committee on materials and pavements...tech subcommittee 5c annual meeting 2020 page 1 of 4...

Tech Subcommittee 5c Annual Meeting 2020 of 4

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS AND PAVEMENTS

Meeting (Annual or Mid-Year) Annual Meeting of TS 5c Date July 29, 2020 Scheduled Time 11:00 am Technical Subcommittee & Name Quality Assurance and Environmental Chair Name and (State) Curt Turgeon Minnesota Vice Chair Name and (State) Sejal Barot Maryland Research Liaison Name and (State) Rick Bradbury Maine

I. Introduction and Housekeeping

II. Call to Order and Opening Remarks

A. Brief Summary of Activities

III. Roll Call of Voting Members

One hundred and ninety-nine (199) people registered and one hundred and sixty-eight (168) attended. The roll of members is below.

Present Member Name State Present Member Name State ☒ Curt Turgeon (Chair) MN ☒ Brett Trautman MO ☒ Sejal Barot (VC) MD ☒ Oak Metcalfe MT ☒ Scott George AL ☒ Mick Syslo NE ☐ Michael San Angelo AK ☒ Steven Heiser NY ☒ Michael Benson (retired)

(Jonathan Annable present) AR ☒ James Welter OH

☒ Keith Hoffman (Mohammad Fatemi present(

CA ☒ Matt Romero (Ben Rojas present)

OK

☐ Kyle Lester CO ☒ Larry Ilg OR ☒ Robert Lauzon CT ☒ Temple Short SC ☒ Tim Ruelke FL ☒ Danny Lane (Michael Doran

and others present) TN

☒ Ian Rish GA ☒ Scott Nussbaum UT ☐ Anita Joaquin HI ☒ Andy Babish VA ☒ Brian Pfeifer IL ☒ Ron Stanevich WV ☒ Richard Barenzinsky KS ☒ Anne Holt ONT ☒ Rick Bradbury ME ☒ Felix Doucet QUE ☐ Jeff Curtis MS

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

IV. Approval of Technical Subcommittee Minutes Maryland meeting

V. Old Business

A. COMP Ballot Items 1. PP 80 PMTP Minor changes to one table. Passed

Tech Subcommittee XX Mid-Year Meeting 20YY of 4

2. PP 98 GPR Minor changes. Passed

B. Fall Reconfirmation Ballot 1. R 10 Passed 2. R 42 Passed 3. R 61 Passed 4. PP 81 Passed

C. TS Presentations February 24, 2020 1. New Standard for Proposed Surrogate Test Method – Haleh Azari and Georgene Geary 2. Emulsion Task Force Update with proposed test Methods – Colin Franco

D. TS Ballot Items 1. NEW Emulsion Chip Seal Quality Assurance Guide

a. Negatives from Ohio and Maine b. Several Comments provided c. Negatives and Comments to be addressed by Colin Franco

2. NEW Recognizing Surrogate Test Methods

a. Passed, no Negatives b. Several Comments provided c. Comments to be addressed by Haleh Azari and Georgene Geary

3. NEW Slurry Systems Quality Assurance Guide


E. Correspondence from WAQTC – Editorial Changes to R 25

F. COMP Ballot Items (Include any ASTM changes/equivalencies, including ASTM standards’ revision years.) COMP Ballot # Standard

Results (neg/affirm) Comments/Negatives Action


G. Technical Subcommittee Ballots TS Ballot # Standard


H. Reconfirmation Ballots Reconf. Ballot # Standard


I. Task Force Reports Task Force # Title Members Status/Update R 42 Maine- Rick Bradbury;

Connecticut – Bob Lauzon; Virginia- Robert Crandol , Kansas- Rick Barezinsky; and Colorado – Vince Battista

VI. New Business

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

B. Presentation by Industry/Academia

C. Revisions/Work on Standards for Coming Year Standard # Title Task/Summary Assigned to PP 39 Data Standards May be updated to include e-Ticket data format Minnesota PP 98 GPR Asphalt Density May be updated to include Appendix on calibration to

gyratory specimens. Minnesota

D. Review of Stewardship List (List of subcommittee’s standards flagging those requiring action; include as separate attachment.)

E. Proposed New Standards 1.


F. NCHRP Issues

G. Correspondence, Calls, Meetings

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

I. New TS Ballots 1.

VII. Open Discussion

A.

B.

VIII. Adjourn

TS Meeting Summary

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

Standard Designation Summary of Changes Proposed Ballot Type

☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT

☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT



☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT ☐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

7/16/2020 Members – Transportation.org

https://materials.transportation.org/membership/ 1/4

Turgeon, Curt(651) 366-5535

Minnesota Department of Transportation Chair Voting

Barot, Sejal443-572-5037

Maryland Department of Transportation Vice Chair Voting

Soneira, Casey202-624-5824

American Association of State Highway and TransportationOfficials

Liaison Non-Voting

George, Scott W.334-206-2201

Alabama Department of Transportation Member Voting

Gettman, Daniel(907) 269-6248

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Member Non-Voting

Giessel, Richard S.(907) 269-6244

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Member Non-Voting

San Angelo, Michael907-269-6234

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Member Voting

Benson, Michael C501-569-2185

Arkansas Department of Transportation Member Voting

Hoffman, Keith D(916) 227-7016

California Department of Transportation Member Voting

Lester, Kyle(303) 512-5218

Colorado Department of Transportation Member Voting

Connery, James P.(860) 594-2669

Connecticut Department of Transportation Member Non-Voting

Lauzon, Robert G8602580312

Connecticut Department of Transportation Member Voting

Ruelke, Tim J.352-955-6620

Florida Department of Transportation Member Voting

Rish, Ian D(404) 608-4849

Georgia Department of Transportation Member Voting

Joaquin, Anita L.(808)832-3405 ext. 132

Hawaii Department of Transportation Member Voting

Pfeifer, Brian(217) 782-7202

Illinois Department of Transportation Member Voting

Barezinsky, Richard A(785) 368-6521

Kansas Department of Transportation Member Voting



Alley, Mark D207-941-4526

Maine Department of Transportation Member Non-Voting

Bradbury, Rick L(207) 624-3482

Maine Department of Transportation Member Voting

Curtis, Jeff Gibbes(601) 359-1798

Mississippi Department of Transportation Member Voting

Trautman, BrettSteven573 751-1036

Missouri Department of Transportation Member Voting

Metcalfe, Ross Oak406-444-9201

Montana Department of Transportation Member Voting

Syslo, Mick(402) 479-4750

Nebraska Department of Transportation Member Voting

Heiser, F. Steven(518) 457-4785

New York State Department of Transportation Member Voting

Welter, James Norbert(614) 275-1351

Ohio Department of Transportation Member Voting

Romero, Matt(405) 522-4918

Oklahoma Department of Transportation Member Voting

Ilg, Larry D503.986.3072

Oregon Department of Transportation Member Voting

Short, Temple(803) 737-6648

South Carolina Department of Transportation Member Voting

Lane, Danny L.(615) 350-4175

Tennessee Department of Transportation Member Voting

Nussbaum, L. Scott(801) 726-9065

Utah Department of Transportation Member Voting

Babish, Charles A.(804) 328-3102

Virginia Department of Transportation Member Voting

Farley, Paul M(304) 558-7491

West Virginia Department of Transportation Member Voting

Felag, Mark Edward(202) 624-5800

AASHTO Consultants AASHTO Staff Non-Voting

Uherek, Gregory V240-436-4840

AASHTO Re:source AASHTO Staff Non-Voting



Knake, Maria(240) 436-4804


Johnson, Brian240-436-4820


Lenker, Steven(240) 436-4770


Lutz, Robert(240) 436-4801


Puterbaugh, SonyaRose(240) 436-4865


Malusky, Katheryn202-624-3695

American Association of State Highway and TransportationOfficials

AASHTO Staff Non-Voting

Geary, Georgene M(770) 337-5817

GGfGA Engineering, LLC AASHTO Staff Non-Voting

Holt, Anne416-235-3724

Ontario Ministry Of Transportation AssociateMember

Voting

Lee, Stephen(416) 235-3732

Ontario Ministry Of Transportation AssociateMember

Non-Voting

Dvorak, Dennis V(708) 283-3542

Federal Highway Administration Ex Officio Non-Voting

Doyle, Gregory(617) 494-3279


Withee, Jeffrey(202) 366-6429


Aschenbrener, Tim720-963-3247


Corrigan, Matthew2023661549


Bergold, Desna(801) 721-7146

D B Consulting and Associates, LLC Friend Non-Voting

Jones, Cecil L(919) 616-5139

Diversified Engineering Services, Inc. Friend Non-Voting

Gallivan, Victor Lee(317) 605-4704

Gallivan Consulting Inc. Friend Non-Voting



Pollock, Jeffrey M(978) 212-7014

International Coding Technologies, Inc. Friend Non-Voting

Watson, Donald E.(334) 844-7306

National Center for Asphalt Technology at Auburn University Friend Non-Voting

Lobo, Colin L2404851160

NRMCA Friend Non-Voting

Azari, Haleh(202) 286-0148

Pavement Systems Friend Non-Voting

7/16/2020 https://ballot.transportation.org/PrintDetailReport.aspx?ballotID=2322&sectionID=3631&groupID=1156&userID=&voting=--All--&nonvotin…

https://ballot.transportation.org/PrintDetailReport.aspx?ballotID=2322&sectionID=3631&groupID=1156&userID=&voting=--All--&nonvoting=--All-- 1/21

AASHTO Electronic Balloting System

Ballot Detail Report

Ballot Detail

Ballot Name:

TS 5C Spring Ballot

Ballot Manager:

Casey Soneira

Ballot Start Date:

4/8/2020

Ballot Due Date:

5/9/2020

TS 5C Spring Ballot

Item Number: 1

Description:Ballot for new proposed provisional standard Emulsion Chip SealQuality Assurance Guide. An affirmative vote is to adopt this as anew provisional standard. A negative vote must be accompanied bycomments.

Decisions: Affirmative: 17 of 28Negative: 2 of 28No Vote: 9 of 28

Agency (Individual Name) Comments Decision ResponseAttachment

Ontario Ministry Of Transportation (AnneHolt) ([email protected])

AASHTO re:source (Brian Johnson)([email protected])

American Association of State Highwayand Transportation Officials (CaseySoneira) ([email protected])

Diversified Engineering Services, Inc.(Cecil L Jones) ([email protected])

NRMCA (Colin L Lobo) ([email protected])

Alaska Department of Transportation andPublic Facilities (Daniel Gettman)([email protected])

Federal Highway Administration (DennisDvorak) ([email protected])

D B Consulting and Associates, LLC(Desna Bergold) ([email protected])

National Center for Asphalt Technology atAuburn University (Donald E. Watson)([email protected])

GGfGA Engineering, LLC (Georgene MGeary) ([email protected])

Federal Highway Administration (Gregory



Doyle) ([email protected])

AASHTO re:source (Gregory V Uherek)([email protected])

Pavement Systems (Haleh Azari)([email protected])

International Coding Technologies, Inc.(Jeffrey M Pollock) ([email protected])

Federal Highway Administration (JeffreyWithee) ([email protected])

see attached documentwith consolidated FHWAcomments forconsideration

DownloadAttachment(s)

American Association of State Highwayand Transportation Officials (KatherynMalusky) ([email protected])

California Department of Transportation(Keith D Hoffman)([email protected])

AASHTO re:source (Maria Knake)([email protected])

Maine Department of Transportation(Mark D Alley) ([email protected])

Recommend a YES vote.

AASHTO Consultants (Mark Edward Felag)([email protected])

Federal Highway Administration (MatthewCorrigan) ([email protected])

Federal Highway Administration (MichaelArasteh) ([email protected])

Connecticut Department of Transportation(James P. Connery)([email protected])

Alaska Department of Transportation andPublic Facilities (Richard S. Giessel)([email protected])

Alaska supports inputfrom Maintenance for thisQA Guide.

AASHTO re:source (Robert Lutz)([email protected])

Utah Department of Transportation (ScottS Andrus) ([email protected])

AASHTO re:source (Sonya RosePuterbaugh)([email protected])

Ontario Ministry Of Transportation(Stephen Lee) ([email protected])

AASHTO re:source (Steven Lenker)([email protected])

Federal Highway Administration (TimAschenbrener)([email protected])

Gallivan Consulting Inc. (Victor LeeGallivan) ([email protected])

Kansas Department of Transportation(Richard A Barezinsky)([email protected])

Affirmative

South Carolina Department ofTransportation (Temple Short)([email protected])

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Affirmative

https://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?UserID=4311&ItemID=7754



Overall it looks good. Typically, in theReferenced Documentssection, Section 2, it onlylists documents that areactually referencedsomewhere in the body ofthe guide. Need to addT350 and TP72 to it andthen remove R18, R38,R77, and 23 CFR 637...oradd some language in thebody talking about thesestandards.

Alabama Department of Transportation(Scott W. George)([email protected])

Affirmative

Maryland Department of Transportation(Sejal Barot)([email protected])

-------------------------------------------------------------------I recommend anaffirmative vote for thisprovisional standard.

Affirmative

Montana Department of Transportation(Ross Oak Metcalfe) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Utah Department of Transportation (L.Scott Nussbaum) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Oregon Department of Transportation(Larry D Ilg) ([email protected])

The minimum testingfrequencies seemtoo low to me. Mysuggestion would be1 per every X tons orcubic yards producedor per agencyguidelines.

The use of "ensure"is used frequentlythough out thedocument; "TheAgency will conductacceptancesampling, testing,and inspections toensure materialquality, correctapplication rates,rolling and sweepingtechniques." Thismay become a pointof discussion in aclaim situation.

As this is titled as a"...Guide"can/should a guidebe utilized to"ensure" anything?

Affirmative

Arkansas Department of Transportation(Michael C Benson)([email protected])

Affirmative



Georgia Department of Transportation(Ian D Rish) ([email protected])

Affirmative

New York State Department ofTransportation (F. Steven Heiser)([email protected])

No comments Affirmative

Hawaii Department of Transportation(Anita L. Joaquin)([email protected])

Affirmative

Tennessee Department of Transportation(Danny L Lane) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Minnesota Department of Transportation(Curt M Turgeon)([email protected])

Affirmative

Virginia Department of Transportation(Charles A. Babish)([email protected])

Affirmative

Illinois Department of Transportation(Brian Pfeifer) ([email protected])

Consider adding a newsection at the beginningof the guide titled“Description: EmulsionChip Seal” similar tothe first section inthe slurry systemsguide. Consider thefollowing for the newsection:“Emulsion Chip Seal is anapplication of anemulsified bituminousbinder covered with anapplication of cleangraded aggregate toan existing asphaltsurface. The bindersmay be emulsionsmodifiedwith variouspolymers such aslatex, tire andnatural rubbers. Theaggregatescommonly vary insize from amaximum of 5/8 ofan inch to aminimum of ¼ inchwith less than 5%passing the No. 4screen. Aggregatemust be durable withthe use of crushedstone, gravels ormanufacturedaggregates.Emulsion Chip Sealhas been used invarious forms sinceat least theearly 1900’s. Thequality has improvedover the years with

Affirmative



better bindertechnology, cleaneraggregates,and improvedequipment and abetter understandingof how the materialsperform together.”

Under Quality Control,General, page 2, lastsentence, consider“Failure to comply withthe requirements…”and considerreplacing “followthese requirements”with “are incompliance”

Should an emulsionproperties row be addedto the QC Requirementstable and theAASHTO designationsfor the type ofemulsions be addedhere, as found in theslurry system guide(M 140, M 208 andM 316)?

In Section 7, considerreplacing “approved” with“accepted” in regard tothe QC Plan. Someagencies do not like theterm “approval” asrelated to the QCplan. They believethat it takesresponsibility offthe contractor.

After the title “AgencyAcceptance” considerdeleting “(QA)” since QAand acceptance havedifferent definitions

Ontario Ministry Of Transportation (BeccaLane) ([email protected]) Sect I, Part 1

General:Considerdeveloping a QCPlan checklist toverify the projectmilestone isachieved – foragencyverification.

Affirmative



Sect I, Part 6 QCActivities:Recognizing thisis the minimumtestingrequirement,what aboutadding particlecharge test tothe list of "Testson Emulsion."

Missing theSubjectdescription in theintroduction thatthe "SlurrySystem guide"has.

Missouri Department of Transportation(Brett Steven Trautman)([email protected])

Affirmative vote with twocomments:

- Should the specificationsinclude information aboutdetermining the quality ofthe aggregate using suchtests as the LA abrasionand/or the micro-deval. The quality of thelimestones and dolomitesin Missourivary significantly andneed to be tested toensure the propermaterial is utilized for thechip seal.

- We would recommendchecking the amount ofdeleterious material morethan once prior toconstruction (Table onPage 3). On Page 6,under Section II - AgencyAcceptance (QA),Subsection 2 - AcceptanceActivities, Part b, Subparti, it mentions checking thegradation and deleteriousonce per day or at thediscretion of the agency. Recommend theinformation be consistentin both locations. InMissouri, the deleteriouscontent can vary a fairamount during productionas the quarryworks through theledge(s).

- In the SlurrySystems QualityAssurance Guide, under

Affirmative



Section II - AgencyAcceptance, one ofthe acceptance activitiesis assuring thecontractor has followedthe approved QC Plan. Should this language beadded to the Chip SealQuality Assurance Guide,under the section entitled,'Acceptance Activities'.

Ohio Department of Transportation(James Norbert Welter)([email protected])

See comments inattachment.

Negative DownloadAttachment(s)

Maine Department of Transportation(Richard L Bradbury)([email protected])

Description: QualityAssurance (QA)section: Suggestdeleting this section andreferring to AASHTO R10, "Definition of TermsRelated to Quality andStatistics as Used inHighway Construction."

2. ReferenceDocuments: Addreference to R 10.

4. Personnel: It appearsthat there is a greatdeal of overlap in theroles of PlanAdministrator and QCManager.

5. QC Testing Facilitiesand Equipment: Manyagencies do not requireQC labs to beaccredited for othermaterials - this could bedifficult to implement.

MINIMUMAGGREGATE QCREQUIREMENTStable: Should includepoint of sampling.

MINIMUM ASPHALTEMULSION QCREQUIREMENTStable: Not clear ifsampling rate refers totons of emulsion ortones of aggregate.Should include point ofsampling.

Negative




7. Contractor’s QualityControl Plan (e) QCActivities: No mention ofcontrol charts.

II. Agency Acceptance(QA): Use of the term"QA" here conflicts withthe definition of QA inthe description sectionand with R 10.

II. 1. General: Theagency may conductverification testing if QCresults are used forAcceptance.

III. I. IndependentAssurance Program(IA): Suggest removingthis section, or referringto the FHWA TechBriefon IA Programs.

Connecticut Department of Transportation(Robert G Lauzon) ([email protected])

No Vote

Mississippi Department of Transportation(Jeff Gibbes Curtis)([email protected])

No Vote

Oklahoma Department of Transportation(Scott Seiter) ([email protected])

No Vote

Florida Department of Transportation(Timothy J. Ruelke)([email protected])

No Vote

Colorado Department of Transportation(Kyle Lester) ([email protected])

No Vote

Alaska Department of Transportation andPublic Facilities (Michael San Angelo)([email protected])

No Vote

Nebraska Department of Transportation(Mick S Syslo)([email protected])

No Vote

West Virginia Department ofTransportation (Paul M Farley)([email protected])

No Vote

California Department of Transportation(Daniel Speer) ([email protected])

No Vote

Item Number: 2

Description: Ballot for new proposed provisional standard Recognizing Surrogate



Test Methods. An affirmative vote is to adopt this as a newprovisional standard. A negative vote must be accompanied bycomments.













Federal Highway Administration (GregoryDoyle) ([email protected])





below are consolidated FHWAcomments for consideration:

- There is a similarexis�ng standardpublished byASTM underE11.20 TestMethod Evalua�onand QualityControl Commi�ee(ASTM standardE2935-17,Standard Prac�cefor Conduc�ngEquivalence



Tes�ng inLaboratoryApplica�ons). Theproposed analysisis duplica�vewhen the exis�ngASTM informa�oncan be used andreferenced.- The procedure isa simple sta�s�calcomparison of testresults using F&Ttest to determineif there is acorrela�on; andminimally requiresn=30 splitsamples. Asignificantweakness is itdoesn’t require arigorousevalua�on from awide range ofmaterials/sourcesthe original test ismeant to evaluate;and originallydeveloped toaddress. If onesource of materialis evaluated withthe proposedanalysis and theuser finds a goodsta�s�calcorrela�on, it doesnot mean the newtest is equivalent.It only means thenew test providedsimilar results onlimited data froma specific orlimited number ofmaterials/sources. It would need toinclude anevalua�on of awide variety of



material fromvaried sources thatare typically testedunder the originalestablished testprocedure forequivalency to bevalid.- There is poten�alto createconfusion if thisanalysis is used asa means to jus�fya material meetsexis�ngAASHTO/DOT testand specifica�onsrequirements viaan alternate testmethod. Whatwould happen ifthe material failedthe AASHTO/DOTrequirements andpassed thealternate method’srequirements?- 3.1.1 and 3.1.2Should this beclarified further? Does this mean adifferent way tomeasure the sameproperty or is thisto comparedifferentproper�es? Is thisprocedureappropriate whencomparing teststhat measuredifferent qualitycharacteris�cs? Example: SAM as asurrogate forHarden Air SpacingFactor, Resis�vityfor RCPT, I-Fit vsTexas Overlay vsDirect TensionCyclic Fa�gue,



Hveem vs APA vsFlow Number,Cores vs NuclearDensity vsInduc�on Gauges;Some be�erdefini�on and anexample should beincluded to definethe intendedpurpose.- 4.2.1.1specifically citesprecision and biases�mates of thesurrogate testmust use ASTMC670 but doesn’tinclude therequirements ofcomple�ng aninterlaboratorystudy according toASTM C802 orASTM E691, nor aruggednessevalua�onaccording to ASTME1169 or ASTMC1067.- The exampleprovided in theAppendix X1 isvery specific to aproprietarymethod,equipment, andcontrol systemthat is alsocurrently underconsidera�on byASTM commi�eeD04.44; which hasgenerated muchtechnical debateyet to be resolved. This example testisn’t an AASHTOtest method, noran approved ASTMmethod. It could



be interpreted thissta�s�calprocedure istargeted toendorse and allowthe specific ASTMdebated testmethod to replacethe currentAASHTO lowtemperature BBRtest method andrequirements. Atest agnos�cgeneral example ispreferred to avoidthe poten�alendorsement.











Alaska supports adoption ofthis standard.






Federal Highway Administration (TimAschenbrener)



([email protected])



Affirmative


-------------------------------------------------------------------Editorial - typo in Section2.2. E2395 should be E2935. Also repeated in Section4.4.3.

Affirmative


Affirmative


-------------------------------------------------------------------I recommend an affirmativevote for this provisionalstandard.

Affirmative


Affirmative


1.2: Suggest changing"especially if the standardtest method is slow, thestandard test method useshazardous materials, or thestandard test methodinvolves destroying apor�on of the material" to"especially if the standardtest method usescomplex/expensiveequipment, requires �me-consuming sampleprepara�on and tes�ngtechniques, uses hazardousmaterials, orinvolves destroying apor�on of the material."

4.1: "If that variability isminimal compared to thebenefits of the surrogatetest, the surrogate test isacceptable for use." - theproposed standard seemsto presume that acorrela�on exists betweenthe methods. Variability byitself cannot provide thisassurance.

4.2: "found in standardcomputer spreadsheet and

Affirmative



sta�s�cal analysisprograms."

4.4: "The procedure issimilar to simple regressionin that it evaluates thelinear sta�s�calrela�onship between thestandard and surrogate testmethod. - Is this standardapplicable to nonlinearrela�onships?


Affirmative


Affirmative


Affirmative


Affirmative


Affirmative




Affirmative


Affirmative


Affirmative


Affirmative


Affirmative

Ontario Ministry Of Transportation (BeccaLane) ([email protected]) Sect. 4.2.1:

Clarification of whyn=30 is used?

Sect 4.2.3: s^2 isnot mentioned in4.2.2

Sect 4.3: Should itbe 95%? It seemslow to use 90%?

Affirmative



Sect. 5.1.2: Mayneed to define howmuch is “greatly”?

Table X.3. TOSTExample EUCL andELCL Values: Arethe 2 valuesreversed? ECUL =0.2512294 andELCL -0.0336033?

X1.2.1: This is notclear. Why does theregression slopeindicate this is notan acceptablesurrogate?


Affirmative


No Vote


No Vote


No Vote


No Vote


No Vote


No Vote


No Vote


No Vote


No Vote

Item Number: 3

Description: Ballot for new proposed provisional standard Slurry Systems QualityAssurance Guide. An affirmative vote is to adopt this as a newprovisional standard. A negative vote must be accompanied bycomments.















Federal Highway Administration (GregoryDoyle) ([email protected])





see attached document withconsolidated FHWAcomments for consideration

DownloadAttachment(s)



















Federal Highway Administration (TimAschenbrener)([email protected])



Affirmative


-------------------------------------------------------------------Section 2, ReferencedDocuments, containsseveral references thataren't mentioned in thebody of the guide. Documents a, b, and c, aswell as o through v aren'tmentioned in the guide.

Affirmative


Affirmative


-------------------------------------------------------------------This is consistent withgeneral QC and AgencyAcceptance (QA) Guidesand Practices. I recommend an affirmativevote.

Affirmative


Affirmative


Affirmative


The minimum testingfrequencies seem too low tome. My suggestion wouldbe 1 per every X tons orcubic yards produced or peragency guidelines.

The use of "ensure" is usedfrequently in the document;"The Agency willconduct acceptance

Affirmative



sampling, tes�ng, andinspec�ons to ensurematerial quality,correct applica�onrates, workmanshiptechniques." This maybecome a point ofdiscussion in a claimsitua�on.

As this is �tled as a"...Guide" can/should aguide be u�lized to"ensure" anything?


Affirmative


Affirmative




Affirmative


Affirmative


Affirmative


Affirmative


Under Quality Control,General, page 2, lastsentence, consider “Failureto comply withthe requirements…”and consider deleting“with theserequirements”

Under referencedocuments, add M 316

In the table under QCActivities, for the row titled“Emulsion Properties” addM 316 along with M 208. M316 covers thepolymer-modifiedemulsified asphaltcommonly used inslurry systems.

Under the ResidueProperties part of the table,consider adding T 301,Elastic Recovery, as a

Affirmative



means to verify thepresence of polymers

In Section 7, considerreplacing “approved” with“accepted” in regard to theQC Plan. Some agenciesdo not like the term“approval” as relatedto the QC plan. Theybelieve that it takesresponsibility offthe contractor.

After the title “AgencyAcceptance” considerdeleting “(QA)” since QAand acceptance havedifferent definitions

Ontario Ministry Of Transportation (BeccaLane) ([email protected])

Affirmative


Affirmative


See comments inattachment.

Negative DownloadAttachment(s)


Description: QualityAssurance (QA) section:Suggest deleting thissection and referring toAASHTO R 10,"Definition of TermsRelated to Quality andStatistics as Used inHighway Construction."

2. Reference Documents:Add reference to R 10.

4. Personnel: It appearsthat there is a great dealof overlap in the roles ofPlan Administrator andQC Manager.

5. QC Testing Facilitiesand Equipment: Manyagencies do not requireQC labs to be accreditedfor other materials - thiscould be difficult toimplement.

6. QC Activities. Table ofminimum QC activitiesincludes "Lot Size" andlists 1 sample/Lot. Thisseems to indicate that Lot

Negative




quality will be determinedby a sample size of n=1.

7. f. : No mention ofcontrol charts.

General question: Is it theintent to create numerousstandalone QAdocuments forpreservation treatments,or will these beconsolidated into a singleguide document? Seemslike a lot of duplicationand increased likelihoodof inconsistency betweenrecommended QCpractices for differenttreatment types.


No Vote


No Vote


No Vote


No Vote


No Vote


No Vote


No Vote


No Vote


No Vote

Date: 7/16/2020

Close Print Generate Document

of 3

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

FY 2021 NCHRP Problem Statement Outline

I. PROBLEM TITLE

Recommended Minimum Qualifications for Transportation Project Quality Management Roles

II. BACKGROUND

Effective management of quality during the design and construction of public transportation

projects is a critical, yet often overlooked part of the successful delivery of these projects.

Owner agencies, designers, contractors and material suppliers all require specific quality roles

and functions to assure that the project meets design requirements and long-term performance

expectations. Typical quality roles include owner quality assurance engineers/managers; design

quality managers; construction quality managers; quality control plan administrators and

quality control managers. These roles and functions will vary depending on project delivery

method specified by the owner or their organizational structure. While the minimum

qualifications for roles such as lead designer, project manager or construction engineer are

usually well-defined to include specific levels of education, experience and professional

licensure, minimum requirements for quality-related roles often do not include specific training

or certification in quality management principles. This may be due to an assumption that

education and experience in a particular design or construction discipline provides the skills

necessary to provide effective quality management; this ignores the fact that quality

management is itself a specialized discipline that requires training and experience. It is also

critical that individuals in these roles understand the overall project quality efforts and how

their functions support those efforts. The pervasive lack of training in quality management

principles leads to compromised overall short and long-term quality of projects.

Some owner agencies specify or recommend minimum qualifications for personnel filling key

management roles focused on quality engaged on public construction projects. For example,

the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command

(NAVFAC) require QC managers/administrators working on their projects to hold a certificate

in Construction Quality Management for Contractors, that is offered as a partnership between

those agencies and two national contractor associations The Federal Transit Authority (FTA)

“Quality Management System Guidelines” recommends that certain project personnel hold

certifications through the American Society for Quality including Manager of

Quality/Organizational Excellence; Quality Engineer; and Quality Auditor. Several state DOTs

in the northeast require QC plan administrators to hold the Quality Assurance Technologist

certification administered by the NorthEast Transportation Training and Certification Program

(NETTCP). However, most agencies do not require certification for quality management roles.

Instead they rely on minimum educational and experience levels that may or may not include

training on or experience with quality management principles.

Increased knowledge of quality management principles will lead to improved outcomes on

transportation projects, including well defined and understood roles, less rework, shorter

project completion times, extended facility life, reduced operating costs, and fewer traffic

delays.

III. LITERATURE SEARCH SUMMARY

of 3

Several published reports and articles discuss quality management approaches on public

transportation projects (many specific to design-build contracting). However, none discuss in

detail the qualifications needed to effectively conduct various quality roles.

Kraft, E. and Molenaar, K.: “Fundamental Project Quality Assurance Organizations in

Highway Design and Construction” – ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering, July 2014.

Gransberg, D., Molenaar, K.: “Analysis of Owner's Design and Construction Quality

Management Approaches In Design/Build Projects” – American Society of Civil Engineers,

2004.

Baabak Ashuri, Ph. D., Yashovardhan Jallan, Jung Hyun Lee: “Materials Quality Management

for Alternative Project Delivery” - Georgia Department of Transportation, May 2018.

Ghada M. Gad, Simon A. Adamtey, Douglas D. Gransberg: “Trends in Quality Management

Approaches to Design–Build Transportation Projects” - Transportation Research Record:

Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2504, Transportation Research Board,

Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 87–92.

Gransberg, D., and K. Molenaar: “Analysis of Owner’s Design and Construction Quality

Management Approaches in Design/Build Projects” - Journal of Management in Engineering,

Vol. 20, No. 4, 2004, pp. 162–168.

Gransberg, D., Datin, J., and Molenaar, K. (2008). NCHRP Synthesis 376: Quality Assurance in

Design-Build Projects, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

IV. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

Develop recommended minimum qualifications for design and construction quality

management roles on public transportation projects.

Possible tasks include:

Task 1 – Literature review. Include public transportation agency specifications related to

quality management for design and construction.

Task 2 – Survey of public transportation agencies to determine current requirements for quality

management roles (including agency, designer and contractor roles), for both traditional

delivery and alternative delivery projects.

Task 3 - Identify existing training/certification programs for quality management roles that are

related to transportation project delivery, or other related industry sectors. Review the

prerequisites, course content, intended audience guidelines, examination process, and

recertification requirements.

Task 4 – Develop suggested minimum qualifications for various quality management roles ,

including education, certification, and experience requirements. Consider both traditional and

alternative project delivery methods.

Task 5 – Publish a guide for agencies to use to develop minimum qualification/certification

requirements for various quality management roles for public transportation projects.

of 3

V. URGENCY AND POTENTIAL BENEFITS

Ineffective quality management in the transportation project delivery process can lead to

project delays and cost escalation due to constructability problems, rework, and disputes, as

well as reduced service life and increased maintenance costs of completed facilities. Published

reports have estimated that rework on construction projects can account for as much as 25

percent of total project cost. Given the total cost of delivering public transportation projects in

the United States, improved quality management in design and construction could result in

millions of dollars in annual savings to taxpayers.

VI. IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS AND SUPPORTERS

Implementation of the guidelines will be accomplished through presentations at the AASHTO

Committee on Materials and Pavements, AASHTO Committee on Construction, and through

presentation at various regional and national meetings and conferences (including the TRB

annual meeting), as well as a TRB webinar. Potential challenges will be similar to those

encountered when organizations worked to improve safety. It will require a shift in cultural

beliefs for agencies and industry to invest in additional training and/or certification of quality

management staff. Inconsistent terminology related to QA will present challenges by inhibiting

effective communication at the national level.

VII. RECOMMENDED RESEARCH FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD

Recommended Funding: $250,000.00 Research Period: 18 months

VIII. PROBLEM STATEMENT AUTHOR

Rick Bradbury, Maine Department of Transportation

Tel: (207) 624-3482

[email protected]

Robert Lauzon, Connecticut Department of Transportation

Tel: (860) 258-0312

[email protected]

Adam Hand, University of Nevada Reno

Tel: (775) 784-1439

[email protected]

IX. OTHERS SUPPORTING THE PROBLEM STATEMENT

TRB Committee AKC30 – Quality Assurance Management

X. POTENTIAL PANEL MEMBERS

To be determined by AASHTO Committee on Materials and Pavements.

XI. PERSON SUBMITTING THE PROBLEM STATEMENT

To be determined by AASHTO Committee on Materials and Pavements.

mailto:[email protected]



1

Emulsion Chip Seal Quality Assurance Guide

Description: Quality Assurance (QA) QA is defined as all those planned and systematic actions taken by the Agency and Contractor to provide the necessary confidence that the procured material and workmanship will satisfy the quality requirements of the contract. QA includes Quality Control (QC), Acceptance and Independent Assurance (IA). QC is the system used by the Contractor to monitor, assess and adjust production and placement processes to ensure that the material and workmanship will meet the specified quality. QC is the responsibility of the Contractor. Acceptance is the system used by the Agency/ Engineer to measure the degree of compliance of the quality of the materials and workmanship with the Contract requirements.. Acceptance is the responsibility of the Agency/Engineer and will be conducted in accordance with these recommended guidelines. Specifications. IA is an unbiased and independent system used to assess all sampling, testing and inspection procedures used for QA.. IA is the responsibility of the Agency/Engineer and is conducted in accordance with these recommended guidelines.Specifications.

I. Quality Control (QC)

1. General. The chip seal contractor (the Contractor) shall establish, implement and maintain a QC program to control all equipment, materials, construction processes, and workmanship and processes during chip seal construction. The Contractor’s QC program shall include but is not limited to sampling, testing, inspection, monitoring, documentation, and corrective action procedures during transport, stockpiling, and placement operations. A written Quality Control Plan shall be developed which details the Contractor’s QC program that meets the requirements of these guidelines. specifications. The QC Plan shall be contract specific and signed by the Contractor’s representative. Chip seal construction shall not proceed without Agency approval of the QC Plan and QC personnel present on the project site. job. Failure to comply with these provisions of this provision will result in shutdown of the operation until such time as the Contractor’s operations follow these requirements.

Commented [DJ(1]: No description for what chip seal is.

Commented [DGJ(2]: This document is a “Guideline”, not a Specification.

Commented [DD(3]: Use definitions from AASHTO R10 (Standard Practice for Definition of Terms Related to Quality and Statistics as Used in Highway Construction) covering each of the six core elements of QA-agency acceptance, contractor quality control, independent assurance, technician certification, lab qualification/accreditation and dispute resolution

2

a. AASHTO R 18 Quality Management System for Testing Laboratories b. AASHTO R 38 Quality Assurance of Standard MfdfdMfd Manufactured Materials c. AASHTO R77 Certifying Suppliers of Emulsified Asphalt d. AASTHO T 11 Test for Material Finer than 75 µm e. AASHTO T 19 Bulk Density f. AASHTO T 27 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate g. AASHTO T 44 Solubility of Bituminous Materials h. AASHTO T 49 Penetration of Asphalt Materials i. AASHTO T 51 Ductility of Asphalt Materials j. AASHTO T 59 Tests for Emulsified Asphalt k. AASHTO T 85 Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate l. AASHTO T 111 Mineral Matter or Ash in Asphalt Materials m. AASHTO T 112 Clay Lumps and Friable Particles in Aggregates n. AASHTO T 301 Elastic Recovery of Asphalt Materials o. AASHTO T 335 Determining Percentage Fracture of Coarse Aggregate p. FLH T 508 Flakiness Index q. 23 CFR 637

7.3. Definitions.

a. Agency – a state highway agency, or other agency or owner responsible for the final acceptance of the project.

b. Calibration – any calibration, standardization, check or verification as required by the test method or standard.

c. Contractor – the prime contractorcContractor who has ultimate control of the project.

d. Supplier – one who produces the final product materials (i.e. aggregates and asphalt emulsion) used on the project.

e. Standard – any standard, specification, test method, practice, etc. utilized to achieve compliance with the contract.

f. Testing LabLaboratory – the laboratory conducting quality controlqQuality cControl tests (contractorcContractor or suppliersSupplier) and aAcceptance tests (agencyaAgency).

8.4. Personnel. At a minimum, the QC SstaffStaff shall include the following. For each, provide their name, telephone number, and duties.

a. QC Plan Administrator. The person responsible for the overall administration of the QC Plan.

c.b. QC Technicians. The person(s) responsible for conducting QC teststestingsteststestings and inspection to implement in accordance with the QC PplanPlan. QC Technicians shall have Level 2 Aggregate Testing certification from the American Concrete Institute (ACI), or other certification program approved by the agencyaAgency.

Commented [DD(4]: Suggest incorporating the concepts for quality control included in AASHTO R42 (Standard Practice for Developing a Quality Assurance Plan for Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)) into this section

Commented [DD(5]: Use definitions from AASHTO R10 (Standard Practice for Definition of Terms Related to Quality and Statistics as Used in Highway Construction)

Commented [DGJ(6]: Recommend deleting this position. The QC Manager position below should be sufficient to have authority and execute all QC responsibilities. Also, the term “Plan Administrator” is outdated and does not reflect the intent of having a person actively “managing” the QC system implementation (versus a “Plan Administrator” focusing simply on the QC Plan).

3

d.c. Certified Crew Members. At a minimum, one crew member (job foreman or other with decision making authority) possessing a valid chip seal certification shall always be on the chip seal projectjob being constructed. The chip seal certification is administered by the National Center for Pavement Preservation (NCPP) on behalf of AASHTO TSP∙2.

9.5. QC Testing Facilities and Equipment. The Contractor shall provide the name of

the lablaboratory that will be conducting the required QC testing. This lablaboratory shall maintain accreditation by the AASHTO Accreditation Program (AAP) or other accrediting body approved by the agencyaAgency for all tests within the relevant scope of testing. Sampling, testing, and measuring devices shall meet the requirements of the specified standards and test methods. The lablaboratory shall maintain records of the calibration and maintenance of all sampling, testing and measuring equipment, and all documents required by the accreditation program.

10.6. QC Activities. QC activities shall include monitoring the production and placement processes, inspection, sampling and testing. The Contractor’s QC activities shall cover all aspects that affect the quality of the materials and workmanship of the chip seal, including but not limited to:

a. Component materials b. Transportation c. Chip Seal Design process d. Placement and Finishing e. Performance f. Review of material certifications supplied by vendors and suppliers.

The minimum QC testing activities and frequencies required are listed as follows:

MINIMUM AGGREGATE QC TESTING REQUIREMENTS Process Control Test

Quality Characteristic Test Method Minimum Frequency

Gradation AASHTO T 27 AASHTO T 11

Prior to construction for design, then once per day of placement or every change of source.

Unit Weight AASHTO T 19 Prior to construction for design, then every change of source.

Bulk Specific Gravity AASHTO T 85 Once, prior to construction for design, then every change of source.

Flakiness Index FLH T 508 Prior to construction for design, then every other day of placement or change of source.

Aggregate Absorption AASHTO T 85 Once, prior to construction for design, then every change of source.

Fractured Faces AASHTO T335 Once, prior to construction, then every change of source.

Deleterious Material AASHTO T 112 Once, prior to construction, then every change of source.

Commented [CR(9]: Highly likely that all 4 of these may be a single individual, particularly for smaller contractors.

Commented [DD(10]: Consider changing accreditation to accreditation or qualification by the agency

Commented [DGJ(11]: What is “Performance”??

Commented [CR(12]: Add a note or reference to appropriate values or limits for each quality measure. Standard Specification for Chip Seal that defines the requirements for each of these properties.

Formatted Table

Formatted Table

4

Application Rate Truckload Yield Check, Tarp on Roadway Once at startup each production day.

MINIMUM ASPHALT EMULSION QC TESTING QC REQUIREMENTS

Quality Characteristic Tests on Emulsion Test Method Minimum Frequency

Tests on Emulsion Process Control Test Test Method Minimum Frequency Viscosity AASHTO T 59 Once per 200 tons of material placed. Temperature N/A Once delivery tanker. Residue AASHTO TP 72 Once per 200 tons of material placed. Demulsibility AASHTO T 59 Once per 200 tons of material placed. Sieve AASHTO T 59 Once per 200 tons of material placed. Storage Stability AASHTO T 59 Once per 200 tons of material placed.

Application Rate

Computer Printout, Volumetric Measurement, Plate on Roadway

Once at startup each production day, then each 500 tons of aggregate placed.

Tests on Residue

Process Control Test Test Method Minimum Frequency Ductility AASHTO T 51 Once per 500 tons of material placed. Elastic Recovery AASHTO T 301 Once per 500 tons of material placed. Penetration AASHTO T 49 Once per 200 tons of material placed. Ash Content (Cationic Emulsions) AASHTO T 111 Once per 200 tons of material placed. Solubility (Anionic Emulsions) AASHTO T 44 Once per 200 tons of material placed. MSCR, Jnr, % Recovery AASHTO T 350 Once per 500 tons of material placed.

A material Certificate of Compliance (COC) certification from the suppliersSupplier shall be supplied provided with each delivery tanker.

11.7. Contractor’s Quality Control Plan. The Contractor shall submit a written, signed QC Plan to the aAgency for approval at least 15 days prior to placement. The QC Plan shall detail the Contractor’s plans, policies, procedures and organization deemed necessary to measure and control materials, equipment, and the chip seal placement process.

The QC Plan shall be maintained to reflect the current status of the operations. Changes must be approved by the agencyaAgency prior to implementation. At a minimum, the QC Plan shall detail the following:

a. Scope of the QC Plan. Reference all applicable specifications. b. QC Organization. Include a QC organizational chart identifying all personnel

responsible for implementing the QC Plan and how they integrate and communicate within the Contractor’s management structure and the Agency.

Formatted Table

Commented [DJ(14]: What about hot applied binders (i.e., asphalt binders, polymer modified asphalt rubber).

Commented [CR(13]: Testing frequency may be excessive and more frequent than HMA. From a risk of failure standpoint Agencies and Industry may have concerns with this amount of testing. Availability of testing resources may also be an issue.

Formatted Table

Formatted Table

Commented [CR(15]: Emulsion or Aggregate? Common to pay by the SY, monitoring by the ton may be difficult. This comment applies to all of these frequencies

Formatted Table

Formatted Table

Commented [DD(16]: Use the concepts for quality control included in AASHTO R42 (Standard Practice for Developing a Quality Assurance Plan for Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)) in this section

5

Include a list of QC personnel with their names, qualifications, responsibilities, certifications, telephone number and e-mail address.

c. QC Testing Facilities and Equipment. Include the location and qualifications of QC testing facilities, and a listing of all QC testing equipment with the frequency of calibration and verification.

d. Materials Control. Include the sources of all constituent materials used in construction of the chip seal. Describe stockpile management practices, including segregation mitigation, loading, and transport procedures.

e. Production Equipment. Identify all equipment to be used for construction and provide specification sheets for major equipment.

f. Pre-Production Activities. Equipment calibration procedure, equipment checks and inspection frequencies, pavement surface preparation procedures, and related production activities (e.g., traffic control, tack coat, etc.)

d. QC Activities. Describe QC activities deemed necessary to control all aspects of chip seal construction. Include the locations, methods, frequency and personnel responsible for conducting QC sampling, testing, and inspection. Identify lot/sublot sizes, sample identification system and sampling storage/retention procedures.

i. Equipment calibration ii. Confirm proper environmental conditions for placement

iii. Confirm correct materials are being used ii.iv. Monitoring application rates iii.v. Ensure proper spread patterns

a) Excessive or inadequate aggregate b) Emulsion drilling or flushing c) Longitudinal joint overlap d) Transverse joints

iv. Rolling operations, proper number of passes and coverage v. Sweeping operations and Schedule

vi. Method to control traffic h. QC Inspection and Testing.Activities. Describe QC inspection and testing

activities deemed necessary to control all aspects of chip seal construction. Include the locations, methods, frequency and personnel responsible for conducting QC sampling, testing, and inspection. Identify lot/sublot sizes, sample identification system and sampling storage/retention procedures.

f.i. QC Documentation. Describe documentation and reporting procedures for all QC activities. Include samples of all QC test forms, inspection and test reports.

g.j. Non-Conformance and Corrective Action. Establish and maintain an effective and positive system for controlling non-conforming materials as indicated by inspection and test results. Investigate the cause of any non-conformance to prevent recurrence and take prompt corrective action to correct conditions that have resulted, or could result, in the incorporation of non-conforming materials into the work. All non-conforming materials shall be positively identified to prevent use and intermingling with conforming materials. Include procedures

Commented [CR(17]: Add monitoring and adjusting production, action and suspension limits for test results.

6

and personnel responsible for directing corrective action including suspension of work, disposal or reworking of non-conforming materials. Detail how the results of QC inspections and tests will be used to determine corrective actions, define rules to gauge when a process is out of control and associated corrective action to be taken. At minimum establish corrective action procedures for each control requirement listed above.

12.8. QC Records, and Documentation. The Contractor shall maintain complete

records of all QC tests and inspections. All QC test results shall be submitted to the Agency within 24 hours or upon request. A material certification Certificate of Compliance (COC) shall be submitted from each suppliersSupplier for each batch of material delivered to the jobsite, including test results. The QC records shall contain all test and inspection reports, forms and checklists, equipment calibrations, supplier material certificates, and non-conformance and corrective action reports. The QC records shall indicate the nature and number of observations made, the number and type of deficiencies found, the quantities conforming and non-conforming, and the nature of corrective action taken as appropriate for materials as well as workmanship. The QC records shall always be available to the Agency and shall be retained for the life of the contract. The Contractor’s documentation procedures will be subject to approval by the Agency prior to the start of work, and to compliance checks by the Agency during the progress of the work.

13.9. Compliance with Specifications. At the conclusion of the project, the Contractor

shall attest in writing to the Agency that the chip seal has been constructed in accordance with and meets the requirements of the specifications.

II. Agency Acceptance (QA))

1. General. As the owner of the final chip seal, the Agency must ensure the contractorcContractor has constructed the project in accordance with the specifications. The Agency will conduct acceptanceaAcceptance sampling, testing, and inspections to ensure material quality, correct application rates, rolling and sweeping techniques.

2. Acceptance Activities a. Assure the contractor has followed the approved QC plan. a.b. Materials – monitor all contractor QC testing. Monitoring Contractor

QCMaterials – monitorConfirm all cContractor QC testing and inspection is being performed per approved QC Plan.

b.c. Acceptance gencyTesting – Agency to sample and teststest:

Commented [DD(19]: Suggest incorporating the concepts for acceptance included in AASHTO R42 (Standard Practice for Developing a Quality Assurance Plan for Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)) as an example for this section

Commented [DD(20]: QA is the overall program, not a type of acceptance testing

7

i. Aggregate – Gradation and deleterious materials, once per day or at the discretion of the Agency

ii. Asphalt Emulsion –Once per project job or at the discretion of the Agency

Note: Actual frequency and lotlLot size will be per each Agency’s Frequency Guide Schedules for Verification, Sampling and Testing.

c.d. Surface Preparation Monitor and approve sweeping methods, verify surface is clean and dry, inlets and manhole covers are protected.

d.e. Asphalt Distributor Verify equipment has been calibrated and is in proper operating condition. Monitor even application of material.

e.f. Aggregate Spreader Verify equipment has been calibrated and is in proper operating condition. Monitor even application of material. Ensure spreader is proper distance from asphalt distributor.

f.g. Pneumatic Rollers Verify equipment is in proper operating condition. Ensure proper rolling pattern and number of coverages.

g.h. Sweepers Verify equipment is in proper operating condition. Ensure loose material is removed without damaging fresh chip seal.

h.i. Application Rates Monitor and verify correct application rates of asphalt emulsion and cover aggregate.

j. Acceptance Inspection (Materials) – Confirm that correct materials are being used at start of and during operation.

i.k. Acceptance Inspection (Workmanship) – Post Placement Inspection of Chip Seal, to be completed after final sweeping:

i. Bleeding/flushing ii. Raveling/stone loss

iii. Crushed/Broken Aggregate iv. Excessive longitudinal joint overlap v. Transverse joint overlap

III. Independent Assurance Program (IA)

1. The IA program shall be the sole responsibility of the Agency, or owner, performed to ensure an independent verification of the reliability of Acceptance data obtained by the Agency and the QC data obtained by the contractorcContractor. The results of the IA testing are not to be used as a basis for material acceptance.

Commented [DJ(21]: What about hot applied binders (i.e., asphalt binders, polymer modified asphalt and asphalt rubber).

Commented [CR(22]: QA specifications transfer means methods workmanship responsibilities onto the contractor. Agency shouldn’t be dictating or approving sweeping methods, only that the surface is clean and dry, chip seal application will not be applied until surface is clean and dry…

Commented [CR(23]: Means methods workmanship, consider defining rejection criteria instead; uneven application and insufficient emulsion may require rejection and reapplication

Commented [CR(24]: Means methods workmanship, consider defining rejection criteria instead; uneven application and insufficient aggregate may require rejection and reapplication

Commented [CR(25]: Means methods workmanship, consider defining rejection criteria instead; rejection and reapplication if aggregate is not properly seated resulting in poor aggregate coverage and excess loose material.

Commented [DGJ(26]: It is not clear how IA will be applied to evaluate Agency Acceptance Technicians and Contractor QC Technicians and their test equipment for Chip Seal. The testing is primarily of the constituent materials (Aggregates + Emulsion). Acceptance testing of Emulsion is typically performed by Agency AASHTO Accredited Central Laboratory, which is typically not subject to IA.

Commented [DD(27]: Reference AASHTO R44(Standard Practice for Independent Assurance (IA) Programs) since it includes the details that are in this section rather than repeat the same information An note could be added to the standard that FHWA Independent Asurance Programs TechBrief (FHWA-HIF-12-001) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pgc/index.cfm?ddisc=52 has additional details about independent assurance programs since much of the detail included in this section comes from that document.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pgc/index.cfm?ddisc=52

8

2. The IA program shall evaluate the qualified sampling and testing personnel and the testing equipment. The program shall cover sampling procedures, testing procedures, inspection and testing equipment. Each IA program shall include a schedule of frequency for IA evaluation, and in accordance with the AgencyAgency’s or owner’s master schedule of sampling and testing. The schedule may be established based on either a project basis or a system basis. The frequency can be based on either a unit of production or on a unit of time.

a. The testing equipment shall be evaluated by using one or more of the following: Calibration checks, split samples, or proficiency samples.

b. Testing personnel shall be evaluated by observations and split samples or proficiency samples.

c. A prompt comparison and documentation shall be made of test results obtained by the tester being evaluated and the IA tester. The Agency shall develop guidelines including tolerance limits for the comparison of test results.

c.d.

Tech Subcommittee 5c Annual Meeting 2019 Page 1 of 4


Meeting (Annual or Mid-Year) Annual Date August 7, 2019 Scheduled Time 1:00 pm Technical Subcommittee & Name 5C Quality Assurance and Environmental Chair Name and (State) Curt Turgeon Vice Chair Name and (State) Sejal Barot Research Liaison Name and (State) Rick Bradbury


II. Call to Order and Opening Remarks Curt gave opening remarks. Roll Call was not taken as there were voting members of TS 5c present. Curt requested to send any updated information to Casey and him.

A. Brief Summary of Activities


Present Member Name State Present Member Name State ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Quorum Rules Met? 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. Motion to approve mid-year meeting minutes. Motion: FL, Second: MO

V. Old Business

A. R8 Evaluation of Transportation – Related Earthborn Vibrations Ohio, negative on reconfirmation, would like to add information. Chair needs to follow up. Curt will follow up to see if we want to do a TS ballot to handle the changes.

B. Update of R 18 coming from Brian Johnson, re:source. Brian Johnson gave an update. The R 18 ballot will be coming out in September as a TS ballot. Brian collected suggested changes from AASHTO re:source Technical Exchange attendees, some of which will be incorporated in the ballot. Most people will already be in conformance with the balloted changes.

C. COMP ballot – see midyear minutes


D. TS Ballot – none.

E. Reconfirmation ballot – see midyear minutes

F. Task Force Reports Task Force # Title Members Status/Update R-42 Update Maine- Rick Bradbury;


Rick Bradbury said we may have some changes ready for ballot, depending on the timing. Current R 42 will be reconfirmed and then it will move to a TS ballot when revisions are ready to ballot. It will be ready for the mid-year meeting.

VI. New Business


B. Presentation by Industry/Academia FHWA Pavement Sustainability Technical Working Group –Heather Dylla FHWA Heather spoke about FHWA’s Sustainable Pavements Program focusing on improving design, constructing and maintaining more sustainable pavement. FHWA made it clear that they are not the rule maker or enforcer. Their role is to educate engineers and decision makers. FHWA will provide recommendations for the best practices. Webinar will be forthcoming. FHWA also offered to visit State DOTs to share this information with their staff.

C. Revisions/Work on Standards for Coming Year 1. Asphalt mixture dielectric measurements using standard gyratory samples. PP 98

a. Appendix: practice for establishing dielectric vs. density relationship using gyratory samples.

b. Appendix: mixture uniformity and verification of dielectric vs. density relationship during mixture production.

2. Revise PP-80 and PP-81 removing redundant GPS and file creation language 3. Change Temperature Range to read 60 to 250 C (140 F to 480 F) Vote at meeting Motion to modify PP 80 to include change noted in Table 1 below and move to Concurrent ballot. Motion: ME, Second: FL Motion to move minor changes (not shown here) to PP 98 to Concurrent ballot. Motion: ME, Second: OH.

4. Review of Stewardship List From the midyear meeting: items for 2019 reconfirmation: R10- Rick ME, R42 Rick-ME, R18 Brian- resource(?) All of these are fine to go forward for reconfirmation.

Items for 2020 reconfirmation will be discussed at the midyear meeting. Stewards/Reviewers will be volunteered at that time.

D. Proposed New Standards


1. Create standalone Intelligent Construction GPS and file creation language.

E. NCHRP Issues

F. Correspondence, Calls, Meetings

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

H. New TS Ballots 1. R 25 updates from WAQTC will be made by the Chair rather than by ballot. Updates have been

deemed to be editorial.


A. Mike Clark of NICET spoke about technician qualification standards. NICET programs have been updated to include AASHTO standards in hands-on performance assessments. Contact Mike if you are interested in analyzing the process before this is rolled out.

B.

VIII. Adjourn 1:51 p.m.

TS Meeting Summary



PP 80 Include change noted in Table 1. ☐TS ☐COMP ☒CONCURRENT

PP 98 Include minor changes. (Changes were received just prior to the meeting and aren’t reflected in the minutes.) ☐TS ☐COMP ☒CONCURRENT

R 10 Reconfirmation ☐TS ☐COMP ☒CONCURRENT










Meeting Summary Other Action Items Chair will follow up with Related Earthborn Vibrations Ohio regarding their R 8 negative to see if we want to do a TS ballot to handle the changes. Update roster to include Mark Brum of MA DOT. Scott Nussbaum will replace Scott Andrus on TS 5C.

Tech Subcommittee XX Annual or Mid-Year Meeting 20YY Page 1 of 4


Meeting (Annual or Mid-Year) Annual Date July 29, 2020 Scheduled Time 11:00 am Technical Subcommittee & Name Quality Assurance and Environmental Chair Name and (State) Curt Turgeon Minnesota Vice Chair Name and (State) Sejal Barot Maryland Research Liaison Name and (State) Rick Bradbury Maine


II. Call to Order and Opening Remarks

A. Brief Summary of Activities (Briefly explain the goals of today’s meeting and what you hope to accomplish. Get everyone up to speed and on the same page.)


Present Member Name State Present Member Name State ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

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

A. Review of Membership

IV. Approval of Technical Subcommittee Minutes Maryland meeting

V. Old Business

A. COMP Ballot Items 1. PP 80 PMTP Minor changes to one table. Passed 2. PP 98 GPR Minor changes. Passed

B. Fall Reconfirmation Ballot 1. R 10 Passed 2. R 42 Passed 3. R 61 Passed 4. PP 81 Passed

C. TS Presentations February 24, 2020

Tech Subcommittee XX Mid-Year Meeting 20YY Page 2 of 4

1. New Standard for Proposed Surrogate Test Method – Haleh Azari and Georgene Geary 2. Emulsion Task Force Update with proposed test Methods – Colin Franco

D. TS Ballot Items 1. NEW Emulsion Chip Seal Quality Assurance Guide


2. NEW Recognizing Surrogate Test Methods

a. Passed, no Negatives b. Several Comments provided c. Comments to be addressed by Haleh Azari and Georgene Geary

3. NEW Slurry Systems Quality Assurance Guide


E. Correspondence from WAQTC – Editorial Changes to R 25

F. COMP Ballot Items (Include any ASTM changes/equivalencies, including ASTM standards’ revision years.) COMP Ballot # Standard


G. Technical Subcommittee Ballots TS Ballot # Standard



H. Reconfirmation Ballots Reconf. Ballot # Standard


I. Task Force Reports Task Force # Title Members Status/Update R 42 Maine- Rick Bradbury;


VI. New Business


B. Presentation by Industry/Academia

C. Revisions/Work on Standards for Coming Year Standard # Title Task/Summary Assigned to PP 39 Data Standards May be updated to include e-Ticket data format Minnesota PP 98 GPR Asphalt Density May be updated to include Appendix on calibration to

gyratory specimens. Minnesota

D. Review of Stewardship List (List of subcommittee’s standards flagging those requiring action; include as separate attachment.)

E. Proposed New Standards 1.

F. NCHRP Issues

G. Correspondence, Calls, Meetings

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

I. New TS Ballots 1.


A.

B.


VIII. Adjourn

TS Meeting Summary



☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT









Other Action Items