Requests
Closed
RESEARCH
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Airfield
marking includes preparing the pavement surface and the application
of paint, or other materials, for the purpose of providing visual
guidance for aircraft ground operations. The process is generally
perceived as simple. However, circumstances develop resulting
in a loss of bond of the paint to the pavement; flaking and/or
delaminating of old paint under new, excessive reapplication requirements,
poor visibility, etc. The deficiencies directly impact flying
safety, and in some instances, damage to aircraft is a result.
To
assist the airfield community increase the quality of marking,
and thereby promote flying safety, the industry needs a consolidated
document that explains the process. A handbook not dated by content
- materials change but basics do not.
The
handbook would provide information to all users (the owner, engineer,
specifier, contractor, contract inspector, and maintainer) and
promote an understanding of the materials and the technique used
for the application and maintenance of airfield pavement marking.
The document will draw attention to the critical nature of marking
and instill in the reader that "marking is not the last item on
the to-do list."
The
document must be applicable for either concrete or asphalt pavement
surfaces. The document must explain the process and fundamentals
involved in material selection and the expected performance of
those materials. It should be a sole source education and training
tool for those stakeholders involved in the inspection, enforcement
and mitigation of airfield marking contracts. The document would
be a "best practices" handbook.
A
"Best Practices" handbook provides a summary of how it is done
and how it can be improved. "Best Practices" is not how
to do it; but, it is a summary of practices, based upon empirical
experience, that result in satisfactory applications resulting
in minimal maintenance requirements. The document must clearly
explain the pitfalls that can be experienced when accomplishing
airfield marking for both new and existing asphalt and concrete
pavements.
Supplemental
visual aids should compliment the handbook. Those aids will include
a video that compares the good and the poor. The video is a supplement.
The research focus is on publication of a handbook.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:
- The
product of the research must be an education and training tool
for the owner, engineer, specifier, contractor, and project
inspector. The following questions must be addressed.
- What
defines the difference between good and poor practice?
- Are
there differences in materials and if so what are the considerations
that make it appropriate to select one material over another?
- How
does workmanship (requires definition) and performance on
behalf of the contractor impact the quality (measured by
durability and visibility) of the marking?
- How
do weather conditions at the time of application impact
material performance? Does weather affect some materials
more than others?
- The
product must answer the question "Is there a difference in the
perceptions of the owner versus the user and/or the user versus
the supplier (materials or workmanship) as to performance of
markings?" Explain why differences exist.
- The
product must define the term "maintenance" with respect to airfield
pavement marking? Is maintenance nothing more than the re-application
of marking material? When should maintenance be accomplished
(measured how) and what should it include? How does a material,
in a different environment, impact the maintenance requirements?
- The
product(s) must explain the difference in "good practice" for
new pavement marking versus "good practice" for existing pavement
marking?
- What
are the fundamentals involved in:
- Preparation
of a pavement surface including obliteration techniques,
- Selection
of material,
- When
to open to traffic,
- Determination
as to when the environment is conducive to application,
- What
to do when the environment is not conducive to application,
- Using
phased applications,
- Definition
of terms used in the description of material and techniques
for material applications, and
- Selection
of temporary marking with respect to material, when to use
and how to remove.
ISSUES
TO BE EXPLORED:
The
research team is encouraged to develop and explore alternatives
for the content of the handbook. However, there are concepts that
do require investigation and evaluation.
- Should
the reader of the handbook be familiar with quality control
problems that arise at the point of origin of a marking material?
- Should
the handbook include definitive guidelines for the manufacture
of materials? What should the quality assurance functions
consist of at the point of manufacture?
- Should
there be sample specifications for products?
- Should
there be things identified that the end user should be aware
of in the transportation of and methods of transport of
material?
- Is
it necessary for the end user to specify acceptance testing
of the applied product and what would be the form of those tests?
- What
are the qualifications required of those people that would
perform and interpret the tests?
-
Are there test techniques and methods that can be readily
adopted from "state-of -the-art" formats?
-
Are there simple tests that can be performed in the field
that are not precise in result but the result could generate
the need to do additional testing?
- Does
the condition of the substrate significantly impact the performance
of a marking?
-
Is it necessary to have a different technique and level
of acceptance for the preparation of different surfaces?
(i.e., new, existing, remark, etc.)
- Does
the climate or a change in climatic condition, dictate the
requirement to modify a surface preparation technique?
- Is
it feasible for the end user (owner) to adopt "test strip" concepts
that would demonstrate the capabilities of the contractor prior
to allowing the work to proceed?
-
Would a test strip assist in determining effectiveness of
surface preparation, rates of application and the capabilities
of the chosen method of production?
- Can
a test strip be an effective venue to determine compliance
with the specification?
- Can
a test strip be an effective form of evaluation of clean-up
and/or removal?
-
Would a test strip be an effective method for evaluating
material limitations?
-
Every project terminates in a decision to "accept." There are
always three options: accept and pay, reject and mitigate, reject
and do it again. However, at each level there remain doubts.
Can the handbook be used to give guidance as to what is and
what is not acceptable?
- Is
there really a category that would qualify for reduced pay?
- When
is "bad" really "ugly?"
- Should
mitigation be allowed?
- Is
there a need for a warranty? What would be covered - material,
application or both?"
PRODUCTS:
Provide
a handbook (in the form of an IPRF report), for use by the owner,
engineer, specifier, contractor, and contract inspector that can
be used as an education / training guide and a criteria document
that will assist the airport industry in improvement of the quality
in application of airfield pavement marking. The use of the techniques
and methods described in the guide should result in reduced maintenance.
The document should also provide guidance on resolving material
and workmanship issues that ultimately would reduce contracting
issues/delays.
The final document will have supplementary items that include
as a minimum:
- a
video,
- a
slide show overview of the document,
- checklists
that will be used by the disciplines involved in the acquisition,
execution and acceptance of airfield pavement marking projects,
and
- at
least two case studies that demonstrate mitigation situations
and the result.
The
final document(s) will present the findings of the research in
a format and presentation easily understood by the intended user.
The end product(s) will be a document(s) that the engineer, constructor
or airport owner can read, gain an understanding of the problem
and approach airfield marking in a rational manner.
The investigator will provide the original publication, in two
copies, in a camera ready format including artwork, graphics and
photos. In addition, all documents and supplementary items will
be submitted in an electronic format compatible with off-the-shelf
desktop computer publication software. The investigator will not
be responsible for the reproduction and printing of the final
document(s) but will assist with minor editing requirements generated
by the printing and reproduction.
TASKS:
The investigator will develop sub-tasks that when completed will
result in completion of the project within the time and budget
allowed. It is not necessary that the proposal reflect the
exact budget or the planned time. However, any deviation from
the designated resources must be justified and clearly explained
in the proposal.
The
following are the minimum tasks considered necessary to successfully
accomplish the project.
Task
1 - Literature Review. Examine existing literature to determine
what documents are applicable to this project and what information
is available. Determine "where are the holes" in the technology.
Produce a summary document that provides a summary of the review
findings.
As
a minimum, the literature review will include the following documents.
Documents are available from the IPRF Cooperative Programs Management
Office.
FAA
Advisory Circular Guidance.
AC 150/5320-40, Standards for Airport Markings
AC 150/5370-10, Item P-620
US
Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency Engineering Technical
Letters
ETL 97-18, Guide Specification for Airfield and Roadway Marking
ETL 97-17, Guide Specification - Paint and Rubber Removal
from Roadway and Airfield Pavements
ETL 97-16, Pavement Marking System for Low Temperature Applications
Selected
Specifications and Material References
TT-B-1325C- Federal Specification Beads (Glass Spheres Retro-Reflective)
TT-P-1952D- Federal Specification Paint, Traffic and Airfield
Marking, Waterborne
A-A-2886B- Commercial Item Description Paint, Traffic,
Solvent Based
02763A- Unified Facilities Guide Specifications, Pavement
Markings Section (DoD)
Task
2 - Document a Research Plan and Develop an Outline. Develop
an outline of the end product(s) and specifically include in that
outline those issues that the research team defines as "issues."
Develop a plan for doing research that will fill the "holes" in
available information. Define where information will come from
and propose a list of those airports where "lessons learned" can
be garnered relative to airfield pavement marking (for both asphalt
and concrete pavement) in both new and existing pavement. Talk
to the representatives of regional FAA offices and select airport
operators and determine if there are recurring problems with airfield
marking projects (both contract and in-service). Submit the summary
of the literature and information gathering task. Submit an outline
of the proposed product(s) and a plan for finding answers and/or
validating those answers.
Task 3 - On-Board Review. Present the information from
Task 1 and 2 to the IPRF Technical Panel. The Technical panel
will provide comments on the intent established by the products
presented. The research team will incorporate comments in the
future work, identify where change in scope requirements exist,
and be responsible for the documentation of comments received.
This is designated as the 20% review. The research team will
not proceed to Task 4 without written approval of the IPRF.
An
on-board review. An on-board review must be scheduled at
least 30 days prior to the actual meeting. Documents that are
prepared for technical panel review must be provided at least
30 days prior to the meeting. The location of the meeting will
be coordinated with the IPRF. The investigator is responsible
for preparing the minutes of the meeting and the disposition
of the comments of IPRF Technical Panel members.
Task
4 -Airport Marking Performance Sources. Develop a list of
airports where problems with marking of pavements developed as
a result of the application or durability (less than a few weeks).
Develop a list of engineers, airport operators or contractors
have experience with pavement marking performance, both good and
bad. Where maintenance problems have evolved, document the experiences.
Develop a list of at least five (5) people, both contractors and
specification writers with expert knowledge in airfield marking,
and have them define where improvements can be made in details
or techniques.
IMPORTANT:
A written survey will not be accomplished to determine where
pavement marking problems exist or have been known to happen.
A survey is defined as the random distribution of a standard
list of questions that seek trends or forecasting information.
The use of such surveys must receive approval through the IPRF
from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). That process
requires a minimum of 90 days from the date of application for
the survey approval. The 90 day approval period is not included
in the time designated as the performance period. The investigator
is encouraged to use a means other than "survey" to identify
the candidate airport projects.
Perform
visits to at least 12 airports that represent differences in climate,
traffic, and size (Hub, reliever, commercial service, DoD). At
least one airport will accomplish marking soley by contract and
at least one will do marking using in-service resources.
The
list of airports to be visited will be submitted to the IPRF for
review and comment prior to an actual visit. The list must include
a short paragraph that describes the intent of the visit and what
information will be gathered. Prospective visits can be scheduled
prior to the receipt of IPRF concurrence in the proposed list
of airports.
Task
5 - Accomplish The Research Plan Approved in Task 3. When
Task 4 is completed, fully develop the outline approved by the
IPRF in Task 3. Perform visits to airports and accomplish interviews.
Document the findings. Validate assumptions made during development
of the outline.
Task
6 - Draft Handbook and Supplemental Materials. The products
should quantify the problems that have been discovered (or perceived).
The product should offer solutions in the form of a "Best Practices"
format. The products are to be submitted for review by the Technical
Panel. The research team is expected to define issues that need
to be fully discussed and make recommendations on policy decisions.
Further research or information gathering may be required as a
result of the 60% review.
An on-board review will be accomplished. An on-board
review must be scheduled at least 30 days prior to the actual
meeting. Documents that are prepared for technical panel review
must be provided at least 30 days prior to the meeting. The
location of the meeting will be coordinated with the IPRF. The
investigator is responsible for documenting the comments of
IPRF Technical Panel members and the disposition of each comment.
Task
7 - Draft Final Report. Make corrections to the 60% products
and submit the final to the IPRF. Include in the report all artwork,
graphical presentations, format, etc. The document shall be in
a form that for all intent is complete with the exception of final
comments made by the technical panel.
An
on-board review is optional. The review of the final draft
report and supporting items will be a desk top review accomplished
by the IPRF Technical Panel. The panel may determine that an
on-board review is required because of content of the final
draft. Written comments by the Technical Panel will be provided
to the research team within 30 days of receipt of the Draft
Final Report. The investigator is responsible for documenting
the comments of IPRF Technical Panel members and the disposition
of each comment.
Task 8 - Final Report. Make corrections to the 90% document
and submit the final documents. Assist the IPRF with editorial
changes, minor format corrections or other editing necessary for
publication of the final report.
Products
Summary:
-
The final product will be a document that represents a best
practices guide (as an IPRF Report) that includes descriptive
and graphic elaboration of the airfield pavement marking process
for both concrete and asphalt pavement (new and existing). The
report will be submitted as two original documents and one copy
in electronic media compatible with conventional desktop publishing
systems. Supplemental materials will include checklists, a video,
a slide show and at least two case studies.
- The
summary report of the literature search and an outline of the
report. Submit 10 copies. This is defined as the 20%
level of completion. The investigator will host the meeting.
Location will be determined in coordination with the IPRF.
- Submit
in electronic format the list of proposed airports to be included
in visits and the reason for the selection of the individual
airport.
- Submit
an advanced final report (10 copies) for 60% review.
The review will be accomplished as an on-board meeting at a
location to be determined. The investigator will host the meeting.
Location will be determined in coordination with the IPRF.
- Submit
the Final draft (10 copies) for the 90% review. Comments
will be returned to the research team, or the research team
will be prepared to have an on-board review with the Technical
Panel.
- Final
report and supplemental materials. (two hard copies and one
electronic copy).
Other
Considerations and specific requirements.
- The
investigator is responsible for the preparation of quarterly
reports that describe the progress of the research effort. Reports
are due in the offices of the IPRF on the last day of the fiscal
year quarter. The reports will be limited to two pages in a
format specified by the IPRF. The first page will be a word
document describing the progress of the work. The second page
will provide a summary of the estimated resource expenditures
versus the costs incurred to date.
- The
research team will visit a minimum of 12 airports for the purpose
of witnessing "good practices" and the results of "poor practice."
Each of the 12 airports selected will represent a community
of airports with respect to climate, size (i.e., hub, commercial
service, reliever, Department of Defense) and surface type (i.e.,
concrete, asphalt). At least one airport included in the list
will accomplish marking entirely by contract and at least one
using in-house resources.
- The
research team will include two (2) case studies that represent
mitigation scenarios. The scenarios should be representative
as to the situations that can arise in field situations.
- The
research team will create "checklists" for use by the contract
inspector / manager and the engineer / specifier. The checklists
should help the user identify critical steps and techniques
and assist the user in using their time effectively. The checklist
should help with preparatory items, identify testing and suggest
when oversight is required.
- The
research team will develop and provide a video that can be used
in training scenarios. The video should document good and poor
practice (and the results of each practice). The video will
not be a training course unto itself, it will only document
examples. The emphasis of the research is to be on the handbook
and not the video.
- The
research team will develop a slide show presentation that gives
an overview of the handbook.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
After
the technical panel completes the evaluation of proposals, each
of the proposals will be rank ordered. The organization, group,
or individual that is ranked as the first and second choice for
the recommendation to award may be asked to participate in a telephone
interview. The Principal Investigator, and one other person, representing
the entity ranked first and second choice by the technical panel
may be asked to participate in the interview to discuss the project
details, goals, and objectives. The interview will occur within
a 45-day window subsequent to the proposal submittal deadline.
IPRF
PROCEDURAL GUIDANCE:
IPRF
procedural guidance documents are available below. Persons preparing
proposals are urged to review the following documents to be sure
that there is a full understanding of IPRF procedures and requirements.
Proposals must be prepared in the format specified in the instruction
documents. The proposal will be submitted as one (1) original
and 10 copies.
The
documents required to aide in the preparation of the proposal
include:
PDF files require Acrobat Reader to view.
FUNDS
AVAILABLE: $160,000
CONTRACT
TIME: 15 Months
PROJECT
DIRECTOR: Mr. Jim Lafrenz, P.E. (jlafrenz@pavement.com)
ESTIMATED
NOTICE TO PROCEED DATE: April 24, 2006
PROPOSAL
DUE DATE: March 10, 2006 not later than 4:00 PM (CST)
DELIVERY
INSTRUCTIONS:
Proposals
will be delivered to:
Innovative
Pavement Research Foundation
Cooperative Programs Office, Attn. Jim Lafrenz
201 Shawnee Street
Hiawatha, KS 66434
(785) 742-6900
FAX: (785) 742-6908
