September 24, 2024 • 33 mins
Ever wondered how and why a new proficiency sample scheme was created? Special guests John Malusky and Ryan LaQuay join hosts Brian Johnson and Kim Swanson to reveal the meticulous planning process behind the Hamburg Wheel Tracking samples, a groundbreaking addition to AASHTO re:source's Proficiency Sample Program. Hear firsthand accounts of the logistical challenges faced during its development, the steps taken to prevent segregation, and the lessons learned from pilot studies with DOTs that highlight the critical importance of well-blended materials.
Read this episode's companion article or watch the video on YouTube.
Have questions, comments, or want to be a guest on an upcoming episode? Email podcast@aashtoresource.org.
Related information on this and other episodes can be found at aashtoresource.org.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Kim Swanson (00:03):
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
We're taking time to discussconstruction materials, testing
and inspection with people inthe know.
From exploring testing problemsand solutions to laboratory
best practices and qualitymanagement, we're covering
topics important to you.
Brian Johnson (00:19):
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
I am Brian Johnson, with me ismy co-host, kim Swanson, and we
have some special guests JohnMalusky and Ryan LaQuay.
Kim Swanson (00:35):
I can't believe you did that, Brian.
We just had a conversationabout how we're going to
pronounce our A's and I did notagree to that pronunciation, but
I'm glad everyone can be herefor today's episode yeah.
Brian Johnson (00:48):
So the reason in case you're wondering why why I
did that we were today's episodeis about the Hamburg or Homburg
(01:10):
wheel tracking test, and thereason why we're talking about
that today is because it is anew addition to the proficiency
sample program.
So that's why John Molesky andRyan LaCroix are here with us,
and what we were talking aboutis, when you go to a meeting,
you often hear people say eitherHamburg or Homburg, and we're
(01:30):
going to call it just soeverybody knows.
I know we have someinternational listeners.
We're going to call it Hamburgbecause we're American and
that's just how we typically sayit.
So no offense to ourinternational listeners about
how we pronounce Hamburg orHamburg, but I want to get that
out of the way right up front soit doesn't become an ongoing
(01:51):
issue on this podcast.
Does that sound good, john?
John Malusky (01:54):
That works for me, Brian.
Thank you.
Brian Johnson (01:56):
I have to admit, the composure was excellent.
I don't know if you're watchingthis, but you guys maintained
pretty good composure throughthat introduction, so
congratulations.
What we want to talk about isthe proficiency sample program,
not just because it's a newsample, but because of how we
prepared it this time.
So, john, why don't you give ussome background on how we got
(02:19):
here?
Why did we add this sampleprogram to our system?
John Malusky (02:23):
Why did we add this sample program to our
system.
Well, this has been probably ayear to a year and a half in the
making, Back in I'm going tosay, the spring of 2023.
During our technical exchange,there was a discussion with the
administrative task group, whichis AASHTO Resources Oversight
of the state DOTs and theybounce ideas off of us and
(02:48):
proposals and recommendations,and one of the recommendations
was to investigate theplausibility of having a Hamburg
Wheel Track proficiency sampleprogram.
So that's kind of where itoriginated, way back when a year
and a half ago.
And then throughout the courseof that time, Ryan myself and
the Proficiency Sample Programcrew spent a lot of time having
(03:12):
discussions, doing some research, talking to plant producers,
other people such as NCAT, DOTstaff, just trying to figure out
a way to make this work and doit in a reasonable fashion.
So it's been a little while.
Kim Swanson (03:30):
What were some of the challenges that you
encountered while you weretrying to prepare this?
Ryan LaQuay (03:35):
We talked with a number of different people in
the industry DOTs and whatnotwhere they were doing similar
programs, and they had a numberof issues.
The one big issue was makingthe quantity of samples needed
for their participants.
Because with Hamburg we're doingHamburg, you need at least four
(04:00):
compacted samples or slabswhatnot there?
Or compacted samples or slabs,whatnot there.
So we're looking at for us weput in about all in 10,000 grams
of material and that needed tobe pretty darn similar across
the board for the whole thing.
And way we've done that in thepast for our mixed samples is we
(04:24):
hand batch everything, hand mixeverything.
So doing that 200 times over,because we have about 160 labs
in this program plus our extrasand whatnot, is not quite
feasible.
So we had to figure out abetter way to do that.
So we asked around to theseother programs had a variety of
(04:45):
different methodologies for howthey got their materials.
So we had to kind of go throughthat and see what was feasible
for us and what we couldactually manage.
Brian Johnson (04:54):
All right.
So when you did the firstattempt at this, can you give us
some background about how thatwent?
Ryan LaQuay (04:59):
We did a little pilot with, was it four?
three DOTs, four DOTs, Yep alittle pilot with uh, was it
four, three dots, four dots?
Um.
So we, uh, we talked to a localmanufacturer, got some plant
mix, um, batched it out the waythat we, you know, thought we
were going to do it for for theproduction here.
Um, and the way we did thatfirst was we sent out two boxes,
sample a, sample b, and we'dhave them then batch down to
(05:22):
their two individual specimens.
Out of that, some confusionhappened there on the batching
and which sample is which.
Is it sample A, the top sample?
Is it sample A, the bottomsample?
So we got that out.
There had some confusion on theinstructions and then whenever
we actually ran the samples theyblew apart.
It was what, 3,000 passes or so, yeah.
(05:47):
I think that's right and justabsolutely exploded, so that one
got a quick X of not a viablesample.
John Malusky (05:54):
The one thing that we noticed right from the
get-go is that we're alreadyseeing some challenges and
variations just with preparingthe material itself.
Some challenges and variationsjust with preparing the material
itself.
Ryan and I compacted probably20, 30 different pucks in our
(06:14):
gyratory compactor in ourfacility to try to hit the
correct specimen height of the62 millimeters but also get the
right air voids.
And to the industry people whoare doing this, that's pretty
common and seems like it'd be apretty easy thing.
But one thing that we realizedis that our compactor is
completely different than othercompactors.
There are so many differentmakes and manufacturers and
(06:37):
models out there that thereappears to be quite a bit of
variation.
So when we're looking at someof the data in this round, we're
actually asking for things likethe number of gyrations.
It took your gyratory compactorto get to the 62 millimeters
just because of some of thevariation that we're seeing.
Like our compactor specifically, it's an older Pine 125X and it
(07:00):
compacts from the top down andit was taking us like,
specifically with this mix thatwe used for the round, I think
it was in the low 40s.
Correct me if I'm wrong, ryan.
You did the last final one.
I think it was high 30s, low40s For us to get to the six to
seven I guess six to 8% airvoids at 62 millimeters of
(07:21):
height.
And we've seen otherlaboratories with the same mix,
different compactor.
It will take them 75 to 90gyrations, so just immediately
off the top we're seeing somevariation with the compaction
effort itself.
So that was probably one of thebiggest things we've tried to
(07:44):
overcome and figure out from theget-go.
Ryan already kind of mentionedthe segregation issues that we
may have with the mix.
We actually spent quite a bitof time talking to the Ministry
of Transportation of Ontario.
They have a laboratory program,sample program, kind of like we
do, and huge thanks to them fortheir support and help with
(08:05):
this.
But the first thing that theyimmediately told us is do not go
with any mix over a half inch,12 and a half millimeter mix
because of segregation.
Um, they were shedding somelight on on what they do, uh,
they actually kind of do astockpile, uh type sampling, and
they they advised against thatdue to segregation and they
(08:26):
provided their procedures andprotocols.
Um, so we we kind of kind ofshied away from that just
because of their recommendations.
Um, but it was, it's been.
It's been interesting, so I'llsay that.
So the the design was just aninitial challenge itself.
I think we we went through what?
Four different mixes, or threedifferent mixes, until we
(08:47):
targeted the one for the roundwith multiple trials, with
different DOTs.
So it took a little bit, forsure.
I think that's why it took usprobably 18 months to get it
going.
Brian Johnson (08:58):
Yeah, that's great that you spent that extra
time to get it right before yousent it out, so I think that
should give people someconfidence.
Extra time to get it rightbefore you send it out, so I
think that should give peoplesome confidence.
What other data are youcollecting in this sample other
than the gyrations?
Ryan LaQuay (09:13):
Let's pull up the data sheet here and look at
everything we've got.
So we're looking for compactiondevice manufacturer and model,
the average record temperatureof the mix prior to compaction.
Average time from sampling pourin the mold until compactor
applies the load.
Number of gyrations asmentioned before.
(09:35):
Then we're going to havelaboratories determine the
bulk-specific gravity.
We will be providing them amaximum specific gravity and
then they'll calculate thepercent air voids.
And then when we go to theHamburg we're going to ask for
the wheel track manufacturerwhether or not the root mean
square error has been verified.
(09:56):
And then the rut depth from 5,10, 15, and 20,000 passes,
stripping inflection point, rutdepth at stripping inflection
point and number of passes tofailure.
Brian Johnson (10:07):
I don't want you to give away this answer, sure,
but I assume you have anexpectation of how many passes
to failure on this sample,correct, correct?
We do so you'll be.
Now.
This is our proficient sampleprogram, so the ratings will be
based on the average, but youhave at least an idea.
(10:27):
So should anybody expect to beable to complete the test as
they normally do and not get afailure?
John Malusky (10:36):
So for this round I can't say we're 100% certain
as to what's going to happen.
The other trial runs thatRyanyan and I had talked about,
the the pass count wassubstantially low.
You know, our first one, we weused a mix that I believe was
around 30 wrap that I thinkfailed around 3500 passes.
(10:58):
The second one was a standardvirgin mix with no wrap at all
and I think that was around7,000 passes, ryan, yep, and
this one from the data thatwe've seen, I would I'll say
this you can anticipate it to beover 10,000.
So we were hoping that many ofthe state specifications that
(11:19):
are out there now arerecommending a 10,000 minimum
pass count.
So our first goal was to try toat least hit that with the
design.
So we're anticipating that itwill make 10,000 passes.
We can't guarantee that on theaverage and what the normal
distribution is going to looklike and a standard deviation,
but we're hopeful that it goesbeyond 10,000 passes.
(11:42):
The one thing that we had adiscussion with some of the
industry experts is do we want asample that doesn't fail?
And our answer to that was no,because if we don't get a
failing sample at some point upto that 20,000 pass count.
Then people can't determine astripping inflection point as
accurately, because you'reyou're getting much more
(12:04):
interpret, interpretation or,excuse me, interpolation, rather
than just getting a failure andbeing able to plot that so, um,
yeah, it's, it's.
It's been interesting to try tofigure this all out and learn.
Um, you know it's a lot, of, alot of effort behind the scenes
went into this.
To be honest, probably theeasiest part was the production.
(12:26):
Once we got this figured out,had some discussion with the
crew, the packaging was prettyeasy.
Brian Johnson (12:35):
Before we go too far.
I don't want to forget this.
I want to go back to one of thecomments Ryan made earlier.
In case anybody doesn't knowthis test, can you please
clarify when you said that thesample explodes?
We're not sending out, uh,explosive materials correct.
Ryan LaQuay (12:53):
Yeah, we're not using gunpowder as mineral
filler.
Uh no, it's um, basically therut the wheel as it comes
through the sample um, shoves itall out to the side um, and
does not nice and clean.
It's like you take a heavyweight through mud and just kind
of push it all out to the side.
Brian Johnson (13:12):
Yeah, so it collapsed.
It collapsed and fell apart.
So I want to make sure peopleunderstand that who don't know
the test.
I'm sure the people who knowthe test kind of had an idea of
what you were saying, but thosewho don't probably were very
curious about that comment.
Let's get back to thepreparation of this sample.
So if you know about ourproficiency sample program, you
know that we prepare everythingso carefully.
(13:34):
We weigh up all the aggregateto the nearest tenth of a gram
and it's got to fall within avery tight range and we add the
asphalt to the tenth of a gram.
Uh, and we were so precise inour measurement and we're so
consistent that we come up withthese really good samples that
are that are repeatable, youknow, able to be tested in a
repeatable manner and come upwith some good data.
(13:57):
The big change here is that wedidn't do that this time, not
that that we weren't careful,but we did it a little
differently and faster and morerepresentative of what people do
in practice.
John, can you take us throughyour experience in developing
this methodology this time?
John Malusky (14:19):
Yeah, the biggest thing was what we've kind of
already touched on a little bitdiscussing with the producers
and suppliers and other industryexperts and the main issue is
segregation.
That was our biggest concernwhen we packaged this material.
So we didn't want to stockpilesample right.
(14:39):
We didn't want to just have amixed truck come here and dump a
pile on the ground or dump apile on a stainless steel sheet
that we had like release agenton it, because obviously when
you dump in a pile, materialrolls and that role is
segregation.
So after a lot of investigationand discussion we decided and
(15:01):
settled on the use of a hot boxtrailer, which is basically a
truck that's just got a dieselburner in, it, heats the sides
and base and it's typically usedfor pothole patching.
But that was a way for us toget enough material, keep it
warm, able to be workable and wefelt like we would keep it
(15:23):
consistent.
And the other majorrecommendation was I kind of
already mentioned particle size.
We started out with a 3, 8 inchor 9.5 millimeter mix I think
the asphalt content was justover 5% to try to keep a little
bit more liquid or keep it alittle bit more viscous.
So we had that kind of flowingcapability to not allow it to
(15:47):
segregate, just as if we were topackage a fine aggregate or a
sand.
We would keep things in a moistcondition to stop fine
separation and particleseparation.
So just something completelydifferent.
It actually took us probablyfour months to find a hotbox
trailer itself.
We could have bought a new one,but given that we were only
(16:09):
going to need this foressentially one day, we didn't
feel that it was justified inthe purchase.
So we contacted multiplesuppliers.
I was at a trade show or twotalking to different people to
try to get one and we werefortunate to find a company that
rents them, and they are onlyabout 40 miles away from us, so
(16:30):
we actually really lucked out.
They had availability.
We actually rented the trailerfor a month to make sure that we
had it, even though we knew weonly needed it for a day or two.
Plus, we wanted to account forthings like the weather we
wanted to have the truck here onsite and any event that we had
a rainy day we could hold offand not have to package and try
(16:52):
to do our best to make sure thatall things were accounted for.
A ton of effort even went intothe box size that we use for the
quick release boxes.
Ryan had mentioned before thatwe were going to take a larger
sample and have the laboratorysplit and then, after the
(17:13):
confusion that we so pumped intothe whole program by having
horrible splitting instructions,splitting instructions, we we
made the decision and alternatedour course to send out single
samples for each portion of thewheel, so the front of the wheel
, the back or so.
(17:33):
For those of you who don't knowthe hamburg specimens, there's
two pucks in each side of themachine, a front and a back, so
for the left side of the machineand then for the right side
machine.
So that's why ryan hadmentioned we had to send four
samples.
So rather than sending twoboxes and have the laboratory
split, to get the four or onegigantic box and have the
laboratory split, we went withfour individual boxes.
(17:55):
So we had to adjust and contactour supplier for the quick
release boxes and had probablyseven or eight different sizes
of boxes sent here and testedthem to see how they would split
and what would fit and all thatgood stuff.
Ryan LaQuay (18:12):
That goes well beyond just putting rocks in a
box actually we got the boxesand we took some just random mix
and also went and checked ourdifferent scoops, uh, to see
what would work out.
So we just hit a bunch of stuffin the lab, brought all scoops
to see what would work out.
So we just heat a bunch ofstuff in the lab, brought all
the scoops together and tried tofigure out like all right, this
scoop can get us to about 50%capacity, so two scoops gets us
(18:32):
one, or this one gets abouttwo-thirds of the way, so one
full scoop and a little partial.
So that was a solid morningthat we spent just trying to
figure out scoops and boxes andhow we'd approach that.
Brian Johnson (18:43):
Did you identify the individual sample boxes to
tell them where to put them inthe?
So you actually did label them.
John Malusky (18:49):
Yep, okay, all right, that's what I thought you
were saying but I want to makesure.
Yeah, with the sample labels,we'll say, you know, sample A
front, sample A back, sample Bfront, sample B back.
So the laboratories arehopefully putting in, putting
them in this specific locationfor the machine and that's
following all the way throughthe compaction effort.
Brian Johnson (19:10):
Yeah.
So, the segregation issue.
You mentioned the challengesthat you would have with a pile.
Obviously, dumping from thetruck to the hotbox trailer is
going to potentially have somesegregation and then sampling
out of that, I would think,would also have a risk of some
(19:32):
segregation of the particlesizes.
How did it look when you were,when you were actually getting
your samples out of the hot box,where I mean because visually
you'd be able to see if you wereexperiencing some segregation.
What did you think?
Ryan LaQuay (19:45):
Yeah, no red flags.
During the production process.
Everything looked pretty wellhomogeneous.
There wasn't like big clumps of3S material or big clumps of
fine material.
Everything seemed pretty wellblended.
We are actively right now so Iwas late to this recording
testing that to verify that itwas all properly blended and
homogeneous.
Brian Johnson (20:06):
Oh, so what are you doing to test that, Ryan?
Ryan LaQuay (20:09):
So we are doing a successful extraction, so we're
burning in gradations, so we'llprobably be done early next week
and we'll have our final dataon how well this turned out.
Brian Johnson (20:19):
And what does success look like in that result
?
What are you hoping to see?
Look like in that result.
What are you hoping to see.
Ryan LaQuay (20:25):
So we're going to look to have basically the
distribution of materials,distribution of asphalt content,
to be pretty darn close.
So for our in-house blendedsamples we have some tolerance
because human error and whatnot.
So we're basically looking tomake sure that we're still
within that spread of tolerance,also looking against the
(20:47):
standard for repeatability onthat, just seeing that
everything is generally the sameacross the board.
So they're not going to beperfect, but we're trying to be
as close as we can.
John Malusky (20:59):
Yeah, one thing I do want to go back to and kind
of add a little bit ofclarification is, brian, you had
talked about using a truck todump the truck into the trailer.
That's not what happened, so weactually so.
With the trailer situation, ourcrew took the trailer directly
to the batch plant and the batchplant just dropped the prepared
(21:20):
mix out of the hopper right in.
So we eliminated one potentialproblem, uh, step of
inhomogeneity, um, and it itseemed to to work out.
Like I said, I think the onlything that we did notice was,
after a little while, some finesand asphalt did stack up on the
scoops, um, but after so manyuh, maybe Ryan, there every 35,
(21:44):
40 minutes, we actually swappedscoops out to keep our scoops
clean, and then the ones thatwere dirty and had fines built
up around the lip, we cleanedthose off.
You know, to try to do our bestto stop any kind of segregation
.
So, you know, we, like I said,we put a ton of thought into it
to to try our best and we'regoing to see what happens with
(22:05):
it.
Brian Johnson (22:06):
Now there are other wheel tracking tests out
there other than the hamburg.
How did we get to only have asample program for that test and
is there any thought topossibly adding or expanding
this program to include otherwheel tracking or rut testing
(22:26):
tests?
Ryan LaQuay (22:27):
well, I assume we got here because this is the
ATG's biggest target wheneverthey brought it up to us.
It's becoming more popular forspecifiers.
They want to have data on this.
That's something that we canget out of this, hopefully.
But yeah, this is also ourfirst toe in the water.
If this goes well, we're goingto look at all the rest of the
(22:49):
balanced mix design programs ortest methods and develop out
through there.
John Malusky (22:55):
Yep, that's correct.
We're looking at other methods.
Some of the other things thatwe've already had suggestions
for are indirect tensilestrength and tensile strength
ratio, so they're kind of theother two that are on the radar
already for this.
But we will see what happens.
We're going to see how it goes.
Hopefully the homogeneity andstability data come back and are
(23:17):
reasonable.
You know, the one thing that'skind of tough is we've always
benchmarked our homogeneity offof our previous samples, so all
the individual batching and handmixing.
So it's going to be a littlebit more challenging, we believe
, for us to hit some of thosecriteria because it's not
prepared the same way.
So we're going to have toevaluate the homogeneity and
(23:40):
stability from a differentbenchmark, which is going to be
a little bit different for us.
So we'll see.
I mean, I think we're veryoptimistic about the way things
went and we'll see how it goesas we continue to test
individually mixed and batchedsamples that we typically send
(24:14):
out.
Brian Johnson (24:15):
Do you think you're going to expand that
methodology to the other asphaltmixture sample programs?
John Malusky (24:22):
If we do see success with this and the
materials appear to be stableand homogenous and the data that
Ryan and our other laboratorytechnician generate, if it looks
good, we will anticipate movingthis type of production into
our solvent extraction sample.
It will help alleviate sometime constraints that we
(24:45):
experience and if the mix isconsistent, then we'll go ahead
and progress in that way andmove to that kind of packaging
event, first with that sampletype, and if it continues to
show promise of good, consistentdata, we would consider making
a change to our gyratory programand instead of having
(25:08):
laboratories do the batching andmixing and all that kind of
stuff by themselves, we wouldconsider a just a, you know,
essentially like a QC typeprogram where laboratories would
get boxes of mix and simplycompact specimens and then, you
know, do the typical volumetrictesting on it and then kind of a
(25:36):
branch off is the way that weset up our current gyratory
program was sending virginmaterial to laboratories to test
.
It would kind of go to more ofa mixed design program where we
would send specific batchinginformation but then the
laboratories would beresponsible for testing and
providing data for all thecomponents of a mixed design, so
aggregate, specific gravities,angularity.
(25:59):
You know then, obviously, yourvolumetric properties as well.
You know GMA, bulk gravity, thestone, bulk gravity, the pucks,
the asphalt, max gravity, vma,vfa, dust-to-binder ratio.
So it would be more of anencompassing program for a
(26:21):
facility who's specificallydoing mix design itself rather
than just QC checking the mix tomake sure that you're hitting
your volumetric properties.
So there's a lot of opportunityto make some changes to the
program and try to streamlinethe process a little bit for us
and the facilities and the labs.
And we're just going to see howit goes.
(26:43):
We got to, as Ryan said, we gotto dip our toe in the water
first.
And this is it, kim, do you?
Brian Johnson (26:48):
have any questions for them.
Kim Swanson (26:50):
I do.
I mean, that seems like a lotof potentially exciting things
happening based on the successof this round.
We also have some other newsamples in the proficiency
sample world that we're doing,so I don't want to spend too
much time on it, but can you goover just what's new coming up
currently or coming up in 2025?
(27:13):
That are new samples.
Ryan LaQuay (27:15):
Well, I'll say everything within the next six
months.
That'll cover it all.
Yeah, sure.
So end of this year we aredoing a winter maintenance
product sample.
This was brought to us throughClearRoads and the DOTs sample.
This was brought to us throughClearRoads and the DOTs.
Basically, this said, we haveour qualified product list, but
(27:35):
we want to make sure that thetesting laboratories are
competent in what they're doing.
So we're trying to do that witha liquid component and a solid
component.
Enrollment is open now, stillopen.
We have it open until middle ofNovember, trying to get as many
people as we can into that one.
We need more.
So if you're listening and youhave a chem lab who does this,
send them our way, please.
Thank you.
And then in the beginning ofnext year we are splitting out
(28:01):
the soil and chemistry andcorrosivity tests out of the
soil sample.
So this is basically somethingthat was already in the soil
classification compaction sample, but we weren't able to modify
the soil to have, you know, goodresults out of it.
Brian Johnson (28:14):
so we're pulling that off to the side, keeping
the classification compactionsample as it is and making this
one actually a viable testingsample when we get to those
points, I think we'll have tohave other podcast recordings to
get into the weeds, like we didtoday on the Hamburg, so that
people can learn more about themprecisely.
(28:34):
But back to one thing I do wantto address on those the winter
maintenance one.
So far, just so people have anidea, what are our numbers
looking like now?
Ryan LaQuay (28:46):
We have six participants.
Brian Johnson (28:49):
Six participants is a very sad number because we
need more data.
So the value of the programhinges on the number of
participants, right?
Ryan LaQuay (29:02):
Yeah, so our statistical analysis will start
to fall apart once we becomeunder 17 participants.
So that's our minimum benchmarkwe're looking for.
Brian Johnson (29:11):
So we've got a ways to go here A little bit.
If you are far enough from theequator, enough to care about
this type of activity wintermaintenance no matter where you
are on the planet considersigning up for this program,
because I'm sure that people allover the world are interested
(29:33):
in this and could probablybenefit from the results of this
program.
So it doesn't have to be justDOTs or their subcontractors
that participate in this.
John Malusky (29:44):
The program actually has a lot of additional
potential.
You know, not just for the, I'mgoing to say, physical
properties of the brine solutionand rock salt, right.
One of the big things we'reobviously looking at is particle
size and distribution of youknow the rock salt and how the
gradation is met, so you knowwhat kind of out of the back of
(30:05):
a truck appropriately.
But one of the other componentsthat I think Ryan and I didn't
even realize that was involvedwas the chemical component of
the brine solutions.
Many of the standards that wehaven't included in the program
yet because of I don't want tosay a ton of interest, but maybe
the interest isn't or the ideais not out there yet but for
(30:30):
wastewater, right.
So when all of this, the brinesolution gets put on roads as a
treatment that eventually getswashed into the environment.
So a lot of the testing is forthings like lead, arsenic, other
heavy metals that are out there.
So you know, it's kind of alsoa little bit more of an
environmental side as well thanjust simply construction
(30:53):
materials as as we're used to.
So this is also another littletoe dabble in the water of a
different type of material thanwe've we've done in the past.
Um, you know, but basicallybecause of interest from from
dots and members, so we'll seehow it goes.
But, uh, but yeah, if you agreewith what b said, if you have
the opportunity to sign up,please do so.
Uh, so we can get some gooddata out there.
Brian Johnson (31:15):
I don't have any other questions for you on this
topic, Kim.
Kim Swanson (31:19):
No, I think everyone covered everything that
I had questions for.
So I mean, I'm I'm happy yeah.
Yeah, I mean, I'm not gonna lie.
Some of this was way over myhead, so that is why I stayed
quiet most of the episode.
But I want to thank you bothfor taking time today to talk
about this and share about thenew Hamburg Wheel Track sample,
(31:42):
and then I do look forward tohearing about some of the other
new samples as we get closer tothose.
John Malusky (31:49):
Yeah, thanks, kim.
I think one thing we shoulddefinitely consider is a
follow-up to this.
Once we do have the data backand we can analyze it a little
bit more, um, and just kind ofgive a little bit more of a
broad perspective on what we sawout of the results, rather than
just, you know, z scores andratings.
Brian Johnson (32:04):
Thanks again for being on the podcast, and if you
are, uh, only listening to it,I want to let you know that we
are now also showing this on ouryoutube channel, so there is a
visual aspect to it.
So, uh, and you'll notice thattoday is, uh, it's aloha friday
here at the johnson household,uh, so I've got I've got my
(32:27):
aloha shirt on and, uh, youthree are clearly celebrating
AASHTO Resource Friday becauseyou have your AASHTO Resource
branded polos on, and I wouldalso say that this is highly
unusual to see all three of youwearing one of those shirts, so
it's not like you normally showup in an AASHTO Resource polo,
(32:49):
so that's pretty funny.
We hope you enjoyed the episodetoday and tune in for the next
one.
Kim Swanson (32:54):
Thanks for listening to AASHTO Resource Q&A
.
If you'd like to be a guest orjust submit a question, send us
an email at podcast ataashtoresourceorg, or call Brian
at 240-436-4820.
For other news and relatedcontent, check out AASHTO
Resources' social media accountsor go to ashtoresourceorg.
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
We're taking time to discussconstruction materials, testing
and inspection with people inthe know.
From exploring testing problemsand solutions to laboratory
best practices and qualitymanagement, we're covering
topics important to you.
Brian Johnson (00:19):
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
I am Brian Johnson, with me ismy co-host, kim Swanson, and we
have some special guests JohnMalusky and Ryan LaQuay.
Kim Swanson (00:35):
I can't believe you did that, Brian.
We just had a conversationabout how we're going to
pronounce our A's and I did notagree to that pronunciation, but
I'm glad everyone can be herefor today's episode yeah.
Brian Johnson (00:48):
So the reason in case you're wondering why why I
did that we were today's episodeis about the Hamburg or Homburg
(01:10):
wheel tracking test, and thereason why we're talking about
that today is because it is anew addition to the proficiency
sample program.
So that's why John Molesky andRyan LaCroix are here with us,
and what we were talking aboutis, when you go to a meeting,
you often hear people say eitherHamburg or Homburg, and we're
(01:30):
going to call it just soeverybody knows.
I know we have someinternational listeners.
We're going to call it Hamburgbecause we're American and
that's just how we typically sayit.
So no offense to ourinternational listeners about
how we pronounce Hamburg orHamburg, but I want to get that
out of the way right up front soit doesn't become an ongoing
(01:51):
issue on this podcast.
Does that sound good, john?
John Malusky (01:54):
That works for me, Brian.
Thank you.
Brian Johnson (01:56):
I have to admit, the composure was excellent.
I don't know if you're watchingthis, but you guys maintained
pretty good composure throughthat introduction, so
congratulations.
What we want to talk about isthe proficiency sample program,
not just because it's a newsample, but because of how we
prepared it this time.
So, john, why don't you give ussome background on how we got
(02:19):
here?
Why did we add this sampleprogram to our system?
John Malusky (02:23):
Why did we add this sample program to our
system.
Well, this has been probably ayear to a year and a half in the
making, Back in I'm going tosay, the spring of 2023.
During our technical exchange,there was a discussion with the
administrative task group, whichis AASHTO Resources Oversight
of the state DOTs and theybounce ideas off of us and
(02:48):
proposals and recommendations,and one of the recommendations
was to investigate theplausibility of having a Hamburg
Wheel Track proficiency sampleprogram.
So that's kind of where itoriginated, way back when a year
and a half ago.
And then throughout the courseof that time, Ryan myself and
the Proficiency Sample Programcrew spent a lot of time having
(03:12):
discussions, doing some research, talking to plant producers,
other people such as NCAT, DOTstaff, just trying to figure out
a way to make this work and doit in a reasonable fashion.
So it's been a little while.
Kim Swanson (03:30):
What were some of the challenges that you
encountered while you weretrying to prepare this?
Ryan LaQuay (03:35):
We talked with a number of different people in
the industry DOTs and whatnotwhere they were doing similar
programs, and they had a numberof issues.
The one big issue was makingthe quantity of samples needed
for their participants.
Because with Hamburg we're doingHamburg, you need at least four
(04:00):
compacted samples or slabswhatnot there?
Or compacted samples or slabs,whatnot there.
So we're looking at for us weput in about all in 10,000 grams
of material and that needed tobe pretty darn similar across
the board for the whole thing.
And way we've done that in thepast for our mixed samples is we
(04:24):
hand batch everything, hand mixeverything.
So doing that 200 times over,because we have about 160 labs
in this program plus our extrasand whatnot, is not quite
feasible.
So we had to figure out abetter way to do that.
So we asked around to theseother programs had a variety of
(04:45):
different methodologies for howthey got their materials.
So we had to kind of go throughthat and see what was feasible
for us and what we couldactually manage.
Brian Johnson (04:54):
All right.
So when you did the firstattempt at this, can you give us
some background about how thatwent?
Ryan LaQuay (04:59):
We did a little pilot with, was it four?
three DOTs, four DOTs, Yep alittle pilot with uh, was it
four, three dots, four dots?
Um.
So we, uh, we talked to a localmanufacturer, got some plant
mix, um, batched it out the waythat we, you know, thought we
were going to do it for for theproduction here.
Um, and the way we did thatfirst was we sent out two boxes,
sample a, sample b, and we'dhave them then batch down to
(05:22):
their two individual specimens.
Out of that, some confusionhappened there on the batching
and which sample is which.
Is it sample A, the top sample?
Is it sample A, the bottomsample?
So we got that out.
There had some confusion on theinstructions and then whenever
we actually ran the samples theyblew apart.
It was what, 3,000 passes or so, yeah.
(05:47):
I think that's right and justabsolutely exploded, so that one
got a quick X of not a viablesample.
John Malusky (05:54):
The one thing that we noticed right from the
get-go is that we're alreadyseeing some challenges and
variations just with preparingthe material itself.
Some challenges and variationsjust with preparing the material
itself.
Ryan and I compacted probably20, 30 different pucks in our
(06:14):
gyratory compactor in ourfacility to try to hit the
correct specimen height of the62 millimeters but also get the
right air voids.
And to the industry people whoare doing this, that's pretty
common and seems like it'd be apretty easy thing.
But one thing that we realizedis that our compactor is
completely different than othercompactors.
There are so many differentmakes and manufacturers and
(06:37):
models out there that thereappears to be quite a bit of
variation.
So when we're looking at someof the data in this round, we're
actually asking for things likethe number of gyrations.
It took your gyratory compactorto get to the 62 millimeters
just because of some of thevariation that we're seeing.
Like our compactor specifically, it's an older Pine 125X and it
(07:00):
compacts from the top down andit was taking us like,
specifically with this mix thatwe used for the round, I think
it was in the low 40s.
Correct me if I'm wrong, ryan.
You did the last final one.
I think it was high 30s, low40s For us to get to the six to
seven I guess six to 8% airvoids at 62 millimeters of
(07:21):
height.
And we've seen otherlaboratories with the same mix,
different compactor.
It will take them 75 to 90gyrations, so just immediately
off the top we're seeing somevariation with the compaction
effort itself.
So that was probably one of thebiggest things we've tried to
(07:44):
overcome and figure out from theget-go.
Ryan already kind of mentionedthe segregation issues that we
may have with the mix.
We actually spent quite a bitof time talking to the Ministry
of Transportation of Ontario.
They have a laboratory program,sample program, kind of like we
do, and huge thanks to them fortheir support and help with
(08:05):
this.
But the first thing that theyimmediately told us is do not go
with any mix over a half inch,12 and a half millimeter mix
because of segregation.
Um, they were shedding somelight on on what they do, uh,
they actually kind of do astockpile, uh type sampling, and
they they advised against thatdue to segregation and they
(08:26):
provided their procedures andprotocols.
Um, so we we kind of kind ofshied away from that just
because of their recommendations.
Um, but it was, it's been.
It's been interesting, so I'llsay that.
So the the design was just aninitial challenge itself.
I think we we went through what?
Four different mixes, or threedifferent mixes, until we
(08:47):
targeted the one for the roundwith multiple trials, with
different DOTs.
So it took a little bit, forsure.
I think that's why it took usprobably 18 months to get it
going.
Brian Johnson (08:58):
Yeah, that's great that you spent that extra
time to get it right before yousent it out, so I think that
should give people someconfidence.
Extra time to get it rightbefore you send it out, so I
think that should give peoplesome confidence.
What other data are youcollecting in this sample other
than the gyrations?
Ryan LaQuay (09:13):
Let's pull up the data sheet here and look at
everything we've got.
So we're looking for compactiondevice manufacturer and model,
the average record temperatureof the mix prior to compaction.
Average time from sampling pourin the mold until compactor
applies the load.
Number of gyrations asmentioned before.
(09:35):
Then we're going to havelaboratories determine the
bulk-specific gravity.
We will be providing them amaximum specific gravity and
then they'll calculate thepercent air voids.
And then when we go to theHamburg we're going to ask for
the wheel track manufacturerwhether or not the root mean
square error has been verified.
(09:56):
And then the rut depth from 5,10, 15, and 20,000 passes,
stripping inflection point, rutdepth at stripping inflection
point and number of passes tofailure.
Brian Johnson (10:07):
I don't want you to give away this answer, sure,
but I assume you have anexpectation of how many passes
to failure on this sample,correct, correct?
We do so you'll be.
Now.
This is our proficient sampleprogram, so the ratings will be
based on the average, but youhave at least an idea.
(10:27):
So should anybody expect to beable to complete the test as
they normally do and not get afailure?
John Malusky (10:36):
So for this round I can't say we're 100% certain
as to what's going to happen.
The other trial runs thatRyanyan and I had talked about,
the the pass count wassubstantially low.
You know, our first one, we weused a mix that I believe was
around 30 wrap that I thinkfailed around 3500 passes.
(10:58):
The second one was a standardvirgin mix with no wrap at all
and I think that was around7,000 passes, ryan, yep, and
this one from the data thatwe've seen, I would I'll say
this you can anticipate it to beover 10,000.
So we were hoping that many ofthe state specifications that
(11:19):
are out there now arerecommending a 10,000 minimum
pass count.
So our first goal was to try toat least hit that with the
design.
So we're anticipating that itwill make 10,000 passes.
We can't guarantee that on theaverage and what the normal
distribution is going to looklike and a standard deviation,
but we're hopeful that it goesbeyond 10,000 passes.
(11:42):
The one thing that we had adiscussion with some of the
industry experts is do we want asample that doesn't fail?
And our answer to that was no,because if we don't get a
failing sample at some point upto that 20,000 pass count.
Then people can't determine astripping inflection point as
accurately, because you'reyou're getting much more
(12:04):
interpret, interpretation or,excuse me, interpolation, rather
than just getting a failure andbeing able to plot that so, um,
yeah, it's, it's.
It's been interesting to try tofigure this all out and learn.
Um, you know it's a lot, of, alot of effort behind the scenes
went into this.
To be honest, probably theeasiest part was the production.
(12:26):
Once we got this figured out,had some discussion with the
crew, the packaging was prettyeasy.
Brian Johnson (12:35):
Before we go too far.
I don't want to forget this.
I want to go back to one of thecomments Ryan made earlier.
In case anybody doesn't knowthis test, can you please
clarify when you said that thesample explodes?
We're not sending out, uh,explosive materials correct.
Ryan LaQuay (12:53):
Yeah, we're not using gunpowder as mineral
filler.
Uh no, it's um, basically therut the wheel as it comes
through the sample um, shoves itall out to the side um, and
does not nice and clean.
It's like you take a heavyweight through mud and just kind
of push it all out to the side.
Brian Johnson (13:12):
Yeah, so it collapsed.
It collapsed and fell apart.
So I want to make sure peopleunderstand that who don't know
the test.
I'm sure the people who knowthe test kind of had an idea of
what you were saying, but thosewho don't probably were very
curious about that comment.
Let's get back to thepreparation of this sample.
So if you know about ourproficiency sample program, you
know that we prepare everythingso carefully.
(13:34):
We weigh up all the aggregateto the nearest tenth of a gram
and it's got to fall within avery tight range and we add the
asphalt to the tenth of a gram.
Uh, and we were so precise inour measurement and we're so
consistent that we come up withthese really good samples that
are that are repeatable, youknow, able to be tested in a
repeatable manner and come upwith some good data.
(13:57):
The big change here is that wedidn't do that this time, not
that that we weren't careful,but we did it a little
differently and faster and morerepresentative of what people do
in practice.
John, can you take us throughyour experience in developing
this methodology this time?
John Malusky (14:19):
Yeah, the biggest thing was what we've kind of
already touched on a little bitdiscussing with the producers
and suppliers and other industryexperts and the main issue is
segregation.
That was our biggest concernwhen we packaged this material.
So we didn't want to stockpilesample right.
(14:39):
We didn't want to just have amixed truck come here and dump a
pile on the ground or dump apile on a stainless steel sheet
that we had like release agenton it, because obviously when
you dump in a pile, materialrolls and that role is
segregation.
So after a lot of investigationand discussion we decided and
(15:01):
settled on the use of a hot boxtrailer, which is basically a
truck that's just got a dieselburner in, it, heats the sides
and base and it's typically usedfor pothole patching.
But that was a way for us toget enough material, keep it
warm, able to be workable and wefelt like we would keep it
(15:23):
consistent.
And the other majorrecommendation was I kind of
already mentioned particle size.
We started out with a 3, 8 inchor 9.5 millimeter mix I think
the asphalt content was justover 5% to try to keep a little
bit more liquid or keep it alittle bit more viscous.
So we had that kind of flowingcapability to not allow it to
(15:47):
segregate, just as if we were topackage a fine aggregate or a
sand.
We would keep things in a moistcondition to stop fine
separation and particleseparation.
So just something completelydifferent.
It actually took us probablyfour months to find a hotbox
trailer itself.
We could have bought a new one,but given that we were only
(16:09):
going to need this foressentially one day, we didn't
feel that it was justified inthe purchase.
So we contacted multiplesuppliers.
I was at a trade show or twotalking to different people to
try to get one and we werefortunate to find a company that
rents them, and they are onlyabout 40 miles away from us, so
(16:30):
we actually really lucked out.
They had availability.
We actually rented the trailerfor a month to make sure that we
had it, even though we knew weonly needed it for a day or two.
Plus, we wanted to account forthings like the weather we
wanted to have the truck here onsite and any event that we had
a rainy day we could hold offand not have to package and try
(16:52):
to do our best to make sure thatall things were accounted for.
A ton of effort even went intothe box size that we use for the
quick release boxes.
Ryan had mentioned before thatwe were going to take a larger
sample and have the laboratorysplit and then, after the
(17:13):
confusion that we so pumped intothe whole program by having
horrible splitting instructions,splitting instructions, we we
made the decision and alternatedour course to send out single
samples for each portion of thewheel, so the front of the wheel
, the back or so.
(17:33):
For those of you who don't knowthe hamburg specimens, there's
two pucks in each side of themachine, a front and a back, so
for the left side of the machineand then for the right side
machine.
So that's why ryan hadmentioned we had to send four
samples.
So rather than sending twoboxes and have the laboratory
split, to get the four or onegigantic box and have the
laboratory split, we went withfour individual boxes.
(17:55):
So we had to adjust and contactour supplier for the quick
release boxes and had probablyseven or eight different sizes
of boxes sent here and testedthem to see how they would split
and what would fit and all thatgood stuff.
Ryan LaQuay (18:12):
That goes well beyond just putting rocks in a
box actually we got the boxesand we took some just random mix
and also went and checked ourdifferent scoops, uh, to see
what would work out.
So we just hit a bunch of stuffin the lab, brought all scoops
to see what would work out.
So we just heat a bunch ofstuff in the lab, brought all
the scoops together and tried tofigure out like all right, this
scoop can get us to about 50%capacity, so two scoops gets us
(18:32):
one, or this one gets abouttwo-thirds of the way, so one
full scoop and a little partial.
So that was a solid morningthat we spent just trying to
figure out scoops and boxes andhow we'd approach that.
Brian Johnson (18:43):
Did you identify the individual sample boxes to
tell them where to put them inthe?
So you actually did label them.
John Malusky (18:49):
Yep, okay, all right, that's what I thought you
were saying but I want to makesure.
Yeah, with the sample labels,we'll say, you know, sample A
front, sample A back, sample Bfront, sample B back.
So the laboratories arehopefully putting in, putting
them in this specific locationfor the machine and that's
following all the way throughthe compaction effort.
Brian Johnson (19:10):
Yeah.
So, the segregation issue.
You mentioned the challengesthat you would have with a pile.
Obviously, dumping from thetruck to the hotbox trailer is
going to potentially have somesegregation and then sampling
out of that, I would think,would also have a risk of some
(19:32):
segregation of the particlesizes.
How did it look when you were,when you were actually getting
your samples out of the hot box,where I mean because visually
you'd be able to see if you wereexperiencing some segregation.
What did you think?
Ryan LaQuay (19:45):
Yeah, no red flags.
During the production process.
Everything looked pretty wellhomogeneous.
There wasn't like big clumps of3S material or big clumps of
fine material.
Everything seemed pretty wellblended.
We are actively right now so Iwas late to this recording
testing that to verify that itwas all properly blended and
homogeneous.
Brian Johnson (20:06):
Oh, so what are you doing to test that, Ryan?
Ryan LaQuay (20:09):
So we are doing a successful extraction, so we're
burning in gradations, so we'llprobably be done early next week
and we'll have our final dataon how well this turned out.
Brian Johnson (20:19):
And what does success look like in that result
?
What are you hoping to see?
Look like in that result.
What are you hoping to see.
Ryan LaQuay (20:25):
So we're going to look to have basically the
distribution of materials,distribution of asphalt content,
to be pretty darn close.
So for our in-house blendedsamples we have some tolerance
because human error and whatnot.
So we're basically looking tomake sure that we're still
within that spread of tolerance,also looking against the
(20:47):
standard for repeatability onthat, just seeing that
everything is generally the sameacross the board.
So they're not going to beperfect, but we're trying to be
as close as we can.
John Malusky (20:59):
Yeah, one thing I do want to go back to and kind
of add a little bit ofclarification is, brian, you had
talked about using a truck todump the truck into the trailer.
That's not what happened, so weactually so.
With the trailer situation, ourcrew took the trailer directly
to the batch plant and the batchplant just dropped the prepared
(21:20):
mix out of the hopper right in.
So we eliminated one potentialproblem, uh, step of
inhomogeneity, um, and it itseemed to to work out.
Like I said, I think the onlything that we did notice was,
after a little while, some finesand asphalt did stack up on the
scoops, um, but after so manyuh, maybe Ryan, there every 35,
(21:44):
40 minutes, we actually swappedscoops out to keep our scoops
clean, and then the ones thatwere dirty and had fines built
up around the lip, we cleanedthose off.
You know, to try to do our bestto stop any kind of segregation
.
So, you know, we, like I said,we put a ton of thought into it
to to try our best and we'regoing to see what happens with
(22:05):
it.
Brian Johnson (22:06):
Now there are other wheel tracking tests out
there other than the hamburg.
How did we get to only have asample program for that test and
is there any thought topossibly adding or expanding
this program to include otherwheel tracking or rut testing
(22:26):
tests?
Ryan LaQuay (22:27):
well, I assume we got here because this is the
ATG's biggest target wheneverthey brought it up to us.
It's becoming more popular forspecifiers.
They want to have data on this.
That's something that we canget out of this, hopefully.
But yeah, this is also ourfirst toe in the water.
If this goes well, we're goingto look at all the rest of the
(22:49):
balanced mix design programs ortest methods and develop out
through there.
John Malusky (22:55):
Yep, that's correct.
We're looking at other methods.
Some of the other things thatwe've already had suggestions
for are indirect tensilestrength and tensile strength
ratio, so they're kind of theother two that are on the radar
already for this.
But we will see what happens.
We're going to see how it goes.
Hopefully the homogeneity andstability data come back and are
(23:17):
reasonable.
You know, the one thing that'skind of tough is we've always
benchmarked our homogeneity offof our previous samples, so all
the individual batching and handmixing.
So it's going to be a littlebit more challenging, we believe
, for us to hit some of thosecriteria because it's not
prepared the same way.
So we're going to have toevaluate the homogeneity and
(23:40):
stability from a differentbenchmark, which is going to be
a little bit different for us.
So we'll see.
I mean, I think we're veryoptimistic about the way things
went and we'll see how it goesas we continue to test
individually mixed and batchedsamples that we typically send
(24:14):
out.
Brian Johnson (24:15):
Do you think you're going to expand that
methodology to the other asphaltmixture sample programs?
John Malusky (24:22):
If we do see success with this and the
materials appear to be stableand homogenous and the data that
Ryan and our other laboratorytechnician generate, if it looks
good, we will anticipate movingthis type of production into
our solvent extraction sample.
It will help alleviate sometime constraints that we
(24:45):
experience and if the mix isconsistent, then we'll go ahead
and progress in that way andmove to that kind of packaging
event, first with that sampletype, and if it continues to
show promise of good, consistentdata, we would consider making
a change to our gyratory programand instead of having
(25:08):
laboratories do the batching andmixing and all that kind of
stuff by themselves, we wouldconsider a just a, you know,
essentially like a QC typeprogram where laboratories would
get boxes of mix and simplycompact specimens and then, you
know, do the typical volumetrictesting on it and then kind of a
(25:36):
branch off is the way that weset up our current gyratory
program was sending virginmaterial to laboratories to test
.
It would kind of go to more ofa mixed design program where we
would send specific batchinginformation but then the
laboratories would beresponsible for testing and
providing data for all thecomponents of a mixed design, so
aggregate, specific gravities,angularity.
(25:59):
You know then, obviously, yourvolumetric properties as well.
You know GMA, bulk gravity, thestone, bulk gravity, the pucks,
the asphalt, max gravity, vma,vfa, dust-to-binder ratio.
So it would be more of anencompassing program for a
(26:21):
facility who's specificallydoing mix design itself rather
than just QC checking the mix tomake sure that you're hitting
your volumetric properties.
So there's a lot of opportunityto make some changes to the
program and try to streamlinethe process a little bit for us
and the facilities and the labs.
And we're just going to see howit goes.
(26:43):
We got to, as Ryan said, we gotto dip our toe in the water
first.
And this is it, kim, do you?
Brian Johnson (26:48):
have any questions for them.
Kim Swanson (26:50):
I do.
I mean, that seems like a lotof potentially exciting things
happening based on the successof this round.
We also have some other newsamples in the proficiency
sample world that we're doing,so I don't want to spend too
much time on it, but can you goover just what's new coming up
currently or coming up in 2025?
(27:13):
That are new samples.
Ryan LaQuay (27:15):
Well, I'll say everything within the next six
months.
That'll cover it all.
Yeah, sure.
So end of this year we aredoing a winter maintenance
product sample.
This was brought to us throughClearRoads and the DOTs sample.
This was brought to us throughClearRoads and the DOTs.
Basically, this said, we haveour qualified product list, but
(27:35):
we want to make sure that thetesting laboratories are
competent in what they're doing.
So we're trying to do that witha liquid component and a solid
component.
Enrollment is open now, stillopen.
We have it open until middle ofNovember, trying to get as many
people as we can into that one.
We need more.
So if you're listening and youhave a chem lab who does this,
send them our way, please.
Thank you.
And then in the beginning ofnext year we are splitting out
(28:01):
the soil and chemistry andcorrosivity tests out of the
soil sample.
So this is basically somethingthat was already in the soil
classification compaction sample, but we weren't able to modify
the soil to have, you know, goodresults out of it.
Brian Johnson (28:14):
so we're pulling that off to the side, keeping
the classification compactionsample as it is and making this
one actually a viable testingsample when we get to those
points, I think we'll have tohave other podcast recordings to
get into the weeds, like we didtoday on the Hamburg, so that
people can learn more about themprecisely.
(28:34):
But back to one thing I do wantto address on those the winter
maintenance one.
So far, just so people have anidea, what are our numbers
looking like now?
Ryan LaQuay (28:46):
We have six participants.
Brian Johnson (28:49):
Six participants is a very sad number because we
need more data.
So the value of the programhinges on the number of
participants, right?
Ryan LaQuay (29:02):
Yeah, so our statistical analysis will start
to fall apart once we becomeunder 17 participants.
So that's our minimum benchmarkwe're looking for.
Brian Johnson (29:11):
So we've got a ways to go here A little bit.
If you are far enough from theequator, enough to care about
this type of activity wintermaintenance no matter where you
are on the planet considersigning up for this program,
because I'm sure that people allover the world are interested
(29:33):
in this and could probablybenefit from the results of this
program.
So it doesn't have to be justDOTs or their subcontractors
that participate in this.
John Malusky (29:44):
The program actually has a lot of additional
potential.
You know, not just for the, I'mgoing to say, physical
properties of the brine solutionand rock salt, right.
One of the big things we'reobviously looking at is particle
size and distribution of youknow the rock salt and how the
gradation is met, so you knowwhat kind of out of the back of
(30:05):
a truck appropriately.
But one of the other componentsthat I think Ryan and I didn't
even realize that was involvedwas the chemical component of
the brine solutions.
Many of the standards that wehaven't included in the program
yet because of I don't want tosay a ton of interest, but maybe
the interest isn't or the ideais not out there yet but for
(30:30):
wastewater, right.
So when all of this, the brinesolution gets put on roads as a
treatment that eventually getswashed into the environment.
So a lot of the testing is forthings like lead, arsenic, other
heavy metals that are out there.
So you know, it's kind of alsoa little bit more of an
environmental side as well thanjust simply construction
(30:53):
materials as as we're used to.
So this is also another littletoe dabble in the water of a
different type of material thanwe've we've done in the past.
Um, you know, but basicallybecause of interest from from
dots and members, so we'll seehow it goes.
But, uh, but yeah, if you agreewith what b said, if you have
the opportunity to sign up,please do so.
Uh, so we can get some gooddata out there.
Brian Johnson (31:15):
I don't have any other questions for you on this
topic, Kim.
Kim Swanson (31:19):
No, I think everyone covered everything that
I had questions for.
So I mean, I'm I'm happy yeah.
Yeah, I mean, I'm not gonna lie.
Some of this was way over myhead, so that is why I stayed
quiet most of the episode.
But I want to thank you bothfor taking time today to talk
about this and share about thenew Hamburg Wheel Track sample,
(31:42):
and then I do look forward tohearing about some of the other
new samples as we get closer tothose.
John Malusky (31:49):
Yeah, thanks, kim.
I think one thing we shoulddefinitely consider is a
follow-up to this.
Once we do have the data backand we can analyze it a little
bit more, um, and just kind ofgive a little bit more of a
broad perspective on what we sawout of the results, rather than
just, you know, z scores andratings.
Brian Johnson (32:04):
Thanks again for being on the podcast, and if you
are, uh, only listening to it,I want to let you know that we
are now also showing this on ouryoutube channel, so there is a
visual aspect to it.
So, uh, and you'll notice thattoday is, uh, it's aloha friday
here at the johnson household,uh, so I've got I've got my
(32:27):
aloha shirt on and, uh, youthree are clearly celebrating
AASHTO Resource Friday becauseyou have your AASHTO Resource
branded polos on, and I wouldalso say that this is highly
unusual to see all three of youwearing one of those shirts, so
it's not like you normally showup in an AASHTO Resource polo,
(32:49):
so that's pretty funny.
We hope you enjoyed the episodetoday and tune in for the next
one.
Kim Swanson (32:54):
Thanks for listening to AASHTO Resource Q&A
.
If you'd like to be a guest orjust submit a question, send us
an email at podcast ataashtoresourceorg, or call Brian
at 240-436-4820.
For other news and relatedcontent, check out AASHTO
Resources' social media accountsor go to ashtoresourceorg.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.