PRESTRESSED CONCRETE COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMICAL

**FABRICATION MEETING**

**OCTOBER 31, 2001**

**HOLIDAY INN**

**MANASSAS, VIRGINIA**

## MEETING MINUTES

### Introductions and Opening Remarks/Approval of Minutes from June Meeting

Mr. Lou Triandafilou of the FHWA convened the meeting at 9:00am. The
participants were welcomed and asked to give a self introduction. A copy
of the current mailing list was circulated among the attendees and they
were asked to verify the information and make necessary corrections.

Mr. Triandafilou indicated that there will be a Spring 2002 meeting ,
possibly in New Jersey. He also stated that subsequent to the Spring
meeting , we will probably meet only once a year. Subcommittees will
therefore play a more critical role and need to convene in the interim
between full PCEF meetings.

An announcement of the untimely passing of Dino Scalia was made and
followed by a moment of silence. Dino chaired the QA/QC subcommittee and
was a very active member of the group. The Shockey Brothers Group will
continue to be involved in committee activities but who would be
attending was not known at this time. An industry contact is needed to
replace Mr. Scalia on both the committee and the sub-committee on QA.
The member listing will be reviewed and a solicitation of the industry
folks will be made.

> Another of our industry attendees, Mr. Ernie Acree from Bayshore
> Concrete Products Inc., has also retired.
>
> The chair asked that State DOT attendees mark on the address list the
> name(s) of the people who would be contacts to receive ballots in the
> future (preferably one design and materials person).
>
> Minutes from the June meeting were approved with the following
> revision, as distributed to the Committee by email. The last paragraph
> of Section IV, Production/ Construction Subcommittee Report should be
> revised to reflect that the intent of that group was to draft a viable
> recommendation that can be used by all DOT's in their day-to-day
> prestressed member construction/production needs. In order to develop
> this draft, the group will use all available research, studies,
> specifications, guidelines and any documented information as submitted
> by various DOTs, academia and industry personnel. The group is not
> aware of any known prestressed concrete repair procedure that has
> already been developed by any organization, that can be used in our
> region without considerable reviews, revisions and updating.

### Subcommittee Status Reports

1.  **Subcommittee on Production/Construction \-- Lalith Galagedera,
    Chair**

> Since Lalith was not present at the meeting, Lou discussed the
> progress of the sub-committee.
>
> A ballot was sent out relating to issues on crack repairs such as
> type, location, length, width etc. The Materials Divisions from PA, VA
> and WV were the only ones to respond so far. Responses are still being
> solicited from the other States, including Design and Materials
> Divisions. A specific contact person needs to be identified from each
> DOT so that the responses get back to the subcommittee chairman in a
> timely fashion.
>
> The purpose of the ballots (and of the PCEF as a whole) was discussed,
> particularly regarding the final impacts of adopting guidelines and
> specifications, and in what direction we were heading. In the interest
> of quality, uniformity and economy, attendees agreed that adoption of
> items should be taken to mean that consensus has been reached. It was
> recognized that States may still deviate from an approved document and
> maintain some specific individual requirements, but ideally these
> would be minimal. The group also agreed that the PCEF serves as a
> useful forum for transferring the latest technology.
>
> As restated from the June meeting, Hank Bonstedt indicated that a PCI
> committee headed by Mr. Ed Wasserman (Tennessee DOT State Bridge
> Engineer) is soliciting information from across the country for crack
> repair criteria. This information should be useful to this PCEF
> subcommittee.

2.  **QA/QC Subcommittee on Materials---Bob Horwhat and Paul Finnerty,
    co-Chairmen**

> Paul and Bob have offered to co-chair this sub-committee in order to
> make sure that the guide specification currently being worked on is
> presented to the entire committee before the Spring meeting and also
> to carry on any future work that the group may work on.
>
> Paul gave an update on the status of the specification and the
> responses to the ballots that Dino sent out in August of 2001 which
> asked for comments on the 3^rd^ draft. To date, WV, DE, NY and DC have
> not responded. Paul handed out copies of the 4^th^ draft to these
> states and will forward copies of blank ballots for their usage. All
> responses were requested by the end of December.
>
> As an action item, Paul will supply to Lalith Galagedera, a copy of
> Maryland's guidelines for curing times for use with his sub-committee.

3.  **State DOT Implementation of PCEF Bulb-T Shapes**

> WV has approved the shapes, and is just beginning in-house task force
> work to evaluate implementation.
>
> PA has approved the designs using an 8" web. All producers that are
> approved by PADOT have the ability to produce this shape. They are
> still in the process of evaluating how to introduce the PCEF shapes
> into the market, initially with depths \< 66". They could be an
> alternate to the current adjacent to box beams. With the bulb-T shape
> requirement for 16' wide casting beds, the producers would have to
> alter their plants. This may take 1 -- 1-1/2 years to resolve.
>
> NY now allows the PCEF shapes to be substituted for the New England
> bulb-Ts, so they will rely on the market to dictate what is most
> economical for the DOT. Contractors now have the option to redesign
> beams if the properties are slightly changed. There is a proposed PCEF
> shape project scheduled for the Fall of 2002.
>
> VA is currently designing several projects to use the PCEF bulb T
> shapes. They have developed standard detail sheets for 9 bulb-Ts with
> 7" webs and at least 61" webs. In a meeting with fabricators they
> learned that shallower beams with more strands is more economical than
> deeper beams with fewer strands. The State will not completely
> eliminate the AASHTO I girders.
>
> A proposal by Bayshore Concrete Products, Inc. to modify the PCEF
> bottom flange shape has not been approved by the Standardization
> Subcommittee.

MD -- Prince George's County has used the shape on 1 of their projects.

> DE is still looking for a project application.
>
> NJ is in favor of adopting the design and will a report at the next
> meeting as to the status of project evaluation.

4.  **Standardization Subcommittee -- John Martin and Claude Napier,
    co-Chairmen**

> On the subject of steel diaphragms, John Martin handed out Standard
> XXX for Alternate Steel Diaphragm details and noted that VA plans to
> implement it.
>
> NJ is making change to use steel intermediate diaphragms as a primary
> standard.
>
> NY will look at it but does not anticipate using it as a standard.
>
> WV already uses steel.
>
> PA will continue to use precast concrete diaphragms.
>
> The Subcommittee had been working on a diaphragm layout sheet but is
> not currently pursuing it.
>
> Joe Roche indicated that fabricators are having trouble because of
> strand and rebar placement not being shown on shop drawings.

5.  **Design Parameters Subcommittee -- Joseph Nagle, Acting Chairman**

> Joe was unable to attend the meeting to give an update. He has
> developed several issues for his group to focus on, and so far has
> solicited feedback on strand pattern types that the PCEF can adopt. We
> will cover this topic at our next meeting.

A.  **High Performance Concrete Update**

The states in attendance reported the following:

> NJ has one project in the works, using piling supplied by Bayshore
> Concrete Products. Also suggested using ASTM C-944 to test the
> abrasion resistance of HPC. This component of the HPC definition is
> being evaluated by FHWA.
>
> PA has not used HPC for beams but is working on various mix designs
> for decks on the I-99 project. Hank Bonstedt stated that changes in
> the fineness modulus of Type III cement may lead to problems in
> achieving other HPC values.
>
> NY has been using HPC in bridge decks for about 5 years, and is
> currently adding fibers to mixes to prevent deck cracking. They have
> three projects with HPC structural shapes, using 0.6" diameter
> strands. They did experience some problems with low concrete modulus
> of elasticity, but are now achieving 30 GPa. There have also been
> slight problems with labs being able to run the creep test at 0.4f'c.
> There do not seem to be any problems with the remaining parameters.
> There are 12-13 superstructure projects scheduled for 2002, again
> using 0.6" strand in the shapes.
>
> MD has no new structures on the books at this time.
>
> DE has built four projects using 8000 psi concrete, along with a
> performance-based specification. They have also built a concrete sheet
> piling project. Durability problems have not been evident at this
> time.
>
> VA is now routinely using HPC; many decks. one superstructure project
> using lightweight HPC prestressed girders.
>
> The use of 0.6" strand seems to be sporadic among the states.
> Fabricators see it on only 1 out of about every 40-50 projects. They
> would like to see its use standardized among the States, so they can
> resolve bed capacity issues.

**D. Delayed Ettringite Formation Research Update**

> Dr. Richard Livingston of the FHWA's Turner Fairbank Highway Research
> Center, along with the University of Maryland and the MDSHA are
> involved in a research project to study the possible damage from
> ettringite formation on Maryland's bridge structures. At the June
> meeting in Pittsburgh, he made a presentation before the committee at
> which time he solicited the possibility of a pooled fund study by the
> other states.
>
> Paul Finnerty gave an update of the progress of the study and posed
> the question again before the committee of the pooled fund study.
> There was no positive response from the group so the issue seems to be
> dead at this time.
>
> **Note: At a later date, Paul provided a copy of the latest progress
> report for the study. Copies are available upon request.**

**E.New Business**

Question by WV. -- What states are using Calcium Nitrite in structural
shapes? VA was only respondent indicating that they did. MD and PA has
used it in bridge decks.

> Precast Concrete Elements-- Do we need to make this issue a part of
> our committee? Attendees were agreeable to this, perhaps as a separate
> sub-committee. There will be an update at the next meeting by Paul and
> Bob Horwhat.
>
> Penalty -- For assessing defective prestressed concrete beams, all
> states responded that low compressive strength is the only factor used
> for the purpose of payment penalties.
>
> Self Compacting Concrete -- Put on future agenda as a possible
> presentation by an expert in the area.
>
> Meeting adjourned at Noon.