AASHTO/NTPEP 2012 ANNUAL MEETING Reinforcing Steel (REBAR) Technical Committee Agenda

Transcription

1 AASHTO/NTPEP 2012 ANNUAL MEETING Reinforcing Steel (REBAR) Technical Committee Agenda Wednesday, May 2, 2012 (3:15pm-5:15pm) Indianapolis, Indiana Committee Members: Merrill Zwanka (SC) - Chair Ed Hughes (IL) Vice Chair Mike San Angelo (AK) Kenny Anderson (IN) Ross Mills (KY) Kenny Seward (OK) Trevor Booker (KY) Leo Martinez (CA) Celina Sumrall (MS) Joseph Putherickal (IA) David Meggers (KS) Michael Rafalowski (FHWA) Neal Anderson (CRSI) Industry Member Katheryn Malusky (AASHTO) Robert Sarcinella (AASHTO) Liaison Old Business: 1. ACTION ITEM: Add automatic failure notification for TC, manufacturer, and DOT s Auto Notification for failures still under consideration but nothing yet. 2. ACTION ITEM: Need for a list of NTPEP recognizing states List of State DOT s using REBAR Program is on website and updated. 3. ACTION ITEM: NTPEP presentation at 2011 SOM meeting to market the program NTPEP presentation at 2011 SOM meeting was performed by Tom Baker 4. Status update on ability for states to share testing information performed by a DOT A way to note failures found in testing by DOT s is there and needs marketing. 5. Reinforcing Steel workplan ballot summary/status Work Plan (Standard Practice) is done and posted. 6. Welded wire fabric Draft letter to manufacturers Draft letter to WWR Manufacturers: ILDOT letter is out for delivery, TxDOT letter going in June 7. Possible survey of NTPEP voting members about additional products for audit program Holding on survey for new materials for now New Business: 1. Audit Update AASHTO Kathy gave a presentation on the status of program. 2. Status of Illinois DOT comparison testing Ed Hughes Ed gave 2 presentations 3. Industry Update CRSI CRSI Neil Anderson gave an update on industry actions (Workshop on sampling and audit stuff. Update on ASTM actions) 4. Update on WWR Sampling exercise with Illinois DOT, NTPEP, and Insteel See #2 above National Transportation Product Evaluation Program 2012 Indianapolis, Indiana

2 AASHTO/NTPEP 2012 ANNUAL MEETING Reinforcing Steel (REBAR) Technical Committee Agenda Wednesday, May 2, 2012 (3:15pm-5:15pm) Indianapolis, Indiana 5. Sampling video Ed/Neal Not presented 6. Discussion on yield testing for wire and WWR during audits need for witnessing Sarc polled the DOT s who were present regarding need for Yield results on MTR s and all agreed. 7. Update to AASHTO R53 more generic audit standard and not just rebar Robert Sarcinella Proposal to make one Master Document for audits and smaller (Technical) Work Plans Other Business: None National Transportation Product Evaluation Program 2012 Indianapolis, Indiana

3

4

5 Reinforcing Steel Independent Laboratory Testing Springfield, IL

6

7

8 Overview: 2011 = 32 Audits 1 Mill had to retest 1 Mill had equipment problems Several problems with WT/FT Average 12.8 days to receive Average 12.7 days to test

9

10

11 Overview: 2012 = 5 Audits So far mill results look good.

12

13

14

15 QUESTIONS?

16 AASHTO s 2012 Annual NTPEP Meeting Reinforcing Steel Technical Committee Meeting Indianapolis, Indiana Wednesday May 2, 2012 Katheryn Malusky NTPEP Project Engineer

17 NTPEP Audit Program Statistics for Reinforcing Steel (2011) Program Participation AASHTO Member Departments Industry Feedback from Audience Current Sampling Procedures Program Information Feedback from Industry

18 2011 Tour 30 Audits completed for rebar Zero audits completed for WWR Number of Split Sample Failures: 3 AASHTO member departments who attended an audit(s): AL IL NJ OK SC TX

19 States utilizing data from NTPEP audits (17): (results from survey completed in Fall 2011) AK IL MO OR WA AL KS MT RI CO LA NH SC DC MA OK TX States moving toward utilizing data from NTPEP audits (14): CT KY NE VA IA ME NJ VT ID MS TN IN NC UT ** NJ attended an on-site audit in 2011 **

20 Manufacturer Participation for Manufacturers are participating in the 2012 Audit Tour (32 facilities) for Rebar: Gerdau Steel Nucor Steel Mid-American Steel CMC Steel ArcelorMittal Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel Cascade Steel Rolling Mills Keystone Steel & Wire Alton Steel Steel Dynamics 2 Manufacturers are participating in the 2012 Audit Tour (2 facilities) for WWR: Mid-American Steel Nucor Steel- Wallingford, CT

21 Current Sampling Procedure for Rebar and WWR SECTION 9: ANNUAL PRODUCT CONFORMANCE TESTING THE NTPEP PROGRAM REQUIRES THAT PRODUCT SAMPLES BE TESTED TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROPRIATE AASHTO/ASTM MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS. THE NTPEP AUDITOR WILL SELECT THREE SETS OF SAMPLES (REF.: SECTION 9) DURING EACH ANNUAL MANUFACTURER AUDIT (ONE SET TO BE TESTED BY THE MANUFACTURER, ONE SET TO BE TESTED BY THE NTPEP DESIGNATED LABORATORY, AND ONE FOR RETESTING AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 8.7). ALL SAMPLES WILL BE FROM THE SAME HEAT/LOT OF MATERIAL. MANUFACTURER SAMPLES: Reinforcing Bars or Wire Samples: At a minimum, a total of 30 bars (or wires), 3 from 10 separate heats (or lots) spanning the sizes produced. Welded Wire Reinforcement Samples: At a minimum, 10 full-width sheet sections from 10 separate lots spanning the sizes produced (Ref.: Appendix X3). The Manufacturer will report the results from their testing using the standard format provided by NTPEP within 15 calendar days of testing. NTPEP DESIGNATED LABORATORY SAMPLES: The NTPEP Auditor will instruct the Manufacturer on the proper labeling of the companion samples. These samples will be located adjacent to the previous (Manufacturer) samples and from the same heats/lots and in the same quantities listed in 8.3. Manufacturer Samples. The Manufacturer will send (freight paid by the Manufacturer) the companion samples to the NTPEP designated laboratory for testing (Ref.: Section 9).

22 Program Information Current work plan (balloted in November 2011 and approved in January 2012) and audit worksheets can be found on the NTPEP website,

23

24

25 REMINDER: After you have received an notifying you your Audit Report is available on the NTPEP DataMine website, please remember to log onto the NTPEP DataMine website to access your invoice (from the My DataMine screen) and submit payment.

26 Feedback from Industry I started regularly attending ASTM meetings in At that time the program was beginning the final stages of completion. I remember the main justification for the program was the reduction in individual states auditing the plants and requiring their own samples. This has never materialized at Nucor Auburn. We continue to test and supply samples to many states with few exceptions. In our current home northeastern market nothing has changed. The cost of the audit is excessive compared to ISO 9001 audits. Our last 4 day ISO audit including auditor expenses was $6, Can the audit process be updated so a facility with a current ISO 9001 registration submit their registration certificate to you and eliminate the actual field audit? This type of process is standard in all types of commercial manufacturing in the world today.

27 The sampling of finished product or comparison testing currently required has questionable merits. A better method of evaluating a labs performance could be utilizing the CCRL rebar testing proficiency program administered by ASTM. This would give be a better evaluation on the mills ability to provide accurate results. The sampling is excessive, collecting and sending 60 samples a year is too much and too frequent. When are all the states going to accept the program? We still provide samples to New York twice a year and West Virginia when they ask. We also submit letters to Georgia and Mississippi. The point of the participation was to eliminate the need for all the rest of the states to continue to audit, and sample.

28 From my perspective, the program has not provided enough additional benefit yet to outweigh the costs and time. If you want a truly valuable program all the states need to buy in and the sampling requirements and audit costs need to be reduced. The states that are not participating need to be asked why not and their concerns addressed. Perhaps a joint State DOT/ producer task force would be a good idea to help shape the program into something of true value. My basic concern is that the movement to have all the DOT s accept the NTPEP audit and results seems to have stalled. We continue to have several DOTs that either come in to audit or request comparative sampling. Unless this program is endorsed by all the states, it simply becomes an extra expense and effort. At one time it was stated if the company was ISO registered, then the NTPEP audit would not be required and only comparative testing.

29 Reinforcing Steel Technical Committee Chairman: Merrill Zwanka SC DOT Phone: Reinforcing Steel Technical Committee Vice-Chairman: Ed Hughes IL DOT Phone: Reinforcing Technical Committee Industry Representative: Neil Anderson CRSI Phone: Reinforcing Steel Technical Committee AASHTO Liaison: Katheryn Malusky AASHTO Phone:

30 NTPEP Reinforcing Bar / WWR Sampling Guidelines

31 8.3 MANUFACTURER SAMPLES: Reinforcing Bars or Wire Samples: At a minimum, a total of 30 bars (or wires), 3 from 10 separate heats (or lots) spanning the sizes produced Welded Wire Reinforcement Samples: At a minimum, 10 fullwidth sheet sections from 10 separate lots spanning the sizes produced (Ref.: Appendix X3) The Manufacturer will report the results from their testing using the standard format provided by NTPEP within 15 calendar days of testing. 8.4 NTPEP DESIGNATED LABORATORY SAMPLES: The NTPEP Auditor will instruct the Manufacturer on the proper labeling of the companion samples. These samples will be located adjacent to the previous (Manufacturer) samples and from the same heats/lots and in the same quantities listed in 8.3. Manufacturer Samples. The Manufacturer will send (freight paid by the Manufacturer) the companion samples to the NTPEP designated laboratory for testing (Ref.: Section 9).

32 8.3.1 Reinforcing Bars or Wire Samples: At a minimum, a total of 30 bars (or wires), 3 from 10 separate heats (or lots) spanning the sizes produced. 1. Sample break down per heat 3 bars per heat 4 samples for producing mill o One physical property sample per bar o One bend sample per heat 6 samples for NTPEP Independent Lab o Two samples per bar Mill test report (certification) Note 1: Total number of samples per heat = Repeat for remaining 9 heats Note 2: Total number of samples per audit = 100

33

34

35 Samples can be taken from production line or stock material.

36

37 8.4 NTPEP DESIGNATED LABORATORY SAMPLES: The NTPEP Auditor will instruct the Manufacturer on the proper labeling of the companion samples. These samples will be located adjacent to the previous (Manufacturer) samples and from the same heats/lots and in the same quantities listed in 8.3. Manufacturer Samples. The Manufacturer will send (freight paid by the Manufacturer) the companion samples to the NTPEP designated laboratory for testing (Ref.: Section 9).

38 Heat 1 Bars 1, 2 & 3 Sister Samples 1 1B 2 2B 3 3B Mill Samples Bend Sample For Heat 1

39 Heat 2 Bars 4, 5 & 6 Sister Samples 4 4B 5 5B 6 6B Mill Samples Bend Sample For Heat 2

40 Heat 3 Bars 7, 8 & 9 Sister Samples 7 7B 8 8B 9 9B Mill Samples Bend Sample For Heat 3

41 Heat 4 Bars 10, 11 & 12 Sister Samples 10 10B 11 11B 12 12B Mill Samples Bend Sample For Heat 4

42 Heat 5 Bars 13, 14 & 15 Sister Samples 13 13B 14 14B 15 15B Mill Samples Bend Sample For Heat 5

43 Heat 6 Bars 16, 17 & 18 Sister Samples 16 16B 17 17B 18 18B Mill Samples Bend Sample For Heat 6

44 Heat 7 Bars 19, 20 & 21 Sister Samples 19 19B 20 20B 21 21B Mill Samples Bend Sample For Heat 7

45 Heat 8 Bars 22, 23 & 24 Sister Samples 22 22B 23 23B 24 24B Mill Samples Bend Sample For Heat 8

46 Heat 9 Bars 25, 26 & 27 Sister Samples 25 25B 26 26B 27 27B Mill Samples Bend Sample For Heat 9

47 Heat 10 Bars 28, 29 & 30 Sister Samples 28 28B 29 29B 30 30B Mill Samples Bend Sample For Heat 10

48

49

50 WWR

51 8.3 MANUFACTURER SAMPLES: Welded Wire Reinforcement Samples: At a minimum, 10 fullwidth sheet sections from 10 separate lots spanning the sizes produced (Ref.: Appendix X3) The Manufacturer will report the results from their testing using the standard format provided by NTPEP within 15 calendar days of testing. 8.4 NTPEP DESIGNATED LABORATORY SAMPLES: The NTPEP Auditor will instruct the Manufacturer on the proper labeling of the companion samples. These samples will be located adjacent to the previous (Manufacturer) samples and from the same heats/lots and in the same quantities listed in 8.3. Manufacturer Samples. The Manufacturer will send (freight paid by the Manufacturer) the companion samples to the NTPEP designated laboratory for testing (Ref.: Section 9).

52 8.3 MANUFACTURER SAMPLES: Welded Wire Reinforcement Samples: At a minimum, 10 full-width sheet sections from 10 separate lots spanning the sizes produced. For rolls, sample full width by minimum 25 transverse lines. (Ref.: Appendix X3). 1. Sample break down per tag\lot\heat 1 sheet per tag\lot\heat 16 samples for producing mill o 4WS 4LT 2TT 6 Bend 32 samples for NTPEP Independent Lab o 4WS 4LT 2TT 6 WT/FT deformed o 4WS 4LT 2TT 6 WT/FT (Backup) Mill test report (certification) Note 1: Total number of samples per tag/lot/heat = 36 for smooth wire or 48 for deformed Note 2: Save remaining sheet for mill back samples 2. Repeat for remaining 9 tag/lot/heats Note 4: Total number of samples per audit = 480 * DO NOT sample from outside wire for longitudinal specimens.

53 Samples can be taken from production line or stock material.

54

55 Sample 1 Tag # 12345

56 8.4 NTPEP DESIGNATED LABORATORY SAMPLES: The NTPEP Auditor will instruct the Manufacturer on the proper labeling of the companion samples. These samples will be located adjacent to the previous (Manufacturer) samples and from the same heats/lots and in the same quantities listed in 8.3. Manufacturer Samples. The Manufacturer will send (freight paid by the Manufacturer) the companion samples to the NTPEP designated laboratory for testing (Ref.: Section 9).

57 Figure 1: WWR Sampling Diagram L1 L2 L3 L4 NTPEP designated sampling continues longitudinally from this point. Samples cut at manufacturer and sent to NTPEP designated lab. Note 1: For smooth WWR bends are performed only by the manufacturer. L1* L2* L3* L4* Weld Shear Longitudinal Tensile Transverse Tensile Longitudinal Bend/Wt. Ft. Transverse Bend/Wt. Ft (deformed) Note 2: Dashed lines are for backup samples for independent laboratory.

58 Questions?