Requests
Closed
RESEARCH
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
The
Department of Defense (specifically the Corps of Engineers) developed
a specification for the use of recycled crushed concrete as stabilized
subbase for airfield concrete pavement. The specifications require
that excess fines be removed and that screened material meet specific
gradation requirements. Some State highway agencies have similar
specifications or material standards. Recycled concrete has a
successful history of use for military airfield and some highway
pavements.
Concerns
continue to be expressed about the use of recycled concrete. Many
engineers believe there is the possibility of Alkali-Silica-Reactivity
(ASR) or sulfate attack in the subbase. Some engineers question
the material properties from the perspective of abrasion loss
and compaction requirements. It is probable that the concerns
are expressed because of the lack of documentation about recycled
concrete. Recycled concrete is being used but the process is not
documented and thus a lack of a technique that allows the engineer
or owner to evaluate the potential for using recycled concrete.
An
evaluation, design and construction guide can provide direction
to the owner and engineer as to how to evaluate the value of recycled
concrete. The potential for savings is significant compared to
the resource expenditures required for the use of virgin aggregates
for stabilized subbase. The potential for a direct front end cost
saving can be also be realized immediately when disposal of the
existing concrete pavement is not a requirement of the construction
contract.
OBJECTIVES:
The
intent of the research is to evaluate the successes and failures
of using recycled concrete as subbase material and based upon
those experiences develop a set of material and construction standards.
The research will document select projects where recycled concrete
pavement has been used as subbase material. Additionally, the
research will identify and answer questions such as:
- How
can an owner / engineer evaluate an existing concrete pavement
as being an economical option for use as a recycled material?
-
What are the economies (i.e., cost), material standards, gradation,
and potential for ASR, D-cracking or sulfate attack when existing
pavements are considered for use as recycled materials?
- Can
pavements that exhibit deterioration because of ASR, D-cracking
or sulfate attack be used for recycled materials?
- What
quality control initiatives are necessary to assure the engineer
and/or contractor that the materials being used meet a yet to
be defined minimum standard?
- Can
recycled materials satisfy the requirements and material properties
for use as stabilized subbase?
- What
mitigation techniques must be adopted to minimize the potential
for subbase deterioration when the decision is yes to recycle
pavements that exhibit ASR, D-cracking or sulfate attack? And,
- What
laboratory testing is required and how should the results be
interpreted when considering a concrete pavement for recycling
as a subbase?
The
evaluation, design and construction guidelines must be developed
using input from industry, i.e., owners, designers, and contractors.
The intent is to provide a guide about the use of recycled crushed
concrete for stabilized subbase for airfield concrete pavement.
The guidelines shall define the minimum standards as it pertains
to:
- Material
properties
- Engineering
properties
- Minimum
considerations for using pavements exhibiting ASR, D-cracking
or sulfate attack.
PRODUCTS:
The
final products will be an Innovative Pavement Research Foundation
(IPRF) report. The report will be an evaluation/ design/ construction
guide that provides documentation of the research approach, the
results of the field study, any laboratory analysis and recommendations
for the economics, design and construction of subbase using recycled
concrete materials. Additionally, draft specifications that provide
guidance in specifying the use of recycled concrete pavement will
be produced. The draft specifications will be in a format that
can easily be implemented in the form of a Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Advisory Circular. The draft specification will be an appendix
to the report.
The
investigator will provide two original documents, in a camera
ready format including artwork, graphics, or photos. The final
report, including the appendix, will also 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 documents but will assist with minor editing
requirements generated by the printing and reproduction process.
The
investigator will be responsible for developing a series of sub-tasks
that when completed will result in completion of this study within
the time and budget available. It is not necessary that the proposal
reflect the exact budget or the performance period; however, any
deviation from the available resources must be justified and clearly
explained in the proposal.
The
following are considered as the minimum tasks that are necessary
to do the work to complete the study. The proposal may include
an increase in the number of tasks but the number of "on-board"
reviews will be retained.
Task
1 - Literature Review: The literature review shall be performed
to document locations where recycled concrete has been used in
the past. The research shall include, but not limited to commercial
service and military airfields and select highway projects. Documentation
on past and current concerns including but not limited to ASR,
D-cracking, generated fines, deleterious materials, soft aggregate,
etc. shall be included in the literature review.
The
intent of the literature review is to include and not duplicate
research that has already been done in the area of recycled concrete.
The investigator is encouraged to take advantage of research already
conducted outside the airport environment such as the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and include their findings if applicable.
IMPORTANT: The investigator will not accomplish data acquisition
by conducting a written survey. A survey is defined as the random
distribution of a standard list of questions that seek trends
for 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 sources of information.
Task
2 - Research Development Plan: The investigator will develop
a plan to conduct the research. The plan will identify various
proposed methods of recycling by removing and processing including
stabilized, non-stabilized, and open-graded layers (stabilized
and non-stabilized). The investigator shall identify any lab or
field testing that he or she plans to use to show that recycled
concrete can satisfy applicable FAA standards for subbase materials.
The research plan should consider the identification of locations
where distressed pavement is being replaced due to ASR, D-Cracking,
or sulfate attack. Materials from the field could offer opportunities
to perform limited laboratory investigations to as a part of a
validation phase of the research. The research plan shall included
locations representing a geographical cross-section of existing
pavement constructed from recycled materials. Any project specifications
developed and used shall be documented along with the pavement
performance.
The
research plan shall describe how the investigator intends to incorporate
the selected field study sites to validate the research. The investigator
shall identify actual test proposed for the validation especially
as it pertains to the use of recycled ASR and D-cracked concrete.
A
20 % "on-board" review meeting will be held at the end of
Task 2. The investigator will not proceed to Task 3 without
the written approval from the IPRF. The review meeting must
be scheduled at least 30 days prior to the actual meeting. Documents
that are prepared for the technical panel review must be provided
at least 30 days prior to the meeting. At this stage of the
project the following should be substantially complete:
- Literature
review
- Identification
of site locations where the field study will be performed
- Outline
for the validation study and how the field study locations
will be incorporated into the validation study, and
- Proposed
criteria for developing the specifications
The
location of the meeting will be coordinated through the IPRF.
The investigator will provide a recording secretary at the review
meeting. The comments of the IPRF technical panel members and
the disposition of each comment will be recorded.
Task
3 - Project Review and Field Study: Once the research plan
has been approved by the Technical Panel, the project review and
field study shall be implemented in accordance with the research
plan.
Task
4 - Establishing the Minimum Material Standards: The research
team will establish the minimum standards in accordance with the
research plan.
Task
5 - Draft Report and Draft Specification Preparation: After
the literature review, project review, field study, validation
study, and development of the specification criteria a draft report
will be prepared and submitted to the IPRF. The draft report will
include a design/construction guide that includes documentation
of the research approach, field study, any laboratory analysis
and results along with the draft specifications. The minimum material
standards and the methods used for determining them for recycle
concrete shall be documented in the guide. The draft specifications
shall be separate and in a format that can easily be converted
to an FAA Draft Advisory Circular.
A
60% "on-board" review meeting will be held after the submission
of the draft report. The draft report will be provided to the
technical panel at least 30 days prior to the meeting. Comments
of the technical panel will be discussed at the review meeting.
The investigator is expected to present to the technical panel
discussion items that will result in policy decisions for the
critical elements of the final report. Additional research may
be needed to respond to questions that are developed as a result
of the review meeting. The location of the meeting will be coordinated
through the IPRF. The investigator will provide a recording
secretary at the review meeting. The comments of the IPRF technical
panel members and the disposition of each comment will be recorded.
Task
6 - Advanced Final Report: The investigator will make corrections
using the 60% review comments. All artwork, graphical presentations,
format, etc. will be included in the advanced final report. For
all intent and purpose, the advanced final report shall be complete
with the exception of the incorporation of final comments made
by the technical panel.
Task
7 -Review by Contractors, Designers, and Owners: The research
team will schedule a review meeting with a group that represents
the intended users of the research product. The intent of the
review is to assure that the report communicates the solution
to the problems expected by the audience.
A
90% "on-board review meeting will be held after the submission
of the advanced final report. The review meeting 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 will provide a recording
secretary at the review meeting. The comments of the IPRF technical
panel members and the disposition of each comment will be recorded.
The technical panel may, at its discretion, waive the 90% review
meeting depending upon the completeness of the advance final
draft report.
Task
8 - Final Report: The investigator will submit the final report
to the IPRF and assist with editing that is related to the publication
process.
PRODUCTS
SUMMARY:
1.
Final deliverables includes a final report design/construction
guide and draft specifications complete with all artwork, graphics,
tables, pictures, documentation, etc. ready for reproduction.
Both the design/construction guide and draft specifications
will be submitted in two original documents and one on electronic
media.
2. The 20 % deliverables include eight (8) copies of a report
that outlines the literature review, identifies the site locations
where the proposed field study should be preformed, outlines
the proposed validation study and contains the proposed criteria
for developing the specifications. These items will be reviewed
at the 20 % "on-board" meeting. The investigator will host the
meeting. The location will be determined in coordination with
the IPRF.
3. The 60 % deliverables includes eight (8) copies of the draft
design/construction guide and draft specifications. A 60 % "on-board"
review meeting will be held approximately 30-days after the
submittal of the draft design/construction guide and draft specifications.
The investigator will host the meeting. The location will be
determined in coordination with the IPRF.
4. The 90 % deliverables includes eight (8) copies of the draft
design/construction guide and draft specifications. A 90 % "on-board"
review meeting will be held (if necessary and at the discretion
of the technical panel) and will be hosted by the investigator.
The location will be determined in coordination with the IPRF.
OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS:
1.
The investigator is responsible for the preparation of quarterly
reports that describe the progress of the research effort. Quarterly
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. 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 through the
end of the quarter.
2.
The investigator will initiate contact with the airports that
are selected for the project review and field study task through
the IPRF. The investigator will provide a draft letter. The
IPRF will edit the letter of introduction to the airports and
may include an endorsement of the letter by the FAA. This is
intended to encourage participation by the airports and their
sponsors.
SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS:
The
IPRF technical panel will evaluate each proposal and each of the
proposals will be rank ordered. The organization, group, or individual
ranked as the first and second choice for the recommendation to
award may be asked to make a presentation to the project technical
panel or be available for a telephone interview. The Principal
Investigator, and one other person, representing the research
team may be asked to participate in the interview. The IPRF will
reimburse the expenses (up to two (2) persons) to make this presentation
at a location to be determined. The interview will occur within
a 45-day window subsequent to the proposal submittal deadline.
The IPRF will attempt to notify the people that submit proposals
the approximate date of the interview.
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 eight (8) copies.
The
reference documents that are necessary to prepare the proposal
include:
FUNDS
AVAILABLE: Not to exceed $153,000
CONTRACT
TIME: Not to exceed 12 Months
PROJECT
DIRECTOR: Gary L. Mitchell, P.E., (704) 369-0475
ESTIMATED NOTICE TO PROCEED: June 15, 2004
PROPOSAL
DUE DATE: April 2, 2004
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
