committee on materials & pavements · wasi khan district of columbia dot [email protected] member...

Technical Subcommittee 2b Page 1 of 83

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS & PAVEMENTS 2018 Annual Meeting – Cincinnati, OH

Tuesday, August 7, 2018 1:00 – 3:00 PM EST

TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE 2b Liquid Asphalt

I. Call to Order and Opening RemarksA. Brief summary of activities (to ensure all attendees up to speed)

II. Roll CallName Company EmailAddress Designation Type Lyndi Blackburn Alabama DOT [email protected] Chair Voting Barry Paye Wisconsin DOT [email protected] Vice Chair Voting Katheryn Malusky AASHTO [email protected] Liaison Non-Voting Brian Johnson AASHTO Re:source [email protected] Liaison Non-Voting Maria Knake AASHTO Re:source [email protected] Liaison Non-Voting Paul Burch Arizona DOT [email protected] Member Voting Jay Goldbaum Colorado DOT [email protected] Member Voting Robert Lauzon Connecticut DOT [email protected] Member Voting Wasi Khan District of Columbia DOT [email protected] Member Voting Peter Wu Georgia DOT [email protected] Member Voting Eric Shishido Hawaii DOT [email protected] Member Voting Brian Pfeifer Illinois DOT [email protected] Member Voting Richard Barezinsky Kansas DOT [email protected] Member Voting Allen Myers Kentucky TC [email protected] Member Voting Jason Davis Louisiana DOTD [email protected] Member Voting Rick Bradbury Maine DOT [email protected] Member Voting Sejal Barot Maryland DOT [email protected] Member Voting John Grieco Massachusetts DOT [email protected] Member Voting Matt Strizich Montana DOT [email protected] Member Voting Darin Tedford Nevada DOT [email protected] Member Voting Denis Boisvert New Hampshire DOT [email protected] Member Voting Donald Streeter New York State DOT [email protected] Member Voting Chris Peoples North Carolina DOT [email protected] Member Voting Eric Biehl Ohio DOT [email protected] Member Voting Timothy Ramirez Pennsylvania DOT [email protected] Member Voting Michael Byrne Rhode Island DOT [email protected] Member Voting Brian Egan Tennessee DOT [email protected] Member Voting Scott Andrus Utah DOT [email protected] Member Voting

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Committee on Materials and Pavements


Membership List (continued) Name Company EmailAddress Designation Type Mladen Gagulic Vermont AOT [email protected] Member Voting William Bailey Virginia DOT [email protected] Member Voting Paul Farley West Virginia DOT [email protected] Member Voting Becca Lane Ontario MOT [email protected] Assoc. Member Voting Chad Clawson AASHTO [email protected] AASHTO Staff Non-Voting Henry Lacinak AASHTO [email protected] AASHTO Staff Non-Voting Steven Lenker AASHTO Re:source [email protected] Member Non-Voting Robert Lutz AASHTO Re:source [email protected] Member Non-Voting Eliana Carlson Connecticut DOT [email protected] Member Non-Voting Kelly Morse Illinois DOT [email protected] Member Non-Voting Jim Trepanier Illinois DOT [email protected] Member Non-Voting Chandra Akisetty Maryland DOT [email protected] Member Non-Voting Anne Holt Ontario MOT [email protected] Member Non-Voting Pamela Marks Ontario MOT [email protected] Member Non-Voting Michael Arasteh FHWA [email protected] Ex Officio Non-Voting Tim Aschenbrener FHWA [email protected] Ex Officio Non-Voting Matthew Corrigan FHWA [email protected] Ex Officio Non-Voting Tom Harman FHWA [email protected] Ex Officio Non-Voting Robert Horan AI [email protected] Friend Non-Voting Larry Tomkins Ergon [email protected] Friend Non-Voting Victor Gallivan Gallivan Consult. [email protected] Friend Non-Voting Judge Brown Hunt Refining [email protected] Friend Non-Voting James Willis NAPA [email protected] Friend Non-Voting Gary Fitts Consultant [email protected] Friend Non-Voting

III. Approval of Technical Subcommittee Minutes2018 Mid-Year Minutes distributed with this agenda as Attachment A.

IV. Old BusinessA. COMP Ballot Items

Outstanding items from Mid-Year Meeting B. TS Ballots (only one this year)

1. Description: Revision T 313 "Determining the Flexural Creep Stiffness of Asphalt BinderUsing the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR)" to update the precision estimates.Affirmative: 26 of 29Negative: 0 of 29No Vote: 3 of 29

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]



Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) ([email protected]) Affirmative with comments: 1) In the future when updating the Precision Estimates, consider including the analysis

report that was performed as a ballot item attachment so that the proposed updatedprecision estimates can be referenced/reviewed in the analysis report.

2) In Note 19, 2nd line, revise from "AASHTO Re:source" to "AASHTO re:source".

Maryland Department of Transportation (Sejal Barot) ([email protected]) If the test value for stiffness is close to the maximum limit (suppose 295 mpa) and another lab test value is 310 mpa. Do we still consider COV tolerance beyond maximum limit for accepting multiple lab difference? Or is it the max of 300 mpa no matter what COV allowable limit is??

Arizona Department of Transportation (Paul Burch) ([email protected]) Would it be beneficial to provide separate Precision Estimates for polymer modified and non-modified binders? Would the 1s and d2s results differ if they were calculated separately?

Georgia Department of Transportation (Peter Wu) ([email protected]) At the bottom of Table 1, it says “These values represent the 1s% and d2s% limits described in ASTM C670. Below is what is stated in Section 3.2.6.1 of C670: “A difference limit (d2s) indicates the maximum acceptable difference between two results obtained on identical test specimen’s under the applicable system of causes. The (d2s%) limit is the maximum acceptable difference between two test results expressed as a percentage of their average. These difference limits are calculated by multiplying the appropriate standard deviation or coefficient of variation (CV) by the factor 1.96 √2, which for this Practices is taken to be equal to 2.8………” Table 1

Coefficient of Variation (1s%)

Acceptable Range of Two Test results (d2s%) Corrected d2s%

2.3 6.6 6.4 0.9 2.6 2.5 5.5 15.7 15.4

Table 2 Coefficient of Variation

(1s%) Acceptable Range of

Two Test results (d2s%) Corrected d2s%

1.6 4.6 4.5 2.5 7.2 7.0 3.9 11.2 10.9 3.6 10.2 10.1 5.9 16.8 16.5 9.7 27.4 27.2

They are close, but not accurate per ASTM C670 (d2s% = 2.8 xCV) Same problem with Table 1, Item#3 and #4. Please make correction for d2s% in all Table 1 of Items #1, #2, #3 and#4.



Nevada Department of Transportation (Darin Tedford) ([email protected]) It was noted that the prior PSP sample results that were used in the previous precision statements were not included in the statistical evaluation included in the proposed revision. Were there justifications whether in ASTM C670 or C802 for excluding the prior data set?

2. Description: Revision T 315 - "Determining the Rheological Properties of Asphalt BinderUsing a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR)" to update the precision estimates.Affirmative: 25 of 29Negative: 1 of 29No Vote: 3 of 29 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) ([email protected])Affirmative with comments:1) In the future when updating the Precision Estimates, consider including the analysis


2) It is assumed that the Table number will remain as Table "4" and the two Notenumbers will remain as Note "29" and Note "30".

3) In Note 29, 2nd line, revise from "AASHTO Re:source" to "AASHTO re:source".

Maryland Department of Transportation (Sejal Barot) ([email protected]) Adding a note that COV allowable variance is not applicable for the test values beyond maximum spec limit.

Arizona Department of Transportation (Paul Burch) ([email protected]) Would it be beneficial to provide separate Precision Estimates for polymer modified and non-modified binders? Would the 1s and d2s results differ if they were calculated separately?

Georgia Department of Transportation (Peter Wu) ([email protected]) At the bottom of Table 1, it says “These values represent the 1s% and d2s% limits described in ASTM C670.

Below is what is stated in Section 3.2.6.1 of C670: “A difference limit (d2s) indicates the maximum acceptable difference between two results obtained on identical test specimen’s under the applicable system of causes. The (d2s%) limit is the maximum acceptable difference between two test results expressed as a percentage of their average. These difference limits are calculated by multiplying the appropriate standard deviation or coefficient of variation (CV) by the factor 1.96 √2, which for the purpose of this Practices is taken to be equal to 2.8………” Table 1



2.3 6.6 6.4 0.9 2.6 2.5 5.5 15.7 15.4






1.6 4.6 4.5 2.5 7.2 7.0 3.9 11.2 10.9 3.6 10.2 10.1 5.9 16.8 16.5 9.7 27.4 27.2



Illinois Department of Transportation (Brian Pfeifer) ([email protected]) Negative After comparing Illinois DOT lab values vs. our producer’s qualification sample results, we have some concerns with the multi-laboratory precision values. Due to the tightening of the ranges, some results for ODSR and RTFO DSR results may fall out of the multi-laboratory ranges but not enough to be of major concern. Conversely, the PAV DSR would fall out of the significantly lowered range frequently. The problem with the use of proficiency sample results for statistical analysis for P&B is that proficiency samples are intended to provide an ideal situation for labs and technicians to demonstrate competencies and consistencies by the control of the samples and timing of delivery. This controlled process removes all the normal day-to-day, lab to lab potentials for differences in results. Routine samples tested at Agency and producer’s labs may be tested at vastly different times of the material’s life and/or handling conditions. These uncontrolled variables need to be considered when developing the P&B as they are used to verify data/result compliance between laboratories. We would like to see this value increased or kept at the previous levels.

3. Description: Revise T 316 "Viscosity Determination of Asphalt Binder Using RotationalViscometer" to update the precision estimates.Affirmative: 25 of 29Negative: 1 of 29No Vote: 3 of 29



Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) ([email protected]) Affirmative with comments: 1) In the future when updating the Precision Estimates, consider including the analysis


2) It is assumed that the two Note numbers will remain as Note "2" and Note "3".3) In Note 2, 2nd line, revise from "AASHTO Re:source" to "AASHTO re:source".4) In Note 3, 3rd line, revise from "or 0.018" to "or 0.014".


Georgia Department of Transportation (Peter Wu) ([email protected]) At the bottom of Table 1, it says “These values represent the 1s% and d2s% limits described in ASTM C670. Below is what is stated in Section 3.2.6.1 of C670: “A difference limit (d2s) indicates the maximum acceptable difference between two results obtained on identical test specimen’s under the applicable system of causes. The (d2s%) limit is the maximum acceptable difference between two test results expressed as a percentage of their average. These difference limits are calculated by multiplying the appropriate standard deviation or coefficient of variation (CV) by the factor 1.96 √2, which for the purpose of this Practices is taken to be equal to 2.8………” Table 1



2.3 6.6 6.4 0.9 2.6 2.5 5.5 15.7 15.4


(1s%) Acceptable Range of Two

Test results (d2s%) Corrected d2s%

1.6 4.6 4.5 2.5 7.2 7.0 3.9 11.2 10.9 3.6 10.2 10.1 5.9 16.8 16.5 9.7 27.4 27.2





Illinois Department of Transportation (Brian Pfeifer) ([email protected]) Negative Upon comparison of Illinois DOT lab data vs. producer’s qualification sample results, the rotational viscometer multi-laboratory results varied by greater than the newly revised 10.5% range. The problem with the use of proficiency sample results for statistical analysis for P&B is that proficiency samples are intended to provide an ideal situation for labs and technicians to demonstrate competencies and consistencies by the control of the samples and timing of delivery. This controlled process removes all the normal day-to-day, lab to lab potentials for differences in results. Routine samples tested at Agency and producer’s labs may be tested at vastly different times of the material’s life and/or handling conditions. These uncontrolled variables need to be considered when developing the P&B as they are used to verify data/result compliance between laboratories. We would like to see this value increased or kept at the previous levels.

4. Description: Revise T 350 "Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test of Asphalt BinderUsing a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR)" to add precision estimates.Affirmative: 25 of 29Negative: 1 of 29 (Alabama – Administrative)No Vote: 3 of 29 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) ([email protected])Affirmative with comments:1) In the future when including the Precision Estimates for the first time in a standard,

consider including the analysis report that was performed as a ballot itemattachment so that the proposed new precision estimates can bereferenced/reviewed in the analysis report.

2) In Section 10.1.1, last line, revise from "Table 4" to "Table 1".3) In Table 1, Column 1, should the text "Percent Recovery at 0.1 kPa" (in 2 locations in

Column 1) be revised to "Average Percent Recovery at 0.1 kPa, R0.1" for consistencywith terminology and calculation in T 350, Section 8.1.1 and the reportingrequirements of T 350, Section 9.1.3 and to reference the parameter symbol, R0.1?There could be confusion here as there are single results and a n=10 average resultwith the n=10 average result being the reportable result.

4) In Table 1, Column 1, should the text "Percent Recovery at 3.2 kPa" (in 2 locations inColumn 1) be revised to "Average Percent Recovery at 3.2 kPa, R3.2" for consistencywith terminology and calculation in T 350, Section 8.1.2 and the reportingrequirements of T 350, Section 9.1.4 and to reference the parameter symbol, R3.2?There could be confusion here as there are single results and a n=10 average resultwith the n=10 average result being the reportable result.

5) In Table 1, Column 1, should the text "Jnr at 0.1 kPa (kPa-1)" be revised to "AverageNonrecoverable Creep Compliance at 0.1 kPa, Jnr0.1 (kPa-1)" in two Table 1, Column1 locations for consistency with text in T 350, Sections 8.2.3 and 9.1.5? There couldbe confusion if the "Average" is not included or the correct parameter symbol is notreferenced, "Jnr0.1".

6) In Table 1, Column 1, should the text "Jnr at 3.2 kPa (kPa-1)" be revised to "AverageNonrecoverable Creep Compliance at 3.2 kPa, Jnr3.2 (kPa-1)" in two Table 1, Column1 locations for consistency with text in T 350, Sections 8.2.4 and 9.1.6? There could



be confusion if the "Average" is not included or the correct parameter symbol is not referenced, "Jnr3.2".

7) In Note 1, 2nd line, revise from "AASHTO Re:source" to "AASHTO re:source".8) In Note 1, 4th and 5th lines, suggest revising from "Average percent Recovery at 0.1

kPa results" to "The average of the Average Percent Recovery at 0.1 kPa results" forconsistency with text in Sections 8.1.1 and 9.1.3. There could be confusion here asthere is an average result of the four pairs and there is an n=10 average result that isthe reportable test result.

9) In Note 1, 5th and 6th lines, suggest revising from "Average percent Recovery at 3.2kPa results" to "The average of the Average Percent Recovery at 3.2 kPa results' forconsistency with the text in Sections 8.1.2 and 9.1.4. There could be confusion hereas there is an average result of the four pairs and there is an n=10 average result thatis the reportable test result.

10) In Note 1, 6th line, suggest revising from "Average Jnr at 0.1 kPa results ranged" to"The average of the Average Nonrecoverable Creep Compliance at 0.1 kPa, Jnr0.1,results ranged".

11) In Note 1, 7th line, suggest revising from "Average Jnr at 3.2 kPa results ranged" to"The average of the Average Nonrecoverable Creep Compliance at 3.2 kPa, Jnr3.2,results ranged".

12) In Note 2, 1st line, revise from "two tests conducted on the same material" to "twotests conducted by the same technician on the same material".

13) In Note 2, 1st line, suggest revising from "yield Jnr at 0.1 kPa results" to "yieldAverage Nonrecoverable Creep Compliance at 0.1 kPa, Jnr0.1, results"


Georgia Department of Transportation (Peter Wu) ([email protected]) At the bottom of Table 1, it says “These values represent the 1s% and d2s% limits described in ASTM C670. Below is what is stated in Section 3.2.6.1 of C670: “A difference limit (d2s) indicates the maximum acceptable difference between two results obtained on identical test specimen’s under the applicable system of causes. The (d2s%) limit is the maximum acceptable difference between two test results expressed as a percentage of their average. These difference limits are calculated by multiplying the appropriate standard deviation or coefficient of variation (CV) by the factor 1.96 √2, which for the purpose of this Practices is taken to be equal to 2.8………” Table 1



2.3 6.6 6.4 0.9 2.6 2.5 5.5 15.7 5.4






1.6 1.6 4.5 2.5 7.2 7.0 3.9 11.2 10.9 3.6 10.2 10.1 5.9 16.8 16.5 9.7 27.4 27.2


5. Description: Revise M 332, "Specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder usingMultiple Stress Creep Recovery" to delete the Jnr Diff requirement for Extremely HeavyTraffic Binders.Affirmative: 26 of 29Negative: 0 of 29No Vote: 3 of 29 Illinois Department of Transportation (Brian Pfeifer) ([email protected])Regarding Table 1, note g, we are unclear about the value or how often this would comeinto play. Suggest further explanation of its need.

6. Description: Revise T 383, "Evaluation of Asphalt Release Agents" with minor changes tothe unit weight and sample size.Affirmative: 26 of 29Negative: 0 of 29No Vote: 3 of 29 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) ([email protected])Affirmative with comments:1) In Section 6.1.2, 1st line, a cautionary note that the word "sand" is missing from this

balloted version of M 332. In the 1st line, revise from "unit weight bucket filled withto a total" to "unit weight bucket filled with sand to a total". The version of T 383 inthe Materials Production Library includes the word "sand", but the version includedwith this ballot does not.

Kansas Department of Transportation (Richard A Barezinsky) ([email protected]) 6.1.2. left out the word "sand" after "filled with"

C. Task Force ReportsTask Force 16-A:Review the options available and write a procedure for checking TFO/PAV pans for excessivewarping. Members: Delaware (Karl Zipf), Asphalt Institute (Mike Anderson), and AMRL(Maria Knake). Dave Anderson is working on a method for checking pan warping.



Task Force 16-C: Review contradictory statements in Section 12.1 and X1.8.1 regarding the linear region in T315 and consider revision to current guidance in standard. Members: Asphalt Institute (Mike Anderson), Virginia (Bill Bailey), Nevada (Charlie Pan), John D’Angelo (Consultant), Kathy Sokol.

Task Force 17-A: Precision and bias for T 350. Mutiple Stress Creep Recovery and several other standards (T 240, Rolling Thin Film Oven Test; T 313, Bending Beam Rheometer; T 315, Dynamic Shear Rheometer; T 316, Rotational Viscosity). Members: Joe DeVol (WA) will lead the effort. Matthew Corrigan (FHWA), Bob Horan (Asphalt Institute), John Malusky (AASHTO re:source), Maria Knake (AASHTO), Bill Bailey (VA), and Lyndi Blackburn (AL). Tech Subcommittee Ballot covered most of these standards except for T 240. Discuss research ongoing concerning T 240.

Task Force 17-01: This task force was formed to re-write T 228 which is currently a “C” standard. Task Force members are Leslie White (Montana), Maria Knake (AASHTO), and Georgene Geary (AASHTO Consultant). Email from Georgene – Attachment B.

Task Force 17-02: This task force was formed to look at developing a new standard for long term aging, the determination of ΔTc and a practice explaining how to use ΔTc. Task Force members are Lyndi Blackburn (AL), Chris Peoples (NC), Anne Holt (ON), Tim Ruelke (FL), Rick Bradbury (ME), Brett Haggerty (TX), Bob Horan (Asphalt Institute), Denis Boisvert (NH), Jack Youtchef (FHWA), and Matt Corrigan (ETG liaison). Discuss results of web meeting held on July 24th.

D. NCHRP Research• Project 20-07/Task 427: Updating the Thermometer Requirements for AASHTO

Standards• Project 20-07/Task 400: Effect of elevation on Rolling Thin Film Oven Aging of

Asphalt BinderV. New Business

A. Research Proposals1. Quick turnaround RPS2. Full NCHRP RPS

B. AASHTO Technical Service Programs Items1. NTPEP Update2. AASHTO re:source/CCRL

C. NCHRP IssuesD. Correspondence, calls, meetingsE. Presentation by Industry/Academia

• Haleh Azari - Asphalt Binder and Mastic Testing using a DSR• Dave Anderson - RTFO Variability• John Grieco (MA) – New England Regional QC Binder Plan Program –

Attachment C



F. Proposed New Standards• Determination of REOB using XRF – submitted by Terry Arnold, FHWA Turner

Fairbank – Attachment DG. Proposed New Task ForcesH. Standards Requiring Reconfirmation

• R 029‐15 “Grading or Verifying the Performance Grade (PG)Asphalt Binder”• T 049‐15, “Penetration of Bituminous Materials” – ASTM D5/D5M‐13• T 111‐11 (2015), “Mineral Matter or Ash in Asphalt Materials”• T 201‐15, “Kinematic Viscosity of Asphalts (Bitumens)” ASTM

D2170/D2170M‐10• T 202‐15, “Viscosity of Asphalts by Vacuum Capillary Viscom” ASTM

D2171/D2171M‐ 10• TP 092‐14 (2018), “Determining the Cracking Temperature of Asphalt Using the

Asphalt Binder Cracking Device (ABCD)” Adopt or Drop• TP 101‐12 (2018), “Estimating Fatigue Resistance of Asphalt Binders Using the

Linear Amplitude Sweep” Revise or 1-Yr. Extend• TP 113‐15, “Determination of Asphalt Binder Resistance to Ductile Failure Using

Double‐Edge‐Notched Tension (DENT) Test” Revise or 2-Yr. Reconfirm• TP 127‐17, “Determining the Fracture Energy Density of Asphalt Binder Using

the Binder Fracture Energy (BFE) Test” Revise or 2-Yr. ReconfirmI. COMP Ballot Items (including any ASTM changes/equivalencies/harmonization)

VI. Open Discussion

VII. Adjourn

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A – 2018 Mid-Year Webinar MinutesAttachment B – Email on T 228Attachment C – New England Regional QC Binder Plan ProgramAttachment D – Proposed Standard Determining REOB using XRF

Technical Subcommittee 2b Attachment A Page 12 of 83

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS & PAVEMENTS 2017-2018 Mid Year Meeting (Webinar) Minutes

Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:00 – 4:00 PM EST

TECHNICAL SECTION 2b Liquid Asphalt

I. Call to Order and Opening RemarksA. Brief summary of activities (to ensure all attendees up to speed)

The chair provided attendees with a brief update of meeting activities:• Last meeting was in August• Resulted in 7 ballot items.• 13 reconfirmation items.

II. Roll CallThe following members, friends, and guests signified their attendance:Members

Member Name (Proxy listed in parenthesis)

State/Province Present?

Blackburn, Lyndi D Chair

Alabama Department of Transportation x

Paye, Barry C Vice Chair Wisconsin Department of Transportation x

Burch, Paul (Jesús Sandoval) Arizona Department of Transportation x

Goldbaum, Jay Colorado Department of Transportation

Lauzon, Robert G (Eliana Carlson) Connecticut Department of Transportation x

Khan, Wasi U District of Columbia Department of Transportation

Wu, Peter Georgia Department of Transportation x

Shishido, Eric Hawaii Department of Transportation

Pfeifer, Brian Illinois Department of Transportation x

Barezinsky, Richard A Kansas Department of Transportation

Myers, Allen H Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

ATTACHMENT A

Committee on Materials & Pavements


Davis, Jason Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development x

Bradbury, Rick L (Derek Nener-Plante) Maine Department of Transportation x

Barot, Sejal (Chandra Akisetty) Maryland Department of Transportation x

Grieco, John E Massachusetts Department of Transportation

Strizich, Matt (Oak Metcalfe) Montana Department of Transportation x

Tedford, Darin P Nevada Department of Transportation x

Boisvert, Denis M. New Hampshire Department of Transportation x

Streeter, Donald (Chris Euler)

New York State Department of Transportation x

Peoples, Chris A North Carolina Department of Transportation

Biehl, Eric R Ohio Department of Transportation

Ramirez, Timothy Pennsylvania Department of Transportation x

Byrne, Michael P Rhode Island Department of Transportation

Egan, Brian Tennessee Department of Transportation x

Andrus, Scott S Utah Department of Transportation x

Gagulic, Mladen Vermont Agency of Transportation x

Bailey, William R Virginia Department of Transportation x

Farley, Paul M West Virginia Department of Transportation x

Lane, Becca (Pamela Marks) Ontario Ministry Of Transportation x

Non-Voting Members

Member Name Organization Present? Johnson, Brian AASHTO Re:source x

Knake, Maria AASHTO Re:source x

Lenker, Steven AASHTO Re:source



Lutz, Robert AASHTO Re:source x

Carlson, Eliana (see proxy above) Connecticut Department of Transportation x

Trepanier, Jim Illinois Department of Transportation x

Morse, Kelly L Illinois Department of Transportation x

Akisetty, Chandra K (see proxy above)

Maryland Department of Transportation x

Holt, Anne Ontario Ministry Of Transportation x

Marks, Pamela J (see proxy above) Ontario Ministry Of Transportation x

Rothblatt, Evan American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Lacinak, Henry American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Arasteh, Michael Federal Highway Administration

Harman, Tom Federal Highway Administration

Aschenbrener, Tim Federal Highway Administration

Corrigan, Matthew Federal Highway Administration

Friends

Name Organization Present?

Horan, Robert Donald Asphalt Institute x

Tomkins, Larry E Ergon Asphalt and Emulsions, Inc.

Gallivan, Victor Lee Gallivan Consulting Inc.

Brown, Judge Hunt Refining Company x

Willis, James Richard National Asphalt Pavement Association

Fitts, Gary L Shell


Technical Subcommittee 2b Attachment APage 15 of 83

Guests

Name Organization Present?

David Anderson Consultant x

Michael Benson Arkansas Department of Transportation x

Howard Anderson Utah Department of Transportation x

Temple Short South Carolina Department of Transportation x

Brett Trautman Missouri Department of Transportation x

Cassady Allen Florida Department of Transportation x

Mike Anderson Asphalt Institute x

Mark Brum Massachusetts Department of Transportation (not proxy) x

Mike Doran Tennessee Department of Transportation x

Joe DeVol Washington Department of Transportation x

III. Approval of Technical Section MinutesA. 2017 Annual Meeting Minutes distributed with the SOM ballot and the Mid-year agenda.A motion was made by Illinois and a second by Montana to approve the minutes as written. Themotion passed unopposed.

IV. Old BusinessA. COMP Ballot Items (Including any ASTM Changes/equivalencies)

1. Outstanding items from Annual Meeting?• M 320 Revision to Note 4 – PA to recommend revised note.

PA was contacted for a recommended revision. Waiting to hear back from PA.2. COMP Ballot Items

Item Number: 15 Affirmative: 48 of 52 Negative: 0 of 52 No Vote: 4 of 52

COMP ballot item to revise and update T 48, Flash Point of Asphalt Binder by Cleveland Open Cup, with a correction to the temperatures in Section 1.2, corrections to the figure dimensions in Figure 2 and 3, and the addition of Section 6.1 to require the cup to be cleaned. See Page 2, and Attachment C, pages 27-35 of the minutes.

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) ([email protected]) Editorial comments: 1) In Section 1.2, Note 1, the existing text indicates "flash points below 93ºC (200ºF)"; however,with the proposed change in Section 1.2 raising the minimum temperature to "219ºC (426ºF)" forthis standard should the Note 1 text be revised to provide information on what test to use forasphalt binders with flash points from 93ºC (200ºF) to 219ºC (426ºF) which is the gap in the twotemperature ranges between the Section 1.2 text and the Note 1 text?

mailto:[email protected]



2) In Section 6.1, 2nd line, add a period after the word "purpose".3) In Section 6.1, last sentence, suggest revising completely to read "The test cup shall be drieduntil there is no remaining water or solvent in the cup prior to use.". Revision suggested forclarity.We will look at editorial comments and publish (July).

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Joseph S Robinson) ([email protected]) The US / SI unit conversion is wrong. Edit section 1.2 to change (750 Fahrenheit) to (752 Fahrenheit). Currently section 1.2 reads: "This test method is applicable to asphalt binder with flash point between 219°C (426°F) and400°C (750°F)." However: (400 X 9 / 5) +32 = 752 It was pointed out that the units listed in the scope of the standard state that units will be listed in SI only. Since the standard has both SI and English units, the statement in the scope should be revised. We will need to decide if the units should be exact equivalents or rationalized units. Maria Knake (AASHTO re:source), Nevada, and Virginia will take a look at this.

South Carolina Department of Transportation (Merrrill E Zwanka) ([email protected]) The TAG Cup (T79) stops at a maximum of 200 F so why not start T48 at 200F instead of jumping the minimum up to 426F? Are there any products that fall in the range of 200F and 426F? Maria Knake, Nevada, and Virginia will look at the temperature ranges when reviewing the scope of the standard.

Arkansas Department of Transportation (Michael C Benson) ([email protected]) It is still unclear as to whether the flash point determined per the protocol of 7.3.6. (4-10°C/min rate entire test) is to be reportable. While more time consuming it would seem easier to maintain a uniform rate throughout the test rather than the two rates stated in 7.3.2. If development of the precision and bias statements was based on one of the methods that would need to be the one used with the other for screening. If it is uncertain as to which, perhaps the method needs to be stated as either allowed. Section 7.3.6 is to be used when the binder has an unknown flash point. Since the flash could happen at any time, the test rate must be run slower. If the purpose of the test is to just verify the known flash point of the material, the sample can be heated more rapidly until it gets closer to the expected flash point. It is more common for states to verify a flash point rather than to determine it for the first time, and the faster procedure saves a great deal of time in that case.


COMP ballot item to revise TP 102, Evaluation of Asphalt Release Agents (ARAs), to clarify the unit weight definition in Section 6.1.2, the stripping rating system in Section 5.3.14, and the reporting requirements. See Page 3 and Attachment I, pages 74-85 of the minutes. All comments are editorial in nature. These comments will go back to Barry Paye to see if they recommend any other changes based on these comments.

Arkansas Department of Transportation (Michael C Benson) ([email protected]) Is it the intent for the binders stated in Section 6.2.1.2. and 7.2.1. to be the same as that is not necessarily the case the way they are each individually written. Recommend use the verbiage in Section7.2.1. in both sections. Figures 1-5 should be worded the same as changes made in wording in 5.3.14. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Joseph S Robinson) ([email protected]) Unit conversion is wrong in section 6.1.2. Currently it reads:

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]



"Unit Weight Bucket 2831.7-cm3 (0.1-ft3) unit weight bucket filled with sand t...." However: 0.1 foot = 3.048 centimeter and thus; 0.1 cubic feet = (3.048) X (3.048) X (3.048) = 28.317 cubic centimeter, not 2831.7. Illinois Department of Transportation (Brian Pfeifer) ([email protected]) 6.1.2, recommend tighter tolerances for combined mass and unit weight bucket. Consider 0.1 lbs. Should captions under Figures 1, 2, 3, and 5 match Section 5.3.14?

3. COMP Concurrent Ballot ItemsItem Number: 17 Affirmative: 48 of 52

Negative: 0 of 52 No Vote: 4 of 52

Concurrent ballot item to revise and update R 15, Evaluation of Asphalt Additives and Modifiers. See Page 3 and Attachment E, pages 47-56 of the minutes.

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) ([email protected]) 1) In Section 2.3.1, revise from "TP 79 or T378" to "T 378".2) In Section 6.4.5, Note 3, revise from "strength" to "strength".3) In Section 6.4.6, revise from "T340" to "T 340".4) In Section 6.4.7, delete this entire subsection as Moisture Susceptibility by T 324 is already

included under Subsection 6.4.5.5) In Section 6.4.8, suggest combining Sections 6.4.6 and Section 6.4.8 under one Section labeled

as "Permanent Deformation" and include those tests listed under both Section 6.4.6 andSection 6.4.8.

6) In Section 6.4.8, renumber the subsections as subsections begin with "6.4.7.#".7) In Section 6.4.9, renumber the subsections as subsections begin with "6.4.8.#".8) In Section X1.6.1, revise from "Percent" to "Percent dosage rate".These comments are editorial in nature and will be addressed before publication.

South Carolina Department of Transportation (Merrrill E Zwanka) ([email protected]) Section 1.1 now says that recycled materials aren't covered here, and REOB is now removed from Section 1.2.2, then guidance should be given as to where to go for evaluation of recycled additives. Per the title of this standard, REOB and other additives would logically be evaluated by R15 unless directed elsewhere. This standard is specific to products that are not recycled materials. Some states felt that adding REOB would be considered an endorsement for that product. This standard could be used for recycled products, but due to sensitivity of these terms, it was removed.

The standard has little to no mention of testing at various dosages of these modifiers. Because this is a recommended practice for reviewing additives, listing of actual dosages is not necessary.

Arkansas Department of Transportation (Michael C Benson) ([email protected]) • In Section 2.1.3 the listing for T 320 has been struck through but the comment (Note to keep

this) was included.• In Note 43 strength is misspelled.• In the marked out Section 6.4.6 listing for T 320 has been struck through but the comment

(Keep?) was included.• In Appendix X1.9.2. "buck" should probably be "bulk" and including should be included or

sentence reworded.These comments are editorial in nature and will be addressed before publication.

Oregon Department of Transportation (Greg F. Stellmach) ([email protected]) Section 5.1 - Consider changing reference to "...corresponding neat asphalt binders..." to "...corresponding unmodified asphalt binders..."




Should T316 be deleted from Section 6.3.8 since the reference to T316 looks like it was deleted from Section 2.1.1? Is the reference to T324 in Section 6.4.5 and Section 6.4.7 repetitive? Need to make sure that numbering gets corrected between Section 6.4.8 and Section 6.4.10. Looks like there is a typo in X1.9.2 Product "buck" shipment These comments are editorial in nature and will be addressed before publication.

Illinois Department of Transportation (Brian Pfeifer) ([email protected]) Section X1.9.2, first sentence, replace "buck" with "bulk" These comments are editorial in nature and will be addressed before publication.

Tennessee Department of Transportation (Brian K. Egan) ([email protected]) 1) Is the standard also intended to evaluate fibers that will modify the mix, but not the binder?2) It appears that editing is needed in section 6.4.

• Section 6.4.5 and 6.4.7 are both titled Moisture Susceptibility• Section 6.4.6 is titled Rutting and 6.4.8 is Permanent Deformation. Should they be

combined?This standard only covers additives that incorporated into the binder and either modify the binder or provide certain characteristics to the binder to improve the mix. This standard does not address fiber. The other comments are editorial in nature and will be addressed before publication.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (Barry C Paye) ([email protected]) Need to correct formatting in the balloted document, including numbering in the #6 area. This comment is editorial in nature and will be addressed before publication.


Concurrent ballot item to adopt TP 102, Evaluation of Asphalt Release Agents (ARAs), as a full standard. See Page 3 and Attachment I, pages 74-85 of the minutes. NO COMMENTS This item will be published as a full standard T 382.


Concurrent ballot item to revise M 332, Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Using Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test by deleting Appendix X1. See Page 3 and Attachment F, pages 57-65 of the minutes. Attachment G, pages 66-67 of the minutes gives the discussions held during the annual meeting. Mike Anderson from the Asphalt Institute gave a brief history of how thing change came to be: discussions at the ETG led to the conclusion that the Jnr curve did not really fit in M332 and would be a better fit in a new standard for evaluating binders using MSCR (see Item 20 below where the Appendix from M332 is added to a newly proposed standard)

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Joseph S Robinson) ([email protected]) Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) ([email protected]) Negative with comments: 1) Reason for Negative: After review of the proposed revisions, the removal of Appendix X1

seems to add more complexity than is needed for what the R XX procedures involves. The RXX procedure only involves plotting T 350 test results on a Figure (reporting results in a

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]



different format) or performing one additional calculation for comparison to one T 350 test result (i.e., R XX, Section 7.3).

2) For simplicity and consolidation of requirements into one standard, the elastic responserequirements should be maintained in M 332. It is suggested that the elastic response be anadditional requirement in Table 1 for those PGAB grades that typically would need producedusing polymer modification to meet the existing requirements of Table 1 (e.g., PG64E-22,PG64V-22, PG64H-22, PG58E-28, PG58V-28, PG58H-28, PG70S-22, PG70H-22, etc.). Thesimple formula calculations could be specifically spelled out in either M 332 as a separateSection or maintained in M 332 as an Annex (Mandatory Information) as required in Table 1for specific grades. Otherwise, states would need to specify M 332 with Appendix X1 (as is) orspecify M 332 and R XX for specific grades on their own. If specific grades were identified inM 332 that were required to meet the elastic response, this may eliminate the proliferation ofdifferent ways and different PGAB grades that each state would specify and require PGABs tomeet both M 332 and R XX.A motion was made by Tennessee and a Second by Wisconsin to find this negative vote non-persuasive under the rationale that “The standards can still be used and specified as desiredby each individual state.” 19 voting members voted for the motion, and 1 voter voted againstthe motion. 0 voters abstained. The motion carried.

Editorial comments: 3) In Section 4.1.1, 1st line, revise from "requirements in in R-XX" to "requirements in R XX" (i.e.,

eliminate 2nd of two "in" words).4) Not sure why there is a blank page (Page-2) in M 332.

These comments are editorial in nature and will be addressed before publication.

Arkansas Department of Transportation (Michael C Benson) ([email protected]) Negative with comments. • Preference to include reference of the percent recovery criteria and R-XX in M 332. As noted

in PennDOT comments, inclusion as two tables in M 332, similar to M 320, would allow forspecification without requiring notation of two Standards when purchasing.

• The verbiage in Section 4.1.1. is confusing as written and appears to indicate that a minimumpercent recovery is required (Percent Recovery of X) in the example. Option to consider aspass/fail criteria or a minimum could be stated depending on how a purchaser wishes toutilize the test information.A motion was made by Tennessee and a Second by Wisconsin to find this voter non-persuasive under the rationale that “The standards can still be used and specified as desiredby each individual state.” 19 voting members voted for the motion, and 1 voter votedagainst the motion. 0 voters abstained. The motion carried.

Maine Department of Transportation (Richard L Bradbury) ([email protected]) I still support the idea of having "Evaluating the Elastic Behavior of Asphalt Binders Using the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test" as part of M 332, as discussed at the annual meeting. This voter explained that they did not vote negative, since this topic was already discussed at the COMP meeting in August 2017. The intent of the comment was simply to voice their support from including this information in M332 to make it easier for specification.


Concurrent ballot item to adopt the proposed practice, R XY, Evaluating the Elastic Behavior of Asphalt Binders Using the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test. See Page 3 and Attachment H, pages 68-73 of the minutes. Attachment G, pages 66-67 of the minutes gives the discussions held during the annual meeting.




Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Joseph S Robinson) ([email protected]) Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) ([email protected]) Negative with comments: 1) After review of proposed revisions, the removal of Appendix X1 from M 332 and the creation

of R XX seems to add more complexity than is needed for what the R XX procedure involves.The R XX procedure only involves plotting T 350 test results on a Figure (reporting results in adifferent format) or performing one additional calculation for comparison to one T 350 testresult (i.e., R XX, Section 7.3).

2) For simplicity and consolidation of requirements into one standard, the elastic responserequirements should be maintained in M 332. It is suggested that the elastic response be anadditional requirement in M 332, Table 1 for those PGAB grades that typically would needproduced using polymer modification to meet the existing requirements of Table 1 (e.g.,PG64E-22, PG64V-22, PG64H-22, PG58E-28, PG58V-28, PG58H-28, PG70S-22, PG70H-22, etc.).The simple formula calculations could be specifically spelled out in either M 332 as a separateSection or maintained in M 332 as an Annex (Mandatory Information) as required in Table 1for specific grades. Otherwise, states would need to specify M 332 with Appendix X1 (as is) orspecify M 332 and R XX for specific grades on their own. If specific grades were identified inM 332 that were required to meet the elastic response, this may eliminate the proliferation ofdifferent ways and different PGAB grades that each state would specify and require PGABs tomeet both M 332 and R XX.A motion was made by Tennessee and a Second by Wisconsin to find this voter non-persuasive under the rationale that “The standards can still be used and specified as desiredby each individual state.” 19 voting members voted for the motion, and 1 voter voted againstthe motion. 0 voters abstained. The motion carried.

Editorial comments: 3) In Section 1.3, it indicates "This practice may be used in conjunction with M 320"; however,

that would require binder testing in accordance with T 350 as referenced in M 332, but notreferenced in M 320. I see the comment from [MA1] added in R XX, Section 1.3 about this. Iassume this comment is in response to at least my TS Ballot comment about this same issue.This R XX references T 350 testing in Section 7.2, which technically would allow the Section1.3 reference to M 320. However, in looking at T 301 (Elastic Recovery test), T 301 does notreference M 320 and M 320 does not reference T 301. T 301 is a common PG-plus test for M320 certified binders. If T 301 does not mention M 320, why do we want to mention M 320 inR XX? I recommend keeping the R XX reference to M 332 as T 350 testing is referenced inboth M 332 and R XX. I suggest deleting the R XX reference to M 320 based on T 301 notspecifically referencing M 320.Editorial comments will be reviewed before publication.

Maine Department of Transportation (Richard L Bradbury) ([email protected]) I still support the idea of having "Evaluating the Elastic Behavior of Asphalt Binders Using the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test" as part of M 332, as discussed at the annual meeting. See discussion above for Item 19.

Arkansas Department of Transportation (Michael C Benson) ([email protected]) References in Section 7.3.4. and Note 1 to Section 7.4.1 and 7.4.3 are incorrect. Editorial comments will be reviewed before publication.

Oregon Department of Transportation (Greg F. Stellmach) ([email protected]) In Note 1, the reference to Sections 7.4.1 to 7.4.3 needs to be updated to the current section numbers. Editorial comments will be reviewed before publication This standard will be published as R 91.





Concurrent ballot item to adopt as a provisional specification, MP XYZ, Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder for Surface Treatments. See Pages 4-5 and Attachment J, pages 86-90 of the minutes.

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) ([email protected]) Affirmative with editorial comments: 1) In Section 1.1, Note 1, consider revising end of note from "see M 320" to "see M 320 or M

332". If this revision is implemented, it may also require a revision to Section 2.1 to add abullet for "M 332, Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Using Multiple Stress Creep Recovery(MSCR) Test".

2) In Section 2.2, Section 3.1.1, Section 5.4, and Section 7.1, there are several references toASTM Standards which include a blank space between the designation letter and number(e.g., ASTM D 8), I believe most ASTM Standards have eliminated this blank space and thedesignation number immediately follows the designation letter (e.g., ASTM D8).

3) In Section 7.1, revise from "R28" to "R 28" (i.e., add a space between the "R" and "28").Editorial comments will be reviewed before publication.

South Carolina Department of Transportation (Merrrill E Zwanka) ([email protected]) Why are Sections 8 and 9 needed in this standard? Contract type requirements exist for all specifying agencies already and these two sections serve no obvious purpose. Question will be forwarded on to the champion of this standard (Texas) so that they can address it.

Arkansas Department of Transportation (Michael C Benson) ([email protected]) • Consider inclusion of M 332 in Note 1 and in Section 2. Referenced Documents for

performance-graded asphalt binders used in hot mix applications.• ASTM D5546 has been withdrawn and replaced by D2042 (solubility in trichloroethylene).

This is referenced in Section 2.2., 5.4. and 7.1.• Section 7.1. needs to include reference to D7553.Editorial comments will be reviewed before publication.

Washington State Department of Transportation (Kurt R Williams) ([email protected]) Section 6.1 "Sampling will be in accordance with T 40" AASHTO T 40 Standard method of test for sampling bituminous materials has been withdrawn and superseded with AASHTO R 66 standard practice for sampling asphalt materials Editorial comments will be reviewed before publication.

Oregon Department of Transportation (Greg F. Stellmach) ([email protected]) Should ASTM D7553 be included in the list of test methods in Section 7.1? It looks like ASTM D5546 may no longer be an ASTM method (indicates that it was withdrawn in 2017). Indicates that it should be replaced with ASTM D2042. This will be reviewed to determine if this change is appropriate.

Illinois Department of Transportation (Brian Pfeifer) ([email protected]) Wondering why the PAV temp is 100 C for all the grades (not like for PGs where 46 and 52-xx are run at 90 C) Previously explained, Chair will pass this information on to Illinois.

This standard will be published as MP 37.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]



B. TS BallotsSee COMP Concurrent Ballot Items.

C. Reconfirmation Ballots 28 of 29 Members Voted. 1. Reconfirm R262. Reconfirm R493. Reconfirm T44 - New Hampshire Department of Transportation (Denis M. Boisvert)

([email protected]) It would be helpful to update this test procedure usingsolvents other than trichlor. There are safer alternatives.Denis will investigate the idea of adding additional solvents. Maria mentioned that ASTM hasalready done some work on this. Would need to look to see if the precision statements would bedifferent when utilizing different solvents.

4. Reconfirm T515. Reconfirm T536. Reconfirm T1027. Reconfirm T179 – NEGATIVE -Ohio Department of Transportation (Eric R Biehl)

([email protected]) Ohio DOT does not use this test and uses T240.Negative withdrawn. Chair will survey the states to see who is or is not using this standard.Maria mentioned that the only states accredited for this method are California, Delaware, andTexas. Three private labs (including Asphalt Institute) are also accredited.

8. Reconfirm T2289. Reconfirm T35010. Reconfirm TP9211. Reconfirm TP10112. Reconfirm TP122 – NEGATIVE - Ontario Ministry Of Transportation (Becca Lane)

([email protected]) Update wording in sections 6.3.3 and 6.3.5 to update as change in thesection referenced from T 313 as follows: "Ensure that the test is valid as specified in A1.12 A12 ofT 313".This negative is based on an editorial correction, Section 6.3.3 and 6.3.5 have an incorrectreference. The correct reference should be T 313 A12. The reference will be corrected beforepublication. Ontario agreed to withdraw the negative.

13. Reconfirm TP123

D. Task Force ReportsTask Force 16-01Review ETG recommendations for elastic response, T 350, and M 332. Barry Paye(WI), and MattCorrigan(FHWA). The ETG is proposing a separate standard practice for evaluating elastic response.

Task force work is complete. Task force will be discontinued.

Task Force 16-A: Review the options available and write a procedure for checking TFO/PAV pans for excessive warping. Members: Delaware (Karl Zipf), Asphalt Institute (Mike Anderson), and AMRL (Maria Knake). Dave Anderson is working on a method for checking pan warping.

Dave Anderson spoke on the work of this Task Force briefly. A great deal of research has been done on pan warping. A work plan needs to be sent to Matt Corrigan. As soon as that is done, we will send pans and asphalt to people to get a research project going. We have a set of laboratories that have volunteered to participate. The warping that occurs is more complicated than expected. A report will be available for the next ETG meeting.

PAV R28- criteria regarding the levelness of the device. There was a question from PA regarding how to check the levelness of the pan. Dave Anderson mentioned that this will be addressed by the work of the Task Force.



Task Force 16-B: To review the precision statement for T240, review the ASTM method and more recent AMRL data. Members: AMRL (Maria Knake) and Virginia (Bill Bailey) Maria will get the data from the AASHTO Re:source PSP.

Roll this into 17-A, which is already reviewing several precision statements. Last update to precision statements for this method was from 2005 and probably needs to be reviewed. Maria send Lyndi a compilation of data from AASHTO re:source PSP.

Task Force 16-C: Review contradictory statements in Section 12.1 and X1.8.1 regarding the linear region in T315 and consider revision to current guidance in standard. Members: Asphalt Institute (Mike Anderson), Virginia (Bill Bailey), Nevada (Charlie Pan), John D’Angelo (Consultant), Kathy Sokol.

Dave Anderson has volunteered to join the task group and will send a suggestion for resolving this issue.

Task Force 17-A: Precision and bias for T 350. Mutiple Stress Creep Recovery and several other standards (T 313, Bending Beam Rheometer; T 315, Dynamic Shear Rheometer; T 316, Rotational Viscosity). Members: Joe DeVol (WA) will lead the effort. Matthew Corrigan (FHWA), Bob Horan (Asphalt Institute), John Malusky (AASHTO re:source), Lyndi Blackburn (AL).

Task Force 16-B will be rolled into this task force. Data was presented at the ETG meetings based on data from AASHTO re:source and from Joe DeVol. Data will be included with the minutes. There have been improvements in precision in the data presented. Significant changes in precision were discussed briefly in the meeting. Some of the changes are significant and the precision statements should be updated. ETG will be looking at these as well. It is likely that the data from AASHTO re:source will be used, as it is the largest data set. However, the ranges of values reported in AASHTO re:source PSP are narrow, and are not representative of all the materials out there. There will probably be a need to mesh the two data sets. John Malusky agreed. Dave Anderson joined the task group and would like to work with Mike Anderson. Attached is a presentation given at the ETG meeting in September that gives proposed precision and bias numbers for these specifications (ATTACHMENT A).

Task Force 17-01: This task force was formed to re-write T 228 which is currently a “C” standard. Task Force members are Leslie White (Montana), Maria Knake (AASHTO), and Georgene Geary (AASHTO Consultant).

The chair will send Georgene Geary the information to get started on this one. Maria Knake mentioned that there is a lot of work on this standard in ASTM, and it is going through a great deal of changes. She recommended waiting to see if an AASHTO version of this standard is still needed after the revisions to the ASTM standard occur.

Task Force 17-02: This task force was formed to look at developing a new standard for long term aging, the determination of ΔTc and a practice explaining how to use ΔTc. Task Force members are Lyndi Blackburn (AL), Chris Peoples (NC), Anne Holt (ON), Tim Ruelke (FL), Rick Bradbury (ME), Brett Haggerty (TX), Bob Horan (Asphalt Institute), Denis Boisvert (NH), Jack Youtchef (FHWA), and Matt Corrigan (ETG liaison).

Bob Horan has offered to write a practice for ΔTc . Bob will move forward, working with Mike Anderson, and then the Task Force will review his draft. A point was made that ASTM already has a standard on ΔTc. It was agreed that the ASTM standard should be reviewed as part of the task force. It was clarified that this new standard would focus on how to use ΔTc and now how to determine it.



V. New BusinesA. Research Proposals

1. 20-7 RPS (for Spring Meeting)- the 20-7 series is being disbanded after 2018. If you have a projectthat you would like 20-7 funding for, it will be important to get this in soon.

2. Full NCHRP RPSUpdate on RTFO elevation- samples have been sent to participating laboratories

B. AASHTO Re:source/CCRL - Observations from Assessments? NoneC. NCHRP Issues NoneD. Correspondence, calls, meetings

• Email from Greg Harder - NEAUPG binder committee with regards to the Jnr differencerequirement currently in the MSCR Binder Specification AASHTO M332 and the need to removethis requirement from the specification for all binders that have [email protected] kPa less than 0.5 kPa-1(E grades). (ATTACHMENT B)Why was this put in the specification originally? Why was the issue not addressed before thiswent to full standard? There has been a lot of discussion regarding Jnrdiff and whether it isneeded or not. The latest recommendation from the ETG is that if you have Jnr values less than0.5, it should be waived. It was put there to make sure that if you have a binder that isparticularly stress or temperature sensitive, it does not cause issues if the binder is exposed tostress or temperatures outside of the expected range of use. The rationale for waiving it is thatyou are already at an E grade if your Jnr value is less than 0.5. A draft letter will be sent to theTechnical Section regarding the recommendation to waive if below 0.5.

The issue was uncovered when the conditioning cycles required were changed, and was apparentin PSP data results. Current PSP data shows that the bimodal issues that appeared in data a fewyears ago are no longer present, and it is believed that users have updated their software andthat all are using the correct conditioning cycles. Denis and Greg will be sent a copy of M332 toedit by the chair (once she receives a clean copy from AASHTO), and will provide rationale on theedits. It will be put out for TS ballot. It was noted that several states have removed Jnrdiff fromtheir specs because good asphalts were failing this parameter.

E. Presentation by Industry/Academia• RTFO Variability - Dave Anderson/Maria Knake

The design of the oven needs to be further reviewed. We can improve the repeatability of thetest with a better design. Dave Anderson is working with data sets, suppliers, and manufacturersto come up with recommendations. A presentation will be given in August 2018.

F. Revisions/Work on Standards for Coming YearR15, T48, M332; T 350

G. Proposed New Standards – None.1. Permission forms for drawings/photos

H. Proposed New Task Forces – None.(Include list of volunteers to lead and/or join TF)

I. New TS Ballots? None.

VI. Open Discussion

VII. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 3:53 PM

ATTACHMENT A – Presentation given at the September ETG meeting on TS2b activities. (Pages 14 – 31) ATTACHMENT B – Email from Greg Harder on the issues with the Jnrdiff requirement. (Pages 32 – 33)

Update of TS 2b Activities


ETG Binder Meeting Bozeman, MT September 19, 2017

ATTACHMENT A Mid-year Meeting

Tech Subcommittee 2b Page 25 of 83

New Proposed Practice Removal of the Elastic Recovery graph from M 332

Multiple Stress Creep Recovery Specification. Big Debate Didn’t see the need. Didn’t want to have to specify another standard. Some would have to amend their current specifications.

Was there a Champion for this move? Will possibly have to consider keeping in M 332 What would be the best way to do so?




Proposed New Task Forces


Re-write T 228 which is currently a “C” standard. Members are:

Leslie White (Montana), Maria Knake (AASHTO), and Georgene Geary(AASHTO Consultant).

Looking at developing a new standard for long term aging, thedetermination of ΔTc and a practice explaining how to use ΔTc.

Members are: Lyndi Blackburn (AL), Chris Peoples (NC), Anne Holt (ON), Tim

Ruelke (FL), Rick Bradbury (ME), Brett Haggerty (TX), Bob Horan(Asphalt Institute), Denis Boisvert (NH), Jack Youtchef (FHWA), andMatt Corrigan (ETG liaison).



Precision & Bias This need was raised at the last ETG meeting. Task Force was already in place to look at T 350 –MSCR

test. AASHTO RE:source provided data for the following

standards: T 313 – Bending Beam Rheometer T 315 – Dynamic Shear Rheometer T 316 – Rotational Viscosity T 350




T 313 - BBR Proposed

Current

1s% d2s%2.149 6.08167

5.0025 14.15708

Creep StiffnessSingle OperatorMulti-laboratory

Condition

Coefficient of Variation(1s%)a

Acceptable Range of Two Test Results

(d2s%)aCreep Stiffness (MPa)

Single-Operator Precision: 2.5 7.2

Multilaboratory Precision: 6.3 17.8




T 313- BBR

Condition



(d2s%)aSlope (m-value)


Multilaboratory Precision 2.4 6.8

Slope (m- value) 1s% d2s%

Single Operator 0.9298 2.631334

Multi-laboratory 2.054 5.81282

Proposed

Current




T 315 – DSR Original Proposed

Current

1s% d2s%1.6405 4.6426153.618 10.23894

Single OperatorMulti-laboratory


Condition



(d2s%)aDSR - ORIGINAL





T 315 – DSR RTFO Proposed

Current


1s% d2s%2.549 7.21367

5.95455 16.85138Single OperatorMulti-laboratory

Condition



(d2s%)aDSR - RTFO





T 315 – DSR PAV


1s% d2s%3.9495 11.177099.6975 27.44393


Condition



(d2s%)aDSR - PAV





T 316- Rotational Viscosity


1s% d2s%0.95185 2.6937363.7155 10.51487


Condition



(d2s%)aRotational Viscosity (Avg.)





PresenterPresentation NotesCurrent 8 Pairs of Samples; 5 binder grades; 142-202 laboratoriesProposed 10 pairs of samples; 6 binder grades; 225-276 laboratories

T 350 Multiple Stress Creep Recovery


1s d2s1.167127 3.3029713.561974 10.08039


Recovery @ 0.1 kPa

1s d2s5.510.2


Recovery @ 0.1 kPa





1s d2s6

14.5Single OperatorMulti-laboratory

Recovery @ 3.2 kPa

1s d2s1.423699 4.0290693.067984 8.682394

Recovery @ 3.2 kPaSingle OperatorMulti-laboratory



T 350


1s d2s1.481639 4.1930374.489717 12.7059






1s d2s14.731.7


Jnr @ 0.1 kPa

1s d2s0.04035 0.1141910.10436 0.295339

Jnr @ 0.1 kPaSingle OperatorMulti-laboratory





1s d2s14.534.2


Jnr @ 3.2 kPa

1s d2s0.073446 0.2078530.698131 1.975711

Jnr @ 3.2 kPaSingle OperatorMulti-laboratory





1s d2s29.148.4


Percent Diff in Jnr

1s% d2s%4.55 12.8765

21.6375 61.23413

Percent Diff in JnrSingle OperatorMulti-laboratory



From: Harder, GregTo: Blackburn, LyndiCc: Karl ZipfSubject: Jnr Difference Spec ChangesDate: Monday, November 20, 2017 4:08:01 PMAttachments: image001.png

Hi Lyndi,

I am writing to you on behalf of the NEAUPG binder committee with regards to the Jnr differencerequirement currently in the MSCR Binder Specification AASHTO M332. We graciously request thatyour Technical Section take prompt action to remove this requirement from the specification for all

binders that have [email protected] kPa less than 0.5 kPa-1 (E grades). We make this request for the followingreasons:

· Jnr difference was included in the specification to be a measure of the stress sensitivity ofthe binders – while we appreciate the desire to use binders that are not stress sensitive,

binders that have [email protected] kPa values less than 0.5 kPa-1 (E grades) are so stiff that theyexhibit very small strains making stress sensitivity irrelevant.

· Binders with high polymer contents failing this Jnr difference requirement most likely arefailing due to the inability of the Dynamic Shear Rheometers (DSR) to accurately measureJnr. Slight variations in the measurements result in very high % Jnr differences. Jnr differencevalues increase as Jnr values decrease.

· The maximum value of 75% for Jnr difference was selected arbitrarily as 3/4th’s of a fullbinder grade.

· Many state DOT’s are currently waiving this Jnr difference requirement for E grades. Theseinclude: ME, NY, NJ, RI, DE, MA, MN, and IA. WI and NE are waiving the Jnr requirement forall grades.

· The Jnr difference requirement for E grades is impeding the implementation of the MSCRspecification. Some states are not willing to waive this requirement since it remains in thespecification. NHDOT has actually reverted back to M 320 as they feel contractually thereare potential issues with waiving any requirements in a specification. Others are consideringdoing the same.

We really appreciate your attention to this urgent matter. If you have any questions or would like todiscuss this further, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Greg

Gregory A. Harder, P.E. | Regional Engineer 5791 Route 80 | Tully, NY 13159Ph: 315.238.7000 | Mobile: 315.807.7306 | Fax: 315.238.7000Email: [email protected] | www.asphaltinstitute.org

ATTACHMENT AMid-Year Attachment B


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.asphaltinstitute.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=lSeynXUFlYj-tdeX6gNnztbCom1Kz3WIsk-7BcsdgdY&r=ThlzrbHocg2_8F0i6dewMSknmpPmhKEwPvxKWKZOgco&m=GlTWQBq-P0RODY2hswgSVYp7CABPI01n3vPz36DbEqc&s=Fk1eMtyRIpg_h2s2JzoZyk_6Cv-Pp10a73wnfCZz3xo&e=

From: Georgene GearyTo: Blackburn, LyndiSubject: Re: TS 2b Liquid Asphalts - Re-write of T 228 Specific Gravity of Semi-Solid Asphalt MaterialsDate: Sunday, June 3, 2018 9:03:50 PMAttachments: 369.pdf

Lyndi I could not find a DOT test method that uses the pycnometer for asphalt binder. I checked theWATQC website and did some internet searches and mainly found references to T 228 or D70, theonly DOT test I could find uses a penetration type tin not a pycnometer (they call it a seamlessointment tin in the attached Iowa DOT test).Also, even though this standard was identified as one with possibly enough changes to turn into a ‘A’standard back when the ASTM/AASHTO C standards study was done, I noticed that ASTM hasincorporated some of the changes that were identified by AASHTO in T 228, so now they are notreally very different. (I have seen ASTM adopt some of our ‘C’ changes in other standards too.) I see three options: 1) We can hold off and do nothing now- I have heard that AASHTO and ASTM may do aharmonization in the asphalt area like we have done in the concrete area. This standard couldbecome a part of the discussions on how we can both use and reference shared standards.2) I can poll the State members to see if anyone has a test method for specific gravity of asphaltbinder using a pycnometer.3) TS 2b can accept D70 and delete T 228 Please let me know what you think Georgene M. Geary, P.E.GGfGA Engineering, LLCStockbridge, [email protected]

From: "Blackburn, Lyndi" Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 5:05 PMTo: Georgene Geary Subject: RE: TS 2b Liquid Asphalts - Re-write of T 228 Specific Gravity of Semi-Solid AsphaltMaterials Georgene;I’m flexible on the timeframe mainly because Maria wanted to wait to see what ASTM wasgoing to do. My big question is can we re-write to a “A” standard? So whenever is fine withme.


ATTACHMENT B

October 17, 2006 Matls. IM 369 Supersedes April 15, 2003

1

Office of Materials

DETERMINING SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF ASPHALT BINDER

SCOPE This test method provides the procedure for determining the specific gravity of asphalt binder, Gb, in the District Laboratories. APPARATUS 1. Water bath and thermometer (ASTM 17F), which meet the requirements of AASHTO T49. 2. Test container, 3 oz. (90 mL), 6 oz. (180 mL) or 8 oz. (240 mL) capacity having the

dimensions specified in AASHTO T49. The container is commonly referred to as seamless ointment tin.

NOTE: Gb may also be determined by using a 6 oz. (180 mL) or 8 oz. (240 mL) seamless ointment tin for the test container. The procedure is identical to that described in this method with the following exceptions: allow the sample to cool at room temperature for not less than 1 1/2 hours (Step 4); allow the sample to remain in the water bath at least 1 1/2 hours (Step 6).

3. Balance, having a capacity of at least 200 grams and readable to at least 0.1 gram. 4. Sample holder attached to the bottom of the balance by a single wire, which allows the

sample to be weighed under water. 5. Water container of sufficient size to allow the sample to be weighed under water. A gallon

can is suitable. PROCEDURE NOTE: Samples submitted in ointment tins for DSR tests may be used if transferred to a new ointment tin as outlined in the procedure. 1. Weigh the test container (without lid) to the nearest 0.1 gram. 2. Remove the lid from the sample container and place in an oven preheated to 260° to 290°F

(127° to 143°C) until the sample reaches a temperature of at least 260°F (127°C). (The time required for this should be 1 to 1 1/2 hours depending on the size of the sample). Remove the sample from the oven and stir thoroughly with a spatula, being careful to avoid the inclusion of air bubbles. Then pour it into the test container until at least two thirds full.

3. Return the test container with the sample to the oven for approximately 10 minutes or until

such time that no air bubbles are visible. 4. Loosely cover the test container and allow to cool at room temperature on a flat, level

surface for a time period of not less than 1 hour. 5. Weigh the sample and test container (without lid) to the nearest 0.1 gram.


2

6. Place the sample in the water bath maintained at 77° ± 0.2°F (25° ± 0.1°C) and allow it to

remain in the bath for at least 1 hour. 7. Remove the sample from the water bath and immediately weigh to the nearest 0.1 gram

while it is fully submerged in water adjusted to 77°F (25°C). CALCULATIONS Calculate Gb to the nearest 0.001 as follows:

Gb at 77°F (25°C) A/7.8-C-BA - B

=

Where: A = weight of test container, grams B = weight of test container plus sample, grams C = weight of test container plus sample submerged in water, grams 7.8 = specific gravity of the metal of the test container. (This is the specific

gravity of ointment tins, which are commonly used. If suspect results occur this specific gravity should be redetermined.

DOCUMENTATION 1. Generally, Gb is reported at 60°F (15.56°C). Convert the test result to 60°F (15.56°C) as

follows:

When the test result is greater than 0.996, divide it by 0.9961. When the test result is less than 0.996, divided it by 0.9952.

2. Always report the specific gravity, Gb, to 4 significant figures along with its temperature.

Test Containers


1

Office of Materials

DETERMINING SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF ASPHALT BINDER

SCOPE

This test method provides the procedure for determining the specific gravity of asphalt binder, Gb, in the District Laboratories.

APPARATUS

1. Water bath and thermometer (ASTM 17F), which meet the requirements of AASHTO T49.

2. Test container, 3 oz. (90 mL), 6 oz. (180 mL) or 8 oz. (240 mL) capacity having thedimensions specified in AASHTO T49. The container is commonly referred to as seamlessointment tin.

NOTE: Gb may also be determined by using a 6 oz. (180 mL) or 8 oz. (240 mL) seamlessointment tin for the test container. The procedure is identical to that described in this methodwith the following exceptions: allow the sample to cool at room temperature for not less than1 1/2 hours (Step 4); allow the sample to remain in the water bath at least 1 1/2 hours (Step6).

3. Balance, having a capacity of at least 200 grams and readable to at least 0.1 gram.

4. Sample holder attached to the bottom of the balance by a single wire, which allows thesample to be weighed under water.

5. Water container of sufficient size to allow the sample to be weighed under water. A galloncan is suitable.

PROCEDURE

NOTE: Samples submitted in ointment tins for DSR tests may be used if transferred to a new ointment tin as outlined in the procedure.

1. Weigh the test container (without lid) to the nearest 0.1 gram.

2. Remove the lid from the sample container and place in an oven preheated to 260° to 290°F(127° to 143°C) until the sample reaches a temperature of at least 260°F (127°C). (The timerequired for this should be 1 to 1 1/2 hours depending on the size of the sample). Removethe sample from the oven and stir thoroughly with a spatula, being careful to avoid theinclusion of air bubbles. Then pour it into the test container until at least two thirds full.

3. Return the test container with the sample to the oven for approximately 10 minutes or untilsuch time that no air bubbles are visible.

4. Loosely cover the test container and allow to cool at room temperature on a flat, levelsurface for a time period of not less than 1 hour.

5. Weigh the sample and test container (without lid) to the nearest 0.1 gram.


ATTACHMENT B


2

6. Place the sample in the water bath maintained at 77° ± 0.2°F (25° ± 0.1°C) and allow it toremain in the bath for at least 1 hour.

7. Remove the sample from the water bath and immediately weigh to the nearest 0.1 gramwhile it is fully submerged in water adjusted to 77°F (25°C).

CALCULATIONS

Calculate Gb to the nearest 0.001 as follows:

Gb at 77°F (25°C) A/7.8-C-BA - B

=

Where: A = weight of test container, grams

B = weight of test container plus sample, grams

C = weight of test container plus sample submerged in water, grams

7.8 = specific gravity of the metal of the test container. (This is the specific gravity of ointment tins, which are commonly used. If suspect results occur this specific gravity should be redetermined.

DOCUMENTATION

1. Generally, Gb is reported at 60°F (15.56°C). Convert the test result to 60°F (15.56°C) asfollows:

When the test result is greater than 0.996, divide it by 0.9961.When the test result is less than 0.996, divided it by 0.9952.

2. Always report the specific gravity, Gb, to 4 significant figures along with its temperature.

Test Containers


ATTACHMENT B

DRAFT New England Regional QC Binder Plan Program

Objective: Implement an asphalt binder supplier program for the New England Departments of Transportation.

Scope: The QC asphalt binder program will incorporate elements of AASHTO R 26 and R 38 any other requirements deemed necessary by the New England state DOT’S.

1. Quality Control Requirements

Section 1.1

Each asphalt binder supplier shall have a QC system in place to ensure the quality of its products. Quality control procedures must provide adequate assurance to agencies that the products purchased will meet relevant AASHTO, ASTM, and industry standards. The following minimum requirements for asphalt binder supplier QC shall be satisfied.

Quality System Manual—Each asphalt binder supplier shall establish and maintain a QSM. The QSM is a general document intended to outline the overall internal QC operating procedures of the asphalt binder supplier. A QSM documents the asphalt binder supplier’s policies for achieving quality and the assignment of responsibility and accountability for QC within the asphalt binder supplier organization. It also describes the minimum QC requirements expected of other asphalt binder suppliers or material suppliers from whom the asphalt binder supplier obtains constituent materials incorporated in each manufactured product.

Guidelines for the preparation of QSM may be available from industry organizations that administer manufacturing facility certification programs. In addition, ISO 10013 contains guidelines on the development and preparation of QSM. However, each asphalt binder supplier QSM shall meet the format and content requirements outlined below.

QSM Format—The asphalt binder supplier’s QSM may be maintained in an electronic format. However, one or more copies of the QSM must be maintained by the asphalt binder supplier’s QC manager in a printed and bound format (three-ring or other). The QSM shall be available to all of the asphalt binder supplier’s employees. Each document in the QSM shall indicate its preparation date, and all pages of the QSM shall be numbered. If a document is revised, the date of the revision shall be indicated on the document and recorded in a table of revisions.

It is the intent of this standard practice that the QSM shall address each of the items