COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS AND PAVEMENTS …...Chair Name and (State) Larry Ilg, Oregon Vice Chair Name...

Tech Subcommittee 5B Mid-Year Meeting 2019 of 25

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS AND PAVEMENTS

MINUTES (In red ink)

Meeting (Annual or Mid-Year) Annual Date Wednesday July 29th, 2020 Scheduled Time 1:00 P.M. – 2:30 P.M. (EDT) Technical Subcommittee & Name Technical Subcommittee 5b - Bridge and Pavement Preservation Chair Name and (State) Larry Ilg, Oregon Vice Chair Name and (State) David Hacker, Kentucky Research Liaison Name and (State) Vacant

I. Introduction and Housekeeping – Casey opened the meeting.at 1:02 pm EST. She announced the housekeeping items and thanked the sponsors for their support.

II. Call to Order and Opening Remarks – Larry opened as Chair.

Brief Summary of Activities

III. Roll Call of Voting Members – No roll was taken but Larry stated he would check the Webinar attendance listing. There were 243 registered and 192 participating.

Present Member Name State Present Member Name State ☒ Becca Lane Anne Holt ON ☒ John Staton MI ☒ Larry Ilg OR ☐ Kent Miller NE ☒

Changlin Pan NV ☒ Kyle Lester Craig Wieden &

Laura Conroy CO

☐ Charles Babish VA ☒ LaDonna Rowden IL ☒ Christopher Ohm Barry Paye WI ☒ Matt Linneman ND ☒ Clark Morrison NC ☒ Michael Lee Jenny Li TX ☒ Curt Turgeon MN ☒ Monica Flournoy GA ☒ Danny Lane TN ☒ Richard Barezinsky KS ☒

Rick Bradbury ME ☒ Scott George, P. E. Kaye

Davis & John Jennings AL

☒ Donald Streeter Russell Thielke & Mike Stelzer

NY ☒ Sejal Barot

MD

☐ Edward Inman NJ ☐ Stewart Linz AR ☒ Greg Milburn WY ☒ Temple Short SC ☒ James Welter Eric Biehl &

Jacob Lautanen OH ☒

David Hacker KY

☒ John Donahue MO ☐ Jose Lima RI ☒

Rick Gordon SD ☒ Robert Stewart Scott

Nussbaum UT

Quorum Rules Met? Annual Meeting: Simple majority of voting members (☐y/ ☐n) | Mid-Year Meeting: Voting members present (☐y/ ☐n)

A. Review of Membership (New members, exiting members, etc.) – Larry stated that he is the new Chair taking over for Derek Nener-Plante (ME). He thanks David Hacker (KY) for stepping up as the new Vice Chair of the TS.

IV. Approval of Technical Subcommittee Minutes


Mid-Year Meeting conducted on 11/14/2019 – minutes in Attachment A. A motion was made by ME, seconded by MN to approve the Mid-Year meeting minutes. Motion passed.

V. Old Business

A. COMP Ballot Items (Include any ASTM changes/equivalencies, including ASTM standards’ revision years.)

COMP Ballot# Standard

Results (neg/affirm) Comments/Negatives Action

N/A No items for this.

B. Technical Subcommittee Ballots – The Chair Larry noted that all ballot items passed and they were going to go over the negatives.

TS5B -20-02 Part 1 & 2 Item # Standard


1 Section 406 Construction Guide Specification for Emulsified Asphalt Chip Seal (Attachment B, 1B, 1Z)

3 neg 20 affirm 6 no vote

AL - Emulsion still appears in a few places. Should this be changed to Emulsified Asphalt? See: 406.5.2.1.3. figure 4 is captioned with “Emulsion Triangles” 406.5.2.1.4. figure 5 is captioned with “Emulsion Triangles” 406.7.1. number 2 in the table. The third pay item 406.7.2.2. in the table the second pay item. AASHTO T 96 and T 301 are in the referenced documents but do not appear anywhere in the specification. These should be moved to a References section. 406.3 Is rapid rapid-setting correct? See 406.3.1, 406.3.3, 406.3.5 & 406.3.7 IL - General Comments:

• The page numbering is off since no page number of the first page. Need to start numbering with “2” on second page. Comments are listed as the page number of the Word document, not the page number shown in the footer.

• Need to be consist when using “aggregate” with or without the word “chips”. Could change “aggregate chips” to “aggregate particles” if discussing individual particles. Several places show deleting “chip” but leaving the “s”, so that should be deleted.

Page 2: • Section 406.3.1.

AL - Yes, it should be emulsified asphalts including Figure 5 and in the table on page 406-16. The references for the AASHTO test method T 301 is not needed and can be deleted. T-96 is required. In section, 406.3 it should be rapid setting not rapid rapid setting. All changes have been addressed. See edits in the guide. IL - All of the comments were addressed. See edits in the guide





o Check hyphenation of various polymer names against other standards.

o Line 1 – Delete “rapid” in front of “rapid-setting”.

• Section 406.3.3. o Check hyphenation of

various polymer names against other standards.




o Line 1 – Replace “high float” with “high-float”.


• Section 406.3.6. o Line 1 – Replace “high

float” with “high-float”.



o Line 1 – Replace “high float” with “high-float”.


Page 3: • Section 406.4.3.

o Line 1 – replace “aggregate chip spread rate” “aggregate





spread rate” or “aggregate particle spread rate”.

• Section 406.5.1.1. o Paragraph 1, Line 7 –

add the word “degrees” after “30”.

o Commentary – add a period at the end of the paragraph.


replace “rear axle” with “rear-axle”.

o Paragraph 1, Line 5 – replace “front-axle tire” with “front-axle tires”.


replace “chip sealing” with “rolling”.

Page 4: • Section 406.5.2.1.

o First Commentary Paragraph – delete duplicate period at the end of the paragraph.

• Section 406.5.2.1.1. o Paragraph 1, Sentence

3 – replace “nozzle” with “nozzles”.

Page 5: • Section 406.5.2.1.1.

o Figure 1 – the information below the diagram of the spray bar seems redundant to the information in the first paragraph of the section.

Page 6: • Section 406.5.2.1.3.

o Figure 4, Title – replace “Second” with “Other”.





• Section 406.5.2.1.4. o Paragraph 2, Line 2 –

replace “double” with “triple”.

Page 8: • Section 406.5.2.1.6.

o Commentary, Calculations, Step 3 – the equation is wrong, it should be: “1500 / (12 × 3630/9) = 0.31 gal/yd 2”.

• Section 406.5.2.2. o The transverse spread

rate and longitudinal spread rate should be left as Sections 406.5.2.2.1. and 406.5.2.2.2., respectively.

o Title – delete “Chip”. Page 9:

• Section 406.5.2.2.1. o This section should be

changed back to 406.5.2.2.2. as stated in comment above.

o Commentary, Steps 1.c., 2.c., and 3.c. – The equations and values are wrong; however, when correcting the equation, the numbers are not in the desired range for the specification. One of the inputs will need to be changed to meet the desired values Step 1.c. –

Replace with: “Rate = 23,803 / (213 × 12 / 9) = 83.8 lb/yd 2”.

Step 2.c. – Replace with:





“Rate = 23,921 / (211 × 12 / 9) = 85.0 lb/yd 2”.

Step 3.c. – Replace with: “Rate = 23,848 / (213 × 12 / 9) = 84.2 lb/yd 2”.

Page 10: • Section 406.5.2.2.1.

o Commentary, Step 4. – replace with “Average Rate = (83.8 + 85.0 + 84.2) / 3 = 84.3 lb/yd

2”. Page 14:

• Section 406.5.6.2. o Item d), Line 5 –

replace “Transportation Services Preservation Program” with “Transportation System Preservation Technical Services Program”.

Page 15: • Section 406.5.6.4.1.2.

o Line 1 – replace “chip” with “aggregate”.

• Section 406.5.6.5. o Line 2 – replace “chip

spreader” with “aggregate spreader”.

Page 16:

• Section 406.5.7.2.1.1. o Line 1 – replace “chip

spreader” with “aggregate spreader”.

o Line 3 – for clarification, I would add “T 27,” in front of “Tables 1 and 2”.

• Section 406.6.2.





Line 1 – delete “Chips” in the title and “chips” at the beginning of the statement. KS - 406.2.1. M 316 does not contain the word "Cationic" in the title 406.2.1. MP 27, for uniformity, remove "Standard Specification for "406.2.1. T 335, for uniformity, remove "Standard Method of Test for Determining the"406.2.2. Remove space between "D" and "5624". I would also remove the "Standard Practice for Determining the "406.3.1 and 406.3.3 and 406.3.6. and 406.3.7. - Are both "rapids" necessary? 406.5.2.1 commentary - - Since "chips" was removed in 406.5.2., should it not also be removed from this section? The word "chips" is used throughout this document to reference the aggregate. It appears there's an attempt to remove chips from this guide, so more replacing is needed. We use the term rock spot to identify how far the binder needs to be shot for a load of aggregate delivered to the spreader. Suggest adding this in the document as well. It prevents the distributor from getting too far ahead of the aggregates. KY (NEG) –406.5.2.2.4 Once it is confirmed the bar height is correct, the nozzles that were turned off can be turned back on and a double triple application of emulsified asphalt will result when spraying resumes. 406.4.2.1.6 Calculate spray rate = 1500 gal / (12 × 3630/39) = 0.31 gal/yd 2 406.5.2.2.1 Calculations errors recommended edits: Load = 23,800 lb Spreader distance = 640 ft Rate = 23,800((640 × 12)/9) = 27.9 lb/yd²; Spreader Distance = 634 lf Rate = 23,921/((634 × 12)/9) = 28.3 lb/ft²; Spreader Distance = 639 lf Rate = 23,848/((639 × 12)/9) = 28.0 lb/ft² 406.5.5.6 Add “The asphalt distributor and aggregate spreader speed may have to be reduced if the rolling operations cannot be accomplished before the emulsified asphalt breaks.” (Just a suggestion) 406.5.5.8 Suggestion add “Before placing on the newly placed chip seal ensure that

KS - M 316 should be Polymer modified emulsified asphalt. We don't think removing the standard practices in section 406.3 are necessary and it It should be rapid- setting not rapid rapid- setting. The other comments re aggregte vs chips have been addressed. The comment on rock spot has been discussed but we found it non-persuasive. It is not common term. See edits in the guide. KY - All comments we addressed. See edits in the guide. All items have been addressed.





at least 85 percent of the total moisture present in the chip seal has evaporated or aggregates may become dislodged.” 406.5.5.11 Should one state the following? “Do not allow traffic on the fog seal until the fog seal has cured.” 406.5.7.2.1.2 Question: Should the emulsified asphalt be sampled from the distributor? OH (NEG) - Section 406.3.1, .3, .5, and .7: Should the P, M, or L be used at the end of the material name or at least be mentioned to reference "polymer modified." Assume this should follow the AASHTO standards. Section 406.3: Why is "rapid" said twice for RS emulsions? 406.4.1: MP27 is referenced but there are no emulsion requirements in this standard other than referencing M316, M208, and M140. I would just reference MP27 and not the other three. 406.5.2: Are contractors expected to purchase/download NCHRP Report 680? May be beneficial to include the procedure in this document as a more one stop shop. 406.5.6.6: You may want to add QC reports at the end of the contract or as specified by the agency. Ohio requires daily. 406.5.6.7: Other than the contractor saying they did in writing, what is the purpose of this section? Would the contractor attest that they did not construct it correctly? 406.5.2.1.6 & 406.5.2.2: Could the examples in commentary be included in standard? 406.5.5.3: Is there anything other than visual that could be suggested to determine chip embedment? I've heard a sand patch method being used. 406.5.5.7: Bring info from Report 680 to here instead? 406.5.6.4.1.1 & .2: "Sample once a day or every 1500 tons, whichever is less" This language is confusing and should be reworded. I'm assuming the intent is to sample every 1500 tons per day and once for any additional tons placed. The current verbiage could be interpreted as only one sample per day since 1 sample is the least. 406.5.6.4.2: How do you verify the volume is with 5%? The area times spray rate gives

OH - All comments we addressed. See edits in the guide. All items for the negative have been addressed. There were still some questions that they need to go over. Jim Welter (OH) stated he will remove his negative.





you one number. Assuming you need an actual volume. Is this based on the calibration stick for each distributor, weight, or something else? OR (NEG) - 406.5.2.1.1 – Commentary language is repeated twice – last 3 sentences Sections 406.5.2.1.3 and 406.5.2.1.4 Need to verify if there is overlap bar is to low; if there is a gap bar is to high. Believe this is backwards - should be overlap when bar is high; gap when bar is low. 406.5.2.1.5 – add ‘of time’ after ‘…a measured period.” In the second paragraph of the Commentary, 5th sentence. Conversion mistakes in calculations; some where divide by 3 yds but actually 9 sq.yds is correctly used to achieve correct answer (406.5.3.1.6 commentary) or 3 yds is used when it should 9 sq.yds (406.5.2.2.1)Negative is due to conversion (calculation) mistakes and bar height discussion RI - Recommend changing the word "second" to "other" in Figure 4 to be consistent with the change made in section 405.5.2.1.3. SC - 406.6 - There is no subsection 109.01. Change to 109.1. Change title to "AASHTO Guide Specifications for Highway Construction" and add to the referenced documents.

OR - Addressed Oregon’s concern over the calculations and the bar height discussion. See edits in the guide. The negative by OR was addressed and they support moving this forward. RI - Done. See edits in the guide. SC - Done. See edits in the guide.





2 Section 407 Construction Guide Specification for Hot Applied Chip Seal (Attachment C, 1C, 1Z)


AL - 407.5.9. : The words “pre-coated aggregate” “aggregate”, and “chip” seem to be used interchangeably in this section and commentary while some effort is being made in the commentary to remove the word “chip” Consider using one word for clarity.407.5.11. Commentary: If a steel roller is recommended, should rolling in static mode be recommended to prevent aggregate degradation? 407.7.1 and 407.7.2 should the word “emulsion” in the tables be replaced with the words “emulsified asphalt” as had been done throughout 406, and to be consistent with M 140? ASTM D7564 is listed as a referenced document and does not appear to be referenced in this guide. This should be moved to a References section. Table 1 Chip Seal Aggregate Gradations-These sieve requirement don't match any of the Standard AASHTO aggregate gradations requiring special production by industry. IL - General Comments: • Title – add “Asphalt” after “Hot Applied”. • Need to be consist when using “aggregate” with or without the word “chips”. Could change “aggregate chips” to “aggregate particles” if discussing individual particles. Several places show deleting “chip” but leaving the “s”, which should be deleted. Page 1: • Section 407.1. o Paragraph 1, Line 4 – delete “chips” to match emulsified asphalt chip seal guide specification. o Paragraph 4, Line 1 – replace “Guide” with “guide”. o Commentary, Line 6 – Do you actually ever use a fog seal with a hot applied asphalt chip seal? • Section 407.2.1. o First Bullet – replace “fog seal” with “Fog Seal”. o Second Bullet – delete period at end of title. Page 2: • Section 407.2.3.

AL - Agreed to all. The document was edited to use aggregate instead of chip. Rolling should be done in the static mode to prevent degradation. The word emulsion has been changed to emulsified asphalt as in Guide spec 406. Table 1 which included aggregate gradations was deleted in an earlier version. The gradation and quality requirements for hot applied binders are in ASTM D 6114. See edits in the guides IL - All the comments from Illinois DOT have been addressed. See edits in the guides.





o Second Bullet – need to add a bullet in front of the document name. • Section 407.3. o Line 1 – replace “asphalt rubber” with “asphalt-rubber” or change hyphenation in Section 407.3.1. o Line 2 – replace “performance graded” with “performance-graded”. • Section 407.3.3 o Line 1 – replace “performance graded” with “performance-graded”. Page 3: • Section 407.4.1.2. o First Paragraph, Line 1 – add “binder” after “this”. o First Paragraph, Line 4 – change “of T 301” to “with T 301”. • Section 407.4.1.3. o Commentary, Line 1 – delete space after “polymer-“. • Section 407.4.2. o Commentary, Second sentence – revise last phrase of sentence to delete either “does” or “can”. • Section 407.4.3. o Paragraph 1, Line 2 – Table 1 only lists gradations, so should “and quality” be deleted? o Paragraph 1, Line 5 – replace “performance grade” with “performance-graded”. Page 4: • Section 407.4.3. o Paragraph 2, Line 1 – replace “PG Grade” with “performance-graded”. o Paragraph 2, Line 2 – replace “specification” with “requirements of”. • Section 407.5.2.1. o Paragraph 1, Line 11 – delete “if” after “whether”. Page 6 • Section 407.5.5.4. o Paragraph 1, Line 3 – replace “lb/in.2” with “lb/in.2”. o Paragraph 1, Line 4 – replace “rear axle” with “rear-axle”. Page 7 • Section 407.5.5.5. o Paragraph 1, Line 3 – replace “chip sealing” with “rolling”.





• Section 407.5.6.1. o First Commentary Paragraph – add “to provide the proper adhesive layer necessary for proper aggregate chip adhesion” at the end of the paragraph. Page 8 • Section 407.5.6.1.1. o Paragraph 1, Sentence 3 – replace “nozzle” with “nozzles”. Page 9: •Section 407.5.6.1.4. o Paragraph 2, Line 2 – replace “double” with “triple”. Page 11: • Section 407.5.6.1.6. o Commentary, Calculations, Step 3 – the equation is wrong, it should be: “1500 / (12 × 3630/9) = 0.31 gal/yd 2”. • Section 407.5.6.2. o Title – delete “Chip”. • Section 407.5.6.2.1. o Paragraph 1, Line 1 – add “rate” after “aggregate spread”. Page 12: • Section 407.5.6.2.2. o Commentary, Steps 1.c., 2.c., and 3.c. – The equations and values are wrong; however, when correcting the equation, the numbers are not in the desired range for the specification. One of the inputs will need to be changed to meet the desired values Step 1.c. – Replace with: “Rate = 23,803 / (213 × 12 / 9) = 83.8 lb/yd 2”. Step 2.c. – Replace with: “Rate = 23,921 / (211 × 12 / 9) = 85.0 lb/yd 2”. Step 3.c. – Replace with: “Rate = 23,848 / (213 × 12 / 9) = 84.2 lb/yd 2”. o Commentary, Step 4. – replace with “Average Rate = (83.8 + 85.0 + 84.2) / 3 = 84.3 lb/yd 2”. Page 13: • Section 407.5.8. o Commentary, Paragraph 1, Line 1 – shange “will be” to “being”. • Section 407.5.9. o Paragraph 2, Line 4 – Add period at the end of the paragraph. Page 14: • Section 407.5.11.





o Paragraph 1, Line 4 – replace “aggregates” with “aggregate”. • Section 407.5.15. o Does a fog seal ever get used on a hot mix asphalt chip seal since the chips are precoated? Page 15: • Section 407.5.17.2. o Item d), Line 5 – replace “Transportation Services Preservation Program” with “Transportation System Preservation Technical Services Program”. Page 16: • Section 407.5.17.4.4.2. o Line 1 – replace “chip” with “aggregate”. • Section 407.5.17.5. o Line 2 – replace “chip spreader” with “aggregate spreader”. Page 17: • Section 407.5.18.2.1.2. o Line 1 – replace “chip spreader” with “aggregate spreader”. o Line 3 – for clarification, I would add “T 27,” in front of “Tables 2 and 3”. Page 18: • Section 407.6.1.2. o Line 1 – delete “Chips” in the title and “chips” at the beginning of the statement. KS - Figure 5: Change "Emulsion" to "Asphalt" KY (NEG) – 407.5.4.3 Question: Should we consider also listing excessive thickness of pavement striping markings determined by the Engineer. Water borne paint will not have this issue but epoxy pavement markings can have an excessive amount of build up over the years. 407.5.6 - Flow from each nozzle in the asphalt distributor must be within ±10 percent of the average flow of all nozzles as measured by the procedure as described in NCHRP Report 680, Chapter 7 (Shuler, et al 2011). 407.5.6.1.4 - Once it is confirmed the bar height is correct, the nozzles that were turned off can be turned back on and a

KS - Done. See edits in the guides. KY - All comments were addressed. See edits in the guides. All comments were addressed.





double triple application of emulsified asphalt will result when spraying resumes. 407.5.6.1.6 & 407.5.6.2.2 Repeated calculation errors. 407.5.16 - Should one state the following? “Do not allow traffic on the fog seal until the fog seal has cured.” 407.5.17.4.1 - Question: Should the sampling of the asphalt rubber be required out on the project site and require the asphalt terminal to provide test results for each lot of material delivered to the job site to the owner/contractor? NV - 407.4.1.3 should be M 320 or M 332, not M 322. Same typo are in 407.4.3 The first paragraph below Table 2, and 407.5.18.2.1.1. OH (NEG) - Review comments from emulsion chip seal. OR (NEG) - 407.4.2 – Delete ‘can’ in the last line of the commentary407.5.4.3 – Should MMA be removed as well due to mil thickness? Thermally stable, but more mils than paint407.5.6 – Typo 3rd line ‘rated’, should be ‘rates’407.5.6.1.3 and .4 - end of 1st paragraphs – bar height too high and low descriptions are switched407.5.6.1.6 – Incorrect conversion of squared feet to squared yards. Need to correct conversion from ‘3’ to ‘9’. Result is correct, but not the conversion in the equation.407.5.6.2.2 – Incorrect conversion from square feet to square yards. Need to divide by ‘9’, not ‘3’. The truck length treated needs to be multiplied by three and then the total area divided by ‘9’ to give a realistic result for a 12 ton, 12 feet wide application. Negative is due to conversion (calculation) mistakes and bar height discussion. SC - Maybe include a note or commentary concerning the health and safety issues that could be greatly increased with the hot applied products. 400 degree asphalt is much different that 140 degree

NV - Corrected. See edits in the guides. All comments were addressed. OH - See attached with our response to each of his comments. OR - Editorial comments addressed in 407.4.2 and 407.5.4.3. We think the comments on the calculations and bar height discussion also have been addressed. See edits in the guide. All comments were addressed.





emulsion.407.5.2.1 - remove "if" after "whether."407.6 - there is no subsection 109.01. Change to 109.1. Change title to "AASHTO Guide Specifications for Highway Construction" and add to the referenced documents.

SC - Editorial comments addressed. Added commentary on health and safety issues. Corrected the comments in sections 407.5.2.1 and 407.6

3 Section 408 Construction Guide Specification for Micro Surfacing (Attachment D, 1D, 1Z)


AL - 408.7.1 Commentary: the last sentence of this commentary appears to be incomplete. IL - Page 9 · Section 408.5.14.6. o Why is this necessary? Is this not implied when the contractor turns the job over to the owner/agency? · Section 408.5.14.6.1.2. o Item a), Paragraph 1, Line 2 – replace “have occurred” with “have not occurred”. KY (NEG) – Section 408.5.5.3 Need to add strike off to the spreader box and the strike off shall be made of a neoprene rubber. Section 408.5.11 Suggestion for transverse joints; All transverse joints shall be clean and straight. At the start of each day(s) of production and at approaches, place a 5ft minimum width of paper/plastic on the existing pavement. Cover all bridge ends with paper/plastic to ensure no microsurfacing is placed on the bridge. Remove the paper/plastic once the microsurfacing has cured and dispose the excess material from the project site. Place and spread all courses as continuously as possible, keeping the number of construction transverse joints to a minimum. When a construction transverse joint is necessary, the paving box must be full of material. Do not spread (drag) the remaining material, emptying the paving box. Once the end of the mat and a straight line is created, the paving box shall be lifted and the remaining material shall be removed and disposed of properly off project limits. Section 408.5.12 Suggestion as a commentary;

AL - Corrected. See edits in the Guide IL - Section 408.5.14.6, if this is not necessary as noted in several comments, it should be deleted. Note added. See edits in the Guide; 408.5.14.6.1.2 a), corrected. See edits in the Guide. KY – Addressed. See edits in Guide. All comments were addressed.





Prior to allowing traffic, the contractor shall broadcast microsurfacing sand or other approved material as directed by the engineer over turnouts, intersections, and/or crossovers as the microsurface material cures. Once the microsurfacing material has properly cured, sweep all loose sand and debris from the intersection/crossover and properly dispose of the material. Contractor shall repair any damaged areas prior to project completion. ME - 408.5.14.3: AASHTO-accreditation for QC Labs will be challenging to implement for some agencies. NV - 408.05.10 The first sentence under commentary, should the word "slurry" be changed to "micro"? This is the only place mentioned "slurry" in the document. OH (NEG) – 408.5.2: Mix design should be approved or accept by agency prior to equipment calibration and beginning or work. 498.5.3: Under unique project conditions, should there be a few examples? One that I’ve seen is paving wider than the spreader box (16 ft wide versus 15 ft that is the spreader box). 408.5.4: How do I know if my crack sealant is compatible? 408.5.4: Tack coat for micro surfacing is not the same as tack coat for asphalt mixtures. I don’t think the importance of letting the tack coat sufficiently cure prior to starting is needed. The application rates of diluted tack are probably pretty close based on preliminary results from Ohio micro surfacing bond research project. For double micros, do you tack on top of leveling course? Also, at least 11 states are requiring tack coat prior to micro surfacing. I would say that’s more than “not typically.” I would also add that the contractor should not tack more area than what they plan to pave that day. Areas not covered up at the end of the day should be addressed to prevent slippery surfaces. 408.5.5.2: I would make the commentary a note. 408.5.7: 300 fr min

ME - Addressed. See edits in Guide. NV - Corrected. See edits in the Guide OH - See separate OH document All comments were addressed.





for a test strip seems short for any adjustment. 500 ft min seems more desirable. Also make commentary a note. I think the practice of adjusting the mix and even stopping during the test strip is a lost art. 408.5.8: Mist of water also helps with crack sealant pick up. 408.5.10: I think these are called yield checks by industry. May help to use their terminology. $08.5.14.3: For mix design I would say yes to being AASHTO accredited. However, moving operations such as micro surfacing, a mobile testing trailer is typically used. Requiring these trailer to be accredited is probably too much, if even possible. I don’t think AASHTO re:source accredits mobile labs (I believe) 408.5.14.1.1 & 2: “Sample once a day or every 1500 tons, which is less” This language is confusing and should be reworded. I’m assuming the intent is to sample every 1500 tons per day and once for any additional tons placed. The current verbiage could be interpreted as only once per day since 1 sample is the least. 408.5.14.4.2: I would think an asphalt residual could be done to verify what is being delivered. They should have an oven or heating source to do moistures. The mix design might assume a higher emulsion residual than what was actually delivered and the emulsion percent may need to adjusted to ensure the corret AC% in mix design. I think this should also include the tack coat to confirm the dilution rate was too much. 408.5.14.6: What’s the purpose? See emulsion ship seal comment. 408.5.14.6.1: Should this be 408.5.14.7? 408.14.6.1.1.c: Should use acceptable method per the M standard the material came from, T59, or any agency defined method for acceptance. 408.5.14.6.1.2.a: Should final inspection be 408.5.14.6.1.3? It should not be under equipment. 408.7: How many agencies pay this way? Pay be area and most agency specs should specify either the target application rate or a range. Low asphalt content in mix would be fixed by the mix design and a set tolerance to it. In





Ohio we say not to exceed a tolerance of 0.3%. This did not address more than one lift of micro surfacing. I think discussion on to handle a double micro surfacing should be mentioned. OR - Suggested editorial improvements: 408.5.1 for 45 degrees, add ‘and rising.’ 408.5.5.1 Redundancy in continuous-run machine description SC - What about rates that are not placed at correct rate? Penalty for being too low or too high? SC continuously has issues with the micro equipment not measuring distance traveled in the field. The tickets supplied by the equipment need to be verified against a DMI or wheel in the field to check for SY placed. we feel like the calibration is not enough.------------------------------------------------------------------408.5.10 - format Commentary 408.5.12 - add MUTCD to the referenced documents.408.6 - There is no subsection 109.01. Change to 109.1. Change title to "AASHTO Guide Specifications for Highway Construction" and add to the referenced documents.408.7.1 - Final sentence of the commentary is truncated.

OR - Corrected. See edits in the Guide SC - This guide is intended as a national spec, if SC or other agencies are having problems with rates and measurement, they should be addressed in their specifications. 408.5.10 Corrected. See edits in the Guide; 408.5.12, Corrected. See edits in the Guide; 109.01; Changed. See edits in the Gude. Title not changed as suggested because it matches the other Guides, added to the reference docs. See edits in the Guide; 408.7.1 Corrected. See edits in the Guide

4 Section 410 Construction Guide Specification for Emulsified Asphalt Fog Seal (Attachment E, 1E, 1Z)

TS5B: 3 neg 20 affirm 6 no vote

AL - 410.5.6.1.2.1. In the fourth sentence of the first paragraph the word “asphalt” is omitted. In figure 4 the word “Emulsion” is used where Emulsified asphalt is used throughout the guide 410.5.6.1.2.2. Figure 5 uses the word “emulsion” instead of “emulsified asphalt” IL - Page 14 · Section 410.5.14.8. o Why is this needed? Is it not implied that the contractor believes they have met the specifications when they turn the project back over to the department? KS - 410.4.2. What requirements in T 27 do the aggregates need to meet? T 27 is just a test procedure.410.5.15.2.1.2. editorial-move M 208 and M 316 up 1 line. Include

AL - Addressed the comments. See edits in guide IL - Correct, but this is included in all the guides and we feel it should remain in the guides for legal contractual purposes KS - Agree. T.27 is just a test method. Editorial changes made to clarify. OK to move M 208 and M 316 up one line. PMEs are





M 316 in Section 410.2 or remove it from here. I don't think we mention polymer modified emulsions in this guide. KY (NEG) – Section 410.5.6.1.2.2 “Once it is confirmed the bar height is correct, the nozzles that were turned off can be turned back on and a double (should this be a triple) application of emulsified asphalt will result when spraying resumes. Section 410.5.6.1.4 Calculate spray rate = 1500 gal/ (12 × 3630/3 9) = 0.31 gal/yd2 Section 410.5.6.2.2. Calculation 1. Calculations incorrect; suggestion Load = 23,800 lb Spreader distance = 640 ft Rate = 23,800((640 × 12)/9) = 27.9 lb/yd Calculation 2. Calculation incorrect, suggestion Spreader Distance = 634 lf Rate = 23,921/((634 × 12)/9) = 28.3 lb/ft² Calculation 3. Calculation incorrect, suggestion Spreader Distance = 639 lf Rate = 23,848/((639 × 12)/9) = 28.0 lb/ft² ME - 410.4.2: "Aggregate—When blotter aggregate is used in fog seals, the aggregate shall meet the requirements of T 27." - T 27 is a test method, not a material specification. Sentence should be deleted.410.5.14.3: AASHTO-accreditation for QC Labs will be challenging to implement for some agencies. 410.5.14.4.1.1: Should specify sampling method, and say "sample at the temporary stockpile." NV - 410.5.1 Weather Limitations: recommend removing the Celsius temperature unit since the document is in English unit. OH (NEG) – Table 3: Them mL column I am assume is base of a certain specific gravity. I think that specific gravity should be noted at the bottom of the table as a note. Not that there would be significant changes in rate if specific gravity would change a lot but some agencies may want to be more

included in AASHTO spec M 332 See edits in guide KY - All comments were addressed. See edits in the guide All comments were addressed. ME - Section 410.4.2 comments addressed. The example for aggregate spread rate was changed. Blotter sand for fog seals are applied at a very low rate compared with chip seals. See edits in guide comment. NV - Done. See edits in the guide OH - Addressed in a different word attachment All comments were addressed.





precise. May also want to clarify what the gal/sy column is (residual, undiluted, or diluted). 410.5.6: Isn’t the nozzles different for a fog seal versus a chip seal emulsion? I would think you would want to calibrate to the material and nozzles being used. Examples for yield checks/calibrations would be helpful in document. A QC plan for fog seal??? Sampling language for aggregate as mentioned in chip seal and micro surfacing sections. 410.7.1: Should that be aggregate for fog seal? OR (NEG) - 410.4.2 – T 304 results are reported as a percentage of unconfined voids, not degrees? 410.5.6.1.2.1 – Description of bar too low with overlap and bar too high with gap is opposite to reality410.5.6.1.2.1 and 410.5.6.1.2.2 Make titles similar in form410.5.6.1.2.2 End of 1st paragraph with bar too high and too low descriptions switched.410.5.6.1.4 – 6th bullet – clean up English in 1st sentence (e.g. add ‘of’) and incorrect conversion from square feet to square yards.410.5.6.2.2 – Incorrect conversion of square feet to square yards. Correct equations accordingly.410.5.15.2.1.2 – Fix formatting at the end of the last sentence410.7 – Multiple references to chip seal in the payment…fog sealing is not always tied to a chip seal410.7.2 – Refers to a ‘chip seal’ rather than a ‘fog seal’ on line 4 of the 1st paragraph Negative is due to conversion (calculation) mistakes and bar height discussion SC - 410.6 - There is no subsection 109.01. Change to 109.1. Change title to "AASHTO Guide Specifications for Highway Construction" and add to the referenced documents.

OR - Addressed. Bar height discussion was clarified and the calculations were corrected. Both these items were addressed; see edits. All comments were addressed. SC - Corrected as was suggested in the emulsified asphalt chip seal guides. See edits in guides

5 Section ??? Construction Guide Specification for


AL - AASHTO M 328 & R 57 listed as referenced documents are not found in the spec. These should be moved to a References Section. Why is 2.3 listed?

AL - All have been removed.





Diamond Grinding for Pavement Preservation (Attachment F, 1F)

IL - Comments listed by page number in footer of document. Page 3 · Section 5.1: o Paragraph 1, Line 2 – replace “concreterepairs” with “concrete repairs”. · Section 6.1: o Paragraph 1, Line 1 – delete extra space between “meets” and “the”. Page 4 · Section 6.4: o Paragraph 1, Line 3 – add period at the end of the sentence. · Section 8.2: o Paragraph 1, Line 2 – remove year from the standard title to require current version of test method. o Paragraph 1, Line 6 – Should the testing always be conducted at 3-ft from the lane line? What if the lane is only 11 foot or 10 foot? · Section 8.6 o Paragraph 1, Line 2 – Same comment as Section 8.2 regarding location of test in wheelpath. Page 5 · Section 8.6 o Paragraph 1, Line 2 – replace “after” with “of”. KS - 2.1 - Remove the year from the standards reference.2.3 - Remove this section5.1 - concreterepairs is 2 words8.1 - remove the 2nd "survey on 3rd line8.2 - remove the "-10" and add apace between "R" and "54". Remove "-" between "R" and "56"9.2 - check font and missing "." on the last sentence KY (NEG) - Only comment I have, should we address friction in the specification. One of the benefits to diamond grinding is the increase in friction and one can create a project where one wants to increase friction as the main goal and smoothness the secondary benefit. OR - 5.1 add space in ‘concreterepairs’ Subsection 6.1 - Delete extra space between ‘meets’ and ‘the’ Subsection 8.2 – change from: “All equipment shall have current certification and certified in accordance with AASHTO R-56.” To “ All equipment shall have current certification according to the requirements of AASHTO R 56.” Subsection 8.2 – define a “guide” to help maintain alignment of IRI measurement path. Subsection 9.2 – 4th line ‘with’ should be ‘width’. Also this

IL - Should the testing always be conducted at 3-ft from the lane line? What if the lane is only 11 foot or 10 foot? Recommend yes to both. MRI is the average of the two wheelpaths and represents the center of the lane. Test would still be within wheelpaths. All other recommended changes made. KS – KY - Recommend not specifying friction as the accepted values are different among states and often times not public information. Friction, like noise, is another benefit of grinding but should not have specified values. All comments were addressed. OR - A guide (positive means for controlling alignment) shall be used to ensure proper alignment of the profile All other corrections made.





subsection correct font to continuity of format SC - Needs to be formatted as a guide specification like the others - still in materials standard format. Needs a section number.-------------------------------------------------------------------2.1 - Format this section and remove the year designations from the standards unless that particular year is critical.2.3 - remove this section5.1 - Separate "concrete" and "repairs."9.2 - Fix differing fonts.

SC - Corrections made except for section number. Also, not sure what is meant for 2.1 Format this section? Year was removed.

6 PP 091 - Correction formula in section 5.2.3.2; 6.24 should be 62.4 (Attachment G, 1G)


AL - Minnesota Pavement Distress Manual is listed as a referenced document and does not appear to be referenced in this guide. IL - Comments listed by page number in footer of document. Page 2: · Section 5.1.2. o Paragraph 1, Line 2 – By using CQS-1h, are there concerns with entrapment of water trying to escape from the scrub seal? It has been IDOT's practice to only use slow setting emulsions for fog seals covering chip seals.

AL - Reference was removed. The examples of surface condition in Table 6 are adapted from the MnDOT Sealcoat Handbook. Application of the adjustment factors in Table 7 is addressed in 5.4.1. “Select distress levels based on state highway agency practice for project location.” This sentence removes the need to reference a state specific distress manual. Correction to the formula were made.

A motion was made by MN and seconded by IL to send all of the ballot items to COMP ballot. Motion passed.

C. Reconfirmation Ballots Reconf. Ballot # Standard


N/A

D. Task Force Reports


Task Force # Title Members Status/Update N/A

VI. New Business

A. AASHTO re:source/CCRL/NTPEP (Observations from assessments, as applicable.)

1. None

B. Presentation by Industry/Academia 1. None

C. Revisions/Work on Standards for Coming Year 1. Task Force for addressing publications of Construction Guide Specifications. The Chair asked if a TF

was needed to look at the publication of the standards. Amir Hanna stated this should be with Construction. Curt Turgeon stated Construction does not review as frequently as COMP and that the decision has been made to keep it with COMP. Colin Franco agreed that this was decided earlier on in the formation of TS 5b. The Chair agreed that no TF was needed.

Standard # Title Task/Summary Assigned to N/A

D. Review of Stewardship List (List of subcommittee’s standards flagging those requiring action; include as separate attachment.)

1.

E. Proposed New Standards 1. There are no other new standards at this time.

F. Correspondence, Calls, Meetings Chris Lubber – Scrub Seal Materials Spec changes. Chris is working on an update that hopefully will be ready by the Mid-Year meeting in November. Sejal Barot (MD) stated that there should be coordination with the other TS so there is no duplication of efforts. Colin mentioned that the Practice has already been approved.

G. Proposed New Task Forces (Include list of volunteers to lead and/or join TF.)

H. New TS Ballots

VII. Open Discussion

Mark stated that all ballot items need to be with AASHTO by 9/10 so possibly to the Chair by 9/3. Chair and those needing to work on them agreed.

Danny Lane (TN) discussed his work for TS 4c on the material standard for High Friction and Thin Overlay standards. These will be writing for the Field Inspector as a Construction Guide Specification. He will also have the application standard for these to 5b, hopefully by the Mid-Year meeting in November.

Craig Weider (CO) stated that he will be the replacement for Kyle Lester.

Russell Thielke (NY) stated that he will be the replacement for Don Streeter.

Bouzid Choubane (FL) requested membership.


Anita Bush (NV) stated that she is from Maintenance and Thanked the TS for the opportunity to comment. The Chair stated he has worked a lot with his Maintenance staff and it has been a big help and education both ways.

Rick Bradbury (ME) thanked the Chair and Vice Chair for stepping up and stated we should adjourn.

Anne Holt (ON) sent email stating she was the replacement for Becca Lane.

.

VIII. Adjourn - The Chair agreed and adjourned at 1:40 pm.


TS Meeting Summary

Meeting Summary Items Approved by the TS for Ballot (Include reconfirmations.)

Standard Designation Name/Summary of Changes Proposed Ballot Type

Section 406 Construction Guide Specification for Emulsified Asphalt Chip Seal ☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT

Section 407 Construction Guide Specification for Hot Applied Chip Seal ☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT

Section 408 Construction Guide Specification for Micro Surfacing ☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT

Section 410 Section 410 Construction Guide Specification for Emulsified Asphalt Fog Seal ☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT

Section ??? Construction Guide Specification for Diamond Grinding for Pavement Preservation ☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT

PP 091 Correction formula in section 5.2.3.2; 6.24 should be 62.4 ☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT

☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT

☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT

☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT

☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT New Task Forces Formed Task Force Name Summary of Task TF Member Names and (States) No new ones

Research Proposals (Include number/title/states interested.) None Submitted

Other Action Items

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS AND PAVEMENTS …...Chair Name and (State) Larry Ilg, Oregon Vice Chair Name...

Documents

Transcript of COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS AND PAVEMENTS …...Chair Name and (State) Larry Ilg, Oregon Vice Chair Name...