Project Number: Document Date: June 20, Research on Joint Sealant Materials to Improve Installation and Performance

Transcription

1 Form ProjAgre (Rev. 5/2013) (RTI) RTI PROJECT AGREEMENT Between the Fiscal Year 2014 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND Research Project Texas Tech University Implementation Project (PERFORMING AGENCY/S ) Project Number: Document Date: June 20, 2014 Project Title: Research on Joint Sealant Materials to Improve Installation and Performance THIS PROJECT AGREEMENT is made pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Cooperative Research and Implementation Agreement(s) (CRIA) entered into by and between the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and Texas Tech University. This project agreement is under the terms of: CRIA Article 9A and is considered a part of the Annual Program. CRIA Article 9B and is considered an independent project. PART I. Project Description. The Performing Agency(s) will undertake and complete the project named above and as further described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part of this Project Agreement. Exhibit B must comply with the requirements of the most recent Research Manual. PART II. Project Duration and Performance Period. Continuation of the project beyond August 31 each year is subject to authorization by TxDOT and the availability of funds. TxDOT will notify the Performing Agency(s) of initial project approval and annual continuation approvals by Activation Letters. The Activation Letter will signify final approval and authorization to the Performing Agency(s) to initiate the work for a fiscal year. Each Activation Letter shall include the project activation date and shall be attached hereto and made a part of this agreement as if it had been attached at the time this Project Agreement is signed. The Activation Letters will specify the remaining project duration unless terminated in accordance with Article 29 of the CRIA. January 31, 2016 Project Termination Date PART III. Project Budget. The total estimated project cost, which includes all authorized direct and indirect costs which may be incurred by the Performing Agency(s), is shown below along with a breakdown by fiscal year and agency. Attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part of this agreement is an annual Itemized Budget for each Performing Agency which details approved project costs for each fiscal year of this project. Budget Breakdown FY Agency Budget FY Agency Budget (Attach an itemized budget 2014 $18,748 for each fiscal year 2015 $147,370 for each Performing Agency.) 2016 $37,166 Total Project Budget: $203,285 PART IV. Project Supervision. The Performing Agency Research Supervisor, whose agency shall be the lead agency, and other primary research staff are named below. Name Title Agency Phone No. Research Supervisor Moon Won Professor Moon.Won@ttu.edu Researcher or PI Sanjaya Senadheera Associate Professor Sanjaya.Senadheera@ttu.edu Researcher or PI Pangil Choi Postdoctoral Fellow Pangil.Choi@ttu.edu PART V. No Waiver. This Project Agreement does not waive the rights, responsibilities, and obligations provided each party under the CRIA and incorporates all the provisions of the CRIA as if set forth herein. 1 of 2

2 Form ProjAgre (Rev. 5/2013) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Project Agreement is hereby accepted and executed. Approved and Accepted by the Performing Agency: Kathleen Harris, Senior Associate VP for Research Texas Tech University Date: Approved and Accepted by TxDOT: Shannon Crum, Ph.D., Director Research and Technology Implementation Office Date: Texas Department of Transportation maintains the information collected through this form. With few exceptions, you are entitled on request to be informed about the information that we collect about you. Under and of the Texas Government Code, you also are entitled to receive and review the information. Under of the Government Code, you are also entitled to have us correct information about you that is incorrect. For inquiries call 512/ of 2

3 Itemized Budget - Exhibit A Form ExhA (Rev. 5/2013) (RTI) Project No: Fiscal Year: 2014 Agency: Texas Tech University Indirect Rate: 10% Revision Number: Revision Date: Estimated Itemization Total Budget Costs DIRECT COSTS Salaries & Wages (by category) list each Professional individually % of time* Professional (Combine all Professionals) $ 4,013 Moon Won 3% Subprofessional & Technical $ 6,000 Clerical (Non-routine) Total Salaries and Wages $ 10,013 Fringe Benefits (provide details at the University's option) $ 3,031 Total Fringe Benefits $ 3,031 Expendable Goods & Supplies (provide details at the University's option) Total Expendable Goods & Supplies Operating & Other Expenses Included in Modified Total Direct Costs In-State Travel $ 4,000 Out-of-State Travel Other Excluded from Modified Total Direct Costs ** Tuition (in lieu of partial or total salary) Other Total Operating & Other Expenses $ 4,000 Subcontracts ** (list each subcontractor separately, with a brief description of the work) Total Subcontracts Equipment (items $5,000 and over) ** (list each item separately) Total Equipment TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ 17,044 INDIRECT COSTS 10.00% (%) of Modified Total Direct Costs *** MTDC ** = $ 1,704 less University's Contribution TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO PROJECT (limited to Indirect Rate stated at top of page) $ 1,704 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 18,748 * Include estimated % of each Professional's time expected to be spent on this project during the period of this budget ** Calculate MTDC based on the University's negotiated (federal) F&A agreement. Per OMB Circular A-21, MTDC should never include, equipment, tuition remission, rental costs, scholarships and fellowships, and the portion of each subcontract over $25,000. *** Enter University's federally approved indirect cost rate % in blank. Form will calculate total, based on MTDC. Note: This electronic form contains formulas that may be corrupted when adding or deleting rows, or by conversion of the spreadsheet. The university is responsible for the accuracy of the budget submitted. 1 of 3

4 Itemized Budget - Exhibit A Form ExhA (Rev. 5/2013) (RTI) Project No: Fiscal Year: 2015 Agency: Texas Tech University Indirect Rate: 10% Revision Number: Revision Date: Estimated Itemization Total Budget Costs DIRECT COSTS Salaries & Wages (by category) list each Professional individually % of time* Professional (Combine all Professionals) $ 23,122 Moon Won 8% Subprofessional & Technical $ 37,080 Sanjaya Senadheera 8% Graduate Student $ 27,501 Total Salaries and Wages $ 87,703 Fringe Benefits (provide details at the University's option) $ 20,908 Total Fringe Benefits $ 20,908 Expendable Goods & Supplies (provide details at the University's option) $ 9,400 sealant and strain gages Total Expendable Goods & Supplies $ 9,400 Operating & Other Expenses Included in Modified Total Direct Costs In-State Travel $ 4,500 Out-of-State Travel Other $ 3,222 test-related materials Excluded from Modified Total Direct Costs ** Tuition (in lieu of partial or total salary) $ 9,064 Other Total Operating & Other Expenses $ 16,786 Subcontracts ** (list each subcontractor separately, with a brief description of the work) Total Subcontracts Equipment (items $5,000 and over) ** (list each item separately) Total Equipment TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ 134,797 INDIRECT COSTS 10.00% (%) of Modified Total Direct Costs *** MTDC ** = $ 12,573 less University's Contribution TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO PROJECT (limited to Indirect Rate stated at top of page) $ 12,573 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 147,370 * Include estimated % of each Professional's time expected to be spent on this project during the period of this budget ** Calculate MTDC based on the University's negotiated (federal) F&A agreement. Per OMB Circular A-21, MTDC should never include, equipment, tuition remission, rental costs, scholarships and fellowships, and the portion of each subcontract over $25,000. *** Enter University's federally approved indirect cost rate % in blank. Form will calculate total, based on MTDC. Note: This electronic form contains formulas that may be corrupted when adding or deleting rows, or by conversion of the spreadsheet. The university is responsible for the accuracy of the budget submitted. 2 of 3

5 Itemized Budget - Exhibit A Form ExhA (Rev. 5/2013) (RTI) Project No: Fiscal Year: 2016 Agency: Texas Tech University Indirect Rate: 10% Revision Number: Revision Date: Estimated Itemization Total Budget Costs DIRECT COSTS Salaries & Wages (by category) list each Professional individually % of time* Professional (Combine all Professionals) Subprofessional & Technical $ 12,731 Graduate Student $ 10,622 Total Salaries and Wages $ 23,353 Fringe Benefits (provide details at the University's option) $ 5,550 Total Fringe Benefits $ 5,550 Expendable Goods & Supplies (provide details at the University's option) Total Expendable Goods & Supplies Operating & Other Expenses Included in Modified Total Direct Costs In-State Travel $ 1,800 Out-of-State Travel Other Excluded from Modified Total Direct Costs ** Tuition (in lieu of partial or total salary) $ 3,393 Other $ - Total Operating & Other Expenses $ 5,193 Subcontracts ** (list each subcontractor separately, with a brief description of the work) Total Subcontracts Equipment (items $5,000 and over) ** (list each item separately) Total Equipment TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ 34,096 INDIRECT COSTS 10.00% (%) of Modified Total Direct Costs *** MTDC ** = $ 3,070 less University's Contribution TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO PROJECT (limited to Indirect Rate stated at top of page) $ 3,070 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 37,166 * Include estimated % of each Professional's time expected to be spent on this project during the period of this budget ** Calculate MTDC based on the University's negotiated (federal) F&A agreement. Per OMB Circular A-21, MTDC should never include, equipment, tuition remission, rental costs, scholarships and fellowships, and the portion of each subcontract over $25,000. *** Enter University's federally approved indirect cost rate % in blank. Form will calculate total, based on MTDC. Note: This electronic form contains formulas that may be corrupted when adding or deleting rows, or by conversion of the spreadsheet. The university is responsible for the accuracy of the budget submitted. 3 of 3

6 Project Abstract Project No Research on Joint Seal Materials to Improve Installation and Performance Joints in Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement are sealed with proper sealant materials to prevent intrusion of water and incompressible materials. Intrusion of water could result in corrosion of dowels or tie bars in CPCD, and tie bars or longitudinal steel in CRCP. Intrusion and collection of incompressible materials could cause surface spalling. Another important failure mechanism in PCC pavement in Texas is erosion of base materials caused by water infiltration along longitudinal joints between the outside concrete lane and asphalt shoulder. To improve the performance of PCC pavement, it is important to keep the joint seals in a good condition so that water and incompressible materials cannot get into joints. There are three elements associated with joint seal performance: (1) proper joint design, (2) quality of joint seal materials, and (3) proper installations. Currently, joint design is dictated in the joint design standards, JS-94. Joint seal material quality is controlled by DMS Joint sealant installation is governed by Item 438. There are discrepancies between TxDOT requirements and actual practice, potentially compromising the effectiveness of joint performance. The discrepancies need to be identified and design standards or specifications revised or field practices modified. Project No: Page 1 of 11

7 Work Plan Accordingly, research effort will focus on developing the evaluation methodologies of the sealant condition in the field and a decision tree for determining optimum timing for reseal of joints. Both products will be easy and simple to use, yet technically accurate and reasonable. Task 1: Evaluation of Joint Seal Performance in Texas PCC Pavement The objective of this task is to evaluate the performance of joint seals in PCC pavements in Texas. Even though field evaluations conducted under the TxDOT rigid pavement database project indicate that joint seal performance is quite adequate, more in-depth field evaluations will be conducted. The research team will: 1.1. Perform field evaluations of joint seals in PCC pavements in accordance with a factorial experiment, with factors shown below: Pavement type: CPCD and CRCP Joint Performance: Good, Fair, Poor Geographic locations (Districts): Wet-no freeze: Beaumont, Lufkin, Houston Wet-freeze: Atlanta, Dallas, Fort Worth Dry-no freeze: Laredo, San Antonio Dry-freeze: El Paso, Lubbock, Amarillo, Wichita Falls Pavement age: Less than 10 years to 20 years Older than 20 years Base type: Flexible base Asphalt stabilized base Cement stabilized base Shoulder type: Asphalt Concrete 1.2. Present a list of joint performance candidate sections for each factor during the kickoff meeting and a final selection based on consultation with the PMC. The length of each section will be 1,000 ft. Table 1 shows an example of the list of candidate sections for joint performance Identify the sealant type for the final candidate sections through district contacts or field visits and adjust the evaluation plan accordingly. Project No: Page 2 of 11

8 1.4. Evaluate the following joint types: transverse contraction joint (CPCD) longitudinal warping joint (CPCD, CRCP) longitudinal construction joint (CPCD, CRCP) transverse construction joint (CRCP) bridge terminal joint (CPCD, CRCP) 1.5. Obtain and assemble the Iowa Vacuum Joint Seal Tester and provide evidence of it working to the PMC during the kickoff meeting Conduct field evaluations in the winter season (November February) when the joints are the largest, and in accordance with the procedures in NTPEP (National Transportation Product Evaluation Program), except for water infiltration. Water infiltration will be tested using Iowa Vacuum Joint Seal Tester. The sealant condition in the outside lane will be evaluated. The evaluation items are as follows: Adhesion failure (loss of bonding to the side of the joint) Cohesion failure (breakage within the sealants) Torn or missing sealant Amount of incompressible material Evidence of pumping Joint faulting Water intrusion Table 1. List of Candidate Sections for Joint Performance District County Highway BEG_RM END_RM JCP_FAILED_JNTS _CRACKS_QTY JCP_PCC_ PATCHES_QTY DISTRESS _SCORE CONDITION _SCORE ATL Bowie US0082 K ATL Bowie US0071 K ATL Bowie US0082 K ATL Bowie US0071 K ATL Bowie US0071 K BMT Jefferson SS0380 X BMT Jefferson SS0380 A BMT Jefferson US0069 X BMT Jefferson SH0087 R BMT Jefferson US0069 A CHS Wheeler IH0040 A CHS Wheeler IH0040 A CHS Wheeler IH0040 A CHS Wheeler IH0040 A Project No: Page 3 of 11

9 CHS Wheeler IH0040 A DAL Ellis IH0045 X DAL Navarro SH0031 R DAL Navarro SH0031 R DAL Ellis IH0045 X DAL Denton IH0035EX HOU Harris SH0225 X HOU Harris SH0225 A HOU Harris SS0330 L HOU Galveston IH0045 X HOU Harris SH0225 X ODA Ector FM1882 R ODA Ector FM1882 L PAR Grayson US0075 X PAR Grayson US0075 A PAR Grayson US0075 X PAR Grayson US0069 K PAR Grayson US0075 R TYL Rusk FM0013 K TYL Rusk FM0013 K WAC McLennan BU0077LA WAC McLennan BU0077LX WFS Wilbarger US0070 X WFS Wilbarger US0287 X WFS Wilbarger US0070 A WFS Wilbarger US0070 X Deliverable: Technical memorandum describing the results of the work performed and identifying how well the joint seals in different categories (joint type, sealant type, base type, pavement age, so forth) perform in Texas, in terms of failure mode and resulting pavement condition (pumping, faulting, settlement, so forth). Task 2: Identification of Failure Modes of Joint Sealants and Their Effects on PCC Pavement Performance in Texas The objective of this task is to identify failure modes and their mechanisms of joint seals in Texas, and to identify what needs to be done to minimize the failures and improve joint seal performance. The research team will 2.1. Analyze the information obtained in Task 1 to identify failure modes and their respective failure mechanisms. Efforts will be directed towards identifying the effects of joint sealant failures on PCC pavement behavior and performance Quantify the effect of joint sealant failures and other factors such as rainfall, drainage condition, base type, and pavement age Project No: Page 4 of 11

10 2.3. Identify the average life of each sealant type and establish criterion for sealant resealing schedule Deliverables Technical memorandum describing the results of the work performed and the correlation between joint seal failures and their effects on pavement distress as well as the criteria for the timing of re-sealing. Task 3. Evaluation of Joint Seal Installation Operations in Texas The objective of this task is to evaluate joint sealing operations in TxDOT projects in order to assess the conformity of the joint sealing operations to TxDOT design standards and specifications. The research team will: 3.1. Survey subcontractors involved in TxDOT PCC pavement joint seal installations, either in person, by phone or , and ask general questions about their familiarity with TxDOT design standards and specifications. If their operations deviate from TxDOT design standards and specification requirements, the reasons for deviation will be asked Select and evaluate the operation of a total of 10 CPCD and five CRCP construction projects for their conformance with TxDOT requirements. The field evaluations are to determine whether joint installation operations with a minimal supervision by TxDOT inspectors are still within an acceptable range. The evaluation items will consist of the following: Proper preparation of joint geometry Cleaning operations Location of backer rod Shape factor of joint sealant This evaluation will be done on transverse contraction and construction joints, and longitudinal warping and construction joints Identify, monitor and document active TxDOT projects where re-sealing of joints between outside-lane and asphalt-shoulder is performed. Deliverable Technical memorandum describing the results of the work performed and documenting joint sealant installations for new joints and re-sealing, including joint saw cutting. Project No: Page 5 of 11

11 Task 4: Evaluation of Current TxDOT Practices in Design, Materials Selection, and Installation of Joint Seals The objective of this task is to evaluate current TxDOT practices related to joint design, sealant materials and construction, and to identify areas that need to be improved. The research team will: 4.1. Conduct measurements of joint movements during Texas winter season when viscosity of the joint seal materials increase and is more likely to fail. A proven accurate and reliable methodology (Figure 1) will be used to measure the joint movements. Figure 1 Measurement of joint movements 4.2. The research team will analyze the findings and evaluate the bond strength and extension of sealant The research team will develop design standards for longitudinal joints between concrete slab and asphalt shoulder, and will be included in JS The research team will evaluate the acceptance criteria on bond test for asphalt sealant and extension test for silicone based on the joint movement measurements. Project No: Page 6 of 11

12 4.5. The research team will develop provisions to modify Specification Item 438 after evaluating and identifying any major deviations in the installation recommendations of manufacturers for different types of sealants. Deliverable 1. A Technical memorandum describing the results of the work perform in this task, 2. P1 Revised design standards will be delivered to the PMC for consideration and inclusion in to JS P2 Material acceptance criteria for bond strength and extension of sealant materials will be provided to the PMC. 4. P3 - Draft special provision to Specification Item 438 will be provided to the PMC if determined necessary by the results found in subtask PMC Meeting to discuss the deliverables and results of this task. The PMC meeting agenda and PowerPoint presentation will be provided to RTI PM and the PMC members at least three (3) days in advance of PMC Meeting. Task 5. Development of Guidelines and Training Manual on Joint Seal Installation The objective of this task is to develop guidelines and training materials on joint seal installation for TxDOT inspectors as well as contractor personnel The research team will develop guidelines and training materials on joint seal installation. The guidelines will have the following contents: Role of Joints and Sealants in PCC Pavements Joint Geometry Sealant Material Requirements Installation of Joint Sealants for New Joints Installation of Joint Sealants for Old Joints (Re-sealing) Installation of Joint Sealants for Joints between Concrete and Asphalt Re-sealing of Joints between Concrete and Asphalt How to Evaluate Sealant Condition How to Determine Timing for Re-Sealing 5.2. The research team will develop the training material in PowerPoint format with the information obtained in this research project along with an Instructor Guide and Learning Objectives. Emphasis will be given to the importance of the strict compliance with design standards and specification requirements, along with do s and don ts. The target audience for the training materials will be not only TxDOT inspectors, but contractor personnel. Deliverables 1. Product P4 provide training material to TxDOT that includes presentation (in PowerPoint format), instructors guide, and learning objectives. Project No: Page 7 of 11

13 Identification of Information Technology (IT) Deliverables to TxDOT Summary of the development to be performed: No software will be developed Itemized list of IT deliverables for ultimate transfer to TxDOT: None Estimated cost associated with IT deliverables for ultimate transfer to TxDOT: None. Use of IT deliverables within TxDOT: N/A Impact of IT deliverables to TxDOT IT infrastructure and support personnel: N/A Implementation strategy for how the IT deliverables will be accepted and deployed: N/A Estimated net monetary benefit to be gained by TxDOT through use of IT deliverables: N/A Assistance or Involvement by TXDOT Traffic control will be needed at about 12 sections throughout the State for field testing. Project No: Page 8 of 11

14 Deliverables Table Project No Form DelTable (Rev. 3/2013) (RTI) Note: Deliverables on this Table are not considered accepted by TxDOT until formal notice is provided by the RTI Project Manager. All written deliverables should be submitted to For instructions of submission procedures for other formats, see chapter 7 of RTI s University Handbook. The Research Supervisor is ultimately responsible to TxDOT for all deliverables, no matter what agency is assigned as the primary developer. However, the primary developer should be listed under the column Primary Agency for each deliverable. Status Reports: The research supervisor must submit minimum monthly written progress report outlining work and staff utilization. Reports should be submitted to the project manager no later than the 3 rd day of the following month (July 3 for the June status, August 3 for July status, etc.). Technical Memoranda: A technical memorandum documenting work completed for each task shall belisted on this table as deliverables. Each technical memorandum shall be due within 15 days after the end of the task as defined in the Project Schedule. Products: Minimum Stand-alone Products will be as specified on the Project Statement (Research Project) or IPR (Implementation Project). Examples of products typically most appropriate as stand-alone items include Guidebooks, Training Materials, Devices, Instruction Manuals, Brochures, and Software. No. Stand-Alone Product Description Due Date (before project termination) P1 Revised JS-94 design November standards 30, 2015 P2 Material acceptance criteria November 30, 2015 P3 Specifications Item 438 November 30, 2015 P4 Guidelines and Training Materials December 31, of 11 Primary Agency Comments Required only if deemed necessary based on results found in subtask 4.5. Instructors guide, learning objectives, training material Reports: Minimum Reports will be as specified on the Project Statement (Research Project) or IPR (Implementation Project). No. Report Description (Succinctly describe intended contents of each report.) Due Date (before project termination) R1D Researcher draft of R1 November 30, 2015 R1 Research Report December 31, 2015 PSRD Researcher draft of PSR November 30, 2015 PSR Summary- Work performed, December findings & recommendations 31, 2015 ITM-1 Intermediate Tech Memo for December task 1 31, 2014 TM-1 Tech Memo for task 1 August 31, 2015 TM-2 Tech Memo for task 2 August 31, 2015 ITM-3 Intermediate Tech Memo for February 28, task Primary Agency Comments A fully edited report is due on or before the last day of the contract. The report should be complete and all information correct and include tables, graphs, and illustrations. Task 1 Joint Seal Performance (intermediate findings) Task 1 Joint Seal Performance Task 2 Joint Seal Failure Mode Task 3 Joint Seal Installation Operations

15 TM-3 Tech Memo for task 3 October 31, 2015 ITM-4 Intermediate Tech Memo for March 28, task TM-4 Tech Memo for task 4 November 30, 2015 Revision Number: Date Updated: Task 3 Joint Seal Installation Operations Task 4 Evaluation of TxDOT Practices (intermediate findings) Task 4 Evaluation of TxDOT Practices, 10 of 11

16 Schedule of Research Activities Original Schedule Work Completed RRRRR Revised Schedule Research Activity Created Date: Form Schedule (Rev. 5/2013) (RTI) Note: Each task must produce one or more deliverables. All deliverables should be submitted to FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Estimated Cost of Task Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Task 1 Task 2 Evaluate Joint Seal Performance in Texas Identification of Failure Modes of Joint Sealants and Their Effects on PCC Pavement Performance in Texas $71,150 $20,329 Task 3 Task 4 Evaluation of Joint Seal Installation Operations in Texas $50,821 Evaluation of Current TxDOT Practices in Design, Materials Selection, and Installation of Joint Seals $40,657 Task 5 Monthy Progress Reports PMC Meeting Development of Guidelines and Training Manual $20,328 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Total (should = total budget) $203,285 Revision History: Project of 11