Details of Minutes

Apr 18, 2001: MC² Meeting - Skokie, IL

Welcome by Dan De Graaf

State Reports Moderator Jim Parry A handout of written summaries was provided by 8 State speakers (IL, IA, KS, MI, MN, NE, OH, WI).

Research Done Last Winter and Research Underway This Construction Season

ILLINOIS B. Pfeifer

A fourteen day cure period has been used on High Performance Concrete bridges (2). The decks were instrumented with strain gages and thermocouples. Not enough data has been collected to date for decisions regarding specifications and results.

Concrete deck placement requires fogging. Use of a 7 day cure with burlap did not stop cracking on the deck. Now looking also at the gradation gap in the concrete mixes used and possible lowering of the cement factor. Currently looking at the Shilstone workability factor and playing around with its use and results.

Proposing to move to ternary design and low permeability of the mixes, but if cracking still results, then the State will back off on these changes.

A transverse saw groove cut will be used instead of tining

Q: Does IL use evaporation retarder on pavements? A: Looked at this in the past, but dont use it now or encourage use due to the finishing problems encountered when used.

Q: Was scaling noticed? A: Yes, we think the surface was over-watered during finishing.

Q: Are there any cut-off dates used for HPC (high performance concrete) use? A: IL uses temperature requirements. Linseed oil is also used as a protective coat for early salt use problems.

Q: With the use of rubber coating on vibrators, has there been any impact on the vibration properties? A: The manufacturer is required to coat the vibrator and make any adjustments as needed to obtain vibration characteristics required by the specifications.

Q: What is the durability of the rubber coating on the vibrators (WI experienced short life on the coating)? A: Time will tell in IL. This is the first year for the requirement 7 projects in one construction season.

Q: Were the thermocouples used for curing impact measurements placed at different depths in the deck? A: A 7 ½ deck is typically used. Thermocouple installation was at the top and bottom surfaces. Instruments placed last July show the strain flattening out by now. No cracks have been noted on the two decks placed.

IOWA G. Smith (IA Conc. Paving Assn. substituting for J. Grove of IA DOT)

Evaluation of performance based specifications for blended cement use. Four of the major producers for cement ( 35-40 % of paving done) produce blended cements. A change in C1157 for sulfate resistance and ASR testing of cements is underway in ASTM.

Durability of concretes using intermediate size gravel in the mix gradation. A QA specification is to be based on gradation. Looking at limestone chip use alternative to gravel. Most gravels in IA have low durability and no ledge control in production. The question to be answered hopefully is How much gravel can be used?. Freeze-thaw testing and petrographic analysis is being included in the material testing.

KANSAS R. Kreider

Kansas has been looking at the air content distribution in the pavement. In some cases there is as little as 2% air at the top of the slab with the air content in general dropping from the top to the bottom. Will be looking at the air content versus mixing time.

Looking into the use of silica fume on bridge decks for performance enhancement. Running tests for chloride ion penetration.

Q: Has GPR been effective for pavement reviews? A: Used as a cracking check. Please advise if you want a copy of the report which has been done.

Q: How far along is the design of the concrete recycling machine? A: Head design has begun.

MICHIGAN J. Staton

Research in MI has been outsourced to Universities. State in the process of setting up research centers with Universities on a variety of subjects. MI DOT will be restricted to technical investigations in the field and trouble-shooting.

Looking at 1 aggregate use and ternary blends with aggregate size increase.

For partial depth repair of PCCP, we are looking at the Minnesota program at this time.

Addressing construction needs of bridge decks in winter in order to meet overall scheduling requirements of the projects. Using ground heaters and curing innovations to do cold weather concreting.

Q: Does MI test de-icing salts for sulfates? A: Not at this time, but will begin some research.

MINNESOTA T. Burnham

There are currently 4 researchers on staff (2 in MnDOT and 2 at MnRoad).

Looking at design procedures. MnRoad is getting crack patterns.

Durability being researched ASR, air content and distribution, vibrator trails in the pavement, aggregate (quartzites) use.

Require vibrator monitoring on pavers now.

I-35 60 Year Pavement. Stainless clad dowels were changed to solid stainless steel. Bumped up the required air content and use only vinsol resin as the air entrainer.

ABACUS program use being explored with the U. of Minn.

Looking at dowel retrofit methods.

Used silica fume for full depth bridge decks ( 11 built 2 had problems of silica fume balls and had to redeck). Finishing was done using a burlap drag and diamond grinding as the final finish.

Early age curl and warp study and load tests are being done on pavements. One mainline section is 7 ½ and looking at how thin can you go for low volume roads.

Beginning to analyze 7 years of data from MnRoad.

U of MN has a mini ALF. It is a rocker beam design. Testing dowel depth, spacing, etc. Using 7 million load cycles

Q: How did FRP dowel bars work out? A: Unique history. Efficiency dropped earlier than other materials but then stabilized.

Q: Will only stainless steel dowels be used for the 60 year design? A: For now, yes. Looking at grout filled stainless (this is looking pretty good) and they will be used on shoulders.

MISSOURI P. McDaniels

6 Studies are underway

1. Fibers reinforced unbonded overlays. 25 #/CY of 50 mm polyolefin and 75 #/CY of 60 mm steel. Diamond grinding was done which lowered ride from 27 to 11 inches per mile. Some clumping of the fibers was noted. Project has been in place for 2 ½ years. Cracking is beginning in some sections. Will replace the 5 sections this year. 2. Diamond grinding evaluation. Completed in 1997 versus conventional transverse tining. 18 inches per mile before the diamond grinding and 8 inches per mile after grinding. Friction is comparable but tined sections are slightly higher. 3. Ultra White Top use 4. Early entry sawing. 12 pavement with 15 joints. 10 pavement with 15 joints. Depth of cut was T/4 to T/8. Crack development was comparable to conventional sawing practices. 5. Mix design variations. Looking at cement factor reduction from 0.2 to 0.6 sacks/yard. Looking at retarder reduction from 2 to 5 oz. and air entrainer variation versus air voids. 6. Image analysis development for analysis of air void systems in hardened concrete. Developed by Honeywell and MO DOT. A prototype device has been built. Accuracy to ½ micron is desired. Meeting in late May in St. Louis for demonstration and pooled fund proposal.

Q: What is the method used in the prototype for imaging? A: MO DOT report copy will be provided on request.

NEBRASKA G. Woolstrom

Using maturity meter when the paving location is in a remote area.

Use of the Danish air meter was reviewed and shows promise.

Looking at drainable bases. Sand pit gravel which is common, is fairly rounded looking at gradation and stability versus drainage characteristics. This should lead to improvements in paving.

Using 30 width dowelled pavement. Extending one dowell into the shoulder for the truck tandem tracking.

Using longitudinal tining now in the contracts. Quieter ride and no change in friction noted.

Began research on HES mix design using Type I cement. The results havent been promising so will return to use of Type III cement.

Looked at conductive concrete bridge decks. Expensive, but it works for de-icing.

Looking at the measurement of elastic modulus in prestress design.

Looking at bridge deck mix designs. Have been getting early cracking. Question of whether curing is late or ended prematurely. Working with the prestress companies on cement factor and possible reduction, gradation changes with combined aggregate use, and curing timeliness and length of cure.

A thin bonded overlay will be done this construction season.

Looking at artificial turf dragging on bridge decks for friction results. Sand patch test and hydroplaning measurement being done.

Want to set up a University pavement technology center. High level of expertise will be needed.

OHIO Keith Keeran

Very little in-house research is done and none for concrete.

Research underway:

Ground granulated blast furnace slag use and mixes. Load response in pavements Delaware County SHRP pavements Free and presence of free lime in recycled concrete use. D-cracking preventive measures evaluation Lab characterization of materials in SHRP pavements High performance concrete structural load response of pavement HITEC alternative materials for dowels

Proposed work:

Large size coarse aggregate use Fineness and dispersion of dry densified silica fume in mix DOT practices in the selection of pavement materials

WISCONSIN Jim Parry

The Wisconsin Highway Research Project - Program covers four areas with oversight panels composed of academia, industry and state personnel. Concrete paving research proposals put forth are: Ground granulated blast furnace slag use evaluation of concrete properties Shoulder types and their evaluation

WARRANTIES in Michigan Dan De Graaf

Surveys of the work are done every two years with maintenance reporting on the condition in the interim periods.

Pictures/references are used for the identification of thresholds of deterioration. These thresholds were established from historical data and performance.

There is a need for reaction time identification in conflict resolution.

10 year bonds received positive feedback from the bonding industry in MI. Comment: WI bonding industry said NO to warranty bonds > 5 years. Some other approach is needed.

Full replacement The single greatest fear of industry is the job that totally fails and requires full replacement. Looking at possible use of pooled funds for industry insurance?

For the five year warranty, what is the state buying? Workmanship provided by the contractor. Problems will be apparent within the first five years after construction.

Does the increase in traffic beyond the original contract estimate void the warranty? MI identifies the projects one year out which is too far for industry comfort with the projected estimates/data.

There isnt any way to know the choice of risk that the contractor will take in the bonds bought.

With performance warranties there will be pay items for performance criteria. What will they be?

Question: Do the contractors increase QC/QA with their suppliers when warranty jobs are underway? No new processes are used since MI has worked with the suppliers in the past before warranties use.

Can the contractor use supplier x with the contractors own mix design? There is risk here because the state only sets minimum requirements for the materials and checks on the sites to see if minimums met on a general specification.

KENTUCKY I-275 WARRANTY PAVEMENT James Peace, KYTC

How was the job administered: First alternative pavement type was bid under warranty, then A+B-C combination used to cover money, time and warranty period (warranty period is C).

Asphalt or PCC were the pavement alternatives. A minimum warranty period of 5 years was set. Warranty periods from year 6 to 10 got money credit. All bidders chose the 10 year warranty period. $2.9 million was used as the annual warranty basis permitted.

An annual evaluation of the project is made by a team. 1000 segments are reviewed. The team consists of 5 members ( 1-industry, 1-contractor, 1-KYTC Central Office, 1- KYTC District Office, and 1- Design representative from KYTC)

The final bid report is available at http://128.163.155.75/clark.htm

What were the Tools for Success:

Job knowledge Contract documents Goal Get the best possible product with the resources available.

10 year/5 year Warranty:

Contractor shares in ownership Quality takes priority First time that the contractor and the state have the same goals

Opportunity for Success:

Contractor opportunity to make choices affecting the product Materials Some design characteristics joint spacing

Ride Quality Results:

Required ride index of 79.0 for every year in warranty period. Ran the index in January (within 30 days of the project opening to traffic) 8 per mile maximum on the profilograph was required Bonus provided if < 4 per mile (EBL bonus was $56,000 4 miles: WBL bonus was $90,000 7 miles) 336,375 SY of PCCP placed Got high quality pavement with high ride quality in a short period of time Used a ¼ blanking band on the profilograph (Rainhart)

For information contact James Peace jpeace@mail.kytc.state.ky.us

OHIO EXPERIENCE WITH WARRANTIES Keith Keeran

Keith was the team leader for the concrete warranty for pavements (handout provided covering the warranty specification for pccp)

Failure of asphalt concrete paving lead to warranties in Ohio IR 270 in Columbus Legislation was passed 3/99 effective 7/1/99 that 20% of Ohio projects must have warranty.

A seven year warranty is used on new pavements A five year warranty is used on rehabilitated pavements A two year warranty is used on maintenance/repair work on pavements

Common pavement distresses to be addressed according to the legislation centered around problems with asphalt concrete. Delamination Raveling Rutting

Cost of the maintenance bond is included in the performance bond (for 7 years it is 40% of the bid price).

Structural problems below the pavement are not covered under the warranty.

There is an opportunity for a yearly review by the State District Office where the project is located. One mile sections and 0.1 mile segments are used in the review. One or two segments can be chosen, or all of the pavement length may be chosen for review, or the review may be put off until the following year. A review report is to be provided within 15 days of the review and any remedial actions required must be done by November 15 each year. An appeal of the review team findings must be made within 15 days of the review team report. Arbitration may be requested.

A report of the warranty experience was made to the legislature 12/31/00, but copies were not yet available for handout to this meeting. After submission of the report to the legislature the coverage requirements for warranties was changes from not less than 20% of the projects to not more than . The reason for the change is unknown at this time.

There were a couple problems encountered in the past years experience: The dowels shifted on a bonded overlay project and this resulted in a claim. (Drilled in anchors didnt work) A request to not cut the basket assembly wires was turned down. A request to use silicon joint sealant rather than preformed sealant was turned down.

For information visit www.dot.state.oh.us/construction/OCA/Warranty

? Did the warranty cover materials? Answer Surface warranty only.

MC² Coordination with the Iowa Pavement Center at Iowa State University

Jim Cable passed out copies of a research sample problem statement from the Pavement Center for feedback from MC². Comments received and state pooled fund desires will be considered to prepare a case for use of Federal funds available for research by the Pavement Center.

MC² Task Force Reports and Status

Dowel Basket Design:

The new chairman for the task force on standardized dowel basket design is Ron Meskis of Dayton Superior Corp. Ron replaced Tom Keith of MO DOT who has retired this spring.

10/00 12/00 Manufacturer feedback on specifics was received 1/1/01 2/1/01 Development of CAD drawing

State comments received from KS, IL, MN, IN, IA, MI, NE, WI

4/25/01 Final revisions to be made 5/10/01 Drawing to be sent to states 1/1/02 Detailed drawing to be incorporated in state contract drawings proposed

Use of the drawing during the current construction season would be possible on a change order basis.

DISCUSSION broke out is there a need to cut the tie wire on the baskets before placing concrete:

IA and WI dont cut the tie wire. The tie wire is considered insignificant in cross section and therefore no aid or influence in load transfer. It is considered better in the construction process to allow paving to proceed without cutting the tie wire. For a copy of the WI analysis contact Kevin McMullen mcmullen@chorus.net The question is in the strength of the wire weld, which if too strong will result in wire breaking. If wire strength is desired, a larger gage wire is needed.

This doesnt agree with empirical evidence that if the tie wire is not cut there will be a crack just outside the basket width dimension.

Isnt the option to cut or not up to the state? Yes, the standard will not say cut or not to cut the tie wire.

The standard drawing will be sent out to the states in .pdf format after changes discussed in meeting and comments received from states are incorporated in the drawing.

There was a question of what is the angle in section A-A since there is no depth shown and the angle will change with the depth of pavement (D/2). This will be up to the state to mention or not.

There will need to be a process for inspection of basket manufacturing across state lines and steps for approval/acceptance between states. Coordination of inspection or reciprocity of inspection services could be done.

The task force group will meet again to discuss the following: 1. Inspection coordination of basket manufacturing facilities and products 2. Implementation of the standardized drawing use by the states 3. Tie wire cutting issue review and recommendation.

Cement Testing and Reporting Task Force Status and Report:

Wisconsin and Michigan piloted the cement testing and reporting agreement. There were some problems that had to be sorted out. If there were no failures there were no reports issued and this made the receiving state uneasy/uncomfortable. The system was changed to report on both passing and failing results to the receiving states. The system is now working to the satisfaction of both states. The agreement is considered ready for regional implementation. Nebraska and Iowa have now signed the agreement and will use it between themselves.

A memo from the chairman of MC² will be sent to the Sate Materials/Construction Engineers to recommend use of the testing and reporting agreement developed for use.

Opening to Traffic Task Force Status and Report:

Questions have been raised by states concerning dowel bars and research will be recommended. An interim report on the status of the recommended practices for opening to traffic will hopefully be prepared with the final report dependent on the questions raised being resolved by research.

It was noted that the National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP) under AASHTO is going to look at rebar certification. This may be the next candidate for consideration of standardized testing and acceptance.

OHIO WARRANTY SPECIFICATIONS - A SUPPLIER PERSPECTIVE Pat Jacomet, Ohio Aggregate and Industrial Mineral Association

Ohio Aggregate Producers Test Uncharted Waters

Warranty use was created by Ohio House Bill 163-Transportation Budget. The bill was introduced in the House 2/9/99 and signed by the Governor 3/31/99 (50 days from Bill to Law). Industry and DOT were not aware of the upcoming action and the short time to completion left a lot of questions .

At least 1/5 of Capital Construction Projects (#) to Include Warranties. At least 1/10th of Capital Construction Program ($) to Include Pavement Warranties.

Specifications had to be developed in a hurry. Cooperation between ODOT, FHWA, and industry , and 50 meetings resulted in the specifications.

PCC Criteria Review: Warranty Item Disintegrated Areas (> 1 ft2) Total surface distress greater than one square foot. Surface disintegration is defined as, but not limited to, joint spalling, scaling, high steel mesh (if applicable), and mud or cement balls. For this specification, aggregate popouts are not considered to be surface disintegration. Cracking Longitudinal D-Cracking (must be on approved list)

Initial Aggregate Producer Reaction: Fear of the unknown Liability issues Specification issues Contractual implications Bonding issues (market and economy conditions) Pricing issues

Aggregate Industry Actions: Seminars Contractual Implications of Warranties Increased involvement in projects Increased awareness through training Quality training

Aggregate training is a cooperative effort of ODOT, FHWA, and the Ohio Aggregate and Industrial Minerals Association.

Training is done to meet Federal CFR 23 Part 637 Qualified technicians Acceptance program Independent Assurance program

Aggregate industry training stresses the following: Essential Knowledge Pavement Distresses and Causes Training and Identification Tools SHRP P-338 Quality and Reproducibility through Monitoring and Training

Increased supplier involvement: From pre-bid meetings to project completion Maintain contact after project completion (the project is complete but the warranty lives on) Insist on MEASUREMENT (Compile data: What Is and Is Not Reasonable) Ohio Level I Aggregate Technicians Training Classroom setting Visual training Video Slides Written manual Segregation Demonstration Model (tailored to front-line personnel) Written test

Level I Topics: Segregation Influencing factors and corrective actions Stockpiles Types Influences Factors Corrective actions Load-out and sampling (Proper material load-out: Loader operator can make or break you) Safety concerns Consequences

Level I Hands-On training includes demonstration of the real life segregation model and proper sampling and load-out techniques. (Copy of the video showing the segregation model is available through OAIMA, or the FHWA Division Offices: Copies were also sent to each State Highway/DOT Materials Engineers). Use of the video is recommended in training aggregate testing personnel and loader operators.

The consequences of poor techniques of Load-out and Sampling are stressed in training: Shut down of production Time loss New mix design required Downtime Lane closures and traffic restrictions Penalties under the contract Litigation

Level II Aggregate Technician Topics: AASHTO based or ODOT modified testing Use FHWA-MTRAC training materials

Laboratory Technician Gradation Fines Unit Weights Deleterious Material

Level II Training: First Day Classroom setting and written testing Second Day Hands-on examination testing of real materials Monitored by qualified-experienced trainers

An Industry Wide Effort: Co-Sponsors and Contributors to the Training program include: ODNR Division of Geological Survey Lima Technical College Rebsco, Inc. Gilson Company, Inc.

Industry Host Sites: Shelly Quality Control Laboratory in Thornville, Ohio Bowser Morner Martin-Marietta Materials

SO FAR ..

69 surface pavements with warranties awarded in FY 2000 Awarded bid prices for PCC have increased 11% Warranties are still low bid system Concrete construction is up Contractor may set variation from target limits (i.e. +/- 5%) Over 500 Level I aggregate technicians trained Over 100 Level II technicians trained ODOT is taking a cautious approach to future warranty use

SUMMARY:

The aggregates industry in Ohio has experienced: Increased awareness Increase in training requests Increased self-regulations Increased participation

Driving Forces have been: Use of warranties by ODOT and Federal acceptance regulations Increase in quality expectations Industrys desire to improve its products, quality and image

There Are Still Some Questions to Be Answered. Some additional results to date include:

Improved communication and partnering between producers, contractors, and ODOT/FHWA More consistency and reproducibility More attention to detail

For added information on Warranties and Guidelines visit www.oaima.org Other ways to reach OAIMA: patj@oaima.org rocks@oaima.org 1-800 OH ROCKS ? What was meant by suggestion to attend inspections? Attend the annual warranty reviews. Be there as an observer, learning. ? Was there a cost increase due to warranty specifications and what was it? According to the report to the legislature, the concrete warranty bid price increased 11%. The warranty bid price increase for asphalt projects increased 8 ½%. ? If the aggregate quality is approved by the State, who is responsible for failure? This question is yet to be answered only a court case will tell and that hasnt happened yet. There has been a very good working relationship with the State. There is a willingness to communicat, receive data, and respond. ? Does the State requires testing at the site? Periodic quality testing is based on source history and whether Level I or II quality classification of the site (Level II is lower quality). The quarry is not required to test for quality the State does this. There has been a move to QC/QA by the industry, but it is desired that the quality checks remain with the State.

WARRANTIES Dan Frentress, ACPA

Definition of a Warranty A warranty has been defined as a promise that certain facts are truly as they are represented to be.

Within warranty category there are: Express Warranties Implied Warranties

Express warranties are expressly spelled out in a contract e.g., Ride, Strength, Thickness

Implied warranties exist on most existing construction contracts e.g., construction is performed in a good and workmanlike manner.

There is a need to understand the basic language used in warranties.

Whats Covered Financing Warranties

Description Bonds Terms Insurance Inspection Private Financing Remedial Action Bonding Capacity Dispute Resolution Banking Activities Exclusions Risk Assessment Pavement Condition Surveys

Warranty Drivers: Customer Requests Legislation DOTs have fewer people to field inspect Promotional Tool Create a competitive edge Match the Asphalt Concrete Industry Koch Performance Road efforts

Warranty Types: Materials and Workmanship (usually 5 years) Performance (long term) Maintenance Insurance

Materials and Workmanship Warranties:

Limited Warranties Iowa has had a limited bond since the 1960s Michigan has warranties on concrete pavement Wisconsin has a 5 year bond on concrete pavement and asphalt pavements

Performance Warranties New Mexico TH44 project, 20 years Design/Build, ESALs or 20 year life Kansas Design/Build project, 5 years Alternate Bid set at 15 years concrete chosen Kentucky Design/Build project, 10 years A+B-C (C=LCC Factor) concrete low bid

Utah, I-15 Design/Build, 5 year bond with option for 5 additional 1 year options (DOT considering the 5 year bond) Ohio, 7 year bond of 40% of original concrete pavement cost Indiana, Asphalt Design/Build 5 years One project had skid numbers too low and had to mill and overlay at no cost Colorado Asphalt Design/Build, 10 year Not awarded since cost was 160% of estimate Virginia, APAC has a $236 million contract Construct 17 miles of roads and bridges Koch Performance Roads provided the QC/QA 20 year warranty

Current practice uses Materials and Workmanship or Performance Warranties

Future Trends ? Maintenance Warranties Insurance

Note: The TRB Committee on Taxation and Finances (non-engineers) working on alternative approaches at this time.

Maintenance Warranty: Prices taken at time of bidding Add maintenance items at the time of bid Bonding is required for only these items Inflation factor for future costs used Contractor paid when repairs are done No exchange of money until something happens Lane rental used

Concrete Example: Traffic control (lump sum per setup) Full depth patches (SY) Partial depth patches (SF) Inflation cost set in the proposal (i.e., 2.5%) Comment Illinois cant pay out $ on projects once they are completed

Insurance: Contractors would self insure for concrete paving work only Certification process is necessary Similar to self insurance programs with health insurances Catastrophic event coverage Separate bid item so DOTs can track cost Disputes to be handled with insurance adjusters Use different insurance programs for different pavements Utility trenches Ramps Streets DOTs could pick level of insurance to be bought Guidelines would have to be developed Level of coverage would vary Length of time of coverage would vary Premiums could be based on deductible amounts

Note: Lloyds of London isnt interested because the projects are too small There isnt any actuarial data yet for insurance use

FUTURE TRENDS Performance warranties will continue to develop Cost of warranties will be tracked Maintenance warranties and insurance will be tried Public will continue to ask for some assurance

Florida is developing a concrete warranty Mississippi has developed a 10 year concrete maintenance warranty

A handout was provided showing project warranty activity across the country.

In Wisconsin the warranties on concrete and asphalt is above normal wear and tear. The projects chosen for warranties is based on risk assessment on a project-by-project basis.

If the ESALs increase above design basis there is an adjustment in the warranty by Wisconsin and also by Ohio in their warranty contract conditions.

Kansas tried a warranty as a bid item on an alternate bid, design/build, 15 year time frame for a two lane road. The contract acceptance was not on low bid. Since the warranty was a bid item, the State elected not to take the warranty, deeming the cost too high.

Indiana picks 3 out of 5 proposals considered acceptable and then goes to a design/build selection scenario with the three.

Illinois has let 4 concrete warranty projects. Three of the projects have been built. There have also been asphalt warranty projects. I-80 30 year design with a 5 year warranty PCCP. The 5 year warranty use in Illinois came from legislated actions. The asphalt industry has requested 20 year warranties in order to get market share. It was discovered that Illinois state law says there is an implicit 10 year warranty on all work ( this however, has not been enforced to date). Thus for a 5 year warranty project, the state would effectively be paying added cost for a 5 year warranty within the 10 year implicit warranty of the state law.

New Executive Committee Chairman to take the place of Gary Whited Gerry Rohrbach, MnDOT Materials and Research Engineer

Executive Committee Election Results for MC²: Mike Byers Indiana Ready Mix - Contractor representative Jim Grove Iowa DOT At Large representative Ron Meskis Dayton Superior Corp. Supplier representative

Each representative will serve a two year term on the Executive Committee

Open Session Discussion Subjects Selected:

1. What are maintenance operations doing to our concrete? (versus performance) Dry pavement policy Pressure to use salt regardless of concrete age

MI bridge work in winter months increasing to meet overall project time restraints. Dont know what is happening or whether there are any controls on the use of salt versus concrete age.

2. What are contractors doing for training of personnel for on site work?

3. Maintenance costs are moved to improvement program in warranties situation.

WI is diluting money for improvement projects by paying for maintenance up front with warranty use.

OH is spending 8 to 11 ½ % more for warranty work

IL is ignoring the problem at this time. Each District tracks based on their own requirements. There is now a new player involved. The Preventive Maintenance Group is also working on Foundation for Pavement Preservation involvement. Another demand for money in the system.

4. Research proposal discussion based on Iowa State Univ. Pavement Center proposal

How do we get at the parts of Demonstration Project 119 that was killed by FHWA? What is needed to be added/deleted? What would you as a State support?

$600,000 is needed (total) from other states in the Midwest to finance a project of $2,000,000. $450,000 is to come from FHWA.

How is the informational source provision to be maintained? How will the technology be transferred?

Motion made for MC² support of the problem statement and goals. Comments and information from industry and states is needed early to develop/review and assure that research will be hitting the problems at the performance level.

Need to know who at the states needs to be contacted for support affirmation/comment. To whom should future communication and requests be directed through?

It was urged that the states and industry support the research problem statement/proposal and that forward movement be encouraged.

Correspondence for now will be sent to the MC² state representatives.

For feedback/comment and communication contact jim.grove@dot.state.ia.us

5. Contractor versus State aggregate quality testing/monitoring

WI makes the contractor responsible for the aggregate. Contractor can use State list of approved sources or old project sources. Thus a D cracker aggregate could be selected and used. Aggregate used for asphalt is purely the contractors choice. Three years ago the State began using Freeze-Thaw testing. Soundness test results are highly variable.

OH uses Group 0, 1, and 2 designations for approved sources. Standard aggregate sources must be used. D cracking testing must be done.

MI uses a list of approved sources. Freeze-Thaw testing is done on the sources on a 5 year cycle unless a significant change is noted. Freeze-Thaw values required vary with applications of the aggregate. Contractors are required to use approved sources. Looking at how to test/screen the larger aggregate sizes.

NE has no warranties. State is responsible for the quality of the aggregate. Testing done on a tonnage basis. This system will be retained in future.

IA controls ledge use. Contractors do not test aggregate.

6. Should we be increasing the air content. Minnesota increased emphasis on amount and air void system. Illinois went to 5-8% AV.

Is more better? IA is now pushing to stay in the target range of 4-7%. Setting limits based on loss of air through the paver.

WI loses 1% through the paver and has adjusted the target air content to account for this.

MN is looking at the High Performance Concrete air content range.

IL range is 5-8% and 2% is considered no good. 9% is also considered no good, but not really.

IN has a penalty for low air and a lesser penalty for high air. Strength is measured. What should the design criteria be for strength, air, etc. Warranties raise these issues.

There are durability issues. Old research which covers most of what the current questions are, is hard to get to, but resurrecting old research already done is a priority need.

All PCA research from the 30s, 40s, and 50s is now available on CD. Individual reports can be downloaded free from the internet. Use the libraries!

More air content is not ASR relief but helps with secondary ettringite formation impact.

7. Method vs. Performance specification activities Are there any major overhauls being done?

OH no performance specifications, working on QC/QA

MN working on performance specifications

IL QC/QA program used for concrete in District 1. Other districts are volume dependent for use of QC/QA. One performance specification project will be used in 2001.

WI Use Quality Management specifications which are end-result. Have incentive disencentive provisions. Not a true performance specification yet.

NE Use mostly method specifications. Measure strength and smoothness. Use QC/QA on prestress concrete.

8. Guidelines for tracking warranties are needed.

WI measures ride and pavement distress index annually (25 projects). There is a need to track county maintenance also.

MI has materials and workmanship warranties on 300 projects to date. Getting overwhelmed. How to track and maintain a database? Will move to setting up a database.

OH has 5 PCCP under contract. Warranty coordinator in each District of ODOT. Will set up a database.

CALENDAR NOTE Next Meeting will be October 17-18 at Iowa State University - Ames, Iowa Subject coverage: High Speed Construction

For suggested topic coverage, please contact the MC² Executive Committee

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