AGENDA
NCAT Board of Directors Meeting
Chicago, IL
Monday, July 16, 2012
3:00 – 6:00 pm
TIME
ITEM
PRESENTER
3:00 p.m.
Welcome
Dan Gallagher
---
3:10 p.m.
Introduce new Dean of Engineering, Chris Roberts
Dan Gallagher
---
3:20 p.m.
Approval of Minutes – August 2011 Meeting
Dan Gallagher
1-2
3:30 p.m.
Financial Report
Al Giffin
3-7
4:00 p.m.
NCAT Update
Research
Outreach
Facilities and Equipment
Test Track
Foundation Projects
FHWA Cooperative Agreement
ARC Project
Oldcastle Project
NCHRP Projects
ALDOT Projects
Other Projects
Randy West
8-15
8
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
15
5:00 p.m.
ASC Update
Jay Winford
16-30
5:15 p.m.
NCAT Staff Update
Promotions
Special Salary Adjustments
Terminations
Randy West
31
5:45 p.m.
Next Meeting
Dan Gallagher
6:00 p.m.
Adjourn
i
PAGE
NCAT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
January 23, 2012
Palm Springs, California
Present
Dan Gallagher
Jay Winford
Larry Usack
Mike Acott
Larry Benefield
Jon Epps
Mike Stallings
Don Brock
John Harper
Mike Harper
Mel Monk (Ex-officio)
Peter Wilson
Randy West
Al Giffin
Attending Via Phone
Mike McCartney
John Mason
Ray Brown
Absent
Charles Potts
Ron Sines
Paul Parks
Chuck Van Deusen
David Nichols
Dan Gallagher, Chairman of the Board, called the session to order at 2:00 p.m. on Monday,
January 23, 2012. He confirmed Board members attending via conference call and introduced
the new NAPAREF Board representative: John Harper from Wiregrass Construction in Dothan,
Alabama. (The definition and term of this appointment will be verified and reflected in the next
distribution of Board Tenure. Auburn University and NAPAREF still have outstanding Board
positions to be filled.)
Prior to the start of the agenda, Peter Wilson took the floor and presented Dr. Larry Benefield
with the NAPA Research and Education Foundation’s Ronald D. Kenyon Award for Education
and Research for his years of support to the industry as well as to the organization and
operation of NCAT. Dr. Benefield thanked the Board and announced that his official retirement
date is July 1, 2012. He assured the Board of his intentions to orient the new Dean to the
significance and importance of NCAT and stated that he would work to ensure a smooth
transition of leadership to continue the excellent partnership between AU and NAPA.
Dan asked for and received approval of the prior board minutes and then asked Al Giffin to
provide a brief status of NCAT financials. Al confirmed that the status at year end remains
consistent with the long term forecast provided and that the year ended in line with the
outlook. Research revenue continues on a downward trend, providing for lower operating
funds which have created exposure to fixed expenses. Appropriate budgetary actions have
been underway to address the impact and the outlook for 2012 remains balanced.
John Epps asked for a comment on the stability of the Dean’s financial contribution to
supplement operating funds as a result of his impending retirement. Dr. Benefield confirmed
that his review and transition discussions with the new Dean will include this transaction so
that its importance is understood.
1
Dan then turned the agenda over to Randy West for the NCAT Research Update. Randy
reviewed recent research results that had been implemented by sponsors and provided
detailed information on the current status of active research. Significant presentation and
discussion was centered around the FHWA Cooperative agreement, the work on WMA, and the
emphasis on RAP/RAS mixtures.
During the discussion of the Test Track Update, Randy confirmed a positive outlook for
sponsorship of Phase 5 and expects the Conference on February 28-29, 2012 to have the largest
attendance since inception. Mike Acott discussed the recent article on, “Track/Lab Test Results
on RAP” and the positive reception to the discussion of confirmed performance. Peter Wilson
then asked for a spread sheet identifying state participation, dollar investment, nature of
research being done, who needs contacting for increased participation and then committed to
work with the State Pavement Associations to increase the overall Track usage. Randy
concluded the update with a presentation on outreach activities, discussion of the textbook
process, personnel transactions at NCAT and finally the actions incurred for facilities and
equipment maintenance.
Jay Winford conducted a detailed and comprehensive presentation of the Applications Steering
Committee which led to extensive discussion on funding and direction of research needs. Jay
outlined the committee make-up of 16 members and 10 friends and led a discussion that
identified the steps of the ASC efforts in both looking at research while it is being done and
reviewing documentation prior to publication. Jay concluded the outline with a request of Mike
Acott for support on additional funding requests to the membership for needed research
projects. This led to a vigorous discussion around the perception of the research, the value
perceived by the membership, and the appearance of not using all that is available for the
interests of the industry.
After some detailed discussion of the $500K NAPAREF budget, it was suggested that NCAT
further examine ways to produce more research within the existing budget. The Board
encouraged examination of the Kenyon scholarship funds for graduate student research and
encouraged detailed examination of utilizing matching funds.
Due to time constraints, several Board members had to leave the discussion, but the meeting
continued for those remaining. Randy spent some time discussing the Implementation Plan to
meet Board expectations. Peter Wilson initiated dialogue around the two major issues as he
sees them: 1) NCAT hasn’t done much implementable research and 2) NCAT needs to market
itself more aggressively. Ensuing conversation centered around the source of funding this
marketing, whether as a part of the $500k budget or a separate obligation of NAPA. No
resolution was decided during this discussion.
The meeting concluded due to time over-run and no official decision was announced
concerning the next meeting. Dan asked NCAT to pole the members to verify that the NAPA
Mid-year meeting in Chicago in July can serve as the time/location of the next Board meeting.
2
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
July 2012

Cyclical issues and budgetary timing creates a potentially “discouraging” financial
picture in near future:
- Problems known
- Solutions identified
- Execution underway

Current year-to-date financial report is positive:
- Run rate yield negative year-end position on operating expenses
- Size and scope mitigated by time remaining and size of project backlog

Sufficient levers available and projects identified for a balanced picture in Fiscal Year
2013:
- Foundation projects
- Dean’s subsidy
- Mortgage/ rent
- Endowment size/ earnings

Phase V construction well underway
- Potentially largest ever
- Private sector participation up

Accountant search in process
- 3 mo. typical timeline
3
FY 2012 OVERHEAD
FINANCIAL CONSOLIDATION
October 1, 2011 - April 30, 2012
FY '12
BUDGET
421,418
YTD
ACTUAL
421,418
YEAR-END
FORECAST
421,418
Overhead Recovery
982,323
428,490
734,554
Endowment Earnings
227,796
210,536
210,536
Dean's Endowment Subsidy
100,000
0
0
19,686
4,921
6,561
Other Income
3,000
4,825
4,825
Gifts
1,700
980
1,500
Laboratory Depreciation
86,285
86,285
86,285
Test Track Depreciation
22,024
22,024
22,024
1,864,232 1,179,480
1,487,704
Overhead FY 12 Carryover
Subsidy for Accountant
Total Income
Overhead Fixed Expenses
(1,054,307)
(539,476)
(1,054,307)
Other Expenses:
Project Overages
Small Research Studies
Gifts Expense
Laboratory Capital Expense
Test Track Capital Expense
Endowment Expenses
December Stipend
Penhall Grinding for 220090
Service Center Subsidy
(10,000)
(12,050)
(1,000)
(138,600)
0
(535,156)
0
0
(100,000)
(990)
(1,078)
0
(31,795)
0
(193,210)
107
(5,600)
0
(10,000)
(1,078)
(1,000)
(77,403)
0
(535,156)
107
0
(100,000)
Total Other Expenses
(796,806)
(232,566)
(724,530)
(1,851,113)
(772,042)
(1,778,837)
13,119
407,438
(291,133)
Total Expenses
Overhead Balance
4
SCHEDULE A
SPONSOR SUMMARY
FISCAL YEAR 2012
October 1, 2012 – March 31, 2012
$ IN THOUSANDS
Sponsor
TEST TRACK
FHWA
NCHRP
AL DOT
OTHER
NCAT TOTAL
Total Contract
Budget
9,501.0
456.7
1,471.0
2,504.0
2,552.3
Total Available
FY 2012
792.0
456.7
484.8
1,698.3
810.1
Total Contract
Expenditures
FYTD
691.0
60.2
160.3
329.6
370.4
16,485.1
4,242.0
1,611.4
March 31, 2012
Balance
101.0
396.5
324.6
1,368.7
439.7
Expected
Expenditures
Remainder of Yr.
14.6
396.5
289.1
624.5
384.0
Total Expected
Expenditures
FY 12
705.6
456.7
449.4
954.1
754.4
Expected
Carryover to
FY 2013
86.4
0.0
35.4
744.2
55.7
2,630.6
1,708.8
3,320.2
921.8
*Current contract expenditures very low.
*Have submitted proposals for an additional $10M.
5
SCHEDULE E
TOP TEN PROJECTS
FISCAL YEAR 2012
PI
Total
Contract
Budget
March 31,
2012
Balance
Percent of
Funds
Remaining
Percent of
Work
Remaining
Begin
Date
End
Date
Phase IV Operations
Powell
4,442,261
(2,500)
0%
2%
05/15/09
11/13/12
AL DOT
Phase IV Construction
Powell
2,773,739
0
0%
0%
05/15/09
11/13/12
247833
NCHRP
09-47A Warm Mix Asphalt
West
1,121,000
204,600
18%
20%
03/01/09
01/12/13
242239
SHELL
Global Solutions
Timm
1,080,000
200
0%
0%
03/01/09
02/29/12
224574
AL DOT
Southeastern Superpave Center
Watson
932,129
742,900
80%
75%
04/28/10
03/30/12
247832
SHRP
Heitzman
899,937
152,900
17%
10%
02/20/09
03/31/13
249674
KRATON
Powell
540,000
1,000
0%
0%
05/01/09
02/29/12
247580
TLA
Kraton Polymers
Lake Asphalt of Trinidad & Tobago:
Phase II
Powell
500,000
16,000
3%
0%
06/01/09
02/29/12
249243
SHELL
WMA Cert. & Moisture Susceptibility
Powell
416,040
0
0%
0%
01/01/10
12/30/11
247828
NCHRP
NCHRP 04-35 Specific Gravity
West
350,000
119,900
34%
35%
04/03/08
06/30/12
Banner
Fund
Sponsor
220088
AL DOT
220089
Description
Non Destructive Testing
6
SCHEDULE H
NEW PROJECTS
LIFE CYCLE STATUS
PI
Contract
Value
Proposal
Submit
EBO
Approval
OSP
Approval
Heritage Research Group
Timm
$41,116
x
x
x
x
Western Research Institute
Tran
$750,000
x
x
x
x
x
NCHRP 09-52
Tran
$200,000
x
x
x
x
x
Heitzman
$168,224
x
x
x
x
Watson
$45,340
x
x
x
x
Dupps Company
Willis
$29,562
x
x
x
x
AMEC: Warm Mix Asphalt
West
$122,352
x
x
x
x
OKDOT: Fatigue Performance
Willis
$148,861
x
x
x
x
ALDOT: 2012 Pavement Test Track
Powell
$7,470,000
x
x
x
x
ADEM: 2012 Pavement Test Track
Powell
$540,000
x
x
x
x
Kansas State University
Willis
$15,007
x
x
x
x
South Dakota DOT
West
$60,000
x
x
x
x
TLA: 2012 Pavement Test Track
Powell
$210,000
x
x
x
x
MAS: 2012 Pavement Test Track
Powell
$165,000
x
x
x
x
Kraton: 2012 Pavement Test Track
Powell
$210,000
x
x
x
x
Project
Iowa State: Quantifying Pavement Albedo
STRIDE: Development of Graduate Level
Course
TOTAL
$10,175,462
7
Sponsor
Approval
x
x
x
x
NCAT UPDATE
Research
 A report on using economical asphalt mixtures for Low Volume Road applications is near
completion and will go to the Applications Steering Committee for review later this month.
The report starts by defining characteristics of low volume roads. Much of the report
focuses on using 4.75 mm mixes which are commonly used for leveling, thin pavement
preservation overlays, and thin surface layers for rehabilitation projects. Using fractionated
fine RAP and RAS improves the stability of these fine-graded mixes and reduces their cost,
making them more competitive in the pavement preservation market.
 An interim report on evaluating thermal segregation with a screed mounted infrared bar
has been sent to the Alabama DOT who is sponsoring the study. The IR-bar system is very
effective is depicting thermal segregation and other quality issues during paving operations.
Twenty-eight projects across the state will continue to be monitored to assess the impact of
thermal segregation on pavement performance.
 A WMA market analysis is being conducted as part of the cooperative agreement with
FHWA. A group of surveys on WMA were sent to state highway agencies, WMA technology
providers, state asphalt paving associations, and contractors. The results of the survey will
be used to build a strategy for continued successful implementation of WMA.
 The field performance of fourteen WMA field projects is being closely monitored under
NCHRP 9-47A. These WMA projects continue to perform equal to HMA as has been
reported for other projects by other researchers and highway agencies.
 Work has just begun on a $750,000 federally funded project through the Asphalt Research
Consortium. NCAT will evaluate eight WMA and high RAP field projects across the US in
2012 and 2013.
 Oldcastle Materials Group has funded new research. Part of the funding will be used to
compliment the ARC project, part will be used for continued development/refinement of
performance tests, and part will be used to address asphalt specification issues to be
determined by OMG personnel.
 Work on three existing NCHRP studies is winding down. About six months remain on NCHRP
9-47A, the project to document properties and performance of WMA field projects. The
first draft of the final report for NHCRP 9-46 on high RAP content mix design is nearly
complete. NCHRP 4-35 on improving aggregate specific gravity tests has been extended to
conduct a ruggedness study on the revised methods.
Outreach
 NCAT engineers have seven new peer-reviewed journal papers accepted for publication this
year.
 Three new NCAT research reports and four new research synopses are now available on the
NCAT website (www.ncat.us).
 The spring 2012 edition of NCAT’s newsletter, Asphalt Technology News, was mailed out on
April 18. An electronic version was also e-mailed to
8






NCAT engineers have made 51 presentations to conferences and meetings outside of NCAT
classes and meetings so far in in 2012.
Four sessions of a new course, “Advanced Mix Design with WMA, RAP, and RAS” were held
between January and April. Feedback from participants was very positive.
NCAT has hosted about 30 visitors, not including training course participants, at its main
facility and the Test Track in 2011.
NCAT engineers have taught 13 technician certification courses for the Alabama DOT in
2012.
A new short video on NCAT’s research involving open-graded friction course mixes is
featured on NCAT’s website.
Since the third edition of the NCAT textbook went on sale in January 2010, 1859 books have
been sold.
Facilities and Equipment
 The have been no major issues with facilities in 2012.
 A new Rolling Thin Film Oven was purchased to replace old equipment and a new Overlay
Tester fixture for one of the Asphalt Mix Performance Tester (AMPT) was purchased with
funds from the Service Center equipment depreciation account.
 Alabama DOT has loaned NCAT their new AMPT which is a versatile machine that can run
numerous mixture characterization tests. The AMPT is the centerpiece device in advanced
mix characterization testing. With the ALDOT loaner, NCAT has three AMPT machines.
9
NCAT Pavement Test Track
Fifth Research Cycle
Sponsor
Alabama DOT
Section(s)
E9, E10
Alabama Dept. of
Environmental Mgmt.
FHWA
S13
Florida DOT
N1, N2, E7,
E8
W8
FP2
Georgia DOT
N12, N13
Kraton Polymers
N7
Mississippi DOT
S2, S3
Missouri DOT
Modified Asphalt
Solutions
North Carolina DOT
Oklahoma DOT
South Carolina DOT
Tennessee DOT
Virginia DOT
Total
Sponsor
TLA
Honeywell
Total
S7
Description
Green Group, OGFC Durability,
Pavement Preservation
Green Group (GTR focus)
Safety Edge and High-Friction Epoxy
Surfaces
Top-Down Cracking, Tack, GTR-RAP,
RAP+RAS mixes
Pavement Preservation
Funding
$1,470,000
$540,000
$165,000
$1,440,000
$360,000
Reflection Cracking (Triple Chip vs
Open Graded Interlayer (OGI)
HPM for Thinner Pavement
$720,000
45% RAP, Low-Cost Thin-Lift,
Pavement Preservation
Pavement Preservation
$885,000
GTR Modification
$165,000
Green Group, Pavement Preservation
N8, N9, E1
Perpetual Pavements, OGFC,
Pavement Preservation
Green Group, Pavement Preservation
S4
OGFC w/ RAS, Pavement Preservation
N3, N4, W10, Stabilized RAP Overlay Thickness, FDR,
S1, S12
GTR-modified PFC vs GTR-SMA (Noise)
33 Sections
Other Potential Sponsors Pending
Section(s)
Description
S12
Traffic Continuation (moving VDOT)
E1
Green Group (moving ODOT)
10
$210,000
$360,000
$900,000
$1,140,000
$900,000
$720,000
$2,884,143
$12,859,143
Funding
$210,000
$540,000
Foundation Projects
RAP Technology Transfer
1. Conducted Advanced Mix Design class on RAP, RAS, & WMA
2. Webinar of Findings from the Test Track for NAPA
3. Assemble information to assist implementation
4. Proposal for South Dakota
5. Participate in AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials meetings
RAP & RAS Research
1. ARC work with contractors on RAP & WMA projects
2. RAP ETG guidance on AASHTO M323
3. ALDOT RAS project
4. Explore Kevin Hall’s proposal on estimating Pba
5. RAS in test sections for 5th cycle
6. Complete NCHRP 9-46 final report
Low Volume Roads Needs
1. Develop a report on economica7l mixes for low volume roads
2. Conducted LTAP workshops in Alabama
3. Identify knowledge gaps for future research and training
Life Cycle Assessment (life cycle carbon footprint)
1. Critical review of MIT studies - talking points sent to NAPA
2. Participate in FHWA and ASCE Sustainable Pavement committees
3. Case studies of Test Track Green Group test sections
4. Case study of asphalt versus concrete paving projects
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
1. Summary of current LCCA practices
2. Sensitivity analyses of LCCA variables (analysis period, perf. period, salvage value,
discount rate, user delay costs)
3. Case studies - perpetual pavement vs conventional pavement design, asphalt vs.
concrete
4. ALDOT LCCA program & policy review
5. Work with Alliance team
Structural Design
1. 2013 Training Class on Pavement Design
11
2. Continued analysis of Test Track structural sections: MEPDG predicted versus actual
performance
3. Purchase of DARWin-ME program
FHWA Cooperative Agreement
Year One (FY12) Work Plan Tasks, Budget, and Status
Task No. & Title
FHWA Share
1. Leap Not Creep Course
2. Market Analysis for WMA
$19,940.29
$93,902.81
3. Conduct WMA Training
4. Provide WMA Technical Expertise
at Industry Trade Shows
5. Resource Responsible Use Case
Study Report
6. Development of a Mix Design
Course for Mixtures with RAS and
High RAP Contents
7. Identify Flow Number Testing
Parameters
8. Conduct AMPT Proficiency Testing
Program among Pooled-Fund Study
Participants
9. National Workshop for AMPT Users
10. Synthesis for Characterization of
Asphalt Materials for MEPDG
Inputs and Local Calibration
11. Construct and Document Test
Sections with Safety Edge on the
NCAT Test Track
12. Conduct Laboratory Testing and/or
Forensic Investigations
13. Support of Stakeholder Groups
Totals
$54,429.51
$42,818.52
Non-Federal
Share
$41,794.88
Completed
Draft report to WMA
TWG
Sept. in Denver & Atlanta
Task cancelled, alternate
work has been proposed
In progress
$21,370.83
Completed
$5,800
On-hold - waiting for ETG
recommendations
On hold - waiting on
remaining states to take
delivery of AMPT
scheduled Sept.
In progress
$26,600.00
$30,390.16
$65,052.88
$172,117.05
$40,501.14
Status
$10,564.59
Part of Test Track
construction
$101,076.30
$28,000.00
$26,607.44
$646,834.10
$29,598.40
$163,728.70
Assisting GDOT,
OK DOT work pending
In progress
12
Asphalt Research Consortium Project
NCAT Work Plan
FIELD EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIXTURES
WITH HIGH RAP/RAS CONTENTS AND/OR WMA
Objective and Scope
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of utilizing high RAP contents, RAS, and/or
WMA on the performance of asphalt paving mixtures through a comprehensive field
evaluation.
NCAT will conduct testing of eight field projects located in four climatic regions. Field
projects using high RAP/RAS mixtures and WMA mixtures will be evaluated. NCAT will use its
mobile laboratory and staff to document field construction, sample materials, conduct field
testing, and extract cores for laboratory detailed characterization of the mixtures placed in each
field project. In addition, NCAT will conduct comprehensive laboratory testing shown in the
table below to characterize the constituent materials used in the mixtures and the performance
of the mixtures using three types of specimen—lab mix-lab compacted (LMLC), plant mix-lab
compacted (PMLC) and plant mix-field compacted (PMFC). The construction information and
testing results will be stored in a database and will be analyzed based on statistical analyses and
graphical comparisons. The deliverables of this study include (1) a final report that documents
all the research activities and analysis results and (2) the database of construction information,
material properties and testing results.
Type of
Specimen
Modulus
Rutting
Fatigue
Low Temp
Cracking
Durability
LMLC
PMLC
- E* (TP 79)
- Fn (TP 79)
- Hamburg
(T 324)
- Beam (T 321)
- Overlay
(Tex-248-F)
- Mix BBR
- SCB
- Lottman
(T 283)
(and Hamburg)
PMFC
- IDT E*
- Hamburg
(T 324)
- Overlay
(Tex-248-F)
- Mix BBR
- SCB
- Lottman
(T 283)
(and Hamburg)
Notes: SCB, Mix BBR, IDT E* will be conducted based on draft procedures if they are not
approved by AASHTO by the time of testing.
NCAT staff will visit each field project after it has been built for one year. Due to the
time constraint of this study, the research team will not do a detailed pavement condition
survey for each site but look for signs of premature failures, such as rutting, cracking and
raveling.
13
Oldcastle Materials Group Project
Support of Technology Transfer of
High RAP Content Mixtures, Recycled Asphalt Shingle Mixtures, and Warm Mix Asphalt
Technologies
Introduction
The Oldcastle Materials Group (OMG) has supported NCAT since its inception 25 years ago.
OMG was a charter member of the NAPAREF endowment for NCAT, and has continued to
support NCAT by providing leadership on the NCAT Board of Directors, technical guidance on
the NCAT Applications Steering Committee, and direct financial support for research to advance
asphalt paving technologies for cost-savings and sustainability.
In 2012, OMG agreed to provide financial and in-kind support to aid NCAT’s effort
related to research and technology transfer regarding high RAP content mixtures, Recycled
Asphalt Shingle (RAS) mixtures, Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) technologies, and improving testing
methods and criteria for asphalt paving mixtures. OMG financial support is provided for three
tasks to be conducted by NCAT.
Task 1: Sampling and testing of plant-produced asphalt mixes with high RAP content, RAS,
and/or WMA
As part of the strategy to support implementation of new technologies, such as high
RAP content mixtures, use of RAS in asphalt mixtures, and WMA, NCAT is conducting an FHWAfunded work plan to evaluate plant-produced mixtures utilizing one or a combination of these
technologies. NCAT will work on eight field paving projects during the 2012 and 2013
construction seasons. NCAT plans on working on OMG paving projects, which are
geographically and climatologically diverse, in this FHWA-funded work plan.
OMG funding for this task will be used to expand the laboratory testing plan for the
mixtures sampled from the field projects. For example, the FHWA-funded work plan includes
fatigue testing using the bending beam fatigue procedure and the Texas overlay tester. OMG
funding could support additional fatigue testing using the AMPT fatigue test. NCAT will follow
guidance from OMG on what additional tests may be most beneficial for implementation of the
new technologies in the state where the project is located.
Task 2: Refinement of laboratory methods to evaluate asphalt paving mixtures
One of the most pressing research needs identified by the National Asphalt Roadmap is
the development of improved laboratory tests and models to predict pavement performance.
Past OMG funding has been instrumental in evaluating several test methods to assess rutting,
fatigue cracking, friction, etc. However, refinements are needed to make these methods more
practical for routine use, to develop suitable conditioning procedures to represent aging, and to
validate how the outputs can be used to predict pavement performance. OMG funding will
help move these test methods toward implementation.
Task 3: Technical review and assistance with existing specification criteria
Often, discussions arise regarding existing state or national standards or specifications
14
that need some testing and/or analysis to resolve. NCAT offers to provide whatever assistance
may be needed including laboratory testing of materials, field evaluations, analyses, and/or
meetings or workshops to resolve issues raised by materials suppliers, paving contractors or
specifying agencies.
In-Kind Support
The FHWA-funded work plan briefly discussed in Task 1, like most federally-funded research
projects, requires a 20-percent match from non-federal sources. OMG has agreed to provide
non-cash, in-kind support for field projects selected in the work plan.
NCHRP Projects (% Complete)
 4-35: Improved Test Methods for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse and Fine
Aggregate - West/Tran (85%)
 9-46: Improved Mix Design, Evaluation, and Materials Management Practices for HMA
with High RAP (99%)
 9-47A: Engineering Properties, Emissions, and Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt
Technologies (90%)
On-Going ALDOT Projects (% Complete)
 Development of a Ride Quality Smoothness Specification/Profiler certification - Powell
(90%)
 Field Control and Performance of Asphalt Mixtures Containing Greater than 35 Percent
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement - Willis (20%)
 Evaluation of an Rubber Modified Asphalt Mixture in Alabama - Willis (60%)
 Evaluation of Asphalt Mixtures with Reclaimed Asphalt Shingles - Willis (90%)
 Improvement of OGFC in Alabama - Watson/Tran (43%)
 Evaluation of Thermal Segregation -Watson (78%)
 Evaluation of Trackless Tack Material for Use with OGFC - Watson/Tran (40%)
Other New Projects
 ALDOT - Review of LCCA Policy and Procedures
 NCHRP - Short-Term Aging for HMA and WMA - sub to TTI ($200,000)
 FHWA - Pavement Albedo, teamed with Iowa State ($300,000)
 SDDOT - Improving RAP specifications ($60,000)
 FDOT - Analysis of bias in QA data ($44,402.85)
 FDOT - Sampling location for asphalt mixes ($38,673)
 STRIDE (UF-led UTC) - Development of a graduate course on pavement sustainability
($47,837.97)
 GADOT - MEPDG Local Calibration - sub to ARA ($TBD)
 FHWA Highways for Life - sub to ARA ($TBD)
15
Minutes
NCAT Applications Steering Committee
Atlanta Airport Marriott Gateway Hotel
21-22 June 2012
Attendees:
Chris Abadie
John Bartoszek
Jeff Dean
Troy Franks
Chris Jones
Gary Thompson
(phone)
Jarrett Welch
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Dan Gallagher (1)
Jay Winford (1)
Peter Capon (1)
Audrey Copeland (1)
Cheryl Richter (1)(phone)
Jack Youtcheff (1)(for CR)
Ron Sines (1)
Chris Wagner (1)
Lyndi Blackburn (2)
Chuck Deahl (2)
Mel Monk (2)
Billy Troxler (2)
Ray Brown (4)
Mike Heitzman (4)
Donald Watson (4)
Buzz Powell (4)
David Timm (4)
Richard Willis (4)
Randy West (4)
Nam Tran (4)
Carolina Rodezno
(4)
Ex-Officio Member
Friend of the Committee
Visitors
NCAT Staff
Chairman Winford called the Application Steering Committee (ASC) meeting to order at
1:00p.m. on 21 June, 2012. Meeting location: Atlanta Airport Marriott Gateway Hotel, Salons
A/B.
Chairman Winford paid recognition to incoming members. He also asked for personal
introductions from those present.
Chuck Deahl made an announcement regarding the NAPA Associate Member Council
Benevolence Fund.
The roster was sent around to the committee for updating.
The minutes of the last meeting (13-14 December, 2011) were reviewed and accepted.
The agenda for the meeting was presented by Chairman Winford prior to the beginning of the
scheduled presentations.
Presentation Themes – WMA (Topics 1, 2)
(1) Topic 1 – NCHRP 9-47A Properties and Performance of WMA (Carolina Rodezno)
o Objectives
 Determine the relative measures of performance between WMA and conventional
HMA
16

Establish relationships between engineering properties of WMA to field
performance
 Compare production and placement practices between WMA and HMA
 Quantify emissions and fuel usage of WMA and HMA
o Engineering Properties
 Mix Properties statistical comparison: WMA-HMA (statistically different or not).
 In place densities (volumetric) – WMA and HMA: Same results all projects
 Core tensile strengths – WMA and HMA: Same (11 sections); lower ( 1 section);
higher (1section)
 TSR – WMA and HMA: same (9 sections); lower (5 sections). No statistical
analysis can be conducted on single TSR value. The approach to compare results
uses a precision estimate of TSR based on the findings of the NCHRP 9-26A
project-acceptable range of values within one laboratory is about 9%.
 Hamburg – Rut depth: WMA-HMA: Same(14 sections); higher ( 9 sections)
 Hamburg Stripping Inflection Point: same (13 sections); lower (6 sections);
higher (1 sections)
 FN –WMA-HMA: same (4 sections); lower (10 sections); higher (1 sections). Both
HMA and WMA pass their respective criteria: HMA-NCHRP Report 673; WMANCHRP 9-43.
 E* - WMA-HMA: same (5 sections); lower (7 sections). No statistical analysis,
results are considered different if lower at more than one temperature and
frequency.
 AMPT (SVECD) Fatigue tests – -WMA-HMA: same (4 sections) higher (4 sections)
 Binder Properties- Overall binder true grades between WMA and HMA are
approximately equal for mix sampled during construction and after 1 year of
performance.
o Field Performance
 Existing Projects

Project age range: 5years 5 months-2 years 6months

No cracking observed in 1 of 5 existing projects

Max crack length 1310 ft (St. Louis, MO ; Aspha Min; 5 years 5 months)

Max rutting 6mm (Silverthorne, CO; Evotherm, Sasobit and HMA; 3 years 2
months)

Overall, very good performance
 New Projects

No cracking in 5 of 6 new projects after 1 year

No rutting in 5 of 6 new projects after 1 year

Max crack length 14 ft ( Griffith, IN-Gencor Foam)

Max rutting-2.4mm (Jefferson Co, FL; Terex Foam)

Overall, very good performance
o Project Status – Completed: Laboratory testing, mix design verifications and emissions
and fuel usage and 1st year revisits. In progress: 2nd year revisits and final
recommendations and protocols.
17
o Final Report due in October 2012.
o Comments/Questions/Ideas:
 Do the TSR values in the report worry DOT’s (Winford)? Not really too much due to
the fact that these are lab samples (Abadie).
 Could WMA TSR results be separated into water foaming and chemical (Wagner)?
Yes (Rodezno).
 Would the overall TSR results be different if the water foaming results were removed
from the pool of data and evaluated separately? It could be an important piece of
information that can be gleaned from the research (Winford).A preliminary analysis
was conducted by grouping the results by technology, but no trend was found. Final
report will discuss these considerations.
 Samples were processed within approximately a week of when they were produced
(West).
 The St.Louis project cracking has been identified as reflective cracking (West). WMA
was used to reduce joint/crack filler material expansion; the joint/crack filler could be
causing some of the cracking.
 How did the fuel usage results turn out in this study (Winford)? Randy West will
address this question in the next presentation.
 It appears as though density/compaction is not very good for all projects (Welch).
This has been observed quite a bit through many of the WMA studies (West). The
specified density is the key to understanding what the average density achieved
would most likely be (Abadie).
(2) Topic 2 – Marketing Analysis for WMA – FHWA Task 2 (Randy West)
o Facilitate the implementation/deployment of WMA by identifying strategies and
activities to achieve this goal. This will include:
 WMA Surveys
 SWOT analysis
o Questionnaires:
 State DOT’s (22 questions)
 State Asphalt Paving Associations (16 questions)
 Contractors (13 questions)
 WMA Suppliers (5 questions)
o Training Topics
o Delivery Methods for Training
o Implementation, Specifications and Field Performance
o Barriers
o Key Point: Economics will drive innovation in a permissive and competitive environment
o Comments/Questions/Ideas:
18









Associations (NAPA, state associations) results regarding the use of WMA is most
likely higher because they are looking at the asphalt market as whole not just the
DOT/FHWA market (West).
In states where WMA is used are there specific definitions for WMA (Deahl)? The
questionnaires did ask the respondents for a specific definition of WMA; the study
will be compiling the results in the final report (West).
What do the FHWA/DOT’s (persons in attendance) feel about specifying a
temperature (Winford)?
 There is no real consensus on a specific temperature.
 There are many variables that determine the temperature needs for WMA
(Monk).
 FHWA indicated that this issue is a state by state issue.
 Flexibility in the temperature requirements is desirable to help deal with the
project variables (Deahl).
 Consistency in production temperature is desired (Wagner).
 The definition of WMA is getting pretty blurred (Bartoszek).
Regarding the 24 responses that indicate WMA is a “drop in technology”, how many
are requiring anti-strip agents (Youtcheff)?
In locations/states/agencies where there are concerns/barriers regarding WMA, the
barriers to WMA use should be identified and the concerns addressed (West).
Companies/contractors are finding out that WMA (all methods) can and does
provide improvement incentive/disincentive pay (density, etc.). WMA processes help
contractors to perform better on projects (Bartoszek).
It is important to discuss the payback for reduced fuel consumption, density
performance, etc. (Group).
Is it appropriate to assume that the WMA additives are acting as anti-strip agents
(Winford)?
Foaming technologies are clearly the most used WMA method for a variety of
reasons (cost, simplicity, etc.).
Presentation Themes – Recycling (Topics 3 - 6)
(3) Topic 3 – Effect of GTR Characteristics on Asphalt Binder Properties (Richard Willis)
o Objectives
 Assess how rubber properties (i.e. polymer content, particle size, tire type) affect
asphalt binder
 Determine effect of additives such as polymer and TOR on rubber modified binder
performance
o Particle size is normally between -30 and -40 Mesh size
o GTR polymer content ranges from 51-58 %
19
o Separation was observed to one degree or another with all samples (more material,
more separation)
o Summary
 All binders met or exceeded the PG 76 criterion
 Four modified binders did not meet the -22 specification
 Both binders loaded with 15% rubber did not meet spec
 Loading rate and particle size are most influential
 All modified binders achieved MSCR grade – “E”
 All binders showed some separation in DSR testing
 Larger particle sizes separated more
 Smallest particle size binder passed softening point
 Particle size most influential
 Inconclusive results on effects of TOR/Vestenamer
 Separation sometimes occurred with product
o Comments/Questions/Ideas:
 The 10% loading rate of GTR is by weight of the binder (Willis)
 What was the time frame between loading the binder with rubber versus time to test
the rubber modified binder (Tran)? 45 minutes for blending, then separation testing
was performed and the PG graded; testing was not immediately performed after
blending. We will check into the timing of tests in relation to the blending process
(Willis).
 Larger the rubber particle size the higher the critical low temperature (Willis).
 The binder samples were in the separation tubes for the specified time period (48
hours) (Willis).
 Can a polymer modified PG 76-22 binder be replaced by a GTR modified binder
(Deahl)? Yes, but it is loading rate is unique and critical with individual binders
(Willis).
 The GTR binders show promise in reducing drain-down in mixtures.
 Is the industry prepared to deal with GTR binders today? Yes, but more work is
needed.
(4) Topic 4 – Effect of Rejuvenator on HMA with High RAP and RAS (Nam Tran)
o Objective
 Evaluate the effect of a rejuvenator on performance properties of HMA with high
RAP/RAS contents
 Cyclogen® L (Tricor Refining)
 Pre-blended with virgin binder
 Two HMA mixtures
 50% RAP
 20% RAP and 5% RAS
20
o Mix Design with RAS does not assume 100% RAS binder blending (correction factor - “F”
factor)
o RAS = 73.1% blending calculated by specification
o Recycling agent was pre-blended with virgin binder; blended at a rate of 12% of recycled
asphalt binder
o Summary
 Rejuvenator can improve the long-term cracking resistance of HMA with high
RAP/RAS contents; it is possible to archive that of the virgin mix.
 Rejuvenator does not have negative effect on mix resistance rutting and moisture
damage
 The diffusion process continues after the short-term aging period.
 The amount of RAS binder effective in the mix may be higher than what is estimated
in AASHTO PP53.
o Comments/Questions/Ideas:
 Regarding the mix chart (slide 8)
 Is there an identifiable reason why there is little or no change in Gmm between
the RAP/RAS mix and the RAP/RAS+RA mix? The Gmm did go down when RA was
added to the 50% RAP mix. Is Gmm expected to drop when RA is added to a mix
(Bartoszek)? This will need to be checked into.
o This may be due to two reasons. The first reason is that the amount of the
virgin binder replaced in the 50% RAP mix is 44 percent and the amount of
the virgin binder replaced in the RAP/RAS mix is only 28 percent. A small
change in the property of the RAP binder in the 50% RAP mix would cause a
significant effect in the mix. The second reason is that the amount of the
rejuvenator added to the RAP/RAS mix was determined based on the amount
of binder in the RAP and the “effective” binder in the RAS. The “effective”
binder was determined to be 73.1% of the binder available in the RAS. If the
“actual effective” binder is higher than the amount determined based on
AASHTO PP 53, the effect of the rejuvenator on this mix would be less.(Tran)
(5) Topic 5 – Effects of Post-Consumer Shingles in Asphalt Mixtures (Richard Willis)
o Objective
 Determine the effect of using 3%, 5%, and 7% post-consumer RAS on HMA mixture
performance
 Compare to 5% manufacturer’s waste
o Shingle Characterization
 Gradation of the shingles
 Deleterious materials
 Shingle asphalt content
21
o Asphalt contents for PC RAS were very close when using both extraction methods but
there was a 3% point difference between results for the MW RAS (Ignition method was
3% points higher)
o None of the mixtures showed susceptibility to rutting in the field
o All mixtures passed the moisture susceptibility requirements
o Indirect Tension Strength – no statistical difference between the four mixtures in terms
of strength
o Critical Temperatures - No trend in how much temperature was reduced
o Summary
 PC RAS mixtures are as resistant or more resistant to rutting than MW RAS mixtures
 Flow number, Hamburg, APA
 All RAS mixtures passed Moisture Susceptibility
 7% PC had highest UCS and CS
 Fracture energy of all four mixtures similar
 No trend to energy ratio results
 Can support moderate to high volume trafficking
 PC RAS reduces critical mixture temperature
o Conclusions
 Laboratory results suggest 7% PC RAS mixtures can be designed effectively to
withstand surface cracking, moisture damage, and rutting
 Increasing PC RAS increases the susceptibility of the mixture to low temperature
cracking
 Study did not evaluate flexural fatigue
 Binder/surface layer mixture
o Comments/Questions/Ideas:
 What type aggregates were used in the mixtures (Jones)? Limestone (Willis)
 It was actually a granite mixture. In conversation with Chris Jones after the
presentation, he said this would explain the change in volumetrics. (Willis)
 There are practical limits to the use of RAS in mix (constructability, volumetrics, etc.).
(6) Topic 6 – NCAT Work Plan for Asphalt Research Consortium Contract (Nam Tran)
o Focus of the NCAT Work Plan
 Field evaluation of asphalt mixtures with
 High RAP/RAS contents; and/or
 WMA
 Project timeline
 Start: June 2012
 End: December 2013
o Research Tasks
 Task 1 – Select field projects
 Task 2 – Conduct field evaluation
22
 Task 3 – Import information into ARC database
 Task 4 – Analyze field and lab data
 Task 5 – Prepare a final report
o Potential Paving Projects
 Wet-Freeze
 Wet-no freeze
 Dry- no freeze
o Field Testing and Monitoring
o Lab Testing
o Comments/Questions/Ideas:
 It is recommended that WMA project(s) performance (construction/pavement
performance) be looked at under cold weather conditions. There is a lot of WMA
being used in cold weather conditions in PA due to energy production in PA (Deahl).
 If the ASC can identify a paving project that utilizes WMA under cold weather
conditions, the project team would consider to include this project in the testing
plan.(Tran)
Chairman Winford adjourned the meeting at 5:00pm.
Social hour and Dinner was at the Marriott.
______________________________________________________________________
The second day meeting was held in the Marriott Salon A-B. The meeting was called to order by
Chairman Winford at 8:00am.
Date and location of the next meeting will be December 6-7, 2012 at NCAT utilizing the current
two-day format.
Presentation Themes – NCAT Pavement Test Track (Topics 7 - 9)
(7) Topic 7 – Test Track 2012 Design and Construction (Buzz Powell)
o Track Research Cycle
 Traditional stand alones
 Traffic continuation
 Mill/Inlay
 Structural Sections
 Green Group (GG)
 Preservation Group (PG)
 Safety Edge implementation (FHWA)
o Green Group Implementable Findings
23
 Optimization of recycled materials
 Reduce initial cost of pavement construction
 No negative impact on service life
 Ideally extend life while reducing cost
o Cold Central Plant Recycling (CCPR)
 2 Track sections sponsored by VDOT
 6” foamed recycle on top of 8” FDR
 Virginia RAP run through central mix plant
 2” versus 4” new plant mix overlay
 Desire to include recycle in PG study
o 2012 Preservation Group (PG) Study
 Proactive rejuvenating fog seal on OGFC
 1st Reactive countermeasures
 Trigger with cracking (?), maintain untreated control
 Chip, Fiber, Scrub, Micro, overlay on virgin sections
 Overlay only on high RAP content sections
 2nd Reactive countermeasures
 Actions will depend on type/severity of distresses
o NCAT Test Track website: www.pavetrack.com
o Comments/Questions/Ideas:
 The NCAT Pavement Test Track is performing OGFC life-cycle research for ALDOT in
an effort to help improve the performance of ALDOT OGFC mixtures (Blackburn).
 Is the Georgia test section primarily an effort to study crack mitigation effectiveness
of chip seal and OGI. Are cost/benefits being looked at for these two processes
(Jones)? Yes, there will be a cost/benefit component to the research. There will be a
dense-graded Superpave mix placed over these layers that will be monitored for
cracking (Powell).
 Is OKDOT requiring a pneumatic roller for their polymer test section (Deahl)? It has
not been required at this time but NCAT has one available if needed or desired. It is
believed that the available pneumatic roller is a 15 ton roller.
 The VDOT test section will have a cold central plant recycling (CCPR) mix base mix
with a 2” SMA and a 4” conventional mix placed over the cold plant mix material.
The cold plant mix material will be produced with a foamed PG67-22 binder using a
small pug mill type plant for the VDOT test section.
 There will be a lot of upfront production experimentation of the CCPR material in an
effort to reduce the potential for production problems (Powell).
 Using the 93’ Guide it is reasonable to assume that the Green Group Study will be
approximately 5-6M ESAL’s (Powell).
 The GTR section may utilize the Arizona rubber mix method. Final selection of the
base layer in the GTR section will be a function of a laboratory testing and modeling
initiative (Powell).
24


Time schedule for construction: Mix production/placement will start after the 4 th of
July and will finish a couple months after the start of operations. Test Track loading
will most likely begin in September, 2012.
It has not yet been decided how many test sections there will be for Safety-Edge.
There will be only one angle (approximately 30°) utilized for the Safety-Edge test
sections.
(8) Topic 8 – 2009 Track Results: Perpetual Pavements (Dave Timm)
o No deep rutting
o Limited top-down cracking
o Perpetual Pavements at Test Track
 Sections N3 & N4
 Built in 2003 as part of structural study
 Expected to fail after 10 million ESAL
 Have experienced 30 million ESAL
 Excellent performance from both
 Sections N8 & N9
 Built in 2006 as a perpetual experiment
 4 inch difference in AC depth with rich bottom
 Drastic difference in section performance
o The measured strain on Section N8 (before and after rehab) indicated that the rehab
was most likely not deep enough. (Look into placing deeper lifts properly for
rehab/maintenance in the future).
o Conclusions
 N3, N4, N9 behaving like perpetual pavements
 N8 require significant rehabilitation
 Recommended continued traffic on N8 and thin mill/inlay on N9
o Comments/Questions/Ideas:
 The pavement temperatures are measured almost continuously throughout life of
the pavement test section (Timm).
 The truck loads were typical for the test track (no special conditions for rutting
evaluation) (Timm).
 The longer the sections are in place the higher the variability in strain gauge results
due to fewer and aging gauges (Timm).
 Idea: Have industry help look at what costs truly are for perpetual pavements
(9) Topic 9 – 2009 Track Results: Effectiveness of Heavier Tack Coat on OGFC (Nam Tran)
o Background
 OGFC performance has been improved due to…
25
 Improvements in design and construction
 Use of better materials, especially PMA
 However, OGFC still has shorter service life compared to dense-graded mix
 Applying a heavier tack coat can potentially improve OGFC service life
o Objective
 Evaluate effectiveness of heavier tack coat on field performance of OGFC at Test
Track
o Surface Cracks
 2009 OGFC surface placed with trackless tack
 Surface cracks after 2.2M (cracking/pumping at 10M)
 2009 bonded OGFC surface placed with spray paver
 Surface cracks after 4.1M (looks pretty good at 10M)
 2006 crack susceptible dense Superpave mix
 Surface cracks after 1.9M ESALs (Rehab at 5.6M)
o Key Findings
 Backcalculated moduli and measured strain were…
 stable over time in N1
 increased from Oct. 2010 in N2
 Both sections had cracks, but...
 level of severity was greater in N2
 area of severe cracks was larger in N2
 IRI was stable in N1 and increased over time in N2
 N1 had lower permeability
o Comments/Questions/Ideas:
 The temperatures for the draindown tests were performed according specification
(at production temperature and then at production temperature +27°F).
 The tack materials in this study are different (rate, method, and type) (Tran).
 What is the status of the spray paver for proprietary use (Wagner)? The patent(s) is
up but new patents have been applied for (it is in the legal process). Most
contractors are renting the pavers at this time.
 The mix designs for the OGFC’s placed in N1 and N2 were the same for this study
(Tran).
 The surface textures of the OGFC mixtures are virtually the same (Tran).
 What was the air void content target for the OGFC mix designs (Sines)? The air voids
shown in the mix design were 16.8% (Tran). What was the air void content of the
OGFC mats after they had been placed over tack (Sines)? Based on the QC data on
the Test Track website, the air voids were 20.7% for the OGFC mat in N1 and 21.9%
in N2 (Tran). The Gmb values used in the air voids calculation were determined by
testing field cores using the CoreLok method.
 Pending recalibration, recommendations on the structural coefficient for OGFC will
be made (Timm).
26
(10) Topic 10 - Summary of ALDOT Thermal Segregation Study (Don Watson)
o Objectives
 Determine the causes and consequences of thermal segregation
 Identify the most significant parameters in the development of thermally segregated
areas
 Recommend the most appropriate construction practices
 Evaluate the effects of high temperature differentials on in-place density
 Analyze the effects of air voids on pavement fatigue life and mix stiffness, as a
consequence of thermal segregation.
o Two Stage Study: 1st-Lab Testing, 2nd-Field Evaluation
o Literature Review – see slides 7, 8 of the presentation
o Field Evaluation & Data Collection
 28 paving projects in AL
 Thermal profiles of the mat prior to compaction
 Construction related Data Collection
 Analysis of In-Place Density
o Type of Transfer Device had the greatest influence on results
o Having remixing capabilities in a transfer device is a key factor in reduction of thermal
segregation
o WMA mixtures did not appear to cool as quickly as HMA mixtures
o WMA was the most consistent of the tested mixtures
o Conclusions
 Remixing devices can reduce significantly high temperature differentials
 In some cases, material transfer devices did not reduce the occurrence of thermally
segregated areas
 Mixes with 1 in. MAS were more susceptible to temperature segregation than the
rest of the evaluated layers
 Warm-mix asphalt helps to maintain mix temperature uniformity prior to its
compaction
 The effects of hauling time on thermal segregation can be significantly reduced as
long as a remixing process can be incorporated
 The ALDOT MRD specification is ineffective and should be revised.
 Negative effect of thermal segregation on mat in-place densities.
 Bending beam fatigue results not significantly affected by variations in air voids.
 Initial mix stiffness was correlated with air voids, with higher mix stiffness
corresponding to lower air void contents.
 No significant difference between hot and cold spots in terms of FE.
o Recommendations
 Exclusion of Material Transfer Vehicles
 Mandatory use of remixing operations
 Use of MOBA PAVE-IR infrared bar for evaluating remixing operations (pilot projects)
27






Formulation of economic incentives (Quality Control)
Appropriate construction practices
Combined use of infrared bar and infrared cameras
Performance monitoring of evaluated projects
Effect of moisture damage and/or aging on fatigue could be evaluated
Further testing with AMPT Dynamic Modulus / MEPDG
o Comments/Questions/Ideas:
 Were false high temperatures observed from the Moba unit (Bartoszek)? The
calibration of the Moba I-R sensors was checked with a certified black body device
and found to be within 3 degrees F. (Watson).
 Beams for fatigue testing were made in lab from field obtained samples (Watson).
 Are there any plans to go back and look at the identified cold temperature spots in
the future (Jones)? Yes, in the 2nd phase of the study (Watson).
 Recommendation: a process should be developed for meeting a level of performance
(for equipment and process) rather than just a process to have approved equipment
or approved methods. There is a need for a best management practices discussion in
the report. The process is as important as monitoring with the Moba Bar. It is
important to understand how to interpret the results from the Moba Bar.
 There is further vision for use of these types of technologies (Example: Intelligent
Compaction) to reduce testing and automate processes (Abadie).
(11) Topic 11 Optimizing Pavement Preservation for Low Volume Roads (Mike Heitzman)
o Objective
 Provide an overview of the US highway system
 Discuss methods for reducing the cost of preservation
o Scope
 Apply changes and advances in asphalt technology
o Low Volume Roads are:
 more than 75% of the 8.48 million lane-miles in the US
 carry less than 25% of the 2.97 trillion vehicle-miles in the US annually
 based on vehicle-miles per lane-mile, account for less than 5% of the highway
demand
 more than 50% of the rural low volume roads are paved with chip seals or asphalt
mix
 more than 95% of the urban low volume roads are paved
o Agency engineers have several pavement preservation alternatives, including thin
asphalt overlays
o Reducing Asphalt Overlay Preservation Costs
 4.75mm NMAS Mixes
 RAP/RAS
 WMA
28
o Summary
 The draft guidance defines low volume roads as routes with up to 1000 AADT
 Low volume roads are 82% of all lane-miles, but only carry 21% of vehicle-miles
 Two-thirds are paved with chip seal or asphalt pavement
 Reducing Cost of Asphalt Preservation
 4.75 mm NMAS mixes – thinner lift
 RAP and RAS – reduced material cost
 WMA – aides mixing and compaction
 At least 30% potential savings
o Comments/Questions/Ideas:
 Where were the expected life of treatment obtained (Monk)? FHWA 2000 National
Study (Heitzman).
 Recommendation: Could language be added to the report to include low volume
asphalt mixes utilizing local aggregates and potential testing/acceptance methods?
Local agencies often refer to State DOT specifications for asphalt construction for a
number of reasons. Reasons include lack of local expertise, use of approved
mixtures, and funding tied to State regulation. There is a balance between level of
agency risk, level of quality, and contract quantity. (Heitzman)
Additional Topic: NAPA Roadmap Update (Ron Sines)
o Ron Sines reported on the current status of the development of the new NAPA
Roadmap and its implementation
o Design, Sustainability and Performance are the three main focal points
o Need for deployment of existing research
o Another meeting has been scheduled for the end of July with the stakeholders to discus
and prioritize the roadmap
o How to get industry involved
o Pavement Economics Committee is a newly formed NAPA Committee in an effort to
address current issues impacting the asphalt industry
Additional Topic: Comparison of Tack Coat Materials (Don Watson)
o Objectives
 Compare the performance of OGFC layer in terms of durability and bond strength
 Two tack coat materials (NT-HAP and CQS-1HP) applied at three application rates
on two surfaces.
 Select application rates that yield good performance of OGFC for each of NT-TAP
and CQS-1HP tack materials.
o Two Stage Study: 1st-Lab Testing, 2nd-Field Evaluation
o Bond Strength – Ultrafuse showed higher bonding strength than the OGFC binder itself,
CQS-1hp broke at the interface
o Hamburg Results – see slides 18 and 19 of the presentation
29
o Comments/Questions/Ideas:
 CQS-1hp has been somewhat of a problem with WMA, possibly not hot enough to
get it to re-activate (Jones). The low pen trackless tacks have been having some
“sliding” issues when pavements have been placed in cooler conditions with WMA
(Group). Low pavement temperature itself could possibly be the condition that is
creating the re-activate/sliding issue (Group). This could be why the Ultrafuse has a
better initial bond strength (Watson).
 ALDOT OGFC moratorium was due to several OGFC raveling failures. Tack coat spray
rates and application methods were not part of the restriction (Blackburn).
 Spray application temperatures for “trackless tacks” are about the same as
traditional tacks.
 Hamburg Rutting Results (Slides 17,18) – field vs. lab. Data is not available to
determine rate of change (from initial construction to current day) and the real
differences in the results are not very significant.
The presentations were made available on CD to the ASC after the conclusion of the meeting.
Chairman Winford adjourned the meeting at 12:00pm
30
NCAT STAFF UPDATE




30.5 full-time employees
o 8 lead engineers
o 5 assistant research engineers
o 6 technicians
o 4.5 office support
o 7 trucking staff
9 part-time employees
11 graduate students
4 coop students
Promotions (effective 10/1/2012)
 Brian Waller: Engineer IV ($59,000) to Engineer V ($67,300)
 Adam Taylor: Engineer IV ($56,000) to Engineer V ($67,300)
 Grant Julian: Engineer III ($51,000) to Engineer IV ($54,300)
 Jennifer Still: Technician III ($37,000) to Technician IV ($38,850)
 Tina Ferguson: Technician II ($28,000) to Technician III ($29,400)
Special Salary Adjustments (effective 10/1/2012)
 Dr. Nam Tran, Assistant Research Professor ($84,000 to $105,000)
 Dr. Richard Willis, Assistant Research Professor ($73,000 to $100,000)
 Dr. Carolina Rodezno, Assistant Research Professor ($70,000 to $84,000)
Termination
 Dr. Maryam Sakhaeifar, Assistant Research Professor, June 22, 2012
31