Short Term Idea” Long Term “Analysis (less than a year MnROAD – Tech Transfer crunch data from Research TBD - Feedback Topic state projects or Sections on MnROAD # Grading and Base / General Topics (now) MnROAD) (longer) Long Term Test Sections Totals Subgrade, Aggregate base, and subbase stabilization (Non-FDR and FDR) effects on pavement performance MN-1 #2 MO – [options include both chemical (cement, flyash, lime, etc.) and #1 MidS – 14/10/24 #1 MidS #5 WI – – 1 non-chemical stabilization (geofabrics and geogrids, etc.)] 0/5/5 5/5/10 9/0/9 (Available options, project selection, mix designs, effect on pavement performance). (Ties to Flexible and Rigid Groups) Use of recycled materials in aggregate base (Current approaches, innovations and improvements to current MN-1 specifications, effect on pavement performance). Additionally #2 - WI evaluate performance specifications and the QC/QA link to #1 IL #5 MO – 0 15/0/15 – 2 design 5/0/5 10/0/10 WI / MN Design strength criteria – (top 3 item) WI does allow 100% of RAP or RCP IL 100% PCC not RAP allowed research being done on RAP use) – MO not sure – #1 - WI Drainable Bases MN-2 0 14/0/14 #1 MO – 3 Share specifications on website 4/0/4 10/0/10 (MnROAD 20-year performance/forensics support this effort) MN-2 Lightly surfaced roadway alternatives #2 IL – 0 0 10/0/10 5 (Options for agencies to build and repair cost effective roads #4 WI – that meet the unique requirements of low volume roadways). 10/0/10
# Grading and Base / General Topics Tech Transfer Topic (now) Short Term “Analysis Idea” (less than a year – crunch data from state projects or MnROAD) Long Term MnROAD Research Sections (longer) TBD - Feedback on MnROAD Long Term Test Sections Totals 1 Subgrade, Aggregate base, and subbase stabilization (Non-FDR and FDR) effects on pavement performance [options include both chemical (cement, flyash, lime, etc.) and non-chemical stabilization (geofabrics and geogrids, etc.)] (Available options, project selection, mix designs, effect on pavement performance). (Ties to Flexible and Rigid Groups) #1 – MidS 0/5/5 MN-1 #1 – MidS 5/5/10 #2 – MO #5 – WI 9/0/9 14/10/24 2 Use of recycled materials in aggregate base (Current approaches, innovations and improvements to current specifications, effect on pavement performance). Additionally evaluate performance specifications and the QC/QA link to design WI / MN – Design strength criteria WI does allow 100% of RAP or RCP IL 100% PCC not RAP allowed – research being done on RAP use) MO – not sure #1 – IL 5/0/5 0 MN-1 #2 - WI #5 – MO 10/0/10 (top 3 item) 15/0/15 3 Drainable Bases Share specifications on website (MnROAD 20-year performance/forensics support this effort) 0 #1 - WI #1 – MO 10/0/10 MN-2 4/0/4 14/0/14 5 Lightly surfaced roadway alternatives (Options for agencies to build and repair cost effective roads that meet the unique requirements of low volume roadways). 0 MN-2 #2 – IL #4 – WI 10/0/10 0 10/0/10
NRRA%20-%20Geotech%20voting%20Results%20-%20July%2022%202016.docx