Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Technical Committee Meeting Agenda Working Session #9 Tuesday, May 19, :00 PM 5:00 PM

Transcription

1 Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Technical Committee Meeting Agenda Working Session #9 Tuesday, May 19, :00 PM 5:00 PM 1) 4:10PM-4:30PM: Update-Program Status Simplified the testing workplan as there were concerns from last year s meeting (over $50k, test track, field and lab mix test) a) RFP Response FL DOT will be the test lab, working to get a final test cost set up. FL DOT will select one Lab Produced Mix to be the control and will test all samples in comparison to this control; no RAP/RAS in this mix. Technologies that cannot be reproduced in the laboratory need to have a separate control mix produced in the same plant, but without using the WMA technology and produced at HMA temperature. For clarification: lab mixes will be compared to lab mixes, plant mixes will be compared to plant mixes ( apples to apples so to speak). We will attempt to replicate conditions as best as possible. Need to try to ensure the binder grade selected is one that will work for the majority of states. We are trying to compare what the additive does to the base mix as a prequalification. States can then look into conducting additional testing beyond this baseline should they wish. b) Extraction (T164: Method/Chemical used) Currently AASHTO T164, Method A is called out in the work plan. However FL DOT runs Method B. Trepanier (IL): stated that method B applies heat and would be difficult to control and make this comparison correctly. ME performs Method A as well. If the decision is made to stay with Method A then the TC will need to look into finding a lab that can do this testing. 2) Action Items for 2015 AI: Determine best way to run T164 Method A by either providing Florida with the equipment or having another facility run the testing. AI: Update the name of this TC to Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies AI: Reach out to industry to let them know about the program and that testing will begin soon. AI: Determine cost of testing including any additional NTPEP fees.

2 NTPEP 2015 WMA Session Attendance First Name Last Name Employer Phone 1 Jack Cowsert NCDOT jcowsert@ncdot.gov Danna Crouse OKDOT dcrouse@odot.org (405) Jason Davis LADOTD jason.davis@la.gov Kidada Dixon ALDOT dixonk@dot.state.al.us (334) Rick Douds GADOT rdouds@dot.ga.gov Matthew Elam Western Infrastructure matt@westerninf.com (970) William Faber AZ DOT wfaber@azdot.gov 8 Allen Gallistel MNDOT allen.gallistel@state.mn.us Jay Goldbaum CDOT Jay.Goldbaum@state.co.us (303) Heather Hall TNDOT heather.purdy.hall@tn.gov James Henry DCDOT james.henry@dc.gov Reed Henry Pavement Design Manager dhenry@azdot.goc Brian Hunter NCDOT bhunter@ncdot.gov Steven Ingram ALDOT ingrams@dot.state.al.us 15 Brian Korschgen AASHTO bkorschgen@aashto.org George Lian GADOT glian@dot.ga.gov 17 Oak Metcalfe MTDOT rmetcalfe@mt.gov Richard Mulcahy MADOT richard.mulcahy@dot.state.ma.us Ting Nahrwold INDOT tnahrwold.indot.in.gov 20 Charles Palmer AR State Hwy and Transportation Dept kevin.palmer@ahtd.ar.gov (501) Barry Paye WIDOT Barry.paye@dot.wi.gov Joseph Putherickal IADOT joseph.putherickal@dot.iowa.gov Bill Real NHDOT wreal@dot.state.nh.us Nikita Reed FLDOT nikita.reed@dot.state.fl.us 25 Erany Robinson-Perry GADOT erobinson@dot.ga.gov 26 Brennan Roney GADOT broney@dot.ga.gov Evan Rothblatt AASHTO erothblatt@aashto.org Jesus Sandoval-Gil AZ DOT Concrete Engineer JSandoval-Gil@azdot.gov Robert Sarcinella Sarc Engineering & Consulting techpsu@yahoo.com 30 Joseph Stilwell MEDOT joseph.r.stilwell@maine.gov Paul Sullivan Materials Evaluation Testing Engineering Azdot psullivan@azdot.gov (602) Jim Trepanier ILDOT james.trepanier@illinois.gov

3 33 Brenda Waters PennDOT 34 Scott Wutzke NDDOT (701) Brad Young OHDOT Merrill Zwanka SCDOT

4 NTPEP Technical Committee Meeting May 19, 2015

5 4:00PM-4:10PM: Call to Order and Introductions 4:10PM-4:30PM: Update-Program Status RFP Response Extraction (T164: Method/Chemical used) 4:30PM-4:40PM: Discuss DataMine 2.0 and DataMine 3.0 Items 4:40PM-4:50PM: Industry Concerns 4:50PM-5:00PM: Open Discussion Action Items for 2015

6 Last year s meeting concerns on workplan expense Over $50k per product Field and lab mix testing Test track placement required Simplified the testing workplan Eliminated Test Track Eliminated Field Sample Collection Reduced the number of tests to be run

7 Request for proposals sent out Florida DOT the only respondent

8 Specimen production Lab produced mix (LMLC) Plant produced* (PMLC) Only when special plant processes are used that can t be replicated in the lab

9 Lab Mix, Lab Compacted Continuous Grade of Binder with & without additive Plant Mix, Lab Compacted Extracted Continuous Grade of Binder Plant With & without additive Plant produced mixes will require extraction and recovery. Base PG Binder Type to be selected in consultation with FDOT

10 AASHTO T164, Method A (Centrifuge) Specified Florida runs Method B (Reflux) Is this acceptable? Solvent Type Is there a particular solvent that we should specify? Do we eliminate extraction all together? How do we evaluate the impacts of foaming on PG values?

11 Testing laboratory will select a mix to use for the testing Mix that is common for the state Uses common materials No RAP/RAS Mix will be kept the same for all tests Baseline (non-additive mix) will be run once during year

12 Mixture Testing Volumetric Properties (Gmm, Gmb, etc.) Tensile Strength Ratio Hamburg Wheel Dynamic Modulus Flow Number Compared to baseline (non-additive) mix tests results for reporting

13 Laboratory Mixed, Lab Compacted Approximately $5,000 per product Plant Mixed, Lab Compacted Approximately $15,000 per product Cost factors Baseline mix testing, NTPEP Data & Overhead, data review, etc. Exact costs yet to be determined

14 Comments & Concerns to workplan Need to cultivate Industry TC Members

15 Comments Concerns To do list Beer!