Print
Window
Details of Minutes
Sep 26, 2007: Fall MCC Meeting, September 26-27, 2007
Minutes
Self introductions were made by each of those present. Each person indicated how long they have been a part of the MCC group. It varied from the date of inception at Olympia Fields to newest persons at meetings. A large portion of the group present did date back to the first developmental meeting.
Report on Final Activities of the MCO
Sandra Larson presented the summary of the work done in the MCO project. Seventeen states have been involved consistently in the process. The MCO group is an excellent example of industry, academics and states working together in the development of research answers. A handout was provided on the funding of the pooled fund work that is being completed. The goal of the study was the development of a suite of tests to insure long life pavements. MCC initiated the pooled fund idea. Deliverables from the MCO effort include: a testing guide, AVA hyperdocument, coffee cup dvd, tech briefs and the written guide. The study developed three levels of testing based on level of risk and cost of testing that the agency is willing to assume. Jim Grove gave details on the testing levels and risk assessment. Sandra noted that DVDs are available on the AVA use and the Coffee Cup Test procedures. Tech briefs are being developed for paper and electronic delivery to all interested visits. The final report (paper, 300 pages) will be delivered to the states involved and to any others that are interested.
MCC Evolution and Future Direction Proposal
John Staton described the evolution of the MCC from 1996, when the FHWA regions 5 and 7, with industry and academia joined forces to provide a technology transfer and reduce duplication of research efforts. He emphasized the importance of the state reports on the themes and working groups to solve common areas of interest such as dowels, certifications across state lines and early opening guidelines. The group was the initiator of the MCO project and to the conclusion of that project in this meeting. It provided the continuity in getting participation in the MCC process over the last five years.
John described the details of the organization of the proposed National Concrete Consortium (NCC) to represent the current MCC states and add the states outside the original Midwest area. A table of participation in the NCC, MCO and the proposed TPF 5 (159) TTCC states.
Sandra described the proposed NCC umbrella group and the involvement by individual states in that activity. She indicated that 18 states are signed up to participate in the TTCC pooled fund.
The TTCC has a main goal of technology transfer. She described the pooled fund activities in tech transfer, research and other activities selected by the participants such as a training effort for additional funds. It is flexible to meet individual state needs and funding potential.
The NCC also includes the component for Concrete Research (CRF) by a small group of states to fund small to medium research projects. This group can be a stand alone group of states to conduct research under a pooled fund under the NCC umbrella. They develop the funding limits and rules of the project. The advantage is that the full solicitation is not required and this is done under the NCC umbrella group.
The proposal also includes a proposal for Large Stand Alone projects as pooled funds. Two examples of such projects were identified in the handout materials. They include an Indiana project on Permeability/Durability testing and a second project on Mix Design CP Roadmap development of six sub projects. Tommy Nantung described the Indiana project and indicated that five states are involved now and they are looking for four additional states. Jennifer Distlehorst is working in Kansas to lead the second project at this time. A third project dealing with funding support for the CP Roadmap administration is involved.
Sandra closed with the following proposals for discussion:
Those present were asked to consider each of the proposals overnight and return for discussion on day two of this meeting.
Peter Taylor lead the discussion on the status of the mix design and analysis track of the roadmap work. (See handout and ppt provided in the presentation area). The low bid process is always looming in the background of the perfect mix design and construction procedure. The owner is asking for given design life, durability and quality assurance. The contractor concerned about materials, constructability and quality control. To bring these together we need to know the material properties that cause the distress that controls the performance of the pavement and what it costs. This leads to specifications, tests and limitations on variability. Couple this with multiple authorities and groups that have rules established and we have confusion for the new engineer to deal with. This project is designed to bring the environment, loadings, materials available and equipment available and who is responsible for decisions on what guidelines to go by in the project.
At the last MCC meeting, six projects were identified. They include:
Jennifer Distelhorst and Kansas to head as lead state for this track. The total pooled fund is estimated to need 1.8 million dollars. Peter is asking for funding and support along with ideas for making this pooled fund a success.
Dale Harrington led the discussion on the review of the 7-10 year list of projects in the roadmap and its 12 tracks to better concrete pavements in the future. He reviewed each of the tracks and their importance to the overall plan. Four of the tracks are moving forward with availability of existing funds. FHWA has formed an advisory group that has identified the four priority tracks and specific elements in the other tracks for empahsis by all associated groups at this time. This group also has identified an environmental track as an additional and priority track. It is under development at this time.
The CP Tech Center has been selected by FHWA and the executive committee to administer the roadmap. Emphasis is placed on collaboration between funding groups and users in each track to make them a reality. The timeline for all activities is 2015. This requires collaboration with state research programs, sustainable funding and funding sources from the administrations at all levels. This involves a collaboration system, project management system, executive committee support, communications and research track leader support.
Paul Wiegand identified the first FHWA task order 1 and 2 for the development of the track leaders and teams, and a central database. The proposed pooled fund will assist the management of the overall roadmap process to bring it to the completion and success. The FHWA will provide $300,000 annually or 40% and 60% would come from the states at $450,000 for three years. Without this support we do not move forward and the goal in 2015 is in question.
A collaborative agreement draft has been circulated to the FHWA exec advisory group for feedback on this issue. More information on this will be forthcoming from FHWA to the states in the near future. Michigan is prepared to sign this at this time, but would like to have MCC endorse this prior to signing. John Staton urged the group to review the document tonight and provide comments to him and your state administrators on this topic.
Tom VanDam urged that the process include a method to make the research available through existing state processes to allow for open and competitive bidding by a wide variety of researchers. It is a challenge for researchers in the various states to be informed of opportunities and be able to participate in the research effort.
The results of the state reports are shown in the presentations part of the MCC website and are in the form of word documents and powerpoints.
Special note made of Ohio's extensive training program for aggregate staff from those doing the testing to the handling.
Missouri has the final report on the AVA study and is in the process of making that available to the public at this time.
A request was made of Steve Tritsch to assist MCC in obtaining information in a special report that Transtec Inc. completed for the MOKAN chapter ACPA on required number of dowels and their location in the pavement.
Presentations were also made by some of the states involved in the MCO project and are included in the presentations section for this meeting.
Jay Shilstone presented information on the formation of air voids and how to control their formation and the proper matrix for durable concrete. This provided a very informative and lively discussion of the topic by those present.
The state and industry members were presented with a list of considerations on Thursday to assist them in coming to a conclusion on the future of MCC today. Those questions were as follows:
Yes, but MCC has been a good regional project. Consolidation of the trips to save money and time are of value to the states. What is the NCC structure? The MCC serves the group well as a small group. Moving to NCC reduces the potential for regional discussion at single meeting with common problems and solutions. Could we encourage others to form regional groups. This provides both opportunities and limitations on size. This is an opportunity for identification of national perspectives and effect change, but keep regional sessions within. Communications can become a problem with large group. Remember the Midwest flavor that got us here for uniformity. The new organization encourages others to join and better represents the interests of all the states using or considering concrete. There was a concern to balance the national and regional interests in concrete problems.
NAME CHANGE AND NATIONAL IS OK. DON'T LOSE THE REGIONAL NATURE. THERE MAY BE 4-5 ADDITIONAL STATES THAT WOULD BE INTERESTED IN JOINING AT THIS TIME. INITIAL OBJECTIVE WAS A FORUM WITH INDUSTRY AND STATES. DON'T FORGET THE ABILITY TO DO THE LITTLE THINGS IN THE REGION.
Retain focus as the MCC.
Yes this is ok. It will require some changes to be a pooled fund. It needs defining. Retain this for peer exchange and questions. Define level of tech transfer detail. Are we moving from tech transfer to research? It is an acceptable means for funding travel to such meetings. Consider the superpave user group structure for rotation of leadership.
NO COMMENT, BUT SUPPORTIVE. BRING IN OTHER 8-10 STATES INTO THE NCC GROUP STRUCTURE.
This is a necessary action. This should remain as separate pooled fund. This is supportable. Yes, this action gets all on same page in research and pavements. We should provide advisory input only, not supervision. This is part of what we do, but should not overshadow other bridge and pavements work. Needs to support one initiative.
YES
No. Should it be a separate pooled fund project? Specific funds need to be identified with specific goals to be supported at the state level with funding. This will be hard to sell unless it is a separate pooled fund in the states. The proposal needs more definition. Use this method only on small projects. It can be sold in TTCC, but not in separate action. Will only pass with specific defined objectives. It should be an option only to each state. Initiate on individual merits of projects. Separate pooled funds are easier to administer and sell to the state administrations.
NOT IN TTCC AND WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO EXPLORE HOW TO ADDRESS THIS IN THE FUTURE. THIS TYPE OF FUND CAN AID IN ON THE SPOT RESPONSE.
YES only as advisory. Yes it is a good method for dissemination of large scale research. It is a benefit to being an NCC project. This one needs more specific definition. Yes, it could be used only on large projects. Do the tech transfer, but not direct research. Oversight only.
YES
It will be ok if it is clearly defined as to objectives and timelines. Will require top down support to approve funds. The TTCC may be a potential tie to the need for administrative funds. Need definition. Yes. This will be hard to sell the person at the top of the highway departments. MCC members are not in a pay grade that allows them to commit to such decisions. Put this udner the TTCC funding issue.
SOMEONE HAS TO COORDINATE AND PARTNER THE ACTION AND GET IT PAID FOR. REMOVE THE PERCEPTION THAT ALL RESEARCH WILL BE DONE IN IOWA.
Each of the states were asked to respond to the individual questions. The administrative support proposal was one issue that needs the top down support of DOT staff to allow this one to happen and may draw legal questions.
See the handout. Doug Schwartz described the operation of the device and the importance of understanding the dielectric constant in the operation of the device. The James Instrument Co. makes the device. Two types of equipment can be ordered with different ranges of water cement ratios. The device is progammable for specific mix designs and stores data for retrieval at a later date. American Engineering conducted an evaluation of mixes of known w/c and proportioning both at the plant and the construction sites. Results were compared to microwave values of w/c. Three devices were used to compare to laboratory and microwave values. When correction factors for mix are applied, the results are very good in the lab.
Field tests determined that three readings vs. the recommended ten are acceptable from the researcher standpoint. Tests were conducted at three ready mix plants and three times after casting. There was some variance in the results as expected.
Sources of errors:
Conclusions - The cementometer looks promising for the ready mix plants, but it must be calibrated for individual concrete mixtures. Microwave oven results are both accurate and precise when compared to batch tickets. More data will be assimilated from additional testing at ready mix plants using their cementometers.
Kejin Wang described the cement hydration process (see the ppt presentation) and the importance of knowing the cement chemistry and admixture impacts on the concrete product. This project involved the traditional literature search, lab experiments and field verification. Phase one concluded the factors influencing heat generation are:
The findings of Phase One indicated the potential use of the calorimeter are:
Phase II involved the selection of calorimeters and laboratory testing. An IsoCal calorimeter was selected for the testing of some 124 therometric calorimetry tests, 118 mixes for set time and 117 mixes for mortar strength tests.
Phase III of this study will involve field tests at five locations in four states in 2006 and 2007. The tests involve:
Those tests provided the following results:
Doug Schwartz gave an update on the status of the bridge condition prior to failure and the things that have taken place since that time. Due to the litigation that is under consideration at this time, no other notes on this presentation are shown here.
Traffic control after the collapse included changed MN 280 to a partial limited access roadway to replace the missing bridge. Entrance ramps were widened on MN 280 and signals were shut down.
Design/build project management was used to select on September 19, 2007 a contractor. October 15 is the suggested construction date. It is to be completed in 2008.
Adjourn
Next meeting - Tentative date of the third week in April, 2008. Actual date to be set by the Executive Board at a later date.
Location - One potential site is the Minn road. Actual location to be set by the Executive Board at a later date.
This website is maintained by Iowa State University's Center for Transportation Research and Education.
Update on Mix Design and Analysis Track
CP Roadmap Administrative Support Pooled Fund
State Reports on Mix Gradations vs Air Void Matrix
Air Void Matrix Development Jay Shilstone
SEPTEMBER 27, 2007
MCC Evolution and Future Direction Proposal
MN DOT Cementometer Research Experience
Calorimeter Equipment Purchase and Research Experience
I-35W Bridge Rehabilitation Considerations and Deck Concrete Placement Alternatives
I-35W Bridge Replacement Design/Build Considerations
Address: 2711 S. Loop Dr, Suite 4700, Ames, Iowa 50010-8664
Phone: 515-294-8103 ~ Fax: 515-294-0467
Questions/Comments: jkcable@iastate.edu
