COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS & PAVEMENTS Mid Year Meeting (Webinar) Minutes Thursday, January 25, :00 4:00 PM EST

Transcription

1 COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS & PAVEMENTS Mid Year Meeting (Webinar) Minutes Thursday, January 25, :00 4:00 PM EST TECHNICAL SECTION 2b Liquid Asphalt I. Call to Order and Opening Remarks A. Brief summary of activities (to ensure all attendees up to speed) The chair provided attendees with a brief update of meeting activities: Last meeting was in August Resulted in 7 ballot items. 13 reconfirmation items. II. Roll Call The following members, friends, and guests signified their attendance: Members Member Name (Proxy listed in parenthesis) Blackburn, Lyndi D Chair State/Province Alabama Department of Transportation Present? x Paye, Barry C Vice Chair Wisconsin Department of Transportation Burch, Paul (Jesús Sandoval) Arizona Department of Transportation x x Goldbaum, Jay Lauzon, Robert G (Eliana Carlson) Khan, Wasi U Colorado Department of Transportation Connecticut Department of Transportation District of Columbia Department of Transportation x Wu, Peter Georgia Department of Transportation x Shishido, Eric Hawaii Department of Transportation Pfeifer, Brian Illinois Department of Transportation x Barezinsky, Richard A Kansas Department of Transportation Myers, Allen H Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Page 1 of 13

2 Committee on Materials & Pavements Davis, Jason Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development x Bradbury, Rick L (Derek Nener-Plante) Maine Department of Transportation x Barot, Sejal (Chandra Akisetty) Maryland Department of Transportation x Grieco, John E Massachusetts Department of Transportation Strizich, Matt (Oak Metcalfe) Montana Department of Transportation x Tedford, Darin P Nevada Department of Transportation x Boisvert, Denis M. New Hampshire Department of Transportation x Streeter, Donald (Chris Euler) Peoples, Chris A Biehl, Eric R New York State Department of Transportation North Carolina Department of Transportation Ohio Department of Transportation x Ramirez, Timothy Pennsylvania Department of Transportation x Byrne, Michael P Rhode Island Department of Transportation Egan, Brian Tennessee Department of Transportation x Andrus, Scott S Utah Department of Transportation x Gagulic, Mladen Vermont Agency of Transportation x Bailey, William R Virginia Department of Transportation x Farley, Paul M West Virginia Department of Transportation x Lane, Becca (Pamela Marks) Ontario Ministry Of Transportation x Non-Voting Members Member Name Organization Present? Johnson, Brian AASHTO Re:source x Knake, Maria AASHTO Re:source x Lenker, Steven AASHTO Re:source Page 2 of 13

3 Committee on Materials & Pavements Lutz, Robert AASHTO Re:source x Carlson, Eliana (see proxy above) Connecticut Department of Transportation x Trepanier, Jim Illinois Department of Transportation x Morse, Kelly L Illinois Department of Transportation x Akisetty, Chandra K (see proxy above) Maryland Department of Transportation x Holt, Anne Ontario Ministry Of Transportation x Marks, Pamela J (see proxy above) Rothblatt, Evan Lacinak, Henry Arasteh, Michael Harman, Tom Aschenbrener, Tim Corrigan, Matthew Ontario Ministry Of Transportation American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Federal Highway Administration Federal Highway Administration Federal Highway Administration Federal Highway Administration x Friends Name Organization Present? Horan, Robert Donald Tomkins, Larry E Gallivan, Victor Lee Asphalt Institute Ergon Asphalt and Emulsions, Inc. Gallivan Consulting Inc. x Brown, Judge Hunt Refining Company x Willis, James Richard Fitts, Gary L National Asphalt Pavement Association Shell Page 3 of 13

4 Committee on Materials & Pavements Guests Name Organization Present? David Anderson Consultant x Michael Benson Arkansas Department of Transportation x Howard Anderson Utah Department of Transportation x Temple Short South Carolina Department of Transportation x Brett Trautman Missouri Department of Transportation x Cassady Allen Florida Department of Transportation x Mike Anderson Asphalt Institute x Mark Brum Massachusetts Department of Transportation (not proxy) x Mike Doran Tennessee Department of Transportation x Joe DeVol Washington Department of Transportation x III. IV. Approval of Technical Section Minutes A Annual Meeting Minutes distributed with the SOM ballot and the Mid-year agenda. A motion was made by Illinois and a second by Montana to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed unopposed. Old Business A. COMP Ballot Items (Including any ASTM Changes/equivalencies) 1. Outstanding items from Annual Meeting? M 320 Revision to Note 4 PA to recommend revised note. PA was contacted for a recommended revision. Waiting to hear back from PA. 2. COMP Ballot Items Item Number: 15 Affirmative: 48 of 52 Negative: 0 of 52 No Vote: 4 of 52 COMP ballot item to revise and update T 48, Flash Point of Asphalt Binder by Cleveland Open Cup, with a correction to the temperatures in Section 1.2, corrections to the figure dimensions in Figure 2 and 3, and the addition of Section 6.1 to require the cup to be cleaned. See Page 2, and Attachment C, pages of the minutes. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) (tramirez@pa.gov) Editorial comments: 1) In Section 1.2, Note 1, the existing text indicates "flash points below 93ºC (200ºF)"; however, with the proposed change in Section 1.2 raising the minimum temperature to "219ºC (426ºF)" for this standard should the Note 1 text be revised to provide information on what test to use for asphalt binders with flash points from 93ºC (200ºF) to 219ºC (426ºF) which is the gap in the two temperature ranges between the Section 1.2 text and the Note 1 text? Page 4 of 13

5 Committee on Materials & Pavements 2) In Section 6.1, 2nd line, add a period after the word "purpose". 3) In Section 6.1, last sentence, suggest revising completely to read "The test cup shall be dried until there is no remaining water or solvent in the cup prior to use.". Revision suggested for clarity. We will look at editorial comments and publish (July). Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Joseph S Robinson) (josrobinso@pa.gov) The US / SI unit conversion is wrong. Edit section 1.2 to change (750 Fahrenheit) to (752 Fahrenheit). Currently section 1.2 reads: "This test method is applicable to asphalt binder with flash point between 219 C (426 F) and400 C (750 F)." However: (400 X 9 / 5) +32 = 752 It was pointed out that the units listed in the scope of the standard state that units will be listed in SI only. Since the standard has both SI and English units, the statement in the scope should be revised. We will need to decide if the units should be exact equivalents or rationalized units. Maria Knake (AASHTO re:source), Nevada, and Virginia will take a look at this. South Carolina Department of Transportation (Merrrill E Zwanka) (zwankame@scdot.org) The TAG Cup (T79) stops at a maximum of 200 F so why not start T48 at 200F instead of jumping the minimum up to 426F? Are there any products that fall in the range of 200F and 426F? Maria Knake, Nevada, and Virginia will look at the temperature ranges when reviewing the scope of the standard. Arkansas Department of Transportation (Michael C Benson) (michael.benson@ardot.gov) It is still unclear as to whether the flash point determined per the protocol of (4-10 C/min rate entire test) is to be reportable. While more time consuming it would seem easier to maintain a uniform rate throughout the test rather than the two rates stated in If development of the precision and bias statements was based on one of the methods that would need to be the one used with the other for screening. If it is uncertain as to which, perhaps the method needs to be stated as either allowed. Section is to be used when the binder has an unknown flash point. Since the flash could happen at any time, the test rate must be run slower. If the purpose of the test is to just verify the known flash point of the material, the sample can be heated more rapidly until it gets closer to the expected flash point. It is more common for states to verify a flash point rather than to determine it for the first time, and the faster procedure saves a great deal of time in that case. Item Number: 16 Affirmative: 48 of 52 Negative: 0 of 52 No Vote: 4 of 52 COMP ballot item to revise TP 102, Evaluation of Asphalt Release Agents (ARAs), to clarify the unit weight definition in Section 6.1.2, the stripping rating system in Section , and the reporting requirements. See Page 3 and Attachment I, pages of the minutes. All comments are editorial in nature. These comments will go back to Barry Paye to see if they recommend any other changes based on these comments. Arkansas Department of Transportation (Michael C Benson) (michael.benson@ardot.gov) Is it the intent for the binders stated in Section and to be the same as that is not necessarily the case the way they are each individually written. Recommend use the verbiage in Section in both sections. Figures 1-5 should be worded the same as changes made in wording in Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Joseph S Robinson) (josrobinso@pa.gov) Unit conversion is wrong in section Currently it reads: Page 5 of 13

6 Committee on Materials & Pavements "Unit Weight Bucket cm3 (0.1-ft3) unit weight bucket filled with sand t..." However: 0.1 foot = centimeter and thus; 0.1 cubic feet = (3.048) X (3.048) X (3.048) = cubic centimeter, not Illinois Department of Transportation (Brian Pfeifer) (brian.pfeifer@illinois.gov) 6.1.2, recommend tighter tolerances for combined mass and unit weight bucket. Consider 0.1 lbs. Should captions under Figures 1, 2, 3, and 5 match Section ? 3. COMP Concurrent Ballot Items Item Number: 17 Affirmative: 48 of 52 Negative: 0 of 52 No Vote: 4 of 52 Concurrent ballot item to revise and update R 15, Evaluation of Asphalt Additives and Modifiers. See Page 3 and Attachment E, pages of the minutes. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) (tramirez@pa.gov) 1) In Section 2.3.1, revise from "TP 79 or T378" to "T 378". 2) In Section 6.4.5, Note 3, revise from "strength" to "strength". 3) In Section 6.4.6, revise from "T340" to "T 340". 4) In Section 6.4.7, delete this entire subsection as Moisture Susceptibility by T 324 is already included under Subsection ) In Section 6.4.8, suggest combining Sections and Section under one Section labeled as "Permanent Deformation" and include those tests listed under both Section and Section ) In Section 6.4.8, renumber the subsections as subsections begin with "6.4.7.#". 7) In Section 6.4.9, renumber the subsections as subsections begin with "6.4.8.#". 8) In Section X1.6.1, revise from "Percent" to "Percent dosage rate". These comments are editorial in nature and will be addressed before publication. South Carolina Department of Transportation (Merrrill E Zwanka) (zwankame@scdot.org) Section 1.1 now says that recycled materials aren't covered here, and REOB is now removed from Section 1.2.2, then guidance should be given as to where to go for evaluation of recycled additives. Per the title of this standard, REOB and other additives would logically be evaluated by R15 unless directed elsewhere. This standard is specific to products that are not recycled materials. Some states felt that adding REOB would be considered an endorsement for that product. This standard could be used for recycled products, but due to sensitivity of these terms, it was removed. The standard has little to no mention of testing at various dosages of these modifiers. Because this is a recommended practice for reviewing additives, listing of actual dosages is not necessary. Arkansas Department of Transportation (Michael C Benson) (michael.benson@ardot.gov) In Section the listing for T 320 has been struck through but the comment (Note to keep this) was included. In Note 43 strength is misspelled. In the marked out Section listing for T 320 has been struck through but the comment (Keep?) was included. In Appendix X "buck" should probably be "bulk" and including should be included or sentence reworded. These comments are editorial in nature and will be addressed before publication. Oregon Department of Transportation (Greg F. Stellmach) (greg.f.stellmach@odot.state.or.us) Section Consider changing reference to "...corresponding neat asphalt binders..." to "...corresponding unmodified asphalt binders..." Page 6 of 13

7 Committee on Materials & Pavements Should T316 be deleted from Section since the reference to T316 looks like it was deleted from Section 2.1.1? Is the reference to T324 in Section and Section repetitive? Need to make sure that numbering gets corrected between Section and Section Looks like there is a typo in X1.9.2 Product "buck" shipment These comments are editorial in nature and will be addressed before publication. Illinois Department of Transportation (Brian Pfeifer) (brian.pfeifer@illinois.gov) Section X1.9.2, first sentence, replace "buck" with "bulk" These comments are editorial in nature and will be addressed before publication. Tennessee Department of Transportation (Brian K. Egan) (Brian.Egan@tn.gov) 1) Is the standard also intended to evaluate fibers that will modify the mix, but not the binder? 2) It appears that editing is needed in section 6.4. Section and are both titled Moisture Susceptibility Section is titled Rutting and is Permanent Deformation. Should they be combined? This standard only covers additives that incorporated into the binder and either modify the binder or provide certain characteristics to the binder to improve the mix. This standard does not address fiber. The other comments are editorial in nature and will be addressed before publication. Wisconsin Department of Transportation (Barry C Paye) (barry.paye@dot.wi.gov) Need to correct formatting in the balloted document, including numbering in the #6 area. This comment is editorial in nature and will be addressed before publication. Item Number: 18 Affirmative: 48 of 52 Negative: 0 of 52 No Vote: 4 of 52 Concurrent ballot item to adopt TP 102, Evaluation of Asphalt Release Agents (ARAs), as a full standard. See Page 3 and Attachment I, pages of the minutes. NO COMMENTS This item will be published as a full standard T 382. Item Number: 19 Affirmative: 46 of 52 Negative: 2 of 52 No Vote: 4 of 52 Concurrent ballot item to revise M 332, Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Using Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test by deleting Appendix X1. See Page 3 and Attachment F, pages of the minutes. Attachment G, pages of the minutes gives the discussions held during the annual meeting. Mike Anderson from the Asphalt Institute gave a brief history of how thing change came to be: discussions at the ETG led to the conclusion that the Jnr curve did not really fit in M332 and would be a better fit in a new standard for evaluating binders using MSCR (see Item 20 below where the Appendix from M332 is added to a newly proposed standard) Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Joseph S Robinson) (josrobinso@pa.gov) Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) (tramirez@pa.gov) Negative with comments: 1) Reason for Negative: After review of the proposed revisions, the removal of Appendix X1 seems to add more complexity than is needed for what the R XX procedures involves. The R XX procedure only involves plotting T 350 test results on a Figure (reporting results in a Page 7 of 13

8 Committee on Materials & Pavements different format) or performing one additional calculation for comparison to one T 350 test result (i.e., R XX, Section 7.3). 2) For simplicity and consolidation of requirements into one standard, the elastic response requirements should be maintained in M 332. It is suggested that the elastic response be an additional requirement in Table 1 for those PGAB grades that typically would need produced using polymer modification to meet the existing requirements of Table 1 (e.g., PG64E-22, PG64V-22, PG64H-22, PG58E-28, PG58V-28, PG58H-28, PG70S-22, PG70H-22, etc.). The simple formula calculations could be specifically spelled out in either M 332 as a separate Section or maintained in M 332 as an Annex (Mandatory Information) as required in Table 1 for specific grades. Otherwise, states would need to specify M 332 with Appendix X1 (as is) or specify M 332 and R XX for specific grades on their own. If specific grades were identified in M 332 that were required to meet the elastic response, this may eliminate the proliferation of different ways and different PGAB grades that each state would specify and require PGABs to meet both M 332 and R XX. A motion was made by Tennessee and a Second by Wisconsin to find this negative vote nonpersuasive under the rationale that The standards can still be used and specified as desired by each individual state. 19 voting members voted for the motion, and 1 voter voted against the motion. 0 voters abstained. The motion carried. Editorial comments: 3) In Section 4.1.1, 1st line, revise from "requirements in in R-XX" to "requirements in R XX" (i.e., eliminate 2nd of two "in" words). 4) Not sure why there is a blank page (Page-2) in M 332. These comments are editorial in nature and will be addressed before publication. Arkansas Department of Transportation (Michael C Benson) (michael.benson@ardot.gov) Negative with comments. Preference to include reference of the percent recovery criteria and R-XX in M 332. As noted in PennDOT comments, inclusion as two tables in M 332, similar to M 320, would allow for specification without requiring notation of two Standards when purchasing. The verbiage in Section is confusing as written and appears to indicate that a minimum percent recovery is required (Percent Recovery of X) in the example. Option to consider as pass/fail criteria or a minimum could be stated depending on how a purchaser wishes to utilize the test information. A motion was made by Tennessee and a Second by Wisconsin to find this voter nonpersuasive under the rationale that The standards can still be used and specified as desired by each individual state. 19 voting members voted for the motion, and 1 voter voted against the motion. 0 voters abstained. The motion carried. Maine Department of Transportation (Richard L Bradbury) (richard.bradbury@maine.gov) I still support the idea of having "Evaluating the Elastic Behavior of Asphalt Binders Using the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test" as part of M 332, as discussed at the annual meeting. This voter explained that they did not vote negative, since this topic was already discussed at the COMP meeting in August The intent of the comment was simply to voice their support from including this information in M332 to make it easier for specification. Item Number: 20 Affirmative: 47 of 52 Negative: 1 of 52 No Vote: 4 of 52 Concurrent ballot item to adopt the proposed practice, R XY, Evaluating the Elastic Behavior of Asphalt Binders Using the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test. See Page 3 and Attachment H, pages of the minutes. Attachment G, pages of the minutes gives the discussions held during the annual meeting. Page 8 of 13

9 Committee on Materials & Pavements Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Joseph S Robinson) (josrobinso@pa.gov) Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) (tramirez@pa.gov) Negative with comments: 1) After review of proposed revisions, the removal of Appendix X1 from M 332 and the creation of R XX seems to add more complexity than is needed for what the R XX procedure involves. The R XX procedure only involves plotting T 350 test results on a Figure (reporting results in a different format) or performing one additional calculation for comparison to one T 350 test result (i.e., R XX, Section 7.3). 2) For simplicity and consolidation of requirements into one standard, the elastic response requirements should be maintained in M 332. It is suggested that the elastic response be an additional requirement in M 332, Table 1 for those PGAB grades that typically would need produced using polymer modification to meet the existing requirements of Table 1 (e.g., PG64E-22, PG64V-22, PG64H-22, PG58E-28, PG58V-28, PG58H-28, PG70S-22, PG70H-22, etc.). The simple formula calculations could be specifically spelled out in either M 332 as a separate Section or maintained in M 332 as an Annex (Mandatory Information) as required in Table 1 for specific grades. Otherwise, states would need to specify M 332 with Appendix X1 (as is) or specify M 332 and R XX for specific grades on their own. If specific grades were identified in M 332 that were required to meet the elastic response, this may eliminate the proliferation of different ways and different PGAB grades that each state would specify and require PGABs to meet both M 332 and R XX. A motion was made by Tennessee and a Second by Wisconsin to find this voter nonpersuasive under the rationale that The standards can still be used and specified as desired by each individual state. 19 voting members voted for the motion, and 1 voter voted against the motion. 0 voters abstained. The motion carried. Editorial comments: 3) In Section 1.3, it indicates "This practice may be used in conjunction with M 320"; however, that would require binder testing in accordance with T 350 as referenced in M 332, but not referenced in M 320. I see the comment from [MA1] added in R XX, Section 1.3 about this. I assume this comment is in response to at least my TS Ballot comment about this same issue. This R XX references T 350 testing in Section 7.2, which technically would allow the Section 1.3 reference to M 320. However, in looking at T 301 (Elastic Recovery test), T 301 does not reference M 320 and M 320 does not reference T 301. T 301 is a common PG-plus test for M 320 certified binders. If T 301 does not mention M 320, why do we want to mention M 320 in R XX? I recommend keeping the R XX reference to M 332 as T 350 testing is referenced in both M 332 and R XX. I suggest deleting the R XX reference to M 320 based on T 301 not specifically referencing M 320. Editorial comments will be reviewed before publication. Maine Department of Transportation (Richard L Bradbury) (richard.bradbury@maine.gov) I still support the idea of having "Evaluating the Elastic Behavior of Asphalt Binders Using the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test" as part of M 332, as discussed at the annual meeting. See discussion above for Item 19. Arkansas Department of Transportation (Michael C Benson) (michael.benson@ardot.gov) References in Section and Note 1 to Section and are incorrect. Editorial comments will be reviewed before publication. Oregon Department of Transportation (Greg F. Stellmach) (greg.f.stellmach@odot.state.or.us) In Note 1, the reference to Sections to needs to be updated to the current section numbers. Editorial comments will be reviewed before publication This standard will be published as R 91. Page 9 of 13

10 Committee on Materials & Pavements Item Number: 21 Affirmative: 48 of 52 Negative: 0 of 52 No Vote: 4 of 52 Concurrent ballot item to adopt as a provisional specification, MP XYZ, Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder for Surface Treatments. See Pages 4-5 and Attachment J, pages of the minutes. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) (tramirez@pa.gov) Affirmative with editorial comments: 1) In Section 1.1, Note 1, consider revising end of note from "see M 320" to "see M 320 or M 332". If this revision is implemented, it may also require a revision to Section 2.1 to add a bullet for "M 332, Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Using Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test". 2) In Section 2.2, Section 3.1.1, Section 5.4, and Section 7.1, there are several references to ASTM Standards which include a blank space between the designation letter and number (e.g., ASTM D 8), I believe most ASTM Standards have eliminated this blank space and the designation number immediately follows the designation letter (e.g., ASTM D8). 3) In Section 7.1, revise from "R28" to "R 28" (i.e., add a space between the "R" and "28"). Editorial comments will be reviewed before publication. South Carolina Department of Transportation (Merrrill E Zwanka) (zwankame@scdot.org) Why are Sections 8 and 9 needed in this standard? Contract type requirements exist for all specifying agencies already and these two sections serve no obvious purpose. Question will be forwarded on to the champion of this standard (Texas) so that they can address it. Arkansas Department of Transportation (Michael C Benson) (michael.benson@ardot.gov) Consider inclusion of M 332 in Note 1 and in Section 2. Referenced Documents for performance-graded asphalt binders used in hot mix applications. ASTM D5546 has been withdrawn and replaced by D2042 (solubility in trichloroethylene). This is referenced in Section 2.2., 5.4. and 7.1. Section 7.1. needs to include reference to D7553. Editorial comments will be reviewed before publication. Washington State Department of Transportation (Kurt R Williams) (willikr@wsdot.wa.gov) Section 6.1 "Sampling will be in accordance with T 40" AASHTO T 40 Standard method of test for sampling bituminous materials has been withdrawn and superseded with AASHTO R 66 standard practice for sampling asphalt materials Editorial comments will be reviewed before publication. Oregon Department of Transportation (Greg F. Stellmach) (greg.f.stellmach@odot.state.or.us) Should ASTM D7553 be included in the list of test methods in Section 7.1? It looks like ASTM D5546 may no longer be an ASTM method (indicates that it was withdrawn in 2017). Indicates that it should be replaced with ASTM D2042. This will be reviewed to determine if this change is appropriate. Illinois Department of Transportation (Brian Pfeifer) (brian.pfeifer@illinois.gov) Wondering why the PAV temp is 100 C for all the grades (not like for PGs where 46 and 52-xx are run at 90 C) Previously explained, Chair will pass this information on to Illinois. This standard will be published as MP 37. Page 10 of 13

11 Committee on Materials & Pavements B. TS Ballots See COMP Concurrent Ballot Items. C. Reconfirmation Ballots 28 of 29 Members Voted. 1. Reconfirm R26 2. Reconfirm R49 3. Reconfirm T44 - New Hampshire Department of Transportation (Denis M. Boisvert) (denis.boisvert@dot.nh.gov) It would be helpful to update this test procedure using solvents other than trichlor. There are safer alternatives. Denis will investigate the idea of adding additional solvents. Maria mentioned that ASTM has already done some work on this. Would need to look to see if the precision statements would be different when utilizing different solvents. 4. Reconfirm T51 5. Reconfirm T53 6. Reconfirm T Reconfirm T179 NEGATIVE -Ohio Department of Transportation (Eric R Biehl) (eric.biehl@dot.ohio.gov) Ohio DOT does not use this test and uses T240. Negative withdrawn. Chair will survey the states to see who is or is not using this standard. Maria mentioned that the only states accredited for this method are California, Delaware, and Texas. Three private labs (including Asphalt Institute) are also accredited. 8. Reconfirm T Reconfirm T Reconfirm TP Reconfirm TP Reconfirm TP122 NEGATIVE - Ontario Ministry Of Transportation (Becca Lane) (becca.lane@ontario.ca) Update wording in sections and to update as change in the section referenced from T 313 as follows: "Ensure that the test is valid as specified in A1.12 A12 of T 313". This negative is based on an editorial correction, Section and have an incorrect reference. The correct reference should be T 313 A12. The reference will be corrected before publication. Ontario agreed to withdraw the negative. 13. Reconfirm TP123 D. Task Force Reports Task Force Review ETG recommendations for elastic response, T 350, and M 332. Barry Paye(WI), and Matt Corrigan(FHWA). The ETG is proposing a separate standard practice for evaluating elastic response. Task force work is complete. Task force will be discontinued. Task Force 16-A: Review the options available and write a procedure for checking TFO/PAV pans for excessive warping. Members: Delaware (Karl Zipf), Asphalt Institute (Mike Anderson), and AMRL (Maria Knake). Dave Anderson is working on a method for checking pan warping. Dave Anderson spoke on the work of this Task Force briefly. A great deal of research has been done on pan warping. A work plan needs to be sent to Matt Corrigan. As soon as that is done, we will send pans and asphalt to people to get a research project going. We have a set of laboratories that have volunteered to participate. The warping that occurs is more complicated than expected. A report will be available for the next ETG meeting. PAV R28- criteria regarding the levelness of the device. There was a question from PA regarding how to check the levelness of the pan. Dave Anderson mentioned that this will be addressed by the work of the Task Force. Page 11 of 13

12 Committee on Materials & Pavements Task Force 16-B: To review the precision statement for T240, review the ASTM method and more recent AMRL data. Members: AMRL (Maria Knake) and Virginia (Bill Bailey) Maria will get the data from the AASHTO Re:source PSP. Roll this into 17-A, which is already reviewing several precision statements. Last update to precision statements for this method was from 2005 and probably needs to be reviewed. Maria send Lyndi a compilation of data from AASHTO re:source PSP. Task Force 16-C: Review contradictory statements in Section 12.1 and X1.8.1 regarding the linear region in T315 and consider revision to current guidance in standard. Members: Asphalt Institute (Mike Anderson), Virginia (Bill Bailey), Nevada (Charlie Pan), John D Angelo (Consultant), Kathy Sokol. Dave Anderson has volunteered to join the task group and will send a suggestion for resolving this issue. Task Force 17-A: Precision and bias for T 350. Mutiple Stress Creep Recovery and several other standards (T 313, Bending Beam Rheometer; T 315, Dynamic Shear Rheometer; T 316, Rotational Viscosity). Members: Joe DeVol (WA) will lead the effort. Matthew Corrigan (FHWA), Bob Horan (Asphalt Institute), John Malusky (AASHTO re:source), Lyndi Blackburn (AL). Task Force 16-B will be rolled into this task force. Data was presented at the ETG meetings based on data from AASHTO re:source and from Joe DeVol. Data will be included with the minutes. There have been improvements in precision in the data presented. Significant changes in precision were discussed briefly in the meeting. Some of the changes are significant and the precision statements should be updated. ETG will be looking at these as well. It is likely that the data from AASHTO re:source will be used, as it is the largest data set. However, the ranges of values reported in AASHTO re:source PSP are narrow, and are not representative of all the materials out there. There will probably be a need to mesh the two data sets. John Malusky agreed. Dave Anderson joined the task group and would like to work with Mike Anderson. Attached is a presentation given at the ETG meeting in September that gives proposed precision and bias numbers for these specifications (). Task Force 17-01: This task force was formed to re-write T 228 which is currently a C standard. Task Force members are Leslie White (Montana), Maria Knake (AASHTO), and Georgene Geary (AASHTO Consultant). The chair will send Georgene Geary the information to get started on this one. Maria Knake mentioned that there is a lot of work on this standard in ASTM, and it is going through a great deal of changes. She recommended waiting to see if an AASHTO version of this standard is still needed after the revisions to the ASTM standard occur. Task Force 17-02: This task force was formed to look at developing a new standard for long term aging, the determination of ΔTc and a practice explaining how to use ΔTc. Task Force members are Lyndi Blackburn (AL), Chris Peoples (NC), Anne Holt (ON), Tim Ruelke (FL), Rick Bradbury (ME), Brett Haggerty (TX), Bob Horan (Asphalt Institute), Denis Boisvert (NH), Jack Youtchef (FHWA), and Matt Corrigan (ETG liaison). Bob Horan has offered to write a practice for ΔTc. Bob will move forward, working with Mike Anderson, and then the Task Force will review his draft. A point was made that ASTM already has a standard on ΔTc. It was agreed that the ASTM standard should be reviewed as part of the task force. It was clarified that this new standard would focus on how to use ΔTc and now how to determine it. Page 12 of 13

13 Committee on Materials & Pavements V. New Busines A. Research Proposals RPS (for Spring Meeting)- the 20-7 series is being disbanded after If you have a project that you would like 20-7 funding for, it will be important to get this in soon. 2. Full NCHRP RPS Update on RTFO elevation- samples have been sent to participating laboratories B. AASHTO Re:source/CCRL - Observations from Assessments? None C. NCHRP Issues None D. Correspondence, calls, meetings from Greg Harder - NEAUPG binder committee with regards to the Jnr difference requirement currently in the MSCR Binder Specification AASHTO M332 and the need to remove this requirement from the specification for all binders that have Jnr@3.2 kpa less than 0.5 kpa-1 (E grades). (ATTACHMENT B) Why was this put in the specification originally? Why was the issue not addressed before this went to full standard? There has been a lot of discussion regarding Jnrdiff and whether it is needed or not. The latest recommendation from the ETG is that if you have Jnr values less than 0.5, it should be waived. It was put there to make sure that if you have a binder that is particularly stress or temperature sensitive, it does not cause issues if the binder is exposed to stress or temperatures outside of the expected range of use. The rationale for waiving it is that you are already at an E grade if your Jnr value is less than 0.5. A draft letter will be sent to the Technical Section regarding the recommendation to waive if below 0.5. The issue was uncovered when the conditioning cycles required were changed, and was apparent in PSP data results. Current PSP data shows that the bimodal issues that appeared in data a few years ago are no longer present, and it is believed that users have updated their software and that all are using the correct conditioning cycles. Denis and Greg will be sent a copy of M332 to edit by the chair (once she receives a clean copy from AASHTO), and will provide rationale on the edits. It will be put out for TS ballot. It was noted that several states have removed Jnrdiff from their specs because good asphalts were failing this parameter. E. Presentation by Industry/Academia RTFO Variability - Dave Anderson/Maria Knake The design of the oven needs to be further reviewed. We can improve the repeatability of the test with a better design. Dave Anderson is working with data sets, suppliers, and manufacturers to come up with recommendations. A presentation will be given in August F. Revisions/Work on Standards for Coming Year R15, T48, M332; T 350 G. Proposed New Standards None. 1. Permission forms for drawings/photos H. Proposed New Task Forces None. (Include list of volunteers to lead and/or join TF) I. New TS Ballots? None. VI. VII. Open Discussion Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 3:53 PM Presentation given at the September ETG meeting on TS2b activities. (Pages 14 31) ATTACHMENT B from Greg Harder on the issues with the J nrdiff requirement. (Pages 32 33) Page 13 of 13

14 Update of TS 2b Activities Committee on Materials & Pavements Page 14 of 31

15 New Proposed Practice Removal of the Elastic Recovery graph from M 332 Multiple Stress Creep Recovery Specification. Big Debate Didn t see the need. Didn t want to have to specify another standard. Some would have to amend their current specifications. Was there a Champion for this move? Will possibly have to consider keeping in M 332 What would be the best way to do so? Page 15 of 31

16 Proposed New Task Forces Re-write T 228 which is currently a C standard. Members are: Leslie White (Montana), Maria Knake (AASHTO), and Georgene Geary (AASHTO Consultant). Looking at developing a new standard for long term aging, the determination of ΔT c and a practice explaining how to use ΔT c. Members are: Lyndi Blackburn (AL), Chris Peoples (NC), Anne Holt (ON), Tim Ruelke (FL), Rick Bradbury (ME), Brett Haggerty (TX), Bob Horan (Asphalt Institute), Denis Boisvert (NH), Jack Youtchef (FHWA), and Matt Corrigan (ETG liaison). Page 16 of 31

17 Precision & Bias This need was raised at the last ETG meeting. Task Force was already in place to look at T 350 MSCR test. AASHTO RE:source provided data for the following standards: T 313 Bending Beam Rheometer T 315 Dynamic Shear Rheometer T 316 Rotational Viscosity T 350 Page 17 of 31

18 T BBR Proposed Creep Stiffness Single Operator Multi-laboratory 1s% d2s% Current Condition Creep Stiffness (MPa) Coefficient of Variation (1s%) a Acceptable Range of Two Test Results (d2s%) a Single-Operator Precision: Multilaboratory Precision: Page 18 of 31

19 T 313- BBR Proposed Slope (m- value) 1s% d2s% Single Operator Multi-laboratory Current Condition Slope (m-value) Coefficient of Variation (1s%) a Acceptable Range of Two Test Results (d2s%) a Single-Operator Precision: Multilaboratory Precision Page 19 of 31

20 T 315 DSR Original Proposed Single Operator Multi-laboratory 1s% d2s% Current Condition DSR - ORIGINAL Coefficient of Variation (1s%) a Acceptable Range of Two Test Results (d2s%) a Single-Operator Precision: Multilaboratory Precision Page 20 of 31

21 T 315 DSR RTFO Proposed Single Operator Multi-laboratory 1s% d2s% Current Condition DSR - RTFO Coefficient of Variation (1s%) a Acceptable Range of Two Test Results (d2s%) a Single-Operator Precision: Multilaboratory Precision Page 21 of 31

22 T 315 DSR PAV Single Operator Multi-laboratory 1s% d2s% Condition DSR - PAV Coefficient of Variation (1s%) a Acceptable Range of Two Test Results (d2s%) a Single-Operator Precision: Multilaboratory Precision Page 22 of 31

23 T 316- Rotational Viscosity Single Operator Multi-laboratory 1s% d2s% Condition Rotational Viscosity (Avg.) Coefficient of Variation (1s%) a Acceptable Range of Two Test Results (d2s%) a Single-Operator Precision: Multilaboratory Precision Page 23 of 31

24 T 350 Multiple Stress Creep Recovery 0.1 kpa Single Operator Multi-laboratory 1s d2s kpa Single Operator Multi-laboratory 1s d2s Page 24 of 31

25 T 350 Multiple Stress Creep Recovery 3.2 kpa Single Operator Multi-laboratory 1s d2s kpa Single Operator Multi-laboratory 1s d2s Page 25 of 31

26 T 350 Single Operator Multi-laboratory 1s d2s Page 26 of 31

27 T 350 Multiple Stress Creep Recovery 0.1 kpa Single Operator Multi-laboratory 1s d2s kpa Single Operator Multi-laboratory 1s d2s Page 27 of 31

28 T 350 Multiple Stress Creep Recovery 3.2 kpa Single Operator Multi-laboratory 1s d2s kpa Single Operator Multi-laboratory 1s d2s Page 28 of 31

29 T 350 Multiple Stress Creep Recovery Percent Diff in Jnr Single Operator Multi-laboratory 1s% d2s% Percent Diff in Jnr Single Operator Multi-laboratory 1s d2s Page 29 of 31

30 Other Minor Business Page 30 of 31

31 Comments and Suggestions Page 31 of 31

32 ATTACHMENT B From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Harder, Greg Blackburn, Lyndi Karl Zipf Jnr Difference Spec Changes Monday, November 20, :08:01 PM image001.png Hi Lyndi, I am writing to you on behalf of the NEAUPG binder committee with regards to the Jnr difference requirement currently in the MSCR Binder Specification AASHTO M332. We graciously request that your Technical Section take prompt action to remove this requirement from the specification for all binders that have Jnr@3.2 kpa less than 0.5 kpa -1 (E grades). We make this request for the following reasons: Jnr difference was included in the specification to be a measure of the stress sensitivity of the binders while we appreciate the desire to use binders that are not stress sensitive, binders that have Jnr@3.2 kpa values less than 0.5 kpa -1 (E grades) are so stiff that they exhibit very small strains making stress sensitivity irrelevant. Binders with high polymer contents failing this Jnr difference requirement most likely are failing due to the inability of the Dynamic Shear Rheometers (DSR) to accurately measure Jnr. Slight variations in the measurements result in very high % Jnr differences. Jnr difference values increase as Jnr values decrease. The maximum value of 75% for Jnr difference was selected arbitrarily as 3/4 th s of a full binder grade. Many state DOT s are currently waiving this Jnr difference requirement for E grades. These include: ME, NY, NJ, RI, DE, MA, MN, and IA. WI and NE are waiving the Jnr requirement for all grades. The Jnr difference requirement for E grades is impeding the implementation of the MSCR specification. Some states are not willing to waive this requirement since it remains in the specification. NHDOT has actually reverted back to M 320 as they feel contractually there are potential issues with waiving any requirements in a specification. Others are considering doing the same. We really appreciate your attention to this urgent matter. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Greg Gregory A. Harder, P.E. Regional Engineer 5791 Route 80 Tully, NY Ph: Mobile: Fax: gharder@asphaltinstitute.org Page 32 of 33

33 ATTACHMENT B Page 33 of 33