aashto subcommittee on materials -...

AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials

Technical Section 1c – Aggregate Materials

Stateline, Nevada Thursday, August 8, 2013: 8:00 AM – 10:00 AM

Meeting Minutes

I. CalltoOrder/OpeningRemarksMeeting called to order by Scott Seiter (Chair). State DOT guests were encouraged to be a member of

1c.

II. RosterRoll was called from the roster of members. In attendance: AL, AR, FL, GA, IN, MI, NE, NV, NM

(telephone), OK, OR, VA, WV, RI, AMRL, FHWA. A sign in sheet was distributed (list of attendees in

Appendix A). The representative from Connecticut was changed from James Connery to Robert Lauzon.

III. Approve2013MidyearTS1cmeetingminutesMinutes were distributed to TS members by email 7/25/13. Motion to approve the minutes by Oregon,

second by Florida. Minutes approved.

IV. OldBusiness

A. 2012SubcommitteeonMaterialsBallotComments and negative votes were discussed and addressed during the midyear

webinar meeting April 3, 2013.

B. 2013TS1cBallots

Reconfirmation Ballot :

It was determined that three states did not receive the electronic ballot (LA, NY, WV).

Chair sent an e‐mail to the three states with the ballot items.

1. Reconfirm M 43‐05(2009), "Sizes of Aggregate for Road and Bridge

Construction". Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5

Discussion: The comments from RI were addressed. A review of the latest ASTM had

been conducted prior to sending out the ballot.

2013 TS 1c Minutes of 64

2. Reconfirm T 326‐05(2009) "Uncompacted Void Content of Coarse Aggregate".

Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5

Discussion: A comment had been received by LA addressing how to deal with a piece of

rock sticking up above level of cylinder during strike‐off? Forwarded to AMRL for

guidance. Standard reconfirmed for publication in 34th edition.

3. Reconfirm T 335‐09, "Determining the Percentage of Fracture in Coarse

Aggregate". Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5

Discussion: AZ questioned adding the word, “cumulative” as suggested by MT to the

Table 1 header. KS stated the intent of the table is to verify minimum size of sample

rather than what will be on the sieve, therefore including “cumulative” doesn’t make

sense. The TS agreed. The standard will be reconfirmed without the revision suggested

by MT.

4. Reconfirm PP 64‐11, "Determining Aggregate Source, Shape Values from Digital

Image Analysis Shape Properties". Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5

Discussion: No comments. To be published in 34th edition (error in agenda – says 33rd

edition)

5. Reconfirm TP 77‐09(2011 ), "Specific Gravity and Absorption of Aggregate by

Volumetric Immersion Method". Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5

Discussion: Addressing the comment from FL, flasks are available from Humboldt and

apparently another supplier based on an internet search.

6. Reconfirm T 11. “Material Finer than No. 200 Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by

Washing”. Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5

Discussion: Comments from AZ will be covered in the discussion of T27 revisions later

in the minutes.

2013 TS 1c Revision Ballot:

1. Revise T 19: Yes: 20, No: 0, No Vote: 6; Discussion: An editorial change will be

made changing, “Petrolatum” to “Petroleum jelly”. No other comments. Motion by

FL, second by OR to move to SOM ballot. Approved.

2. Revise T 21: Yes: 20, No: 0, No Vote: 6; Discussion: Standard glass should be listed

as the primary test. AZ pointed out there will be other sections that will need to be

revised to be consistent. Suggested that the color solution method should be

dropped from the standard. According to AMRL it is very rare to see the color

solution method demonstrated therefore it may not be a problem to remove it, but


it would be safer to leave it in the standard for any labs conducting that method. An

informal poll of the members present indicated none use the solution method.

Consensus of the TS is to ballot with both methods and discuss the future of the

solution method at a later time. OK suggested a survey of the states. AMRL will ask

assessment staff if they have seen the solution method used. Motion by FL, second

by VA to move to SOM ballot. Approved.

3. Revise T27: Yes: 19, No: 1, No Vote: 6: Discussion: Negative from NJ cast because

the attachment that was supposed to be part of the ballot item was not included in

the electronic ballot – wasn’t sure what revisions were being proposed. The chair

provided the attachment to NJ and upon their review, withdrew the negative. AZ

provided a suggested revision with their ballot submittal that was discussed. RI

suggested to make the change editorially. KS wanted to be able to have their staff

review the new wording. OK indicated a preference for balloting the change as this

provides clear notification to users something has changed, especially wording in

the procedural section of the method. Several editorial comments from AZ

concerning changes made by AASHTO publication staff had been forwarded to

AASHTO. An e‐mail reply from Deborah Kim agreed with AZ comments. Motion by

OR, second by FL to move to SOM ballot. Approved.

C. TaskForceReports

1. TF08‐01;rewriteT2(currentlyacategoryCstandard):ChairhasvisitedwithAASHTOandCeciltogetthiswrittenasacategoryAstandardutilizingstatespecificaggregatesamplingmethods.Stateswereaskedtosubmittheiraggregatesamplingprocedures.

2. TF09‐01;rewriteT96(currentlyacategoryCstandard):noactiontakenduringthepastyearbutitisgettingtothepointwhereCstandardswillbegone.ChairtocheckwithAASHTOtoseeiftherearesufficientchangestowarrantacategoryAstandard.

3. TF11‐01;reviseT112(claylumpsandfriableparticles).Considerablecommentsandnegativesfromlastyear’sballotarebeingaddressedbythetaskforceinpreparationforanotherTSballot(Spring2014).

V. NewBusiness


A. AMRL/CCRLCommentsorissues:

1. Discussion of the e‐mail received from Maria Knake/AMRL for T 85; suggested

adding a sentence to section 8.4 for maintaining water level in bath at overflow outlet

to obtain constant water level throughout the test. Motion by RI, second by VA to ballot

this change on concurrent ballot. Approved.

2. (Not on agenda) Discussion of an e‐mail received from Haleh Azari on 7/30/13

containing a draft report for precision estimates for three test methods, T 96, T 304, and

T 11. Plan to have stewards review the report for discussion by the mid‐year webinar

meeting.

B. AASHTOCommentsorissues:

1. E‐mail received from Linda Graves, 4/12/13 with suggested editorial revisions to

twelve standards from their technical review queries. Response to AASHTO provided by

Chair.

C. NCHRPCommentsorissues:1. Amir circulated a list of current and recently completed projects related to

aggregates and soils; contact Amir with any questions. Georgene/GA asked about topic

43‐03, Andy Babish/VA inquired about project 9‐37. Current projects involving

aggregates include NCHRP 04‐35 on specific gravity testing, and NCHRP IDEA Project

150, now a pooled fund project regarding Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy of

Aggregates.

2. The Chair has worked with the research coordinator for TRB Mineral Aggregates

Committee and will continue on as the Research Liaison for this TS.

D. Correspondence,calls,meetings,presentations:


1. Discussion of items related to e‐mail from Cole/OR; Cole spoke during meeting;

western states proposing two changes to T 248, Section 5.2 and 5.3 – mixtures of coarse

and fine aggregates; changes were brought up previously, comments were addressed

and incorporated; Section 8 changes – how to check for representative sample, included

alternate method (splitting procedure); asking tech section to consider these changes

and move to concurrent ballot this fall; red‐line copy provided to Scott and distributed

with agenda; RI asked if there has been an issue with effectiveness of reductions that

had them include this – Garth/WY said yes, care not being used with riffle splitters; RI

asked if it goes over 5%, is that a problem? Yes, it can make it so that it’s not

representative. Discussion between RI and WY and other members (Rick) ensued re:

alternate splitting methods. RI suggests holding off on this without seeing any concrete

evidence – wants to see data that backs up this issue. Cole asked for clarification on RI’s

issues. RI would like to see gradations along with a percentage. A revision with

supporting data will be submitted in the future. Cole will work on gathering

information, will withdraw Section 8 revisions but would like to keep Section 5 language

revisions. Motion to keep Section 5 revisions (coarse agg and combined coarse/fine)

and withdraw Section 8 revisions until they can address the issues. Scott said AMRL

raised one other issue with T 248 – Section 10.1.2. Add a number of times (at least 3)

that the material is rolled, rather than “sufficient.” Comment from Garth – do four rolls

since there are four corners on a tarp. Members agreed that makes sense. Group

agrees that more guidance should be given rather than “sufficient.” Suggest keeping “a

sufficient number” and put “at least four” in parentheses. Motion by RI, second by FL

for concurrent ballot of section 5 revisions and section 10.1.2.

2. Discussion to address the water bath temperature question raised by Florida. It

was discussed at length during the webinar meeting – why can’t we have a single water

bath temperature for different test methods using water baths. This question was

forwarded to the Principal Investigators working on the NCHRP Project 04‐35 evaluating

various specific gravity procedures. A reply was received from Nam Tran (NCAT)

indicating the water bath for T85, T 166, and T 209 could all utilize the same

temperature without affecting results. NV ‐ there would need to be an agreement

between the concrete (73 degrees) and asphalt (77 degreees) communities. Cecil

asked if it was possible to add this to NCHRP 04‐35, even though project is nearing

completion. If the temperature was changed to 77, there are many changes to be

considered for other concrete and cement test procedures. After significant discussion,

the Chair summarized that the issue had been thoroughly considered, there does not

appear to be enough benefit or agreement to revise temperature requirements a few

degrees in a substantial number of standards. FL will withdraw their comment.


3. Florida DOT has been involved with some research with the Aggregate Imaging

System (AIMS) Equipment; TP 81 and PP 64. Based on some of their findings they are

seeking to form a task force within this Technical Section to collect and review research

findings involving this equipment. This is a good opportunity to improve and revise the

provisional standards based on findings and feedback from research. FL volunteered

John Shoucair to head the task force. Task force members to include; Matt

Corrigan/FHWA, TX, and IL. Florida plans to share information at the mid‐year webinar

meeting.

4. Bryce Simons/NM made a presentation on TP 77 (20 – 30 minutes).

Presentation is included as appendix XX. Discussion and questions followed the

presentation. VT expressed an interest in having their lab perform the test. IL has had

issues with flasks breaking. The TS considered whether to ballot the suggested revisions

from NM as a TS ballot or concurrent ballot. Motion by NM, second by IN to ballot the

revisions on a concurrent ballot. Approved.

E. ProposedNewTaskForces:None

F. ProposedNewStandards:None

G. StandardsRequiringReconfirmationnextyear:

1. M45‐06(2010),“AggregateforMasonryMortar”.(DC,NM)

2. T2‐91(2010),“SamplingofAggregates”.(AL,ND)

3. T96‐02(2010),“ResistancetoDegradationofSmall‐SizeCoarseAggregatebyAbrasionandImpactintheLosAnglesMachine”.(FL,NC)

4. T113‐06(2010),“LightweightPiecesinAggregate”.(FHWA,DC)

5. T‐210‐10,“AggregateDurabilityIndex”.(VA)

6. MP‐16‐10,“ReclaimedConcreteAggregateforUseasCoarseAggregateinHydraulicCementConcrete.(FL,IA)

7. TP‐81‐12,“DeterminingAggregateShapePropertiesbyMeansofDigitalImageAnalysis”.

VI. Adjourn:9:57 AM


List of Appendices:

A. TS meeting attendee list

B. TS roster

C. Meeting agenda

D. TP 77 presentation

E. Ballot Items


Appendix A

2013 TS 1C List of Attendees (obtained from sign-in sheets)

Name CompanyChadAllen StateofVermontAndyBabish VirginiaDOTTracyBarnhart AMRLMichaelBenson ArkansasStateHighwayandTransp.Dept.RichardBradbury MaineDepartmentofTransportationGerobinCarnate HawiiDepartmentofTransportationDerrickCastle KYTCDivisionofMaterialsMatthewCorrigan FHWAPaulFarley WVDivisionofHighways MarkFelag RIDOTRobinGraves VulcanMaterialsCompanyFranciscoGudiel LADOTDMaterials&TestingAmirHanna NCHRP/TRBCharlesHasty GeorgiaDepartmentofTransportationStevenIngram AlabamaDepartmentofTransportationCecilJones DiversifiedEngineeringServices,Inc.ReidKaiser StateofNevadaDOTRickKreider KansasDepartmentofTransportationDavidKuniega Penn.DOTDavidLippert IllinoisDepartmentofTransportationKatherynMalusky AASHTOColeMullis OregonDepartmentofTransportationGarthNewman WAQTCCharliePan StateofNevadaDOTJanProwell CCRLDickReaves TroxlerElectronicLaboratories,Inc.TimothyRuelke FDOT‐StateMaterialsOfficeDavidSavage CMECGregSchieber KansasDepartmentofTransportationScottSeiter OklahomaDOTBryceSimons NewMexicoDOTJohnStaton MichiganDepartmentofTransportationMichaelSullivan MSDepartmentofTransportationDarinTedford StateofNevadaDOTRonaldWalker IndianaDepartmentofTransportationDannyLane Tenn.DOTMickSyslo NDORReidCastrodale ESCSIBeccaLane MTO


Appendix B

Technical Section 1c Membership List Updated September 18, 2013

STATE REPRESENTATIVE E-MAIL PHONE FAX

Alabama Steven Ingram [email protected] (334) 206-2335

Alaska Michael San Angelo [email protected] (907) 269-6234 (907) 269-9231

Arizona Bill Hurguy [email protected] (602) 712-8094

Arkansas Michael C. Benson [email protected] (501) 569-2185 (501) 569-2368

Connecticut James Connery [email protected] (860) 594-2669 (860) 594-2678

District of Columbia Wasi U. Khan [email protected] (202) 671-2316 (202) 671-0646

Florida John Shoucair [email protected] (352) 955-2925 (850) 412-8271

Georgia Peter Wu [email protected] 404-608-4840

Idaho Mike Santi [email protected]

Indiana Ron Walker [email protected] (317) 610-7251 (317) 356-9351

Louisiana Bert Wintz [email protected]

Maine Rick Bradbury [email protected] (207) 441-2474

Maryland Woody Hood [email protected] (443) 572-5020

Michigan John Staton [email protected]

Minnesota Curt Turgeon [email protected] (651) 366-5535 (651) 366-5461

Nebraska Mick Syslo [email protected] (402) 479-4750 (402) 479-3975

Nevada Reid Kaiser [email protected] (775) 888-7520 (775) 888-7501

New Jersey Eileen Sheehy [email protected] (609) 530-2307 (609) 530-5158

New Mexico Bryce Simons (v. chair) [email protected] (505) 827-5191 (505) 827-5649

New York Bob Burnett [email protected] (518) 457-4712 (518) 457-8080

North Carolina Jack Cowsert [email protected] (919) 733-7411 (919) 733-8742

North Dakota Ron Horner [email protected] (701) 328-6904 (701) 328-0310

Oklahoma Scott Seiter (chair) [email protected] (405) 521-2186 (405) 522-0552

Oregon Cole Mullis [email protected] (503) 986-3061 (503) 986-3096

Rhode Island Mark E. Felag [email protected] (401) 222-2524 Ext 4130

(401) 222-3489

Saskatchewan Magdy Beshara [email protected]

Tennessee Bill Trolinger [email protected] (615) 350-4105 (615) 350-4128

Virginia Andy Babish [email protected] (804) 328-3102 (804) 328-3136

West Virginia Paul Farley [email protected] (304) 558-7491 (304) 558-0253

AMRL Greg Uherek [email protected]

FHWA Lee Gallivan [email protected] (317) 226-7493 (317) 226-7341


Appendix C

AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials

Technical Section 1c – Aggregate Materials

Stateline, Nevada Thursday, August 8, 2013: 8:00 AM – 10:00 AM

Meeting Agenda

I. CalltoOrder/OpeningRemarks

II. Roster

Alabama Buddy Cox Nevada Reid Kaiser

Alaska Michael San Angelo New Jersey Eileen Sheehy

Arizona Bill Hurguy New Mexico Bryce Simons (Vice Chair)

Arkansas Michael Benson New York Bob Burnett

Connecticut James Connery North Carolina Jack Cowsert

District of Columbia Wasi Khan North Dakota Ron Horner

Florida John Shoucair Oklahoma Scott Seiter (Chair)

Georgia Peter Wu Oregon Cole Mullis

Idaho Mike Santi Rhode Island Mark Felag

Indiana Ron Walker Saskatchewan Magdy Beshara

Louisiana Bert Wintz Tennessee Bill Trolinger

Maryland Woody Hood Virginia Andy Babish

Michigan John Staton West Virginia Paul Farley

Minnesota Curt Turgeon AMRL Greg Uherek

Nebraska Mick Syslo FHWA Lee Gallivan

III. Approve2013MidyearTS1cmeetingminutes

IV. OldBusiness

A. 2012SubcommitteeonMaterialsBallotComments and negative votes were discussed and addressed during the midyear

webinar meeting April 3, 2013.


Appendix C

B. 2013TS1cReconfirmationBallot

Item Number: 1

Description: Reconfirm M 43-05(2009), "Sizes of Aggregate for Road and Bridge Construction". This is a category B standard. The companion ASTM standard has been reviewed and it is appropriate to reference the latest version.

Decisions: Yes: 21, No: 0, No Vote: 5

Affirmative votes with comments ‐ 1 Rhode Island Department of Transportation (Mark E Felag)

If the ASTM equivalent has a new designation year then I would suspect that changes were made within the standard. If they just reconfirmed it they would have the new year in parenthesis. Were there any changes made? Comment from Chair: Prior to conducting the ballot, the latest published version of the ASTM (D-448) was compared with the currently referenced version utilizing the “version comparison” feature of our on-line subscription service. All of the changes between the two ASTM versions were minor editorial and formatting changes.

Item Number: 2

Description: Reconfirm T 326-05(2009) "Uncompacted Void Content of Coarse Aggregate".


No comments received Reconfirmed for publication in 33rd edition

Item Number: 3

Description: Reconfirm T 335-09, "Determining the Percentage of Fracture in Coarse Aggregate". Includes three editorial revisions based on comments from Montana.


Affirmative votes with comments ‐ 1 Arizona Department of Transportation (Bill Hurguy)

1) We question the addition of the word "Cumulative" in the header of the right hand column of Table 1. Isn’t Table 1 utilized to establish the minimum mass of the sample for the respective nominal maximum particle size, determined by sieving the material as described in Section 7.2.1? Adding the word "Cumulative" to this column confuses the use of the table. It seems to us that the title of this column should be changed to read, "Minimum Sample Mass". [The minimum sample mass specified correlates with the nominal maximum particle size shown, and is not related to the minimum sample mass retained on the 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve.]

2) In Table 2, the header of the right hand column which reads,

"Minimum Sample Mass Retained 4.75 mm (No. 4 Sieve)" should be revised to read, "Minimum Sample Mass". [The minimum sample mass specified correlates with the nominal maximum particle size shown, and is not related to the minimum sample mass retained on the 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve.]


Appendix C

Item Number: 4

Description: Reconfirm PP 64-11, "Determining Aggregate Source, Shape Values from Digital Image Analysis Shape Properties". Includes several editorial revisions from AASHTO.


No comments received Reconfirmed for publication in 33rd edition

Item Number: 5

Description Reconfirm TP 77-09(2011), "Specific Gravity and Absorption of Aggregate by Volumetric Immersion Method".


Affirmative votes with comments ‐ 1 Florida Department of Transportation (John P Shoucair)

FDOT has previously objected to the use of proprietary equipment in test methods. PP includes :

These flasks are available from Humboldt Manufacturing Company, 7300 W. Agatite Avenue, Norridge, IL 60706.

Item Number: 6

Description Reconfirm T 11. The latest companion ASTM standard will be referenced based on a review of the standards. A revision to this standard was discussed at last year’s TS meeting, involving differences between mechanical and manual washing. Recommendations from AMRL should result in a future revision, in the meantime, this standard is due for reconfirmation.



1) In Item #3 (AASHTO T 27) of ballot 2013‐TS1c‐02, a revision to Section 8.1 was deemed necessary to clarify that the mass of the sample that will be placed on the sieves be recorded prior to testing. Using that same reasoning, we recommend that the second sentence of Section 8.1 of AASHTO T 11 be revised to read, "Determine and record the mass of material that will be placed in the washing container to the nearest 0.1 percent of the dry mass of the test sample." 2) In conjunction with our comment on this ballot item above

regarding Section 8.1, we recommend that the second sentence of Section 8.5 of AASHTO T 11 be revised to read, "Dry the washed aggregate to constant mass at a

temperature of 110 5C (230 9F) and determine and record the mass to the nearest 0.1 percent of the original dry mass of the test sample.

3) To clarify the intent of Section 9.1 of AASHTO T 11, this section should be revised to read, "Prepare the sample in the same manner as described in Sections 8.1 and 8.2 of Procedure A."


Appendix C

2013 Revision Ballot

Item Number: 1

Description: Revise T 19, section 5.5.1: Remove the word, "preferably". As currently written, the glass plate thickness does not have a meaningful requirement. The suggested revision is based on comments received from the previous ballot on this standard from Oregon and New Jersey. The latest companion ASTM standard will be referenced based on a review the standards.


Affirmative votes with comments – 1 Arizona Department of Transportation (Bill Hurguy)

1) To be consistent with the proposed revision made in Note 2, the reference to "(1/4 in.)" shown in Section 5.5.1 also needs to be changed to "(0.25 in.)". 2) In Note 3, reference is made to "Petrolatum". This is a rather unique word that, unless a more detailed definition as used in the medical dictionary is desired, means "Petroleum Jelly". Even in the medical dictionary, "petrolatum" is referred to as "petroleum jelly". We recommend that "Petrolatum" be replaced with "Petroleum Jelly". (Section 5.5.2 of ASTM C 29 simply states, "Grease“ A supply of waterâ€‘pump, chassis, or similar grease.")

Item Number: 2

Description: Revise T 21,

Revise sections 1.1, 9, 10, and Note 1, based on comments from AMRL. The latest companion ASTM standard will be referenced based on a review the standards.

From AMRL: Switch the order of Sections 9.1 and 9.2. Designate the glass color standard procedure as the standard method. Designate the standard color solution procedure as an alternative method.

Rationale: The standard color solution method is rarely performed by AASHTO accredited laboratories, so it should be listed as an alternative procedure. The more commonly‐used glass color standards method should be listed as the preferred method.

The glass color standard method does not require the use of dangerous reagents such as concentrated sulfuric acid and potassium dichromate, which are checmicals that can cause numerous health problems. It is preferable to have the safer procedure be the standard procedure.


Appendix C

If practical, it would make sense to remove the reagent version of the procedure entirely.



1) The ballot description for this item indicates that the recommendation from AMRL is to designate the "Glass Color Standard Procedure" as the "Standard Method" and the "Standard Color Solution Procedure" as an "Alternative Method". In conjunction with AMRL’s recommendation, we recommend that the last sentence of Section 1.1 be revised to read, "The standard procedure (Section 9.1) uses a glass color standard and the alternative procedure (Section 9.2) uses a standard color solution. 2) In conjunction with our comment above, we recommend that the title of Section 9.1 be revised to read, "Glass Color Standard Procedure (Standard Method)". In like manner, we recommend that the title of Section 9.2 be revised to read, "Standard Color Solution Procedure (Alternative Method)". 3) We do not use the "Standard Color Solution Procedure" and are not opposed to its removal from AASHTO T 21. Of course, several corresponding revisions would need to be made throughout T 21 to correctly accomplish the removal of the "Standard Color Solution Procedure".

Item Number: 3

Description: Revise T 27,

Revise sections 8.1 and 8.6: Based on an inquiry from Kansas DOT, subsequent discussion at the 2012 SOM TS meeting, and recommendation from AMRL. See last year’s TS minutes for further detailed discussion. The latest companion ASTM standard is currently referenced.

From AMRL: Agreed on all points. Good catch. Although it is implied, I might suggest inserting wording such as "Determine and record the mass of the material placed on the sieves" (in some cases this is the same as the original dry sample mass). During our assessments, AMRL assessors check for conformance to this requirement (section 8.6), however, we find many laboratories do not record the mass placed on the sieves and do not perform this check in their daily testing.


Negative vote comment New Jersey Department of Transportation (Eileen C. Sheehy)

Not clear what the proposed changes are. Note from Chair: The attachment was mistakenly left off of the ballot. The attachment contained suggested revisions to two sections, 8.1 and 8.6. These revisions are included below this table in the agenda for discussion and review.


Appendix C

Affirmative votes with comments ‐ 1

Arizona Department of Transportation (Bill Hurguy)

1) We agree with the proposed revised wording of Section 8.1 (that should have accompanied this ballot item). That wording is, "If the test sample has not been subjected to testing by T 11, dry it to constant

mass at a temperature of 110 5C (230 9F). Determine and record the mass of material that will be placed on the sieves to the nearest 0.1 percent of the total original dry sample mass." 2) In the first sentence of Section 8.4 we are opposed to changing "minute" to "min" (as shown in the proposed revision that should have accompanied this ballot item). The abbreviation "min" can be used for "minimum" as well as "minute". For the sake of three additional letters, we strongly recommend that "minute" be left unchanged. Comment from Chair: These editorial or formatting changes have been made by the AASHTO publication staff. Your comments have been forwarded to AASHTO. 3) A proposed revision in Section 8.4 (as shown in the proposed revision that should have accompanied this ballot item) appears to revise the existing term "one sixth" by replacing the hyphen with a space. We disagree with this proposed revision. Comment from Chair: This editorial or formatting change has been made by the AASHTO publication staff. Your comments have been forwarded to AASHTO. 4) We disagree with the proposed revised wording of the last sentence of Section 8.6 (that should have accompanied this ballot item). That wording is, "If the amounts differ by more than 0.3 percent, the results should not be used for acceptance purposes." By deleting the existing phrase "based on the original dry sample mass", there is no specified basis for the calculation of the allowable 0.3 percent difference. We recommend that the last two sentences of Section 8.6 be revised to read, "The total mass of the material after sieving should check closely with the total original dry mass of the sample placed on the sieves. If the two amounts differ by more than 0.3 percent, based on the total original dry sample mass, the results should not be used for acceptance purposes." Comment from Chair: The balloted version and Arizona’s suggested revision for section 8.6 is shown below this table for comparison purposes.

Balloted Language: Section 8.1 (T 27):

If the test sample has not been subjected to testing by T 11, dry it to constant mass at a temperature of

110 ± 5°C (230 ± 9°F), and determine. Determine and record the mass of it material that will be placed

on the sieves to the nearest 0.1 percent of the total original dry sample mass.


Appendix C

Balloted Language: Section 8.6 (T 27):

Determine the mass of each size increment on a scale or balance conforming to the requirements

specified in Section 6.1 to the nearest 0.1 percent of the total original dry sample mass. The total mass

of the material after sieving should check closely with the original mass of sample placed on the sieves.

If the amounts differ by more than 0.3 percent, based on the original dry sample mass, the results

should not be used for acceptance purposes.

Suggested Language for section 8.6 (Arizona):

Determine the mass of each size increment on a scale or balance conforming to the requirements

specified in Section 6.1 to the nearest 0.1 percent of the total original dry sample mass. The total mass

of the material after sieving should check closely with the total original dry mass of the sample placed

on the sieves. If the two amounts differ by more than 0.3 percent, based on the total original dry

sample mass, the results should not be used for acceptance purposes.

C. TaskForceReports

1. TF08‐01;rewriteT2(currentlyacategoryCstandard)intoacategoryAstandardutilizingstatespecificaggregatesamplingmethods.Stateswereaskedtosubmittheiraggregatesamplingprocedures.AdditionaldiscussionisneededwithAASHTO.

2. TF09‐01;rewriteT96(currentlyacategoryCstandard)intoacategoryAstandard.Noactionduringthepastyear.

3. TF11‐01;reviseT112(claylumpsandfriableparticles).Considerablecommentsandnegativesfromlastyear’sballotarebeingaddressedbythetaskforceinpreparationforanotherTSballot.

V. NewBusiness

A. AMRL/CCRLCommentsorissues:

E‐mailreceivedfromMariaKnake,6/24/13withsuggestedrevisiontoT85:

AASHTO T 85 (2010) – Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate


Appendix C

Section: 8.4

Revise: “After determining the mass, immediately place the saturated surface‐dry test sample in the sample container and determine its mass in water at 23.0 ± 1.7°C (73.4 ± 3°F), having a density of 997 ± 2 kg/m3. Take care to remove all entrapped air before determining the mass by shaking the container while immersed. Maintain the water level in the bath at the overflow outlet to obtain a constant water level throughout the test.

Rationale: Although the equipment list specifies an overflow outlet, there is no actual

requirement to keep the bath filled to the overflow outlet throughout the test.

B. AASHTOCommentsorissues:

E‐mail received from Linda Graves, 4/12/13 with suggested editorial revisions to twelve

standards from their technical review queries. Response to AASHTO provided by Chair.

C. NCHRPCommentsorissues:1. NCHRP 04‐35, “Enhanced Test Method for Specific Gravity and Absorption of

Coarse and Fine Aggregate”. Project is ongoing.

2. NCHRP IDEA Project 150; Pooled fund solicitation 1337, “Real‐Time Quality

Control Monitoring and Characterization of Aggregate Materials in Highway

Construction using Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy”

D. Correspondence,calls,meetings,presentations:

1. E‐mailreceivedfromColeMullis,6/26/13:

Scott, I hope all is well in Oklahoma. The WAQTC would like to propose some changes to T 248 for discussion at the upcoming SOM meeting. I would appreciate it if you could add this to the agenda. The changes requested include: (see appendix 2 for mark-up of T 248 by WAQTC) Removed ASTM Designation Revised Section 5.2. creating section 5.3. to address Combined Coarse and Fine Aggregate and the lack of restriction of reducing wet material using a mechanical splitter. This practice contributes to segregation primarily due to fine material adhering to the splitter. Section 5.3. proposal: Combined Coarse and Fine Aggregate- Samples that are in a dry condition may be reduced in size by either Method A or Method B. Samples having free moisture on the particle surfaces may be reduced in size by quartering according to Method B. When Method A is desired and the sample is damp, forms


Appendix C

clumps, or shows free water dry it until it appears dry or until clumps become friable (Note 2). Dry the entire sample to this condition, using temperatures that do not exceed those specified for any of the tests contemplated, and then reduce the sample. The miniature stockpile Method C is not permitted for combined aggregates. Note 2— Friable is determined by tightly squeezing a small portion of the sample in the palm of the hand. If the cast crumbles readily the correct moisture range has been obtained. Section 8. – Include methodology (8.3.) and an illustration (Figure 2) to verify a representative sample is being obtained as referred to in Section 4.3. 8.3. As a check for effective reduction, determine the mass of each reduced portion. If the percent difference of the two masses is greater than 5 percent, corrective action must be taken. In lieu of the check for effective reduction, use the method illustrated in Figure 2. 8.4. Alternate reduction method: 8.4.1. Sample (S) is an amount greater than or equal to twice the mass needed for testing. Sample (S) is split in a mechanical splitter to yield parts (1) and (2). 8.4.2. Part (1) is further reduced, yielding (A) and (B), while Part (2) is reduced to yield (B) and (A). 8.4.3. Final testing sample is produced by combining alternate pans, i.e. (A)/(A) or (B)/(B) only. Figure 2 (now 3): correct the caption under the first illustration: ‘Cone Sample on Hard Clean Surface.’ Figure 3 (now 4): the first two illustrations should show each corner being lifted and pulled over the sample toward the diagonally opposite corner to match text in 10.1.2.

Comments from Chair: Other issues related to T248 have been recently raised; consider incorporating

the use of the “quartermaster” as an allowable splitting device, and an AMRL recommended revision to

T 248.

(From AMRL) Section: 10.1.2

Revise: "After the material has been rolled a sufficient number ofat least three times so that it is

thoroughly mixed...."

Rationale: This alternative procedure in 10.1.2 is the only procedure that does not give a specific

number of times that material needs to be mixed to be considered thoroughly mixed. All other

procedures specifiy three times. It is recommended that a minimum of three rolls be added for

consistency.

2. Follow‐uptoquestionconcerningwaterbathtemperaturesaskedbyFloridaDOTanddiscussedatthemidyearwebinarTSmeeting:ThediscussionwasforwardedtoNCATastheyarecurrentlyworkingontheNCHRPresearchonaggregatespecificgravitytesting.Theirresearchhasbeenlookingintothevariablesthataffectthespecificgravitytestresults.Theirresponse:

Hi Scott,


Appendix C

Thanks for reaching out to us! I was able to review the following 3 (or 4) AASHTO test methods in which a water bath is used:

‐ AASHTO T 85 (determining Gsa and Gsb at 23C). The AASHTO T 84 procedure is also conducted at 23C. ‐ AASHTO T 166 (determining Gmb at 25C). ‐ AASHTO T 209 (determining Gmm at 25C). There is a procedure for correcting Gmm when measurements are made at temperatures other than 25C.

I agree with you and others that we should change the test temperature for T 84 and T 85 from 23C to 25C. This change is actually good for asphalt mix design because we use Gsb, Gmb and Gmm for calculating VMA of asphalt mixtures. It is better be done with Gsb, Gmb and Gmm measured at the same temperature. Based on the information in Table X1.1 of T 209, the potential change in Gsb is only 0.0002. This change is very small compared with the current within‐lab precision for T 84 (d2s = 0.027) and T 85 (d2s = 0.020). I don’t think this change would affect concrete mix design, but you may want to check with concrete folks to see if they have any concerns. Please let me know what you decide so that I can incorporate this change into T 84 and T 85 later. It is a very good question from FDOT folks. Sincerely, Nam Tran, PhD, PE, LEED GA National Center for Asphalt Technology (www.ncat.us) at Auburn University

3. DiscussionandpresentationonsuggestedrevisionstoTP77(see appendix 3 and 4)

4. CommentsfromFloridaDOTontheAggregateImagingMeasurementSystem(AIMS)equipmentandTP81andPP64.

Discuss Texture Index (TI) values measured by Aggregate Imaging System (AIMS). 1. Effect of aggregate color on TI value 2. Demonstration of TI value compared with topographic data acquisition

systems. 3. Ongoing/proposed research projects with AIMS and TI (see Texas DOT)


Appendix C

E. ProposedNewTaskForces:

F. ProposedNewStandards:

G. StandardsRequiringReconfirmationnextyear:

1. M45‐06(2010),“AggregateforMasonryMortar”.(DC,NM)

2. T2‐91(2010),“SamplingofAggregates”.(AL,ND)

3. T96‐02(2010),“ResistancetoDegradationofSmall‐SizeCoarseAggregatebyAbrasionandImpactintheLosAnglesMachine”.(FL,NC)

4. T113‐06(2010),“LightweightPiecesinAggregate”.(FHWA,DC)

5. T‐210‐10,“AggregateDurabilityIndex”.(VA)

6. MP‐16‐10,“ReclaimedConcreteAggregateforUseasCoarseAggregateinHydraulicCementConcrete.(FL,IA)

7. TP‐81‐12,“DeterminingAggregateShapePropertiesbyMeansofDigitalImageAnalysis”.

VI. Adjourn

List of Appendices: (Not included in minutes)

1. TechnicalSectionrosterandassignmentofstandards2. T248mark‐upbyWAQTC3. TP77mark‐upbyNewMexico

4. Powerpointpresentationprint‐outonTP77


Appendix D

2013 UPDATE

by Bryce Simons, P.E.

SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND ABSORPTION OF AGGREGATE BY VOLUMETRIC IMMERSION

METHOD(PHUNQUE TEST)

ABSORPTION BY VOLUMETRIC IMMERSION METHOD• Originally approved in 2009

• This method was studied as a part of NCHRP 4-35 “Testing of Specific Gravity and Absorption of Aggregates” This study found that:

• This method applies to coarse aggregate, fine aggregate and combined aggregate

• This was the only method suitable for measuring combined aggregates;

• It is a relatively simple operation;

• This method is the most repeatable and reproducible of all the methods studied;

• This method is not affected by P200 or particle shape/angularity;

• The Initial Reading at 30 seconds is questionable.


Appendix D

BENEFITS RELATED TO THIS METHOD• Simplicity of test method;

• Not effected by which technician or laboratory performs the test;

• Not affected by fineness or coarseness of gradation;

• Not affected by particle shape;

• Can provide actual measurement of blended aggregates instead of requiring mathematical calculations;

• Method is sufficiently sensitive to quickly recognize changes in aggregate or pit characteristics.

CONCERNS RELATED TO USE OF THIS METHOD• Significant difference between direct result from this method

and the result from T85 or T84;

• Initial reading at 0.5 minutes (30 seconds) felt to be too late;

• Existing specifications as well as HMA and PCC mix designs currently based on results from T85 and T84 would be seriously impacted if these results are directly substituted.


Appendix D

EVOLUTIONARY NEEDS FOR THIS TEST

• Initial Reading must reflect true beginning water displacement before any water has been absorbed by any aggregate;

• Must be able to provide results that can be directly used in lieu of T84 or T85;

INITIAL READING

• Not realistically possible to obtain initial reading more quickly than 30 seconds;

• Initial reading at 30 seconds allows air introduced by pouring dry aggregate sample into flask to escape before it can affect the reading;

• Water is being absorbed by initial dry particles immediately upon entering the water bath even though initial reading is not taken until after all particles have been submerged in water and 30 seconds has elapsed since the pouring of aggregate started.


Appendix D

• When actual readings are plotted on semi-log graph with volume on the vertical scale and time on the logarithmic horizontal scale, the result is a virtual straight line.

• Logarithmic regression analysis provides a correlation coefficient typically significantly better than 0.9 confirming a very strong reliability.

• To calculate an adjusted Initial Reading, simply enter the desired Initial Time as the “x” variable and calculate the resulting displacement.

ADJUSTED INITIAL READING


Appendix D

CALCULATION OF ADJUSTED INITIAL READING

• From previous slide for Trial #1, the equation for the line is:y = -3.265 * Ln(x) + 4527.7

• Substitute the desired time at which the Adjusted Initial Volume is desired (in this case assume it is desired to determine the Initial Reading at 0.01 minutes)

y = -3.265 * Ln(0.01) + 4527.7y = -3.265 * (-4.6052) + 4527.7y = 15.04 + 4527.7y = 4542.74

• (Initial Volume read at 30 seconds = 4528.4)

TEST RESULTS FOR THIS EXAMPLE

AASHTO T85 Direct Result Adjusted Result

Absorption: 1.52% 1.00% 1.55%

Sp Gravity (Dry): 2.588 2.651 2.586

Sp Gravity (SSD): 2.627 2.651 2.627

Apparent Gravity: 2.694 2.695 2.695


Appendix D

AGGREGATE SOURCES IN NEW MEXICO WERE TESTED AND SUMMARIZED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE


Appendix D

• Gneiss

• Monzonite

• Quartzite

• Rhyolite

• Shale

• Igneous

• Limestone

• Sandstone

• Andesite

• Basalt

• Caliche

• Granite

• Feldspar

TYPICAL AGGREGATE TYPES


Appendix D

THIS DATA WAS PLOTTED AGAINST A 1:1 LINE AND THE RELATIONSHIP DETERMINED

ABSORPTION

T85 vs. Direct ResultsT85 vs. Adjusted to 0.10 minutes


Appendix D

ABSORPTION

T85 vs. 0.05 minutesT85 vs. Adjusted to 0.01 minutes

BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY (DRY)



Appendix D

BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY (DRY)T85 vs. Adjusted to 0.05 minutes

T85 vs. Adjusted to 0.01 minutes

BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY (SSD)



Appendix D

BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY (SSD)T85 vs. Adjusted to 0.05 minutes

T85 vs. Adjusted to 0.01 minutes

CONCLUSIONS• By using Initial Readings adjusted to 0.01 minutes, the

relationship between T85 and the results using the Adjusted Initial Readings for all properties is approximately equal to or better than for the direct results determined from the procedure;

• Results calculated from Initial Readings adjusted to 0.01 minutes can be used directly in existing specifications and in the development of HMA and PCC mix designs.

• The correlation coefficient for the Absorption is lower because the inherent subjectivity of the test procedure profoundly effects accuracy, consistency and repeatability of T85.


Appendix D

CONCLUSIONS (PG 2)• Fine aggregates were not included in this evaluation due to the

flawed assumptions and biased effects from this procedure on the resulting properties.

• Since the basic physics for this test remain the same regardless of particle size, the conclusions from the evaluation of the coarse aggregate should be applied to fine aggregate and to combined aggregates.

• TP 77 has been edited to reflect the results of this evaluation and is being submitted for renewal as edited.


Appendix E

TS 1c Ballot Items

Num. Ballot Item SOM Concurrent 1 Revise T 19 – Section 5.5.1

See pages 2, 13, and 34 of the TS 1c minutes. X

2 Revise T 21 – Sections 1.1, 4, 9, 10. Designate the glass color standard procedure as the standard method. See pages 2, 3, 13, 14, and 35 - 40 of the TS 1c minutes.

X

3 Revise T 27 - Sections 8.1 and 8.6. See pages 3 and 41 of the TS 1c minutes.

X

4 Revise T 85 – Section 8.4 See pages 4 and 42 of the TS 1c minutes.

X

5 Revise T 248 – Revisions recommended by WAQTC: Revise section 5.2, add a new section 5.3. Revise section 10.1.2. Figures 2, 3 will need to be revised by AASHTO publication staff to agree with revision. See pages 5, 17, 18 and 43 – 49 of the TS 1c minutes.

X

6 Revise TP 77- Revisions recommended by New Mexico, as presented at TS meeting. See pages 6, 21 – 32, and 50 – 64 of the TS 1c minutes.

X


Appendix E

Item 1: Revise T 19, section 5.5.1: Delete “preferably” Rational: As currently written, the glass plate does not have a meaningful requirement. The latest version of the companion ASTM standard will be referenced based on a review of the standards. An editorial change is also shown for note 3.

5.5.1 Plate Glass—A piece of plate glass, preferably at least 6 mm (1⁄4 0.25 in.) thick and at least 25 mm (1 in.) larger than the diameter of the measure to be calibrated.

Note 1—Petrolatum, Petroleum jelly, vacuum grease, water pump grease, or chassis grease are examples of suitable material used to form a seal between the glass plate and measure.

Comment [ss1]: Suggested revision from comments made in the previous (2009) ballot by Oregon and New Jersey to remove "preferably". Also agrees with latest ASTM revision.


aashto subcommittee on materials -...

Documents