AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials

Transcription

1 AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials Technical Section 1c Aggregate Materials Stateline, Nevada Thursday, August 8, 2013: 8:00 AM 10:00 AM Meeting Minutes I. Call to Order / Opening Remarks Meeting called to order by Scott Seiter (Chair). State DOT guests were encouraged to be a member of 1c. II. Roster Roll was called from the roster of members. In attendance: AL, AR, FL, GA, IN, MI, NE, NV, NM (telephone), OK, OR, VA, WV, RI, AMRL, FHWA. A sign in sheet was distributed (list of attendees in Appendix A). The representative from Connecticut was changed from James Connery to Robert Lauzon. III. Approve 2013 Midyear TS 1c meeting minutes Minutes were distributed to TS members by 7/25/13. Motion to approve the minutes by Oregon, second by Florida. Minutes approved. IV. Old Business A Subcommittee on Materials Ballot Comments and negative votes were discussed and addressed during the midyear webinar meeting April 3, B TS 1c Ballots Reconfirmation Ballot : It was determined that three states did not receive the electronic ballot (LA, NY, WV). Chair sent an e mail to the three states with the ballot items. 1. Reconfirm M 43 05(2009), "Sizes of Aggregate for Road and Bridge Construction". Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5 Discussion: The comments from RI were addressed. A review of the latest ASTM had been conducted prior to sending out the ballot. Page 1 of 64

2 2. Reconfirm T (2009) "Uncompacted Void Content of Coarse Aggregate". Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5 Discussion: A comment had been received by LA addressing how to deal with a piece of rock sticking up above level of cylinder during strike off? Forwarded to AMRL for guidance. Standard reconfirmed for publication in 34 th edition. 3. Reconfirm T , "Determining the Percentage of Fracture in Coarse Aggregate". Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5 Discussion: AZ questioned adding the word, cumulative as suggested by MT to the Table 1 header. KS stated the intent of the table is to verify minimum size of sample rather than what will be on the sieve, therefore including cumulative doesn t make sense. The TS agreed. The standard will be reconfirmed without the revision suggested by MT. 4. Reconfirm PP 64 11, "Determining Aggregate Source, Shape Values from Digital Image Analysis Shape Properties". Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5 Discussion: No comments. To be published in 34 th edition (error in agenda says 33 rd edition) 5. Reconfirm TP 77 09(2011 ), "Specific Gravity and Absorption of Aggregate by Volumetric Immersion Method". Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5 Discussion: Addressing the comment from FL, flasks are available from Humboldt and apparently another supplier based on an internet search. 6. Reconfirm T 11. Material Finer than No. 200 Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing. Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5 Discussion: Comments from AZ will be covered in the discussion of T27 revisions later in the minutes TS 1c Revision Ballot: 1. Revise T 19: Yes: 20, No: 0, No Vote: 6; Discussion: An editorial change will be made changing, Petrolatum to Petroleum jelly. No other comments. Motion by FL, second by OR to move to SOM ballot. Approved. 2. Revise T 21: Yes: 20, No: 0, No Vote: 6; Discussion: Standard glass should be listed as the primary test. AZ pointed out there will be other sections that will need to be revised to be consistent. Suggested that the color solution method should be dropped from the standard. According to AMRL it is very rare to see the color solution method demonstrated therefore it may not be a problem to remove it, but Page 2 of 64

3 it would be safer to leave it in the standard for any labs conducting that method. An informal poll of the members present indicated none use the solution method. Consensus of the TS is to ballot with both methods and discuss the future of the solution method at a later time. OK suggested a survey of the states. AMRL will ask assessment staff if they have seen the solution method used. Motion by FL, second by VA to move to SOM ballot. Approved. 3. Revise T27: Yes: 19, No: 1, No Vote: 6: Discussion: Negative from NJ cast because the attachment that was supposed to be part of the ballot item was not included in the electronic ballot wasn t sure what revisions were being proposed. The chair provided the attachment to NJ and upon their review, withdrew the negative. AZ provided a suggested revision with their ballot submittal that was discussed. RI suggested to make the change editorially. KS wanted to be able to have their staff review the new wording. OK indicated a preference for balloting the change as this provides clear notification to users something has changed, especially wording in the procedural section of the method. Several editorial comments from AZ concerning changes made by AASHTO publication staff had been forwarded to AASHTO. An e mail reply from Deborah Kim agreed with AZ comments. Motion by OR, second by FL to move to SOM ballot. Approved. C. Task Force Reports 1. TF 08 01; rewrite T2 (currently a category C standard): Chair has visited with AASHTO and Cecil to get this written as a category A standard utilizing state specific aggregate sampling methods. States were asked to submit their aggregate sampling procedures. 2. TF 09 01; rewrite T96 (currently a category C standard): no action taken during the past year but it is getting to the point where C standards will be gone. Chair to check with AASHTO to see if there are sufficient changes to warrant a category A standard. 3. TF 11 01; revise T112 (clay lumps and friable particles). Considerable comments and negatives from last year s ballot are being addressed by the task force in preparation for another TS ballot (Spring 2014). V. New Business Page 3 of 64

4 A. AMRL/CCRL Comments or issues: 1. Discussion of the e mail received from Maria Knake/AMRL for T 85; suggested adding a sentence to section 8.4 for maintaining water level in bath at overflow outlet to obtain constant water level throughout the test. Motion by RI, second by VA to ballot this change on concurrent ballot. Approved. 2. (Not on agenda) Discussion of an e mail received from Haleh Azari on 7/30/13 containing a draft report for precision estimates for three test methods, T 96, T 304, and T 11. Plan to have stewards review the report for discussion by the mid year webinar meeting. B. AASHTO Comments or issues: 1. E mail received from Linda Graves, 4/12/13 with suggested editorial revisions to twelve standards from their technical review queries. Response to AASHTO provided by Chair. C. NCHRP Comments or issues: 1. Amir circulated a list of current and recently completed projects related to aggregates and soils; contact Amir with any questions. Georgene/GA asked about topic 43 03, Andy Babish/VA inquired about project Current projects involving aggregates include NCHRP on specific gravity testing, and NCHRP IDEA Project 150, now a pooled fund project regarding Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy of Aggregates. 2. The Chair has worked with the research coordinator for TRB Mineral Aggregates Committee and will continue on as the Research Liaison for this TS. D. Correspondence, calls, meetings, presentations: Page 4 of 64

5 1. Discussion of items related to e mail from Cole/OR; Cole spoke during meeting; western states proposing two changes to T 248, Section 5.2 and 5.3 mixtures of coarse and fine aggregates; changes were brought up previously, comments were addressed and incorporated; Section 8 changes how to check for representative sample, included alternate method (splitting procedure); asking tech section to consider these changes and move to concurrent ballot this fall; red line copy provided to Scott and distributed with agenda; RI asked if there has been an issue with effectiveness of reductions that had them include this Garth/WY said yes, care not being used with riffle splitters; RI asked if it goes over 5%, is that a problem? Yes, it can make it so that it s not representative. Discussion between RI and WY and other members (Rick) ensued re: alternate splitting methods. RI suggests holding off on this without seeing any concrete evidence wants to see data that backs up this issue. Cole asked for clarification on RI s issues. RI would like to see gradations along with a percentage. A revision with supporting data will be submitted in the future. Cole will work on gathering information, will withdraw Section 8 revisions but would like to keep Section 5 language revisions. Motion to keep Section 5 revisions (coarse agg and combined coarse/fine) and withdraw Section 8 revisions until they can address the issues. Scott said AMRL raised one other issue with T 248 Section Add a number of times (at least 3) that the material is rolled, rather than sufficient. Comment from Garth do four rolls since there are four corners on a tarp. Members agreed that makes sense. Group agrees that more guidance should be given rather than sufficient. Suggest keeping a sufficient number and put at least four in parentheses. Motion by RI, second by FL for concurrent ballot of section 5 revisions and section Discussion to address the water bath temperature question raised by Florida. It was discussed at length during the webinar meeting why can t we have a single water bath temperature for different test methods using water baths. This question was forwarded to the Principal Investigators working on the NCHRP Project evaluating various specific gravity procedures. A reply was received from Nam Tran (NCAT) indicating the water bath for T85, T 166, and T 209 could all utilize the same temperature without affecting results. NV there would need to be an agreement between the concrete (73 degrees) and asphalt (77 degreees) communities. Cecil asked if it was possible to add this to NCHRP 04 35, even though project is nearing completion. If the temperature was changed to 77, there are many changes to be considered for other concrete and cement test procedures. After significant discussion, the Chair summarized that the issue had been thoroughly considered, there does not appear to be enough benefit or agreement to revise temperature requirements a few degrees in a substantial number of standards. FL will withdraw their comment. Page 5 of 64

6 3. Florida DOT has been involved with some research with the Aggregate Imaging System (AIMS) Equipment; TP 81 and PP 64. Based on some of their findings they are seeking to form a task force within this Technical Section to collect and review research findings involving this equipment. This is a good opportunity to improve and revise the provisional standards based on findings and feedback from research. FL volunteered John Shoucair to head the task force. Task force members to include; Matt Corrigan/FHWA, TX, and IL. Florida plans to share information at the mid year webinar meeting. 4. Bryce Simons/NM made a presentation on TP 77 (20 30 minutes). Presentation is included as appendix XX. Discussion and questions followed the presentation. VT expressed an interest in having their lab perform the test. IL has had issues with flasks breaking. The TS considered whether to ballot the suggested revisions from NM as a TS ballot or concurrent ballot. Motion by NM, second by IN to ballot the revisions on a concurrent ballot. Approved. E. Proposed New Task Forces: None F. Proposed New Standards: None G. Standards Requiring Reconfirmation next year: 1. M 45 06(2010), Aggregate for Masonry Mortar. (DC, NM) 2. T 2 91(2010), Sampling of Aggregates. (AL, ND) 3. T 96 02(2010), Resistance to Degradation of Small Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angles Machine. (FL, NC) 4. T (2010), Lightweight Pieces in Aggregate. (FHWA, DC) 5. T , Aggregate Durability Index. (VA) 6. MP 16 10, Reclaimed Concrete Aggregate for Use as Coarse Aggregate in Hydraulic Cement Concrete. (FL, IA) 7. TP 81 12, Determining Aggregate Shape Properties by Means of Digital Image Analysis. VI. Adjourn: 9:57 AM Page 6 of 64

7 List of Appendices: A. TS meeting attendee list B. TS roster C. Meeting agenda D. TP 77 presentation E. Ballot Items Page 7 of 64

8 Appendix A 2013 TS 1C List of Attendees (obtained from sign-in sheets) Name Company Chad Allen Andy Babish Tracy Barnhart Michael Benson Richard Bradbury Gerobin Carnate Derrick Castle Matthew Corrigan Paul Farley Mark Felag Robin Graves Francisco Gudiel Amir Hanna Charles Hasty Steven Ingram Cecil Jones Reid Kaiser Rick Kreider David Kuniega David Lippert Katheryn Malusky Cole Mullis Garth Newman Charlie Pan Jan Prowell Dick Reaves Timothy Ruelke David Savage Greg Schieber Scott Seiter Bryce Simons John Staton Michael Sullivan Darin Tedford Ronald Walker Danny Lane Mick Syslo Reid Castrodale Becca Lane State of Vermont Virginia DOT AMRL Arkansas State Highway and Transp. Dept. Maine Department of Transportation Hawii Department of Transportation KYTC Division of Materials FHWA WV Division of Highways RIDOT Vulcan Materials Company LA DOTD Materials & Testing NCHRP/TRB Georgia Department of Transportation Alabama Department of Transportation Diversified Engineering Services, Inc. State of Nevada DOT Kansas Department of Transportation Penn. DOT Illinois Department of Transportation AASHTO Oregon Department of Transportation WAQTC State of Nevada DOT CCRL Troxler Electronic Laboratories, Inc. FDOT State Materials Office CMEC Kansas Department of Transportation Oklahoma DOT New Mexico DOT Michigan Department of Transportation MS Department of Transportation State of Nevada DOT Indiana Department of Transportation Tenn. DOT NDOR ESCSI MTO Page 8 of 64

9 Appendix B Technical Section 1c Membership List Updated September 18, 2013 STATE REPRESENTATIVE PHONE FAX Alabama Steven Ingram ingrams@dot.state.al.us (334) Alaska Michael San Angelo Michael.sanangelo@alaska.gov (907) (907) Arizona Bill Hurguy bhurguy@azdot.gov (602) Arkansas Michael C. Benson michael.benson@arkansashighways.com (501) (501) Connecticut James Connery James.connery@ct.gov (860) (860) District of Columbia Wasi U. Khan wasi.khan@dc.gov (202) (202) Florida John Shoucair john.shoucair@dot.state.fl.us (352) (850) Georgia Peter Wu pwu@dot.ga.gov Idaho Mike Santi Mike.Santi@itd.idaho.gov Indiana Ron Walker rwalker@indot.in.gov (317) (317) Louisiana Bert Wintz Bert.wintz@la.gov Maine Rick Bradbury Richard.bradbury@maine.gov (207) Maryland Woody Hood whood@sha.state.md.us (443) Michigan John Staton statonj@michigan.gov Minnesota Curt Turgeon curt.turgeon@state.mn.us (651) (651) Nebraska Mick Syslo Mick.Syslo@nebraska.gov (402) (402) Nevada Reid Kaiser rkaiser@dot.state.nv.us (775) (775) New Jersey Eileen Sheehy eileen.sheehy@dot.state.nj.us (609) (609) New Mexico Bryce Simons (v. chair) bryce.simons@state.nm.us (505) (505) New York Bob Burnett bburnett@dot.state.ny.us (518) (518) North Carolina Jack Cowsert jcowsert@ncdot.gov (919) (919) North Dakota Ron Horner rhorner@nd.gov (701) (701) Oklahoma Scott Seiter (chair) sseiter@odot.org (405) (405) Oregon Cole Mullis cole.f.mullis@odot.state.or.us (503) (503) Rhode Island Mark E. Felag mfelag@dot.ri.gov (401) (401) Ext 4130 Saskatchewan Magdy Beshara mbeshara@highways.gov.sk.ca Tennessee Bill Trolinger bill.trolinger@tn.gov (615) (615) Virginia Andy Babish andy.babish@vdot.virginia.gov (804) (804) West Virginia Paul Farley Paul.m.farley@wv.gov (304) (304) AMRL Greg Uherek guherek@amrl.net FHWA Lee Gallivan victor.gallivan@fhwa.dot.gov (317) (317) Page 9 of 64

10 Appendix C AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials Technical Section 1c Aggregate Materials Stateline, Nevada Thursday, August 8, 2013: 8:00 AM 10:00 AM Meeting Agenda I. Call to Order / Opening Remarks II. Roster Alabama Buddy Cox Nevada Reid Kaiser Alaska Michael San Angelo New Jersey Eileen Sheehy Arizona Bill Hurguy New Mexico Bryce Simons (Vice Chair) Arkansas Michael Benson New York Bob Burnett Connecticut James Connery North Carolina Jack Cowsert District of Columbia Wasi Khan North Dakota Ron Horner Florida John Shoucair Oklahoma Scott Seiter (Chair) Georgia Peter Wu Oregon Cole Mullis Idaho Mike Santi Rhode Island Mark Felag Indiana Ron Walker Saskatchewan Magdy Beshara Louisiana Bert Wintz Tennessee Bill Trolinger Maryland Woody Hood Virginia Andy Babish Michigan John Staton West Virginia Paul Farley Minnesota Curt Turgeon AMRL Greg Uherek Nebraska Mick Syslo FHWA Lee Gallivan III. Approve 2013 Midyear TS 1c meeting minutes IV. Old Business A Subcommittee on Materials Ballot Comments and negative votes were discussed and addressed during the midyear webinar meeting April 3, Page 10 of 64

11 Appendix C B TS 1c Reconfirmation Ballot Item Number: 1 Description: Reconfirm M 43-05(2009), "Sizes of Aggregate for Road and Bridge Construction". This is a category B standard. The companion ASTM standard has been reviewed and it is appropriate to reference the latest version. Decisions: Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5 Affirmative votes with comments 1 Rhode Island Department of Transportation (Mark E Felag) Item Number: 2 Description: If the ASTM equivalent has a new designation year then I would suspect that changes were made within the standard. If they just reconfirmed it they would have the new year in parenthesis. Were there any changes made? Comment from Chair: Prior to conducting the ballot, the latest published version of the ASTM (D-448) was compared with the currently referenced version utilizing the version comparison feature of our on-line subscription service. All of the changes between the two ASTM versions were minor editorial and formatting changes. Reconfirm T (2009) "Uncompacted Void Content of Coarse Aggregate". Decisions: Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5 No comments received Reconfirmed for publication in 33 rd edition Item Number: 3 Description: Reconfirm T , "Determining the Percentage of Fracture in Coarse Aggregate". Includes three editorial revisions based on comments from Montana. Decisions: Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5 Affirmative votes with comments 1 Arizona Department of Transportation 1) We question the addition of the word "Cumulative" in the (Bill Hurguy) header of the right hand column of Table 1. Isn t Table 1 utilized to establish the minimum mass of the sample for the respective nominal maximum particle size, determined by sieving the material as described in Section 7.2.1? Adding the word "Cumulative" to this column confuses the use of the table. It seems to us that the title of this column should be changed to read, "Minimum Sample Mass". [The minimum sample mass specified correlates with the nominal maximum particle size shown, and is not related to the minimum sample mass retained on the 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve.] 2) In Table 2, the header of the right hand column which reads, "Minimum Sample Mass Retained 4.75 mm (No. 4 Sieve)" should be revised to read, "Minimum Sample Mass". [The minimum sample mass specified correlates with the nominal maximum particle size shown, and is not related to the minimum sample mass retained on the 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve.] Page 11 of 64

12 Appendix C Item Number: 4 Description: Reconfirm PP 64-11, "Determining Aggregate Source, Shape Values from Digital Image Analysis Shape Properties". Includes several editorial revisions from AASHTO. Decisions: Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5 No comments received Reconfirmed for publication in 33 rd edition Item Number: 5 Description Reconfirm TP 77-09(2011), "Specific Gravity and Absorption of Aggregate by Volumetric Immersion Method". Decisions: Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5 Affirmative votes with comments 1 Florida Department of Transportation FDOT has previously objected to the use of proprietary equipment in (John P Shoucair) test methods. PP includes : These flasks are available from Humboldt Manufacturing Company, 7300 W. Agatite Avenue, Norridge, IL Item Number: 6 Description Reconfirm T 11. The latest companion ASTM standard will be referenced based on a review of the standards. A revision to this standard was discussed at last year s TS meeting, involving differences between mechanical and manual washing. Recommendations from AMRL should result in a future revision, in the meantime, this standard is due for reconfirmation. Decisions: Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5 Affirmative votes with comments 1 Arizona Department of Transportation 1) In Item #3 (AASHTO T 27) of ballot 2013 TS1c 02, a (Bill Hurguy) revision to Section 8.1 was deemed necessary to clarify that the mass of the sample that will be placed on the sieves be recorded prior to testing. Using that same reasoning, we recommend that the second sentence of Section 8.1 of AASHTO T 11 be revised to read, "Determine and record the mass of material that will be placed in the washing container to the nearest 0.1 percent of the dry mass of the test sample." 2) In conjunction with our comment on this ballot item above regarding Section 8.1, we recommend that the second sentence of Section 8.5 of AASHTO T 11 be revised to read, "Dry the washed aggregate to constant mass at a temperature of C (230 9 F) and determine and record the mass to the nearest 0.1 percent of the original dry mass of the test sample. 3) To clarify the intent of Section 9.1 of AASHTO T 11, this section should be revised to read, "Prepare the sample in the same manner as described in Sections 8.1 and 8.2 of Procedure A." Page 12 of 64

13 Appendix C 2013 Revision Ballot Item Number: 1 Description: Revise T 19, section 5.5.1: Remove the word, "preferably". As currently written, the glass plate thickness does not have a meaningful requirement. The suggested revision is based on comments received from the previous ballot on this standard from Oregon and New Jersey. The latest companion ASTM standard will be referenced based on a review the standards. Decisions: Yes: 20, No: 0, No Vote: 6 Affirmative votes with comments 1 Arizona Department of Transportation 1) To be consistent with the proposed revision made in Note 2, (Bill Hurguy) the reference to "(1/4 in.)" shown in Section also needs to be changed to "(0.25 in.)". 2) In Note 3, reference is made to "Petrolatum". This is a rather unique word that, unless a more detailed definition as used in the medical dictionary is desired, means "Petroleum Jelly". Even in the medical dictionary, "petrolatum" is referred to as "petroleum jelly". We recommend that "Petrolatum" be replaced with "Petroleum Jelly". (Section of ASTM C 29 simply states, "Grease A supply of waterâ pump, chassis, or similar grease.") Item Number: 2 Description: Revise T 21, Revise sections 1.1, 9, 10, and Note 1, based on comments from AMRL. The latest companion ASTM standard will be referenced based on a review the standards. From AMRL: Switch the order of Sections 9.1 and 9.2. Designate the glass color standard procedure as the standard method. Designate the standard color solution procedure as an alternative method. Rationale: The standard color solution method is rarely performed by AASHTO accredited laboratories, so it should be listed as an alternative procedure. The more commonly used glass color standards method should be listed as the preferred method. The glass color standard method does not require the use of dangerous reagents such as concentrated sulfuric acid and potassium dichromate, which are checmicals that can cause numerous health problems. It is preferable to have the safer procedure be the standard procedure. Page 13 of 64

14 Appendix C If practical, it would make sense to remove the reagent version of the procedure entirely. Decisions: Yes: 20, No: 0, No Vote: 6 Affirmative votes with comments 1 Arizona Department of Transportation (Bill Hurguy) 1) The ballot description for this item indicates that the recommendation from AMRL is to designate the "Glass Color Standard Procedure" as the "Standard Method" and the "Standard Color Solution Procedure" as an "Alternative Method". In conjunction with AMRL s recommendation, we recommend that the last sentence of Section 1.1 be revised to read, "The standard procedure (Section 9.1) uses a glass color standard and the alternative procedure (Section 9.2) uses a standard color solution. 2) In conjunction with our comment above, we recommend that the title of Section 9.1 be revised to read, "Glass Color Standard Procedure (Standard Method)". In like manner, we recommend that the title of Section 9.2 be revised to read, "Standard Color Solution Procedure (Alternative Method)". 3) We do not use the "Standard Color Solution Procedure" and are not opposed to its removal from AASHTO T 21. Of course, several corresponding revisions would need to be made throughout T 21 to correctly accomplish the removal of the "Standard Color Solution Procedure". Item Number: 3 Description: Revise T 27, Revise sections 8.1 and 8.6: Based on an inquiry from Kansas DOT, subsequent discussion at the 2012 SOM TS meeting, and recommendation from AMRL. See last year s TS minutes for further detailed discussion. The latest companion ASTM standard is currently referenced. From AMRL: Agreed on all points. Good catch. Although it is implied, I might suggest inserting wording such as "Determine and record the mass of the material placed on the sieves" (in some cases this is the same as the original dry sample mass). During our assessments, AMRL assessors check for conformance to this requirement (section 8.6), however, we find many laboratories do not record the mass placed on the sieves and do not perform this check in their daily testing. Decisions: Yes: 19, No: 1, No Vote: 6 Negative vote comment New Jersey Department of Transportation (Eileen C. Sheehy) Not clear what the proposed changes are. Note from Chair: The attachment was mistakenly left off of the ballot. The attachment contained suggested revisions to two sections, 8.1 and 8.6. These revisions are included below this table in the agenda for discussion and review. Page 14 of 64

15 Appendix C Affirmative votes with comments 1 Arizona Department of Transportation (Bill Hurguy) 1) We agree with the proposed revised wording of Section 8.1 (that should have accompanied this ballot item). That wording is, "If the test sample has not been subjected to testing by T 11, dry it to constant mass at a temperature of C (230 9 F). Determine and record the mass of material that will be placed on the sieves to the nearest 0.1 percent of the total original dry sample mass." 2) In the first sentence of Section 8.4 we are opposed to changing "minute" to "min" (as shown in the proposed revision that should have accompanied this ballot item). The abbreviation "min" can be used for "minimum" as well as "minute". For the sake of three additional letters, we strongly recommend that "minute" be left unchanged. Comment from Chair: These editorial or formatting changes have been made by the AASHTO publication staff. Your comments have been forwarded to AASHTO. 3) A proposed revision in Section 8.4 (as shown in the proposed revision that should have accompanied this ballot item) appears to revise the existing term "one sixth" by replacing the hyphen with a space. We disagree with this proposed revision. Comment from Chair: This editorial or formatting change has been made by the AASHTO publication staff. Your comments have been forwarded to AASHTO. 4) We disagree with the proposed revised wording of the last sentence of Section 8.6 (that should have accompanied this ballot item). That wording is, "If the amounts differ by more than 0.3 percent, the results should not be used for acceptance purposes." By deleting the existing phrase "based on the original dry sample mass", there is no specified basis for the calculation of the allowable 0.3 percent difference. We recommend that the last two sentences of Section 8.6 be revised to read, "The total mass of the material after sieving should check closely with the total original dry mass of the sample placed on the sieves. If the two amounts differ by more than 0.3 percent, based on the total original dry sample mass, the results should not be used for acceptance purposes." Comment from Chair: The balloted version and Arizona s suggested revision for section 8.6 is shown below this table for comparison purposes. Balloted Language: Section 8.1 (T 27): If the test sample has not been subjected to testing by T 11, dry it to constant mass at a temperature of 110 ± 5 C (230 ± 9 F), and determine. Determine and record the mass of it material that will be placed on the sieves to the nearest 0.1 percent of the total original dry sample mass. Page 15 of 64

16 Appendix C Balloted Language: Section 8.6 (T 27): Determine the mass of each size increment on a scale or balance conforming to the requirements specified in Section 6.1 to the nearest 0.1 percent of the total original dry sample mass. The total mass of the material after sieving should check closely with the original mass of sample placed on the sieves. If the amounts differ by more than 0.3 percent, based on the original dry sample mass, the results should not be used for acceptance purposes. Suggested Language for section 8.6 (Arizona): Determine the mass of each size increment on a scale or balance conforming to the requirements specified in Section 6.1 to the nearest 0.1 percent of the total original dry sample mass. The total mass of the material after sieving should check closely with the total original dry mass of the sample placed on the sieves. If the two amounts differ by more than 0.3 percent, based on the total original dry sample mass, the results should not be used for acceptance purposes. C. Task Force Reports 1. TF 08 01; rewrite T2 (currently a category C standard) into a category A standard utilizing state specific aggregate sampling methods. States were asked to submit their aggregate sampling procedures. Additional discussion is needed with AASHTO. 2. TF 09 01; rewrite T96 (currently a category C standard) into a category A standard. No action during the past year. 3. TF 11 01; revise T112 (clay lumps and friable particles). Considerable comments and negatives from last year s ballot are being addressed by the task force in preparation for another TS ballot. V. New Business A. AMRL/CCRL Comments or issues: E mail received from Maria Knake, 6/24/13 with suggested revision to T 85: AASHTO T 85 (2010) Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate Page 16 of 64

17 Appendix C Section: 8.4 Revise: After determining the mass, immediately place the saturated surface dry test sample in the sample container and determine its mass in water at 23.0 ± 1.7 C (73.4 ± 3 F), having a density of 997 ± 2 kg/m 3. Take care to remove all entrapped air before determining the mass by shaking the container while immersed. Maintain the water level in the bath at the overflow outlet to obtain a constant water level throughout the test. Rationale: Although the equipment list specifies an overflow outlet, there is no actual requirement to keep the bath filled to the overflow outlet throughout the test. B. AASHTO Comments or issues: E mail received from Linda Graves, 4/12/13 with suggested editorial revisions to twelve standards from their technical review queries. Response to AASHTO provided by Chair. C. NCHRP Comments or issues: 1. NCHRP 04 35, Enhanced Test Method for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse and Fine Aggregate. Project is ongoing. 2. NCHRP IDEA Project 150; Pooled fund solicitation 1337, Real Time Quality Control Monitoring and Characterization of Aggregate Materials in Highway Construction using Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy D. Correspondence, calls, meetings, presentations: 1. E mail received from Cole Mullis, 6/26/13: Scott, I hope all is well in Oklahoma. The WAQTC would like to propose some changes to T 248 for discussion at the upcoming SOM meeting. I would appreciate it if you could add this to the agenda. The changes requested include: (see appendix 2 for mark-up of T 248 by WAQTC) Removed ASTM Designation Revised Section 5.2. creating section 5.3. to address Combined Coarse and Fine Aggregate and the lack of restriction of reducing wet material using a mechanical splitter. This practice contributes to segregation primarily due to fine material adhering to the splitter. Section 5.3. proposal: 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, forms Page 17 of 64

18 Appendix C clumps, or shows free water dry it until it appears dry or until clumps become friable (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 Friable is determined 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. Section 8. Include methodology (8.3.) and an illustration (Figure 2) to verify a representative sample is being obtained as referred to in Section As a check for effective reduction, determine the mass of each reduced portion. If the percent difference of the two masses is greater than 5 percent, corrective action must be taken. In lieu of the check for effective reduction, use the method illustrated in Figure Alternate reduction method: Sample (S) is an amount greater than or equal to twice the mass needed for testing. Sample (S) is split in a mechanical splitter to yield parts (1) and (2) Part (1) is further reduced, yielding (A) and (B), while Part (2) is reduced to yield (B) and (A) Final testing sample is produced by combining alternate pans, i.e. (A)/(A) or (B)/(B) only. Figure 2 (now 3): correct the caption under the first illustration: Cone Sample on Hard Clean Surface. Figure 3 (now 4): the first two illustrations should show each corner being lifted and pulled over the sample toward the diagonally opposite corner to match text in Comments from Chair: Other issues related to T248 have been recently raised; consider incorporating the use of the quartermaster as an allowable splitting device, and an AMRL recommended revision to T 248. (From AMRL) Section: Revise: "After the material has been rolled a sufficient number ofat least three times so that it is thoroughly mixed..." Rationale: This alternative procedure in is the only procedure that does not give a specific number of times that material needs to be mixed to be considered thoroughly mixed. All other procedures specifiy three times. It is recommended that a minimum of three rolls be added for consistency. 2. Follow up to question concerning water bath temperatures asked by Florida DOT and discussed at the midyear webinar TS meeting: The discussion was forwarded to NCAT as they are currently working on the NCHRP research on aggregate specific gravity testing. Their research has been looking into the variables that affect the specific gravity test results. Their response: Hi Scott, Page 18 of 64

19 Appendix C Thanks for reaching out to us! I was able to review the following 3 (or 4) AASHTO test methods in which a water bath is used: AASHTO T 85 (determining Gsa and Gsb at 23C). The AASHTO T 84 procedure is also conducted at 23C. AASHTO T 166 (determining Gmb at 25C). AASHTO T 209 (determining Gmm at 25C). There is a procedure for correcting Gmm when measurements are made at temperatures other than 25C. I agree with you and others that we should change the test temperature for T 84 and T 85 from 23C to 25C. This change is actually good for asphalt mix design because we use Gsb, Gmb and Gmm for calculating VMA of asphalt mixtures. It is better be done with Gsb, Gmb and Gmm measured at the same temperature. Based on the information in Table X1.1 of T 209, the potential change in Gsb is only This change is very small compared with the current within lab precision for T 84 (d2s = 0.027) and T 85 (d2s = 0.020). I don t think this change would affect concrete mix design, but you may want to check with concrete folks to see if they have any concerns. Please let me know what you decide so that I can incorporate this change into T 84 and T 85 later. It is a very good question from FDOT folks. Sincerely, Nam Tran, PhD, PE, LEED GA National Center for Asphalt Technology ( at Auburn University 3. Discussion and presentation on suggested revisions to TP 77 (see appendix 3 and 4) 4. Comments from Florida DOT on the Aggregate Imaging Measurement System (AIMS) equipment and TP 81 and PP 64. Discuss Texture Index (TI) values measured by Aggregate Imaging System (AIMS). 1. Effect of aggregate color on TI value 2. Demonstration of TI value compared with topographic data acquisition systems. 3. Ongoing/proposed research projects with AIMS and TI (see Texas DOT) Page 19 of 64

20 Appendix C E. Proposed New Task Forces: F. Proposed New Standards: G. Standards Requiring Reconfirmation next year: 1. M 45 06(2010), Aggregate for Masonry Mortar. (DC, NM) 2. T 2 91(2010), Sampling of Aggregates. (AL, ND) 3. T 96 02(2010), Resistance to Degradation of Small Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angles Machine. (FL, NC) 4. T (2010), Lightweight Pieces in Aggregate. (FHWA, DC) 5. T , Aggregate Durability Index. (VA) 6. MP 16 10, Reclaimed Concrete Aggregate for Use as Coarse Aggregate in Hydraulic Cement Concrete. (FL, IA) 7. TP 81 12, Determining Aggregate Shape Properties by Means of Digital Image Analysis. VI. Adjourn List of Appendices: (Not included in minutes) 1. Technical Section roster and assignment of standards 2. T 248 mark up by WAQTC 3. TP 77 mark up by New Mexico 4. Powerpoint presentation print out on TP 77 Page 20 of 64

21 Appendix D SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND ABSORPTION OF AGGREGATE BY VOLUMETRIC IMMERSION METHOD (PHUNQUE TEST) 2013 UPDATE by Bryce Simons, P.E. ABSORPTION BY VOLUMETRIC IMMERSION METHOD Originally approved in 2009 This method was studied as a part of NCHRP 4-35 Testing of Specific Gravity and Absorption of Aggregates This study found that: This method applies to coarse aggregate, fine aggregate and combined aggregate This was the only method suitable for measuring combined aggregates; It is a relatively simple operation; This method is the most repeatable and reproducible of all the methods studied; This method is not affected by P200 or particle shape/angularity; The Initial Reading at 30 seconds is questionable. Page 21 of 64

22 Appendix D BENEFITS RELATED TO THIS METHOD Simplicity of test method; Not effected by which technician or laboratory performs the test; Not affected by fineness or coarseness of gradation; Not affected by particle shape; Can provide actual measurement of blended aggregates instead of requiring mathematical calculations; Method is sufficiently sensitive to quickly recognize changes in aggregate or pit characteristics. CONCERNS RELATED TO USE OF THIS METHOD Significant difference between direct result from this method and the result from T85 or T84; Initial reading at 0.5 minutes (30 seconds) felt to be too late; Existing specifications as well as HMA and PCC mix designs currently based on results from T85 and T84 would be seriously impacted if these results are directly substituted. Page 22 of 64

23 Appendix D EVOLUTIONARY NEEDS FOR THIS TEST Initial Reading must reflect true beginning water displacement before any water has been absorbed by any aggregate; Must be able to provide results that can be directly used in lieu of T84 or T85; INITIAL READING Not realistically possible to obtain initial reading more quickly than 30 seconds; Initial reading at 30 seconds allows air introduced by pouring dry aggregate sample into flask to escape before it can affect the reading; Water is being absorbed by initial dry particles immediately upon entering the water bath even though initial reading is not taken until after all particles have been submerged in water and 30 seconds has elapsed since the pouring of aggregate started. Page 23 of 64

24 Appendix D ADJUSTED INITIAL READING When actual readings are plotted on semi-log graph with volume on the vertical scale and time on the logarithmic horizontal scale, the result is a virtual straight line. Logarithmic regression analysis provides a correlation coefficient typically significantly better than 0.9 confirming a very strong reliability. To calculate an adjusted Initial Reading, simply enter the desired Initial Time as the x variable and calculate the resulting displacement. Page 24 of 64

25 Appendix D CALCULATION OF ADJUSTED INITIAL READING From previous slide for Trial #1, the equation for the line is: y = * Ln(x) Substitute the desired time at which the Adjusted Initial Volume is desired (in this case assume it is desired to determine the Initial Reading at 0.01 minutes) y = * Ln(0.01) y = * ( ) y = y = (Initial Volume read at 30 seconds = ) TEST RESULTS FOR THIS EXAMPLE AASHTO T85 Direct Result Adjusted Result Absorption: 1.52% 1.00% 1.55% Sp Gravity (Dry): Sp Gravity (SSD): Apparent Gravity: Page 25 of 64

26 Appendix D AGGREGATE SOURCES IN NEW MEXICO WERE TESTED AND SUMMARIZED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE Page 26 of 64

27 Appendix D TYPICAL AGGREGATE TYPES Limestone Sandstone Andesite Basalt Caliche Granite Feldspar Gneiss Monzonite Quartzite Rhyolite Shale Igneous Page 27 of 64

28 Appendix D THIS DATA WAS PLOTTED AGAINST A 1:1 LINE AND THE RELATIONSHIP DETERMINED ABSORPTION T85 vs. Direct Results T85 vs. Adjusted to 0.10 minutes Page 28 of 64

29 Appendix D ABSORPTION T85 vs minutes T85 vs. Adjusted to 0.01 minutes BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY (DRY) T85 vs. Direct Results T85 vs. Adjusted to 0.10 minutes Page 29 of 64

30 Appendix D BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY (DRY) T85 vs. Adjusted to 0.05 minutes T85 vs. Adjusted to 0.01 minutes BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY (SSD) T85 vs. Direct Results T85 vs. Adjusted to 0.10 minutes Page 30 of 64

31 Appendix D BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY (SSD) T85 vs. Adjusted to 0.05 minutes T85 vs. Adjusted to 0.01 minutes CONCLUSIONS By using Initial Readings adjusted to 0.01 minutes, the relationship between T85 and the results using the Adjusted Initial Readings for all properties is approximately equal to or better than for the direct results determined from the procedure; Results calculated from Initial Readings adjusted to 0.01 minutes can be used directly in existing specifications and in the development of HMA and PCC mix designs. The correlation coefficient for the Absorption is lower because the inherent subjectivity of the test procedure profoundly effects accuracy, consistency and repeatability of T85. Page 31 of 64

32 Appendix D CONCLUSIONS (PG 2) Fine aggregates were not included in this evaluation due to the flawed assumptions and biased effects from this procedure on the resulting properties. Since the basic physics for this test remain the same regardless of particle size, the conclusions from the evaluation of the coarse aggregate should be applied to fine aggregate and to combined aggregates. TP 77 has been edited to reflect the results of this evaluation and is being submitted for renewal as edited. Page 32 of 64

33 Appendix E TS 1c Ballot Items Num. Ballot Item SOM Concurrent 1 Revise T 19 Section X See pages 2, 13, and 34 of the TS 1c minutes. 2 Revise T 21 Sections 1.1, 4, 9, 10. Designate the glass color X standard procedure as the standard method. See pages 2, 3, 13, 14, and of the TS 1c minutes. 3 Revise T 27 - Sections 8.1 and 8.6. See pages 3 and 41 of X the TS 1c minutes. 4 Revise T 85 Section 8.4 See pages 4 and 42 of the TS 1c X minutes. 5 Revise T 248 Revisions recommended by WAQTC: Revise X section 5.2, add a new section 5.3. Revise section Figures 2, 3 will need to be revised by AASHTO publication staff to agree with revision. See pages 5, 17, 18 and of the TS 1c minutes. 6 Revise TP 77- Revisions recommended by New Mexico, as presented at TS meeting. See pages 6, 21 32, and of the TS 1c minutes. X Page 33 of 64

34 Appendix E Item 1: Revise T 19, section 5.5.1: Delete preferably Rational: As currently written, the glass plate does not have a meaningful requirement. The latest version of the companion ASTM standard will be referenced based on a review of the standards. An editorial change is also shown for note Plate Glass A piece of plate glass, preferably at least 6 mm ( in.) thick and at least 25 mm (1 in.) larger than the diameter of the measure to be calibrated. Comment [ss1]: Suggested revision from comments made in the previous (2009) ballot by Oregon and New Jersey to remove "preferably". Also agrees with latest ASTM revision. Note 1 Petrolatum, Petroleum jelly, vacuum grease, water pump grease, or chassis grease are examples of suitable material used to form a seal between the glass plate and measure. Page 34 of 64