2006 JCTP Meeting Minutes



AASHTO Joint Technical Committee on Pavements (JTCP)

December 6-8, 2006

DRAFT Meeting Minutes

1. Welcome and introductory comments - Malcolm T. Kerley, P.E., Chief Engineer, Virginia DOT

Mr. Kerley was introduced to the JTCP by Andy Mergenmeier. In Mr. Kerley’s welcoming remarks he acknowledged that Virginia is encountering challenges and issues similar to those that are being put before many other States in a shifting political environment.

One of the key areas VDOT is working on currently to leverage resources and meet the transportation needs is public private partnerships (under the Public-Private Transportation Act (PPTA) Guidelines). Under the PPTA there have been a number projects that bring approaches for private entities to construct, improve, maintain, and operate transportation facilities including approaches such as the use of HOT lanes.

2. Update on Continuing Resolution - John D’ Angelo

John provided information on the pavement and materials research, development, and technology deployment programs that are planned under the SAFETEA-LU legislation. This included a summary of designated programs and earmarks along with anticipated funding levels and 2007 appropriations.

3. Long Life Concrete Pavement Scan Update - Dan Dawood

The presentation provided a summary of the 2006 scan cosponsored by AASHTO, FHWA, and NCHRP to identify techniques used in other countries for achieving longer concrete pavement service lives. There are several findings that the scan team will recommend implementing in the U.S.

A final scan report will be published in 2007.

4. Quality Assurance Reviews - John D’Angelo

Presentation was an overview of the FHWA Quality Assurance Program including background information, current status and resources, and goals for the short term and long term.

5. NCHRP 1-40 Overview and Status – Harold Von Quintus

Presentation provided an introduction and overview of the 1-40 project, status of project phases, an overview of findings, along with a summary and concluding comments.

For balloting purposes, the User Manual will be the product that will be voted on therefore the User Manual is in an AASHTO format (like the “Standard Practice” type of publications). The project team is trying to follow the objective to limit the User Manual to 100 pages, however it is already about 140 pages long. The manual includes information on semi-rigid pavements (asphalt over cementitious base). Calibration is still needed although some calibration for the northwest has been done.

There may be a need to deal with the reliability concept and input levels. The User Manual mentions the issue and provides suggestions for initial ways to work around it. The User Manual notes cautions about areas that have a low R2 (like longitudinal cracking).

This should be discussed at the NCHRP 1-40 Panel meeting on 12/11/07.

The User Manual will mention that pavement preservation treatments are not directly included in the mechanistic empirical pavement design guide (MEPDG). This issue could be considered in the local calibration guide, but not in this User Manual for reasons such as:

• Pavement preservation is not a structural design

• Should be addressed in pavement management

JTCP could consider looking at a Joint Task Force document that was produced/approved in a previous year to cover this subject.

JTCP should provide direction on how to proceed based on the upcoming NCHRP 1-40 Panel meeting (12/11/06) through the end of the project.

• Do States still need to review the manual or should it be taken to the ballot stage?

• State comments and JTCP’s comments should be addressed.

Mr. Von Quintus suggested that the April workshop will provide one venue for States to review the User Manual since it is expected that each State will send a representative.

The workshop and balloting process were discussed again several times throughout the meeting.

6. Alternate Bid and Adjustment Factors – Pete Stephanos and Kirk Zeringue

Kirk presented information on the alternate design / alternate bids in Louisiana including some background information, the evolution of the process along with information on its current use. Pete presented information on use of alternate bids and pavement type selection in Maryland along with why it changed, how it changed, and how well it is working. There was also some information presented on alternate bid experience reported by Ontario and Missouri.

In addition to the presentations, a report from Wisconsin DOT entitled “Asphalt and Concrete Pavement Letting through Alternate Pavement Type Bidding” was provided. (also available on )

Also referenced in the presentation was publication FHWA-SA-98-079 “Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design - Interim Technical Bulletin”. (Also available on )

Louisiana’s process is described in Transportation Research Record No. 1900, Construction 2004 in a paper entitled “Agency Process for Alternate Design and Alternate Bid of Pavements”.

A suggestion was made that FHWA should prepare a Technical Advisory to clarify Alternate Design and Alternate Bid. Currently the policy is that State will have a procedure for pavement design. Alternate bids are discouraged (but not prohibited). If State agency wants to have alternate bids, need to do a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA).

7. Discussion: Questionnaire for States – Gary Sharpe

Gary (859-744-1218) provided an “Innovative Contracting Methods Questionnaire” for State representatives to complete and return to Gary at the address provided on the questionnaire.

8. AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials – Andy Mergenmeier

The Subcommittee on Materials (SOM) will be presented with the option to vote on a “provisional” pavement design guide. It is expected that this will be done by a special vote after information is presented to the SOM meeting in August 2007.

9. NCHRP Pavement Research Overview – Amir Hanna

The presentation included background information and the current status of research project in the NCHRP program. A “List of Current and Recently Completed Projects Related to Pavements” was handed out to the JTCP as a summary projects.

The JTCP’s business plan is published as an October 2003 NCHRP Research Results Digest 276 entitled “Business Needs for Pavement Engineering” (available on ). It was suggested that a business meeting is needed to update the plan and to discuss the topics and subtopics.

Project 1-43 is completed, “Guide for Pavement Friction”.

NCHRP is looking for a recommendation from the JTCP to publish this as an AASHTO guide. (Motion was made to ballot this, see item 21)

10. Discussion: forming a strategic planning steering committee - Cheryl Richter

A discussion took place on forming a steering committee to begin putting together a strategic plan for the “next pavement design guide”. The intent is to begin planning needed research. The steering committee would determine how far out to look (i.e. whether to pursue next version of the MEPDG or perhaps what a next generation of a pavement design guide should look like). The committee would consider all the research that has been done and look forward for opportunities. Questions to the JTCP:

• Is the time right?

• What timeframe would be needed for this type of plan?

There was some debate whether this should be a parallel activity to the current pavement design guide implementation efforts, or follow on activity once implementation is fully underway. There was concern as to focusing energy on the task at hand (implementation) rather than to looking at a new strategic plan. However, a strategic plan at this stage may assist in providing some direction for research that is already in progress and may also assist States in their decisions about the current guide if there is information about when potential shortcomings of the current guide will be addressed.

If the JTCP agrees that strategic planning for the next guide should begin, it is suggested that JTCP members are identified to work on a steering committee brought together by FHWA.

11. Lead States Group Update – Linda Pierce

There are several “Tech Notes/Briefs” on the design guide being prepared and made available from FHWA. The group may need to have its efforts and role redirected. States should be providing information and reports on implementation efforts to the group to support the distribution of experience and success stories.

12. DARWIN Task Group (Software issues) – Linda Pierce and Tony Bianchi

The DARWIN task group is waiting for the release of MEPDG 1.0 version of software and approval in order to sunset DARWIN to put funding into the new software. Licensing and fees would provide the funding to the MEPDG forward. Could consider different licensing models already used for other AASHTO software (like PONTIS). The task group will decide on the fee (probably not more than $25,000) and will need to have a minimum 10 States buying a license in order to move forward on having it as an AASHTOware product.

The group anticipates that an annual user license will be purchased by States which would include the source code (for States ONLY). In this way, States can make modifications and submit the changes back to the task group for evaluation. The task group would consider whether to incorporate the changes into the software. The feedback and use of the State’s modifications would likely involve AASHTO and the State signing agreements to deal with intellectual property issues. Other organizations and consultants would be able to purchase a license, but would not receive the source code.

The task force expects to have a meeting in March 2007 to discuss these issues, perhaps in association with the planned workshop.

13. Design Guide Implementation Team (DGIT) – Gary Crawford

The presentation provided a summary of the DGIT including the implementation strategies and activities that have taken place and others that are planned as the next steps.

There was a suggestion to DGIT from one of the JTCP members to sort or organize the comments that are in the online Community of Practice to make it easier to find discussions on specific topics.

There was a concern over continuing to refer to the product as the Pavement Design Guide since it will be provisional.

There was some discussion on how a State actually implements the guide. It was suggested that a structured template from a business perspective (a kind of architecture for implementation) would be helpful. The FHWA indicated that they have received some implementation plans and will check with the States that submitted them to verify that it would be acceptable to share the plans including the specifics.

14. AASHTO Update – Keith Platte

Keith introduced himself as the new AASHTO liaison to the JTCP and intends to support the committee as needed.

Updates to the AASHTO JTCP webpage () can be made through Keith. The presentations from this meeting will be posted on the technical committee’s webpage () rather than on an FTP site used in the past.

15. ACPA Update – Gerry Voigt

Gerry’s presentation included the concrete industries thoughts on MEPDG, the ACPA board’s adopted position on performance related specifications, and concrete program highlights.

ACPA has some concerns with the CRC models (in MEPDG) however this should not prevent things from moving forward. ACPA proposes incorporating MEPDG into PaveSpec in the future. A handout was provided outlining ACPA’s position on performance related specifications. The issue of alternate bids may also be presented to the industry (ACPA) technical task force.

There was a discussion about ACPA’s new website. JTCP members expressed concerns over the content and information presented on the site. ACPA plans to review and modify the site and specific comments can be submitted directly to Gerry.

The JTCP plans to allow time for ACPA to modify the website prior to deciding on taking any other action. Dan will email Gerry to ask about ACPA’s timeframe for review/changes and relay the response to the JTCP and Chairs of SOD and SOM.

16. Warm Mix Asphalt Scan Update - John D’Angelo

The presentation included an overview of warm mix asphalt (WMA), the scan purpose, and some of the preliminary details on coordination.

This is a Joint AASHTO/ FHWA/NCHRP International Technology Scan on WMA technology planned for 2007. The scan will include taking a look at incorporating more recycled material into the mix and whether using the technology can extend the construction season.

17. NCHRP Project 1-40 update – Ed Harrigan and Gary Sharpe

Ed presented the status of each of the tasks under project 1-40 along with details on the progress of tasks A (independent review), D (software), B IV (User Manual), and Z (guide revision). Then Gary provided the 1-40 panel’s perspective on implementation.

Task A is completed and produced NCHRP Research Results Digest 307: Independent Review of the Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) and Software which is now available. Ed will provide copies of the digest to committee. (It is also available on )

In May 2007 the JTCP could expect to have the opportunity to approve the 3 products (User Manual, software, and guide). The JTCP was reminded that the Subcommittee on Research (SCOR) provided $250k for the manual and FHWA will be sponsoring the upcoming workshop. There was a discussion on the upcoming workshop as far as timing (perhaps late April), the number of days (1 or 2 days). These items will be discussed at the panel meeting (12/11/06).

JTCP expects to conduct the balloting process on the 3 products around the same time as the workshop.

The JTCP recommendation will be submitted to Subcommittee on Materials (SOM) for their August meeting and to the Subcommittee on Design (SOD) for their June meeting.

JTCP will request the SOM and SOD chairs to use “special balloting” and as a “provisional” or “interim” acceptance of the MEPDG. Dan will check with Ken Kobetsky to check on correct terminology.

The JTCP Chair (Dan Dawood) plans to attend both meetings and request a response back in order to hand off the products and recommendations to SCOH in 2007. The JTCP wants to ensure that the process keeps moving along.

Workshop is not intended as a training session, it is part of the balloting process. Planning for one representative from each state, preferably people that work in design and make the decision. Each State will have one vote, so it is important that there is coordination in determining which way to vote. The JTCP will get a current draft of the manual, based on concurrence from 1-40 panel. Other States will get the copies for the workshop. There was a suggestion to call this something other than a “workshop” since it is not training.

JTCP will need to prepare a letter to invite participants and define the purpose and goal of representatives that will attend the workshop.

The letter will be sent to SCOH (Chief Engineers) to let them know the pavement design representative will provide information back to SOM and SOD representatives so they can vote (with one voice). The NCHRP 1-40 panel will be discussing the specific details (duration, # of reps, terminology, date, location, etc.) of the workshop on 12/11/06.

Dan Dawood presented Gary Sharpe with a plaque on behalf of the JTCP. The plaque reflects the appreciation of the JTCP to Gary for the work he did for the AASHTO Joint Task Force on Pavements (predecessor to the JTCP) and his service as its last Chair. Gary provided the leadership and encouragement for the members to press on to meet the goals and accomplish the tasks needed to move toward a new method of pavement design. Gary reflected on the challenges that are almost inherent to this type of effort and encouraged the JTCP to continue making progress and improvements for pavement technology.

18. FWD File Format - Eric Weaver

The presentation entitled “Proposed Changes to the AASHTO PDDX-1 File Format” included background information on AASHTO’s 1998 Pavement Deflection Data Exchange Technical Data Guide, an overview of the issue being encountered by using the current format, and the recommended changes.

Andy Mergenmeier will take a look at the FWD standard and provide technical comments to the JTCP along with coordinating with the SOM.

There was discussion about the new standards being published through the JTCP as the owner.

19. Discussion: California’s comments on MEPDG – Bill Farnbach

Bill provided a handout to the committee outlining California’s comments on issues with the design guide for the NCHRP 1-40 panel’s consideration.

20. Pavement Preservation and State Practice Reviews - Joe Gregory

The presentation provided an overview of pavement preservation and the FHWA’s technical appraisal project being conducted with State DOTs along with a summary of some preliminary findings.

There was a discussion about FHWA’s pavement preservation activities. JTCP was advised that Steve Varnadoe or Jim Sorenson should be contacted if there are members interested in working with the committee that oversees the contract for the Preservation Help Desk.

There was a suggestion made that FHWA should produce a best practices document to assist States in making the case for not doing a specific treatment. Part of the discussion also recommended caution in the use of the preservation concepts and emphasizing that it is not the same as perpetual pavements. It was pointed out that regulations should prevent using preservation funding as a fix (for wrong time, project) to maintain a bad road.

21. Highways for Life Update - Charlie Goodspeed

Charlie provided an overview of the Highways for Life Program along with the goals and schedule. The presentation also highlighted 3 innovative paving projects that have been proposed.

One of the highlighted technologies is two-lift construction. If a State is interested in using this technology on a project, please contact Tom Cackler at ISU (515-294-3230) or Charlie Goodspeed.

22. Discussion: Guide on Pavement Friction – Amir Hanna (also referred to in item 5)

The JTCP needs to accept the guide and recommend it to the SOD to be adopted by AASHTO. Mike Murphy (TX) volunteered to work on getting the comments together on the guide (contingent on if Mr. Jay Bledsoe is not available).

Mike Pologruto (VT) motioned for balloting the “Guide for Pavement Friction”.

Andy Mergenmeier (VA) seconded the motion.

No opposition, motion passed.

23. Discussion: Suggestion for NCHRP Project Statement – Linda Pierce

Linda presented the JTCP with a suggestion that a “pavement textbook” is needed. The textbook would encompass a full range of topics related to pavements (pavement management, smoothness, preservation, construction, etc.) from an introduction to an expert level. After some discussion the JTCP supported the idea to submit this to NCHRP.

Linda will prepare a research statement to submit this to NCHRP by Monday (12/11/06) as a project to produce an AASHTO document on pavements.

The discussion also included the recognition that the JTCP needs to have better communication with other committees through the liaisons and improve the process for submitting research statements to NCHRP.

24. Discussion: PDG balloting process – Dan Dawood

The issue of the next steps and balloting process for the MEPDG were mentioned and discussed on several occasions throughout the meeting. This discussion was intended to summarize and clarify the process for the JTCP members.

The process should be as follows:

• JTCP ballots the products

• Recommendation is sent to SOM for review and comments

• Then submit recommendation/products to SOD for approval

• SOD will make a resolution

• SOD sends the resolution and JTCP recommendation to SCOH

There was a suggestion to include in the transmittal letter important points of the guide such as that this is the first time material characteristics are included in pavement structural design.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download