group memory - dot.ca. web viewin the notes on page . 7. ... caltrans would like language in the...

SECTION 39 STG 2017-2018 OUTSTANDING ISSUE PRIORITIZATION

Updated July 26, 2017

Desired STG Outcome: Develop biddable/buildable HMA specifications that are based on good economic/engineering judgment and FHWA guidelines.

Yellow highlights = Latest comments

Green Highlight = Item complete but waiting on action

Blue highlights = Item has been resolved - no action required

Pink highlight = Items being addressed by another STG

Red highlight = Action Required

1. Opening Comments & Bin List 1. 1. Bin List - Proposed Items for Future Discussion

1. 1. 1. 05/24/20171. 1. 1. 1. IN: JMF Renewal – Review extension/grace period for submittal

1. 1. 1. 1.1. IN: Proposal - As long as the request is made before the expiration date of the current verification form (CEM 3513) and samples are obtained prior to the expiration date of the current CEM 3514 can be submitted after the expiration date of the current CEM 3513 form

1. 1. 1. 2. IN: JMF Renewal – Binder Target variance of ±0.2%1. 1. 1. 2.1. IN: This should be based on the most recent/approved CEM 3513.

Concerns with CT restricting variance of 0.2% from the “original” mix design1. 1. 1. 3. IN: Initial weight for sample for Hamburg test sample

1. 1. 1. 3.1. IN: Proposal – Utilize a starting point mass (weight) which is the most recent weight provided by the contractor to CT for specimen preparation for the HWT

1. 1. 2. 06/21/20171. 1. 2. 1. IN: Dispute Resolution 39-2.01A(4)(i)(iv)– Consistency in application between

and within District1. 1. 2. 1.1. Certain districts are using the construction manual, District internal

policy, and IA manual to dictate how the dispute resolution process is performed.1. 1. 3. 07/25/2017

1. 1. 3. 1. No new items1. 2. 06/21/2017 – Sacramento

1. 2. 1. Group will use this document moving forward. Previous document will be archived.1. 3. 07/25/2017 – San Diego

1. 3. 1. Co-Chairs will meet and discuss and develop proposal to outlining revised deliverables and timeline to complete. Will share with group.

1. 3. 2.

2. 1 #08: Cure time for plant samples (May be for any sample) 2. 1. ISSUE: When samples are taken early in the production process at the plant, cure time should be taken

into account2. 2. PROPOSER: IN

1Caltrans Section 39 STG Priority List – June 21, 2017

2. 3. RESOULTION: Reheat sample limits incorporated in specification. No changes to Engineer’s requirement to condition at plant samples. Condition requirements not required for QC.

2. 4. DATE: 07/26/20172. 5. Comments:

2. 5. 1. 05/26/20142. 5. 1. 1. Industry concern: When samples are taken early in the production process at the

plant, cure time should be taken into account. 2. 5. 1. 2. CT Response: CT agrees. CT and contractor must be doing the exact same

thing. CT and industry should revisit cure time required for plant produced samples. 2. 5. 2. 06/20/2014

2. 5. 2. 1. CT Comment: We are directing the laboratories to do exactly what the contractors are doing.

2. 5. 2. 2. Industry Comment: The spec does not require the district to do what the contractor does. This needs to be specified. Exactly what temperature should the oven be when the sample is placed inside? How long should the sample be in the oven? What temperature should the sample be (what is “cold” ??) when it is placed in the oven?

2. 5. 3. 07/23/2014 2. 5. 3. 1. Joe is working on it. Check back at next meeting

2. 5. 4. 08/13/2014 2. 5. 4. 1. CT says the sample should be in the oven for 2-4 hours. 2. 5. 4. 2. Industry concern: There is considerable variability among districts on how they

handle cure time and temperature. 2. 5. 5. 09/25/2014

2. 5. 5. 1. Joe and Kee will draft up something related to temperature and time. It needs to be simple, clear and enforceable on both sides. Need to provide language for a two hour cure (NOT reheat)

2. 5. 6. 10/21/2014 2. 5. 6. 1. For plant-sampled material. Per AASHTO R 30 and 11/14/2014 - here is the

Comment from 9/25/2014 - Joe will do a lab instruction to all DME’s on the process to be followed for a standard two hour cure. Use the compaction temperature.

2. 5. 7. 11/14/2014 2. 5. 7. 1. Industry suggests that we have a footnote in the area of the spec where the

testing part is? 2. 5. 7. 2. CT Response: We are done with this. We need this only in one spot. We would

need a foot note on each table, and all tables related to this would need the footnote. The way we are doing it in section 39 applies to everything.

2. 5. 7. 3. CT will add language to limit oven time and number of reheats - “two hours” into 39-1.01D(9)(a) General section: Prior to compaction or testing, all at the plant sample must be conditioned according to the first and second sentence of Section 7.1.2, Section 7.1.3 and Section 7.1.4 of AASHTO R 30.

2. 5. 8. 12/17/2014 2. 5. 8. 1. Industry would like to limit the number of reheats to one. 2. 5. 8. 2. CT concern is that this would lengthen test turn-around time. CT will draft up a

procedure that takes this from receiving the asphalt sample up to the point where the sample is ready for the test. Premise is that there are no more than two re-heat cycles per samples. Point is to limit the number of boxes in the oven over night or over the weekend, etc.

2. 5. 8. 3. This will be presented in the January meeting. 2. 5. 9. 01/23/2015

2. 5. 9. 1. No progress on this. 2. 5. 10. 03/18/2015


2. 5. 10. 1. This was done and is included in the proposed spec. ”The engineer reheats each sample of HMA mixture not more than two cycles. Each reheat cycle is performed by placing the loose mixture in a mechanical forced draft oven for two hours or less after reaching 140 degrees Fahrenheit.”

2. 5. 10. 2. Industry wants to see the language include splitting and compaction “Industry recommendation: “To obtain workability of HMA for splitting,” should be added to the beginning of the sentence. The intent is to make clear that the reheats do not include bringing samples up to temperature for compaction or other testing.

2. 5. 10. 3. Here is how industry would like to see Kee’s proposal: “To obtain workability of HMA for splitting, the engineer reheats each sample of HMA mixture not more than two cycles. Each reheat cycle is performed by placing the loose mixture in a mechanical forced draft oven for two hours or less after the sample reaches reaching 140 degrees Fahrenheit.” Industry would like to have this included in his submittal to Office Engineer.

2. 5. 10. 4. Kee will put this language in and submit it to OE. Turn blue next time we hope. 2. 5. 11. 04/9/2015

2. 5. 11. 1. Kee will send industry revised language. New language received 4/9/2015: To obtain workability of the HMA sample for splitting, the Engineer reheats each sample of HMA mixture not more than 2 cycles. Each reheat cycle is performed by placing the loose mixture in a mechanical forced-draft oven for 2 hours or less after the sample reaches 140 degrees F.

2. 5. 12. 05/21/2015 2. 5. 12. 1. Industry is waiting for this to be posted.

2. 5. 13. 06/25/2015 2. 5. 13. 1. nothing new to report.

2. 5. 14. 07/22/20152. 5. 14. 1. Caltrans says this is in the draft of the next version of the RSS, the draft 2015

Section 39.2. 5. 15. 08/25/2015

2. 5. 15. 1. We are still waiting.2. 5. 16. 09/30/2015

2. 5. 16. 1. Caltrans has included this in version 6. 2. 5. 17. 10/23/2015

2. 5. 17. 1. Still waiting to verify this is in the internet version.2. 5. 18. 02/02/2015

2. 5. 18. 1. Caltrans reports this is done. (In 2015 SS, 39-2.04A(i)(i) General ) 2. 5. 19. 09/20/2016

2. 5. 19. 1. IND: AASHTO R 30 as specified 7.1.2, 7.1.3, and 7.1.4 is not clear on whether or not curing is required for ignition oven samples.

2. 5. 19. 2. CT: Need to condition at-the-plant-samples because there is indication that there is a difference in binder content, most likely due to the additional binder absorbed in the aggregate. (see Note 1 of AAHTO R 30). 7.1.2, 7.1.3, and 7.1.4 only tells you how to cure not what tests to cure for.

2. 5. 20. 01/11/20172. 5. 20. 1. IN/CT: Possibly add language requiring R- 30 (2 hour curing) for asphalt content

and volumetrics when composite aggregate absorption factor is greater than 2.0 percent. Industry and Caltrans will consider and discuss at next meeting

2. 5. 21. 06/21/2017


2. 5. 21. 1. Proposed Language: “The Engineer conditions each at-the-plant sample of HMA mixture for AASHTO 324 and AASHTO 283 in compliance with sections 7.1.2, 7.1.3, and 7.1.4 of AASHTO R 30. The Engineer conditions each at-the-plant sample of HMA mixture when composite aggregate absorption factor is greater than 2.0 percent as indicated by the JMF in compliance with sections 7.1.2, 7.1.3, and 7.1.4 of AASHTO R 30”..

2. 5. 21. 2. Add language to QC and Modify the QA sections2. 5. 21. 2.1. QC: 39-2.01A(4)(h) Quality Control 39-2.01A(4)(h)(i) General

“Condition each at-the-plant sample of HMA mixture for AASHTO 324 and AASHTO 283 in compliance with sections 7.1.2, 7.1.3, and 7.1.4 of AASHTO R 30. Condition each at-the-plant sample of HMA mixture when composite aggregate absorption factor is greater than 2.0 percent as indicated by the JMF in compliance with sections 7.1.2, 7.1.3, and 7.1.4 of AASHTO R 30”

2. 5. 21. 2.2. QA: 39-2.01A(4)(i) Department Acceptance 39-2.01A(4)(i)(i) General.

“The Engineer conditions each at-the-plant sample of HMA mixture for AASHTO 324 and AASHTO 283 in compliance with sections 7.1.2, 7.1.3, and 7.1.4 of AASHTO R 30. The Engineer conditions each at-the-plant sample of HMA mixture when composite aggregate absorption factor is greater than 2.0 percent as indicated by the JMF in compliance with sections 7.1.2, 7.1.3, and 7.1.4 of AASHTO R 30”

2. 5. 21. 3. Need to include language in the JMF section of the Std Spec that has the Contractor include the composite absorption factor on CEM 3512 Page 7 notes where we report T324 and T283 results2. 5. 21. 3.1. 39-2.01A(3)(b)(i) General2. 5. 21. 3.2. Except for the HMA to be used in miscellaneous areas and dikes, submit

your proposed JMF for each type of HMA to be used. The JMF must be submitted on the Contractor Job Mix Formula Proposal form along with:

2. 5. 21. 3.3. 1. Mix design documentation on Contractor Hot Mix Asphalt Design Data form dated within 12 months of submittal. Include composite aggregate absorption factor based on the proportional percentage of fine and coarse aggregates, excluding RAP, in the notes on page 7

2. 5. 21. 4. 07/26/20172. 5. 21. 4.1. Many ideas were entertained2. 5. 21. 4.2. CT/IN: agrees not to make changes to existing specification.2. 5. 21. 4.3. CT/IN: Agree not to add conditioning requirement in QC section

3. 2 #91: Payment and Non-Payment Quality Characteristics (CT) 3. 1. ISSUE: Identify quality characteristics that should be categorized as payment and non-payment related

quality characteristic.3. 2. PROPOSER: CT3. 3. RESOULTION: 3. 4. DATE: 3. 5. COMMENTS:

3. 5. 1. 11/16/20163. 5. 1. 1. Identify quality characteristics that should be categorized as payment and non-

payment related quality characteristic3. 5. 1. 1.1. Payment related quality characteristic should be indicator of pavement

performance3. 5. 1. 1.2. Based on Superpave mix design


3. 5. 1. 1.3. Develop curvilinear or linear equation for these payment related quality characteristic

3. 5. 1. 1.4. Develop questions for FHWA how to implement payment related quality characteristic and non-payment related quality characteristic

3. 5. 2. 06/21/20173. 5. 2. 1. Discussion and some progress on some items. We still need more discussion3. 5. 2. 2. Agree to work on pay tables for the following tests:

3. 5. 2. 2.1. Asphalt Content3. 5. 2. 2.2. Gradation (#200)3. 5. 2. 2.3. Air Voids (i.e. volumetrics)3. 5. 2. 2.4. Density (completed)

3. 5. 2. 3. There are concerns with air voids that need additional evaluation prior to the development of pay tables.

3. 5. 2. 4. CT: AASHTO 324 and AASHTO 283 need to be addressed and maintained as an acceptance criteria. Not sure how to address this.

3. 5. 3. 07/26/20173. 5. 3. 1. IN: concern with pay factor reductions on multiple requirements that are related

to a single mix characteristic.3. 5. 3. 2. Air Void Concerns include:

3. 5. 3. 2.1. testing variability3. 5. 3. 2.2. Testing frequency3. 5. 3. 2.3. Quantity represented by a single test

3. 5. 3. 3. CT: ACTION – Conduct search of western State DOT pay factors tables (WA, OR, ID, NV, AZ, UT

3. 5. 3. 4. IN: ACTION – Conduct search of Rocky Mountain States and FLH.3. 5. 3. 5. IN: ACTION – Distribute UCPRC pavement study on performance pay factors

4. 3 #58: QA Sampling responsibility and providing split samples from the QA sample 4. 1. ISSUE: Caltrans would like language in the spec outlining the responsibility for Quality Acceptance

sampling and sample splitting. Specifically the requirements for CT participation in the sampling and splitting process

4. 2. PROPOSER: CT4. 3. RESOULTION: 4. 4. DATE: 4. 5. Comments:

4. 5. 1. 08/25/2015 4. 5. 1. 1. Caltrans would like language in the spec outlining the responsibility for Quality

Acceptance sampling and sample splitting. Specifically the requirements for CT participation in the sampling and splitting process.

4. 5. 1. 2. Caltrans will draft language and present at the next meeting. 4. 5. 2. 10/23/2015

4. 5. 2. 1. Kee will draft up the language for this. 4. 5. 3. 12/02/2015


4. 5. 3. 1. Sentences that could be interpreted as requiring contractor to obtain/split QC/QA samples will be deleted. Engineer sampling will be in Construction Manual which will basically say randomly grab two split samples (one for testing and one for dispute resolution)

4. 5. 3. 2. CT reports that all QA samples will be taken according to the Construction Manual. The spec has been clarified. Caltrans will take all QA samples obtaining enough material for a two way split which allows for testing and dispute.

4. 5. 3. 3. Industry concern: We disagree with not being allowed to obtain a split sample from the QA test.

4. 5. 4. 01/05/2016 4. 5. 4. 1. Industry continues to disagree with this change and will elevate the issue to the

ATG. 4. 5. 4. 2. Kee Foo and Tony L will write up the issue, and waive the third party dispute

resolution at the STG level. 4. 5. 5. 03/17/2016

4. 5. 5. 1. Jack and Pat will bring this up at the ATG level (3+2).4. 5. 6. 06/21/2017

4. 5. 6. 1. Issue related to available staffing to take sample size appropriate for a split sample for the contractor.

4. 5. 6. 2. IN: Industry reminds STG that there was a proposal on Item #40 (02/15/2017) that included an additional person provided by the contractor to take the sample.

4. 5. 6. 3. CT: will discuss internally on this proposal from Industry to resolve the issue. 4. 5. 7. 07/26/2017

4. 5. 7. 1. CT/IN: waiting for ATG feedback.

5. 4 #40: Required QC Staff on a Caltrans Project 5. 1. ISSUE: Contractors want to have some minimums in the spec for how many people must be on the job

for QC, to create a level playing field.5. 2. PROPOSER: IN5. 3. RESOULTION: 5. 4. DATE: 5. 5. Comments:

5. 5. 1. 02/19/2015 5. 5. 1. 1. Industry comment: There is a lot of difference among the districts as to what

constitutes an acceptable QC plan. We need to talk about testing and QC – QA spec. Many contractors want to have some minimums in the spec for how many people must be on the job for QC, to create a level playing field. This would avoid arguments in the field. CT wants an industry recommendation on staffing requirements for QC testing to create a level playing field. Industry will provide a recommendation at the next meeting on personnel required for QC testing including an updated QC manual. CT needs to follow up with Construction on the need for an updated QC manual and report back at the next meeting.

5. 5. 2. 04/09/2015 5. 5. 2. 1. QC/QA Manual does not apply to current Section 39. Requirement for minimum

technicians needs to be written into existing Section 39 specification. 5. 5. 2. 2. CT concurs. 5. 5. 2. 3. CT and industry need to determine QC Technicians requirements. 5. 5. 2. 4. Industry will make proposal for number of technicians needed.

5. 5. 3. 05/21/2015


5. 5. 3. 1. Industry agrees there is a current requirement for one technician at the plant and one in the field.

5. 5. 3. 2. Industry response: There is no industry consensus on how many additional personnel CT should require.

5. 5. 4. 06/25/2015 5. 5. 4. 1. CT Proposal: Minimum of three testing personnel (one HMA production

inspector, one HMA placement inspector and one HMA sampler) for 1,500 tons or less, and if over 1,500 tons, four testing personnel.

5. 5. 4. 2. IN: Now with the smoothness consideration, it would be better and safer to sample at the plant. Four people or even three is overkill in some situations.

5. 5. 4. 3. CT Proposal (revised): For method spec projects, one tech in the field. One at the plant. For density spec, two techs in the field, one at the plant.

5. 5. 4. 4. Industry will discuss the CT Proposal (revised) in an industry-only meeting and report back to Kee and Pete:

5. 5. 4. 5. No decisions today. 5. 5. 5. 07/22/2015

5. 5. 5. 1. Industry Proposal: 0-750 tons = 1 tech, (density or method), 750-1500 tons = 2 techs, (density or method) and over 1500 tons = 3 techs (density required) or 2 techs (method). Location of techs is contractor option.

5. 5. 6. 08/25/2015 5. 5. 6. 1. CT–D11: 750-1500 tons = 3 techs, (density or method) and over 1500 tons = 4

techs (two at the plant and two in the field)5. 5. 7. 10/23/2015

5. 5. 7. 1. Caltrans position is that there needs to be someone at the plant and someone in the field. Industry says when there are questions on things like rolling patterns and all is documented by a tech, the dispute is more easily resolved.

5. 5. 7. 2. Industry does not agree with the Caltrans proposal. Industry concern is that CT does not have a uniform and consistent approach.

5. 5. 7. 3. Industry is calling for CT to make the decision. There is no consensus between industry and Caltrans.

5. 5. 7. 4. This needs to be elevated to the ATG. 5. 5. 7. 5. This is not a fatal flaw. 5. 5. 7. 6. Caltrans wants 3 techs for 1500 tons or less, and 4 techs for jobs over 1500 tons.

Location of techs is specified by the contractor in the proposed QC plan. 5. 5. 8. 12-02-2015

5. 5. 8. 1. CT Position:

The old QC/QA specification which was agreed to by Industry and the Department was acceptable and utilized since 1996 when we rolled out the first QC/QA specifications and is currently specified under the 2010 standard specifications under 39-4.02B Quality Control Plan. As you know, it referenced the State's Quality Control Manual for Hot Mix Asphalt Production and Placement Manual and it's written fairly well and previously agreed to by Industry. It just needs to be updated to the new specs and test methods. Additionally, as the sample size has increased due to the new Superpave testing and sampling it is even more important to have the appropriate number of QC personnel available to ensure the Department received a quality product. As you can see below it may be necessary to increase the minimum number of QC personnel for 3 and 4 to 4 and 5.

All QC testers and inspectors must be supplied by the QC and must not report to, or be influenced by HMA production or placement contractors at any tier.

Less than 1500 tons per day it: 3 min

1) Field QC: Monitors the quality of delivered material and assists with the sampling required. Makes the call to halt production due to poor material qualities at delivery and placement. Assists with other QC duties such as CTM 375 and coring for density acceptance.


2) Field QC: Monitors the quality of place material and rolling patterns. Monitors matt quality, directs the compaction process, and preforms nuclear gauge testing to ensure real time adjustments are made to control compaction. Cores pavement to provide department with QA compaction cores.

3) Field QC: Responsible for sampling (Takes material samples as require by the Specifications)

4) Plant QC: monitors the quality of the material being produced by the plant and preforms plant sampling for HMA testing for grading, SE, CV, AASHTO T283 and T324. These samples size is large and more than likely will require two people to sample and test, however these are only take at specified mile stones.

Greater than 1500 tons per day it: 4 min

1) Field QC: Monitors the quality of delivered material and assists with the sampling required. Makes the call to halt production due to poor material qualities at delivery and placement. Assists with other QC duties such as CTM 375 and coring for density acceptance.

2) Field QC: Monitors the quality of place material and rolling patterns. Monitors matt quality, directs the compaction process, and preforms nuclear gauge testing to ensure real time adjustments are made to control compaction. Cores pavement to provide department with QA compaction cores.

3) Field QC: Responsible for sampling (Takes material samples as require by the Specifications)

4) Plant QC: monitors the quality of the material being produced by the plant and preforms plant sampling for HMA testing for grading, SE, CV, AASHTO T283 and T324. These samples size is large and more than likely will require two people to sample and test, however these are only take at specified mile stones. Observes loading of plant produced material to ensure best practices are being performed to eliminate segregation of material.

5) ) Field QC: Assists Field QC #2 , #3, and #4 with the sampling. (Required to assist in the management of larger volume of material being produced and sampled and tested.)

The Department should add a required QC supplied plant inspector that is in direct contact with the QC manager, Resident Engineer, Field QC and the Caltrans QA inspectors at all times. As with the field QC inspectors, the Plant Inspector must be supplied by the QC and independent from HMA production and placement contractors. This QC supplied plant inspector will monitor HMA production, take corrective action at the plant when required and split samples at the plant.

The standardization of these minimum QC personnel requirement will level the playing field, with regard to bidding our projects. Currently we are experiencing little or limited QC on our HMA projects , as we do not required minimum QC personnel. Therefore, the contractors are not bidding the contract to provide QC and potential claims are being filed.

5. 5. 9. 12/02/2015 5. 5. 9. 1. Industry concern is that CT does not have a uniform and consistent approach.

Industry will review and respond at the next meeting. 5. 5. 10. 01/09/2015

5. 5. 10. 1. Industry proposes recommendation in paragraph 38.65. 5. 11. 02/23/2016

5. 5. 11. 1. Industry will discuss this and present their position to Caltrans. 5. 5. 12. 03/17/2016

5. 5. 12. 1. No new information5. 5. 13. 09/20/2016

5. 5. 13. 1. IN: will meet and come back with position5. 5. 14. 01/11/2017

5. 5. 14. 1. IN will meet and to determine if they want to propose the 07/22/2015 proposal to CT.

5. 5. 15. 02/15/2017


5. 5. 15. 1. CT Proposal (10/23/2015): 3 techs for 1500 tons or less, and 4 techs for jobs over 1500 tons. Location of techs is specified by the contractor in the proposed QC plan.

5. 5. 15. 2. IN Proposal (07/22/2015): 1-750 tons = 1 tech, (density or method), 750-1500 tons = 2 techs, (density or method) and over 1500 tons = 3 techs (density required) or 2 techs (method). Location of techs is contractor option.

5. 5. 15. 3. IN: 2 tech minimum method, 3 tech minimum density5. 5. 15. 4. CT/IN: Minimum Inspectors for projects: Method – 1 Plant, 1 Field; Density –

1Plant, 2 Field; Sample (if contractor requested to take Engineer samples and/or contractor requests a split sample of the Engineer’s sample for dispute) – 1 Sampler (independent of inspectors)

5. 5. 15. 5. CT does not agree with Industry’s proposal to raise the bar from what is currently in the specification.

5. 5. 16. 06/21/20175. 5. 16. 1. Will continue discussion after CT response to Item #4 “QA Sampling

responsibility and providing split samples from the QA sample”5. 5. 17. 07/26/2017

5. 5. 17. 1. CT/IN: waiting for ATG feedback.

6. 5 #94: Moisture Susceptibility treatment should be based on T 283 and AASHTO T 324. 6. 1. ISSUE: Treatment for moisture sensitivity based on testing required in Std Spec (T283, T324, PI value).

No longer necessary to require specific treatments (i.e. lime slurry marination)6. 2. PROPOSER: 6. 3. RESOLUTION: 6. 4. DATE: 6. 5. COMMENTS:

6. 5. 1. 12/14/2016 6. 5. 1. 1. CT: CT Co-chairs cannot make a decision on this item. Recommend industry

move this to the ATG.6. 5. 1. 2. Brandon Milar will write up issue statement for industry.

6. 5. 2. 06/21/20176. 5. 2. 1. Appears to be a CT policy issue. Industry to provide white paper for ATG mtg6. 5. 2. 2. IN: in a nutshell Districts allowed lime requirement per 1999 interim guidelines.

These guidelines were to remain in place until testing protocols were developed and incorporated into the Standard Specifications. The testing protocols were incorporated in the 2010 Standard Specifications. This action should result in Caltrans rescinding the lime treatment requirement per the interim guidelines

6. 5. 3. 07/26/20176. 5. 3. 1. Statewide Consistency Issue6. 5. 3. 2. CT/IN: Create a Moisture Sensitivity workshop (sponsored by CT and Industry) to

provide CT districts and industry an update on the moisture sensitivity issues, the partnered approach used to resolve the issues, and how technical changes were proposed and implemented in the current Section 39 Standard Specifications6. 5. 3. 2.1. Need HQ support6. 5. 3. 2.2. Develop workshop program 6. 5. 3. 2.3. Need District participation (Target those Districts requiring LSM)

6. 5. 3. 3. CT/IN: Recommend the above workshop concept to ATG.


7. 6 #84 Max dry strength of 300 psi for lime treated mixes 7. 1. ISSUE: Specifications require a maximum dry strength of 300 psi. This may be a problem for mixes that

contain lime.7. 2. PROPOSER: IN7. 3. RESOLUTION: 7. 4. DATE: 7. 5. COMMENTS:

7. 5. 1. 08/18/2016 7. 5. 1. 1. Specifications require a maximum dry strength of 300 psi. This may be a problem

for mixes that contain lime.7. 5. 1. 2. CT: Lime is required in selected locations by the Districts CT would like to have

some data to present to the Districts on the effects of lime on tensile strength.7. 5. 2. 02/15/2017

7. 5. 2. 1. Notes from RAP/RAS group #7 10/06/2016 7. 5. 2. 1.1. “Caltrans will remove the 300 max psi dry tensile requirements for mixes

containing ≤15% RAP and mixes with binder grade of ≤64. Kee and Pete will have internal discussion regarding the tensile strength requirement for mixes containing lime.”

7. 5. 2. 1.2. “CT has some reservations but would bring this back for discussion.”7. 5. 2. 2. CT: sent inquiry to Districts that require lime. District 2 replied that after a review

of their mixes (40), the limit would not eliminate mixes (no mixes with PG70-xx or greater used).

7. 5. 2. 3. CT: will continue to query districts that use lime and the dry strength maximum. For mixes that use lime, what are the dry strengths (AASHTO T283) and what binder grade is used. KF will focus on districts that require lime (i.e. D08)

7. 5. 2. 4. CT: if no information available on dry strength of mixes, then consider removing the 300 psi max requirement

7. 5. 3. 04/11/20177. 5. 3. 1. Tony L and Pascal M will draft document outlining issue for 300max on ALL

mixes (not just >15%RAP) for submittal to ATG on April 17th

7. 5. 4. 06/21/20177. 5. 5. 07/26/2017

7. 5. 5. 1. CT: will contact D02, D05, D06, D08. Choose between 300 psi max or required lime treatment.

7. 5. 5. 2. .

8. 7 #65 Gyratory Compaction temperature 8. 1. ISSUE: CT would like to use a standardize gyratory compaction temperatures8. 2. PROPOSER: CT8. 3. RESOLUTION: 8. 4. DATE: 8. 5. Comments:

8. 5. 1. 09/30/2015 8. 5. 1. 1. Caltrans would like to look at common compaction temperature for mix design.

(Kee Foo) 8. 5. 2. 10/23/2015

8. 5. 2. 1. Industry is not in favor of this. SP2 requires the compaction to be determined from the viscosity-temperature relationship.

8. 5. 3. 01/05/2016


8. 5. 3. 1. Industry comment: If Caltrans wants to go in this direction, they need to make sure the data support it. This would be counter to historical approach to our work. This does not make good technical sense. Show us the research, the data to support your position before you change the spec. We should look at technically sound ways to accommodate the budgetary constraints.

8. 5. 3. 2. CT might look at different temperatures for different binder grades. CT might also consider extending the life of JMF approval to two years.

8. 5. 4. 01/05/2016 8. 5. 4. 1. Caltrans will discuss this internally and bring the discussion forward at the next

meeting. 8. 5. 5. 04/12/2016

8. 5. 5. 1. CT will propose a temperature compaction scheme and report back to industry. 8. 5. 6. 08/18/2016

8. 5. 6. 1. CT Response:

Current procedure/test method requires HMA-Type A mix compaction temperatures be determined from temperature-viscosity relationship of the binder. District lab may be testing several mixes each requiring a different compaction temperatures. This will create practical/logistical problem if the district have limited oven available. Section 39 has agreed to used standardized compaction temperatures for the following PG grades (PG 64 and PG 70). We will continue to use Supplier recommended compaction temperature for modified (PG-M) binder.

Please provide the HMA-Type A recommended compaction temperature for a) PG 64 and b) PG 70 binder. Thanks.

Kee Foo

TransLab would recommend that for the neat asphalt binder HMA-Type A mixtures employing PG 58-XX, PG 64-XX, and PG 70-XX binders, the mixing temperature should be 290° F. ± 5° F., and the compaction temperature should be 260° F. ± 5° F. All HMA-Type A specimen compactions should be completed prior to the specimen material’s temperature dropping to 250° F. or lower.

Thanks,

Al Vasquez

(916) 227-73228. 5. 7. 08/18/2016

8. 5. 7. 1. Industry is concerned with a single temperature grade for all PG grades. 8. 5. 7. 2. CT is open to a single temperature for each PG grade. 8. 5. 7. 3. Industry will try and come back with a recommended compaction and mixing

temperature for each PG grade.8. 5. 8. 12/14/2016

8. 5. 8. 1. Industry still working on this item.8. 5. 9. 07/26/2017


8. 5. 9. 1. MS-2 utilizes temp-visc curves in design, change to volumetrics in 2010 also included this issue

8. 5. 9. 2. CT issues with needing multiple ovens8. 5. 9. 3. Research effort?8. 5. 9. 4. Temperature has a significant effect on mix volumetrics and designs8. 5. 9. 5. CT: ACTION – Discuss with Districts on importance of issues.

9. 8 #71 Industry proposal – Use of ½ inch RHMA-G in 0.20 lifts (Comment from 02-23-2016) 9. 1. ISSUE: Use of ½ inch RHMA-G in 0.20 lifts9. 2. PROPOSER: IN9. 3. RESOULTION: 9. 4. DATE: 9. 5. COMMENTS:

9. 5. 1. 02/23/2016 9. 5. 1. 1. Caltrans has expressed concern that projects using ½ inch aggregate with a 0.20

lift will rut. 9. 5. 1. 2. Right now if a lift thickness 0.20 or greater, ¾ inch is required. There is no option

to go with ½ or ¾ inch aggregate. 9. 5. 1. 3. Randy Reichert will provide data on ½ and ¾ inch aggregate to Pete Spector

with 0.15 and 0.20 lifts. 9. 5. 1. 4. Tony and Kee will send out a survey to identify projects that have ½ inch

aggregate for 0.20 lifts. Do we have any jobs where there is rutting? 9. 5. 1. 5. Industry is aware of projects of 0.20 lifts with ½ inch aggregate that have not

experienced rutting. 9. 5. 1. 6. Caltrans has experienced rutting with ½ inch aggregate on one project. The lift

thickness on this project was 0.15. (See item 39) 9. 5. 1. 7. Industry - Phil R is aware of two projects that used ½ inch aggregate on 0.20 lifts:

Highway 12/I-5. This project has heavy traffic and no rutting. 9. 5. 2. 04/12/2016

9. 5. 2. 1. Caltrans continues to be concerned with rutting.9. 5. 3. 06/14/2016

9. 5. 3. 1. Caltrans: Industry needs to provide data that supports the use of ½ NMAS in 0.20 lifts.

9. 5. 4. 09/20/2016 9. 5. 4. 1. Phil Reader Comments: Caltrans concerns are not valid, GRI has had multiple

projects where we have used 1/2" RHMA G in lieu of using 3/4” RHMA G (at thicker lifts .20’ and above) and the mixes are performing very well. I agree with everything you have stated below.

9. 5. 4. 2. Roger Smith Comments: I believe that thicker lifts allow the use of larger aggregate, but don't require it. Conversely, if you use a 3/4" mix you must go to greater lift thickness - mainly for ease of laydown and compaction. Those 2 ideas often get interchanged - even by Caltrans people. With proper mix design and compaction, good stability / rut resistance can be had with 1/2" mixes in thicker lifts. When you think of it, in situations where multiple lifts are placed (same project) we often end up with effectively thick layers of new 1/2" mix in place. The Caltrans rules limiting maximum lift thickness exist primarily because of the difficulty cooling the thicker lifts for timely, smooth rolling. Don't know of any HWT theories on thickness.

9. 5. 5. 12/14/2016


9. 5. 5. 1. IN: Industry will explore using different gradations to see if the ¾” mix can be met.

10. 9 #68 Splitting Lifts, 0.35’ 10. 1. ISSUE: Splitting Lifts >0.30’. Should be >/=0.30’?10. 2. PROPOSER: CT10. 3. RESOULTION: 10. 4. DATE: 10. 5. COMMENTS:

10. 5. 1. 12/02/2015 10. 5. 1. 1. Caltrans comment: Conflict in tables in specs. Consider plans that indicate a

layer thickness of 0.35’ HMA Type A. How can this be broken in to two lifts?

39-2.02C says you can, but 39-2.02B(4)(b) says you can’t.‘------------------

39-2.02B(4)(b) Aggregate Gradations

The aggregate gradations for Type A HMA must comply with the requirements shown in the following table:

Aggregate Gradation Requirements

Type A HMA pavement thickness shown Gradation0.10 foot 3/8 inch

Greater than 0.10 to less than 0.20 foot 1/2 inch0.20 to less than 0.25 foot 3/4 inch

0.25 foot or greater 3/4 inch or 1 inch

39-2.02C Construction

Where the pavement thickness shown is greater than 0.30 foot, you may place Type A HMA in multiple lifts not less than 0.15 foot each. If placing Type A HMA in multiple lifts:1. Aggregate gradation must comply with the requirements shown in the following

table:

Aggregate Gradation Requirements Type A HMA lift thickness Gradation0.15 to less than 0.20 foot 1/2 inch

0.20 foot to less than 0.25 foot 3/4 inch0.25 foot or greater 3/4 inch or 1 inch

2. Apply a tack coat before placing a subsequent lift10. 5. 2. 01/05/2016

10. 5. 2. 1. CALTRANS PROPOSED LANGUAGE “When placing TYPE A HMA multiple lifts, the table in Section 39-2.02B(4)(b) does not apply.”

10. 5. 3. 04/12/2016 10. 5. 3. 1. CT (Pete & Shawn) will look at the following changes and get back to us: Where

the pavement thickness shown is greater than 0.30 foot or greater, you may place Type A HMA in multiple lifts not less than 0.15 foot each. If placing Type A HMA in multiple lifts

10. 5. 4. 12/14/2016 10. 5. 4. 1. CT/IN waiting for report from Pete.

10. 5. 5. 03/08/2017


10. 5. 5. 1. Discussion related to appropriate NMAS and lifts. Is a larger NMAS necessary for traffic? How does this effect smoothness? Some CT designers are specifying ¾” mix for a 0.3’ pavement thickness and does not want a ½” mix (going to 0.3’ lift split would be problematic for this design). Smoothness requirement based on multiple lifts need to coordinate with allowable lift splitting allowance.

10. 5. 5. 2. CT: will review original basis for 0.35’ min for lift splitting. Also, what are CT concerns with splitting a 0.3’ lift into 2 lifts of 0.15’ lifts.

10. 5. 5. 3. CT/IN: Agree to add the following language to 39-2.02C Construction: “When placing TYPE A HMA multiple lifts, the table in Section 39-2.02B(4)(b) does not apply.

10. 5. 6. 04/11/201710. 5. 6. 1. CT – 2016-05-06 Item 12. Districts want ability to specify/require ¾” NMAS mixes

use. 10. 5. 6. 2. CT – the CT 1/2” NMAS mix may not perform equal to CT 3/4” NMAS mixes10. 5. 6. 3. CT/IN – will conduct literature search on the performance of mixes comparing

NMAS sizes and NMAS size vs lift thickness issues and provide documents to the STG by May12th for review prior to May 24th meeting.

11. 10 #75 Use of CEM 3512 to Determine SGC specimen height 11. 1. ISSUE: AASHTO T312 section 8.1.1) is very clear that "If the specimens are to be used for determination

of volumetric properties the batch weight will be adjusted to result in a compacted specimen having dimensions of 150 mm in diameter and 115 +/-5 mm in height. This section is for Laboratory Prepared samples. Since there is no such reference in section 8.2 Plant Produced some at Caltrans interpret that the sample weight to be used should come from the CEM 3512 and the height is whatever you get. Clearly this is not the case as the heights of the briquettes will have an impact on the volumetric properties

11. 2. PROPOSER: IN11. 3. RESOULTION: 11. 4. DATE: 11. 5. COMMENTS:

11. 5. 1. 04/12/2016


11. 5. 1. 1. Industry - AASHTO T312 section 8.1.1) is very clear that "If the specimens are to be used for determination of volumetric properties the batch weight will be adjusted to result in a compacted specimen having dimensions of 150 mm in diameter and 115 +/-5 mm in height. This section is for Laboratory Prepared samples. Since there is no such reference in section 8.2 Plant Produced some at Caltrans interpret that the sample weight to be used should come from the CEM 3512 and the height is whatever you get. Clearly this is not the case as the heights of the briquettes will have an impact on the volumetric properties.

11. 5. 1. 2. Caltrans - District labs have been advised to duplicate contractor labs whenever possible. Contractor have done 8.1.1 (lab produced specimen) to determine the correct sample weight for their proposed JMF. By using the contractor sample weight, I can see the State “verifying” the correct sample weight as part of the verification process (i.e. Should the hot drop be verified because it’s not behaving exactly as claimed by the contractor? or Is the hot drop so different from the proposed JMF that we cannot get the sample height at verification?).

11. 5. 1. 3. When we obtained a combined samples (like drum plant) to run gradation, we are in the dark on bin percentage (and therefore do not check/enforce bin percentage). If we are to mathematically combined a specific bin (i.e. RAP) then we will be checking/enforcing RAP percentage. The same would be true for other bins. I can see why we want to mathematically combine and check/enforce RAP but do we want this for other bin

11. 5. 1. 4. Industry/CT agree, adjusting off of the CEM 3512 weight value is not a problem for the mix verification. The changes to HWT test procedure 6.5 ± .5 should take care of the variability in air voids concerns referenced by Industry.

11. 5. 1. 5. Caltrans: We need to share this information with the Districts for implementation. 11. 5. 1. 6. Pascal M. will work on language capturing the proposed changes and send to Al

O. and Al V. for review. 11. 5. 2. 06/14/2016

11. 5. 2. 1. Pascal will follow up with comments.

12. 11 #90 Requirement that binder labs for RAP be IA certified for blending charts. 12. 1. ISSUE: New specification language as part of RAP CPD requires IA certified binder labs. There are no

labs that have this certification. Caltrans has not developed a certification program for binder labs. 12. 2. PROPOSER: IN12. 3. RESOULTION: 12. 4. DATE: 12. 5. COMMENTS:

12. 5. 1. 09/09/201612. 5. 1. 1. IN: There are no IA certified binder labs in California. 12. 5. 1. 2. Does this apply to binder labs in other states?

12. 5. 2. 03/08/201712. 5. 2. 1. This is now included on all projects. The language is in the NSSP for RAP.12. 5. 2. 2. CT: provide update at next meeting

12. 5. 3. 04/11/2017


12. 5. 3. 1. CT: continuing discussions internally on how this will be implemented.12. 5. 3. 2. CT: PG binder grading12. 5. 3. 3. IA has not certified binder testing personnel12. 5. 3. 4. IN: Having this language in the specification when a certification protocol is not

developed is UNACCEPTABLE and contractors cannot meet this requirement.12. 5. 3. 5. IN: JVK and PI will develop issue document for presentation at next ATG

meeting.

13. 12 #20 Revisit RAP Reporting on CEM 3512 (September 25, 2014) 13. 1. ISSUE: On the CEM 3512 form Page 1, how has Caltrans addressed the use of 2 RAP products (only

one column to put data into). Is it their intent that this column would include the “mathematically” combined RAP?

13. 2. PROPOSER: IN13. 3. RESOLUTION: Sheet (page 4) added to calculate combined gradations for multiple RAP/RAS bins. This

information is used in the RAP/RAS combined gradation required on Page 1. Sheets added that calculate the individual RAP/RAS bin gradations.

13. 4. DATE: 07/26/201713. 5. Comments:

13. 5. 1. 07/23/2014 13. 5. 1. 1. CT: Scenario #1 - 2 RAP products in a mix - Contractor is using multiple piles

either course/fine or fine/fine, course/course etc.: Contractor will be required to designate the percentage use in the mix for each RAP product. Each RAP fraction will have its own Page 4 of the CEM 3512, and a combined RAP pile page 4. Grading factors will only be required for the combined sample. If more than one RAP pile is used at the same time, each RAP product will require its own feed and will have to meet MPQP requirements.

13. 5. 2. 09/25/2014 13. 5. 2. 1. Will the 3512 now have 2 page 4’s? (1 page for each for CT 384) 13. 5. 2. 2. CT: No it will not. 13. 5. 2. 3. CT: Each stockpile stands on its own if you are augmenting the stockpiles. If the

pile is not static, each stockpile will be treated as an individual. For mix design, the contractor may do a combined sample for CT 384 or the contractor may treat each stockpile as an individual and mathematically combine the results for CT 384.

13. 5. 2. 4. IN: Where does the contractor show the blending sheet for the mathematically combined correction factors?

13. 5. 2. 5. CT comment: This will be on the backup sheet to Page 4. 13. 5. 3. 10/21/2014

13. 5. 3. 1. CT working on this. 13. 5. 4. 11/14/2014

13. 5. 4. 1. Still working on it. 13. 5. 5. 12/17/2014

13. 5. 5. 1. Caltrans still working on it. This will be an RSS.13. 5. 5. 2. Industry wants to make sure this is now addressing RAS as well as multiple RAP.

13. 5. 6. 01/23/2015 13. 5. 6. 1. CT is working through a set of batch sheets – there are also proposed changes

to 3512 which will be reviewed here in the Feb mtg.13. 5. 7. 02/19/2015

13. 5. 7. 1. CT continues to work through the batch sheets. Ultimately they want to have a “one-stop” single document. This is to be done and posted by the end of March.

13. 5. 8. 03/18/2015 13. 5. 8. 1. Industry comment: Should come out with RAS CPD

13. 5. 9. 04/09/2015


13. 5. 9. 1. Waiting on METS to complete CEM revisions.13. 5. 10. 05/21/2015

13. 5. 10. 1. Changes to 3512 are being held up by changes in RAP/RAS revisions. Caltrans reports they are still working on the RAP/RAS package for CPD. Industry reports this lack of a CPD is posing a hardship on RAS suppliers, and some are going out of business.

13. 5. 11. 06/25/2015 13. 5. 11. 1. Still waiting for the revised forms. Revision to RAP/RAS specs may require

additional changes to the CEM forms. 13. 5. 12. 07/22/2015

13. 5. 12. 1. Still waiting for the forms.13. 5. 13. 09/30/2015

13. 5. 13. 1. CT: We will complete the revision of the forms after resolution of the RAP/RAS specification revisions.

13. 5. 14. 10/23/2015 13. 5. 14. 1. CT: We have draft revisions on the forms which were routed to industry.

Comments were received. We will meet with the forms group to get the changes implemented. Pete will send the comments from Audrie to Caltrans stakeholders. Al will forward this to the DME’s. .

13. 5. 15. 12/02/2015 13. 5. 15. 1. CT: Industry had an opportunity to comment. They provided comments. The

comments will be incorporated into the forms and CT will send out for review. 13. 5. 16. 02/23/2016

13. 5. 16. 1. Industry is waiting for the forms to be out for review. 13. 5. 16. 2. Caltrans will check on the status of the forms.

13. 5. 17. 03/17/2016 13. 5. 17. 1. No new information.

13. 5. 18. 01/11/2017 13. 5. 18. 1. CEM 3512 Form is in still in Forms Department. Pete will give update at next

meeting. 13. 5. 19. 02/15/2017

13. 5. 19. 1. Issues editing the existing forms. Will need to rewrite form13. 5. 20. 04/11/2017

13. 5. 20. 1. Comments received on revised Form CEM 351213. 5. 20. 1.1. Page 1 of 15 – Target Value Limits column, why is this here? We

provide this information on the CEM 3511 page 2, it is unnecessary13. 5. 20. 1.2. Page 4 of 15 – RAP/RAS Evaluation….We are currently required to show

the 3 individual RAP extractions and Ignitions for correlation, based upon this new form we would only be presenting the Average or the 3 samples. Some producers don’t use multiple RAP and or RAS, I think this form convolutes the JMF design information and can see potential issues with District labs and or RE’s that don’t understand the specification to interpret this page and information the wrong way

13. 5. 20. 1.3. Pages 10 through 15 – All the RAP/RAS and basically “Laboratory batch cards” Last time I checked, Caltrans “Verifies” the JMF based upon Plant produced material, why are we providing them batch cards? The district labs should be able to create their own batch cards for correction factors as their personnel should be certified in CT 382/ AASHTO T308. This is just more unnecessary paperwork that will potentially create issues for both Caltrans and Industry

13. 5. 20. 1.4. On page 8 of the CEM 3512, we need to have the compaction temperature instead of “mixing compaction temperature”, we should also have


more space for RHMA-G mix designs to include the pressure, holding time etc. in addition to the gyrations as the normal type A mixes

13. 5. 20. 1.5. Page 4 of 15: the word “RAP” is missing from the first column 13. 5. 20. 1.6. Page 8 of 15: instead of “mixing compaction temperature”, maybe it’s

better to use “HMA compaction temp.” or “mix Compaction Temp.”13. 5. 20. 1.7. Page 9 of 15: The Unit Weight Graph, the Y-Axis should be corrected,

numbers should be above 100 pcf. So, the “1” is missing.13. 5. 20. 1.8. 15 pgs seriously? We need to limit the information required to be

submitted. 13. 5. 20. 1.9. This form should auto fill. The 3511 should also go back to 2 pgs not 4

13. 5. 20. 2. IN: concern with additional pages added to document. Pgs 10-12 seem unnecessary/superfluous. Pgs 13-15 are data from LP9 (typically supplied through addendum to JMF submittal)

13. 5. 20. 3. IN: Will resend to industry stakeholders for additional comments13. 5. 21. 07/26/2017

13. 5. 21. 1. CT/IN: Forms were reviewed by RAP/RAS STG. Page 4 and pages 13-15, the calculation pages related to determining individual bin gradations for RAP and RAS bins, are acceptable to the RAP/RAS STG.

13. 5. 21. 2. Need to discuss batching sheets from 384. 13. 5. 21. 2.1. IN: not necessary to have these sheets. Recommend removal from CEM

351213. 5. 21. 3. CT/IN: Agree that the batching pages (pages 10-12) are unnecessary and agree

to remove the pages from CEM 351213. 5. 21. 4. CT/IN: Additional Form Revisions (Draft Copy – 20170313 Draft CEM 3512)

13. 5. 21. 4.1. Create auto-calc/populate for RAP/RAS pages (new10-new12→4→1)13. 5. 21. 4.2. Remove batching sheets (draft pgs 10-12)s 13. 5. 21. 4.3. Remove “target value limits” columns from page 113. 5. 21. 4.4. Re-label “Combined Gradation (JMF Target Value)” column on page 1 as

“Combined Gradation”13. 5. 21. 4.5. .

13. 5. 21. 5. CT/IN: Additional Form Revisions (CEM 3511)13. 5. 21. 5.1. “Specification Limits (JMF Target Value + Tolerance)” column on page 2

as “Target Value Limits”13. 5. 21. 5.2. CT/IN: combine page 2 and 4 into a revised page 2.

13. 5. 21. 6. CT: make form revisions and distribute to group for review..

14. 13 #06 How do we measure temperature in windrows and behind pavers? 14. 1. ISSUE: Need to develop a protocol for determining the temperature in windrows and behind the paver14. 2. PROPOSER: CT/IN14. 3. RESOULTION:14. 4. DATE:14. 5. Comments:

14. 5. 1. Initial windrow language - From the windrow:

Measure 1.5 (+/- 3inches) foot up the angled face of the windrow.

With a shovel remove approximately 6 inches of material from the angled face of the windrow producing a 90 degree face in the horizontal and vertical directions.

Insert a probe thermometer calibrated to an NIST traceable thermometer. A digital or analog probe thermometer may be used. Insert the probe into the intersection of the vertical and horizontal faces. The thermometer probe must be inserted a minimum of 4 inches into the windrow.


Accomplish all testing within 5 minutes of removing material from angled face of windrow.14. 5. 2. 12/17/2014

14. 5. 2. 1. Industry has concern about the type of thermometers used when checking temperature of the mat. What type of sensor is best? This is an ongoing discussion. CT will come up with a procedure to check temperature at the mat and will review at the January 2015 meeting.

14. 5. 3. 01/23/2015 14. 5. 3. 1. Procedure is in CTM 125 -. CT will come up with a procedure to check

temperature at the mat and will review at the Feb 19 2015 meeting. 14. 5. 4. 02/19/2015

14. 5. 4. 1. With intelligent compaction, surface temperature is used. Industry wants to have temperature at the mat checked at mid depth, not surface.

14. 5. 4. 2. Caltrans will draft a procedure next week and send it out. 14. 5. 5. 04/9/2015

14. 5. 5. 1. CT has changed spec lanquage: Do not open new HMA to traffic untill the mid depth temperature is below 160 F. See 39-1.03 O (1)

14. 5. 6. 05/21/2015 14. 5. 6. 1. Still waiting for these changes relating to temperature to be posted.14. 5. 6. 2. Windrow length change was posted on 10/17/2014, per Caltrans.

14. 5. 7. 06/25/2015 14. 5. 7. 1. Industry wants to go back to surface temperature at the mat for “open to traffic”

requirement only. 14. 5. 7. 2. Kee Foo will check with Joe P on this to see if there is a procedure for checking

the mat temperature at mid depth for rolling temperature. This issue needs to be resolved- we need a procedure.

14. 5. 8. 07/22/2015 14. 5. 8. 1. IN: What do we do with a thin lift? 14. 5. 8. 2. IN: There needs to be a procedure drafted up for districts. How will Caltrans

inspectors verify the procedure is being followed for measuring mid depth temperature? How would Caltrtans inspectors ensure compliance?

14. 5. 8. 3. Industry would like this mid-depth temperature to also apply to method spec compaction.

14. 5. 8. 4. Caltrans will take this comment forward and report back with approval or denial. 14. 5. 8. 5. Industry suggestion: How about using surface temperature, and only if that is not

good, they have to verify the temperature at mid depth, for “Open to traffic?” We would still need to have a method for mid-depth temperature measurement. How would Caltrans inspectors ensure compliance?

14. 5. 8. 6. Industry and Caltrans (Brandon and Audrie) will form a small group to work on mid-depth temperature measurement procedure.

14. 5. 9. 08/25/2015 14. 5. 9. 1. Industry concern is that, while the procedure is very comprehensive, the

procedure is overly complicated and not reasonable to apply in the field. 14. 5. 10. 09/30/2015

14. 5. 10. 1. Jack and Brandon will revise the temperature procedure and present at the next meeting.

14. 5. 11. 02-23-2016 14. 5. 11. 1. Jack and Brandon will revise the temperature procedure and present at the next

meeting. 14. 5. 12. 01/11/2017

14. 5. 12. 1. Tony will share proposed revised temp procedure with group14. 5. 13. 07/26/2017


14. 5. 13. 1. CT: need to include thermal “gun” in windrow temperature procedure.

15. 14 #96 Method specifications need to be revised IN. (Small Group formed 03/08/2017). 15. 1. ISSUE: The number of passes, placement temperature, and requirements for rubber tire rollers need to

be modified to reflect the use of WMA, Intelligent compaction, modified binder including polymer modified and RHMA.


15. 5. 1. 12/14/2016 15. 5. 1. 1. IN: The number of passes, placement temperature, and requirements for rubber

tire rollers need to be modified to reflect the use of WMA, Intelligent compaction, modified binder including polymer modified and RHMA.

15. 5. 1. 2. IN: Industry recommends a small working group be formed to work through the concerns with the current Method specification requirements

15. 5. 2. 03/08/201715. 5. 2. 1. CT/IN: form small working group to identify areas in the Method Specification that

need modifying and to propose changes for consideration. Pete and Phil to lead the charge.

15. 6. ISSUE: Section 39-2.01D(2)(b) versus Section 39—2.01D(2)(c) – in regards to RAP moisture content testing and the frequency. The first section has footnote d which indicates RAP moisture content is to be conducted every 750 tons and the 2nd section indicates moisture content for RAP to be tested at least twice daily. Which is required frequency?


15. 10. 1. 01/11/2017


15. 10. 1. 1. Section 39-2.01D(2)(b) versus Section 39—2.01D(2)(c) – in regards to RAP moisture content testing and the frequency. The first section has footnote d which indicates RAP moisture content is to be conducted every 750 tons and the 2nd section indicates moisture content for RAP to be tested at least twice daily. Which is required frequency?


15. 10. 1. 2. Kee will look at revising spec to make requirements consistent15. 10. 2. 07/25/2017

15. 10. 2. 1. Group met to discuss15. 10. 2. 2. CT: Issue on a project in relation to asphalt rubber overlays (0.1’) constructed

under method requirements. CT planned to conduct test section in 2016 construction season before group was formed to identify any Statewide issues..

15. 10. 2. 3. IN: Concern with CT working on their own to address concerns with existing Section 39 specifications without working through Rock Products Committee.

15. 10. 2. 4. CT: provided information to working group for input on test section work plan.15. 10. 2. 5. CT: Will share information and plan with group when project complete15. 10. 2. 6. CT: Test sections expected to construct early August]15. 10. 2. 7. Working group scheduled to meet on August 14th.


16. 15 #89 Contractor submitting same JMF on multiple projects after 2 failed verification to avoid paying for additional verifications

16. 1. ISSUE: Contractor submitting same JMF on multiple projects after 2 failed verification to avoid paying for additional verifications

16. 2. PROPOSER: CT16. 3. RESOULTION: 16. 4. DATE: 16. 5. COMMENTS:

16. 5. 1. 09/20/201616. 5. 1. 1. I’ll would like to discuss this issue at the next STG meeting. I think there is a

loophole in the Standard Spec’s that some contractors are taking advantage of it. Basically, contractor submits his HMA JMF for verification, and fails the first trial We allow the contractor to submit the JMF for second trial, with or with adjustment, and it fails the 2nd trial as well. At this point, contractor cannot submit the same mix for 3rd trial, and instead has to re-design the mix all over again. At this point, what some contractors are doing is the following: 1)When the 2nd trial fails, they submit the same mix under a new EA#, so that it doesn’t appear as if he’s submitting the same mix under the same EA# for a 3rd trial, for which he’s not allowed to do so, 2) So for the RE of the new EA#, it appears to him as if the mix has been submitted for the first time, 3) By doing this, the contractor will get away by: 1) Not paying the $3,000 for verifying a JMF more than twice, 2) Not designing a new mix after the first 2 trials have failed Let me know your thoughts - Kee Foo

16. 5. 1. 2. CT: add language cannot submit the same mix design (product ID #) after second failed verification in the specs.

16. 5. 1. 3. Venu will proposed language at next meeting.16. 5. 2. 11/16/2016

16. 5. 2. 1. CT: Proposed language is “For each HMA/RHMA/WMA type and aggregate size specified, the Engineer verifies up to two proposed JMF submittals including a JMF adjusted after verification failures. If you submit more than two 2 JMF for each type of HMA and aggregate size, the Engineer deducts (proposed $7,000) from the payment for each verification exceeding this limit. You cannot submit the same mix design (producer id) the third time, the mix has to be redesigned and submitted with a new CEM 3511 and CEM 3512. The Engineer deducts the (proposed $7000) for the third and subsequent submittals. You are not allowed to submit the two timed failed JMF in future on any projects.” to replace current specs language (see below)

16. 5. 2. 2. “For each HMA type and aggregate size specified, the Engineer verifies up to 2 proposed JMF submittals including a JMF adjusted after verification failure. If you submit more than 2 JMFs for each type of HMA and aggregate size, the Engineer deducts $3,000 from payments for each verification exceeding this limit. This deduction does not apply to verifications initiated by the Engineer or if a JMF expires while HMA production is stopped longer than 30 days.”

17. 16 #62 Standardize the way GSE is calculated 17. 1. ISSUE: Some districts use the binder content and GMM from the LP-9 provided in the mix design. Other

districts run their own GMM on RAP samples obtained at the time of mix verification but use the binder content from the LP-9. This is apples and oranges. We need to standardize this procedure.

17. 2. PROPOSER: IN17. 3. RESOULTION: 17. 4. DATE: 17. 5. Comments:

17. 5. 1. 09/30/2015


17. 5. 1. 1. Industry comment: Some districts use the binder content and GMM from the LP-9 provided in the mix design. Other districts run their own GMM on RAP samples obtained at the time of mix verification but use the binder content from the LP-9. This is apples and oranges. We need to standardize this procedure.

17. 5. 1. 2. Caltrans agrees that there should be a consistent method to come up with the GSE value. The RAP GMM and the RAP binder content need to be from the same sample.

17. 5. 1. 3. CT will look into this and respond at the next meeting. 17. 5. 2. 10/23/2015

17. 5. 2. 1. For up to 15% RAP use GMM from LP-9. Above 15% to a maximum of 25% RAP, use GMM from Contractor Production Testing. Industry needs to look at this and blue it at next meeting.

17. 5. 3. 12/09/2015 17. 5. 3. 1. Industry comment: Unless augmenting the pile use the GMM from LP-9. When

using 15% or greater RAP, if augmenting the pile use GMM from Contractor Production Testing.

17. 5. 4. 01/05/2016 17. 5. 4. 1. CT will look at modifying LP-9 or creating a new LP for mix design calculations.

This may include any calculation relating to mix design. We will work with the owner of LP-9 to get this done.

17. 5. 5. 08/18/2016 17. 5. 5. 1. CT: We need to standardize the binder content used to determine the volumetric

properties for JMF verification. CT proposal: a) use the RAP binder content from the most recent ASTM 2172 from CEM 3512 Page 4 of 9. B) Contractor submits RAP, CT runs the GMM and the gradation after burn, for use in volumetric calculations. C) Use the % passing No. 4 sieve from ASTM D 2172 to calculate the volumetrics

17. 5. 5. 2. CT Proposes: For HMA the value used for the No. 4 sieve is obtained from CEM 3511 page 2 of 4 for volumetric calculations.

17. 5. 6. 11/16/2016 17. 5. 6. 1. CT/IN: Comments from 08-18-16 should be captured in CT 384.

17. 5. 7. 12/14/2016 17. 5. 7. 1. CT/IN agree for HMA the value used for the No. 4 sieve is obtained from CEM

3511 page 2 of 4 for volumetric calculations. CT will determine how this change will be implemented (who and how at CT)

17. 5. 7. 2. CT will check to see who owns CT-384.17. 5. 8. 03/08/2017

17. 5. 8. 1. CT: Venu to create draft and distribute to group and send to METS for change. 17. 5. 9. 04/11/2017

17. 5. 9. 1. Waiting for draft from Venu17. 5. 9. 2. KF to follow-up with Venu.

18. 17 #78 When determining density on multiple lifts is density required on both lifts or can the contractor split the lifts and test each lift separately?

18. 1. ISSUE: When determining density on multiple lifts is density required on both lifts or can the contractor split the lifts and test each lift separately



18. 5. 1. 06/14/2016 18. 5. 1. 1. IN: It appears that the specifications require the density to be run on the entire

lift. Industry will discuss and provide comments at next meeting. 18. 6. ISSUE: Does the mixes requiring a maximum dry strength apply ONLY to >15% RAP mixes?18. 7. PROPOSER: IN18. 8. RESOULTION: 18. 9. DATE: 18. 10. COMMENTS:

18. 10. 1. 08/18/201618. 10. 1. 1. Per the RAP/RAS STG the dry tensile strength requirement will only apply to

mixes using PG 70 or above when the RAP content is >15%.18. 10. 2. 02/15/2017

18. 10. 2. 1. Based on review of 08/18/2016 notes from RAP/RAS group, the discussion was related to RAP mixes with lime.

18. 10. 2. 2. CT: dry strength max of 300psi will apply to mixes with >15% RAP, regardless of binder grade.

18. 10. 2. 3. CT: will provide proposed changes to reflect that max 300 only applies to mixes with >15% RAP by next meeting (03/08/17)

18. 10. 3. 04/11/201718. 10. 3. 1. CT – This requirement applies to ALL mixes18. 10. 3. 2. IN – This requirement was implemented as part of the stop-gap measure for RAP

mixes >15%. There was NO discussion related to the implementation of this requirement for ALL mixes

18. 10. 3. 3. Tony L and Pascal M will draft document outlining issue for 300max on ALL mixes (not just >15%RAP) for submittal to ATG on April 17th.

19. 18 #74 D-10 allowing either 3/8” HMA-A or ½” RHMA-G in Lifts 0.10’ in non- exclusionary locations (10-1E0004 and 10-1E4104). They should be using 1/2” RHMA –G (Comment from 02-23-2016)

19. 1. ISSUE: D-10 allowing either 3/8” HMA-A or ½” RHMA-G in Lifts 0.10’ in non- exclusionary locations (10-1E0004 and 10-1E4104). They should be using 1/2” RHMA –G


19. 5. 1. 04/12/2016 19. 5. 1. 1. Caltrans (Pete Spector) will look into this to see if the District is following the

RHMA guidelines and report back at next meeting. 19. 5. 2. 03/08/3017

19. 5. 2. 1. ACTION CT: Will need to determine what guidance allows project to design different mix in non-exclusionary location? (PS)

20. 19 #88 Heating upper plate in AASHTO T 312 20. 1. ISSUE: Should CT require the heating of the upper plate of the gyratory compactor20. 2. PROPOSER: IN20. 3. RESOULTION: 20. 4. DATE:


20. 5. COMMENTS:20. 5. 1. 09/20/2016

20. 5. 1. 1. IN: A question arose regarding the requirement to heat the upper plate on gyratory compactors that have removable upper plates (such as Pine). As you can see from the language in AASHTO T 312 (below) the heating of the upper plate is not mentioned for HMA Mixture Preparation for Laboratory Prepared or Plant Produced material. However under Section 9 COMPACTION PROCEDURE it allows the upper plate to be heated (if required). Apparently most contractors heat the upper plate while most Caltrans labs do not (including Translab). Jack and I had a STG meeting with METS this afternoon and we ask Caltrans for clarification on this concern. Caltrans position is the upper plate is only heated if required by the owner. Caltrans does not require the upper plate to be heated therefore the requirement is to follow the test procedure and forgo heating the upper plate. This is the direction Translab is giving to the Districts.

Laboratory Prepared

8.1.6. Place the compaction mold(s) and base plate(s) in an oven at the required compaction temperature for a minimum of 30 min prior to the estimated beginning of compaction (during the time the mixture is being conditioned in accordance with R 30).

Plant Produced

8.2.1. Place the compaction mold(s) and base plates(s) in an oven at the required compaction temperature (see Section 8.1.7.1).

From: Metcalfe, Ross (Oak) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 11:19 AMTo: Malusky Katheryn; Milburn Greg; Schmidt, John; Evan Rothblatt; Jamshidi MostafaCc: Barnhart, Tracy; Sonya PuterbaughSubject: Re: Clarification of T 312-4

All, Just so you know I'm working on this, I spoke with Matt Corrigan of the FHWA Asphalt Trailer this week at the ETG about this standard. I believe the "if required" clause is in there because not all superpave gyratory compactors use a top plate. The Pine Brovold model uses a mold with a top and bottom plate but the Pine AFG2 model uses a "mold top" not a plate, that is screwed down. I am attempting to confirm this but I have to look back through the previous versions of the standard to be sure. Regards, Oak MetcalfeProportioning of Asphalt Aggregate Mixtures Chairman

From: Schmidt, John [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 7:47 PM


mailto:[email protected]


To: Malusky Katheryn <[email protected]>Subject: FW: Clarification of T 312-4

Previous email referred to you for help. Can you please help with clarification of wording as described in email below or direct me to some that might? - John Schmidt

Dave Savage with Pine will check with their engineers and offer an opinion. Right now they don't suggest anything. He will call me tomorrow.Pascal MascarenhasFrom: Metcalfe, Ross (Oak) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 2:26 PMTo: Schmidt, JohnCc: [email protected]; Katheryn Malusky @ Work; Evan Rothblatt; Sonya Puterbaugh; Tracy BarnhartSubject: AASHTO T 312

Mr. Schmidt,

This is to follow up on my previous email. I have reached out to the Technical Section in regard to your question and everyone is in agreement the “(if required)” in sections 9.1 and 9.2 is referring to the fact that not all gyratory compactors use a top plate. The intent is to make sure all the surfaces are at the proper compaction temperature. Therefore, if you are using a model such as the Pine AFGB1 “Brovold” model the top plate would be required.

I hope that answers your question but please let me know if you need further info.

Best regards,

Ross “Oak” Metcalfe, P.E.

Testing Engineer/Physical Test Section Supervisor

Materials Bureau

406-444-9201

[email protected]

20. 5. 2. 11/16/2016 20. 5. 2. 1. CT/IN: The STG agreed that if the top plate is removable, it must be heated to

the compaction temperature per e-mail above. If the top plate cannot be removed, Contractor must advise Engineer in writing so that Engineer’s top plate will not be heated.

20. 5. 2. 2. Recommendation will be made to Tim (METS) to issue a memo to District labs and made changes to the test method on this, if METS agreed with this recommendation

20. 5. 3. July 26, 201720. 5. 3. 1. Waiting for response from METS.

21. 20 #52 Should the aggregate crush count requirement be revised in light of the HWT requirements?

21. 1. ISSUE: Are the required aggregate crush counts necessary since HWT required?21. 2. PROPOSER: IN21. 3. RESOULTION:






21. 4. DATE: 21. 5. Comments:

21. 5. 1. 08/25/2015 21. 5. 1. 1. Caltrans will not allow reduction in the crush count at this time.

21. 5. 2. 06/14/16 21. 5. 2. 1. IN/CT Tim Denlay we will do a AASHTO Materials survey to determine what

other DOT’s are requiring for crush counts. 21. 5. 3. 01/11/2017

21. 5. 3. 1. Tim Denlay will provide questions for the survey to Kee before next meeting21. 5. 4. 03/08/2017

21. 5. 4. 1. Draft questions for fractured faces. We can discuss/ edit during tomorrow’s meeting.21. 5. 4. 1.1. What is your State’s current HMA aggregate requirement for 1 and 2

fractured faces (AASHTO T 335)? 1-fractured face____, 2-fractured face_____. What method in T335 do you use, Method 1 or 2? If you do not use T335, please provide a copy of your test method. If your State’s crushed count differs from Superpave recommendation (Asphalt Institute MS-2) for more than 30 million ESALs, please provide the justification for the change.

21. 5. 4. 1.2. Does the fractured face requirement change for HMA sections below the surface course or for different types/levels of mix. yes/no If yes please explain

21. 5. 4. 1.3. Is the fractured face requirement for mix design only or also for production. Mix design yes/no Production yes/no If for production, what is the frequency of testing?

21. 5. 4. 1.4. Do you run HWT AASHTO T 324? yes/no If yes, have you modified the T 324 test method? yes/no If yes, please explain

21. 5. 4. 1.5. During implementation of T324, did you change the aggregate crushed count criteria? yes/no/NA If yes please explain.

21. 5. 4. 2. ACTION CT: KF will provide questions to CT AASHTO representative for distribution to the proper group for replies/comments

21. 5. 5. 04/11/201721. 5. 5. 1. ACTION CT: KF will provide questions to CT AASHTO representative for

distribution to the proper group for replies/comments21. 5. 5. 2. CT submitted questions to CT AASHTO rep for distribution.

22. 21 #60 Define the parameters for Minor HMA (less than 1000 tons, 500 tons etc.) (5/20/2014 Comment, reinstated 8/25/2015)

22. 1. ISSUE: Define the parameters for Minor HMA (less than 1000 tons, 500 tons etc.)22. 2. PROPOSER: IN22. 3. RESOULTION: 22. 4. DATE: 22. 5. Comments:

22. 5. 1. 05/20/2014


22. 5. 1. 1. CT will put out a DIB defining what minor HMA is. (will be 1000 tons total project paving or less)

22. 5. 1. 2. CT will send out a note to the DME’s on this. 22. 5. 1. 3. Check with your DME for appropriate use of minor HMA. 22. 5. 1. 4. Industry: Minor HMA will also require gradation, AC Content, air void, VMA, and

field compaction. Since only Hamburg and TSR strength are waived it will also require a job mix formula verification if one does not have one. Was this discussed during the superpave meetings?

22. 5. 1. 5. CT Response: Yes. Acceptance is based on production.22. 5. 1. 6. Industry wants to take a look at minor HMA in regards to density requirements. 22. 5. 1. 7. CT response: Please bring specific items back so we can address them.

22. 5. 2. 06/20/2014 22. 5. 2. 1. CT: DME’s got a notice on minors, defining what a minor HMA project is - – This

was sent out via e mail to all district materials engineers. I22. 5. 3. 07/23/2014

22. 5. 3. 1. Industry would like to have something in hand to show to DME’s if this comes up, i.e. DIB. Some sort of document – formalizing this. Is CT putting out a DIB? Can we have a copy of Joe’s e mail? Please make sure industry gets a copy of the DIB when it goes out.

22. 5. 4. 08/13/2014 22. 5. 4. 1. Joe’s e mail was sent to the group. A DIB will be going out in the future. CT

recommends that industry use a copy of Joe’s e mail in the interim. 22. 5. 4. 2. Industry comment: The DIB is important to us so we can show it to the DME’s.

22. 5. 5. 08/25/2015 22. 5. 5. 1. Industry is waiting for the DIB

22. 5. 6. 10/23/2015 22. 5. 6. 1. Nothing new to report.

22. 5. 7. 01/05/2016 22. 5. 7. 1. Kee Foo will pursue getting a DIB out on this.

22. 6. ISSUE: Requiring the QC plan to be provided with the mix design can be problematic.22. 7. PROPOSER: IN22. 8. RESOULTION: 22. 9. DATE: 22. 10. Comments:

22. 10. 1. 08/25/2015 22. 10. 1. 1. Requiring the QC plan to be provided with the mix design can be problematic.

Often times the contractor does not know who is going to provide the QC testing at the time the mix design is submitted. Can we have the contractor identify the AMRL laboratory with the mix design and have a separate requirement for the QC plan, i.e. “XX days prior to construction submit your QC plan for review?

22. 10. 2. 09/30/2015 22. 10. 2. 1. Industry would like to have the requirement for the QC Plan submittal identifying

who will be on the job to provide QC testing separated from the mix design submittal to address this.

22. 10. 2. 2. CT would like to keep the QC plan and the JMF submittal separated. 39-1-01-c(3) needs to be changed to accommodate this. This would require a modification of the JMF Certification check-off.

22. 10. 2. 3. Industry is suggesting the changes to the spec, for CT to review. (See below.) 39-1.01C(2) Job Mix Formula


39-1.01C(2)(a) General

Except for the HMA to be used in miscellaneous areas and dikes, submit your proposed JMF for each type of HMA to be used. The JMF must be submitted on the Contractor Job Mix Formula Proposal form along with:

1. Mix design documentation on Contractor Hot Mix Asphalt Design Data form dated within 12 months of submittal

2. JMF verification on a Caltrans Hot Mix Asphalt Verification form, if applicable

3. JMF renewal on a Caltrans Job Mix Formula Renewal form, if applicable

4. MSDS for:

4.1. Asphalt binder

4.2. Supplemental fine aggregate except fines from dust collectors

4.3. Antistrip additives

The Contractor Hot Mix Asphalt Design Data form must identify the AMRL-accredited lab responsible for the mix design and show documentation on aggregate quality.

39-1.01C(3) Quality Control PlanWith your proposed JMF submittal, At least 5 days prior to the pre-paving meeting submit a QC plan for HMA.

The QC plan must describe the organization ad procedure for:

1. Controlling HMA quality characteristics

2. Taking samples, including sampling locations

3. Establishing, implementing, and maintaining QC

4. Determining when corrective actions are needed

5. Implementing corrective actions

6. Methods and materials for backfilling core locations

22. 10. 2. 4. Caltrans will review and comment at the next meeting.22. 10. 3. 10/23/2015

22. 10. 3. 1. CT needs to say that the QC plan needs to be approved and distributed prior to the pre-paving meeting. Caltrans is still looking into the proposed language revision.

22. 10. 4. 01/05/2016


22. 10. 4. 1. IN: “The contractor will provide the name of the qualified laboratory and other pertinent information required with the mix design submittal.”

22. 10. 4. 2. IN: “The contractor will provide the Quality Control Plan at least five days prior to the pre-paving meeting.”

22. 10. 4. 3. “The engineer reviews the QC plan within five business days from the submittal.”

23. 22 #70 CT prioritization of failed JMF verifications (Comment from 12-02-2015) 23. 1. ISSUE: CT prioritization of failed JMF verifications23. 2. PROPOSER: CT 23. 3. RESOULTION: 23. 4. DATE: 23. 5. COMMENTS:

23. 5. 1. 12/02/2015 23. 5. 1. 1. CT: Priority should be given to other projects following two failed JMF

verifications. 23. 5. 2. 01/05/2016

23. 5. 2. 1. Caltrans proposes to add language for handling projects with a failed JMF as a lower priority than other projects. Failed JMF would result in that project going to the back of the line for verification.

23. 5. 2. 2. IN: Industry opposes this change. This means projects having trouble will continue to have problems with mix approval. This would result in more claims. Problems with the plant, the stockpile or whatever are not mix design failures – We just have to be sure we can duplicate the mix at the production plant. Industry believes this is NOT a statewide issue.

23. 5. 3. 04/12/2016 23. 5. 3. 1. CT/Industry Change two attempts to three attempts before a new mix design is

required. Kee will draft language and share at next meeting.23. 5. 4. 06/14/2016

23. 5. 4. 1. CT: Kee will follow up at next meeting23. 5. 5. 12/14/2016

23. 5. 5. 1. CT: No progress. Kee will follow up at next meeting.

24. 23 #77 ±5 percent RAP tolerance when using less than 15% RAP 24. 1. ISSUE: Does the specification still allow +/-5% tolerance for <15% RAP mixes?24. 2. PROPOSER: IN24. 3. RESOULTION: 24. 4. DATE: 24. 5. COMMENTS:

24. 5. 1. 06/14/2016


24. 5. 1. 1. The 2010 Standard specs state the following: Assign the substitution rate of RAP aggregate for virgin aggregate with the JMF submittal. The JMF must include the percent of RAP used. If you change your assigned RAP aggregate substitution rate by more than 5 percent (within the 15.0 percent limit), submit a new JMF. The 2015 Standard specs doesn't specifically state any RAP tolerance for less than 15% RAP but states the following: 39-2.02B(5) Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement. You may substitute RAP for part of the virgin aggregate in a quantity up to 25 percent of the aggregate blend, and, 39-2.02B(11) Type A Hot Mix Asphalt Production. If RAP is used, the asphalt plant must automatically adjust the virgin asphalt binder to account for RAP percentage and RAP binder. During production, you may adjust hot- or cold-feed proportion controls for virgin aggregate and RAP. RAP must be within ±3 of RAP percentage described in your Contractor Job Mix Formula Proposal form without exceeding 25 percent.

24. 5. 1. 2. Caltrans will review SP/High RAP/RAS STG notes to determine why the specification tolerance was changed.

24. 5. 1. 3. IN: Brandon will share notes regarding this change with group.


group memory - dot.ca. web viewin the notes on page . 7. ... caltrans would like language in the...

Documents