RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT:
A study of concrete mortar bars that incorporate reactive aggregates in the presence of airfield pavement deicer chemicals affirms that there is a correlation between the presence of deicers and an accelerated reaction similar to ASR (Reference IPRF Project 01-G-002-03-9, Potential for Acceleration of ASR In the Presence of Pavement Deicing Chemicals). The absence of reactivity in mortar bars prepared using innocuous aggregates has also been confirmed.
Numerous airports report the impact of that pavement surface distress induced by deicers. Those airports however lack the advantage of having a management tool that can be used to predict the rate of deterioration caused by Material Related Distress (MRD). A prediction tool is required to allow the airport owner to determine reasonable budget requirements that will mitigate the distress.
The conventional management practice for determining airfield pavement maintenance, repair and rehabilitation requirements includes using the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). The PCI information is used to quantify the current pavement condition. The PCI of a pavement evaluation is indexed to previous pavement condition studies. The combined results of studies are incorporated into a prediction analysis which is then used to estimate the next decision point for the execution of pavement management concepts. The PCI is a proven tool used at many airports. When used in conjunction with micro-PAVER budgeting decisions can be reliable.
The PCI accounts for all surface distresses including MRD. However, the PCI is a purely visual protocol and MRD is not segregated from construction related distress. In the PCI system, map cracking due to over finish and D-Cracking associated with freeze-thaw, are not differentiated. In some cases, MRD will mature at an increased rate when compared to distresses created by construction practices. Early indicators of MRD, such as staining or chemical deposits in cracks, are treated as cosmetic flaws and not accounted for in the PCI methodology. When an MRD is counted in the PCI, it is usually too late for a response and by then emergency or un-programmed surface repairs are required.
Other research programs are in progress and they are expected to identify the mechanism of the surface distress induced by airfield pavement deicers. However, until that mechanism is identified an effective mitigation plan for the respective airport cannot be developed. Even after the distress mechanism is defined, existing pavement systems will continue to be subject to distress. Also, when an alternative to a deicer is formulated, there will be a requirement for a tool that can be used to evaluate the use of the alternative on concrete pavement. That tool should be an MRD based analysis because distress, as observed, begins as MRD.
The requirement for a management system similar to a PCI based approach for MRD is required. The MRD approach should use current pavement management perspectives and tools that would be used with existing software packages.
The project is intended to be accomplished in two parts. Each part will be accomplished using the pavement systems and the documented history at Denver International Airport (DEN) and Colorado Springs (COS). A third airport will be included during the validation assessment of those tools developed as a part of this project.
1) Part 1 will provide the evaluation tool that will be used in Part 2. Part 1 will be the development of a tool that will utilize Material Related Distress (MRD) as the basis for a pavement surface condition index system. Part 1 is the basic study for award of this research contract. Part 2 will be a subsequent award. There will be no work on Part 2 without an amendment to the basic contract.
The tool developed under Part 1 will be part of a management technique used for the identification of decision points. The decision points must be consistent with surface conditions of a pavement that dictate pavement management actions intended to minimize the potential for the generation of debris that could damage aircraft operating on the pavement. The tool characteristics are to be similar to the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) employed with micro-PAVER concepts.
a) Develop a tool that can be used to predict the risk associated with different causes of MRD and subsequently use that prediction to develop resource management objectives intended to minimize the rate of foreign object generation (FOG). The risk assessment must include the identification of decision points that are timely with respect to the budget process. A graphical example of the tool intent is illustrated in Figure 1 (included in the references).
b) The research must define the variables and the sensitivity of that tool to the variables. The research must define what observable or measurable features constitute the initial signs of MRD, what types of MRD result in the worst “rate of surface deterioration,” and how can the owner predict the time between the initial identification of MRD and the decision point when mitigation must be employed.
c) The tool must be applicable to conventional, ground and grooved concrete pavement surfaces.
d) The research team must define how “risk” is assigned (i.e., aircraft operations or pavement deterioration based) and what an “unacceptable risk” is based upon using a quantitative analysis. Risk association must be based upon an empirical knowledge of the pavements that are the subject of this study.
2) Part 2 will use the tool developed in Part 1 to judge the effectiveness of using a second generation pavement deicer developed for the purpose of minimizing MRD which is the result of adverse chemical reactions between concrete and deicer constituents. The airport(s) selected to participate in the field testing of a second generation of airfield pavement deicer will store and apply the deicer material. The research team that develops the MRD tool will monitor the test section pavement(s) and provide a detailed report. The report will provide a comparative analysis between pavements subjected to different generation deicer or alternative products. Part 2 will be awarded as an amendment to the basic contract. There will be no work on Part 2 under the basic contract. The IPRF retains the option to award Part 2.
a) The field evaluation must be supplemented with a laboratory study of the deicer product using the most recent tools available to assess the potential for material incompatibility.
b) The field study will be a multi-year effort. It is expected that there would be one winter of product use, an evaluation of pavements using the MRD tool, followed by another cycle of application and evaluation. A third year would be added subject to the observed responses of pavements to different deicer products.
c) The field evaluation must include a “friction” component which would provide a qualitative comparison between the existing family of pavement deicer and the second generation deicer.
The final product will be an Innovative Pavement Research Foundation (IPRF) report that documents the results of the research. The expected product will be a pavement management tool that supplements the PCI technique with an MRD component. The tool will provide the owner with decision points as to when to obligate funding for repairs and a risk analysis that quantifies the incurred penalty repair or maintenance is delayed. The tool may be utilized to evaluate the performance of pavements subjected to a second generation of deicer. At the conclusion of the research there should be a document(s) that the engineer or constructor can read and there by gain an understanding of the problem and the probability for successful mitigation of the problem.
The final report will be provided to the IPRF in the form of two originals, in a camera ready format, including any artwork, graphics or photos. An electronic version of the final report in a format compatible with off-the-shelf desktop computer publication software will also be provided. 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 is expected to 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 and/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 and Information Gathering. Review existing literature. Provide a summary of any exacerbating variables or outstanding questions identified in previous research or general practices with similar objectives.
References required to be incorporated:
Van Dam, T.J.; Sutter, L.L.; Smith, K.D.; Wade, M.J.; and Peterson, K.R. Guidelines for Detection, Analysis, and Treatment of Materials-Related Distress in Concrete Pavements – Volume 2: Guidelines Description and Use. FHWA-RD-01-164. Federal Highway Administration. Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center, McClean, VA. March, 2002. http://www.tfhrc.gov/pavement/pccp/pubs/01164/index.htm.
Sarkar, Shondeep L., Zollinger, Dan G., Mukhopadhyay, Anal K., and Seungwook, Lim. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5380-8, Handbook for Identification of Alkali-Silica Reactivity in Airfield Pavements. Federal Aviation Administration. February, 2004.
Task 2 – Document a Research Plan and Schedule. Develop a plan for doing the research. Provide a matrix of the MRD surface distress manifestations that could be expected when performing a surface condition study at most domestic airports. The anticipated protocol to be employed to accomplish the research will be identified. The “roadmap” that will lead to the attainment of the project objectives and adopted by the research team must be clearly defined.
Task 3 –Visit One Airport. The IPRF will designate an airport that will be the subject of the initial study and used to develop the working skeleton for the tool to be developed. The project team will collect historical and current PCI data for select pavement features. The IPRF and the respective airport will identify the pavement features to be used for the initial study. The initial study will include a subjective analysis of the pavement condition from both a PCI and an MRD perspective.
Task 4 – Develop a Protocol and Realistic Concept of an MRD Management Tool. The research team will develop a concept model of the tool that will be used as an MRD assessment of pavement condition. The concept will be a discussion format about the decision points to be employed, the variables that will impact sensitivity and the “risk assessment” that an owner can expect based upon using the tool.
A 20% on-board review will be accomplished. The investigator will not proceed to Task 5 without the written approval of the IPRF. An on-board review must be scheduled at least 30 days prior to the actual meeting. Documents that are prepared for technical panel review will include the products of Tasks 1 through 4. The products must be provided at least 30 days prior to the meeting. The location of the meeting will be coordinated with the IPRF. The Principal Investigator will be responsible for documenting the comments of IPRF Technical Panel members and the disposition of comments.
Task 5 –MRD Distress Development and Prediction. Execute the research plan developed in Task 2. Use pavements at the airport studied as a part of Task 3 and continue development of the tool described in Task 4. Validate the history of pavement distress development by interview with appropriate people involved with the inspection, budgeting, maintenance and repair at the study airfield. Assess the validity of the sensitivity of the variables described in Task 4 based upon the MRD distress manifestation and history at the study airport.
A 40% on-board review will be accomplished. The review will be a meeting between the PI and the IPRF Technical Panel. The findings report will be based upon the observations and lessons learned from Task 5. A summary 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 that impact the future of the research. Additional research may be needed to respond to questions that are developed as a result of the on-board review. The Technical Panel will determine, based upon the results presented if the primary research will go forward. The work on Task 6 will not begin without approval from the IPRF. The location of the meeting will be coordinated with the IPRF. The investigator will be responsible for documenting the comments of IPRF technical panel members and the disposition of comments.
Task 6 – Perform an Evaluation of Pavements at a Second Airport. Coordinate a study plan with the administration of a second airport and proceed to study pavements at that airport. Adjust the protocol that is the result of work on Tasks 1 through 5. Refine the variables and complete an analysis of the sensitivity of the procedure based upon a current evaluation. Use the protocol to develop predictions of surface manifestations based upon historical development of MRD at the second airport.
Task 7 – Provide a Written Summary to the IPRF on the Results of Tasks 1 Through 6. Prepare a brief report that provides a summary of the results of Task 1 through 6. Explain any significant deviation from expected results. Make a statement as to the potential refinement required to implement the MRD tool for the development of management objectives based upon using the tool(s) developed.
A 60% on-board review will be accomplished. The review will be a meeting between the PI and the IPRF Technical Panel. The findings 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 that impact the future of the research. Additional research may be needed to respond to questions that are developed as a result of the on-board review. The Technical Panel will determine, based upon the results presented if the primary research will go forward. The work on Task 8 will not begin without approval from the IPRF. 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 comments.
Task 8 – Prepare Draft Final Report. Make corrections to the 60% report review and perform additional validation testing as directed by the IPRF based upon the results observed in Task 6. Additional validation testing could include as many as three visits to airports, or features not included in the original study, other than those included in the baseline study. Two of those three additional airports could include monitoring pavements subjected to a second generation deicer product. Include in the report all artwork, graphical presentations, format, protocols, 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. The submittal of the advanced final report is designated as the 90% review point of the research project.
A 90% desk top review will be accomplished. The advanced final report will be submitted to the IPRF Technical Panel for review. The Technical Panel will have 30-days to perform a desk top review and comment on the report. The report will include a summary of the results of testing and recommendations for the research plan that should be followed for mitigation of problems that are discovered as a result of the research. The investigator is responsible for documenting the comments of IPRF Technical Panel members and the disposition of comments made on the report.
Task 9 – Final Report. Make corrections to the 90% document and submit the final documents to the IPRF. Assist the IPRF with publication-related editing.
- A brief summary of the literature search, the matrix of MRD durability issues related to surface distress manifestation in airport concrete, the research plan and the time schedule for doing the work. The products will also include a document that provides, in discussion format, the expected format and concept of the protocol included in the development of the MRD evaluation tool. The PI should also identify what variables will be examined and how their use will impact the sensitivity of the Foreign Object Generation predictions.. Submit 10 copies. This is defined as the 20% level of completion.
- The 40% on-board review will be accomplished approximately 30-days after submittal of an interim report. The draft report (10 copies) will include a summary of all research completed to date as well as documents from the 20% review that have been modified based upon the subsequent work.
- The 60% on-board review will be accomplished approximately 30-days after submittal of an interim report. The report (10 copies) will include a summary of all research completed to date and a summary of modifications made to documents submitted before the 60% review.
- Advanced final report submittal (10 copies) for 90% review.
- A final report (an IPRF Report), that includes recommendations for the research and study of probable mitigating methods, with all artwork, graphics, tables, pictures, documentation, etc. ready for reproduction and distribution. The report will be submitted in two original documents and one on electronic media.
- The Principal Investigator (PI) shall have “hands on” experience with the collection of data and use of pavement management tools used for the purpose of predicting decision points for budgeting maintenance and repair of airfield pavement. The qualifications statement shall include a description of practical field experience and the identification of pavement and material related distress.
- In Task 8 the research team may be directed to evaluate as many as three additional airports for the purpose of validation of the tool developed. The estimated cost for the evaluation study at three additional airports (or features at study airports) will be included in the original proposal.
- The protocol(s) will be published in hard copy. Software development that will support the protocol(s) will be developed under a separate project.
- Field studies at airports will be limited to four features (or portions thereof). A feature is a taxiway, a runway end, a connector taxiway, etc. The intent is to minimize the time necessary to accomplish field data collection and at the same time, make the data collection have meaning with respect to the development of the protocol. An entire airport network will not be included in the study. The research team will coordinate the selection of features that will be included in the study with the respective airport and the Technical Panel.
- The research team will be responsible for getting security screening for access to the airfield without an escort.
- There must be at least one member of the research team that will be available during evaluation of a second generation deicer or alternative with experience in the collection of data and the evaluation of surface friction characteristics.
- The PI 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.
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:
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 11 copies.
The documents required as an aide to the preparation of the proposal include:
PDF files require Acrobat Reader to view.
- Figure 1, FOD Potential vs. PCI, IPRF Project 06-6.
- Program Formulation and Management (October 2005)
- Instructions for Preparing and Submitting Proposals – IPRF Project 01-G-002-06-6
- General Instructions for Preparing a Numbered Paragraph Subordination Type Technical Document
- Federal Aviation Administration Order 9550.7A, Research Grants Program, April 19, 2001.
AVAILABLE: Not to Exceed $285,000
TIME: Not to exceed 22 Months
DIRECTOR: Mr. Jim Lafrenz, P.E., (785) 742-6900, (firstname.lastname@example.org)
NOTICE TO PROCEED DATE: July 2, 2007
DUE DATE: May 4, 2007 not later than 4:00 P.M. (CDST)
Proposals will be delivered to:
Innovative Pavement Research Foundation
Cooperative Programs Office, Attn: Jim Lafrenz
201 Shawnee Street
Hiawatha, KS 66434
FAX: (785) 742-6908