Post on 23-May-2020
Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies Evaluation Program
National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP)
• National evaluation program of products and materials
• Evaluations provide single source testing of common products and materials used by DOTs
• Provides a public-private partnership that prevents duplication of effort
• Currently evaluates over 25 product types
• All states & territories have access to data
Benefits of using NTPEP for Manufacturers
• Avoid time and expense of repeated evaluations
• Product exposure
• Raise the bar
• Contribute to work plan development
• Opportunity to voice concerns
• Build DOT Relationships
NTPEP Websites
• www.ntpep.org
– General NTPEP information, NTPEP Usage Map, Operations Guide
– Work plans, committee rosters, meeting minutes
• DataMine (data.ntpep.org)
– Submit evaluation applications, invoice tracking, data upload and review
– Interested producers should register
NTPEP Websites
• DataMine 2.0
– Will only be used for submitting applications and processing invoices for the WMA Program
• DataMine 3.0 (ETA 2016)
– WMA module still being developed
– Testing data will be uploaded here
– Several improvements are being implemented
• “Data Link” – Easy way to link states to your data
WMA Technologies Committee
• Chair – Jack Cowsert, North Carolina DOT
• Vice Chair – Barry Paye, Wisconsin DOT
• 11 states and FHWA currently represented in committee
• Room for 2-3 industry members “Voice of Industry” – Can provide input but can’t vote on work plan changes
– Ideally would like different technologies represented
• Quarterly conference calls and session at annual NTPEP meeting
WMA Technologies Program
• Evaluation of chemical and organic additives, foaming, and other technologies as applicable
• Laboratory comparison testing between HMA control and WMA samples – Intent is to verify that WMA Technology perform at least as
well as HMA control
– Not intended to investigate relative WMA technology performance
– States can use data for qualification of technologies
• Florida DOT is the NTPEP designated laboratory
Laboratory Produced WMA Technologies
• Technologies that can be reproduced in a laboratory setting
• One control HMA mix will be used for comparison to all laboratory produced WMA technologies
– Details of control mix shall be made available to producers
• Cost = $4,500 per product
– Includes cost of materials, WMA testing, control HMA testing, and maintaining DataMine
Plant Produced WMA Technologies
• Technologies that can’t be reproduced in a laboratory setting
• Separate control HMA mix for each product
– HMA and WMA sampled at plant by NTPEP representative
– Shipped to FLDOT for lab testing
• Cost = $11,500 per product
– Includes cost of WMA testing, control HMA testing, and maintaining DataMine data
WMA Laboratory Testing Scope
• Aggregate Properties – Gradation, specific gravities, F&E, Sand Eq., FAA, CAA, Soundness, LA
Wear, and Micro Deval
• Asphalt Properties – Continuous grading of asphalt binder, warm mix modified asphalt
binder, and extracted binder (plant produced only)
• HMA/WMA Volumetric Properties
• HMA/WMA Performance Properties – Hamburg, Dynamic Modulus, and TSR
NTPEP WMA Testing Cycle
• Submission cycle opens on October 1st and runs through December 18th
– Email notification will be sent out with more information
– Submit applications through DataMine • Application will collect information on technology including mixing
instructions, technical literature, and MSDS
• Sampling and testing to begin in early 2016
• Data available after all lab testing is complete
• Test data is good for 7 years
– Formulation changes require retest
Questions?
NTPEP Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Technologies Introduction www.ntpep.org data.ntpep.org
Becky Smith MDSHA
o No difference made between a dense grade type for the grade type
o Going with one standard EVO grade mix
BG67
o Gap graded warm is the number one request for Maryland
Raises a concern
Larry - Oregon DOT
o Pucks? – what is the process
Taking the foamed asphalt and heating it up to volumetric temperatures for
testing
Florida Question
o Design usually gets placed in a binder that is typical to that state
The binder is made to be a part of the first step in gaining approval by utilizing
NTPEP
First Name Last Name Email Address
Wayne Allick Jr wayne.allick@dot.state.fl.us
rufus Banks rbanks@dot.ny.gov
Scott Barger scott.barger@pqcorp.com
Todd Bennett todd.bennett@modot.mo.gov
Angela Beyke angela.beyke@vdot.virginia.gov
Thomas Bold tbold@nd.gov
Steve Brakeall sbrakeall@sha.state.md.us
Jeff Caley jeff.caley@greenmantra.com
Jack Cowsert jcowsert@ncdot.gov
Joe DeVol devolj@wsdot.wa.gov
Allen Gallistel allen.gallistel@state.mn.us
Ray Gore rgore@roadscience.net
Heather Hall heather.purdy.hall@tn.gov
Chris Holmes christopher.holmes@azchem.com
Ron Horner rhorner@nd.gov
Larry Ilg larry.d.ilg@odot.state.or.us
Kevin Jones kevin.jones@dot.iowa.gov
George LIan glian@dot.ga.gov
Bryan Martin Bryan.Martin@itd.idaho.gov
Maggie McDonald maggie.mcdonald@dot.state.ma.us
Oak Metcalfe rmetcalfe@mt.gov
First Name Last Name Email Address
Tanya Nash tanya.nash@dot.state.fl.us
Kevin Palmer kevin.palmer@ahtd.ar.gov
Barry Paye barry.paye@dot.wi.gov
Keith Platte kplatte@aashto.org
Timothy Ramirez tramirez@pa.gov
Matt Romero mromer@odot.org
Timothy Ruelke timothy.ruelke@dot.state.fl.us
Steve Saboundjian steve.saboundjian@alaska.gov
Greg Schieber gregs@ksdot.org
Eileen Sheehy eileen.sheehy@dot.nj.gov
Bin Shi bshi@utah.gov
Temple Short shorttk@scdot.org
Rebeccah Smith rsmith8@sha.state.md.us
Nelson Sosa nelson.sosa@mhd.state.ma.us
John Taylor john.e.taylor@mwv.com
Lisa Zigmund lisa.zigmund@dot.state.oh.us
abdenour nazef abdenour.nazef@dot.state.fl.us
guangming wang guangming.wang@dot.state.fl.us
andrew willette andy.willette@vermont.gov
ryan winship ryan.winship@azchem.com