Requests
Closed
RESEARCH PROBLEM
STATEMENT:
The
most popular test protocol for determining if a concrete aggregate
is reactive in the presence of alkaline cement is ASTM C-1260.
However, users state that there is little relationship between
the test, the results and actual field performance. In attempts
to model field performance, the ASTM C-1260 test is often modified
locally but the results of the testing is not beneficial to the
determination of an answer to the question "How will the materials
perform in the field?" The only result is a determination that
an aggregate material is or is not reactive.
An
option to ASTM C-1260 is test method ASTM C-1293. This protocol
determines, by measurement of length change of concrete prisms,
"the potential of an aggregate to expand deleteriously" due to
any form of ASR. It is perhaps the best protocol today - but,
the test requires up to one year before there is an answer; and,
it is still an aggregate test.
A
different approach is necessary. Current test methods cannot predict
what will happen - they only state that a reaction may be present.
The potential for the use of materials from other than empirical
sources is a substantial risk and industry must have a tool that
evaluates materials for ASR using something other than empirical
history. A standard protocol to evaluate the field performance
of concrete given the potential for ASR must be developed.
OBJECTIVES:
There must be new technology developed that can assist owners,
engineers, and contractors to identify and quantify the potential
for concrete pavement deterioration, as a result of ASR, using
a reliable and timely testing protocol. The process used must
terminate with a prediction about the expected performance of
a concrete pavement when ASR is anticipated. Research must define
critical factors by answering key questions such as "What is deleterious
reactivity?" and "What is a reasonable time to do a test?"
- The
new protocol must have a performance-based approach. The protocol
must take advantage of what people, experienced in the behavior
of concrete materials prone to ASR, have knowledge about. The
material properties fundamental to the ASR mechanism and how
the combination of materials relates to field performance must
be quantified.
- The
new protocol must measure material properties that can be used
to predict field performance. Testing procedures and protocols
must be fundamentally based, related to the mechanics of ASR
reaction chemistry, and generate measurable data on a short
term, economically feasible, basis. The protocol must be simple
enough so that it can be used to determine a variety of material
combinations in a timely manner.
- The
protocol must allow effective mitigation strategy development
when using local materials and local field conditions. The mitigation
strategy must be engineered based upon the measured material
properties.
-
If ASTM C-1260 and ASTM C-1293 can be modified and the objectives
attained, the research must explain how and why. The potential
for false positives must be minimized.
- The
end result of this project is that the process proposed for
adoption is reliable, repeatable, and relevant for project specific
materials in variable combinations.
The
roadmap to the development of the new process must be diagramed
and the critical path explained. There must be initial testing
accomplished that will validate the approach defined by the research.
Validation testing must be accomplished to the point that the
variables are identified and that there is an approximate understanding
of their impact.
PRODUCTS:
The
final product will be a documented process with a summary of the
research accomplished and the protocol that should be used to
predict the performance of concrete pavement when ASR is anticipated.
There must be a full explanation of the variables, how those variables
influence the process and where in the testing procedure would
error most influence the results.
At
the conclusion of the research there should be a document(s) that
the airport owner, engineer or constructor can read and gain an
understanding of the materials that, when combined, could result
in ASR, how to predict deleterious expansion and techniques for
mitigation. The test procedure will explain how to identify when
there are false positives and potential sources of error.
The
investigator will provide two originals, in a camera ready format,
of the documents developed under this program including any artwork,
graphics or photos. There will also be a submittal 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
process.
The
investigator will develop sub-tasks that when completed will result
in completion of the project within the time and budget available.
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 that are considered necessary
to complete the project.
Task
1 - Literature Review. Review existing literature and/or source
documents from which the research team can identify related work.
Task
2 - Study Related Work. Develop a list of the advantages and
disadvantages of accomplishments with work related to the current
research. The purpose is to identify possible issues to be pursued
without having to reinvent the techniques that have been studied.
Task
3 - Document a Research Plan. Develop a plan for doing preliminary
laboratory studies of a possible testing protocol. The testing
protocol should be defined in draft with areas of strengths and
areas for study clearly defined.
A
20% on-board review will be accomplished. The investigator
will not proceed to Task 4 without the written approval of
the IPRF. The 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
4 -Preliminary Lab Studies. Accomplish preliminary laboratory
studies and write a draft report on the lessons learned and recommendations
for modification of the draft test protocol. Identify the key
material characteristics that lead to acceptable prediction of
the performance of combined materials with potential for ASR.
Identify where errors in testing occur, the influence of those
errors, and how definitions of deleterious expansion can be developed.
Fully define the variables and the plan to do additional testing
to expand the knowledge of the variables.
A
40% on-board review will be accomplished. The investigator
will not proceed to Task 5 without the written approval of
the IPRF. The review will be a meeting between the investigator
and the IPRF Technical Panel. The draft report will be provided
to the technical panel at least 30 days prior to the meeting.
The investigator is expected to present to the technical panel
discussion items that will result in policy decisions for
critical elements of the final report. Additional research
may be needed to respond to questions that are developed as
a result of the on-board review. 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
5 - Validation Laboratory Testing. The investigator shall
accomplish validation testing to provide reasonable assurance
that the variables are defined and understood. The measurement
of deleterious expansion shall be demonstrated. The variables
in the process and the prediction tools will have been validated
in the laboratory. The testing process will be updated based upon
lessons learned.
Task
6 - Advanced Final Report(s). Make corrections using the 40%
review and additional data gathered as a result of the validation
testing. Include in the 90% report all artwork, graphical presentations,
format, etc. The 90% document shall be in a form that for all
intent is complete with the exception of final comments made by
the technical panel.
A
90% on-board review will be accomplished. The review will
be a meeting between the investigator and the IPRF Technical
Panel. The draft report (as an IPRF Report) will be provided
to the technical panel 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 - Final Report. Make corrections to the 90% document and
submit the final documents to the IPRF. Assist the IPRF with publication
related editing.
Products
Summary:
1.
A process defined in the form of a final report (an IPRF Report)
complete with all artwork, graphics, tables, pictures, documentation,
etc. ready for reproduction and distribution. The final documents
will address material characteristics, identification of the
potential for ASR in combined materials, and the test protocol.
2.
A summary of the literature search, the study of related techniques,
testing or procedures and a proposed preliminary testing plan.
Submit 8 copies. This is defined as the 20% level of
completion. The project will be reviewed at 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.
3.
The 40% on-board review will be accomplished approximately 30-days
after submittal of a draft report on the results of the preliminary
laboratory study. The draft report (8 copies) will include
a summary of data collected and recommended discussion items.
The investigator will host the meeting. Location will be determined
in coordination with the IPRF.
4.
Advanced final report submittal (8 copies) and 90% on-board
review. The investigator will host the meeting. Location will
be determined in coordination with the IPRF.
5.
Final report review (8 copies) and comment by IPRF technical
panel.
Other
Considerations and requirements.
1.
The investigator will be 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 costs
versus the costs incurred to the report date.
2.
Because of the limited resources, it is not possible to have
an exhaustive study of a proposed process. Therefore, in proposing
validation testing, the investigator should consider getting
sufficient information to identify and verify the influence
off the variables. A test plan for additional validation testing
and future research must be included in the final report.
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, from
the research team should be available to participate in a telephone
interview to discuss the project details, goals, and objectives.
The IPRF will notify those entities that submit proposals as to
the dates of the selection meeting.
IPRF PROCEDURAL
GUIDANCE:
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 8 copies.
The
documents required as an aide to the preparation of the proposal
include:
PDF files require Acrobat Reader to view.
FUNDS
AVAILABLE: Not to Exceed $350,000
CONTRACT
TIME: Not to exceed 24 Months
PROJECT
DIRECTOR: James L. Lafrenz, P.E., (202) 842-1131, jlafrenz@pavement.com
ESTIMATED
NOTICE TO PROCEED DATE: January 6, 2005
PROPOSAL
DUE DATE: September 27, 2004 not later than 4:00 P.M. (Eastern
Time)
DELIVERY
INSTRUCTIONS:
Proposals
will be delivered to:
Innovative
Pavement Research Foundation
Cooperative Programs Office
1010 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Suite 200
Washington DC 20001
(202) 842-1131
FAX: (202) 842-2022
Attention: Research Proposal Log
