Granite Summit Training Room - Sacramento, CA

Section 39 QC/QA STG Meeting

Granite Summit Training Room - Sacramento, CA

Group Memory

June 20, 2017

Desired STG Outcome: Develop biddable/buildableHMA specifications based on good economic and engineering judgment.

Yellow highlights = Latest comments

Green Highlight = Item complete but waiting on action

Blue highlights = Item has been resolved

General Comment

Comment (10-04-16): CT/IN agreed the STG should continue with the Group Memory format instead of the new Comments-Resolution table for efficiency.

Comment (10-04-16): IN preference in regard to meeting locations is to alternate meeting location between Industry and Caltrans facilities when possible.

Comment (10-04-16): Action item for Jack: Jack will check with CT ATG Co chairs on how the post plant gradation will be incorporated in the Section 39 and QC/QA STG.

Comment (10-04-16): This STG will continue with pre-plant gradation until further notice.

Comment (07-27-17): CT/IN CoChairs will update and proposed new dates/deliverables for RPC database.

Comment (07-27-17): CT co-chair received a list of questions Industry would like to ask FHWA. Those questions have been forwarded to CT ATG CoChair.

39-4 QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

39-4.01 GENERAL

Section 39-4 includes specifications for HMA produced and constructed under the Quality Control/Quality Assurance construction process.

The QC/QA construction process consists of:

1.Establishing, maintaining, and changing if needed a quality control system providing assurance the HMA complies with the specifications

2.Sampling and testing at specified intervals, or sublots, to demonstrate compliance and to control the process

3.Department sampling and testing at specified intervals to verify the testing process and HMA quality

4.Engineer using test results, statistical evaluation of verified quality control tests, and inspection to accept HMA for payment

A lot is a quantity of HMA. The Engineer designates a new lot when:

1.20 sublots are complete

2.JMF changes

3.Production stops for more than 30 days

Each lot consists of no more than 20 sublots. A sublot is 750 tons, except a quantity of HMA paved at day's end greater than 250 tons is a sublot. If a quantity of HMA paved at day's end is less than 250 tons, you may either make this quantity a sublot or include it in the previous sublot's test results for statistical evaluation.

39-4.02 CONTRACTOR QUALITY CONTROL

39-4.02A General

Use a composite quality factor, QFC, and individual quality factors, QFQCi, to control your process and evaluate the quality control program. For quality characteristics without quality factors, use your QC plan's action limits to control your process.

Control HMA quality including:

1.Materials

2.Proportioning

3.Spreading and compacting

4.Finished roadway surface

Develop, implement, and maintain a quality control program that includes:

1.Inspection

2.Sampling

3.Testing

39-4.02B Quality Control Plan

With the JMF submittal, submit a QC plan. The QC plan must comply with the Department's Quality Control Manual for Hot Mix Asphalt Production and Placement. Discuss the QC plan with the Engineer during the prepaving conference.

The Engineer reviews each QC plan within 5 business days from the submittal. Do not produce HMA until the Engineer authorizes the QC plan.

The QC plan must include the name and qualifications of a QC manager. The QC manager administers the QC plan and during paving must be at the job site within 3 hours of receiving notice. The QC manager must not be any of the following on the project:

1.Foreman

2.Production or paving crewmember

3.Inspector

4.Tester

The QC plan must include action limits and details of corrective action you will take if a test result for any quality characteristic falls outside an action limit.

As work progresses, you must submit a QC plan supplement to change quality control procedures, personnel, tester qualification status, or laboratory accreditation status.

39-4.02C Quality Control Inspection, Sampling, and Testing

Sample, test, inspect, and manage HMA quality control.

Provide a roadway inspector while HMA paving activities are in progress. Provide a plant inspector during HMA production.

Inspectors must comply with the Department's Quality Control Manual for Hot Mix Asphalt Production and Placement.

Provide a testing laboratory and personnel for quality control testing. Provide the Engineer unrestricted access to the quality control activities. Before providing services for the project, the Engineer reviews, accredits, and qualifies the testing laboratory and personnel under the Department's Independent Assurance Program.

For HMA at production start-up and every 5,000 tons, sample and test under California Test 371. Submit the test results to the Engineer and to:

For HMA at production start-up and once during production, submit samples split from your HMA production sample for California Test 371 to the Engineer and the Transportation Laboratory, Attention: Moisture Test.

The Department does not use results from California Test 371 to determine specification compliance.

Comply with the values for the HMA quality characteristics and minimum random sampling and testing for quality control shown in the following table:

Minimum Quality Control—QC/QA Construction Process
Quality characteristic / Test method / Minimum sampling and testing frequency / HMA Type / Location of sampling / Maxi-mum report-ing time allow-ance
A / B / RHMA-G
Aggregate gradationa / California Test 202 / 1 per 750 tons / JMF ± tolerance b / JMF ± tolerance b / JMF ± tolerance b / California Test 125 / 24 hours
Asphalt binder content (%) / California Test 379 or 382 / JMF ±0.45 / JMF ±0.45 / JMF ±0.50 / Loose mix behind paver
See
California Test 125
Percent of maximum theoretical density (%)c,d / QC plan / 92–96 / 92–96 / 91–96 / QC plan
Aggregate moisture content at continuous mixing plants and RAP moisture content at continuous mixing plants and batch mixing plantse / California Test 226 or 370 / 2 per day during production / -- / -- / -- / Stock-piles or cold feed belts / --
Sand equivalent (min) f / California Test 217 / 1 per 750 tons / 47 / 42 / 47 / California Test 125 / 24 hours
HMA moisture content (%,max) / California Test 226 or 370 / 1 per 2,500 tons but
not less than 1 per paving day / 1.0 / 1.0 / 1.0 / Loose Mix Behind Paver
See
California Test 125 / 24 hours
Stabilometer
value (min)f,g
No. 4 and 3/8" gradings
1/2" and 3/4" gradings / California Test 366 / 1 per 4,000 tons or 2 per 5 business days, whichever is greater / 30
37 / 30
35 / --
23 / 48 hours
Air void content (%)f,h / California Test 367 / 4 ± 2 / 4 ± 2 / TV ± 2
Percent of crushed particles coarse aggregate
(% min.):
One fractured face
Two fractured faces
Fine aggregate
(% min)
(Passing no. 4 sieve and retained on no. 8 sieve.):
One fractured face / California Test 205 / As design-ated in QC plan.
At least once per project. / 90
75
70 / 25
--
20 / --
90
70 / California Test 125 / 48 hours
Los Angeles Rattler (% max):
Loss at 100 rev.
Loss at 500 rev. / California Test 211 / 12
45 / --
50 / 12
40 / California Test 125
Fine aggregate angularity
(% min) / California Test 234 / 45 / 45 / 45 / California Test 125
Flat and elongated particle
(% max by weight @ 5:1) / California Test 235 / Report only / Report only / Report only / California Test 125
Voids filled with asphalt (%) i:
No. 4 grading
3/8" grading
1/2" grading
3/4" grading / California Test 367 / 76.0–80.0
73.0–76.0
65.0–75.0
65.0–75.0 / 76.0–80.0
73.0–76.0
65.0–75.0
65.0–75.0 / Report only / California Test 367
Voids in mineral aggregate
(% min.) i:
No. 4 grading
3/8" grading
1/2" grading
3/4" grading / California Test 367 / 17.0
15.0
14.0
13.0 / 17.0
15.0
14.0
13.0 / --
--
18.0–23.0j
18.0–23.0j / California Test 367
Dust
proportion i:
No. 4 and 3/8" gradings
1/2" and 3/4" gradings / California Test 367 / 0.9–2.0
0.6–1.3 / 0.9–2.0
0.6–1.3 / Report only / California Test 367
Smoothness / Section 39-1.12 / -- / 12-foot straight-edge, must-grind, and PI0 / 12-foot straight-edge, must-grind, and PI0 / 12-foot straight-edge, must-grind, and PI0 / --
Asphalt rubber binder viscosity @ 350 °F, centipoises / Section 39-1.02D / -- / -- / -- / 1,500–4,000 / Section 39-1.02D / 24 hours
CRM / Section 39-1.02D / -- / -- / -- / Section 39-1.02D / Section 39-1.02D / 48 hours
a Determine combined aggregate gradation containing RAP under California Test 367.
b The tolerances must comply with the allowable tolerances in section 39-1.02E.
c Required for HMA Type A, Type B, and RHMA-G if the specified paved thickness is at least 0.15 foot.
d Determine maximum theoretical density (California Test 309) at the frequency specified for test maximum density under California Test 375, Part 5 D.
e For adjusting the plant controller at the HMA plant.
f Report the average of 3 tests from a single split sample.
g California Test 304, Part 2.13.
h Determine the bulk specific gravity of each lab-compacted briquette under California Test 308, Method A, and theoretical maximum specific gravity under California Test 309.
iReport only if the adjustment for the asphalt binder content TV is less than or equal to ±0.3 percent from the OBC value submitted on a Contractor Hot Mix Asphalt Design Data form.
jVoids in mineral aggregate for RHMA-G must be within this range.

6. CT/IN: We need to replace existing QC Table with superpave Section 39 and modify as necessary.

(April 17, 2015) IN: Tony will insert current Section 39 Table for Type A and RHMA into this document

(April 20, 2015) IN: See attached testing tables for Method Standard and QC/QA process

(May 27, 2015) IN: Purpose of reviewing tables is to evaluate Superpave versus Hveem requirements.

(August 26, 2015) CT/IN: Need to revisit the Superpave table to determine if additional changes need to be made. For example, gradation, volumetrics, etc.

April 13, 2016: No change

Jun 15, 2016: No change, waiting for decision on max. aggregate temperature –post plant gradation from RPC

October 4, 2016: STG will assume pre-plant gradation until further notice.

October 4, 2016: STG will review Dennis Dvorak’s recommendations (could add %AC, VMA, 1 or 2 critical sieves as pay factors).

October 4, 2016: IN/CT agreed that #8 and #200 critical sieves.

October 4, 2016: IN proposes action/suspension limit for #8 and #200 sieves per FAA specification pre 2013.

October 4, 2016: CT wants to consider #8 and #200 sieves as pay factors with lower weighting factors. CT will report back next meeting on its position on #8 and #200 sieves.

October 4, 2016: IN and CT cannot agreed to QC sampling location. Who should determine the location of sampling?

Nov 17, 2016: CT will asked ATG if STG can assumed post-plant gradation rather than pre-plant gradation.

Nov 17, 2016: IN/CT will table this.

Nov 17, 2016: IN/CT: To-Do-List (Critical Items for completion of QC/QA specs)

Item 3: Add designated assistant
Item 4
Item 6 (partial)
Item 7
Item 8
Item 11
Item 12
Item 16
Item 18
Item 19
Item 20
Item 23
Item 25
Item 28
Item 29
Item 31
Item 32
Item 33
Item 34-39
Item 41
Item 44
Item 45

(December 13, 2016) IN/CT Have pay factors for #8 and #200 sieves with action suspension limits on other sieves.

CT would like to consider the following quality characteristics forpay factors:

# 8 sieve

# 200 sieve

Binder content

VMA

Density

Air voids

Industry andCaltrans agree on these items:

# 8 sieve

# 200 sieve

Binder content

Density

(December 13, 2016) IN:Industry is concerned with pay factors for VMA Air Voids and DP. Industry proposes that the remaining items have action/suspension limits.

(December 13, 2016) CT: CT will come back to industry with final list of items they want pay factors on.. CT will gather information from other DOT’s on items they want pay factors on.

(Jan 12, 2017)Tentative Agreement

CT/IN agree on pay factors for # 8 sieve, # 200 sieve, Binder content, Air Voids and Density. Tolerance and pay factor weight to be determined.

(March 9, 2017 Comments)

See items 46, 47 and 48

Aggregate Gradations for Type A HMA
(Percentage Passing)
1 inch
Sieve size / Target value limit / Allowable tolerance
1" / 100 / --
3/4" / 88–93 / TV ± 5
1/2" / 72–85 / TV ± 6
3/8" / 55–70 / TV ± 6
No. 4 / 35–52 / TV ± 7
No. 8 / 22–40 / TV ± 5
No. 30 / 8–24 / TV ± 4
No. 50 / 5–18 / TV ± 4
No. 200 / 3.0–7.0 / TV ± 2.0
3/4 inch
Sieve size / Target value limit / Allowable tolerance
1" / 100 / --
3/4" / 90–98 / TV ± 5
1/2" / 70–90 / TV ± 6
No. 4 / 42–58 / TV ± 5
No. 8 / 29–43 / TV ± 5
No. 30 / 10–23 / TV ± 4
No. 200 / 2.0–7.0 / TV ± 2.0
1/2 inch
Sieve size / Target value limit / Allowable tolerance
3/4" / 100 / --
1/2" / 95–98 / TV ± 5
3/8" / 72–95 / TV ± 5
No. 4 / 52–69 / TV ± 5
No. 8 / 35–55 / TV ± 5
No. 30 / 15–30 / TV ± 4
No. 200 / 2.0–8.0 / TV ± 2.0
3/8 inch
Sieve size / Target value limit / Allowable tolerance
1/2" / 100 / --
3/8" / 95–98 / TV ± 5
No. 4 / 55–75 / TV ± 5
No. 8 / 30–50 / TV ± 5
No. 30 / 15–35 / TV ± 5
No. 200 / 2.0–9.0 / TV ± 2.0
No. 4
Sieve size / Target value limit / Allowable tolerance
3/8" / 100 / --
No. 4 / 95–98 / TV ± 5
No. 8 / 70–80 / TV ± 6
No. 30 / 34–45 / TV ± 5
No. 200 / 2.0–12.0 / TV ± 4.0
Quality characteristic / Test method
Asphalt binder content (%) / AASHTO T 308 Method A
HMA moisture content (max, %) / AASHTO T 329
Air voids content at Ndesign (%)a, b / AASHTO T 269
Voids in mineral aggregate on laboratory-produced HMA (min, %)d
Gradation:
No. 4
3/8-inch
1/2-inch
3/4-inch
1-inch
with NMAS = 1-inch
with NMAS = 3/4-inch / SP-2
Asphalt Mixture
Volumetrics
Voids in mineral aggregate on plant-produced HMA (min, %)a
Gradation:
No. 4
3/8-inch
1/2-inch
3/4-inch
1-inch
with NMAS = 1-inch
with NMAS = 3/4-inch / SP-2 Asphalt Mixture Volumetricsc
Dust proportion / SP-2 Asphalt Mixture Volumetrics
Density of core (% of max theoretical density)e, f / California Test 375
Hamburg wheel track (min number of passes at 0.5-inch rut depth)
Binder grade:
PG 58
PG 64
PG 70
PG 76 or higher / AASHTO T 324 (Modified)
Hamburg wheel track (min number of passes at inflection point)
Binder grade:
PG 58
PG 64
PG 70
PG 76 or higher / AASHTO T 324 (Modified)
Moisture susceptibility (min, psi, dry strength) / AASHTO T 283
Moisture susceptibility (min, psi, wet strength) / AASHTO T 283
Aggregate Gradations for RHMA-G
(Percentage Passing)
3/4 inch
Sieve size / Target value limit / Allowable tolerance
1" / 100 / --
3/4" / 95–98 / TV ± 5
1/2" / 83–87 / TV ± 6
3/8" / 65–70 / TV ± 5
No. 4 / 28–42 / TV ± 6
No. 8 / 14–22 / TV ± 5
No. 200 / 0.0–6.0 / TV ± 2.0
1/2 inch
Sieve size / Target value limit / Allowable tolerance
3/4" / 100 / --
1/2" / 90–98 / TV ± 6
3/8" / 83–87 / TV ± 5
No. 4 / 28–42 / TV ± 6
No. 8 / 14–22 / TV ± 5
No. 200 / 0.0–6.0 / TV ± 2.0
RHMA-G Acceptance In Place
Quality characteristic / Test method / Requirement
Asphalt binder content (%) / AASHTO T 308 Method A / JMF -0.40, +0.50
HMA moisture content (max, %) / AASHTO T 329 / 1.00
Air voids content @ Ndesign (%)a, b / AASHTO T 269 / 4.0 ± 1.5
Voids in mineral aggregate on laboratory-produced HMAd (min, %)
Gradation:
1/2-inch and 3/4-inch / SP-2 Asphalt Mixture Volumetricsc / 18.0–23.0
Voids in mineral aggregate on plant-produced HMA (min, %)a
Gradation:
1/2-inch and 3/4-inch / SP-2 Asphalt Mixture Volumetricsc / 17.0–22.0
Dust proportiona / SP-2 Asphalt Mixture Volumetrics / Report only
Density of core (% of max theoretical density)e, f / California Test 375 / 91.0–97.0
Hamburg wheel track (min number of passes at 0.5-inch rut depth)
Binder grade:
PG 58
PG 64
PG 70 / AASHTO T 324 (Modified) / 15,000
20,000
25,000
Hamburg wheel track (min number of passes at inflection point)
Binder grade:
PG 58
PG 64
PG 70 / AASHTO T 324 (Modified) / 10,000
12,500
15,000
Moisture susceptibility (min, psi, dry strength) / AASHTO T 283 / 100
Moisture susceptibility (min, psi, wet strength) / AASHTO T 283 / 70
aPrepare 3 briquettes. Report the average of 3 tests.
bThe Engineer determines the bulk specific gravity of each lab-compacted briquette under AASHTO T 275, Method A, and theoretical maximum specific gravity under AASHTO T 209, Method A.
cDetermine bulk specific gravity under AASHTO T 275, Method A.
dThe Engineer determines the laboratory-prepared RHMA-G value for only mix design verification.
eThe Engineer determines percent of theoretical maximum density under California Test 375 except the Engineer uses:
1.AASHTO T 275, Method A, to determine in-place density of each density core instead of using the nuclear gauge
2.AASHTO T 209, Method A to determine theoretical maximum density instead of calculating test maximum density
fThe Engineer determines theoretical maximum density under AASHTO T 209, Method A, at the frequency specified in California Test 375, part 5, section D.

7. IN: Binder content specifications are lopside

(May 27, 2015) IN: Industry will confirm PWL specification are valid for lopsided specifications (binder content).

(Jun 18, 2015) IN: Industry is concerned with tighter tolerance band (-0.3; + 0.5) impact on pay factors. Industry has concern with the unbalance factor and would like to consider +/- 0.4.

(June 18 2015) ACTION ITEM: Pete will modify HMAPay to make an “info only” version for contractors to use to analyze the effects of unbalanced tolerances on the quality factor determined for binder content. Contractors will be able to export data from an existing version of HMAPay file (being used on a contract) into the “info only” version to determine what the quality factor for binder content would have been if the project used the -0.3 and +0.5% binder tolerance.

(July 30 2015) Industry is split on issue. Some do not agree with methodology to increase binder content but will not contest issue.

(October 4 2016) IN: IN want to reopen this issue

(October 4, 2016) IN: IN want a balanced tolerance of +/- 0.4 to mix to be produced at the JMF target value.

(October 4, 2016) IN reported that the variation in BC using ignition (ASTM D 6307) is 0.17 between labs.

(October 4, 2016) CT will attempt to collect data of Superpave mixes to determine asphalt content variation, Gradation (#8, #200), air voids, VMA, and density for Type A-HMA and RHMA-G.

(October 4, 2016) CT will send out (via Phil Stolarski) survey to state DOTs on tolerances for asphalt content, Gradation (#8, #200), air voids, VMA, and density for dense graded mix (ie. Type A-HMA).

(December 13, 2016) IN: Binder content tolerance should be balanced.

(December 13, 2016) CT/IN: We will ask FHWA if unbalanced tolerance for binder content is appropriate for QC/QA specifications.

(Jan 12, 2017) CT/IN Waiting for meeting with FHWA to discuss.

8. CT: Should QC/QA apply to BWC-G and OGFC?

(Jun 18, 2015) Action Item: Industry will discuss and will get back to CT on this.

(July 30, 2015) IN: There should be pay factors on binder content and gradation to incentivize quality.

(July 30, 2015) CT: CT will get back to industry by next meeting on this.

August 26, 2015. CT: Yes, if it meets the QC/QA requirements (ie, minimum 10,000 tons continuous paving).

Comment (October 4, 2016): CT: Still need to review and establish the standard deviation for binder content and gradation for BWC-G and OGFC.

(December 13, 2016) IN: Can use gradation standard deviation for RHMA-G for BWC using RHMA-G.

(December 13, 2016) IN Can use standard deviation for gradation for RHMA-O for OGFC.

Still need to review and establish the standard deviation for binder content for BWC-G and OGFC.

(Jan 12, 2017) No progress to date. Will confer with FHWA in FHWA training session.

(March 9, 2017)

IN/ CT: This is a huge task tocollect and synthesize binder content and gradation data to establish standard deviations for binder content and gradation.We will make an effort to collect binder content and gradation data for BWC and OGFC though a pilot project process. We will work on this item further when sufficient data has been collected. This will not be part of the QC/QA specification at this time.

(April 20, 2017 comments)

CT/IN: STG will write research project objectives for consideration by the RPC.STG document will be forwarded to ATG Co-chairs for further action.

(July 27, 2017 comments)

CT/IN: No progress.

9. IN: OGFC cannot be sampled from the mat behind the paver

July 30, 2015) CT: CT will get back to industry by next meeting on this.

(August 26, 2015) IN: Sampling behind paver will lose binder (draindown) or will gain binder (from tack coat). Sampling behind paver will affect smoothness.

(August 26, 2015) CT: CT has always sample behind the paver.