Transition Plan for AASHTO
May 2000

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Lessons Learned

The purpose of the Lead States program was to demonstrate the value of SHRP by improving highway construction practices through application of the information it generated and implementation of the technologies it developed. The most notable aspect of the Lead States approach was the emphasis placed on using a "managing by values" approach to achieve this purpose. The "managing by values" approach may have been beneficial to the Task Force in planning and executing the Lead States program-. However, its application at the team level was a severe impediment to the Team's effort to sort out the real purpose of the Lead State program. It focused too much attention on the process thus detracting from the technological assessments necessary to make reasoned recommendations regarding what to disseminate, what to implement, and where to focus future research efforts.

In order to succeed, there was a need for a multidisciplinary team with a variety of skills. The concept of forming teams with federal, state, industry, and academic representatives was recognized to have a high value in this type of endeavor, however as with every committee effort, the level of participation varied among the individual members. Consequently, the Team should have made efforts during their initial formation process to identify and recruit interested and active individuals to full participation in the effort.

After the formation of the Team and based on individual participation and contribution, it became clear that champions should not have been designated, but rather allow them to volunteer as their interests dictated. This would have avoided "dead wood" on the Team, and minimized or prevented some of the frustration experienced by the Team's leader in attempting to elicit work from individuals who felt little allegiance to the Team.

Eventually the Team recognized that they could benefit from a more diverse pool of active industry representatives with broad, national outlooks. As a result the "Friends of the Team" concept was initiated. They sought the technical advice of "friends" from other agencies and national trade associations to provide a more balanced approach and to add to the Team's overall expertise. If the ASR Lead State Team is retained to serve in an advisory role to an AASHTO subcommittee, efforts should be made to continue this broad perspective the team provides.

To achieve a successful ASR Lead State program, individual participants had to expend considerable time and effort, far in excess of what was originally anticipated. To provide for this, individual members required the strong backing and support of their institutions to assure active participation, along with a dedicated source of funding. Likewise, the AASHTO subcommittees only will achieve success if they recognize this and incorporate it into their programs.

Determining the needs of customers, and specifically, who and where they were, was a challenging task. Having this information before hand would have allowed more focused effort to directly fill the needs. One survey was conducted, but the team was generally unable to formulate a definitive direction based on the results. The team faced a similar problem in trying to assess the benefits of the effort. A better approach for determining the needs specific to ASR, as well as assessing the effort to fill those needs, should have been developed. The ASR Lead State Team would be invaluable for providing input and action on these issues to the AASHTO subcommittees interested in specific ASR areas.

ASR is a significant durability problem that affects the performance of concrete in transportation systems in a number of locations. However, it is not the sole concrete durability issue facing AASHTO members and should not be addressed as if it is. The challenge for the future is to integrate the information gained on avoiding ASR into a comprehensive approach to design concrete that will be durable in its specific service environment, in other words, durable concrete. The FHWA-ACI Concrete Durability Workshop, being developed at the suggestion of the ASR Team, will attempt to provide this broader approach. As the AASHTO subcommittees look to the future, they should develop a comprehensive, integrated approach to design and specify concrete for durability. They would undoubtedly be well served by having an advisory team. This advisory team could bring a broad expertise in concrete materials and durability to the table.

Abrupt changes to the membership of the ASR Lead State Team resulted in a lack of progress on those tasks assigned to the person removed from the Team. These voids generated an unnecessary level of stress; higher work loads, and in at least one instance resulted in an irretrievable loss of information. A period of overlap in assignments should have been allowed to achieve a smooth transition.

A concerted effort to use the new ASR technology helped identify essential research needs for effective implementation of technology. A good technology transfer program should distinguish between those promising technologies that can be easily implemented and the ones that need further development. Those technologies that can be easily deployed should have a technology implementation plan. Those that need further development should have the support of management and researchers to bring them into an implementable stage.

The SHRP program, the FHWA-SHRP implementation, and the Lead State Program have changed the culture within the transportation professional community. The new ideas and changes are more readily accepted now than, say, 6 to 7 years ago. The general approach to the use of new technologies and products has become relatively more positive. Lessons learned from these programs can be summarized as follows:

• Plan research, evaluation and implementation together at the same time.
• Involve the users (customers) right from the beginning.
• Big size programs are more likely to succeed and be implemented than a series of limited scope efforts.
• Implementation must receive organizational support from top-down as well as from bottom-up.
• Successful implementation requires both the manpower and financial resources.
• Industry's role in the implementation is vital. A true partnership must be formed between the agencies and the industries. The two entities should specially work together as a team in the development of standards and the training programs needed for the new technologies.
• Identify champions who are committed to promote a given technology and support their efforts to the extent possible.
• Form regional groups such as users producer group and professional groups from the contiguous states committed to evaluate and promote the new technology.
• Establish a dialog with the local governments who are also the potential users of the new technologies in transportation.
• Intense and frequent communication must be maintained at all levels and with all parties involved in the implementation of technology. Use all modes of communication including electronic media, web sites, briefs and presentations.
• Benchmark and measure the progress on, 'as you go basis'.
• Most research when completed, must be converted into usable products, standards, specifications, equipment development, and training for the users, before it can be implemented. This work is not only necessary; it could be very resource intensive.
• Governments should simplify the procurement policies. These policies often jeopardize timely innovations.
• A comprehensive marketing plan must be developed for implementation.
• Costs / benefits data must be collected and analyzed for the new technologies.
• Continue the use of innovative concepts, such as the lead state program, for technology transfer.
• Demonstration projects and showcases are often desirable for gaining acceptance of the new products.
• There is a need to collect implementation data in a uniform manner and maintain this database at the national level.

Future Needs

The ASR Lead State Team recommends to the AASHTO subcommittees the following items that need future work.

Provide construction guidance for design of ASR-resistant PCC and managing ASR in existing concrete.

This would include the use of lithium as well as strategies using combination of technologies for the cost-effective control of ASR. Consideration to when these technologies should be used, quantities required as a function of aggregate reactivity, and for the case of mitigating existing ASR, when is it too late to justify the use of lithium.

Special consideration must be given to assure that current accepted strategies are in fact viable ways to control ASR. For example, it has been suggested that technologies using fly ash will eventually react with ASR and likewise durable concrete may very well be only temporary exempt and that eventually it may be subject to excessive ASR. Consideration must be given to evaluating such possibilities until a better understanding of ASR is achieved. Knowledge of such effects such as ash composition, addition rate and aggregate lithology/reactivity is essential for the development of better strategies for effective mitigation as compared to current one-size-fits-all procedures for designing ASR-proof concrete.

It might also include determining methods of predicting service life of facilities as well as life-cycle costs for new and existing concrete before and after applying mitigating strategies and developing strategies for evaluating current service life of ASR affected PCC. Such work has to factor in the effect of traffic, climate, aggregate reactivity, original and available cement alkali, deicing and freeze-thaw potential.

Continue collecting and distributing ASR information under one unified umbrella.

This would include monitoring the designated test sites, keeping the ASR Guide Specification current, publishing the round robin data, conducting a ruggedness data/study done, reviewing the proposed guide specification, and the paper by Fournier, Berube, and Rogers: Proposed Guidelines for the Prevention of Alkali-Silica Reaction in New Concrete Structures, and determining the degree to which ASR-affected concretes are creating problems.

As performance data become available from field-test sites, there will be a need for new research and technology implementation efforts. Continued technology transfer activities, outreach and other communication efforts will continue to be important.

Develop methods that will rapidly and reliably evaluate performance of concrete mixtures for ASR susceptibility.

An accelerated test procedure to test an actual mix. There is an absolute need for a test which will evaluate the potential reactivity of a comprehensive mix design, including the effects of the total alkali loading from the actual cement and pozzolan contents, the effects of unaltered coarse and fine aggregates, and the effects of the specific liquid admixtures. Without this information, extrapolations made from the existing tests remain guesses, at best.

Recommended Action Plan

Identify and Commit Personnel to the ASR Effort

• The Subcommittee(s) sponsoring the formation of the ASR Ad Hoc Team should communicate the need for experts from the individual AASHTO member states to participate in efforts of this new team.
• Convince the member agencies of the necessity to commit to allowing these experts time and funding to participate in the effort. It is recommended that this commitment be formalized in writing to lend authority to the individual expert.

Establish an AASHTO Structure for Addressing ASR Related Initiatives

• Keep the ASR Lead State Team involved in the AASHTO Subcommittee Task Forces to give them a structure to start with for dealing with ASR initiatives.

Establish source of Dedicated Funding

• Seek SP&R funds to support activities through a "host"
• Look at ways to combine private and public funding to raise support
• Look at ways for team to get paid for providing advice;
• Conduct cooperative agreements with private industry.

Continue collecting and distributing ASR information under one unified umbrella.

• Continue the condition monitoring of the existing ASR field test sites.
• Participate in other ASR related activities sponsored by other organizations such as ACI, ASTM, ICAR, CANMET, and PCA.

Provide construction guidance for design of ASR-resistant PCC and managing ASR in existing concrete.

• AASHTO should approve and publish the guide specification.
• Establish Ad Hoc team to review and revise the guide specification as the technology changes.
• Establish user producer groups with cement, fly ash, aggregate, and admixture industries; and with the user agencies.
• Sponsor self-sustaining training programs in conjunction with industry.
• Continue communication and sharing of information.
• Establish a comprehensive communication network, which encompasses all public and private agencies that specify concrete, to collect and share ASR information.
• Maintain ASR Lead State Team web site.
• Publish a regular ASR-related newsletter.
• Finalize the cost and benefit survey questionnaire, distribute it for data collection, collate the information, and summarize the results to provide guidance on ASR mitigation selection.

Support development of methods that will rapidly and reliably evaluate performance of concrete mixtures for ASR susceptibility.

• Establish an Ad Hoc Team to investigate and promote new ASR technology with financial assistance and support of top management within AASHTO.

In conclusion, the ASR Lead State Team has championed the further awareness of ASR, and the continued development and promotion of ASR avoidance and mitigation. In transitioning the program to AASHTO, the Team is confident that the AASHTO Subcommittees are a capable group. The ASR Lead State Team looks forward to a strong sustained cooperation with the AASHTO Subcommittees in carrying on the program.