Requests
Closed
RESEARCH PROBLEM
STATEMENT:
The
reconstruction of the runway in 33.5 days at the Atlanta Hartsfield
International Airport is an example of a growing trend for the
construction of rigid airfield pavement systems. But, acceptance
criteria for payment for the delivered product is based on traditional
strength based schedules. The traditional testing procedures may
not necessarily reflect the requirements that result from modern
construction practices and for fast track construction. Additionally,
the reliability of those tests is sometimes questioned. The acceptance
of concrete pavements using higher early strength may not accurately
reflect the in situ product. New procedures that recognize new
technologies must be adopted.
The
intent of this study is to identify, validate precision statements
and verify techniques and procedures that will provide or predict
in situ strength at early ages as well as later age acceptance
strength. Any new procedures that are recommended as a result
of this study must be correlated to the current acceptance criteria,
ASTM C-78, which forms the basis of the FAA design procedure.
A new test should have a better variability than the ASTM C-78
procedure. The new procedures must also recognize the various
aspects of the variability in the process that are usually encountered
with "rapid track construction" methods.
OBJECTIVES:
-
The investigator shall evaluate traditional and new technologies
that take advantage of alternate acceptance criteria to the
traditional 28-day flexural strength.
- The
investigator shall evaluate practical and economical alternatives
to destructive testing for in situ thickness determination.
Alternatives cannot be comprised of proprietary instrumentation
but must include concepts that can be validated through the
use of several proprietary instruments.
-
This study should consider at a minimum,
- maturity
concepts,
- cement
and water content determination, and
- techniques
for curing fresh concrete.
- Traditional
tests for other properties such as air content, sand/aggregate
gradation, and yield tests should not be ignored.
- This
study should include non-destructive or marginally invasive
testing procedures applicable to in situ strength and thickness
of hardened concrete.
- This
study should attempt to use industry-accepted standards wherever
possible, such as ASTM and AASHTO procedures, or equivalent
standards of practice in other countries. The study should not
be used to attempt the development of new technology or theoretical
approaches to new testing procedures. Proprietary devices should
not be included unless all such devices within a family of theory
are included in the study.
- The
research will require field sampling, side by side testing,
and statistical analyses of test results.
- The
FAA requires certified technicians and certified accredited
laboratories for doing acceptance testing. The investigator
shall provide information as to how the requirement will enhance
the capability/availability of existing certification/accrediting
authorities to alternative testing regimens.
- The
FAA requires acceptance testing based upon random sampling and
Percent Within Limits (PWL) concepts. The investigator shall
recognize that the PWL concepts will continue under any new
testing and acceptance regimens that may be proposed through
this research. The study must therefore provide a quality control
and/or acceptance testing recommendation for any change in proposed
procedures. The procedures must include the timing, location
and number of tests, lot size, accept and reject quality levels
and, where applicable, pay factors, if the proposed technology
forms the basis for payment. Process control variability assumed
to be reasonable for quality construction should be assumed
when recommending PWL parameters.
- Several
major airports have completed fast track projects of both short
duration (i.e. panel replacement) and high volume projects.
This investigation must include a review of a select number
of those projects and the procedures that were used for acceptance.
A list of those projects may be available through the IPRF based
as a result of project 02-3, Document Practices for Accelerated
Airfield Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation and Reconstruction.
The investigator should plan to review at least 6 projects for
the purpose of comparing the use of any proposed technology
with the techniques actually used for completed projects.
- The
evaluation of any proposed technology, tests or procedures should,
at a minimum, consider cost, reliability, precision and accuracy
as compared to existing techniques. The recommended technology
or techniques must show benefits in time and cost savings, reliability,
and precision. Precision may not be in the form of accuracy
of the test result specifically but may include such items as
the time period that data becomes available. An example would
be "opening to traffic."
- There
may be an opportunity for a limited amount of additional field
sampling and testing on FAA funded projects above and beyond
the fieldwork anticipated in this research project. Therefore,
an early submittal will include the use of specification inserts
and instructions to the contractor/engineer for delivery of
the test results to the investigator that can be included in
the contract documents for some candidate projects. The inserts
and instructions must identify the party responsible for sampling
and testing and must be consistent with the approved research
plan with the intent of providing supporting test data for analyses.
The investigator should assume that this testing will be the
responsibility of the Engineer of Record for the construction
project on which testing may be performed and that this testing
is for informational purposes only.
- The
investigator should give consideration to the concrete production
process and when does it make sense to do the testing. Should
materials be tested before, during or after the concrete production
process? The study should answer the question "Where in the
process does the highest rate of return on acceptance testing
occur?" Rate of return being measured by effectiveness of testing
as compared to accuracy and time that results can be used to
refine the process.
PRODUCTS:
The
deliverable will be a single document that provides recommendations
for the adoption of new technology and/or techniques that can
be used to accept for payment the concrete pavement as a product.
The document will incorporate substantiating data that provides
information on reliability, precision, benefits, and implementation
directives. Advantages and disadvantages of recommended testing
regimen and traditional techniques must be provided. Limitations
must also be specified. The final report will include an appendix
with recommendations for implementing the requirements in Advisory
Circular format.
Two
interim documents will be prepared by the investigator and submitted
for formal review and approval. The documents will be developed
along two Tracks that are assumed to progress as parallel development.
However, the completion of Track 1 is necessary before a final
notice to proceed can be provided for Track 2.
Track
1 involves the development of a report that documents the research
approach, identifies the field and laboratory procedures, provides
insight into the results and finally, provides a rational description
of the intended approach to the development of alternative testing
techniques and procedures consistent with accelerated pavement
construction practices.
Track
2 includes the development of the deliverable. The deliverable
will provide recommendations for those techniques and procedures
that could be used with fast track construction. The report should
also include recommendations for applicability to traditional
construction practice.
The
investigator will provide two originals, in a camera ready format,
of the final deliverable document 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 given in this RFP. 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
1A - Literature and Airfield Construction Project Review. Review
existing literature and/or source documents from which engineers
determine materials compatibility, thickness, strength, and construction
acceptance criteria for concrete pavement. Identify airports that
have accomplished fast track or accelerated construction or rehabilitation
of airfield pavements. Determine from project reviews the variables
that may or could demonstrate the success and failure variables
related to design and construction of airfield concrete pavements.
Task
1B - Identify opportunities for a limited amount of additional
field and or acceptance testing on FAA funded projects. Identify
candidate airport projects that are or will be FAA funded that
may qualify for additional testing regimens. These projects would
be in addition to at least one field validation study accomplished
with a qualified FAA pavement project. This Task must be completed
and the candidate projects identified within 60 days of notice
to proceed. Candidate projects may be available from the IPRF.
IMPORTANT:
The investigator will not accomplish the initial data acquisition
by conducting a written survey. 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.
Task
2 - Document a Research Plan. Develop a detailed plan of research
for the entire project scope. The plan should include details
for acquiring test equipment, field testing equipment, lab testing,
and the proposed method of data analysis and interpretation. The
IPRF discourages the use of research money for the acquisition
of real property in the form of equipment exceeding a cost of
$5000. If the acquisition amount is greater than $5000, there
is a requirement to manage the property and designate the custody
of the equipment at the end of the research.
A
20% on-board review will be accomplished. The investigator
will not proceed to Task 3 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
3 -Field and Laboratory Testing. Conduct the testing in the
field and the laboratory in accord with the research plan. As
the testing proceeds, provide updates to the IPRF for the necessity
to modify the research plan.
Task
4 - Data Analysis. Consolidate data from all testing sources
and analyze. Develop preliminary recommendations about adopting
new technologies or modification of technology evaluated as a
part of the research. Develop a draft in Advisory Circular format
that would be used to implement the findings of the research.
A
60% on-board review will be accomplished. The review will
be a meeting between the investigator and the IPRF Technical
Panel. A 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 - Advanced Final Design Guide(s). Make corrections using
the 60% review, additional data gathered as a result of the 60%
review and the test construction. 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 design guide(s) (as an IPRF Report) and specifications
(in Advisory Circular format), 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
6 - 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 final report in the form of an IPRF Report and recommended
specifications (in Advisory Circular format) complete 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.
2.
A list of projects that could be candidates for an additional
amount of funded field sampling and testing. This product is
due within 60 days of the notice to proceed for Track 1.
3.
A proposed research plan. Submit 8 copies. This is defined
as the 20% level of completion. The project list and the proposed
methods on obtaining information 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.
4.
The 60% on-board review will be accomplished approximately 30-days
after submittal of a draft report. 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.
5.
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.
6.
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 list of projects to document. Therefore, in proposing
candidate projects, the investigator should consider thermal
regimes (sub-tropical, central, and northern tier), pavement
features (taxiways, intersections, runways, aprons), and projects
that involve rehabilitation and reconstruction.
3.
The investigator will initiate contact with the airports that
are selected for detailed study and documentation of projects
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:
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 make a presentation
to the project technical panel. 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 an
interview to discuss the project details, goals, and objectives.
The IPRF will reimburse the expenses (up to 2 people) to make
this presentation at a location yet to be determined. The interview
will occur within a 45-day window subsequent to the proposal submittal
deadline.
IPRF PROCEDURAL
GUIDANCE:
IPRF
procedural guidance documents are available on the web at http://www.iprf.org/
in the section titled "Airfields Research." 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 $640,000
CONTRACT
TIME: Not to exceed 16 Months
PROJECT
DIRECTOR: James L. Lafrenz, P.E., (202) 842-1131, jlafrenz@pavement.com
ESTIMATED
NOTICE TO PROCEED DATE: September 5, 2003
PROPOSAL
DUE DATE: June 23, 2003 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
