Requests
Closed
RESEARCH
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
The
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5370-10,
Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, includes Item
P-501, Portland Cement Concrete Pavement, originally published
in February, 1989. The-Percent-Within Limits (PWL) concept and
supporting documentation were included in administrative changes
accomplished in March 1994. Editorial change in February, 1999
included the addition of ASTM Standard 1260.
The
current P-501 document has not been updated to recognize new technology,
equipment evolution, and recent concrete mix design protocol.
The material specifications of P-501 are not entirely consistent
with current practices. The need to update P-501 is real because
there are numerous "local modifications," including those made
by Architect Engineer firms and large airports using empirical
knowledge, where improvements intended to overcome deficiencies
are published.
The
current P-501 represents a patchwork of improvements. It is the
intent of this research to produce a new national model for the
P-501 guide specification.
- The
specification must be a stand alone document (It must also retain
references to appropriate Items of AC 150/5370-10.
- A
supplemental report that explains the specification will
be a product.
- The
report must explain the derivation of the specification.
What was the basis for derivation?
- What
is the impact of changing a specific section or paragraph?
- Why
is a specific number in the specification? Can that specific
number be changed and what impact is expected if the number
is changed. As an example, a 90-day age is the conventional
strength design criteria. Most specifications are written
for 28-day strength. Many contractors will design the
concrete mix for 7-day strengths for early use by construction
traffic.
- What
are the quality impacts of changing a specific number
or section of the specification?
- A
"graduated" specification, in square yards, is necessary. The
current P-501 is a one size fits all approach and that often
generates excess cost for small projects but is deficient in
establishing a minimal level of quality for large projects.
What does the industry need, as a minimum, to assure that the
right amount of effort is put into getting a product without
a sacrifice of quality.
- The
limits of the graduations must be defined.
- The
supplemental report must explain how to change applicable
portions of P-501 to accommodate different size projects.
- The
specification content must be written so that it can be
used for new construction, rehabilitation, repair and
upgrade
- Equipment
used for the mixing, transport, placement, and finishing (including
curing and saw cutting) of concrete continues to evolve as manufacturers
develop new devices and improve existing machines.
- The
P-501 specification must allow for the use of the different
types of equipment but at the same time establish minimum
requirements consistent with the type of paving, width
and length, concrete workability, and methods of transport.
- The
method of mixing, transport, placement, and finishing
must be consistent with the requirements dictated by the
size of the project and the time available to accomplish
the work.
- The
research involves answering the question "How much guidance
on techniques and equipment is tolerable but still maintain
a balance between a method and an end result specification?
- There
are innovations that have been explored by agencies other than
the FAA that should be evaluated. The research team should explore
the advantages and disadvantages of innovations and subsequently
recommend inclusion or exclusion.
-
Some of those innovations include test sections, pour
agreements and other techniques intended to improve the
basis for accepting concrete construction techniques and
the communication between the shareholders.
- Can
a Dowel Bar Inserter (DBI) be used? If so, what type(s)
and what must be demonstrated before accepting a specific
device or technique for use on a project? How are these
questions answered in the field?
- Is
there value in requiring a paving plan?
- The
concrete mix design philosophy incorporated into the current
P-501 is based upon strength and slump. Industry recognizes
that these are not the best properties to be used for establishing
the parameters to evaluate a concrete mix. The correct philosophy
recognizes that "if it cannot be built, it will not be durable."
- Concrete
mix designs must allow for the use of local materials,
recognize the method of transport and placement and result
in efficient yield.
- Quality
control must promote consistency and identify when mix
modifications are necessary.
- The
specification should force answers to questions. It is
necessary that those answers provide an answer to the
most important question, "What makes a successful mix?"
Should there be a checklist incorporated into the supplement?
-
What is the impact of laboratory certification on the quality
of the final product?
- Should
certification be a requirement for the quality control
function?
-
Is the current certification requirement for the quality
acceptance function too restrictive?
-
Do small projects require the certification of the laboratory?
Under what conditions (graduated project sizes) would
a State DoT certification program be acceptable?
-
How do we assure the sponsor that the laboratory doing
material acceptance evaluation is qualified for assessing
potential for ASR, sulfate attack, etc?
-
Is laboratory testing required for all materials or can
some testing requirements be relaxed for small projects?
Is there economy in "pre-qualified" sources of materials?
- Should
a specification include mitigation techniques for deficiencies
in the placed product or deviations from the plans and specifications?
Should mitigation include a specified repair technique?
OBJECTIVES:
A
guide specification should be a document that inspires creativity
and yet maintains a measurement standard that can evaluate the
construction. The measurement must be consistent with acceptance
criteria for validation of the design parameters strength and
thickness.
- The
specification must encourage innovation. Innovation and creativity
is not to be confused with allowing the contractor to do what
he wants provided the result at the end satisfies the pay criteria.
There must be a "results oriented" approach to the specification.
The results being the sum of "several good elements" and not
the "end result." Prescriptive specification formats are to
be avoided. The preamble to the supporting report must define
the "limits" on creativity and "innovation."
-
The specification must be a "user friendly" tool that promotes
communication between the owner, engineer, contractor and laboratory
technicians - the variables must be defined and acceptable variability
identified. Production adjustments must be allowed that will
promote minimizing the variability. Quality is attained through
consistency - the specification must encourage consistency and
penalize unacceptable variability.
- The
"key" parameters used in the specification that are considered
necessary to the construction of concrete pavement must be defined
and documented. The source document that supplements the specification
must explain where the numbers come from, why they are there,
the impact of changing those numbers and "what are typical exceptions
to the usual?" The specification documentation must answer the
question "How is the best way to communicate the issue?"
- The
specification must be developed with the attitude that the document
will replace the current P-501. This is not about developing
experimental "performance based" specifications. This project
is about developing a "results based" specification. The definition
and limits of "results based" must be defined and documented.
- The
specifications should allow for a minimal number of submittals.
-
When local modifications are necessary they should be based
upon economics, local materials, and/or practices. Types of
regional modifications that should be permitted must be defined.
- The
specification should be adaptable to military specifications
with minor modifications.
-
The specification must be written in a manner that results in
minimal modification when criteria evolves as a result of research
or empirical knowledge is incorporated. There should be no need
to change "several" paragraphs scattered throughout the document.
- The
specification must result in a product that is superior in quality
to the current specification. The specification must not result
in product of less quality than currently being provided.
PRODUCTS:
The products will be a fully developed P-501 specification, an
annotated report documenting the development of the specification,
and a Power-Point format presentation that clearly differentiates
between the new and the current specifications. The presentation
will include "talking points" that define parts of the new specification
that represents significant change from current practice.
The investigator will provide two originals, in a camera ready
format, of the final documents developed under this program including
any artwork, graphics or photos. The documents will be in "Microsoft
Word format to match other FAA guide specifications. 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.
TASKS:
The
investigator will develop sub-tasks that, when completed, will
result in completion of this research 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.
Examples of local modifications that have been published by FAA
regions, A-E firms and large airports will be collected.
Task
2 - Specification and Supplemental Report Draft. Develop the
draft of the specification and the supplemental report. The draft
does not have to be complete in every detail but there must be
sufficient background material and proposed language to allow
for discussion of options, alternatives and recommendations.
Task
3 - Review the Draft Documents with Technical Panel. 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 -Develop the Specification and Supplemental Report. Incorporate
the comments of the Technical Panel and complete the specification
and the supplemental report. Develop the draft of a Power-Point
presentation that describes the differences between the old specification
and the proposed. Develop talking points that fully describe and
justify changes to the P-501 that may be considered to be substantial
and/or require new ways of doing business.
Task 5 - Review the documents with the Technical Panel.
A 75% on-board review will be accomplished. The investigator
will not proceed to Task 6 without the written approval of the
IPRF. The review will be a meeting between the investigator and
the IPRF Technical Panel. The products 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 product. 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
6 - Incorporate Technical Panel Comments. Incorporate policy
decisions agreed to by the Technical Panel and fully develop the
products. Prepare the documents for review by organizations representative
of the airfield pavement construction industry.
Task
7 - User Group Reviews. Make the products available to the
designated User Groups through the Technical Panel representative.
Support the User Group representative in explaining the new specification
and soliciting comments from the specific User Group represented.
The designated User Groups are American Concrete Pavement Association
(ACPA), Airports Consultant Council (ACC), American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE) and Airports Council International - North
America (ACI-NA). The research team should be prepared to attend
one user group meeting and/or assist the user group representative
solicit, resolve and document written comments.
Task
8 - Review the User Group Comments with the Technical Panel.
Incorporate comments of the User Groups and/or make recommendations
for disposition of comments. This is a designated 90% on-board
review. The review will be a meeting between the investigator
and the IPRF Technical Panel. The products 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
9 - Incorporate Technical Panel Comments. Incorporate comments
of the Technical Panel that are the result of the 90% review.
Prepare the products for review by the Federal Aviation Administration
and the State aviation organizations.
Task
10 - FAA and National Association of State Aviation Officials
(NASAO) Review. Submit the products to the FAA and NASAO.
The FAA will circulate the products to regions for comment. NASAO
will circulate the products to the State Department of Transportation
aviation organizations for review and comment.
Task
11 - Incorporate Comments Based Upon FAA and NASAO Review.
Assist the FAA and NASAO with recording comments received and
make recommendations for disposition of those comments.
Task
12 - Technical Panel Review. This is a designated 95% on-board
review. 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 13 - FAA Legal Review. Submit the Products to the
FAA for legal review. Document in clear concise documentation
significant changes and summarize the impact on the user.
Task
14- Final Review with Technical Panel. This is a designated
100% on-board review. 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.
Products
Summary:
-
With exception of the final products, the products for each
of the Tasks will be submitted in 8 copies. This is
for the 20%, 75%, the 90% and the 95% level of completion.
- The
advanced final report submittal, 100% review will be in 8
copies. The investigator will host the meeting. Location
will be determined in coordination with the IPRF.
Other
Considerations and requirements.
- The
Percentage-Within-Limits (PWL) methodology must be retained.
However, pay schedules may be examined for applicability.
Strength and thickness remain as the primary acceptance criteria
for pay.
- What
"local modifications" can be accomplished before the specification
intent is violated? Local modifications must be defined in
a generic fashion and guidance on adoption must be included
in the supplemental report.
- The
format for the specification must follow the format of the
existing FAA specifications.
- The
research team will incorporate the services of a "Technical
Editor."
- The
investigator will be responsible for the preparation of quarterly
reports that describe the progress of the research effort
as measured on a project schedule. Reports are due in the
offices of the IPRF on the last day of the fiscal year quarter.
The reports are 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 through the
report date.
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 9 copies.
The
documents required to aide in the preparation of the proposal
include:
PDF files require Acrobat Reader to view.
FUNDS
AVAILABLE: $340,000
CONTRACT
TIME: 24 Months
PROJECT
DIRECTOR: James L. Lafrenz, P.E., (202) 842-1131, jlafrenz@pavement.com
ESTIMATED
NOTICE TO PROCEED DATE: December 15, 2004
PROPOSAL
DUE DATE: October 11, 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
