Details of Minutes

Mar 07, 2007: MCC Meeting

MCC Minutes March 7-8, 2007 Dayton, Ohio

March 7, 2007 MCC BUSINESS MEETING The business meeting was opened by Chairman John Staton at 8 am on March 7, 2007. The first order of business was the review of the proposed pooled fund study to development of a Technology Transfer Concrete Consortium (TTCC) to identify, advise, fund and direct research and technology transfer for concrete. It is expected to take the MCC ideas to a new level and will operate in cooperation with the MCC group in the short run. The goals of the project are as follows: " Identify needed research projects " Develop pooled fund initiatives " Provide a forum for technology exchange between participants " Develop and fund technology transfer materials " Provide on-going communication of research needs faced by state agencies to the FHWA, industry and the CP Tech Center " Provide guidance as part of the Track Team for the CP Road Map Mix Design and Analysis Track " Provide assistance as requested by the CP Road Map Executive Committee on other select tracks as needed

The fund is for five years in duration and requests $5,000 per year for one person or $7,000 per year for two persons to attend the meetings of the pooled fund. The team is looking for 12 states to participate at a minimum and can see the potential for 20 states in this activity.

The pooled fund has been submitted to the FHWA for approval and opportunity for funding by the states. States in the MCC group are urged to request approval from their DOTs soon to allow this work to begin to function as soon as the October 2007. The request is currently open to comment on the content and title. The activity is to be managed by Tom Cackler and Jim Grove of the PC Tech Center.

A copy of the draft pooled fund request to FHWA is shown below:

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CONCRETE CONSORTIUM

Pooled Fund Project

Problem Statement February 12, 2007

PROJECT TITLE

Establishment of a Technology Transfer Concrete Consortium (TTCC) to identify, advise, fund and direct research and technology transfer for concrete.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Increasingly, state departments of transportation (DOTs) are challenged to design and build longer life concrete pavements that result in a higher level of user satisfaction for the public. One of the strategies for achieving longer life pavements is to use innovative materials and construction optimization technologies and practices. In order to foster new technologies and practices, experts from state DOTs, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), academia and industry must collaborate to identify and examine new concrete pavement research initiatives. The purpose of this pooled fund project is to identify, support, facilitate and fund concrete research and technology transfer initiatives.

The Iowa DOT will serve as the lead state for the execution of the pooled fund project described in this proposal. The Iowa DOT, through the National Concrete Pavement Technology Center (CP Tech Center) at Iowa State University, will handle all administrative duties associated with the project. The CP Tech Center will also serve as the lead research institution for the project.

PROJECT GOALS

The goal of the TTCC is to: " Identify needed research projects " Develop pooled fund initiatives " Provide a forum for technology exchange between participants " Develop and fund technology transfer materials " Provide on-going communication of research needs faced by state agencies to the FHWA, industry, and CP Tech Center " Provide guidance as part of the Track Team for the CP Road Map Mix Design and Analysis Track " Provide assistance as requested by the CP Road Map Executive Committee on other select tracks as needed

It is anticipated that this consortium would become the national forum for state involvement in the technical exchange needed for collaboration and new initiatives, and be part of the CP Road Map Mix Design and Analysis Track team.

(For information on the CP Road Map: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/pccp/pubs/05047/ ) BACKGROUND

The Materials and Construction Optimization (MCO) pooled fund project (TPF-5(066)) is developing optimal mix design and test methods for monitoring key performance parameters and has conducted demonstration tests in participating states. The technical advisory group (one member from each of the 16 participating states, plus representatives from the funding sponsors) from this pooled fund project meet twice a year to review the research results and provide oversight to the project.

In the past four years, the MCO TAC participants have coordinated their meetings with the Midwest Concrete Consortium (MCC) in order to participate in the technical exchange of concrete pavement expertise and information on research, innovations, problems and solutions. This exchange has coalesced into a diverse consortium of concrete pavement experts from state DOTs, FHWA, academia, and industry that have shared and evaluated the research results from the successful MCO research project and other ongoing research projects.

For information on the MCO project visit the project website: http://www.cptechcenter.org/mco/ For information on the MCC visit the consortium website: http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/mcc/

The MCO pooled fund project is now nearing completion and there are still many issues that need the attention of this consortium of experts. The success this group has experienced has led the participants to conclude that this new pooled fund is needed in order to continue the collaborative efforts that the MCO/MCC shared structure facilitated.

RESEARCH PLAN AND DELIVERABLES (PROJECT DESCRIPTION)

The proposed project is for the establishment of a pooled fund for state representatives to continue this collaborative effort. The TTCC will be open to any state desiring to be a part of new developments in concrete paving leading to the implementation of new technologies which will lead to longer life pavements through the use of the innovative testing, construction optimization technologies and practices, and technology transfer.

It is envisioned this partnership will be part of the Track Team for the CP Road Map Mix Design and Analysis Track. The Track Team will include state representatives along with FHWA representatives, industry representatives (from ACPA, ACPA chapters, and material suppliers), consultants, and academic representatives. This pooled fund will be the opportunity for all states interested in the Mix Design and Analysis Track to become part of that endeavor.

TTCC will begin by meeting in conjunction with MCC, twice a year, as the MCO has done in the past. It may be advantageous for MCC in the future to consider melding itself into, and becoming part of the TTCC.

All efforts by the TTCC will be focused towards these project activities and deliverables:

" Identify and direct the development and funding of technology transfer materials such as tech brief summaries and training materials from research results " Review the CP Road Map initiatives and provide feedback to the FHWA, industry, and the CP Tech Center on those initiatives " Be part of the Track Team for the CP Road Map Mix Design and Analysis Track providing guidance to coordinating activities with the track. " Provide research ideas to funding agencies " Identify and instigate needed research projects " Include current activities and deliverables of the pooled fund on the CP Road Map project website " Maintain pooled fund project website with current activities and deliverables " Develop pooled fund research projects for solutions to concrete and concrete pavement issues " Act as a technology exchange forum for the participating entities " Contribute to a technology transfer newsletter on concrete pavement research activities every six months in cooperation with the CP Road Map activities " Publish electronic quarterly reports following lead state guidelines " Post quarterly reports to the website " Submit a final report to participants that documents the results of the entire project EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

An Executive Committee will be formed from the TTCC to review and approve the pooled fund activities and budget. The Executive Committee will meet at a schedule to be determined by the Executive Committee via conference calls.

RESEARCH TEAM

The project managers for the TTCC will be the CP Tech Center; lead by Tom Cackler and Jim Grove.

E. Thomas Cackler, P.E. Mr. Cackler has nearly 20 years of senior management and administration experience, including Chief Engineer of the Iowa DOT and director of the National Concrete Pavement Technology Center. As director of the National Center, Mr. Cackler has been instrumental in identifying and developing key research and technology partnerships to advance promising research ideas to acceptance and practice. Mr. Cackler is responsible for the overall management of the Center, including administration of the center and development of an annual research and technology transfer program. This involves working interactively with private and public sector stakeholders to identify needs, secure funding partners, and ensure implement able results.

Jim Grove, P.E. Mr. Grove is PCC paving engineer at the National Center and leads the Material and Construction Optimization for Prevention of Premature PCC Pavement Distress pooled fund study. In addition, he manages research involving all aspects of PCC paving, provides technical assistance to those involved in the PCC paving industry, and conducts and participates in training, workshops, and technology transfer.

Facilities This project will be conducted through the CP Tech Center. The CP Tech Center works with partners to improve pavement design, mix and materials, construction, and maintenance to produce durable, cost-effective concrete pavements. The CP Tech Centers main offices are located at the Center for Transportation Research and Education in the Iowa State University Research Park, roughly three miles from both the ISU campus and the Iowa DOTs headquarters in Ames, Iowa.

ESTIMATED PROJECT DURATION

The pooled fund project duration is for five years.

BUDGET AND SPONSORSHIP

Proposed Project Funding

The total project budget is estimated at $300,000 over five years.

Sponsorship Goals

State DOTs (minimum of 12 states @ $5,000 per state each of five years) = $300,000

Summary of Requirements for Project Sponsors

" Financial support " Meeting participation twice a year for 1-2 participants from each state (TTCC sponsorship would cover cost for 1 participants attendance. A state may participate at a $7000 per year level if they desire to have two representatives funded to attend the semi-annual meetings.) " Active collaboration with each other and principal investigators to identify, instigate, develop, direct, and author tech transfer materials and research initiatives " Championing, within their state, the deliverables from the pooled fund, such as technical material to key staff, and facilitate implementation of new technologies and practices. TTCC members would also act as a contact person for researchers when their state participates in concrete pavement research within their state.

PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

The Iowa DOT, through the CP Tech Center at Iowa State University, will serve as the lead state and handle administrative duties for the project. Each participating entity may provide 1-2 individual(s) to provide direction to the project.

CONTACT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

Lead State Contact CP Tech Center Contact Technical Contact Mr. Tom Cackler, PE Mr. Todd Hanson Director, CP Tech Center Iowa Department of Transportation Iowa State University 800 Lincoln Way 2711 S. Loop Drive, Ste 3700 Ames, IA 50010 Ames, IA 50010 Phone: 515-239-1226 Phone: 515-294-3230 Todd.hanson@dot.iowa.gov tcackler@iastate.edu

Administrative Contact Ms. Sandra Larson Iowa Department of Transportation 800 Lincoln Way Ames, IA 50010 Phone: 515-239-1646 Sandra.larson@dot.iowa.gov

Elections were held to fill positions on the MCC executive board for the contractor, supplier and one at large positions. After some discussion the following persons were elected to serve a two year term: " Contractor member Dan Degraaf " Supplier member Phil Graham " At large member Doug Schwartz

Themes, Topics, Locations and Themes for Future meetings of MCC Listed below are items that have been previously identified by the members of MCC for consideration in meeting planning. Chairman Staton asked that the membership review the items on the list and use three votes to determine the ranking of topics and themes for the upcoming meetings. Voters could also add topics or themes. Voting was conducted during the morning breaks. MCC Business Considerations 3/7/07

MCC Theme Ideas From 4/21/05 1. Deicing salts, methods and materials 2. Field Tests for predicting pavement performance at construction 3. Bridge Deck Shrinkage Cracking 4. Corrosion Prevention 5. Specifications changes for innovation and/or competition 6. Performance specifications (incentives) 7. How good is good enough in pavement performance (ride, durability, strength, etc) 8. Concrete overlays 9. Implementation of the ME Design guide in concrete pavements MCC Theme Ideas From 4/7/03 (decreasing priority order highest to lowest) 1. Durability prediction 2. Supplemental cementitious materials (use and restrictions) 3. Profile (equipment, methods and analysis) 4. Cement and Admixture characterization 5. Subbase samples (depth and gradation) 6. In place air void parameters 7. Surface texture (when, where, how direction) 8. Mix gradations vs air matrix 9. Curing materials and techniques 10. Self consolidating concrete 11. Dowell bar materials and shape considerations (steel, frp, clad, filled) 12. Construction barriers to QC/QA 13. Warranties 14. Stringless paving 15. Joint spacing (depth and width) 16. Contractor participation in MCC 17. PRS implementation 18. Matching concrete pavement design depth and details to anticipated traffic level and mix

Potential Subcommittee topics (4/21/07) 1. Concrete education and technology transfer 2. Incentive guide specifications 3. Performance critical measures 4. Innovative jointing 5. Min Road advisory group

MCC potential meeting sites (considered for spring 06) 1. Minn. Road Matt Zeller 2. St. Louis Jim Posadny 3. Sioux Falls, South Dakota 4. Nebraska 5. Olympia fields

Items listed below are shown in rank order from highest to least important with the number of votes shown behind the item or theme.

MCC Theme Ideas From 3/7/07 in decreasing order of importance from voting (vote number) 1. Mix gradations vs air matrix (12) 2. How good is good enough in pavement performance (ride, durability, strength, etc) (12) 3. Performance specifications (incentives) (9) 4. Durability testing (7) 5. Cement and Admixture characterization (6) 6. In place air void parameters (6) 7. Curing materials and techniques (6) 8. Concrete overlays (5) 9. Supplemental cementitious materials (use and restrictions) (4) 10. Construction barriers to QC/QA (4) 11. Stringless paving (3) 12. Quick Opening Concrete Pavement Repairs (3) 13. PRS implementation (3) 14. Bridge Deck Shrinkage Cracking (3)

Items receiving no votes, but being retained for future discussion 1. Deicing salts, methods and materials effects on pavement performance 2. Corrosion Prevention 3. Specifications changes for innovation and/or competition 4. Implementation of the ME Design guide in concrete pavements 5. Subbase samples (depth and gradation) 6. Self consolidating concrete 7. Joint spacing (depth and width) 8. Contractor participation in MCC 9. Matching concrete pavement design depth and details to anticipated traffic level and mix

The following topics were covered in previous meetings and were removed from consideration in this voting. 1. Field Tests for predicting pavement performance at construction 2. Durability prediction 3. Profile (equipment, methods and analysis) 4. Surface texture (when, where, how direction) 5. Warranties

Potential Subcommittee topics (3/7/07) to be considered by the executive committee for further work by MCC groups. 1. Concrete education and technology transfer 2. Incentive guide specifications 3. Performance critical measures 4. Innovative jointing 5. Min Road advisory group

MCC Suggested meeting sites as of 3/7/07 1. Des Moines, Iowa Final MCO meeting 9/25/07 2. St. Louis Jim Posadny Spring 2008 (tentative) 3. Minn. Road Matt Zeller Fall 2008 (tentative) 4. Nebraska Lincoln Spring 2009 (tentative) 5. Sioux Falls, South Dakota Fall 2009 (tentative) 6. St. Genevive Mo Holcim Plant

The Executive Board will begin to develop agendas for the items shown above and the themes. Members are encouraged to contact the executive board members or Jim Cable with ideas for any of the themes.

IMCP MANUAL REVIEW

The Integrated Materials and Construction Practices for Concrete Pavement (IMCP) manual was introduced by Dale Harrington. He gave a brief history of the need for the manual, its authors and the development of the training program that is now underway. Copies of the manual were distributed to all MCO and MCC members. Others can obtain copies of the manual through their state ACPA chapter office or the PC Tech Center at ISU. Some 5,000 have been distributed thus far.

Marcia Brink described the manual layout and the flow of the topics in the manual. Some 200 persons were trained in Missouri/Kansas in one day. The Michigan chapter is using the manual as part of a concrete certification program. Missouri has put this on the server at Rolla for use by the students in concrete classes and research. Plans are under consideration for a followup video and DVD of the training by the PC Tech Center staff, if funding allows. It was suggested that ISU consider a train the trainer course for use of the manual and/or interactive DVD. MCC members were urged to contact Dale Harrington with training needs. Kevin McMullen needs some of the training for Michigan.

An overview of the manual and training program began with chapters 1&2 and Mike Ayers. These chapters deal with aggregates, reinforcement and curing materials. They stress definitions and understanding of the materials. Each of the training periods is closed with a question/answer session.

Peter Taylor discussed the Concrete Properties chapter. He emphasized the format of first defining the properties, discussing the methods and tests for each property, the effect on performance and solutions to problems involving each property. The section involves both fresh and hardened concrete properties.

The hydration chart, included in the manual, was described in detail by Dale Harrington. This is one of the key portions of the manual and describes the activities that take place during hydration. Chemistry, time and impacts of changes that take place are discussed.

Peter Taylor discussed the impacts of incompatibility due to changes in materials, supplemental materials, admixtures and system demands for rapid construction and reduced construction time. This section describes the impact of each on the mix, workability and performance. It also describes the test equipment needed to guard against unwanted consequences in any of the individual areas or combinations. The chapter stresses planning and trial mixes prior to construction to anticipate changes and prevent downtime on the project. Remember that cement is not uniform, changes daily and should also be tested daily.

The causes of early age cracking were described by Dale Harrington. He noted the variety of temperature, construction and moisture causes of such distress. The manual contains a list of 13 tips to reduce the chances for early age cracking.

Mike Ayers described the Construction chapter materials. This chapter deals with the relationships between the materials, equipment, weather and methods of placement. It stresses uniformity in operations and how to adjust for changes in any part of the work. It speaks to equipment setup, reinforcement placement, surface texture and curing, sawing window and sealing advice. The use of HIPERPAVE is also described to aid the contractor.

The importance of QA/QC was included in the manual and described by Mike Ayers. It refers to an NCHRP study on the topic. Topics in this section include a discussion of Performance Based Specifications (PRS), testing precision and bias, and variability. The manual stresses the use of contractor control charts and construction monitoring by the contractor and agency, and testing methods and guides.

Peter Taylor and Mike Ayers have developed some case studies for the end of the training sessions that use the materials in the manual to solve real world problems. Two such projects were discussed in this session.

MIX DESIGN AND ANALYSIS TRACK

The purpose of this discussion was to encourage the involvement of the MCC group members in leading the research in the Mix Design and Analysis Track of the PCC Roadmap. John Staton introduced the topic and the opportunity for those present to participate in this work, due to our history with the topic and knowledge within the group in this area.

Dale Harrington provide a handout that included the materials to be discussed, the results of a 2006 Strategic Forum and information on four proposed research topics in this track. He explained the cover design that relates the mix design and analysis to mix verification, construction, mix adjustment and quality control, long term monitoring and analysis, to mix and materials lab work.

Ted Ferragut explained the program and the need for support by the MCC group. The plan calls for a budget in the $500 to $1000 K range and a financing method of some type. The objectives of this work include: " Development of a concrete lab of the future " Development of tools to predict compatibility and effectiveness of concrete mixes and field conditions " Detection of construction problems and correction on the fly through quality control. " Detection of long-term durability problems during mix design and quality control programs. " Improve the ability to predict mix properties and their relationship to performance through modeling techniques. " Identification and use of innovative, nontraditional materials to accelerate construction, maintenance, and rehab or extend pavement life at a fail cost.

Six projects were described to carry out this track. They include the following: " Design and Control of Concrete Pavement Mixture Manual (Lead by ACPA and PCA " Mixture Testing and Analysis Manual (Lead by DOTs) " Emerging Laboratory Equipment Development (Lead by all three groups) " Analysis Software (Lead by FHWA) " Field Evaluation, coordination, training and outreach " Framework for Mix Design System and Integration

The benefits of this work are identified as: enhancement of the state of the art, consensus manual, universal testing manual, training aids for states and industry, clarification of roles and responsibilities in the move to more contractor control of projects. Details of each project are shown in the handout materials.

Management of the track is envisioned to include an executive group of 4-6 persons (FHWA, DOTs and Industry) at this time with an advisory group to oversee the research. A representative from NC and Doug Schwartz have been identified for this group already, if this method is selected.

A discussion of the projects and ideas for management followed. There were many questions on the intent of each manual and the relationship to each existing PCA and ACI existing manuals. The leadership was encouraged to reduce duplication and review the need for two vs one additional manual in this case. The participants also noted the need to evaluate all new testing methods that can be identified at this time and not just two existing ones.

Ted and Dale were asked to flush out the budget and a potential funding plan prior to any decisions on this project by those present.

Maurico Ruiz described the current status of the development of COMPASS. This software is designed to provide computer based guidelines for job specific optimization of concrete paving. It is a form of an expert system that brings together structural design, environment, construction, available materials and mix design materials. Maurico walked through the program as it exists and illustrated its capabilities and relationship to the new AASHTO Design procedures. The program is designed to aid construction personnel and agency personnel.

The meeting adjourned for the day at 4 pm.

March 8, 2007 Meeting resumed at 8:00 a.m.

MIX DESIGN AND ANALYSIS TRACK (Continued)

Leif Wathne resumed the discussion of the mix design and analysis track project with a draft outline of the first proposed manual in this study. He emphasized that the CP Tech Center would be coordinating all of the tracks to deter from duplication of effort. This manual is needed due to the shift in expertise away from the agencies and to the contractor; the move to performance specifications, and the need for pavement tools for both parties. The object of this manual is to help the agency and contractor match the materials and mix design to the required highway pavement performance specifications. It would be modeled after the PCA EB-001 document and be done with the cooperation of the FHWA/PCA/NRMCA. The estimated cost is $300-500K over 2-3 years. It would be consensus driven with advice from Academia, ACPA, FHWA, state DOTs, COE and FAA. The product is a manual and/or software. He solicited comments and interjected them in the draft outline that is shown below:

Design and Proportioning of Concrete Paving Mixtures DRAFT OUTLINE (30807)

1. Concrete Pavements Overview 1.1. History 1.2. Fundamentals 1.2.1. plastic properties 1.2.1.1. workability/placeability 1.2.2. hardened properties 1.2.2.1. durability 1.2.2.2. smoothness 1.3. Types, uses and applications 1.3.1. Accelerated/repair 1.4. Benefits and strengths 1.5. Consideration particular to paving concrete

2. Materials 2.1. Cementitious 2.1.1. Cement 2.1.1.1. Portland 2.1.1.2. Blended 2.1.2. Slag 2.1.3. Fly-Ash 2.1.4. Others 2.2. Aggregates 2.2.1. Role 2.2.2. Properties (bulk SG, absorption, angularity, etc.) 2.2.3. Durability issues 2.2.4. Thermal Coefficient 2.2.5. Gradations/packing/combined 2.2.5.1. Coarse aggregates 2.2.5.1.1. Max Agg Size 2.2.5.2. Fine aggregates 2.2.6. Recycled aggregates

2.3. Mixing water 2.3.1. Sources 2.3.2. Contaminants 2.4. Admixtures 2.4.1. Air entraining admixtures 2.4.2. Water reducers 2.4.3. Accelerators and retarders 2.4.4. others/fiber

2.5. Designing concrete mixtures 2.5.1. Establishing desired requirements 2.5.1.1. Design considerations 2.5.1.2. Availability of materials 2.5.1.3. Sustainability issues 2.5.2. Hardened concrete requirements 2.5.2.1. Strength 2.5.2.2. Durability 2.5.2.3. Density/permeability 2.5.2.4. Smoothness 2.5.2.5. Cracking limits 2.5.2.6. Shrinkage limits 2.5.2.7. CTE 2.5.3. Plastic concrete requirements 2.5.3.1. Workability 2.5.3.2. Time of set 2.5.3.3. Segregation 2.5.3.4. Density 2.5.3.5. Incompatibility 2.5.3.6. Extrudeability

2.6. Proportioning concrete mixtures 2.6.1. Meeting the design requirements 2.6.2. Proportioning methodologies 2.6.2.1. field data and experience 2.6.2.2. trial and error process 2.6.2.3. absolute volume method 2.6.3. Step-by-step procedure (ACPA/PCA/NRMCA method) 2.6.3.1. THIS WILL BE GOVERNED BY WHAT WE DETERMINE FROM OUR REVIEW AND RESEARCH TO BE THE BEST STAE OF PRACTICE MIXTURE PROPORTIONING APPROACH& 2.6.4. Specialty concrete mixture considerations 2.6.4.1. fixed-form concrete 2.6.4.2. Pervious concrete 2.6.4.3. RCC 2.6.4.4. lean concrete 2.7. Batching, mixing, transporting and handling concrete 2.7.1. Batching 2.7.2. Mixing 2.7.3. Transporting and handling

2.8. Process control and quality assurance 2.8.1. Process control 2.8.1.1. Statistical quality control 2.8.1.2. Frequency of sampling 2.8.1.3. Frequency of testing 2.8.1.4. Aggregate tests 2.8.1.5. Cementitious material testing 2.8.1.6. Fresh concrete tests 2.8.1.6.1. temperature 2.8.1.6.2. slump 2.8.1.6.3. density/ Unit weight 2.8.1.6.4. air 2.8.1.6.4.1. volume 2.8.1.6.4.2. size and spacing (AVA) 2.8.1.6.5. time of set 2.8.1.6.6. strength 2.8.1.6.7. bleeding 2.8.1.6.8. MCO SUITE OF TESTS???

2.8.2. Quality Assurance 2.8.2.1. Frequency of sampling 2.8.2.2. Frequency of testing 2.8.2.3. Hardened concrete tests 2.8.2.3.1. strength 2.8.2.3.2. density 2.8.2.3.3. air 2.8.2.3.4. petroghraphy 2.8.2.4. Smoothness References

Further comments are welcome on this item and/or the funding package shown below, should be directed to Leif or Dale Harrington prior to March 22, 2007.

As part of the track activity, Rick Meininger explained the role of software in the Integration process. There is a need for the implementation of existing and new software to integrate and optimize the design, construction and performance of the pavement concrete. Another way to view it is the Optimization of the concrete system. This includes the mix design, proportions, construction, operation, maintenance and rehabilitation elements from both the mental and physical points of view. It is the association of the ME design guide to PRS, Compass, Probabilistic Optimization for Profit (POP), HIPERPAVE II, Saper II and other associated software. POP is under development for contractors and agencies to analyzed alternatives prior to and after design and letting. Saper is the strategic analysis of pavement evaluation and repair. One on the goals in this work is to make the data transfer between the programs transparent or user friendly.

Ted returned to the development of the management plan for the track work. The following key points were to be considered in the development of the work: " Integration of the states, contractors and FHWA in the plan " Use of the TTCC and MCC as part of the review plans or development activity " Development of the Executive committee of six members

The project costs for the track were revisited by Dale Harrington. If the median values are used on each project, the total is approximately $2.2 million over 3 years, with $0.2 million already committed. He presented the following option for consideration in funding: " $0.5 million from industry " $0.5 million from state DOTs (20 states at $8k per year per 3 years) " $0.5 million from FHWA " $0.5 million from CP Tech Center All work would be completed by April 15, 2010.

Doug Schwartz, Minn DOT and Cecil Jones of NC DOT were identified as the willing state members.

The Kansas DOT members asked that they be given consideration to lead this pooled fund effort.

The meeting was closed at 10:30 a.m.

The final meeting of the MCO group will be held in Des Moines, Iowa on September 25, 2007 at the Holiday Inn, Airport. The next meeting of the MCC group will be on September 26-27 at the same location.

This website is maintained by Iowa State University's Center for Transportation Research and Education.
Address: 2711 S. Loop Dr, Suite 4700, Ames, Iowa 50010-8664
Phone: 515-294-8103 ~ Fax: 515-294-0467
Questions/Comments: jkcable@iastate.edu