Complete Workshop Proceedings

Alkali Silica Reactivity (ASR) Technology Implementation

1.0 ASR Lead States Team. The ASR Team as established in 1996, includes representatives from five AASHTO member departments, Federal Highway Administration, academia and industry. The participating member departments are Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, New Mexico and South Dakota. A complete listing of participants appears in Appendix 3.

2.0 Team’s Review of its Action Items. A review resulted in the following:

• Gather ASR Information. (Need to give Steve feedback on key literature Deadline October 15).
• Disseminate Information.
  • Web site. (Need feedback by October 30).
  • Tech description. (Margo by October 5).
  • Testing methods sections. (Steve January 10, 1999).
• ACI Course.
  • Bryce coordinating with FHWA/ACI.
  • FHWA wants to tie to quality program.
  • ACI proposal to be discussed at next meeting.
• Guide Specifications.
  • Waiting for feedback from AASHTO.
  • Add ASTM 1157 (New performance specifications for Portland Cement).
  • J.C. Roumain will distribute a handout to the Team on ASTM 1157 and other related important items (by October 15).
• Technical Assistance. NM laboratory testing (will be presented at TRB).
  • NM laboratory testing (will be presented at TRB).
  • ANDAC equipment testing (SD, DE, MD, PA non-destructive testing).
  • Mitigation trials (NC, MN, DE).
• Cost/Benefit Analysis.
  • CEM working on it (send package to Team by October 30 feedback by November 30).
  • TTI analysis.
  • Look at what data are needed.
  • Should we cooperate with other Teams (Pavements, Durability and Maintenance).

3.0 Team’s Accomplishments. Team’s accomplishments were:

• Technical assistance to regional DOT group.
• Submitted guide tests to AASHTO.
• Good start on web site development.
• Surveyed state DOTs.
• Interacting with non-lead state DOTs.
• Partnering
  • Industry.
  • DOE.
  • Academia.
• Impact on non-DOT public agency specifications.
• Technical assistance on construction projects.
• Technical bibliography compiled.
• Several field trial started.
• Input to LTPP on continued monitoring of test sites.
• Specifications adopted in two states for ASR prevention.

4.0 Measuring Impacts. The following items would help measure the impact of Team’s work:

• Running list of agencies changing specifications.
• Number of non-lead states addressing ASR issues (Margo/Victoria).
• Also other public agencies (Margo).
• Log of contacts and feedback from audience (Claudio/Dan)
• Periodic follow up with key contacts to evaluate effectiveness of methodologies (Victoria/Bryce).
• Discuss with trade groups how to measure impact of Team efforts:
  • ACAA (Claudio Manissero).
  • NAA (Ken).
  • NRMCA (Ken).
  • PCA (J. C. Roumain).
  • PCI (J. C. Roumain).
  • NSA (Ken).
  • ACPA (J. C. Roumain/Claudio Manissero).

5.0 Lessons Learned. The Team had the following experience to share:

• Get more industry involvement.
• Cooperation between federal, state, industry and academia has high value.
• Takes more time and effort than originally anticipated.
• Efforts of few benefited whole.
• Lead States may not benefit as much as others
• Learned how to tear off Post-It Notes.
• Learned how to write everything down.
• Lot of work wasn’t evenly spread. Organization needed to provide more support for people to participate at required level of effort.
• Meetings of group between Lead State meeting beneficial.
• Margo had to do a lot of honking to keep the geese (members) on the move.
• Cardinals should have home games on all future meetings.
• A lot of time spent trying to sort out real purpose of Lead State effort.
• Need better ways to assess the benefits of effort.
• SHRP Program would have faded without Lead State efforts.
• If you want to get anything done you need champions.
• Send every potential member to mission, goals, and values school before admitting to Team.

6.0 Phase-out Plan. The Team made the following recommendations to the AASHTO Task Force on SHRP Implementation:

• Continued - Federal/state implementation in marketing, training and travel.
• Federal, state and industry resources should be optimized.
• FHWA - Trade Shows (get a booth and handout literature and information).
• State DOT, industries, Academia Corporation on Training.
• Technology transfer.
• DOT Research Peer Exchange Program.
• Combining forces with other organizations and agencies that conduct research in an effort to foster cooperation.
• AASHTO Liaisons (SCOH).
  • Materials Sub-Committee Chair.
  • Construction Sub-Committee Chair.
  • FHWA person.
  • Structures Sub-Committee Chair.
  • Maintenance Sub-Committee Chair.
• Maintain ASR Team as an advisory group.
• Recommend different tasks to appropriate entities such as:
  • Technical assistance and education to FHWA.
• Other recommendations
  • R&D to follow and be ready by sunset.
• Web site.
  • To be decided by Task Force.
  • Recommended AASHTO takes responsibility.
• Start taking initial phase out steps now!

6.1 Prioritizing Products in the Phase-out Plan. The Team’s priority is ranked as follows:

• Guide specifications for construction (Ranked #1).
• Web site (Ranked #2).
• Literature/biography (Ranked #5).
• Training course (Ranked #3).
• Survey results (Ranked #3).
• Technical assistance (Ranked #3).
• Recommendations for mitigation (Ranked #4).
  • A potentially important item which must be reconsidered in the future higher ranking.

6.2 Prioritizing Products for the Future. For a future follow-up work one product prioritized was:

• Recommendation for mitigation.

7.0 Estimated Budget FYS 1999-2000. The Team submitted the following budget:

ASTM December meeting.	$ 4,000	1999
Training and technical assistance.	$40,000	1999
Lead State meetings.	$10,000	1999 and 2000
Travel including training course.	$40,000	2000
Web site.	$ 5,000	1999 and 2000
Totals:
	$51,500	1999
	$47,500	2000
	$99,000	1999 and 2000

8.0 Participation in 1999 TRB Meeting. The Team had the following proposal:

• Team presentation at SHRP Coordinators Meeting at TRB Sunday am.
  • Guide specifications summary.
• Papers to be presented on ASR at TRB.
  • Guide specification.
  • Web site.
• Booth at TRB.
  • Yes but a joint booth for all 7 Teams (staff from all teams).
  • Items for booth (Claudio will bring 50 copies).
    • C315
    • C343 (?)
    • Computer with web site access (ask for web site access)

9.0 Team’s Expectation from the Task Force: Improve communication. Inform Teams of the outcome of task force’s meetings.