proposals” and providing task force comments on the rulemakings to the technical committees.


GMI and RW Joint Task Force on Signs for CAVs ‐ DEFINITIONS

WHAT IS A Traffic Control Device?“Support:The purpose of traffic control devices, as well as the principles for their use, is to promote highway safety and efficiency by providing for the orderly movement of all road users on streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel through out the Nation.Traffic control devices notify road users of regulations and provide warning and guidance needed for the uniform and efficient operation of all elements of the traffic stream in a manner intended to minimize the occurrence of crashes.”Section 1A.01 P01 and 02



WHAT IS A Traffic Control Device

“238. Traffic Control Device – a sign, signal, marking, or other device used to regulate, warn, or guide traffic, placed on, over or adjacent to a street, highway, private road open to public travel, pedestrian facility, of shared‐use path by authority of a public agency or official having jurisdiction, or, in the case of a private road open to public travel, by authority of the private owner or private official having jurisdiction.”Section 1A.13, P01, Item 238



WHAT IS A Sign?

“193. Sign – any traffic control device that is intended to communicate specific information to road users through a word, symbol, and/or arrow legend. Signs do not include highway traffic signals, pavement markings, delineators, or channelization devices.”Section 1A.13, P01, Item 193


GMI and RW Joint Task Force on Signs for CAVs – Initial MUTCD Team Response“…From an MUTCD perspective a traffic control device is a device or feature external to the vehicle in the highway ROW that conveys a visual and audible message to the road user, generally speaking a human, though its appearance, audible message, and basic operation (for example, the operation sequence of a traffic signal is part of the message conveyed to the road user). This means that any audible message, image, or other communication generated by the vehicle to the operator of that vehicle is not a traffic control device and would not be governed by the MUTCD, or for that matter the FHWA, regardless of whether it is trying to relay the message it received from a standard traffic control device. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may decide to regulate that as they regulate vehicle safety features, though I don’t know if they actually would.From a practical stand point, if the device out on the roadway is communicating with the human roadway user in any manner, it is likely a traffic control device and would be subject to compliance with the MUTCD. Also, visual or audible devices that can be seen or heard by the human road user that are incorporated into a traffic control device could be subject to compliance with the MUTCD given it is attached or incorporated into the TCD. Devices other than this would likely not be considered TCDs and not subject to MUTCD compliance.”


GMI and RW Joint Task Force on Signs for CAVs – Connected Vehicle Project (Sample)

Wrong Way Congestion –Collision Avoidance

Do Not Enter Speed Limit


GMI and RW Joint Task Force on Signs for CAVs – Existing Vehicle Products (Samples)

Cadillac Head‐Up DisplayAudi Traffic Sign Recognition Display

Mazda Traffic Sign‐Recognition Display


GMI and RW Joint Task Force on Signs for CAVs – Existing Material Product

3M Partnered with MN DOT to test embedded smart codes.

www.forconstructionpros.com/asphalt/article/20867242/how‐connected‐vehicles‐make‐work‐zones‐safer


GMI and RW Joint Task Force on Signs for CAVs – Automated Vehicle Signs (Samples)Las Vegas, NV Columbus, OH

San Ramon, CA

Ann Arbor, MI

Baltimore, MDRMukai:\NCUTCD\ Jun 2019\CAV Sign JTF GMI and RW JTF on Signs for CAVs 11

Austin, TX MI

GMI and RW Joint Task Force on Signs for CAVs – Research (Local Road Research Board)“Preparing Local Agencies for the Future of Connected and Autonomous Vehicles”http://mndot.gov/research/reports/2019/201918.pdf

• CAVs require signing to be consistently placed and maintained at a much higher level than current practice.

• First generation CAVs using cameras / machine vision systems.

• Will need enhanced signs…(to) offer redundancies in case one component (such as GPS) fails.

• Smart codes can refer back to central databases (Asset Management/GIS tools)

• Tools – smart codes (QR, bar, infra‐red, ultra‐violet…) or broadcast (Bluetooth, RFID, 5G, DSRC…)


GMI and RW Joint Task Force on Signs for CAVs – Research (LRRB) Recommendations“Preparing Local Agencies for the Future of Connected and Autonomous Vehicles”http://mndot.gov/research/reports/2019/201918.pdf

• Consistent use and placement of signs as well as proper maintenance and replacement to aid CAVs.

• Consider use of signs with smart codes.

• Ensure signs are properly placed. A human driver can infer how to react when presented with inconsistent messages. A CAV is much less able to do so.


Photos courtesy of the MDTA Operations Training Unit

GMI and RW Joint Task Force on Signs for CAVs – Research (Automotive Safety Council)Feb 2019 ASC/ATSSA Joint Meeting –Overview of Machine Vision Systems Interaction with Temporary Traffic Controls (by Mobileye)


GMI and RW Joint Task Force on Signs for CAVs –Research (Virginia Transportation Research Council) Conclusions“Providing Traffic Control Device Information in a CAV Environment”http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/19‐r19.pdf

• CAVs will be most directly served with a comprehensive Digital Traffic Control Device (DTCD) data service as opposed to deriving information from physical devices. Improves safety by providing redundant data source to compare to vision system derived data.

• There is a need for a national standard for DTCD data services (similar to the General Transit Feed Specification or GTFS). (Is there a specification for sign message BSM?)

• (VDOT) DOTs already collect portions of the data needed for a DTCD service.

• DTCD will be a complex system. Research needed.


GMI and RW Joint Task Force on Signs for CAVsDiscussion Items:• FHWA MUTCD NPRM• Connected vs Automated• Data Layer/Asset Mngmnt System vs Physical Sign

• Machine vs Human Vision• CAV Developers input• Manufacturers input• Research Needs• Other (In‐Vehicle and PDA displays)

Action Items:• Research Committee – Thurs• Agenda Items for Jan 2020


committee on materials and pavements...tech subcommittee 4d annual meeting 2019 page 5 of 8...

Documents