NCAUPG Meeting Minutes Spring 1997

Minutes
North Central Asphalt User/Producer Group
University of Wisconsin Extension Conference Center
702 Langdon Street
Madison ,Wisconsin
April 2 - 3, 1997

Gary welcomed the group to Madison, the number one rated city in the US A, home of the University of Wisconsin. The Wisconsin DOT has an excellent asphalt program that is continuing to grow and develop. The department is looking for ways to enhance the performance of our pavements.

According to several surveys, NQI being one, has led to changes in the organization to serve the conflicting needs of our customers. The people want smoother pavements that last longer, do not cost more than what we are paying now, can be built faster without disruption with increased safety using recycled materials. They want their trip to be comfortable , but don’t want to be inconvenienced. We are faced with tight budgets, high expectations from our customers who demand greater performance. The NCAUPG is a key player in improving the performance of asphalt pavement and Gary urged the group to consider all three components of performance: cost, quality, and time of construction.

Bill is the Division Administrator for Wisconsin. Bill has served the FHWA in Vermont, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Washington, DC, California and Oklahoma.

FHWA supports the groups activities which provides for the exchange of ideas, partnering, and improved quality and performance of asphalt pavements. We need to continue to work together and use the opportunities to develop new products to serve the public. We need to work as a team to meet our current expectations. Superpave is moving in the right direction. We are serious and have committed a lot of money to promote new technology asphalt pavements. Welcome to Madison and have a productive conference.

PHILOSOPHY OF THE NCAUPG
Dick Ingberg for Don Lucas, Indiana Department of Transportation

The beginnings of the North Central Asphalt User/Producer Group started in April of 1991 after attending a meeting on AAMAS and a meeting of the Rocky Mountain Asphalt User/Producer Group in Denver, Colorado. Our next meetings were with Bernie Brown of the Iowa DOT and one with Don Lucas and persons from the Indiana DOT and the Region and Division offices of the Federal Highway Administration. That was followed by setting up an organizational structure and some ideas as to how we might operate. In July, Don Lucas made a presentation at the Mississippi Valley AASHTO Conference and a resolution to form user/producer groups for asphalt and P.C.C. concrete pavements was adopted by the membership. We held our first Management Committee meeting in Chicago. Each subgroup, the Great Lakes, the North and the South held separate brainstorming sessions. The South Subgroup suggested that a meeting be held in Kansas City in November to discuss how we might go about dealing with the SHRP PG grading system. The PG grading system seemed closest to implementation at that time. That was a turning point for the agencies and the industry to cooperate, partner and commit to working together as a team to go to a new performance graded asphalt system. At that meeting we decided to hold a brainstorming session in January , 1992 in Indianapolis to develop a mission statement, a philosophy for operation, and an action plan for the future. On March 31, 1992, the Management Committee adopted the Action Plan. In November of 1992 , members of the Executive Committee met with the leaders of SHRP and FHWA to ask how we could help work on the implementation of the SHRP Asphalt Research findings. We have held annual and semi-annual meetings since that time and at this meeting the Management Committee is meeting to ask ourselves if we should continue, and if so, how we should continue.

Don Steinke is a graduate of the University of Nebraska and has spent 28 plus years with the Federal Highway Administration with assignments in Colorado, North Dakota, Louisiana, Utah, Texas, and Washington DC. He is the Chief of the Highway Operations Division and also serves as the Chairperson of the FHWA Asphalt Technical Working Group and as Secretary of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction.

Don attended his first meeting of the NCAUPG in Kansas City in April of 1996. He was unable to attend our last meeting in October due to other commitments. He was pleased to see our interest has not waned. He noted that Tom Bryan, FHWA Region 5 and Ken Archuleta, FHWA Region 7, are working as your partners.

We have made tremendous strides in Superpave. States have all purchased Superpave testing equipment and virtually all States are constructing asphalt pavements with the Superpave technology. However, I would like to clarify some misconceptions about the implementation of Superpave.

The first misconception is that Superpave mixes at Westrack are not working. Well, several Superpave test sections at Westrack were designed to fail. These failed test sections confirmed that too high or low asphalt content causes failures. These sections were also compacted with 4, 8, and 12 % air voids.

A second misconception is that since the University of Maryland’s findings indicate that their were flaws in the SHRP information on the prediction models system, then the whole Superpave process including the performance graded-binder specification and the volumetric mix design using the gyratory compactor must also be flawed. Wrong! The Superpave system is composed of three separate items, i.e. the performance-graded binder specifications, the volumetric mix design using the gyratory compactor, and the performance prediction models, All three can be used independently, but achieve maximum benefit when used together. Under SHRP, the performance prediction models were developed simultaneously, but independently, of the other two items and then were joined together at the end of SHRP. Under Phase I of a two phase contract with the University of Maryland, the Superpave prediction models were fully evaluated. The evaluation revealed that the prediction models technology contains significant shortcomings and technical inconsistencies. Many of the problems stem from how the asphalt materials were characterized and how this characterization forms the basis of the prediction models. The FHWA Superpave Technology Delivery Team and the prediction models contract coordinator Kathy Petros, FHWA, consulted with AASHTO and industry officials before deciding that more research was needed to address these deficiencies. The other two elements of the Superpave process, i.e., the performance-graded binder specifications and the volumetric mix design using the gyratory compactor, can still be used and should improve asphalt pavements.

A third misconception is that there are some construction problems being encountered using Superpave mixes. Wrong! Although there have been some reported problems, there are a lot of good Superpave asphalt pavements being constructed. The construction problems have been largely typical asphalt paving problems that occur with any paving project. Some of the problems center around using large aggregate sizes with thin lifts when a thicker lift should have been used to obtain compaction, proper rolling equipment and operations and proper mix temperatures. For more constructability information, you should look to the Lead State Program. These Lead States are champions for Superpave and can provide valuable information. Note: Indiana is the Lead Stare in the North Central Region.

There will be back-to-back meetings May 28-30 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts of the FHWA Asphalt Technical Working Group and the National Asphalt User/Producer Group. This is the first time that these meetings have been held in conjunction with each other and it is envisioned that each Group can learn from each other. (The Northeast Asphalt User/Producer Group will host the meetings.)

Part of your meeting is to share what the future holds for the NCAUPG. It is suggested that the NCAUPG consider including SMA, recycling and other asphalt paving technologies and look at the big picture. Coupled with the Superpave technology, a total asphalt paving program can be developed and promoted by the User/Producer Groups. There are a few bugs to work out yet with Superpave technology during the implementation phase. Only when this technology is fully developed can we meet the challenges that Gary Whited ,mentioned for the performance components of cost quality and shorter construction times.

Haleem covered three points; Where have we been?, Where are we now?, and Where are we headed?.

There are holes in the research. We need to devote resources complete the research,

AASHTO is active on the SHRP Implementation Task Force. Bobbie Templeton as the leader sets the stage for this group just as Don Lucas has set a fire under the NCAUPG.

The Lead State Program on this concept, "Let the users be the teachers," for the people who want to come on board.

The SHRP Implementation Task Force is very active in the outreach program to bring the local governments, such as counties and cities on board. They will become members of the task force. The task force is also looking at the forgotten protocols that were not a part of SHRP such as the ECS chamber test for water sensitivity. They are picking up and re-visiting to see what can be done. Whatever needs to be re-evaluated that could be of value to the industry.

The Superpave Centers are up and running. 90% of the states are kicking in money to support the operations. Resolutions are in a draft stage for the AASHTO annual meeting to provide financial support for the lead state program.

The Task Force puts emphasis on the uniformity of application of the Superpave system. Any proposed changes should be run by the SCOM. We need to use the protocols as specified and let the experiences of states and industry capture the problems encountered in a shared database. We need uniformity and consistency as we design and construct Superpave projects.

The assessment project on the value of the SHRP research conducted by the University of Nevada -Reno reports that we should get back $20 dollars for each dollar that was invested.

Where are we headed? What works and doesn’t work? We don’t have all the answers at this time.

We are working on the N-Design for the gyratory compactor. NCHRP has an ongoing project as well as work by FHWA and lead states. We expect to have a viable answer within a year.

What is the correct limit for VMA? How do we keep the equipment in calibration when something goes wrong? Some of the equipment is not very rugged and is very sensitive. We need to look at the protocols. Maintenance of lab equipment is a problem. When something is wrong and you need the equipment, and you cannot get it up and running again for two weeks or more. this is a serious problem with our system.

Arbitrary changes in the specifications should be discouraged. How can we keep focused so that we remain in compliance with the intended specifications?

Ruggedness, and Precision and Bias. The SCOM and AMRL are doing it. By August, we should be close to developing these statements for binder. We don’t know what it will look like. The binder provisional standards have reached their time limit, four years in August. We need to go from provisional to full standard this year.

Strength parameters for mix design was a part of the QC/QA study, but did not happen.

The temperature algorithm was addressed by Monte Symons. A handout will be a part of the appendix for the Management Committee as a part of the minutes for this meeting.

There will be an out reach program for local governments, County Engineers, FAA , and others. We will work on how to pull them in.

Monte was surprised to see so many show up for the meeting. He only had 30 copies for handouts. We will provide additional copies on request. This information was provided to the Binder ETG in February, 1997 and was well received. We had good feedback , revised last month and got their blessing and semi-approval.

There were three data sources used in this report; SHRP-A-637, 25 LTPP Seasonal Monitoring sites for 1993-1995, and 7801 Weather Stations in North America ( SHRP-A-641A). The 25 seasonal sites provide a good range of climates from Maine to Idaho and from Texas to Saskatchewan. The sensors are five feet in depth and there is a weather station at each site also. There are three temperature probes in the asphalt pavement , one 1-inch from the top, one in the middle of the layer and one 1-inch from the bottom. There are additional temperature sensors and TDR probes to measure the moisture to a depth of five feet below the pavement. Daily records are taken during the day and stored in a datalogger which is downloaded monthly and put into the SAPT database. Filtering of the data or data checks were made to assure that the data is accurate before being used in the database. They performed data element correlation and regression analysis and data comparison . They did both the high and low temperatures, however, for this presentation we only looked at the low temperatures.

A regression analysis was performed on 411 points , three per site and came up with an R squared of 0.96 and an RMS of + or - 2.1 degrees. Concerns raised by the were : " How accurate is the equation ? " What is the reliability of the surface temperatures ? "" " Was linearity assumed ?." " The conductivity of the metal probe ? " " Does it give the true temperature of the pavement at a specific depth? All of these concerns were addressed and the ETG accepted the revised equation.

When the LTPP analysis is completed the consensus is that the equation developed by LTPP does predict the low temperature better than the SHRP developed equation. They are going slow on the Binder ETG to be sure the test procedures developed under SHRP research is valid. Any revised procedures are expected from AASHTO in a couple of months. What does this revision at the low temperature equation mean when you select your binder grades ? The low temperature required increases from 5-13 degrees with the mean of 7 degrees. This decreases the need for additives that allows a wider temperature range between the high and low PG grades.

The original SHRP BIND disk developed in the LTPP program was the original SHRP low temperature equation. The LTPP program has developed a prototype revised program entitled LTPP BIND that is in the Windows format and uses the revised equation. The additional development and distribution of the LTPP BIND software is pending AASHTO acceptance of the new equation and implementation support.

The data also checks with data gathered by Dr. Bahia in Wisconsin. The agreement is right on , it looks good but may even be a little conservative. There is very good agreement between the SHRP . SAPT and the C-SHRP low temperature data at 50 degrees latitude. Other work done by Robertson under C-SHRP using independent data and a simpler algorithm also supports the equation.

SUPERPAVE CENTER UPDATE
Rebecca McDaniel, North Central Superpave Center
Laird Weishahn, Nebraska Department of Transportation

Rebecca McDaniel, Technical Director of the North Central Superpave Center (NCSC), and Laird Wieshahn, of the Nebraska Department of Roads and Chairman of the Steering Committee, reviewed where the center stood in relation to the goals set by the Steering Committee at it’s first meeting. Communication was one of the primary goals. The NCSC has worked towards improving communication through it’s quarterly newsletter, a web site (http//ce.ecn.purdue.edu/~spave/), and , many phone contacts and personal presentations. Future plans include improving the web site and initiating a series of news flashes by e-mail and/or fax.

The second goal of the NCSC is to provide training. Over 125 people have attended Volumetric Mix Design training in the last year, 20+ took a half-day course in the Superpave Gyratory Compactor and 24 people attended one of the two Binder Testing courses. Plans for next year include a full schedule of binder and mix design courses, and some customized training over the summer, and beginning to teach the National Highway Institute courses for field engineers, locals and managers.

Research is a third priority of the center, which is currently involved in research on a state , regional, and national level. Research topics include low temperature cracking, use of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP), fine aggregate angularity and validation of Superpave using accelerated testing. The NCSC is currently in the contract negotiation stage for a national project that will be of great interest to the region, but which they cannot discuss until the contract is signed.

Other points of interest: funding commitments have been received from nine states and one province; industry has pledged support as well; construction on the air handling system is nearly complete and is no longer holding up the work; ruggedness testing is underway; and the NCSC is at full staffing levels. Other future plans include developing a policy for helping the states and industry in the region meet their research testing needs and working on other regional needs as they arise.

This information was received from Tom Bryan. We would like to thank Ray Hogrefe, April Swanson, John De Angelo, Rick Smutzer, Tom Bryan, Ken Archuleta and all the participants in making this workshop a success. Please think about whether or not a similar workshop would be useful in conjunction with next spring’s NCAUPG meeting and let us know.

1. Communication—Improved communications methods are needed. Within the government sector the communication system is built into the organizational arrangements. FHWA serves as the conduit for communications that are directed to State Highway Agencies and national organizations. Industry, suppliers, and vendors are not in the loop.

Timely notification of information across the spectrum of participants in the implementation of Superpave (including contractors, producers, suppliers, and vendors) is necessary in the areas of ruggedness testing, test method advisory information, new areas of research being pursued to resolve unknowns or problem areas, etc. Information transfer twice a year during the NCAUPG meetings is not efficient.

2. Equipment Calibration—More information is needed on calibration procedures and preventative maintenance to avoid delays in test processing. Improved information transfer from the manufacturers representatives in the areas is also needed when equipment is installed. The "whys" and the "effects" of calibration need to be identified.

The past frequency of round robin testing processes is not sufficient during these early stages of Superpave implementation while the precision and bias data is being developed. New installations/labs are coming on board creating a need for an ongoing checkpoint system to improve their operations. The Western Cooperative Testing Group may be a good source for continuing verification/identification of testing accuracy.

3. Training—Refresher courses are needed now that the test procedures are coming closer to their final protocol. Changes have occurred since the training provided by the SHRP researchers. Re-visiting the theoretical basis of the testing procedures (e.g. time-temperature relationships) and training in rheology would be appropriate.

There is a need for a baseline of training and demonstrated capabilities of the testing personnel that are now entering into the production/business mode of operation. There is a need for training/guidance help in the calibration of equipment.

4. Construction Site Materials Handling and Procedures—Training is needed on the construction use of modified binders. How the material is to be used and handled for each grade and modifier can be included in the QC plan of the producer/supplier. Guidance can be provided by the supplier, but adherence to the guidance cannot rest with the supplier. The handling of the modified binder materials is critical. Supplier recommendations for materials handling will need to become a part of the State specifications. As we go more to designer mixes and modified asphalt’s the possibilities of "finger pointing" are great. As more responsibility is turned over to the contractors under QC/QA and warranties, there may be more responsibility placed on the suppliers and the contractors. We have not done a good job of bringing contractors into the discussion/change in the way business is to be done and what must be done under the new paradigms of Superpave and changed materials. This needs to be pursued/addressed in the UPG.

If you have additional comments or would like further information , please contact either Tom Bryan or Ken Archuleta:

Tom Bryan
FHWA Region 5
19900 Governors Drive
Olympia Fields, IL 60641
(708) 283-3553 phone
(708) 283-3501 fax

Ken Archuleta
FHWA Region 7
P. O. Box 419715
Kansas City, MO 64141-6715
(816) 276-2732 phone
(816) 363-3347 fax

MIXTURE PANEL DISCUSSION (CASE HISTORIES OF SUPERPAVE PROJECTS)
Wayne Muri, Missouri Asphalt Pavement Association

Thanks to all of you for taking the time to be here. Ten years ago we were fighting over the question, Would asphalt pavements suffice on our major highways? Then came the European Asphalt tour when I was chairman of the Transportation Research Board. This was a wake-up call as well as serving for five years on the SHRP Executive Committee on the 50 million dollar SHRP Asphalt Program. Superpave is a revolutionary pavement breakthrough, which I am convinced we must implement. The concept is very fundamental, but will we implement Superpave ? I am impressed that Indiana has 47 Superpave projects this year. I never thought we would make this much progress. If we don’t , PCC pavement will be built. I’m a taxpayer, and we owe it to the taxpayer to implement Superpave. There is so much to be gained. Four points stand out:

Stearns County Superpave Project—CSAH 75
Doug Weiszhaar, Stearns County Engineer
Ron Lenz Duininck Brothers, Prinsburg, MN

In 1996, Stearns County undertook a highway resurfacing project utilizing the Superpave process as developed by SHRP. This project was 5.78 miles long with a four lane divided typical section. The traffic was approximately 22,800 vehicles per day on the eastern end of the project and 18,700 vehicles per day on the west end of the project.

The project was designed with several different test sections to help evaluate the pavement characteristics of Superpave. The existing pavement was milled off the entire project. The eastbound test sections were constructed with conventional Minnesota paving processes. The base course was 2.5 inches to 3 inches of bituminous base with 50% recycled asphalt. The binder course was 1.5 to 2 inches of binder with 30% recycled asphalt The wear course was 1.5 to 2 inches of conventional high type wear course with no recycled asphalt.

The westbound test section was designed using Superpave. The eastern half of this section utilized 2.5 inches of conventional base utilizing 50 percent recycled asphalt There was a 2 inch Superpave binder course and a 2 inch Superpave wear course. Over this section both courses utilized a PG 58-34 grade of polymer modified asphalt. The western half of the westbound lanes were designed with a 3 inch conventional base course utilizing 50 percent recycled asphalt, 1.5 inches of conventional binder course utilizing 30 percent recycled asphalt, and l.5 inches Superpave wear with no recycled asphalt and again utilizing a PG 58-34 polymer modified asphalt.

After approximately six months of use, the pavement in both directions appears to be in very good condition, minor surface distress such as thermal cracking in both the conventional and Superpave sections and minor surface raveling in the conventional wear section have shown up, however, it is too early in the life of the pavements to reach any conclusions as to durability.

Hwy 175 in Hardin County, Iowa • Hwy 63 in Howard County, Iowa
Dave Carlson, Fred Carlson Company

We were fortunate to have built two jobs, one in 1995 in Hardin County using Superpave aggregate and one in 1996 in Howard County using full Superpave ( aggregate and binder ). On both jobs, mixes were controlled with the Marshall hammer and the Gyratory Compactor was used for comparison. On the first project ( Hwy 175 in Hardin County) our plant was set up in a gravel pit close to the job and the limestone would have to be hauled about 30 miles. We tried to use as much gravel as possible to keep the costs down and still meet Superpave requirements.

The binder was a Type A 3/4" with 60 % crushed particles. The surface was a Type A 3/4" with 75 % crushed particles’ requirement. Both mixes were 150 blow Marshall. On the 3/4" surface course we had trouble meeting the requirements so it was agreed to use 1/2" mix. Lab void target on the binder was 3.5 % On the first day , our lab voids averaged 2.7%, we lowered the AC content from 5.8 % to 5.6 %. The next day the voids went up to 3.6% and we never had to make any changes the rest of the job.

The surface was very similar. On our 500 ton test strip, we ran two boxes and averaged 2.9 % voids - our target was 4.0%. We lowered the AC content from 5.4 % to 5,3 % .. The voids went to 4.0% and we didn’t adjust the surface mix the rest of the job.

The mix looked different! It was coarse, but very uniform. It looked beautiful behind the paver. There were no signs of segregation and it looked rich with asphalt cement when the rollers hit it. The mix was extremely stable. There was no shoving or moving of the mat. We were laying 2 1/2" of mix, but the rollers only compacted it 1/4" at the most. Needless to say, the roller operators loved it. There was a 95 % density requirement. We used the same roller pattern for this mix that we would for a fine mix. Our densities on the binder averaged 97.3 % and 96.6 % on the surface. Our people told me that these were two of the best mixes that they had ever worked with and other than taking a little extra care when luting, they can’t imagine how the job could have gone any better.

Our second exposure to SHRP mixes came last year in Howard County on Hwy 63. This was a metric job, calling for 19 mm (3/4") Type A with 75 % crushed particles on both the 50 mm of surface and 100 mm of binder. These were 39,000 MG of binder and 18,000 MG of surface. We used PG 58-28 Asphalt Cement.

Target voids for the binder was 3.5 % for the first three days of the binder mix, the voids jumped around increasing from 3,7 % to 4.9 % . We made an aggregate interchange to lower the voids. We ran another 4 days and the voids were close to going out the bottom side, so we made another aggregate interchange to raise the voids. We made five more interchanges to keep the voids in tolerance before we finished the binder. The surface mix went a little bit smoother because the material producer had a pile of chips made which we saved for the surface. We stayed right at the 4.0 % void target. We did one more aggregate interchange to lower the voids because the gyratory compactor was showing 1 % to 1 1/2 % higher voids than the Marshall hammer and IDOT wanted the gyratory voids closer to 4.0 %. The mix looked similar to the Hardin County project, but didn’t seem quite as stable, even though we had more crushed particles. The rollers pushed the mat a little bit.

They also sank in a little deeper than in Hardin County. We used a windrow pickup machine and belly dumps most of the time and noticed no segregation on the job with the exception of when we paved with paver and flowboys. We noticed load interval segregation if the paver operator wasn’t careful! He had to keep the hopper full and couldn’t dump the wings between loads.

It was easy to identify part of the problems with this job, the rock producer was crushing and trying to stay ahead of us. Subsequently the material gradations were changing from fine to coarse. This caused the mix to jump around a lot. It worked the dickens out of the QMA people.

These two jobs emphasizes the importance of the material producer’s role in Quality AC mixes.

On our first job, out material supplier had uniform stockpiles of material available for us to use including a pile of washed 3/8 "chips. On the second job, the material producer was " under the gun " and was trying to stay ahead of us. He was running hard and shoving rock through the plant. We got guts, feathers, feet and all. Not a good way to operate.

Overall, we are very pleased with the final SHRP product and we are looking forward to building our next SHRP job.

If anyone has further question’s, you can contact Steve Sorenson at PO Box 48, Decorah, IA 52101 or phone 319-382-4249, FAX 319-382-9225.

IOWA GRADATION ANALYSIS
John Hinrichsen, Iowa Department of Transportation

The following is a brief summary of the presentation on the SHADES computer program John presented at the NCAUPG meeting in Madison , WI. They are now making the program available to anyone interested. It is a Lotus 123 spreadsheet developed in Version 5.

The Iowa DOT Bituminous Lab personnel have developed a computer modeling program that has proved to be a very useful tool for mix designers trying to design Superpave mixtures. The program contains several new tools for the analysis of aggregate gradation and volumetrics. Two of the primary modules were demonstrated. One module uses data from a new test procedure that measures the volumetrics of the coarse (+#8 ) and fine (-#8) portions of the combined aggregate as measured in the gyratory compactor. This helps the designer assure that the mix has a coarse stone-on-stone contact. Another module uses graphs to plot the percent retained on each sieve and analyzes the progression of each size to establish the "design index". This is similar in concept to the maximum density line used on the .45 power graphs in common use, except that the design index shifts depending on the actual total gradation of the material rather than being fixed by the maximum size. Mix designers have realized for years that the maximum density line shifts for different aggregate combinations even though the maximum density line remains the same. Analysis of the percent retained on each sieve is compared to the design index line to help predict changes in the VMA. Other equations analyze the ratio of aggregate to mastic and determine the "structural size" of the mixture, which helps the designer control the texture exhibited by the surface of the pavement. The relationship between film thickness and VMA is also included in the analysis tools. The program also performs all the required calculations for the Superpave mix design and prints out several reports summarizing the data.

You can contact John at 515-239-1601 or FAX him at 515-239-1092 for further information.

NCAUPG VISION FOR THE FUTURE
Wayne Murphy, Minnesota Department of Transportation

Wayne Murphy described the steps taken by the Management Committee yesterday morning and into the evening to revise the Action Plan for the next several years. Basically, the first part of the action plan, the mission statement, the original action items , the purpose of the organization, principles of operation and the roles and responsibilities were unchanged. Some wordsmithing of these will be needed before the next meeting, which is expected to be held in the fall.

The management committee will provide the coordination of the activities of the User-Producer Group. It is comprised of one representative from private industry and one from the highway agency from each participating state or province. These representatives are individuals from upper level management who have been identified as leaders in their state or province.

The largest change was the re-alignment of the three subgroups into two subgroups and the reduction in the number of state highway agencies in the NCAUPG. The North Central Asphalt User-Producer Group includes two provinces and twelve states as follows:

The leaders of the North Sub-Group are Wayne Murphy of the Minnesota DOT and Dave Holt of the Minnesota Asphalt Pavement Association. The South Sub-Group led by Don Lucas of the Indiana DOT and Lloyd Bandy of the Association of Asphalt Paving of Indiana. Two people from the South will need to be added to form the Executive Committee of the UPG.

The Executive Committee is comprised of the Co-Chairpersons of the Sub-Groups. Four representatives, two agency and two industry from ND, SD, NE, MN, IA, WI, MI, SK and MB; Four representatives, two agency, two industry from KS, MO, IL, IN and OH. Two Co-chairpersons, one agency, one industry. Selected by Executive Committee. Eight representatives choose the Co-Chairpersons to head the Executive Committee, presently Wayne Murphy and David Holt. Wayne Murphy has agreed to serve only until January of 1998. the Co-chair term will be 2 years with one chosen each year to lead the organization. Staff support is presently provided by the LTPP North Central Region Coordination office. The staff support from the LTPP North Central Region Coordination Office is scheduled to end when Mr. Ingberg’s contract is completed in September of this year, 1997. Responsibilities are for developing , coordinating, and maintaining mailing lists; and also sending out minutes and organizing meetings etc. We intend to form task groups to work on the various tasks. Members will be selected for their ability to get things done.

Goals of the organization that were developed and adopted in March, 1992 were reviewed and a new revised set was developed. Please note that persons were assigned to the various goals. If you are interested in helping attain any of these goals please contact the person or persons in charge.

We would like to thank everyone who helped make this another successful meeting. We especially want to thank the Wisconsin DOT for hosting the meeting and taking care of all the arrangements and transportation. A special thank you to Tracy Gill, Kathy Porter, John Volker, and his staff for their fine work.

NCAUPG Meeting Minutes • Spring 1997
E-mail your comments to: ncsc@ecn.purdue.edu