Request for Proposal (RFP)
Active July 21, 2004
Requests Closed 9/27/04 at 4:00 PM (EST)

IPRF Project 01-G-002-03-2


Mitigation of ASR in Concrete- Combined Materials Test Procedure


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

Return to IPRF Airfields Research