Requests
Closed
RESEARCH
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Maturity
testing is an excellent method for determining the in-situ strength
of concrete pavement. A demonstration project accomplished under
the IPRF FY01 research program shows positive applications for
maturity testing (Download
Report).
There
is significant potential for the use of maturity testing in fast
track construction, full panel replacements, and normal construction
of airfield concrete pavements. However, there is no technical
information conveniently available for the designer or the contractor
for the correct applications, the limits, or the sources of error.
It is necessary to educate the design and construction industry
in the use of this technology.
OBJECTIVES:
Provide
a document that will inform designers, contractors, and owners
on how to use maturity testing in the construction and repair
of airfield concrete pavements. The final document will provide
procedures on when, how often, and where to collect data to assess
the in-situ concrete strength accurately and quickly. Sources
of error will be included as a subject area.
Evaluate
and determine the applicability of maturity testing for normal
strength and rapid strength concrete mixtures. Include cementitious
materials that have a higher-than-conventional heat of hydration.
Develop
a relative precision and bias statement for maturity testing.
Develop
special provisions or techniques for applications of strength
monitoring based on maturity, such as opening to traffic, quality
control, sawcut timing, etc.
PRODUCTS:
The
final document will be an Innovative Pavement Research Foundation
(IPRF) report that addresses all of the stated objectives and
provides designers, contractors, and owners with a document for
using maturity testing. The document should include examples and/or
case studies that demonstrate the application of maturity, its
benefits, and limitations.
The
investigator will provide two original documents, in a camera-ready
format including artwork, graphics, and/or photos. The final report
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.
TASK
ORGANIZATION:
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 indicated in
the RFP; 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. "On-board" reviews are meetings of the
principal investigator and the Technical Panel.
Task
1 - Literature Review: The literature review shall be performed
to document the different maturity devices or systems available.
The review should elaborate on and differentiate between elementary
and proprietary products, and also include any available information
on precision and bias of existing maturity devices or systems.
Existing cases studies or examples of the use of maturity testing
that have already been performed, not necessarily only on but
relevant to airfields, should also be summarized in this task.
In addition, the investigator should summarize any existing information
on the applicability of maturity testing for normal strength vs.
rapid strength concrete mixtures.
The
intent of the literature review is to include and not duplicate
research results that have already been done in the area of maturity
testing. The investigator is encouraged to take advantage of research
already conducted outside the airport environment and include
the 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 - Product Development Plan: The investigator will develop
a plan for finishing the project. The plan will identify the minimum
tasks necessary to achieve the objectives and will include an
outline of the final report. The plan will discuss key elements
of the outline, summarize the literature review, and identify
any holes in the data or available information on maturity testing.
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
- Product
development plan
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. Minutes of
the meeting will be developed by the project team.
Task
3 - Implementation of Product Development Plan: Once the plan
has been approved by the Technical Panel, the study shall be implemented
and include the following as a minimum:
- Manufacturer
interviews
- Project
reviews
- Paving
contractor (user) interviews
- Lab
validation testing (if required)
- Precision
and bias statement development
- Sources
of error
- Example
problems / case studies
- Draft
special provision(s)
Task
4 - Draft Report Preparation: A draft report will be prepared
and submitted to the IPRF. The draft report will include documentation
and results of the prior efforts.
A
60% 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 meeting will be coordinated through the
IPRF. The investigator will provide a recording secretary for
the meeting. The comments of the IPRF technical panel members
and the disposition of each comment will be recorded. Minutes
of the meeting will be developed by the project team.
Task
5 - User Review by Contractors, Designers, and Owners: The
investigator will schedule a review meeting with a group that
represents the intended users of the research product. The intent
of the review is to ensure that the document conveys the necessary
information about maturity testing in the most clear, concise,
and efficient manner. Concerns and recommendations, and an explanation
of the User Review will be documented and submitted to the IPRF.
Task
6 - Advanced Draft Final Report: The investigator will make
corrections using the 60% review comments of the Technical Panel
and input/comments from the User Group. All artwork, graphical
presentations, format, etc. will be included in the advanced Draft
Final Report. For all intent and purpose, the advanced Draft Final
Report shall be complete with the exception of the incorporation
of final comments made by the technical panel.
A
90% "conference call" review meeting will be held after
the submission of the advanced Draft Final Report. The draft
report will be provided to the Technical Panel at least 30 days
prior to the date of the conference call. The investigator will
provide a recording secretary and the comments of the Technical
Panel and the disposition of each will be recorded. The Technical
Panel may, at its discretion, mandate that the 90% review be
an "on-board" review depending upon the completeness of the
advanced Draft Final Report.
Task
7 - 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.
The 20% deliverables include nine (9) copies of a report that
outlines the literature review and the product development plan,
and includes information on all known maturity devices and systems,
known precision and bias, existing case studies or examples,
and applicability of maturity testing to all concrete mixture
types.
2.
The 60% deliverables include nine (9) copies of the draft report.
3.
The 90% deliverables include nine (9) copies of the advanced
Draft Final Report.
4.
Final deliverables include a Final Report (as two originals)
complete with all artwork, graphics, tables, pictures, documentation,
etc. ready for reproduction. The report will also be submitted
on electronic media compatible with desktop publication software.
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 last month 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 through the IPRF with
the manufacturers, projects/airport owners, designers, and paving
contractors that are selected for interview and review. The
investigator will provide a draft letter. The IPRF will edit
the letter of introduction and may include an endorsement of
the letter by the FAA and/or other entities. This is intended
to encourage participation.
SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS:
As
part of the selection process, 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
participate in a telephone interview with the Technical Panel.
The Principal Investigator and one other person representing the
investigating team will be asked to participate in the interview.
The interview, if it does occur, will occur within a 45-day window
subsequent to the proposal submittal deadline. The IPRF will attempt
to notify the people that submit proposals of the approximate
date that interviews will be accomplished.
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
reference documents that are necessary to prepare the proposal
include:
FUNDS
AVAILABLE: Not to exceed $90,000
CONTRACT
TIME: Not to exceed 12 Months
PROJECT
DIRECTOR: Mr. Steve
Waalkes, PE, (847) 966-2272
ESTIMATED NOTICE TO PROCEED: September 1, 2004
PROPOSAL
DUE DATE: June 16, 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
