SUBCOMMITTEE ON MATERIALS 101st Annual Meeting – Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Wednesday, August 5, 2015 8:00 am – 10:00 am CST

TECHNICAL SECTION 1c

Aggregate Materials

I. Call to Order and Opening Remarks

II. Roll Call –Confirm with electronic attendance log. Voting Members:

Name State Present Scott Seiter (Chair) Oklahoma X Lisa Zigmund (V-Chair) Ohio X Steven Ingram Alabama X Michael San Angelo Alaska x Paul Burch Arizona Mike Benson Arkansas James Connery Connecticut Wasi Khan DC John Shoucair Florida x Peter Wu Georgia x Mike Santi Idaho Rick Bradbury Maine x Woodrow Hood Maryland John Staton Michigan x Curt Turgeon Minnesota x Mick Syslo Nebraska Darin Tedford Nevada Eileen Sheehy New Jersey x Bob Burnett New York Jack Cowsert North Carolina Ron Horner North Dakota x Greg Stellmach Oregon x Mark Felag Rhode Island x Caroline Heinen Texas Andy Babish Virginia x Paul Farley West Virginia Becca Lane Ontario Magdy Beshara Saskatchewan

Friends:

Name Affiliation Present

Tech Sec 1c Page 1 of 26

Robin Graves Vulcan Mat’l x Jim Bibler Gilson Co. x Dave Savage CMEC x

III. Approval of Technical Section Minutes (Appendix 1)

Move to accept minutes. (Motion: NJ; Second: FL) Discussion: N/A. Motion carries (All were in favor).

IV. Old Business A. SOM Ballot Items Item Number 9 Description SOM ballot to revise M 45. Add new note to section 3.1. Decisions Affirmative: 44, Negative: 2, No Vote: 7 Negative Votes/comments Alabama (Buddy Cox) What is the definition of "suitable particle shape"? Without defining the

phrase. it has no meaning. Also, flat and elongation is not checked on sand. Resolution: Negative withdrawn and concerns addressed in a TS ballot.

Texas (Darren Hazlett) The note should be rewritten. The words 'ensure' and 'suitable' need to be defined or written differently. How does one '...ensure a suitable particle shape...?’ What would be considered 'suitable'? What value does the note provide if there is not a clear definition or parameters provided for these words? Consider revising to read "Excessive quantities of flat and elongated particles have historically caused problems with workability." One could also say what would be considered excessive but they could look at their specifications and determine a value. I would not include the words 'ensure' and 'suitable'. Resolution: Negative withdrawn and concerns addressed in a TS ballot.

Item Number 10

Description SOM ballot to revise T 21, Sections 4.2.1, 9, and 10.1. Add new section 2.1.

Decisions Affirmative: 46, Negative: 0, No Vote: 7, No comments received, revisions published in 35th edition. Item Number 11 Description SOM ballot to revise T 113 - Sections 4.6, 5.1 and 9.1.1. Decisions Affirmative: 46, Negative: 0, No Vote: 7, No comments received, revisions published in 35th edition. Item Number 12 Description SOM ballot to revise T 210, Sections 11.4, 12.6, 12.7, and note 2 of

figure 1. Decisions Affirmative: 46, Negative: 0, No Vote: 7, Minor editorial comments received, revisions published in 35th edition. Item Number 13 Description Concurrent ballot to adopt TP 77 to a full standard. Decisions Affirmative: 46, Negative: 0, No Vote: 7, Comment Section 3.3, line 6, "Aggregates mined from below the water table may have a

higher absorption when used, if not allowed to dry." The true absorption of the aggregate doesn’t change. A calculated value may be lower if the aggregate is not allowed to dry completely and in that case, the actual absorption when used would be higher.

Section X.2, Graphical Correlation with T84 or T85, is so very poorly written that NYS is at a loss about accepting it or not. We accept it and ask that the authors revisit it.

Tech Sec 1c Page 2 of 26

Resolution: Comments forwarded to Bryce Simons for response and potential revisions for future TS Ballot. Standard Published as T 354 in 35th edition.

B. TS ballot conducted 6/23/15 – 7/21/15 Item Number 1 Description (See Appendix 2)

Revise M45 to delete Note 1 and add new sections 7.1.9 and 7.1.10. Commentary: The balloted revisions recommended by Alabama DOT to address discussions at last year’s Tech Section meeting and two negative votes/comments from the last ballot which added a new note 1. Previous discussion and comments were concerned with the ambiguous language of the note regarding suitable particle shape and workability. This balloted revision addresses the ambiguity issue by adding a reference to a test procedure and a section on workability as a rational means of better defining particle shape and workability.

Decisions/Comments Affirmative: 24, Negative: 0, No Vote: 2, Arizona (Paul Burch) In the "REFERENCED DOCUMENTS" Section, AASHTO T113 is currently

titled "Lightweight Pieces in Aggregate". This title should be changed to "Lightweight Particles in Aggregate" in accordance with Item #3 of this same ballot.

Florida (John P Shoucair) (Asterisk) 1 at end of Specification states "Except for 5.1 and 7.1.6, this specification is identical to ASTM C 144-11" but it won't be now that: * bullet item for T 304 has been added in Section 2.1 * Note 1 has been deleted * Section 7.1.9 has been added Section 7.1.10 "Workability" does not belong in 7.1 "Sample and test the aggregate in accordance with the following procedures". It should be Note 2. Renumber 7.1.11 to 7.1.10

Michigan (John F Staton) Flat and/or elongated? Move to take ballot to subcommittee. (Motion: FL; Second; ME) – Discussion: N/A Motion carries. (All in favor) Item Number 2 Description (See Appendix 3)

Revise T11 to add section 5.6 and revise note 3. Commentary: The minor revisions recommended by WAQTC are to add mechanical washing equipment to the Apparatus section, and to provide some guidance to note 3 regarding when to stop the washing when using mechanical washing equipment.

Decisions/Comments Affirmative: 24, Negative: 0, No Vote: 2, New Jersey (Eileen C. Sheehy)

It would be interesting to see an analysis of automatic washer versus hand washing from the AMRL proficiency data. Perhaps as an NCHRP 20-7 project?

Ontario Ministry Of Transportation (Becca Lane)

a. 5.6 and Note 1 – Since there appears to be some concern over using a mechanical washing device indicated in Note 1, then a little more details of what is suitable for it should probably be included.

Information will be collected by WAQTC, NJ, and ME. Looking at DOT lab data and NCHRP RRD 389. Also AMRL will add PSP data. (TF will be created: WAQTC- Garth, NJ, ME, AMRL-Malusky) Item Number 3 Description (See Appendix 4)

Revise T113. Commentary: This is a major revision recommended by WAQTC to address what constituted "floating pieces", and to change the format of the procedure from paragraph form to step by step. Also removes the use of Kerosene and tetrabromoethane because it is extremely hazardous and no one seems to be using it. There has been input and discussion with AMRL on the proposed revisions.

Decisions Affirmative: 23, Negative: 1, No Vote: 2, Comments w/ affirmative Arizona (Paul Burch) In Section 5 of this Test Method, under Note 2, the referenced section for

zinc bromide solution is (Section 5.1.3). However, in accordance with the proposed changes, the referenced section for zinc bromide solution would

Tech Sec 1c Page 3 of 26

now be (Section 5.1.2). Florida (John P Shoucair) Please consider replacing;

"6.2 The minimum size of the test sample shall be as follows:" with "6.2 The minimum mass of the test portion shall be determined as follows:" It serves to introduce the 'table'.

Georgia (Peter Wu) It is believed that the statement in Note 2 is not accurate: "There is no particular hazard from the fumes of zinc chloride solution (section 5.1.1) or zinc bromide solution (section 5.1.2, a typo 5.1.3 exists)…." Section 5.1.1. – a solution of zinc chloride Signal word: DANGER and its full SDS can be found below: http://www.zaclon.com/pdf/zinc_chloride_soln_tech_grade_625_msds.pdf Signal word: DANGER and its SDS Section 5.1.2 - a solution of zinc bromide Signal word: DANGER and its full SDS can be found below: http://www.chemtura.com/msd/external/e/result/report.jsp?P_LANGU=E&P_SYS=6&P_SSN=5246&P_REP=00000000000000000015&P_RES=2939 NIOSH pocket guide to Chemical Hazards (Page 338) show zinc chloride fume symptom: Irritated eyes, skin, nose, throat, congestion, cough, chest pain, and the targeted organs are eyes, skin, respiratory system and cardiovascular system. May want to take a look at the current ASTM method. There was a recent revision to include alternate types of liquids. WAQTC will look into this.

Ontario Ministry Of Transportation (Becca Lane)

a. Although Note 1 is shown on page T 113-2, it appears that the reference numbers to it have both been removed from the text (i.e. they have been removed from both the title block and at the end of subsection 1.3).

b. 5.2 – Rather than completely eliminating the statement which formerly said to maintain the specific gravity of the liquid during the test, it might be more appropriate to include something about measuring the specific gravity of the liquid prior to the test.

c. 6.4.2/6.5.2 – I know what the intent is here but maybe instead of saying "until less than 1 percent…", it might be more appropriate to say "until it appears that there is less than 1 percent…".

Negative vote - Comments North Dakota (Ron Horner) 7.1.3. Fine aggregate

Allowing the material to sit undisturbed "2 to 5" minutes seems somewhat excessive. I would suggest only up to 2 minutes maximum. In most cases one minute is enough time to allow the heavier particles to settle out. (Our internal process is to stir for 15 seconds and rest for 30 seconds)

Negative comment was found to be persuasive. Ballot will need to be revised. Item Number 4 Description (See Appendix 5)

New Provisional Standard for the Iowa Pore Index Test. Commentary: This was discussed at last year’s TS 1c meeting and Task Force 14-01 was formed. As part of their work a survey was conducted and there is sufficient interest in developing a standard for the test method.

Decisions/Comments Affirmative: 24, Negative: 0, No Vote: 2, Alabama (Steven Ingram) There are two different Note 2 references, one Note 2 reference in

section 5 and different Note 2 reference in section 7. Florida (John P Shoucair) In Section 1.1, replace "PC Concrete" with "Portland Cement (PC) Concrete"

Tech Sec 1c Page 4 of 26

To be consistent with other AASHTO Methods, change all references of "weight" to "mass". Usage of the verb "weigh" may need to be changed to "determine" or "measure". In Section 5.5, is "A timing device that can be read or record elapsed time to the nearest second" accurate enough to measure pressures within 6 or 12 seconds per Section 5.2? In Section 6.4 additional information should be provided for the case when the results from the standardization test vary by more than 10 percent from the previous standardization results. In section 8.1, where is the reference to the desired test sample size to be found in the method? In Section 8.5, should there be a minimum volume of water in the chamber at the 90 second mark? Survey was done by MI dot to determine use of index. Received 34 returns. 30 were in favor or not opposed, 4 opposed/deferred. Comments: OK- Does IA make an apparatus that is commercial available? MI- IA device is automated and equipment would need to be developed by some manufacture.

Georgia (Peter Wu) We do not use this index since there is little freeze-thaw damage to concrete in southern states climate.

New Jersey (Eileen C. Sheehy)

Why just for carbonate rock? Wouldn't the test work for other geological types (e.g. basalt)? MI- Not really sure why only carbonate rock. May have to do with pore structure of material? MI will look into the rationale for the limitation on carbonate rock.

Oregon (Greg Frank Stellmach)

I approve of moving forward with this as a provisional standard, but feel that the following issues should be looked into for more definition in the future - 1) Under 7.1 there should be better definition of what the sample mass for the test should be. Is it similar to sample mass for T255 aggregates? Is there a minimum sample size? 2) Under 7.2 there should be a definition of what "constant mass" is. Under T255 there is a definition for constant mass for an aggregate sample.

C. Task Force Reports

i. TF 11-01; Review/revise T 112 (KS, NE, AK, AMRL). Need to determine if there is sufficient interest to continue. KS-was an attempt to alter the test procedure to move however external issues slowed progress. Intent was that procedure need to be revise procedure to make it easier. KS will follow up with Kyle Larson (KS-DoT).

ii. TF 13-01; AIMS Standards, TP 81 & PP 64 (FL, OH, AZ, TRB) – review research and new developments and recommend future revisions to standard. OK- taskforce is active and they are working on revision to AIMS standards. They will continue with their work and TS ballot for revision will most likely occur in 2016.

iii. TF 14-01; Iowa Pore Index Test – (MI, CTL, IA) – poll members, ballot new provisional. (See Appendix 6) Move to concurrent ballot as provisional standard (Move: NJ, Second: RI). Discussion: MI, IA, and CTL will go back to work on this (TF-14-01 will be continued). AK – How many states have this type of material? Who has the equipment? Is this only for source qualification? Several states responded indicated that they do have this type of material. Currently, IA is the only state with the equipment. They have developed their own. MI had made their own but it is more “manual”. Method is used and algorithm is developed in

Tech Sec 1c Page 5 of 26

conjunction with other types of resting (XRF). (MI) - Uses it more as a qualitative method for screening and not acceptance. Hand method has been balloted. Will this be send as all standard or provisional? Discussion indicated that this will be balloted as a provisional. Motion carries (All were in favor).

V. New Business

A. Research Proposals B. AASHTO Issues

i. E-mail from Brian Johnson: I have a question about T 248, which is the standard for splitting and quartering aggregate. It is a T standard now, but it seems like it should be an R standard since it’s a practice and does not provide a test result. It sounds like it is a tech section decision that can be voted on at the mid-year meeting if you can put it on the agenda. Do you think we can vote on this at the next mid-year web meeting? Motion to move this to SOM to revise from T to R - (Motion: ME; Second: RI) Discussion: N/A Motion carries (All were in favor).

ii. Follow-up discussion to T 210: Last year’s TS meeting discussion on the apparatus; specifically the stroke tolerance of 0.6mm and the change by ASTM on their version of the test (D 3744) to a tolerance of 6mm. Discussion with a manufacturer indicates the 0.6 mm is reasonable, but we may want to consider revisions to the vessel dimensions and tolerances to bring it in line with what is commercially available. Follow up- discussion indicated that there might have been an editorial error in the ASTM. Manufactured indicated that the 0.6 mm is accurate. AASHTO will not be revising the standard.

iii. Issue brought up in TN regarding the salt that is used in T104. Standard may need clarification for purity of salt and possibly pH? (OK)- had internal discussion with chemist to determine purity of varying grades of salt. (Lenker - AMRL)- ASTM has looked into this to see if the salt, among other things is an issue. TN DOT will survey the states to see what they use. AMRL will add question on data sheet to see what is being used by labs in program and report results. (TF will be created: TN, AMRL, ??)

C. NCHRP Issues i. NCHRP 168 IDEA Program – “Prototype Development: Automated and Continuous

Aggregate Sampling and Laser Targeting System”. The final report was submitted May 7, 2015. There is currently a pooled fund study using this equipment conducting testing on aggregates from five states. A draft AASHTO provisional standard may be available for discussion at the mid-year webinar meeting along with a presentation by the PI. (Amir) Look closely to determine research needs for the group. Information for NCHRP studies were passed out to group. Motion to endorse this (Motion: NJ; Second: ME) Discussion: (OK) look into conjunction with TS 1b on research proposal. Research need statement is on page 167 of TS 1b 2015 SOM Agenda. Motion carries (All were in favor).

ii. NCHRP Report 805 Presentation. (See Appendix 7) Report is available on TRB website.

D. Correspondence, calls, meetings/ Presentation by Industry

i. Select a date for Mid-Year Web Meeting – February 4, 2016 ii. E-mail from Joel Costonis of Advanced Concepts & Engineering concerning an automated sieving

apparatus for conducting T 11 and T 27, “ACE Auto-Grade”. Seeking an AASHTO test procedure. iii. E-mail from Reid Castrodale with The Expanded Shale, Clay and Slate Institute (ESCSI) – Potential

Lightweight aggregate test method using centrifuge, related to internal curing.

Tech Sec 1c Page 6 of 26

E. Proposed New Standards F. Proposed New Task Forces G. Standards Requiring Reconfirmation

i. M 29 ii. T 71

iii. T 103 iv. T 112 v. T 211

vi. T 255 vii. T 303

viii. T 327

H. SOM Ballot Items (including any ASTM changes)

VI. Open Discussion i. (AMRL-Steve L)- CCRL is looking into a PSP for AASHTO T303/ASTM C1260 (ASR).

ii. MD –ASTM has Dynamic Friction Standard test method. Do we want AASHTO specification?

This will be discussed at Roundtable Discussion on Thursday.

iii. Presentation by Jeff Speck on “Using a Centrifuge to Obtain Pre-wetted Surface Dry Condition of LWA” (OK) - Is there interest in this to be pursued by AASHTO to turn into standard? (AL) - May be potential to use this for other types of LWA. (TF will be created: LA, Jeff Speck, FL, KS)

VII. Adjourn i. Move to adjourn.

Tech Sec 1c Page 7 of 26

2015 TS 1c meeting attendees

First Name Last Name Organization EmailWilliam Troxler, Jr. Troxler Electronic Laboratories, Inc. btroxler@troxlerlabs.comMichael Rafalowski FHWA michael.rafalowski@dot.govJames Bibler Gilson Company, Inc. jbibler@gilsonco.comAllen Myers KY Transportation Cabinet allen.myers@ky.govEric Carleton National Precast Concrete Association ecarleton@precast.orgKevin Kennedy MI DOT kennedyk@michigan.govAmir Hanna TRB ahanna@nas.eduRichard Bradbury MEDOT richard.bradbury@maine.govTracy Barnhart AASHTO Material Reference Laboratory tbarnhart@amrl.netJeff Speck Trinity Expanded Shale & Clay jeffery.speck@trin.netChris Abadie LADOTD chris.abadie@la.govDavid Newcomb Texas A&M Transportation Institute d-newcomb@tamu.eduAhmad Ardani FHWA ahmad.ardani@dot.govPaul Farley WV DOH paul.m.farley@wv.govJohn Malusky AMRL jmalusky@amrl.netMacKenzie Fountain MS DOT mfountain@mdot.ms.govGreg Uherek AMRL guherek@amrl.netSejal Barot MD SHWA sbarot@sha.state.md.usGregory Schieber KS DOT gregory.schieber@ksdot.orgTom Russo MMFX Steel Corporation tom.russo@mmfx.comLisa Zigmund OH DOT lisa.zigmund@dot.state.oh.usRoss Metcalfe MT DOT rmetcalfe@mt.govSteven Ingram AL DOT ingrams@dot.state.al.usDanny Gierhart Asphalt Institute dgierhart@asphaltinstitute.orgGreg Stellmach OR DOT greg.f.stellmach@odot.state.or.usJesus Sandoval-Gil AZ DOT jsandoval-gil@azdot.govCasey Soneira AMRL csoneira@amrl.netMichael San Angelo State Materials Engineer michael.sanangelo@alaks.govDavid Savage CMEC davesavage@cmec.orgGerry Huber Heritage Research Group gerald.huber@hrglab.comDick Reaves Troxler Electronic Laboratories, Inc. dreaves@troxlerlabs.comLyndi Blackburn ALDOT blackburnl@dot.state.al.usMladen Gagulic VTAOT mladen.gagulic@vermont.govMichael Doran TNDOT michael.doran@tn.govScott Andrus UTDOT scottandrus@utah.govJeff Seiders Raba Kistner Infrastructure, Inc. jeff.seiders@rkci.comRon Horner ND DOT rhorner@nd.govDesna Bergold WAQTC dbconsulting.desna@gmail.comRandy West Director westran@auburn.eduRonald Stanevich WV DOH ron.l.stanevich@wv.govReid Castrodale Expanded Shale Clay & Slate Institute rcastrodale@escsi.orgJohn Staton MI DOT statonj@michigan.govKurt Williams WA DOT willikr@wsdot.wa.govGarth Newman WAQTC garth.newman@itd.idaho.govGreg Mulder IA DOT greg.mulder@dot.iowa.gov

Tech Sec 1c Page 8 of 26

Darin Tedford NV DOT dtedford@odot.state.nv.usJennifer Albert FHWA jennifer.albert@dot.govJack Springer FHWA jack.springer@dot.govMark Felag RI DOT mark.felag@dot.ri.govTodd Arnold tarnold@pineinst.comGeorgene Geary GGfGA Engineering, LLC ggeary@ggfga.comMichael Black KY Transportation Cabinet michael.black@ky.govGreg Milburn WY DOT greg.milburn@wyo.govAnne Holt Ontario Ministry of Transportation anne.holt@ontario.caBill Schiebel CO DOT bill.schiebel@state.co.usMatthew Bluman AASHTO (AMRL) mbluman@amrl.netScott Seiter OK DOT sseiter@odot.orgCurt Turgeon MN DOT curt.turgeon@state.mn.usSteve Lenker Director AMRL/CCRL slenker@amrl.netKarl Zipf Del DOT karl.zipf@state.de.usRon Holsinger Consultant ronald20405@comcast.netHany Fekry DelDOT hany.fekry@state.de.usEileen Sheehy NJ DOT eileen.sheehy@dot.nj.govBrian Johnson AMRL bjohnson@amrl.netColin Lobo NRMCA clobo@nrmca.orgRobert Lauzon ConnDOT robert.lauzon@ct.govBrandi Mitchell Chemist brandi.mitchell@ky.govTimothy Ruelke FL DOT timothy.ruelke@dot.state.fl.usRobin Graves Vulcan Materials Company gravesr@vmcmail.comRichard Kreider KS DOT richard.kreider@ksdot.orgTrudy Keefer AASHTO tkeefer@amrl.netMike Mance WV DOH mike.a.mance@wv.govMichael Sullivan MS DOT msullivan@mdot.ms.govCharles Babish VADOT andy.babish@vdot.virginia.govJames Hammons MS DOT jchammons@mdot.ms.govPeter Wu GA DOT pwu@dot.ga.govJosiah Beakley American Concrete Pipe Association jbeakley@concrete-pipe.orgDeborah Kim AASHTO dkim@aashto.org

Tech Sec 1c Page 9 of 26

Standard Specification for

Aggregate for Masonry Mortar

AASHTO Designation: M 45-06 (2010)151 ASTM Designation: C 144-0411

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249 Washington, D.C. 20001

Tech Sec 1c Page 10 of 26

TS-1c M 45-1 AASHTO

Standard Specification for

Aggregate for Masonry Mortar

AASHTO Designation: M 45-06 (201015)1 ASTM Designation: C 144-0411

1. SCOPE

1.1. This specification covers aggregate for use in masonry mortar.

1.2. The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard.

2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS

2.1. AASHTO Standards: M 6, Fine Aggregate for Hydraulic Cement Concrete T 2, Sampling of Aggregates T 11, Materials Finer Than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing T 21, Organic Impurities in Fine Aggregates for Concrete T 27, Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates T 71, Effect of Organic Impurities in Fine Aggregate on Strength of Mortar T 84, Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate T 104, Soundness of Aggregate by Use of Sodium Sulfate or Magnesium Sulfate T 112, Clay Lumps and Friable Particles in Aggregate T 113, Lightweight Pieces in Aggregate T 304, Uncompacted Void Content of Fine Aggregate

2.2. ASTM Standard: C 270, Standard Specification for Mortar for Unit Masonry

3. MATERIAL

3.1. Aggregate for use in masonry mortar shall consist of natural sand or manufactured sand. Manufactured sand is the product obtained by crushing stone, gravel, or air-cooled iron blast-furnace slag specially processed to ensure suitable particle shape as well as gradation. 3.1. Note 1—Care should be taken to ensure a suitable particle shape, since excessive quantities of flat and elongated particles have historically caused problems with workability.

4. GRADING

4.1. Aggregate for use in masonry mortar shall be graded within the following limits, depending upon whether natural sand or manufactured sand is to be used. (See Table 1.)

Formatted: Normal

Formatted: Note caption

Tech Sec 1c Page 11 of 26

TS-1c M 45-2 AASHTO

Formatted: Heading 2, Space Before: 0 pt

Formatted: Heading 2

Tech Sec 1c Page 12 of 26

TS-1c M 45-3 AASHTO

Tech Sec 1c Page 13 of 26

TS-1c M 45-4 AASHTO

Table 1—Aggregate Grading Limits

% Passing Sieve Size Natural Sand Manufactured Sand

4.75 mm (No. 4) 100 100 2.36 mm (No. 8) 95 to 100 95 to 100 1.18 mm (No. 16) 70 to 100 70 to 100 600 μm (No. 30) 40 to 75 40 to 75 300 μm (No. 50) 10 to 35 20 to 40 150 μm (No. 100) 2 to 15 10 to 25 75 μm (No. 200) 0 to 5.0 0 to 10

4.2. The aggregate shall not have more than 50 percent retained between any two consecutive sieves of those listed in Section 4.1, and no more than 25 percent between the 300-μm (No. 50) and 150-μm (No. 100) sieve.

4.3. If the fineness modulus varies by more than 0.20 from the value assumed in selecting proportions for the mortar, the aggregate shall be rejected unless suitable adjustments are made in proportions to compensate for the change in grading. Note 211—For heavy construction employing joints thicker than 12.5 mm (1/2 in.), a coarser aggregate may be desirable. For such work, a fine aggregate conforming to M 6 is satisfactory.

4.4. When an aggregate fails the gradation limits specified in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, it may be used provided the mortar can be prepared to comply with the aggregate ratio, water retention, air content, and compressive strength requirements of the property specifications of ASTM C 270.

5. COMPOSITION

5.1. Deleterious Substances—The amount of deleterious substances in aggregate for masonry mortar, each determined on independent samples complying with the grading requirements of Section 4, shall not exceed the following:

Item Max Permissible

Mass, % Clay lumps and friable particles 1.0 Lightweight particles, floating on 0.5a liquid having a specific gravity of 2.0

a This requirement does not apply to blast-furnace slag aggregate.

5.2. Organic Impurities:

5.2.1. The aggregate shall be free of injurious amounts of organic impurities. Except as herein provided, aggregates subjected to the test for organic impurities and producing a color darker than the standard shall be rejected.

5.2.2. Aggregate failing in the test may be used provided that the discoloration is due principally to the presence of small quantities of coal, lignite, or similar discrete particles.

Tech Sec 1c Page 14 of 26

TS-1c M 45-5 AASHTO

5.2.3. Aggregate failing in the test may be used provided that, when tested for the effect of organic impurities on strength of mortar by T 71, the relative strength at seven days is not less than 95 percent.

6. SOUNDNESS

6.1. Except as herein provided, aggregate subjected to five cycles of the soundness test shall show a loss, weighted in accordance with the grading of a sample complying with the limitations set forth in Section 4, not greater than 10 percent when sodium sulfate is used or 15 percent when magnesium sulfate is used.

6.2. Aggregate failing to meet the requirements of Section 6.1 may be accepted, provided that mortar of comparable properties made from similar aggregates from the same source has been exposed to weathering, similar to that to be encountered, for a period of more than five years without appreciable disintegration.

7. METHODS OF SAMPLING AND TESTING

7.1. Sample and test the aggregate in accordance with the following procedures:

7.1.1. Sampling—T 2,

7.1.2. Sieve Analysis and Fineness Modulus—T 27,

7.1.3. Amount of Material Finer Than 75-µm (No. 200) Sieve—T 11,

7.1.4. Organic Impurities—T 21,

7.1.5. Effect of Organic Impurities on Strength—T 71,

7.1.6. Clay Lumps and Friable Particles—T 112,

7.1.7. Lightweight Constituents—T 113, and

7.1.8. Soundness—T 104, and.

7.1.9. Uncompacted Void Content—T 304.

7.1.8.7.1.10. Workability—Excessive quantities of flat and elongated particles have historically caused problems with workability. When measured on any aggregate of a known grading, void content provides an indication of that aggregate's angularity, sphericity, and surface texture compared with other fine aggregates tested in the same grading. When void content is measured on an as-received fine aggregate grading, it can be an indicator of the effect of the fine aggregate on the workability of a mixture in which it may be used.

7.1.9.7.1.11. Density—Determine the bulk specific gravity (oven dry basis) of the fine aggregate in accordance with T 84. The specific gravity equals the density expressed in units of g/cm3. The density of the fine aggregate in g/cm3 is used in the calculation of the air content of the mortars, as required by ASTM C 270.

1 Except for Sections 5.1 and 7.1.6, tThis specification is identical s to ASTM C 144-0411.

Tech Sec 1c Page 15 of 26

Standard Method of Test for

Reducing Samples of Aggregate to Testing Size

AASHTO Designation: T 248-141 ASTM Designation: C702/C702M-11

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249 Washington, D.C. 20001

Tech Sec 1c Page 16 of 26

TS-1c T 248-1 AASHTO

Standard Method of Test for

Reducing Samples of Aggregate to Testing Size

AASHTO Designation: T 248-141 ASTM Designation: C702/C702M-11

1. SCOPE

1.1. These methods cover the reduction of large samples of aggregate to the appropriate size for testing, employing techniques that are intended to minimize variations in measured characteristics between the test samples so selected and the large sample.

1.2. The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard.

1.3. This standard does not purport to address the safety concerns associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS

2.1. AASHTO Standards: T 2, Sampling of Aggregates T 84, Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate

2.2. ASTM Standard: C125, Standard Terminology Relating to Concrete and Concrete Aggregates

3. TERMINOLOGY

3.1. Definitions—the terms used in this standard are defined in ASTM C125.

4. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE

4.1. Specifications for aggregates require sampling portions of the material for testing. Other factors being equal, larger samples will tend to be more representative of the total supply. The methods described in this standard provide for reducing the large sample obtained in the field or produced in the laboratory to a convenient size for conducting a number of tests to describe the material and measure its quality. These methods are conducted in such a manner that the smaller test sample portion will be representative of the larger sample and, thus, of the total supply. The individual test methods provide for minimum masses of material to be tested.

4.2. Under certain circumstances, reduction in size of the large sample prior to testing is not recommended. Substantial differences between the selected test samples sometimes cannot be avoided, as, for example, in the case of an aggregate having relatively few large-sized particles in

Tech Sec 1c Page 17 of 26

TS-1c T 248-2 AASHTO

the sample. The laws of chance dictate that these few particles may be unequally distributed among the reduced-size test samples. Similarly, if the test sample is being examined for certain contaminants occurring as a few discrete fragments in only small percentages, caution should be used in interpreting results from the reduced-size test sample. Chance inclusion or exclusion of only one or two particles in the selected test sample may importantly influence interpretation of the characteristics of the original sample. In these cases, the entire original sample should be tested.

4.3. Failure to carefully follow the procedures in these methods could result in providing a nonrepresentative sample to be used in subsequent testing.

5. SELECTION OF METHOD

5.1. Fine Aggregate—Samples of fine aggregate that are drier than the saturated surface-dry condition (Note 1) shall be reduced in size by a mechanical splitter according to Method A. Samples having free moisture on the particle surfaces may be reduced in size by quartering according to Method B, or by treating as a miniature stockpile as described in Method C.

5.1.1. If the use of Method B or Method C is desired, and the sample does not have free moisture on the particle surfaces, the sample may be moistened to achieve this condition, thoroughly mixed, and then the sample reduction performed. Note 1—The method of determining the saturated surface-dry condition is described in T 84. As a quick approximation, if the fine aggregate will retain its shape when molded in the hand, it may be considered to be wetter than saturated surface-dry.

5.1.2. If use of Method A is desired and the sample has free moisture on the particle surfaces, the entire sample may be dried to at least the surface-dry condition, using temperatures that do not exceed those specified for any of the tests contemplated, and then the sample reduction performed. Alternatively, if the moist sample is very large, a preliminary split may be made using a mechanical splitter having wide chute openings 38 mm (11/2 in.) or more to reduce the sample to not less than 5000 g. The portion so obtained is then dried, and reduction to test sample size is completed using Method A.

5.2. Coarse Aggregates—Reduce the sample using a mechanical splitter in accordance with Method A (preferred method) or by quartering in accordance with Method B. The miniature stockpile Method C is not permitted for coarse aggregates or mixtures of coarse and fine aggregates.

5.3. Combined Coarse and Fine Aggregate—Samples that are in a dry condition may be reduced in size by either Method A or Method B. Samples having free moisture on the particle surfaces may be reduced in size by quartering according to Method B. When Method A is desired and the sample is damp or shows free water, dry the sample until it appears dry or until clumps can be easily broken by hand (Note 2). Dry the entire sample to this condition, using temperatures that do not exceed those specified for any of the tests contemplated, and then reduce the sample. The miniature stockpile Method C is not permitted for combined aggregates. Note 2—The dryness of the sample can be tested by tightly squeezing a small portion of the sample in the palm of the hand. If the cast crumbles readily, the correct moisture range has been obtained.

6. SAMPLING

6.1. The samples of aggregate obtained in the field shall be taken in accordance with T 2, or as required by individual test methods. When tests for sieve analysis only are contemplated, the size of field sample listed in T 2 is usually adequate. When additional tests are to be conducted, the

Tech Sec 1c Page 18 of 26

TS-1c T 248-3 AASHTO

user shall determine that the initial size of the field sample is adequate to accomplish all intended tests. Similar procedures shall be used for aggregate produced in the laboratory.

METHOD A—MECHANICAL SPLITTER

7. APPARATUS

7.1. Sample Splitter—Sample splitters shall have an even number of equal-width chutes, but not less than a total of eight for coarse aggregate, or twelve for fine aggregate, which discharge alternatively to each side of the splitter. For coarse aggregate and mixed aggregate, the minimum width of the individual chutes shall be approximately 50 percent larger than the largest particles in the sample to be split (Note 3). For dry fine aggregate in which the entire sample will pass the 9.5-mm (3/8-in.) sieve, the minimum width of the individual chutes shall be at least 50 percent larger than the largest particles in the sample and the maximum width shall be 19 mm (3/4 in.). The splitter shall be equipped with two receptacles to hold the two halves of the sample following splitting. It shall also be equipped with a hopper or straightedged pan, which has a width equal to or slightly less than the overall width of the assembly of chutes, by which the sample may be fed at a controlled rate to the chutes. The splitter and accessory equipment shall be so designed that the sample will flow smoothly without restriction or loss of material. (See Figure 1.)

Note: (a) may be constructed as either closed or open type. Closed type is preferred.

Figure 1—Sample Splitters (Riffles)

Note 3—Mechanical splitters are commonly available in sizes adequate for coarse aggregate having the largest particle not over 37.5 mm (11/2 in.).

Feed Chute

At Least EightOpenings

Riffle Sample Splitter(a) Large Sample Splitter for Coarse Aggregate

Rolled Edges

(b) Small Sample Splitters for Fine Aggregate

At Least TwelveOpenings

Tech Sec 1c Page 19 of 26

TS-1c T 248-4 AASHTO

8. PROCEDURE

8.1. Place the original sample in the hopper or pan and uniformly distribute it from edge to edge, so that when it is introduced into the chutes, approximately equal amounts will flow through each chute. The rate at which the sample is introduced shall be such as to allow free flowing through the chutes into the receptacles below.

8.2. Reintroduce the portion of the sample in one of the receptacles into the splitter as many times as necessary to reduce the sample to the size specified for the intended test. The portion of the material collected in the other receptacle may be reserved for reduction in size for other tests.

METHOD B—QUARTERING

9. APPARATUS

9.1. Apparatus shall consist of a straightedge; straightedged scoop, shovel or trowel; a broom or brush; and a canvas blanket or tear-resistant tarp approximately 2 by 2.5 m (6 by 8 ft).

10. PROCEDURE

10.1. Use either the procedure described in Section 10.1.1 or 10.1.2, or a combination of both.

10.1.1. Place the original sample on a hard, clean, level surface where there will be neither loss of material nor the accidental addition of foreign material. Mix the material by turning the entire sample over at least three times until the material is thoroughly mixed. With the last turning, form the entire sample into a conical pile by depositing individual lifts on top of the preceding lift. Carefully flatten the conical pile to a uniform thickness and diameter by pressing down the apex with a shovel or trowel so that each quarter sector of the resulting pile will contain the material originally in it. The diameter should be approximately four to eight times the thickness. Divide the flattened mass into four equal quarters with a shovel or trowel and remove two diagonally opposite quarters, including all fine material, and brush the cleared spaces clean. The two unused quarters may be set aside for later use or testing, if desired. Successively mix and quarter the remaining material until the sample is reduced to the desired size. (See Figure 2.)

10.1.2. As an alternative to the procedure in Section 10.1.1 or when the floor surface is uneven, the field sample may be placed on a canvas blanket or tear-resistant tarp and mixed with a shovel or trowel as described in Section 10.1.1, leaving the sample in a conical pile. As an alternative to mixing with the shovel or trowel, lift each corner of the blanket or tarp and pull it over the sample toward the diagonally opposite corner, causing the material to be rolled. After the material has been rolled a sufficient number of times (a minimum of four times), so that it is thoroughly mixed, pull each corner of the blanket or tarp toward the center of the pile so the material will be left in a conical pile. Flatten the pile as described in Section 10.1.1. Divide the sample as described in Section 10.1.1, or insert a stick or pipe beneath the blanket or tarp and under the center of the pile, then lift both ends of the stick, dividing the sample into two equal parts. Remove the stick, leaving a fold of the blanket between the divided portions. Insert the stick under the center of the pile at right angles to the first division and again lift both ends of the stick, dividing the sample into four equal parts. Remove two diagonally opposite quarters, being careful to clean the fines from the blanket or tarp. The two unused quarters may be set aside for later use or testing, if desired. Successively mix and quarter the remaining material until the sample is reduced to the desired size. (See Figure 3.)

Tech Sec 1c Page 20 of 26

TS-1c T 248-5 AASHTO

Figure 2—Quartering on a Hard, Clean, Level Surface

Figure 3—Quartering on a Canvas Blanket or Tear-Resistant Tarp

Tech Sec 1c Page 21 of 26

TS-1c T 248-6 AASHTO

METHOD C—MINIATURE STOCKPILE SAMPLING (DAMP FINE AGGREGATE ONLY)

11. APPARATUS

11.1. Apparatus shall consist of a straightedge; straightedged scoop, shovel, or trowel for mixing the aggregate; and either a small sampling thief, small scoop, or spoon for sampling.

12. PROCEDURE

12.1. Place the original sample of damp fine aggregate on a hard, clean, level surface where there will be neither loss of material nor the accidental addition of foreign material. Mix the material by turning the entire sample over at least three times until the material is thoroughly mixed. With the last turning, form the entire sample into a conical pile by depositing individual lifts on top of the preceding lift. If desired, the conical pile may be flattened to a uniform thickness and diameter by pressing the apex with a shovel or trowel so that each quarter sector of the resulting pile will contain the material originally in it. Obtain a sample for each test by selecting at least five increments of material at random locations from the miniature stockpile, using any of the sampling devices described in Section 11.1.

1 Technically equivalent but not identical to ASTM C702/C702M-11.

Tech Sec 1c Page 22 of 26

TS-1c T XXX-XX AASHTO

Standard Method of Test for

Pore Index for Carbonate Coarse Aggregate AASHTO Designation: T XXX-XX 1. SCOPE 1.1. This test method covers the determination of the pore index values for carbonate (limestone

and dolomite) coarse aggregate for PC Concrete. 1.2. The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. 1.3. This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its

use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS 2.1. AASHTO Standards:

M 231, Weighing Devices Used in the Testing of Materials T 27, Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates

3. SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD 3.1. The method uses water pressure at 240 kPa (35 psi) to force water into the aggregate pores.

A measurement is made of the volume of water that is forced into the aggregate during a period between 1 minute and 15 minutes after application of the pressure

4. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE 4.1. The pore index test is used to quickly assess the pore system of carbonate coarse aggregates

and identify potential freeze-thaw durability issues for use in PC Concrete. 4.2. Carbonate aggregates with secondary pore index values of 20 or below have a pore system

that is generally indicative of an aggregate that will be resistant to freeze-thaw damage in air entrained PC Concrete. Higher secondary pore index values indicate a larger pore system that is generally indicative of an aggregate susceptible to freeze- thaw damage in air entrained PC Concrete (Reference 13.1.).

5. APPARATUS 5.1. Pressure Chamber—A metal or plastic container of sufficient volume to hold 1000 grams to

4500 grams of normal weight carbonate aggregate. The container must be corrosion resistant and capable of withstanding 240 kPa (35 psi) pressure. The top plate shall have a vent such that the air can be forced out of the chamber as it is filled with water. The container shall have an inlet at or near the base through which water is supplied.

Tech Sec 1c Page 23 of 26

TS-1c T XXX-XX AASHTO

Note 1—One such instrument that has been used successfully for this testing is shown in Figure 1.

Note 2—A clear pressure chamber will allow the operator to visually determine when all the entrapped air bubbles have been removed prior to pressurizing.

5.2. Chamber Pressure Control Device—The chamber pressure control device shall be capable of

applying and controlling pressure to within 240 ± 3 kPa (35 ± 0.5 psi). The pressure shall be applied such that 240 ± 3 kPa (35 ± 0.5 psi) is achieved within 6 seconds for the chamber with water only and within 12 seconds for the chamber and the aggregate under test. The device may consist of a pneumatic pressure regulator, or any other device capable of applying and controlling pressures to the required tolerances.

5.3. Chamber Pressure Measurement Device—The chamber pressure measurement device shall

be capable of measuring the pressures to the tolerances given in Section 5.2. It may be a pressure manometer, electronic pressure transducer, or any other device capable of measuring pressures to the stated tolerances.

5.4. Chamber Volume Measurement Device—The chamber volume measurement device shall be

capable of measuring volume change to a precision of at least 0.1 percent of the sample volume for the primary reading and 0.05 percent of the sample volume for the secondary reading.

5.5. Timer— A timing device that can be read or record elapsed time to the nearest second. 5.6. Balance—The balance shall have a capacity of 5000 g and comply with M 231 class G2.

Figure 1—Iowa Pore Index unit.

Tech Sec 1c Page 24 of 26

TS-1c T XXX-XX AASHTO

6. STANDARDIZATION 6.1. The volume change in the chamber when pressurized must be determined and used to correct

the test readings. This should be done at least once a day prior to performing a test. 6.2. Fill the Chamber with room temperature water. Ensure that all entrapped air is removed from

the chamber. 6.3. Apply the 240 kPa (35 psi) pressure. Record the volume change at 60 seconds and 15

minutes. 6.4 The results from the standardization test should not vary by more than 10 percent from the

previous standardization results. 7. PREPARATION OF TEST SPECIMEN 7.1. Sieve the sample over the 19.0 mm (¾ in.) sieve and the 12.5 mm (½ in.) sieve. Obtain a

sufficient amount of material retained on the 12.5 mm (½ in.) sieve to provide for enough oven dried material for the test.

Note 2—Smaller sizes of aggregate have been used in the test. The pore index results are generally lower when aggregates smaller than the 12.5 mm (½ in.) are used (Reference 13.2.).

7.2 Wash the material and dry it in an oven or a suitable pan or vessel to constant mass at a

temperature of 110 ± 5°C (230 ± 9°F). Allow it to cool to room temperature. 8. PROCEDURE 8.1. Weigh out the desired test sample size and record the weight to the nearest 0.5 g. 8.2. Place the test sample in the pressure chamber and close and seal the lid. 8.3. Start the timer and begin filling the chamber with room temperature water. Make sure that all

large entrapped air bubbles are removed by rocking the chamber or tapping the sides of the chamber. Some aggregates will release small air bubbles during the filling process.

8.4. Initialize or zero the volume measuring device. 8.5. Apply the pressure at 90 seconds ± 5 seconds from the time the chamber filling began. 8.6. Check for any water or air leaks. 8.7. Record the water volume change at 60 seconds and 15 minutes from the time the pressure was

applied. Note 3—Recording volume readings at more frequent intervals or for more than 15 minutes

may provide additional useful information about the pore structure. 8.8. After the final reading, release the pressure and allow the sample to drain. 9. CALCULATIONS

Tech Sec 1c Page 25 of 26

TS-1c T XXX-XX AASHTO

9.1. The pore index values are calculated as follows:

Primary Pore Index Value = (9000 g/W1) X (V1 – Vs1 –V0) Secondary Pore Index Value = (9000 g/W1) X (V15– Vs15 –VS1– V1) Where: W1 = Initial sample weight, grams. VS1 = Water volume reading at 60 seconds from the standardization test, ml. VS15 = Water volume reading at 15 minutes from the standardization test, ml. V0 = Initial water volume reading, ml. V1 = Water volume reading at 60 seconds, ml. V15 = Water volume reading at 15 minutes, ml.

10. REPORT 10.1. Report the weight of the dry test sample to the nearest 0.5 g. 10.2. Report the 60 second and 15 minute standardization readings. 10.3. Report the primary and secondary pore index values to the nearest whole number. 11. PRECISION AND BIAS 11.1. Precision—No precision has been established for this method. 11.2. Bias—No bias has been established for this method. 12. KEYWORDS 12.1. Concrete freeze-thaw; Aggregate durability; Aggregate pores; Pore index. 13. REFERENCES 13.1. Myers, J. D., W. Dubberke. Iowa Pore Index Test. Interim Report ML80-02. Iowa

Department of Transportation, Ames, IA, 1980. 13.2. Davis, C. P.. Influence of Particle Size and Specimen Preparation on the Iowa Pore Index.

Masters Thesis. Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Mo, 2011. _________________________________________________________________________________________

Tech Sec 1c Page 26 of 26

First Last Company Email Phone TSWilliam Troxler, Jr. Troxler Electronic L btroxler@troxlerlabs.com 919-485-2200 TS1cMichael Rafalowski FHWA michael.rafalowski@dot.gov TS1cJames Bibler Gilson Company, In jbibler@gilsonco.com 800-444-1508 TS1cAllen Myers KY Transportation Callen.myers@ky.gov 502-564-3160 TS1cEric Carleton National Precast Co ecarleton@precast.org TS1cKevin Kennedy MI DOT kennedyk@michigan.gov 517-322-6043 TS1cAmir Hanna TRB ahanna@nas.edu 202-334-1432 TS1cRichard Bradbury MEDOT richard.bradbury@maine.gov 207-441-2474 TS1cTracy Barnhart AMRL tbarnhart@amrl.net 240-436-4802 TS1cJeff Speck Trinity Expanded Sh jeffery.speck@trin.net 678-777-6278 TS1cChris Abadie LADOTD chris.abadie@la.gov 225-248-4131 TS1cDavid Newcomb Texas A&M Transpo d-newcomb@tamu.edu 979-676-0471 TS1cAhmad Ardani FHWA ahmad.ardani@dot.gov 202-493-3422 TS1cPaul Farley WV DOH paul.m.farley@wv.gov 304-558-9880 TS1cJohn Malusky AMRL jmalusky@amrl.net 240-436-4825 TS1cMacKenzie Fountain MS DOT mfountain@mdot.ms.gov 662-563-4271 TS1cGreg Uherek AMRL guherek@amrl.net 240-436-4840 TS1cSejal Barot MD SHWA sbarot@sha.state.md.us 443-572-5269 TS1cGregory Schieber KS DOT gregory.schieber@ksdot.org 785-291-3856 TS1cTom Russo MMFX Steel Corportom.russo@mmfx.com 410-627-6961 TS1cLisa Zigmund OH DOT lisa.zigmund@dot.state.oh.us 614-275-1351 TS1cRoss Metcalfe MT DOT rmetcalfe@mt.gov 406-444-9201 TS1cSteven Ingram AL DOT ingrams@dot.state.al.us 334-206-2335 TS1cDanny Gierhart Asphalt Institute dgierhart@asphaltinstitute.org 405-210-7421 TS1cGreg Stellmach OR DOT greg.f.stellmach@odot.state.or.us 503-986-3061 TS1cJesus Sandoval-GAZ DOT jsandoval-gil@azdot.gov 928-200-4260 TS1cCasey Soneira AMRL csoneira@amrl.net 240-436-4863 TS1cMichael San Angelo State Materials Eng michael.sanangelo@alaks.gov 907-269-6234 TS1cDavid Savage CMEC davesavage@cmec.org 407-628-3682 TS1cGerry Huber Heritage Research Ggerald.huber@hrglab.com 317-439-4680 TS1cDick Reaves Troxler Electronic L dreaves@troxlerlabs.com 919-819-4551 TS1cLyndi Blackburn ALDOT blackburnl@dot.state.al.us 334-206-2203 TS1cMladen Gagulic VTAOT mladen.gagulic@vermont.gov 802-828-6405 TS1c

Michael Doran TNDOT michael.doran@tn.gov 615-350-4105 TS1cScott Andrus UTDOT scottandrus@utah.gov 801-965-4859 TS1cJeff Seiders Raba Kistner Infrast jeff.seiders@rkci.com 512-904-9177 TS1cRon Horner ND DOT rhorner@nd.gov 701-328-6904 TS1cDesna Bergold WAQTC dbconsulting.desna@gmail.com 801-721-7146 TS1cRandy West Director westran@auburn.edu 334-844-6244 TS1cRonald Stanevich WV DOH ron.l.stanevich@wv.gov 304-558-9880 TS1cReid Castrodale Expanded Shale Cla rcastrodale@escsi.org 704-904-7999 TS1cJohn Staton MI DOT statonj@michigan.gov 517-322-5701 TS1cKurt Williams WA DOT willikr@wsdot.wa.gov 360-709-5410 TS1cGarth Newman WAQTC garth.newman@itd.idaho.gov 208-334-8039 TS1cGreg Mulder IA DOT greg.mulder@dot.iowa.gov 515-239-1843 TS1cDarin Tedford NV DOT dtedford@odot.state.nv.us 775-888-7784 TS1cJennifer Albert FHWA jennifer.albert@dot.gov 717-221-3410 TS1cJack Springer FHWA jack.springer@dot.gov 202-493-3144 TS1cMark Felag RI DOT mark.felag@dot.ri.gov 401-641-8279 TS1cTodd Arnold tarnold@pineinst.com TS1cGeorgene Geary GGfGA Engineering, ggeary@ggfga.com 770-337-5817 TS1cMichael Black KY Transportation Cmichael.black@ky.gov 502-564-3160 TS1cGreg Milburn WY DOT greg.milburn@wyo.gov 307-777-4070 TS1cAnne Holt Ontario Ministry of anne.holt@ontario.ca 416-235-3724 TS1cBill Schiebel CO DOT bill.schiebel@state.co.us 303-398-6501 TS1cMatthew Bluman AASHTO (AMRL) mbluman@amrl.net 240-436-4849 TS1cScott Seiter OK DOT sseiter@odot.org 405-521-2186 TS1cCurt Turgeon MN DOT curt.turgeon@state.mn.us TS1cSteve Lenker Director AMRL/CCRslenker@amrl.net 240-436-4770 TS1cKarl Zipf Del DOT karl.zipf@state.de.us 302-760-2380 TS1cRon Holsinger Consultant ronald20405@comcast.net 301-916-2507 TS1cHany Fekry DelDOT hany.fekry@state.de.us 302-760-2551 TS1cEileen Sheehy NJ DOT eileen.sheehy@dot.nj.gov 609-530-2307 TS1cBrian Johnson AMRL bjohnson@amrl.net 240-436-4820 TS1cColin Lobo NRMCA clobo@nrmca.org 240-485-1160 TS1cRobert Lauzon ConnDOT robert.lauzon@ct.gov 860-258-0312 TS1cBrandi Mitchell Chemist brandi.mitchell@ky.gov 502-564-3160 TS1c

Timothy Ruelke FL DOT timothy.ruelke@dot.state.fl.us 352-955-6620 TS1cRobin Graves Vulcan Materials Cogravesr@vmcmail.com TS1cRichard Kreider KS DOT richard.kreider@ksdot.org 785-296-2231 TS1cTrudy Keefer AASHTO tkeefer@amrl.net 240-436-4824 TS1cMike Mance WV DOH mike.a.mance@wv.gov 304-558-9846 TS1cMichael Sullivan MS DOT msullivan@mdot.ms.gov 601-359-1666 TS1cCharles Babish VADOT andy.babish@vdot.virginia.gov 804-328-3102 TS1cJames Hammons MS DOT jchammons@mdot.ms.gov 601-359-9770 TS1cPeter Wu GA DOT pwu@dot.ga.gov 404-608-4840 TS1cJosiah Beakley American Concrete jbeakley@concrete-pipe.org 972-894-2906 TS1cDeborah Kim AASHTO dkim@aashto.org 202-624-5883 TS1c