SUBCOMMITTEE ON MATERIALS 2017 Annual Meeting Phoenix, AZ Tuesday, August 8, :15 AM 12:00 PM MST

Transcription

1 SUBCOMMITTEE ON MATERIALS 2017 Annual Meeting Phoenix, AZ Tuesday, August 8, :15 AM 12:00 PM MST TECHNICAL SECTION 1b Geotechnical Exploration, Instrumentation, Stabilization and Field Testing Minutes I. Call to Order and Opening Remarks A. Brief summary of activities (to ensure all attendees up to speed) II. Roll Call Membership List (attendees highlighted and the * means that another represented attended the meeting from that organization.) For full attendance see Attachment A, page 6-7. Name Affiliation State Address Designation Type James Williams, III Mississippi DOT MS jwilliams@mdot.state.ms.us Chair Voting Lyndi Blackburn Alabama DOT AL blackburnl@dot.state.al.us Vice Chair Voting Evan Rothblatt AASHTO DC erothblatt@aashto.org AASHTO Staff n-voting Matthew Bluman AASHTO Re:source MD mbluman@aashtoresource.org Liaison n-voting Brian Johnson AASHTO Re:source MD bjohnson@aashtoresource.org Liaison n-voting Kaye Davis Alabama DOT AL chancellork@dot.state.al.us Member n-voting Phil Stolarski California DOT CA phil.stolarski@dot.ca.gov Member Voting James Connery Connecticut DOT CT James.Connery@ct.gov Member n-voting Leo Fontaine Connecticut DOT CT Leo.Fontaine@ct.gov Member Voting David Horhota Florida DOT FL david.horhota@dot.state.fl.us Member Voting Garth Newman Idaho Transportation Department ID garth.newman@itd.idaho.gov Member Voting Daniel Tobias Illinois DOT IL daniel.tobias@illinois.gov Member Voting Sejal Barot Maryland DOT MD sbarot@sha.state.md.us Member Voting Eric Frempong Maryland DOT MD efrempong@sha.state.md.us Member n-voting Maria Knake AASHTO Re:source MD mknake@aashtoresource.org Member n-voting Steven Lenker AASHTO Re:source MD slenker@aashtoresource.org Member n-voting Gregory Uherek AASHTO Re:source MD guherek@aashtoresource.org Member n-voting William Sullivan Mississippi DOT MS wsullivan@mdot.ms.gov Member n-voting Denis Boisvert New Hampshire DOT NH Denis.Boisvert@dot.nh.gov Member n-voting Charles Dusseault New Hampshire DOT NH chuck.dusseault@dot.nh.gov Member Voting Darin Tedford Nevada DOT NV dtedford@dot.state.nv.us Member Voting Donald Streeter New York State DOT NY donald.streeter@dot.ny.gov Member Voting Scott Seiter Oklahoma DOT OK sseiter@odot.org Member Voting Sean Parker* Oregon DOT OR Sean.P.Parker@odot.state.or.us Member Voting Merrrill Zwanka South Carolina DOT SC zwankame@scdot.org Member Voting Travis Smith Tennessee DOT TN travis.w.smith@tn.gov Member Voting Darren Hazlett* Texas DOT TX darren.hazlett@txdot.gov Member Voting Charles Babish Virginia DOT VA andy.babish@vdot.virginia.gov Member Voting Anne Holt* Ontario Ministry of Transportation ON anne.holt@ontario.ca Associate Member n-voting Becca Lane Ontario Ministry of Transportation ON Becca.Lane@ontario.ca Associate Member Voting Stephen Lee Ontario Ministry of Transportation ON stephen.lee@ontario.ca Associate Member n-voting Carole Anne MacDonald Ontario Ministry of Transportation ON Caroleanne.macdonald@ontario.ca Associate Member n-voting Tim Aschenbrener Federal Highway Administration DC timothy.aschenbrener@dot.gov Ex Officio n-voting Benjamin Rivers Federal Highway Administration DC benjamin.rivers@fhwa.dot.gov Ex Officio n-voting Jack Springer Federal Highway Administration DC jack.springer@dot.gov Ex Officio n-voting Michael Voth Federal Highway Administration DC michael.voth@dot.gov Ex Officio n-voting David Savage Construction Materials Eng. Council FL davesavage@cmec.org Friend n-voting Dick Reaves Troxler Electronic Laboratories, Inc. NC dreaves@troxlerlabs.com Friend n-voting Ali Regimand InstroTek, Inc. NC aregimand@instrotek.com Friend n-voting Desna Bergold D B Consulting and Associates, LLC UT desna@dbconllc.com Friend n-voting Pete Holter AASHTO Re:source MD pholter@aashtoresource.org Other ne

2 III. IV. Approval of Technical Section Minutes 2017 Mid-Year Minutes distributed with the agenda. Motion to approve: Idaho, 2 nd : Virginia Motion carried. Old Business A. SOM Ballot Items 1. Outstanding items from Mid-Year Meeting? I don t have any. B. TS Ballots 1. TS 1b Ballot 1 Revise T 99 and T 180 to delete the 2-inch sieve from the equipment list. Ballot Results see Attachment B, page 8 ballot item passed with no comments. Motion to move onto Subcommittee Ballot: South Carolina, 2 nd : Maryland - Motion carried. C. Task Force Reports TASK FORCE 10-04: Support for the provisional standard for the In-Place Determination of Density and Water Content of Soil and Aggregate by Subsurface Electrical Method. TP Dennis Anderson, Cecil Jones, Darin Tedford (NV), Delaware, Mississippi - Presentation by Cecil and Dennis updating everyone. o Cecil was looking for some volunteers especially from the Southeast so it is easier to connect with Dennis. - This standard is up for a 2-year extension this year and will be balloted for extension. TASK FORCE 12-02: Address negative votes and comments related to Technical Section Ballot to revise T 99 and T Garth Newman (WAQTC), Scott Seiter (OK), Jamie Blanton (LA), David Horhota (FL), James Williams (MS) Sent Ballot Comments to TF Comments received back from members of the Task Force indicate that the added language in should also be included in Section 9 for Method C Procedure. And in addition, tes 6, 7, and 8 should also be included in Method C. The only difference is Method A (4 dimeter mold) is intended for material passing the. 4 sieve, and Method C (4 dimeter mold) is intended for material passing the 0.75-in. sieve. o o Garth will check to make sure these edits were done. Thank you to WAQTC for their efforts. This Task Force will sunset as of this meeting. TASK FORCE 16-01: Write Procedure for Calibration Blocks (Remaining work from TF 11-01). Research inclusion of devices such as the e-gauge into T Lyndi Blackburn (AL)(Chair), Sejal Barot (MD), Greg Stellmach (OR), Delaware, Jeff Seiders (Raba-Kistner), Greg Uherek (AASHTO re:source) - See Attachment C, page 9 for update on calibration blocks certification. Many thanks to Robert Shugart, Oak Metcalf, and Mike San Angelo. - Presentation on an inter-laboratory study with 10 different operators and 10 different e-gauges on several different soil types. Page 2 of 43

3 o o o o o o o o o o o Only one company provides the calibration and traceability documentation on the standard blocks. This can be determined through following the paper trail of calibrations. The tech section was asked for some advice on how to proceed. ASTM has a procedure for calibration of the gauges, but not for the blocks. The physical density of the blocks can be determined through weight and measurement to establish the density, but the surrounding environment factors into the nuclear gauge measurement results so it can be a challenge to establish traceability. Some agencies and the company that provides the calibration of the blocks use a standard gauge to determine the standardized density values. Lyndi Blackburn (AL) is going to draft some language and send it out through a TS ballot to more clearly define the limitations of this activity. The use of the word standardization may be more appropriate since it is unclear whether true traceability through calibration can be established. Troxler video on ILS study (Finch Troxler) was presented: 10 gauges by 10 users were run on 3 prepared soils beds. Oversight of the testing was conducted by Troxler, but the technicians performed the tests. Wet-density and moisture content were determined using separate penetrations. Hand-outs (Attachment D, pages 10-11) were provided showing the data that resulted from the study. The Troxler EGauge is now being used in 39 states. Troxler recommended some language to insert into T 310. The Troxler EGauge has a lower level of radiation and does not require badges, safety training, and licensing. This new low-level radiation gauge price is about $15,000 whereas the price of a nuclear gauge ranges from $5,000 to $9,000. Maryland s experience was positive in how it correlated to nuclear density readings. Texas was not ready to adopt this practice at this point. The question was raised about whether to create a new standard. The Chair discussed that the issue would be reviewed to see if this type of gauge would require a new standard. A non-nuclear gage would require a new standard. Moisture may have a totally different precision and bias statement. ASTM is going to try to handle this as a separate standard. TASK FORCE 17-01: Proposed new provisional standard or revise R 13, Conducting Geotechnical Investigations to include the DIGGS data program. Ben was going to solicit help from LA, OH, and MO since they have data management systems that utilize DIGGS data. - Ben Rivers, FHWA (Chair) o A TS ballot will be out later this year by Ben Rivers. A solicitation for any additional help was requested. Page 3 of 43

4 V. New Business A. Research Proposals RNS 2. Full NCHRP RNS (Attachment E, pages 12-19) o Defining Geotechnical Test and Performance Data for Asset Management and Accelerated Design Benefits from rth Carolina DOT and FHWA (Turner-Fairbank) Amir suggested that the objective is the development of a framework and that should be clearly stated in objective of the Research Needs Statement. Motion to recommend this RNS to the SOM: Rhode Island, 2 nd : Illinois Motion carried. o Development of High-Quality Databases of Deep Foundations Load Tests from Ohio DOT The intent is to expand the databases and create uniformity. Amir suggested that the objective must be clear and concise and define the product that will results from the work. It is not where you state the work that is to be conducted to reach that objective. It should not be to develop consensus to do something. It must be to do something. This statement will go back to the author for revision based on the comments received in this meeting before it goes to SOM. This research may be an effort to expand the implementation of DIGGS, which may be worthwhile. Could this be part of the first RNS? It could be as an effort to maintain the data from the time of construction to today in one place. Motion to recommend this RNS to the SOM provided the revisions be made that were recommended in this meeting.: Oklahoma, 2 nd : Rhode Island Motion carried. B. AASHTO Re:source/CCRL - Observations from Assessments? C. NCHRP Issues D. Correspondence, calls, meetings 1. from Oak Metcalf regarding T99/T180 T 224 and D4718. Attachment F, page 20 o The reason for discontinuing needs to be amended, and the reference to where the information can be found needs to be changed to T 99 and T 180. The changes will be made by Deb Kim and AASHTO publications. 2. from Garth Newman regarding proposed revisions to T 272 to clarify the use of T 99 and T 180 and the oversize annex. Attachment G, pages o T 272 (One-Point Proctor): was added to address the over-sized correction. Motion to ballot this concurrently: Indiana, 2 nd : Rhode Island Motion carried. E. Presentation by Industry/Academia F. Proposed New Standards 1. R xx-yy Preparation of Test Specimens Using the Plastic Mold Compaction Device. Motion that this proposed Practice be balloted as early as next week at the TS level with a Subcommittee ballot to follow if the TS ballot has no significant comments or negatives (as determined by the TS Chair): Oklahoma, 2 nd : South Carolina - Motion carried. (Lyndi will send this to Deb Kim for publication review prior to TS ballot.) Attachment H, pages G. Proposed New Task Forces H. Standards Requiring Reconfirmation (AASHTO publications will handle this ballot.) Attachment I, pages T (2013) Moisture Density Relations of Soil Cement Mixtures Page 4 of 43

5 2. T Density of Soil In Place by the Sand Cone Method 3. T (2013) Penetration Test and Split Barrel Sampling of Soils 4. T (2013) Measurements of Pore Pressures in Soils 5. TP (2016) Deep Foundation Elements under Bidirectional Static Axial Compressive Load 6. TP (2016) Determining In Place Density and Moisture Content of Soil and Soil Aggregate Using Complex Impedance Methodology I. SOM Ballot Items (including any ASTM changes/equivalencies) 1. T 99 to delete the 2-inch sieve equipment. Attachment J, pages T 180 to delete the 2-inch sieve equipment. Attachment K, pages Tentative Ballot Item: R xx-yy Preparation of Test Specimens Using the Plastic Mold Compaction Device Provisional Standard. Attachment H, pages VI. VII. Open Discussion A. Dick Reaves asked if it would be appropriate for Troxler to draft a revised T 310 document to see how the EGauge may be incorporated into the standard. We will send him the T 310 standard for edit. Adjourn ATTACHMENTS A. Full Attendance List B. TS 1b Ballot 1 Results C. Task Force T 310 Report D. Troxler Handout E. Research Needs Statements F. Regarding Correction for Reason T 272 was Discontinued G. with Proposed Revisions to T 272 to Bring the Oversized Correction in Harmony with T 99 and T 180 H. Proposed New Provisional Practice for Preparation of Test Specimens Using the Plastic Mold Compaction Device I. Tech Section Action Required Summary J. T 99 Ballot Item to Remove 2-inch Sieve K. T 180 Ballot Item to Remove 2-inch Sieve Page 5 of 43

6 Page 6 of 43 ATTACHMENT A Technical Section 1b; Geotechnical Exploration, Instrumentation, Stabilization and Field Testing First Name Last Name Address Company Registration Type Matthew Bluman mbluman@aashtoresource.org AASHTO AASHTO Member Alex Fisher-Willis afisherwillis@aashto.org AASHTO AASHTO Member Maria Knake mknake@aashtoresource.org AASHTO re:source AASHTO Member Steven Lenker slenker@aashtoresource.org AASHTO re:source AASHTO Member Greg Uherek guherek@aashtoresource.org AASHTO re:source AASHTO Member Lyndi Blackburn blackburnl@dot.state.al.us Alabama Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Steven Ingram ingrams@dot.state.al.us Alabama Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Paul Burch pburch@azdot.gov Arizona Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Sardar Chalabe schalabe@azdot.gov Arizona Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Nye McCarty NMcCarty@azdot.gov Arizona Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Murari Pradhan MPradhan@azdot.gov Arizona Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Rehnuma Rahman rrahman@azdot.gov Arizona Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Craig Wilson CWilson2@azdot.gov Arizona Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Joel Hahm jhahm@bigrbridge.com Big R Bridge AASHTO n-member (industry representative) Doug Rhodes drhodes@headwaters.com Boral / Headwaters Resources, Inc. AASHTO Member Ivan Diaz idiaz@headwaters.com Boral Resources AASHTO n-member (industry representative) David Savage davesavage@cmec.org CMEC AASHTO n-member (industry representative) Bill Schiebel bill.schiebel@state.co.us Colorado Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Robert Lauzon robert.lauzon@ct.gov Connecticut Department of Transportation AASHTO Member John Lamond JLamond@controls-usa.com Controls Group USA Inc Sponsor/Exhibitor Karl Zipf Karl.Zipf@state.de.us DelDOT AASHTO Member Cecil Jones cecil.jones@nc.rr.com Diversified Engineering Services, Inc AASHTO n-member (industry representative) Brad Neitzke brad.neitzke@dot.gov Federal Highway Administration AASHTO Member Jack Youtcheff jack.youtcheff@dot.gov Federal Highway Administration AASHTO Member Michael Voth michael.voth@dot.gov Federal Lands Highway - FHWA AASHTO Member Neoma Cole ncole@dot.ga.gov Georgia Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Georgene Geary ggeary@ggfga.com GGfGA Engineering, LLC AASHTO n-member (industry representative) Jim Bibler jbibler@gilsonco.com Gilson Company, Inc. Sponsor/Exhibitor James Kephart james.a.kephart@hawaii.gov Hawaii DOT, Materials Lab AASHTO Member John Bilderback John.Bilderback@itd.idaho.gov Idaho Transportation Department AASHTO Member Brian Pfeifer brian.pfeifer@illinois.gov Illinois Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Gina Merseal gina.merseal@infotechfl.com Info Tech, Inc. AASHTO n-member (industry representative) Maurice Arbelaez marbelaez@instrotek.com InstroTek, Inc. AASHTO n-member (industry representative) Meysam Najimi najimi@iastate.edu Iowa State University Academia Christopher Leibrock christopher.leibrock@ks.gov Kansas DOT AASHTO Member Richard Bradbury Richard.Bradbury@maine.gov Maine Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Derek Nener-Plante derek.nener-plante@maine.gov MaineDOT AASHTO Member Sejal Barot sbarot@sha.state.md.us Maryland State Highway Administrtion AASHTO Member Jeffrey Curtis jcurtis@mdot.ms.gov MDOT AASHTO Member

7 Page 7 of 43 ATTACHMENT A Technical Section 1b; Geotechnical Exploration, Instrumentation, Stabilization and Field Testing First Name Last Name Address Company Registration Type Carole Anne MacDonald caroleanne.macdonald@ontario.ca Ministry of Transportation Ontario AASHTO Member James Williams jwilliams@mdot.ms.gov Mississippi Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Brett Trautman brett.trautman@modot.mo.gov Missouri Department of Transportation AASHTO Member John Donahue john.donahue@modot.mo.gov Missouri DOT AASHTO Member Ross "Oak" Metcalfe rmetcalfe@mt.gov Montana Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Caleb Hammons jchammons@mdot.ms.gov MS DOT AASHTO Member Chris Peoples cpeoples@ncdot.gov NCDOT AASHTO Member Darin Tedford dtedford@dot.nv.gov Nevada DOT AASHTO Member Charles Dusseault Chuck.Dusseault@dot.nh.gov New Hampshire Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Scott Seiter sseiter@odot.org Oklahoma Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Anne Holt anne.holt@ontario.ca Ontario Ministry of Transportation AASHTO Member Greg Stellmach greg.f.stellmach@odot.state.or.us Oregon Department of Transportation AASHTO Member David Kuniega dkuniega@pa.gov Pennsylvania Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Timothy Ramirez tramirez@pa.gov Pennsylvania Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Todd Arnold tarnold@pineinst.com Pine Test Equipment, Inc. AASHTO n-member (industry representative) Aaron Smith smithtribe@gmail.com Raba Kistner Academia Mark Felag mark.felag@dot.ri.gov Rhode Island Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Merrill Zwanka zwankame@scdot.org SCDOT AASHTO Member Tom Grannes tom.grannes@state.sd.us South Dakota Dept. of Transportation AASHTO Member Michael Doran Michael.Doran@tn.gov TDOT AASHTO Member BRETT HAGGERTY brett.haggerty@txdot.gov Texas Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Andy Naranjo andy.naranjo@txdot.gov Texas Department Of Transportation AASHTO Member Amir Hanna ahanna@nas.edu TRB/NCHRP AASHTO Member Dick Reaves dreaves@troxlerlabs.com Troxler Electronic Laboratories, Inc. AASHTO n-member (industry representative) Nick Van Den Berg nick.vandenberg@vermont.gov Vermont DOT AASHTO Member Andy Babish andy.babish@vdot.virginia.gov Virginia Department of Transportation AASHTO Member Robin Graves gravesr@vmcmail.com Vulcan Materials Company AASHTO Member Desna Bergold desna@dbconllc.com WAQTC AASHTO Member Misty Miner mminer@mt.gov WAQTC AASHTO Member Garth Newman garth.newman@itd.idaho.gov WAQTC AASHTO Member Kevins Burns BurnsKL@wsdot.wa.gov Washington State Department of Transportation AASHTO Member PAUL FARLEY paul.m.farley@wv.gov West Virginia Division of Highways AASHTO Member Paye Barry barry.paye@dot.wi.gov Wisconsin DOT AASHTO Member

8 AASHTO Electronic Balloting System Ballot Detail Report ATTACHMENT B Ballot Detail Ballot Name: TS 1b Ballot 1 Ballot Manager: Lyndi D Blackburn Ballot Start Date: 7/5/2017 Ballot Due Date: 7/19/2017 TS 1b Ballot 1 Item Number: 1 Description: Decisions: Revise T 99 to delete the 2 inch sieve from the list of equipment. Affirmative: 15 of 18 Negative: 0 of 18 Vote: 3 of 18 Item Number: 2 Description: Decisions: Revise T 180 to delete the 2 inch sieve from the list of equipment. Affirmative: 15 of 18 Negative: 0 of 18 Vote: 3 of 18 SOM_TS1B TS 1b Ballot 1 - ShortReport.htm[7/26/2017 5:53:05 PM] Page 8 of 43

9 Page 9 of 43 AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials (August 2017) ATTACHMENT C Task Group Information on the EGauge Model 4590 Soil Density Gauge The EGauge s performance is very comparable to that of higher-activity nuclear gauges. Troxler Electronic Laboratories, Inc. performed an interlaboratory study (ILS) on May 3, 2017, to determine the repeatability and reproducibility (R & R) of the EGauge density measurements. Ten independent technicians operated ten EGauges on three different soil types. The results are shown alongside the AASHTO T-310 published R & R data below. EGauge ILS Data AASHTO T (Table 1) In More Depth The following tables provide a detailed comparison of the two sets of results. Soil Density = Approximately Low-Activity Source EGauge Model 3400-Type Gauge Repeatability Standard Deviation 0.3 lb/ft lb/ft 3 Reproducibility Standard Deviation 0.6 lb/ft lb/ft 3 Repeatability Limit 0.8 lb/ft lb/ft 3 Reproducibility Limit 1.8 lb/ft lb/ft 3

10 ATTACHMENT C Soil Density = Approximately Low-Activity Source EGauge Model 3400-Type Gauge Repeatability Standard Deviation 0.4 lb/ft lb/ft 3 Reproducibility Standard Deviation 0.8 lb/ft lb/ft 3 Repeatability Limit 1.2 lb/ft lb/ft 3 Reproducibility Limit 2.2 lb/ft lb/ft 3 Market Penetration Since the release of the EGauge in October 2015, it has been broadly accepted in the market. The departments of transportation and other government agencies that have purchased the gauge are listed below. Alabama Department of Transportation Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Florida Department of Transportation Indian Affairs Louisiana Transportation Research Center rth Carolina Department of Transportation Texas A&M Transportation Institute Arkansas Department of Transportation Bureau of Land Management East Carolina University Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Studies Two independent EGauge studies are available at bit.ly/usarmyegauge and bit.ly/troxleregauge. The gauge s results compared very favorably with other accepted soil density measurements. We expect to have other favorable studies available in the near future. The Existing Standard The EGauge uses nuclear technology to measure soil density and therefore fits well into the existing standard. The following sections in the AASHTO T- 310 standard will require small changes for this purpose: 1.1, 4.2.3, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 8.2, 8.2.2, 9.5.9, , and A.2. (Most of these changes allow the nuclear moisture system and the reference standard block to be optional.) Contact Us If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Finch Troxler (ftroxler@troxlerlabs.com) or Robyn Myers (rmyers@troxlerlabs.com). Page 10 of 43

11 Page 11 of 43 ATTACHMENT D Standard Calibration Blocks for Nuclear Devices. From general research on the subject of the standard calibration blocks and whether the blocks should be NIST traceable the following key points have been determined: The equipment manufacturer maintains a set of standard calibration blocks to verify all equipment prior to shipment. The Manufacturer s set of standard calibration blocks are utilized to measured and verify standard calibration blocks that are shipped by the manufacturer. The Manufacturer maintains a unique device that can be utilized to verify the standard calibration blocks maintained at their facility and can also be utilized to verify any standard calibration blocks which have been shipped to a customer. Once verified that a customer set of calibration blocks is compliant with the Manufacturer s set of calibration blocks, the customer set is recognized as valid. The Manufacturer can issue an NIST compliant certification for the customer s standard calibration blocks. Whether NIST maintains a set of standard calibration blocks could not be determined. NIST outlines procedures for calibration and randomness of error and further outlines details for documenting the entire process. IT appears that the NIST traceability does not refer to a single calibration between the Manufacturer s standard calibration blocks and a Gold Standard set of calibration blocks maintained by NIST. Rather, IT appears that the Manufacturers process, equipment and calibration procedures if compliant with NIST guidelines validates the calibration as conformant with NIST standards.

12 ATTACHMENT E AASHTO STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS NCHRP Problem Statement Outline I. PROBLEM NUMBER To be assigned by NCHRP staff. II. PROBLEM TITLE Development of High-Quality Databases of Deep Foundations Load Tests III. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT Data at foundation load test sites can be used to verify and optimize the geotechnical design of foundations in the projects in which they are used. In addition, if complete and high-quality data at load test sites are obtained and compiled in databases, they can be used in the future by: a) designers to improve the geotechnical design for production foundations and, more important, b) by researchers in the reliability calibration to develop more accurate and economical foundation LRFD (Load and Resistance Factor Design) geotechnical design methods. Reliability calibration is the best option to develop resistance factors for the geotechnical design methods of foundation and thus for implementation of LRFD. As geotechnical practice moved towards LRFD, a vast majority of the current LRFD foundation geotechnical design methods were developed based on past experience and judgement. There are only a very small number of reliability-based resistance factors for foundations adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) or State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) due to lack of quality and complete foundation load test databases. The current highway engineering practices emphasize the use of load test results for individual projects, not for future reliability calibration. This could lead to two main problems in the load test data obtained in these projects: a) data is not complete or of the quality (accuracy) needed for use in the reliability calibration; and b) not reported or compiled for future use. There are variations in the type of data collected at load test sites and the procedures followed for obtaining these data by various State DOTs. There are still issues with the quality of the reported data at load test sites (e.g., clarity, accuracy and completeness), even in some developed foundation load test databases. Although there have been some noble efforts in the development of databases for deep foundation load tests, there is still urgent need to address the issues listed above and develop high-quality national, regional, and local deep foundation load tests in the USA. Page 12 of 43

13 ATTACHMENT D IV. LITERATURE SEARCH SUMMARY Toward developing quality foundation load test databases, recommendations to develop and share quality foundation load test databases were published in TRR 2511 (Abu- Hejleh et al., 2015), and recently FHWA released its Deep Foundation Load Test Database (DFLTD) - Version 2.0 (Petek et al., 2017). The DFLTD v.2 includes an updated framework and 150 new load test data for large size diameter open end driven piles. The database is relational where records can be queried in numerous ways to include foundation type and size, subsurface soil information, and location. The DFLTD v.2 can be used by Federal and State agencies, universities, consultants and contractors, design engineers and planners, and research and development professionals. In addition, several State DOTs and researchers developed their own foundation load test databases (e.g., Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, and Illinois). Even so, significant work is still needed to develop high-quality national and local databases of deep foundation load tests that include a complete and adequate number of high-quality and complete records of data at load test sites that cover all common foundation design and construction conditions encountered in the United States. V. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE Develop and share a national high-quality database of deep foundation load test data, and develop recommendations to help highway agencies use this national database to develop and share their quality databases of deep foundation load tests. Tasks: 1. Develop/finalize a national protocol to obtain and report quality, complete, and consistent data at new load test sites, and to identify and compile existing quality load test data that are not reported in load test databases. 2. Develop/finalize the framework for a quality foundation load test database to store the data collected at load test sites and provide the information needed by designers and researchers for the two applications discussed above. This database should be made available online, in line with the developed national protocol, flexible so that it can be easily updated, changed and expanded, and have a userfriendly interface. 3. Develop a national quality database for deep foundation load tests using available data. It should include the reported quality and complete load test data, for example in the existing load test databases, such as DFLTD, v.2 (review these databases), and the available quality load test data that are not documented. 4. Develop recommendations to help State DOTs develop their foundation load test databases using the 3 products described above. 5. Develop guidance and examples for applications and limitations of foundation Page 13 of 43

14 load tests databases. ATTACHMENT D 6. Develop recommendations for sharing, updating, and maintaining of the national and local foundation load test databases. VI. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD Recommended Funding: $200,000-$300,000 (te: The level of funded provided may be raised or lowered by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research if and when the problem statement is selected) Research Period: The project will be completed in twenty-four (24) or thirty six months. VII. URGENCY AND POTENTIAL BENEFITS This research study will help to move the geotechnical design of deep foundations to true reliability-based design, which is the best option for LRFD implementation. It will lead to the development of more accurate and economical foundation geotechnical methods. These advantages will increase the confidence in design methods for foundations and reduce significantly the cost for construction of foundations. Reliability calibration requires development of quality foundation load test databases. It is a crucial need at this time since the vast majority of the current LRFD foundation geotechnical design methods are developed based on past experience and judgement, not reliability calibration. Finally, the local foundation load test databases also would allow for reliability calibration of local design methods not covered in AASHTO LRFD, and the development of more accurate and economical design methods than those developed based on the national databases. VIII. IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING Implementation of the results of this research study can be immediate. State DOTs, consultants, and researchers would have access to use the data in the national database. The State DOTs may need to sponsor research studies to benefit from the work performed in this study and develop their own foundation load test database. The study recommendations should be discussed and implemented through collaboration between national and state transportation agencies (AASHOT, FHWA, State DOTs, ASCE, DFI, ADSC, and PDCA).This collaboration can happen at conferences, such as the TRB Annual Meeting, and led by AASHTO and/or FHWA. One of the outcomes of this collaboration is to address how to maintain and update the national database for foundation load test databases. IX. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM STATEMENT Mohammed A. Mulla, P.E., CPM., MCE. Assistant State Geotechnical Engineer Page 14 of 43

15 Page 15 of 43 rth Carolina Department of Transportation Geotechnical Engineering Unit (919) ATTACHMENT D Jennifer Nicks, PhD, PE Research Geotechnical Engineer Office of Infrastructure Research & Development (R&D) Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, McLean, VA jennifer.nicks@dot.gov Naser Abu-Hejleh, Ph.D, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Specialist 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive Suite 600 Matteson, IL Ph: (708) naser.abu-hejleh@dot.gov X. AASHTO MONITOR Ohio DOT, Alabama DOT New Mexico Indiana DOT Louisiana DOTD Louisiana Transportation Research Center rth Carolina DOT XI. SUBMITTED BY Mohammed A. Mulla, P.E., CPM., MCE. Assistant State Geotechnical Engineer rth Carolina Department of Transportation Geotechnical Engineering Unit (919) mmulla@ncdot.gov

16 ATTACHMENT D AASHTO STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS NCHRP Problem Statement Outline I. PROBLEM NUMBER To be assigned by NCHRP staff. II. PROBLEM TITLE Defining Geotechnical Test and Performance Data for Asset Management and Accelerated Design Benefits III. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT Geotechnical design, construction and performance monitoring are intimately tied to the collection, interpretation and delivery of geotechnical data. Unfortunately, data is often provided in an informational format that limits operational efficiencies and its future usefulness. Examples of informational include reports in PDF or Excel, etc. formats that cannot be readily transferred or applied for new interpretation without manual manipulation (cut and paste). In addition, little to no metadata is conveyed to identify the type, source and reliability of the data. Access to historic data saves money and time for agencies by reducing the amount of new data required. Time and money is also saved when operational efficiencies are optimized through automation using standardized data structure. Further, the collation of consistently formatted and comparable data across regions will improve design efforts and establish performance expectations, practical measures and aid overall asset management. Clear definition of data structures for transfer and storage is necessary for consistent, complete data independent of interpretation. IV. LITERATURE SEARCH SUMMARY In 2006, a consortium of organizations, including Ohio DOT and FHWA, initiated the Data Interchange for Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (DIGGS) standardized schema, which was later revised as DIGGS V2.0 through Ohio DOT funding and in coordination with the Geo-Institute of ASCE. With these efforts complete, the Geo-Institute of ASCE now begins to administer an open-source data structure ready for practice. Currently, geotechnical and geologic test elements have been defined. As a result of limited resources, elements such as geoenvironmental, foundation installation and load testing have been provisionally removed from this system to expedite proof of function. Completion of the existing system and defining elements for subsequent Page 16 of 43

17 ATTACHMENT D development of the system to meet the needs of transportation agencies will require this funded effort. V. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE The research will develop industry consensus to expand the data dictionary for soil mechanics, structure installation, ground improvement, instrumentation, and potentially performance data sets based on industry needs. Further, this effort will ensure data structures are consistent with existing standards including ASTM, AASHTO testing procedures. Engaging industry interest groups will further ensure a complete and robust object structure for the benefit of transportation assets. The extent of the dictionary test features will be dependent on resources available but may include additional items described in the tasks. Tasks: 1. Soil Properties: Density, moisture content and gradation to shear strength, unsaturated behavior, cyclic performance, compressibility, etc. There are approximately 45 tests included in the DIGGS Schema that require final vetting. 2. Structure Installation: Pile, drilled shaft installation, shallow foundation construction, grouting and ground improvement beneath structures and embankments, wall construction. Recent work on large diameter pipe piles, DTFH61-14-C-00036, reviewed and update the schema for pile load tests and demonstrates the value of data compilation and would serve as a baseline for this effort related to deep foundation load testing. 3. Performance: Long term management of assets will be dictated by their performance indicators. There is ongoing research to define key metrics of performance. As these indicators are defined (by others), they will be incorporated into the same data structure so that inter related evaluation of an asset can consider the full lifecycle of the structure and its components. The deliverable for this work would be the online data dictionary. Although the goal will be to have a robust dictionary defined, the open source system would allow future expansion if required. VI. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD Recommended Funding: $200,000-$300,000 (te: The level of funded provided may be raised or lowered by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research if and when the problem statement is selected) Research Period: Page 17 of 43

18 Page 18 of 43 The project will be completed in twenty-four (24) months. ATTACHMENT D VII. URGENCY AND POTENTIAL BENEFITS Availability of usable data is critical to our ability to make future interpretations, manage existing features or assets, and accelerate future project delivery. Efficient collection, transfer, storage and retrieval of data for design, construction and asset management will save substantial time and money. Without clear definition of data structure needs, ongoing and future geotechnical and asset management research may produce incomplete data sets and require repeated effort on subsequent projects or be of limited value to DOTs. This study is supported and relevant to Minnesota DOT Ohio DOT Missouri DOT Louisiana DOTD Louisiana Transportation Research Center rth Carolina DOT New Hampshire DOT Colorado DOT VIII. IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING Implementation simply requires the data standardized structure to be used as standard practice, and can be achieved through requirements within guidance manuals and standards developed by FHWA and AASHTO, respectively. Maintenance and updating these data structures as required would be managed by the Geo-Institute of ASCE and vetted as needed by AASHTO subcommittees for adoption. IX. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM STATEMENT Christopher Merklin, P.E., Geotechnical Engineer Ohio Department of Transportation (614) Christopher.Merklin@dot.ohio.gov Allen Cadden, P.E., D.GE, F.ASCE Schnabel Engineering (610) acadden@schnabel-eng.com X. AASHTO MONITOR Ohio DOT, A and rth Carolina DOT Sponsoring Committees: AFP10, Engineering Geology; AFP20, Exploration and Classification of Earth Materials; AFS30, Foundations of Bridges and Other Structures XI. SUBMITTED BY Christopher Merklin, P.E.,

19 Page 19 of 43 Geotechnical Engineer Ohio Department of Transportation (614) ATTACHMENT D

20 ATTACHMENT F From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Kim, Deborah D Metcalfe Ross Oak; Blackburn, Lyndi; Williams, James Rothblatt Evan; Bergold Desna; Newman Garth H; Strizich Matt RE: T 90/180, T 224, and D4718 Wednesday, August 2, :42:32 PM image006.png Hi all, Correcting the discontinued statement for T 224 (discontinued in HM-35) is certainly something that can be handled editorially. One possible rewording for your consideration: Thanks, Deb This standard has been discontinued. Its contents have been incorporated in both T 99 and T 180 as an annex. Deborah Doehr Kim Publications Project Manager, Materials Book Assistant Director of Publications Production American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 444 rth Capitol Street, rthwest, Suite 249 Washington, DC Ph Fax dkim@aashto.org From: Metcalfe, Oak [mailto:rmetcalfe@mt.gov] Sent: Wednesday, August 2, :23 PM To: Blackburn Lyndi D <blackburnl@dot.state.al.us>; Williams, James <JWilliams@mdot.ms.gov>; Kim, Deborah D <dkim@aashto.org> Cc: Rothblatt Evan <ERothblatt@aashto.org>; Bergold Desna <desna@dbconllc.com>; Newman Garth H <garth.newman@itd.idaho.gov>; Strizich Matt <mstrizich@mt.gov> Subject: RE: T 90/180, T 224, and D4718 Thanks Lyndi. I don t think it will take much time. Oak From: Blackburn, Lyndi [mailto:blackburnl@dot.state.al.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, :16 AM To: Metcalfe, Oak <rmetcalfe@mt.gov>; Williams, James <JWilliams@mdot.ms.gov>; Kim, Deborah D <dkim@aashto.org> Cc: Evan Rothblatt <ERothblatt@aashto.org>; Desna Bergold <desna@dbconllc.com>; Garth.Newman@itd.idaho.gov; Strizich, Matt <mstrizich@mt.gov> Subject: RE: T 90/180, T 224, and D4718 Oak; It will take me a little bit to decipher what this issue is but I ll include it in the agenda next week so we can discuss and sort it out. Lyndi Davis Blackburn, P.E. Asst. State Materials & Tests Engineer: Alabama DOT : Mobile From: Metcalfe, Oak [mailto:rmetcalfe@mt.gov] Sent: Wednesday, August 2, :14 PM To: Williams, James <JWilliams@mdot.ms.gov>; Blackburn, Lyndi <blackburnl@dot.state.al.us>; Kim, Deborah D <dkim@aashto.org> Cc: Evan Rothblatt <ERothblatt@aashto.org>; Desna Bergold <desna@dbconllc.com>; Garth.Newman@itd.idaho.gov; Strizich, Matt <mstrizich@mt.gov> Subject: T 90/180, T 224, and D4718 James, Lyndi, and Deb, I m not sure how to address this and, admittedly, this is about as last second as you can get, but I wanted to at least mention this to you before the meeting next week. I believe it can be handled editorially, but I don t know, which is why I m reaching out. Regarding T Correction for Coarse Particles in the Soil Compaction Test which was discontinued in There is a statement in the 2017 revision history indicating T 224 was discontinued for lack of use and that ASTM D4718 should be used instead. This is incorrect. The Coarse (Oversize) Particle Correction is used quite a bit in the Western Alliance states at the least. And If you ll recall, the procedure was added as an annex to both T 99 and T 180 at the suggestion of WAQTC. This was suggested so a technician would have all the relevant information contained in a single standard. Since the revision history is not a standard per se, I m not sure how to go about changing this which is why I have included the leadership of the TS (James and Lyndi) as well as AASHTO Pubs (Deb). It seems to me this can just be editorially changed by AASHTO Pubs, and I m happy to do any necessary legwork, but I m also happy to discuss this as an ad hoc item next week in Phoenix if that is the correct route to go. Again, my apologies for letting this slip until the last minute before the meeting but please let me know your thoughts if possible. If I don t hear from anyone this week, I ll make sure to discuss it with you in person next week. Regards, Ross Oak Metcalfe, P.E. Testing Engineer/Physical Test Section Supervisor Materials Bureau rmetcalfe@mt.gov Nullius In Verba Page 20 of 43

21 Page 21 of 43 ATTACHMENT G Standard Method of Test for One-Point Method for Determining Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture AASHTO Designation: T Release: Group 3 (August 2016) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 rth Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249 Washington, D.C

22 Page 22 of 43 ATTACHMENT F Standard Method of Test for One-Point Method for Determining Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture AASHTO Designation: T Release: Group 3 (August 2016) 1. SCOPE 1.1. This method is for the rapid determination of the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a soil sample using a one-point determination and an individual moisture/density curve or a family of curves The following applies to all specified limits in this standard: For the purposes of determining conformance with these specifications, an observed value or a calculated value shall be rounded off to the nearest unit in the last right-hand place of figures used in expressing the limiting value, in accordance with the rounding-off method of ASTM E The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. 2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS 2.1. AASHTO Standards: R 75, Developing a Family of Curves T 99, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 2.5-kg (5.5-lb) Rammer and a 305-mm (12-in.) Drop T 180, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 4.54-kg (10-lb) Rammer and a 457-mm (18-in.) Drop T 217, Determination of Moisture in Soils by Means of a Calcium Carbide Gas Pressure Moisture Tester T 255, Total Evaporable Moisture Content of Aggregate by Drying T 265, Laboratory Determination of Moisture Content of Soils 2.2. ASTM Standard: E29, Standard Practice for Using Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine Conformance with Specifications 3. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE 3.1. The method described herein corresponds to the methods in either T 99 or T 180 and must be chosen accordingly; for example, when moisture-density relationships as determined by Method C of T 99 are used to form the family of curves, then Method C described in T 99 must be used for the one-point determination.

23 Page 23 of 43 ATTACHMENT F 3.2. A family of curves is a group of typical soil moisture-density relationships determined using T 99 or T 180, which reveal certain similarities and trends characteristic of the soil type and source. Soils sampled from one source will have many different moisture-density curves, but if a group of these curves are plotted together, certain relationships usually become apparent. In general, it will be found that higher unit mass soils assume steeper slopes with maximum dry densities at lower optimum moisture contents, while the lower unit mass soils assume flatter, more gently sloped curves with higher optimum moisture contents. 4. METHOD SELECTION 4.1. See T 99 or T One-point determinations are made by compacting soil using T 99 or T 180 and one of the procedural methods described therein: Method A A mm (4-in.) mold; soil material passing a 4.75-mm (. 4) sieve. Method B A mm (6-in.) mold; soil material passing a 4.75-mm (. 4) sieve. Method C A mm (4-in.) mold; soil material passing a 19.0-mm ( 3 / 4 in.) sieve. Method D A mm (6-in.) mold; soil material passing a 19.0-mm ( 3 / 4 in.) sieve The method used to compact the sample shall be the same method and procedure used to develop the moisture/density curve or family of curves used for the reference curve(s). 5. APPARATUS 5.1. See T 99 or T 180 for the selected method. 6. SAMPLE 6.1. Refer to T 99 or T Follow the initial drying step in Sample section of T 99 or T 180 or; Sieve sample over the appropriate sieve. 7. PROCEDURE 7.1. The representative sample needs to be between 80 to 100 percent of the optimum moisture. Adjust the moisture content, if necessary. The maximum density determination will be more accurate the closer the moisture content is to the optimum moisture content Compact the prepared soil using the selected procedural method Determine the wet density of the compacted sample according to T 99 or T Determine the moisture content using one of the following methods: T 217, T 255, or T Determine the dry density using the wet density determined in Section 7.3 and moisture content determined in Section 7.4 according to the Calculation section in T 99 or T 180.

24 Page 24 of 43 ATTACHMENT F 8. MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION 8.1. An individual moisture/density curve as determined by T 99 or T 180 or a family of curves as developed by R 75 may be used for the reference curve(s) Individual Moisture/Density Curve: Moisture content must be within 80 to 100 percent of optimum moisture of the reference curve. Compact another specimen, using the same material, at an adjusted moisture content if the onepoint does not fall in the 80 to 100 percent of optimum moisture range Plot the one-point moisture content as the abscissa and the corresponding dry density (unit mass) of the soil as ordinate to define the one-point on the reference curve Use the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content defined by the curve when the onepoint falls on the curve or within ±2.0 lbs/ft 3 of the curve at the one-point moisture content (Figure 1) When oversized particles have been removed, it is necessary to use the annex from T 99 or T 180 to determine the corrected maximum dry density and optimum moisture content Perform a full moisture/density relationship if the one-point determination cannot meet these requirements. Formatted: Heading 4 Commented [WAQTC1]: Proposed revision to include references to T 99 and T 180 when oversized particles are removed. Figure 1 Determining Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Using Individual Moisture/Density Curve

25 Page 25 of 43 ATTACHMENT F 8.3. Family of Curves: Plot the one-point moisture content as the abscissa and the corresponding dry density (unit mass) of the soil as ordinate to define the one-point on the reference family of curves If the one-point falls on one of the curves in the family of curves, use the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content defined by that curve Draw a new curve through the plotted one-point parallel and in character with the nearest existing curve in the family of curves when the one-point falls within the family but not on a curve Determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content as defined by the new curve. The moisture content must be within 80 to 100 percent of the determined optimum moisture content (Figure 2) When oversized particles have been removed, it is necessary to use the annex from T 99 or T 180 to determine the corrected maximum dry density and optimum moisture content Perform a full moisture/density relationship if the one-point determination does not fall within the family or cannot meet the 80 to 100 percent range. Formatted: Heading 4 Commented [WAQTC2]: Same as above Figure 2 Determining Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Using Family of Curves

26 Page 26 of 43 ATTACHMENT F 9. REPORT 9.1. The report shall include the following: The procedurestandard (T 99 or T 180) and method used (Method A, B, C, or D) The optimum moisture content as a percentage to the nearest whole number0.1percent. Commented [WAQTC3]: Section revised to include 'corrected' results when oversize particles are removed. Commented [WAQTC4]: Was not referenced. Commented [WAQTC5]: Accuracy to match T 99 and T The corrected optimum moisture, if applicable The maximum dry density to the nearest 1 kg/m 3 (0.1 lb/ft 3 ). The corrected for oversized particles maximum dry density and optimum moisture.maximum dry density to the nearest 0.5 kg/m 3 (1.0 lb/ft 3 ) The corrected maximum density, if applicable Formatted: rmal 10. KEYWORDS Individual moisture/density curve; maximum dry density; one-point determination; optimum moisture content.

27 Page 27 of 43 ATTACHMENT H Standard Practice for Preparation of Test Specimens Using the Plastic Mold Compaction Device AASHTO Designation: RP xxx-yy 1 Release: Group n (Month yyyy) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 rth Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249 Washington, D.C

28 ATTACHMENT G Standard Practice for Preparation of Test Specimens Using the Plastic Mold Compaction Device AASHTO Designation: RP xxx-yy Release: Group n (Month yyyy) 1. SCOPE 1.1. This standard practice covers the use of the Plastic Mold compaction device (PM Device) to prepare cylindrical test specimens with an approximate 2:1 height to diameter aspect ratio for use in a variety of mechanical property testing (e.g. compressive strength, elastic modulus, tensile strength). This practice is intended for chemically stabilized soil materials (e.g. soil-cement). This standard practice can be performed in a laboratory, or at a construction site and produce directly comparable properties 1.2. The values stated in SI unites are to be regarded as the standard. 2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS 2.1. AASHTO Standards: M 92, Wire-Cloth Sieves for Testing Purposes M 205, Molds for Forming Concrete Test Cylinders Vertically T 99, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 2.5-kg (5.5-lb) Rammer and a 305-mm (12-in.) Drop T 134, Moisture-Density Relations of Soil-Cement Mixtures T 180, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 4.54-kg (10-lb) Rammer and a 457-mm (18-in.) Drop 3. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE 3.1. This standard practice provides procedures to compact chemically stabilized soil materials into plastic cylinder molds for the purpose of fabricating a test specimen with a height to diameter aspect ratio of approximately 2:1. Methods of compaction are designed to achieve a target specimen density which is typically determined using T Practical uses for this practice include utilizing the PM Device to produce laboratory test specimens for design purposes and utilizing the same method of specimen compaction during construction operations as part of a quality control program This standard practice is limited to chemically stabilized soil materials where approximately 90 percent passes the 4.75-mm (. 4) sieve and 100% passes the 9.5 mm sieve. Soils meeting AASHTO M 145 designation A-2-4 are ideally suited for this method. TS-1b PP xxx-1 AASHTO Page 28 of 43

29 ATTACHMENT G 4. APPARATUS 4.1. Plastic Mold Device Assembly (Split-Mold, Collar, and Base Plate) The PM Device shall be made of solid metal and manufactured with dimensions and capacities shown in Annex A. The PM Device shall have a collar approximately 50.8-mm (2.000-in.) in height to permit preparation of specimens of the desired height and volume. The split-mold component shall be constructed so that it can be fastened firmly to the base plate during operation. Figure 1 shows photos of a manufactured PM Device Figure 1. PM Device 4.2. Rammer A manual, metal rammer conforming to criteria specified in T Cylindrical Plastic Mold (Mold, Plastic Lid, and Plastic Plug) 76.2-mm (3.000-in.) diameter by mm (6.000-in.) tall plastic cylinder mold conforming to M 205. The bottom of the standard plastic mold is sanded smooth and a hole cut in the center to aid specimen extraction. Plastic plug from cutting process is retained for plastic mold assembly. The plastic lid is used to cover the top surface of the specimen after compaction. Photographs of the cylindrical plastic mold can be seen in Figure 2. Figure 2. Plastic Mold (Bottom View) with Aluminum plate (Section 4.4) 4.4. Aluminum Plate A 75.8-mm (2.984-in.) diameter aluminum plate with a thickness of 1.59-mm (1/16 th -in.). The diameter of the aluminum plate corresponds to the inside diameter at the bottom of the plastic mold, and the plate is utilized for the plastic mold assembly. TS-1b PP xxx-2 AASHTO Page 29 of 43