AASHTO/NTPEP 2012 ANNUAL MEETING … Steel (REBAR) Technical Committee Agenda ... (MS) Joseph...

AASHTO/NTPEP 2012 ANNUAL MEETING Reinforcing Steel (REBAR)

Technical Committee Agenda

Wednesday, May 2, 2012 (3:15pm-5:15pm)

Indianapolis, Indiana

National Transportation Product Evaluation Program 2012

Indianapolis, Indiana

Committee Members:

Merrill Zwanka (SC) - Chair Ed Hughes (IL) – Vice Chair Mike San Angelo (AK)

Celina Sumrall (MS) Joseph Putherickal (IA) David Meggers (KS)

Kenny Anderson (IN) Michael Rafalowski (FHWA) Ross Mills (KY) Neal Anderson (CRSI) – Industry Member Kenny Seward (OK) Katheryn Malusky (AASHTO) Trevor Booker (KY) Robert Sarcinella (AASHTO) – Liaison Leo Martinez (CA)

Old Business:

1. ACTION ITEM: Add automatic failure notification for TC, manufacturer, and DOT’s Auto Notification for failures still under consideration but nothing yet.

2. ACTION ITEM: Need for a list of NTPEP recognizing states List of State DOT’s using REBAR Program is on website and updated.

3. ACTION ITEM: NTPEP presentation at 2011 SOM meeting to market the program NTPEP presentation at 2011 SOM meeting was performed by Tom Baker

4. Status update on ability for states to share testing information performed by a DOT A way to note failures found in testing by DOT’s is there and needs marketing.

5. Reinforcing Steel workplan ballot – summary/status Work Plan (Standard Practice) is done and posted.

6. Welded wire fabric –Draft letter to manufacturers Draft letter to WWR Manufacturers: ILDOT letter is out for delivery, TxDOT letter going in June

7. Possible survey of NTPEP voting members about additional products for audit program Holding on survey for new materials for now

New Business:

1. Audit Update – AASHTO Kathy gave a presentation on the status of program.

2. Status of Illinois DOT comparison testing – Ed Hughes Ed gave 2 presentations

3. Industry Update – CRSI CRSI Neil Anderson gave an update on industry actions (Workshop on sampling and audit stuff. Update on ASTM actions)

4. Update on WWR Sampling exercise with Illinois DOT, NTPEP, and Insteel See #2 above

AASHTO/NTPEP 2012 ANNUAL MEETING Reinforcing Steel (REBAR)

Technical Committee Agenda

Wednesday, May 2, 2012 (3:15pm-5:15pm)

Indianapolis, Indiana

National Transportation Product Evaluation Program 2012

Indianapolis, Indiana

5. Sampling video – Ed/Neal Not presented 6. Discussion on yield testing for wire and WWR during audits – need for witnessing

Sarc polled the DOT’s who were present regarding need for Yield results on MTR’s and all agreed.

7. Update to AASHTO R53 – more generic audit standard and not just rebar – Robert Sarcinella Proposal to make one Master Document for audits and smaller (Technical) Work Plans

Other Business: None

Reinforcing Steel Independent Laboratory

Testing

Springfield, IL

Overview: • 2011 = 32 Audits 1 Mill had to retest 1 Mill had equipment problems Several problems with WT/FT Average 12.8 days to receive Average 12.7 days to test

Overview: • 2012 = 5 Audits So far mill results look good.

QUESTIONS?

AASHTO’s 2012 Annual NTPEP Meeting

Reinforcing Steel

Technical Committee Meeting

Indianapolis, Indiana Wednesday May 2, 2012

Katheryn Malusky NTPEP Project Engineer

NTPEP Audit Program Statistics for Reinforcing Steel (2011)

Program Participation

AASHTO Member Departments

Industry

Feedback from Audience

Current Sampling Procedures

Program Information

Feedback from Industry

2011 Tour

• 30 Audits completed for rebar

– Zero audits completed for WWR

• Number of Split Sample Failures: 3

• AASHTO member departments who attended an audit(s):

AL OK

IL SC

NJ TX

• States utilizing data from NTPEP audits (17): (results from survey completed in Fall 2011)

• States moving toward utilizing data from NTPEP audits (14):

** NJ attended an on-site audit in 2011 **

AK IL MO OR WA

AL KS MT RI

CO LA NH SC

DC MA OK TX

CT KY NE VA

IA ME NJ VT

ID MS TN

IN NC UT

Manufacturer Participation for 2012 • 10 Manufacturers are participating in the 2012

Audit Tour (32 facilities) for Rebar: – Gerdau Steel

– Nucor Steel

– Mid-American Steel

– CMC Steel

– ArcelorMittal

– Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel

– Cascade Steel Rolling Mills

– Keystone Steel & Wire

– Alton Steel

– Steel Dynamics

• 2 Manufacturers are participating in the 2012 Audit Tour (2 facilities) for WWR: – Mid-American Steel

– Nucor Steel- Wallingford, CT

Current Sampling Procedure for Rebar and WWR

• SECTION 9: ANNUAL PRODUCT CONFORMANCE TESTING – THE NTPEP PROGRAM REQUIRES THAT PRODUCT SAMPLES BE TESTED TO

DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROPRIATE AASHTO/ASTM MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS.

– THE NTPEP AUDITOR WILL SELECT THREE SETS OF SAMPLES (REF.: SECTION 9) DURING EACH ANNUAL MANUFACTURER AUDIT (ONE SET TO BE TESTED BY THE MANUFACTURER, ONE SET TO BE TESTED BY THE NTPEP DESIGNATED LABORATORY, AND ONE FOR RETESTING AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 8.7). ALL SAMPLES WILL BE FROM THE SAME HEAT/LOT OF MATERIAL.

– MANUFACTURER SAMPLES: • Reinforcing Bars or Wire Samples: At a minimum, a total of 30 bars (or wires), 3 from 10

separate heats (or lots) spanning the sizes produced. • Welded Wire Reinforcement Samples: At a minimum, 10 full-width sheet sections from 10

separate lots spanning the sizes produced (Ref.: Appendix X3). • The Manufacturer will report the results from their testing using the standard format provided by

NTPEP within 15 calendar days of testing. – NTPEP DESIGNATED LABORATORY SAMPLES:

• The NTPEP Auditor will instruct the Manufacturer on the proper labeling of the companion samples. These samples will be located adjacent to the previous (Manufacturer) samples and from the same heats/lots and in the same quantities listed in 8.3. “Manufacturer Samples”. The Manufacturer will send (freight paid by the Manufacturer) the companion samples to the NTPEP designated laboratory for testing (Ref.: Section 9).

Program Information • Current work plan (balloted in November 2011

and approved in January 2012) and audit worksheets can be found on the NTPEP website, www.ntpep.org

• REMINDER: After you have received an email notifying you your Audit Report is available on the NTPEP DataMine website, please remember to log onto the NTPEP DataMine website to access your invoice (from the My DataMine screen) and submit payment.

Feedback from Industry • I started regularly attending ASTM meetings in 2001. At that

time the program was beginning the final stages of completion. I remember the main justification for the program was the reduction in individual states auditing the plants and requiring their own samples. This has never materialized at Nucor Auburn. We continue to test and supply samples to many states with few exceptions. In our current home northeastern market nothing has changed.

• The cost of the audit is excessive compared to ISO 9001 audits. Our last 4 day ISO audit including auditor expenses was $6,469.06. Can the audit process be updated so a facility with a current ISO 9001 registration submit their registration certificate to you and eliminate the actual field audit? This type of process is standard in all types of commercial manufacturing in the world today.

• The sampling of finished product or comparison testing currently required has questionable merits. A better method of evaluating a labs performance could be utilizing the CCRL rebar testing proficiency program administered by ASTM. This would give be a better evaluation on the mills ability to provide accurate results.

• The sampling is excessive, collecting and sending 60 samples a year is too much and too frequent.

• When are all the states going to accept the program? We still provide samples to New York twice a year and West Virginia when they ask. We also submit letters to Georgia and Mississippi. The point of the participation was to eliminate the need for all the rest of the states to continue to audit, and sample.

• From my perspective, the program has not provided enough additional benefit yet to outweigh the costs and time.

• If you want a truly valuable program all the states need to buy in and the sampling requirements and audit costs need to be reduced. The states that are not participating need to be asked why not and their concerns addressed. Perhaps a joint State DOT/ producer task force would be a good idea to help shape the program into something of true value.

• My basic concern is that the movement to have all the DOT’s accept the NTPEP audit and results seems to have stalled. We continue to have several DOTs that either come in to audit or request comparative sampling. Unless this program is endorsed by all the states, it simply becomes an extra expense and effort.

• At one time it was stated if the company was ISO registered, then the NTPEP audit would not be required and only comparative testing.

Reinforcing Steel Technical Committee Chairman: Merrill Zwanka SC DOT Phone: 803-737-6681 Email: zwankame@scdot.org Reinforcing Steel Technical Committee Vice-Chairman: Ed Hughes IL DOT Phone: 217-782-4689 Email: Edward.Hughes@illinois.gov Reinforcing Technical Committee Industry Representative: Neil Anderson CRSI Phone: 847-517-1200 Email: nanderson@crsi.org Reinforcing Steel Technical Committee AASHTO Liaison: Katheryn Malusky AASHTO Phone: 202-624-3695 Email: kmalusky@aashto.org

NTPEP Reinforcing Bar / WWR Sampling Guidelines

8.3 MANUFACTURER SAMPLES:

8.3.1 Reinforcing Bars or Wire Samples: At a minimum, a total of 30 bars (or wires), 3 from 10 separate heats (or lots) spanning the sizes produced.

8.3.2 Welded Wire Reinforcement Samples: At a minimum, 10 full-width sheet sections from 10 separate lots spanning the sizes produced (Ref.: Appendix X3).

8.3.3 The Manufacturer will report the results from their testing using the standard format provided by NTPEP within 15 calendar days of testing.

8.4 NTPEP DESIGNATED LABORATORY SAMPLES:

8.4.1 The NTPEP Auditor will instruct the Manufacturer on the proper labeling of the companion samples. These samples will be located adjacent to the previous (Manufacturer) samples and from the same heats/lots and in the same quantities listed in 8.3. “Manufacturer Samples”. The Manufacturer will send (freight paid by the Manufacturer) the companion samples to the NTPEP designated laboratory for testing (Ref.: Section 9).

8.3.1 Reinforcing Bars or Wire Samples: At a minimum, a total of 30 bars (or wires), 3 from 10 separate heats (or lots) spanning the sizes produced.

1. Sample break down per heat 3 bars per heat 4 samples for producing mill

o One physical property sample per bar o One bend sample per heat

6 samples for NTPEP Independent Lab o Two samples per bar

Mill test report (certification)

Note 1: Total number of samples per heat = 10

2. Repeat for remaining 9 heats

Note 2: Total number of samples per audit = 100

Samples can be taken from production line or stock material.

8.4 NTPEP DESIGNATED LABORATORY SAMPLES:

8.4.1 The NTPEP Auditor will instruct the Manufacturer on the proper labeling of the companion samples. These samples will be located adjacent to the previous (Manufacturer) samples and from the same heats/lots and in the same quantities listed in 8.3. “Manufacturer Samples”. The Manufacturer will send (freight paid by the Manufacturer) the companion samples to the NTPEP designated laboratory for testing (Ref.: Section 9).

Heat 1 Bars 1, 2 & 3

3B 3 2B 2 1B 1

1 2 3

Mill Samples

Sister Samples

Bend Sample For Heat 1

Heat 2 Bars 4, 5 & 6

6B 6 5B 5 4B 4

4 5 6

Mill Samples

Sister Samples

Bend Sample For Heat 2

Heat 3 Bars 7, 8 & 9

9B 9 8B 8 7B 7

7 8 9

Mill Samples

Sister Samples

Bend Sample For Heat 3

Heat 4 Bars 10, 11 & 12

12B 12 11B 11 10B 10

10 11 12

Mill Samples

Sister Samples

Bend Sample For Heat 4

Heat 5 Bars 13, 14 & 15

15B 15 14B 14 13B 13

13 14 15

Mill Samples

Sister Samples

Bend Sample For Heat 5

Heat 6 Bars 16, 17 & 18

18B 18 17B 17 16B 16

16 17 18

Mill Samples

Sister Samples

Bend Sample For Heat 6

Heat 7 Bars 19, 20 & 21

21B 21 20B 20 19B 19

19 20 21

Mill Samples

Sister Samples

Bend Sample For Heat 7

Heat 8 Bars 22, 23 & 24

24B 24 23B 23 22B 22

22 23 24

Mill Samples

Sister Samples

Bend Sample For Heat 8

Heat 9 Bars 25, 26 & 27

27B 27 26B 26 25B 25

25 26 27

Mill Samples

Sister Samples

Bend Sample For Heat 9

Heat 10 Bars 28, 29 & 30

30B 30 29B 29 28B 28

28 29 30

Mill Samples

Sister Samples

Bend Sample For Heat 10

WWR

8.3 MANUFACTURER SAMPLES:

8.3.2 Welded Wire Reinforcement Samples: At a minimum, 10 full-width sheet sections from 10 separate lots spanning the sizes produced (Ref.: Appendix X3).

8.3.3 The Manufacturer will report the results from their testing using the standard format provided by NTPEP within 15 calendar days of testing.

8.4 NTPEP DESIGNATED LABORATORY SAMPLES:

8.4.1 The NTPEP Auditor will instruct the Manufacturer on the proper labeling of the companion samples. These samples will be located adjacent to the previous (Manufacturer) samples and from the same heats/lots and in the same quantities listed in 8.3. “Manufacturer Samples”. The Manufacturer will send (freight paid by the Manufacturer) the companion samples to the NTPEP designated laboratory for testing (Ref.: Section 9).

8.3 MANUFACTURER SAMPLES:

8.3.2 Welded Wire Reinforcement Samples: At a minimum, 10 full-width sheet sections from 10 separate lots spanning the sizes produced. For rolls, sample full width by minimum 25 transverse lines. (Ref.: Appendix X3).

1. Sample break down per tag\lot\heat 1 sheet per tag\lot\heat 16 samples for producing mill

o 4WS – 4LT – 2TT – 6 Bend 32 samples for NTPEP Independent Lab

o 4WS – 4LT – 2TT – 6 WT/FT deformed o 4WS – 4LT – 2TT – 6 WT/FT (Backup)

Mill test report (certification)

Note 1: Total number of samples per tag/lot/heat = 36 for smooth wire or 48 for deformed

Note 2: Save remaining sheet for mill back samples

2. Repeat for remaining 9 tag/lot/heats

Note 4: Total number of samples per audit = 480

* DO NOT sample from outside wire for longitudinal specimens.

Samples can be taken from production line or stock material.

Sample 1

Tag # 12345

8.4 NTPEP DESIGNATED LABORATORY SAMPLES:

8.4.1 The NTPEP Auditor will instruct the Manufacturer on the proper labeling of the companion samples. These samples will be located adjacent to the previous (Manufacturer) samples and from the same heats/lots and in the same quantities listed in 8.3. “Manufacturer Samples”. The Manufacturer will send (freight paid by the Manufacturer) the companion samples to the NTPEP designated laboratory for testing (Ref.: Section 9).

Weld Shear Longitudinal Tensile Transverse Tensile

Longitudinal Bend/Wt. Ft. Transverse Bend/Wt. Ft (deformed)

Figure 1: WWR Sampling Diagram

L1

L2

L3

L4

L1*

L2*

L3*

L4*

NTPEP designated sampling continues

longitudinally from this point. Samples

cut at manufacturer and sent to NTPEP

designated lab.

Note 2: Dashed lines are for backup samples for independent laboratory.

Note 1: For smooth WWR bends are

performed only by the manufacturer.

Questions?