I. Call to Order / Opening Remarks / General Business. Approve 2012 Technical Section Minutes. Old Business. A. SOM 2012 Ballot Items.

Transcription

1 Subcommittee on Materials Technical Section 4e Joint Materials, Wood, Bridge Bearings, Geosynthetics, and Insulating Board Webinar Meeting Tuesday, March 26, :00 p.m. 3:30 p.m. Meeting Minutes I. Call to Order / Opening Remarks / General Business Call to Order 2:00 p.m. The Chair indicated that the annual meeting was being conducted as a Webinar Meeting this year as TS-4e was determined to be a small Technical Section with low attendance and it was the intent for the Webinar Meeting to increase attendance and input from more states. See Appendix A on pages 8-12 for the Agenda. II. Roster The meeting attendance roster was based on the webinar electronic sign-ins and s from individuals during and after the meeting providing the participants in the webinar meeting. See Appendix B on page 13 for the attendance list. Attendance was as follows: Total Attendance: 26 TS-4e Members/Proxies: 6 Visitors: 20 III. IV. Approve 2012 Technical Section Minutes See Attachment #1 from the original 2013 Agenda for the Technical Section 4e minutes from the June 12, 2012 webinar meeting. There was no face-to-face meeting held at the SOM Annual Meeting in Biloxi, Mississippi. Minutes were approved unanimously as written (Motion/Seconded NY/PA). Old Business A. SOM 2012 Ballot Items. 1. Ballot Item #87: Concurrent ballot item to discontinue M 220, Preformed Expansion Joint Filler for Concrete (Bituminous Type). Equivalent to ASTM D (2011). See pages 6-7 of the 2012 TS-4e Minutes. SOM Ballot Results: 47-Affirmative, 0- Negative, 5-No Vote. No comments received. TS Ballot Results: 12-Affirmative, 0- Negative, 0-No Vote. No comments received. Ballot received the required 2/3 vote from both the TS and SOM for discontinuation. No further action required on this item. M 220 will be discontinued in the 2013 Materials Book. 2. Ballot Item #88: Concurrent ballot item to discontinue M 282, Joint Sealants, Hot-Poured, Elastomeric-Type, for Portland Cement Concrete Pavements. Equivalent to ASTM D (2006). See pages 6-7 of the 2012 TS-4e Minutes. SOM Ballot Results: 47-Affirmative, 0- Negative, 5-No Vote. No comments received. TS Ballot Results: 12-Affirmative, 0- Negative, 0-No Vote. No comments received. Ballot received the required 2/3 vote from Page 1 of 16

2 both the TS and SOM for discontinuation. No further action required on this item. M 282 will be discontinued in the 2013 Materials Book. 3. Ballot Item #89: Concurrent ballot item to discontinue M 324, Joint and Crack Sealants, Hot Applied, for Concrete and Asphalt Pavements. Equivalent to ASTM D See page 6-7 of the 2012 TS-4e Minutes. SOM Ballot Results: 47-Affirmative, 0- Negative, 5-No Vote. No comments received. TS Ballot Results: 12-Affirmative, 0- Negative, 0-No Vote. No comments received. Ballot received the required 2/3 vote from both the TS and SOM for discontinuation. No further action required on this item. M 324 will be discontinued in the 2013 Materials Book. 4. Ballot Item #90: Concurrent ballot item to revise and adopt as full standard PP 66, Determination of Long-Term Strength for Geosynthetic Reinforcement. See pages 5, 6, and of the 2012TS-4e Minutes. SOM Ballot Results: 46-Affirmative, 1- Negative (TXDOT), 5-No Vote. C omments received from New Hampshire, Virginia, Arizona, Texas, Idaho. TS Ballot Results: 12-Affirmative, 0- Negative, 0-No Vote. No comments received. Ballot received the required 2/3 vote from both the TS and SOM for adoption. Agency Comments Decision New Hampshire Recommend the following editorial changes: 1. Section the date reference for ISO has been changed to With that revision, it appears that the prefix has been changed from ENV to EN. 2. The above reference also appears in Table 1 (p. 32), Section (changed by the author to ), and Section In section , change the wording to "...were consistent..." Affirmative Virginia Section B part of the wording is not legible. Affirmative Arizona Texas 1) There are several locations throughout this standard where the lettering is either misprinted or in error. For example, this occurs in Section , Note A3, Section B1.2.1, Note B4, and Sections B , B , B , B1.7.1, and B ) In Section and Note A3, what is "?????-good"? Section 7 seems like a specification rather than a test procedure. Technically, this PP is sound but unwieldy. The issues surrounding this are that PP66 is referenced heavily in NTPEPs testing program and has tailored the program assuming PP66 incorporates a lot of information that would normally be included in the NTPEP documents. Conceptually disagree with having a "program approach" included as a test procedure. From the inception 2 yrs ago, the submission of this "program" was accepted, so to change it now delays its implementation and causes some revisions to NTPEP documents. "Programmatic" information is not something that should be included in this standard. Recommend the standard be revised to include only those procedures required to determine if a material is acceptable. The standard would tell how one would qualify a material that is tested. Then, it would be up to the "program documents" such as NTPEP to decide how they were going to apply the testing, data, and other information gathered under this standard. For instance, this standard describes a process to interpolate and extrapolate data from a product test to infer whether a second product from that manufacturer is acceptable without the second product being tested not appropriate in a standard. This is a major philosophical change. Affirmative Negative Page 2 of 16

3 Idaho Comments: In Minutes, suggest these changes: a) page 41 of 62, equation (3): add parentheses () to (n1-1), (n2-1), (n1+n2-2). b) page 53, equation (B1.1), add () to (t elev), c) page 55, equation (B1.2), add () to (1.2) d) Change "D 6337" to "D6637" in first sentence of section B in page 61 of 62. Affirmative The New Hampshire comments and the Idaho comment d) will be revised editorially for publishing in the 2014 Materials Book. The Virginia comments and the Idaho comments a) to c) did not require any action as these were errors in converting an MS Word document to a PDF document for the ballot item and they were not actual errors in the standard. The Texas negative was withdrawn but Texas would like to keep their comments to be addressed in future revisions to the standard. In response to the Texas comments, Bob Burnett (NY) indicated it was a reasonable approach to pare down or, reduce verbiage of, the standard to just address the testing and pull out program requirements. Also in response to the Texas comments, Sam Allen (TRI) indicated that the matrix of testing in this standard is not a standard process, but a complex process of discovery where some test results lead to other tests and indicated the difficulty of shortening the standard without omitting critical details. The TS formed a PP 66 Task Force to review PP 66 and pare down or reduce where feasible. The PP 66 TF consists of volunteers from TX (lead), NY, WA, PA and Sam Allen. Darren Hazlett (TX) volunteered Mark McDaniel (TX) to assist. B Technical Section Ballots - None C. Task Force Reports 1. Joint Subcommittee on Materials - Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures Task Force The joint task force members from SOM TS-4e included volunteers Michael Benson (AR), Bob Burnett (NY), and Tim Ramirez (PA). Michael Benson (AR) is the lead. The SCOBS T-2 Bearings and Expansion Devices Technical Committee Chair is Jugesh Kapur, State Bridge and Structures Engineer, Washington State DOT. This joint committee to support Task Forces and Task Force M 251 Proper Testing Frequency & Realistic English Units The task force members included volunteers Michael Benson (AR), James Williams (MS), Bob Burnett (NY) and Bridge Bearing Manufacturers Association. Michael Benson (AR) is the lead. The Chair reported that Kevin Riechers (IL) indicated he worked with Jerry Westerman (former TS-4e Chair) to take a majority of the testing information from the LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, Section 18 and put them into M 251; however, there is still some information in Section 18 that may be useful for this effort. The LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, Section 18, mentions testing, but not much information for determining frequency. Task force to reach out for additional expertise. 3. Task Force M 251 Materials specifications for fabric-reinforced (cotton duck) elastomeric bridge bearing pads. The task force members include Michael Benson (AR), Bob Burnett (NY), and Reid Kaisor (NV). The Chair reported that Kevin Riechers (IL) provided information on cotton duck pads (CDP) from the LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, Section 14. Kevin Riechers recommended that the TS-4e consider a new Standard for CDP and not include in M 251 (Elastomeric Pads). Kevin Riechers also recommended combining the best from the Nebraska DOR and MIL-C-882E specifications as a good start for an Materials Page 3 of 16

4 Standard for CDP. Chair recommended reaching out to NE and others. Michael Benson (AR) offered to reach out and gather additional information. 4. Task Force Development of an Standard for Edge Drains. The task force members included volunteers James Williams (MS), Bob Burnett (NY), and Tim Ramirez (PA). The Chair reported that on 8/15/2011, James Williams (MS) resent the proposed SOM list serve survey to the TS-4e chair for review and distribution to the SOM. The survey prepared by James Williams (MS) needs to be distributed to determine which states are using strip drains and if any state specifications exist. Michael Benson (AR) stated strip drains were tried in Arkansas a few years back, but use was discontinued. Bob Burnett (NY) stated that, in the past, cheap products on the market undercut the better products which caused some states to move away from use of strip drains due to bad experiences. Previously, Jim Goddard offered information about an ASTM Standard and requested something could be done within. The TF is to send out the proposed survey and determine use, experience, and existing specifications. 5. Task Force M 288 Develop Standards for Geogrids The task force members included James Williams (MS), Bob Burnett (NY), and Tim Ramirez (PA). The Chair reported that several states (NC, WA State, PA) have developed or are developing geogrid specifications for various applications. Tony Allen (WA) submitted a proposed geogrid specification for inclusion in M 288 along with survey summary results of properties used by states. PA working on geogrid specifications for uniaxial and biaxial geogrids for reinforced slope and soil reinforced wall applications based on data from the NTPEP GRE Program. Bob Burnett (NY) reported that a TRB Committee has development of a geogrid materials standard as one of its top priorities. Fred Chuck (GMA) reported that GMA has initiated a Geogrid Focus Group to start a M288 style geogrid standard. This focus group to be headed by Brian Bailey (Husker) and this group will be meeting on April 1, Andy Burran (Propex) reported that he will be at the GMA Focus Group meeting and will relate work being considered by. GMA is not trying to develop own standard, but will gather information from geogrid manufacturers and forward information on to and/or the TRB Committee. 6. Task Force M 288 Consider Development of Mean Threshold Values for Geotextiles. The task force members included James Williams (MS), Bob Burnett (NY), and Tim Ramirez (PA). The Chair reported that Tony Allen (WA State) provided the proper explanation of a geotextile manufacturer s MARV and how it relates to the manufacturer s QC test results and to a State DOT s or NTPEP s test results. Tony Allen(WA) had also previously compared relationship between states and manufacturers understanding of the MARV values and expressed a desire to educate users regarding this issue. Bob Burnett (NY) indicated his concerns between the use of MARVs and the NTPEP testing results. Katheryn Malusky () offered to address this issue in the NTPEP work plan to define MARV values and how they can be utilized with the materials standard. Tony Allen s (WA) write up can be shared with NTPEP for the work plan. 7. Task Force 10-1 Evaluate Possible Revisions to TP 85, TP 86, TP 87, TP 88, TP 89 and TP 90 and Develop Standard for Crack Sealant Specification. The task force members included Bill Bailey (VA) and James Williams (MS). Bill Bailey (VA) reported and provided proposed Performance-Graded Bituminous Sealant specification in format modeled after M Performance-Graded Asphalt Binders. See Attachment #2 from original Meeting Agenda for the proposed specification. Bill Bailey (VA) stated that a pooled fund study with participating agencies/states including FHWA, NH, RI, WI, CO, MI, NY (Tony Kane), MN (Jim McGraw), and VA with $20,000 per Page 4 of 16

5 participant was established to develop a performance based crack sealant specification. A meeting is planned for May 1, 2013 and Bill Bailey proposed to take the previous ballot comments on test procedures to the meeting for the TPF s resolution. The TS-4e Chair stated that many of the ballot comments from the previous balloting regarded using the direct tension test which has since gone away from the testing for asphalt binders, but may still be applicable for concrete crack sealers. Bill Bailey stated that the proposed testing of crack sealants is similar to testing of asphalt binders with some adjustments, such as, running the bending beam on a wider specimen. Bill Bailey also indicated that the asphalt binder test equipment may need a software upgrade to include the crack sealant testing on the asphalt binder equipment due to slight modifications to the testing procedures. The TPF study is being conducted by University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign with Imad Al-Qadi as the principal investigator. Sealant Consortium (SC) standards such as SC 1, SC 2, etc. relates to the provisional standards TP 85, TP 86, etc. The TS-4e Chair will send the proposed crack sealant specification to TS ballot in There was a Motion / Second (NY/PA) to make full standard in SOM ballot in the fall pending results of TS ballot. D. Other Old Business. 1. M 288 Section 9, Temporary Silt Fence Requirements. The Chair reported that the TS previously considered proposed revisions to include performance tests and test result threshold values, if available, for the performance tests. Sam Allen proposed adding performance tests ASTM D5141, Determining Filtering Efficiency and Flow Rate of the Filtration Component of a Sediment Retention Device and ASTM D7351, Standard Test Method for Determination of Sediment Retention Device Effectiveness in Sheet Flow Applications or ASTM D7208, Standard Test Method for Determination of Temporary Ditch Check Performance in Protecting Earthen Channels from Stormwater-Induced Erosion. See Attachment #3 from original Meeting Agenda for the proposed revisions. Tony Allen and Bob Burnett were to exchange information currently available on any threshold values. The Chair entertained discussion regarding any additional changes prior to going to ballot (such as including threshold criteria). Bob Burnett (NY) responded that silt fence is the only application where the application performance is visual. States can either specify criteria for material properties or put infield performance requirements as defined by individual states. On site soil can also be used when looking at performance results. State would determine how this is controlled. The Chair to send out proposed revisions as a TS Ballot in There was a Motion / Second (NY/AR) to forward to SOM ballot in the fall pending results of the TS ballot. 2. M 288 Section 10 Paving Fabric Requirements. The TS 4e Chair reported that Mark McDaniel (TX) reviewed proposed changes to M 288 Section 10 to add Type 1 paving fabric requirements for paving fabrics that include fiberglass and other fibers. Mark proposed additional changes to M 288 in Section 2, Section 4, and Section 10, Table 8 to further support the proposed changes to Section 10. See Attachment #4 from original Meeting Agenda for the proposed revisions. Chair will send out M 288 revisions on a TS Ballot in There was a Motion / Second (AR/NY) to forward to SOM ballot in the fall pending results of the TS ballot. V. New Business A. AMRL/CCRL Issues None Page 5 of 16

6 B. NCHRP Issues None. C. NTPEP Issues Katheryn Malusky () announced upcoming webinar for state DOT s on NTPEP s audit program. Katheryn also announced upcoming NTPEP ballot. Katheryn also announced that GMA helped with the NTPEP Geotextile program workplan. D. Correspondence, calls, meetings / Presentation by Industry 1. Katheryn Malusky () on behalf of Fred Chuck (TenCate) and Sam Allen (TRI). proposing a revision to M 288 for the addition of a Class 1+ (Very High) Survivability and a table for Subgrade Enhancement Geotextile from the GMA Geotextile Focus Group. See Attachment #5 from original Meeting Agenda for proposed revision. Fred Chuck (GMA) discussed the use of higher strength and higher survivability geotextile by several states including CA, PA and NH which has led to a proposed document to allow for a Class 1+ category. Fred Chuck offered to address any questions from TS members. Bob Burnett (NY) suggested sending out a TS ballot to receive comments and determine need. Bob indicated that most comments would probably not show up until the item goes to SOM ballot. Bob suggested this go to TS ballot with the new criteria and not put into M 288 format until it goes to SOM ballot. Propex offered to identify states using this type of geotextile and forward to the Chair so those states can be contacted to make sure direction taken is appropriate. Fred Chuck (GMA) stated that some states are asking for NTPEP data on the higher strength, higher survivability Class 1 geotextiles and some products are currently being tested in the existing NTPEP work plan. Draft proposed M 288 revision will be sent to TS Ballot in There was a Motion/Second (NY/FHWA) to forward to SOM ballot in the fall pending results of the TS ballot. E. Proposed New Standards 1. MP 4e-xx Performance-Graded Bituminous Sealants. See Attachment #2 from original Meeting Agenda for the proposed new Provisional Standard. This proposed new provisional standard was discussed during this meeting as part of the Task Force 10-1 Report. It will provide the specification needed to link all the current Provisional Standards related to crack sealants including TP 85, TP 86, TP 87, TP 88, TP 89 and TP 90. F. Proposed New Task Forces New task force for PP 66 consisting of volunteers Mark McDaniel (TX - lead), Bob Burnett (NY), Tony Allen (WA), Tim Ramirez (PA) and Sam Allen (TRI) to address the Texas comments from the 2012 SOM Ballot and to pare down or reduce the verbiage of this standard where additionally feasible. G. Standards Requiring Reconfirmation See current standard assignments and status in Appendix C on pages If there are any problems/issues with these assignments, please contact the TS-4e Chair at or tramirez@pa.gov. Standards requiring reconfirmation in 2013 include: 1. R Geosynthetic Reinforcement of the Aggregate Base Course of Flexible Pavement Structures. Page 6 of 16

7 Standards requiring reconfirmation in 2014 unless they are balloted for revision include: 1. M (2010) Preformed Expansion Joint Fillers for Concrete Paving and Structural Construction (Nonextruding and Resilient Bituminous Types). 2. M Preformed Polychloroprene Elastomeric Joint Sealants for Bridges. 3. T Preformed Expansion Joint Filler for Concrete Construction. The TS Chair will ballot the 2013 reconfirmations by the end of the calendar year. The 2014 reconfirmations will be balloted in early 2014 or reconfirmed by voice vote at the 2014 TS-4e Mid-Year Meeting. H. SOM Ballot Items (including any ASTM changes) Review of standards to be sent to SOM Ballot based upon discussions during the meeting. The following table shows standards that are going to SOM Ballot this year. No. Standard Agenda Item No. Concurrent/SOM/No Ballot 1. (None for 2013) I. Research Needs No research needs were proposed to be endorsed by the TS. VI. Adjourn (scheduled for 3:30 p.m.) Meeting adjourned at approximately 3:30 p.m. Appendices: A Agenda B. Record of Attendance C. Status of Standards and Standard Assignments D. Ballot Items Page 7 of 16

8 Appendix A Agenda Subcommittee on Materials Technical Section 4e Joint Materials, Wood, Bridge Bearings, Geosynthetics, and Insulating Board Webinar Meeting Tuesday, March 26, :00 p.m. 3:30 p.m. Meeting Agenda I. Call to Order / Opening Remarks / General Business Call to Order 2:00 p.m. II. III. IV. Roster Please note any changes on the attached TS-4e roster and provide the changes to the TS Chair. For those member states that have new members to the SOM, please confirm membership on this Technical Section with the SOM Secretary if you intend to remain on the Technical Section. Approve 2012 Technical Section Minutes Technical Section 4e minutes from June 12, 2012 webinar meeting. No face-to-face meeting held in Biloxi, Mississippi (See Attachment #1 on pages 6-12) Old Business A. SOM 2012 Ballot Items. 1. Ballot Item #87: Concurrent ballot item to discontinue M 220, Preformed Expansion Joint Filler for Concrete (Bituminous Type). Equivalent to ASTM D (2011). See pages 6-7 of the 2012 TS-4e Minutes. SOM Ballot Results: 47-Affirmative, 0- Negative, 5-No Vote. No comments received. TS Ballot Results: 12-Affirmative, 0- Negative, 0-No Vote. No comments received. Ballot received the required 2/3 vote from both the TS and SOM for discontinuation. 2. Ballot Item #88: Concurrent ballot item to discontinue M 282, Joint Sealants, Hot-Poured, Elastomeric-Type, for Portland Cement Concrete Pavements. Equivalent to ASTM D (2006). See pages 6-7 of the 2012 TS-4e Minutes. SOM Ballot Results: 47-Affirmative, 0- Negative, 5-No Vote. No comments received. TS Ballot Results: 12-Affirmative, 0- Negative, 0-No Vote. No comments received. Ballot received the required 2/3 vote from both the TS and SOM for discontinuation. 3. Ballot Item #89: Concurrent ballot item to discontinue M 324, Joint and Crack Sealants, Hot Applied, for Concrete and Asphalt Pavements. Equivalent to ASTM D See page 6-7 of the 2012 TS-4e Minutes. SOM Ballot Results: 47-Affirmative, 0- Negative, 5-No Vote. No comments received. TS Ballot Results: 12-Affirmative, 0- Negative, 0-No Vote. No comments received. Ballot received the required 2/3 vote from both the TS and SOM for discontinuation. 4. Ballot Item #90: Concurrent ballot item to revise and adopt as full standard PP 66, Determination of Long-Term Strength for Geosynthetic Reinforcement. See pages 5, 6, Page 8 of 16

9 Appendix A Agenda and of the 2012TS-4e Minutes. SOM Ballot Results: 46-Affirmative, 1- Negative (TXDOT), 5-No Vote. C omments received from New Hampshire, Virginia, Arizona, Texas, Idaho. TS Ballot Results: 12-Affirmative, 0- Negative, 0-No Vote. No comments received. Ballot received the required 2/3 vote from both the TS and SOM for adoption. Agency Comments Decision New Hampshire Virginia Arizona Texas Idaho Recommend the following editorial changes: 1. Section the date reference for ISO has been changed to With that revision, it appears that the prefix has been changed from ENV to EN. 2. The above reference also appears in Table 1 (p. 32), Section (changed by the author to ), and Section TS Chair: Confirm with T. Allen 3. In section , change the wording to "...were consistent..." TS Chair: Editorial Section B part of the wording is not legible. TS Chair: Error occurred during conversion from MS Word document to PDF for minutes. 1) There are several locations throughout this standard where the lettering is either misprinted or in error. For example, this occurs in Section , Note A3, Section B1.2.1, Note B4, and Sections B , B , B , B1.7.1, and B TS Chair: These were errors which occurred when the MS Word documents were converted to PDF for the minutes. 2) In Section and Note A3, what is "?????-good"? TS Chair: It should read greige-good. Error occurred during conversion from MS Word document to PDF for minutes. Section 7 seems like a specification rather than a test procedure. Technically, this PP is sound but unwieldy. The issues surrounding this are that PP66 is referenced heavily in NTPEPs testing program and has tailored the program assuming PP66 incorporates a lot of information that would normally be included in the NTPEP documents. Conceptually disagree with having a "program approach" included as a test procedure. From the inception 2 yrs ago, the submission of this "program" was accepted, so to change it now delays its implementation and causes some revisions to NTPEP documents. "Programmatic" information is not something that should be included in this standard. Recommend the standard be revised to include only those procedures required to determine if a material is acceptable. The standard would tell how one would qualify a material that is tested. Then, it would be up to the "program documents" such as NTPEP to decide how they were going to apply the testing, data, and other information gathered under this standard. For instance, this standard describes a process to interpolate and extrapolate data from a product test to infer whether a second product from that manufacturer is acceptable without the second product being tested not appropriate in a standard. This is a major philosophical change. TS to discuss. Comments: In Minutes, suggest these changes: a) page 41 of 62, equation (3): add parentheses () to (n1-1), (n2-1), (n1+n2-2). b) page 53, equation (B1.1), add () to (t elev), Affirmative Affirmative Affirmative Negative Affirmative Page 9 of 16

10 c) page 55, equation (B1.2), add () to (1.2) Appendix A Agenda TS Chair: Above errors occurred during conversion from MS Word document to PDF for minutes. d) Change "D 6337" to "D6637" in first sentence of section B in page 61 of 62. TS Chair: Editorial. B Technical Section Ballots - None C. Task Force Reports 1. Joint Subcommittee on Materials - Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures Task Force The joint task force members from SOM TS-4e included volunteers Michael Benson (AR), Bob Burnett (NY), and Tim Ramirez (PA). Michael Benson (AR) is the lead. The SCOBS T-2 Bearings and Expansion Devices Technical Committee Chair is Jugesh Kapur, State Bridge and Structures Engineer, Washington State DOT. This joint committee to work on Task Forces and items. 2. Task Force M 251 Proper Testing Frequency & Realistic English Units The task force members included volunteers Michael Benson (AR), James Williams (MS), Bob Burnett (NY) and Bridge Bearing Manufacturers Association. Michael Benson (AR) is the lead. Activity: Kevin Riechers (IL) indicated he worked with Jerry Westerman (former TS-4e Chair) to take a majority of information on this from the LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, Section 18 into M 251; however, there is still some information in Section 18 that may be useful for this effort. 3. Task Force M 251 Materials specifications for fabric-reinforced (cotton duck) elastomeric bridge bearing pads. The task force members include Michael Benson (AR), Bob Burnett (NY), and Reid Kaisor (NV). Activity: Kevin Riechers (IL) provided information on cotton duck pads (CDP) from the LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, Section 14. Kevin Riechers recommended that the TS-4e consider a new Standard for CDP and not include in M 251 (Elastomeric Pads). He also recommended combining the best from the Nebraska DOR and MIL-C-882E specifications as a good start for an Materials Standard for CDP. 4. Task Force Development of an Standard for Edge Drains. The task force members included volunteers James Williams (MS), Bob Burnett (NY), and Tim Ramirez (PA). Activity: On 8/15/2011, James Williams (MS) resent the proposed SOM list serve survey to the TS-4e chair for review and distribution to the SOM. 5. Task Force M 288 Develop Standards for Geogrids The task force members included James Williams (MS), Bob Burnett (NY), and Tim Ramirez (PA). Activity: Several states (NC, WA State, PA) have developed or are developing geogrid specifications for various applications. Tony Allen submitted proposed geogrid specification for inclusion in M 288 along with survey summary results of properties used by states. PA working on geogrid specifications for uniaxial and biaxial geogrids for reinforced slope and soil reinforced wall applications based on data from NTPEP GRE Program Page 10 of 16

11 Appendix A Agenda 6. Task Force M 288 Consider Development of Mean Threshold Values for Geotextiles. The task force members included James Williams (MS), Bob Burnett (NY), and Tim Ramirez (PA). Activity: Tony Allen (WA State) provided explanation of relationship between a geotextile manufacturer s MARV values and a State DOT s or NTPEP s test results their use. 7. Task Force 10-1 Evaluate Possible Revisions to TP 85, TP 86, TP 87, TP 88, TP 89 and TP 90 and Develop Standard for Crack Sealant Specification. The task force members included Bill Bailey (VA) and James Williams (MS). Activity: Bill Bailey provided proposed Performance-Graded Bituminous Sealant specification in format modeled after M Performance-Graded Asphalt Binders. Consider for TS ballot in See Attachment #2 on pages D. Other Old Business. 1. M 288 Section 9, Temporary Silt Fence Requirements. Proposed revisions to include performance tests and test result threshold values, if available, for the tests. Sam Allen proposed adding performance tests ASTM D5141, Determining Filtering Efficiency and Flow Rate of the Filtration Component of a Sediment Retention Device and ASTM D7351, Standard Test Method for Determination of Sediment Retention Device Effectiveness in Sheet Flow Applications or ASTM D7208, Standard Test Method for Determination of Temporary Ditch Check Performance in Protecting Earthen Channels from Stormwater-Induced Erosion. Tony Allen and Bob Burnett were to exchange information currently available on any threshold values. Consider for TS Ballot in 2013? See Attachment #3 on pages M 288 Section 10 Paving Fabric Requirements. Mark McDaniel (Texas) reviewed proposed changes to M 288 Section 10 to add Type 1 paving fabric requirements for paving fabrics that include fiberglass and other fibers. Mark proposed additional changes to M 288 in Section 2, Section 4, and Section 10, Table 8 to further support the proposed changes to Section 10. Consider for TS Ballot in See Attachment #4 on pages V. New Business A. AMRL/CCRL Issues None B. NCHRP Issues None. C. NTPEP Issues None D. Correspondence, calls, meetings / Presentation by Industry 1. Katheryn Malusky () on behalf of Fred Chuck (TenCate) and Sam Allen (TRI). proposing the addition of a Class 1+ (Very High) Survivability and a table for Subgrade Enhancement Geotextile from the GMA Geotextile Focus Group. Discuss and consider TS ballot. See Attachment #5 on pages E. Proposed New Standards 1. MP 4e-xx Performance-Graded Bituminous Sealants. See Attachment #2 on pages Page 11 of 16

12 Appendix A Agenda F. Proposed New Task Forces TS to review any new task forces or additional assignments to existing task forces as a result of the meeting. G. Standards Requiring Reconfirmation See current standard assignments and status in Attachment #6 on pages If there are any problems/issues with these assignments, please contact the TS-4e Chair at or tramirez@pa.gov. Standards requiring reconfirmation in 2013 include: 1. R Geosynthetic Reinforcement of the Aggregate Base Course of Flexible Pavement Structures. The TS Chair will ballot these for reconfirmation by the end of the calendar year. H. SOM Ballot Items (including any ASTM changes) Review of standards to be sent to SOM Ballot based upon discussions during the meeting. The following table shows standards that are on the agenda for consideration for going to SOM Ballot this year. Other standards may be added as a result of the meeting: No. Standard Agenda Item No. Concurrent/SOM/No Ballot I. Research Needs Address any research needs proposed to be endorsed by the TS. Proposed Problem Statements need submitted by April 1, 2013 for consideration by the SOM at the 2013 SOM Meeting in Nevada. VI. Adjourn (scheduled for 3:30 p.m.) Attachment # TS-4e Meeting Minutes Attachment #2 4e-xx Performance-Graded Bituminous Sealants Attachment #3 M 288, Proposed Revisions to Section 9 Silt Fence Requirements Attachment #4 M 288, Proposed Revisions to Section 2, 4 and 10 Paving Fabric Requirements Attachment #5 M 288, Proposed Revisions to Add Class 1+ Very High Survivability Subgrade Enchancement Geotextile Attachment #6 TS-4e Standards and Assignments Page 12 of 16

13 Appendix B Attendance Attendance at TS 4e Live Meeting of March 26, 2013 X Ramirez, Timothy tramirez@pa.gov PA Chair Voting X Benson, Michael michael.benson@arkansashighways.com AR Vice Chair Voting Lenker, Steven E. slenker@amrl.net AMRL Member Non-Voting Knake, Maria mknake@amrl.net AMRL Member Non-Voting X Voth, Michael D michael.voth@dot.gov FHWA Member Voting X Douds, Richard Geary, Georgene (proxy) richard.douds@dot.state.ga.us ggeary@dot.ga.gov GA Member Voting Hood, Woodrow L. whood@sha.state.md.us MD Member Voting Fung, Clement W. clement.fung@mhd.state.ma.us MA Member Voting Williams, James A. jwilliams@mdot.state.ms.us MS Member Voting Woods, Victoria Victoria.Woods@modot.mo.gov MO Member Voting X Strizich, Matt Metcalfe, Oak (proxy) mstrizich@mt.gov Metcalfe@mt.gov MT Member Voting X Burnett, Robert A. bburnett@dot.state.ny.us NY Member Voting Seiter, Scott sseiter@odot.org OK Member Voting Baker, Thomas E. bakert@wsdot.wa.gov WA Member Voting Krebs, Steven W. steven.krebs@dot.wi.gov WI Member Voting VISITORS: X Lacinak, Henry hlacinak@aashto.org X Malusky, Katheryn kmalusky@aashto.org X Keith, Becky keithb@dot.state.al.us AL X Quillin, Clint quillinc@dot.state.al.us AL X Lippert, Dave david.lippert@illinois.gov IL X Shoup, Heather Heather.shoup@illinois.gov IL X Black, Michael Michael.black@ky.gov KY X Glass, Wesley Wesley.glass@ky.gov KY X Snook, Daryl Daryl.snook@ky.gov KY X Davis, Jason jason.davis@la.gov LA X Cowsert, Jack jcowsert@ncdot.gov NC X Hazlett, Darren Darren.Hazlett@txdot.gov TX X McDaniel, Mark Mark.McDaniel@txdot.gov TX X Bailey, William bill.bailey@vdot.virginia.gov VA X Gillispie, Aaron aaron.c.gillispie@wv.gov WV X Hanna, George George.N.Hanna@wv.gov WV X Simmons, Donald Donald.W.Simmons@wv.gov WV X Burran, Andy Andy.Burran@propexglobal.com Propex X Chuck, Fred f.chuck@tencate.com Tencate X Allen, Sam SAllen@tri-env.com TRI Page 13 of 16

14 Appendix C Standards Status of SOM TS 4e Standards and Standard Assignments The maintenance of standards may require the reconfirmation of standards that have not been revised significantly within the past four years, the determination of equivalency to ASTM standards that may have been developed or revised, or the review of standards for the purpose of editorial corrections or significant recommended revision. The members of the technical section assigned to maintain the various standards should provide recommended actions regarding the assigned standards to the chairman. M (2012) M (2011) M (2012) M (2010) M (2012) Discontinued M (2012) M (2011) M (2012) Discontinued M (2011) M M Discontinued OWNER (Former Category) RECONFIRM REQUIRED JOINT (B) 2016 JOINT (B) JOINT (B) 2015 TITLE CURRENT ASTM INDEX NEWER ASTM LEAD STATE Preformed Expansion Joint Filler for Concrete (Bituminous Type) D (2010) D994/D994M-11 MT Preformed Sponge Rubber and Cork Expansion Joint Fillers for Concrete D a D 1752 AR Paving and Structural Construction 04a (2008) 2016 Wood Products MT 2014 ASTM (C) ASTM (C) ASTM (C) 2014 ASTM (C) R50-09 T PP TP (2013) TP (2013) TP (2013) TP (2013) TP (2013) TP (2013) ASTM (C) Preformed Expansion Joint Fillers for Concrete Paving and Structural Construction (Nonextruding and Resilient Bituminous Types) Preformed Expansion Joint Filler for Concrete (Bituminous Type) Expanded and Extruded Foam Board (Polystyrene) Plain and Laminated Elastomeric Bridge Bearings Joint Sealants, Hot-Poured, Elastomeric-Type, for Portland Cement Concrete Pavements Geotextile Specification for Highway Applications Preformed Polychloroprene D (2008) D (2011) D (2006) Withdrawn Elastomeric Joint Seals for Bridges D PA Joint and Crack Sealants, Hot Applied, for Concrete and Asphalt D D AR Pavements Geosynthetic Reinforcement of the Aggregate Base Course of Flexible NY Pavement Structures Preformed Expansion Joint Filler for Concrete Construction D PA Determination of Long-Term Strength for Geosynthetic Reinforcement Apparent Viscosity of Hot-Poured Bituminous Crack Sealant Using Brookfield Rotational Viscometer RV Series Instrument Accelerated Aging of Bituminous Sealants and Fillers with a Vacuum Oven Measure Low-Temperature Flexural Creep Stiffness of Bituminous Sealants and Fillers by Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR) Evaluation of the Low-Temperature Tensile Property of Bituminous Sealants by Direct Tension Test Measuring Adhesion of Hot-Poured Crack Sealant Using Direct Adhesion Tester Measuring Interfacial Fracture Energy of Hot-Poured Crack Sealant Using a Blister Test MO MO NY NY MO NY WA PA MS MS WI WI GA Page 14 of 16

15 Appendix C Standards Duties for the standard assignments include: 1) Review standards for reconfirmation every 4 years; 2) and ASTM Jointly owned standards (formerly category B standards) must be compared with the ASTM standard for equivalency. For ASTM solely owned standards (formerly category C standards), a report must be made to the chairman if there is an update that must be made in the standard; 3) Determine if the standard needs to be addressed in cooperation with AMRL for precision and bias review. Page 15 of 16

16 TS 4e Ballot Items Appendix D TS-4e Ballot Items Num. Ballot Item SOM Concurrent 1 NONE (No ballot items are being proposed for the 2013 ballot.) N/A N/A Page 16 of 16