saws 2013-04-05 report v3 draftapr 05, 2013 · workshop detail specific actions necessary to...

S t r a t e g i c A l l i a n c e developing superior flexible pavements

Workshop Report

Delivering asphalt in Queensland

-‐ the future direction

Friday 5 April 2013

BP Bitumen Eagle Farm, Brisbane

Version 3 DRAFT

AAPA Q TMR Strategic Alliance Workshop: Delivering Asphalt in Queensland – the future direction v3 page 2

AAPA Q TMR Strategic Alliance Workshop

Delivering asphalt in Queensland – the future direction

CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary 2. Agenda 3. Summary of short presentations

a. Overview of long term future \ b. Status of current research c. Queensland circumstances – QTMR d. Queensland opportunities & challenges -‐ AAPA

4. Workshop findings

First Workshop Session a. Outline the desired future for asphalt supply and use in Qld (10 year

horizon)

Second Workshop Session a. What long range strategies are needed to create the desired future? b. What immediate (short term) actions are required to orientate to

the future direction? 5. Action plans from workshop 6. Appendices

a. Presentation – Les Millar & Alan McLennan b. Presentation – Erik Denneman

“Current and future developments in asphalt technology” c. Presentation – Bevan Sulllivan

“Material Characterisation of Australian Asphalts” d. Speaking notes – Peter Evans & TMR Asset Managers e. Presentation – Rob McGuire

“Opportunities & challenges of potential changes for Q asphalt producers”

f. Workshop flip chart details g. Participants list

Copies of the full size presentations can be downloaded from the Alliance website

http://www.aapaqtmr.org/SAWS20130405.html


AAPA Q TMR Strategic Alliance Workshop

Delivering asphalt in Queensland – the future direction

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The AAPA Q TMR Strategic Alliance workshop “Delivering Asphalt in Queensland – the future direction” focused on the need for improved value-‐for-‐money and the transfer asphalt design and performance responsibility to the Queensland asphalt suppliers.

Participants included AAPA, QTMR, ARRB and National Committees responsible for asphalt & pavements.

Facilitated by Alan McLennan with opening presentations on long, medium term developments and a review of the current situation in Queensland by QTMR and AAPA representatives. This was followed by breaking into three groups and first considering the “Desired future for asphalt supply in Qld” followed by the groups deriving “Long-‐term strategies” and “Short-‐term actions”.

“Desired future for asphalt supply in Queensland” Smaller government | Risks transferred to industry with an expanded role and increased capacity | Collaborative relationships with mutual respect | Long-‐term performance responsibilities of products | Increased sustainability | Attractive & leading edge | Flexible pavements more competitive on price/performance offering increased value for money.

“Long-‐term strategies needed to create the desired future” Nationally integrated asphalt mix & pavement designs | Implement performance based systems | Prove value-‐for-‐money as an industry | Improve training | Improve safety performance | Public acceptance of need for road worker safety | Maintain commitment to collaborative R&D | Renew & continue alliance

“Short-‐term actions required to orientate to the future direction” Integrated asphalt mix & pavement design: Undertake GAP analysis in harmonisation assessment | Peer review local with international pavement designs | Review production based mixes | Review Asphalt Supplier Registration system Performance based specifications: Best practice in performance based maintenance contracts | Support development of a) PBS maintenance contracts b) Functional wearing courses Safety & industry image: AAPA Safety Working Group – include TMR Sustainability: Partner with TMR, LG, AAPA & Austroads in reviewing procurement systems and standards | A plan to capture knowledge base data with loss of skilled persons Training: Find a way of handing over experience to industry

ACTIONS: 1. Progress performance based specifications – asphalt & contracting | road map 2. Communications package – trends, papers and future directions for asphalt & pavement designs 3. Mechanism of sharing contemporary technical information 4. Prepare capability framework for transfer of knowledge 5. Review long & short term strategies & develop action plan to implement 6. Set up small team to work on harmonisation of design & processes of RMS 7. Prepare and distribute report from the workshop


2. AGENDA DELIVERING ASPHALT IN QUEENSLAND – THE FUTURE DIRECTION

Venue: BP Bitumen Offices, 572 Curtin Avenue East, Eagle Farm, Date: Friday 5 April 2013 Time: 8:30am for 9:00am start, ends 12:30pm

AGENDA

1. Welcome: Les Millar -‐ AAPA Q Sustainability Working Group

2. Introductions & Scope: Facilitator: Alan McLennan

3. Short presentations: Overview of long term future for asphalt mix & inclusion in pavement

design: ARRB & Asphalt Research WG: Erik Denneman Current status of asphalt design, manufacture & performance in

Australia: Asphalt Research WG – Warren Carter, Bevan Sullivan Queensland circumstances & need for change: QTMR (E&T: Peter Evans

and PD&O: representative) Opportunities & challenges of potential changes for Qld asphalt

producers: AAPA Q Chairman: Rob McGuire

4. Morning break

5. Facilitated session: First Workshop Session:

(Three small groups address this question – dot points) “Outline the desired future for asphalt supply and use in Qld (10 year horizon)” * Feedback from the three small groups

Second Workshop Session: (Two small groups – one topic each) a) “What long range strategies are needed to create the desired future?” b) “What immediate (short term) actions are required to orientate to the future direction?” * Feedback from the two groups

6. Action Plan from Workshop Detail specific actions necessary to proceed to next stages

7. Close:


3. SUMMARY OF PRESENTATIONS a. Presentation – Les Millar & Alan McLennan

Welcome & why the workshop: * Q biggest user of asphalt & full depth asphalt in Australia * TMR looking for increased v-‐f-‐m, cost effective & WOLC * Responsibility being transferred to asphalt suppliers for -‐ mix design & testing | based on production | performance improvements wanted | innovation * Asphalt projects have lower costs in other States * Opportunities to collaborate on cost efficiencies * Commitment to accept changes but need the long term vision

Operations of the day and the purpose, presentations as scene setting followed by workshop considering the future direction and the through smaller groups looking at long and short-‐term actions needed.

b. Presentation – Erik Denneman “Current and future developments in asphalt technology”

Conventional mix design – volumetrics by different methods | straight forward, experience, reliable on binder but no direct link to pavement design (PD), empirical, reactive International trend to performance related, properties needed in field, performance specified, simplified. Methods in USA, EU & Australia -‐ need work locally on PD link Current projects – HiMA, SMA design, PD & modulus/master curves, RAP and performance. HiMA or EME – good fatigue. Impermeable, high modulus = thinner pavements

c. Presentation – Bevan Sulllivan “Material Characterisation of Australian Asphalts”

Characterisation of Australian Asphalts – thickest in the world Fatigue endurance limit valid & accepted, design models poor. AAPA sponsored project – calibration local to international Dynamic modulus & master curves should be used, links to international, shows very high similarity in Australian mixtures. Provides proof of undervaluing of asphalt in current pavement design Delivers significant benefits and cost saving, can be applied immediately


d. Speaking notes – Peter Evans & TMR Asset Managers Change is coming – minimising costs, move to smaller government, want less risk, term maintenance.

Industry is already picking up responsibility.

TMR – due diligence (with Hyder) considering alignment of asphalt procurement with RMS, reducing involvement in mix design to design assessment and auditing. Defects liability to be increased beyond the current 90 days. Move to project funded audit with performance warranty from 12 to 24 mths. Removal of waterproofing seals when voids not excessive. Harmonisation of RMS & TMR specifications would have efficiencies.

Superior technical areas – volumetric assessment vs mass based assessment considered better, local specs work, source rock in NSW or higher standard than being used in Q, Q quarry management system has benefits, unlikely to be able to create a panel contract system in Q due to term maintenance contracts.

Change activities: Hyder considering options, RMS comfortable with their system and are unlikely to change, not possible to predict the final outcome, will work with AAPA but seems likely that Q will move to implement a similar system to RMS.

Feedback from TMR PD&O Asset Managers: Larry Mudge, Patrick Dennehy, Adam Garvin Need to remember the temperature difference between SEQ and North Queensland, direction of changes highlighted supported. The industry has discussed the desire to create mixes more performance based, suited to the area and would perform better. This should encourage innovation from industry and this is a step on the path to transferring greater flexibility & responsibility to industry.

Dougall Broadfoot: AAPA State Executive Officer NSW reported that RMS were moving very soon to term maintenance contracts which would impact on the viability of the panel contract for purchasing asphalt.

e. Presentation – Rob McGuire “Opportunities & challenges of potential changes for Q asphalt producers”

Current: low risk | low responsibility | limited need for tech staff | limited opportunities Opportunities: Taking responsibility with greater control | skills can be used | performance experience increased | easier innovation & v-‐f-‐m | easier Local Govt mixtures Challenges: Time needed to change | Skills scarce | Need to increase construction efficiency | TMR region differences Close: General Management keen to change | Must include |future needs | best to work together


4. WORKSHOP FINDINGS

FIRST WORKSHOP SESSION

Outline the desired future for asphalt supply and use in Queensland (10 year horizon)” Smaller government, many risks transferred to an industry with an expanded role and

increased capacity Collaborative relationships with mutual respect between national, state, local government and

industry partners to maintain and manage government assets Industry responsible for long-‐term performance of products with defined roles in the delivery

chain & functionality of materials. Increased sustainability in commercial, environment, product performance spheres Attractive industry at the leading edge of safety Flexible pavements that are more competitive in price and performance and offering

increasing Value-‐for-‐Money

SECOND WORKSHOP SESSION

Long-‐term strategies a) “What long range strategies are needed to create the desired future?” Nationally integrated asphalt mix & pavement designs Implement performance based systems (both product & contract including WOLC) Prove “value for money” as an Industry. Develop framework to show this. Improved training programs at all levels Improved safety performance – public acceptance of safety for road workers Maintain commitment to collaborative R&D Renew & continue with the Alliance principles & extend to a national framework

o Develop and deliver objectives o Define risk sharing

Short-‐term strategies b) “What immediate (short term) actions are required to orientate to the future direction?” Integrated asphalt mix and pavement design

Harmonisation project – deadline for decision end June 2013 o Undertake GAP analysis – QTMR/RMS (AAPA)

Peer review pavement designs with other international bodies (AASHTO) for structural asphalt Production Based Mixes Review Review Asphalt Supplier Registration system

Performance based specifications Performance Based Maintenance Contracts – Best Practice Support development of:

a. PBS maintenance contracts b. Functional wearing courses

Safety & industry image AAPA Safety Working Group – include TMR

Sustainability Partnering with TMR, Local Government, AAPA & Austroads in reviewing procurement systems &

specifications Need a plan to capture knowledge data base with loss of skilled persons

Training Training – Industry Handover (Immediate clarity on what industry can do to assist) TMR guidelines


5. ACTION PLANS FROM WORKSHOP

No What Who By when

1 Progress performance based specifications:

Asphalt Contracting

AAPA responsible for a brief (road map)

AAPA / Alliance

(RobV/PeterE)

5/2013

2 Communication Package: Pavement designs & technical papers on actions and future plans

AAPA National Technical Committee & ARWG

On going

3 Mechanism of sharing contemporary technical information

SA Reference Group

On-‐going

4 Prepare capability framework for transfer of knowledge

5 Review the long & short term strategies and develop and action plan to implement

Alliance RobV/PeterE & WG Sustainability

30/6/2013

6 Set up small team to work on the harmonisation of design and processes of RMS

PeterE / RobV 19/4/2013

7 Prepare and distribute a report from the Workshop RobV 12/4/2013

6. APPENDICES

a. Presentation – Les Millar & Alan McLennan b. Presentation – Erik Denneman

“Current and future developments in asphalt technology” c. Presentation – Bevan Sulllivan

“Material Characterisation of Australian Asphalts” d. Speaking notes – Peter Evans & TMR Asset Managers e. Presentation – Rob McGuire

“Opportunities & challenges of potential changes for Q asphalt producers”

f. Workshop flip chart details g. Participants list

AAPA Q TMR Strategic Alliance Workshop: Delivering asphalt in Queensland – the future direc�on

1

Welcome & Day’s Events 1

Strategic Allia

nce Worksho

p 5 Ap

ril 201

3

www.aapaqtmr.org

Strategic Alliance Workshop

5 April 2013

BP Bitumen, Eagle Farm, Q

Delivering asphalt in Queensland

– the future direc�on


Strategic Allia

nce Worksho

p 5 Ap

ril 201

3

www.aapaqtmr.org

Strategic Alliance Reference Group

Welcome

Les Millar

Sustainability Working Group


Strategic Allia

nce Worksho

p 5 Ap

ril 201

3

Why . . . . . . . . 1.  Queensland – most asphalt & full depth asphalt used in Australia

2.  Transport & Main Roads emphasis – v-‐f-‐m, cost effec�ve, WOLC

3.  Transfer responsibility onto asphalt suppliers –  Mix design and tes�ng –  Asphalt mix design based on the produc�on mix –  Performance improvements and innova�on

4.  Cost comparisons show lower cost asphalt projects in other states

5.  Opportuni�es to collaborate on cost efficiencies

6.  Today – capturing knowledge and sharing experience –  Common vision of the future –  Understanding our current paths to that future –  Planning to get there

7.  Qld commitment to change and deliver improvements!


Strategic Allia

nce Worksho

p 5 Ap

ril 201

3

www.aapaqtmr.org

Strategic Alliance Reference Group

Scope & Introduc�ons

Alan McLennan -‐ Facilitator Alan McLennan Strategic Services


Strategic Allia

nce Worksho

p 5 Ap

ril 201

3

Agenda 1.  Welcome: Les Millar – AAPA Q Sustainability Working Group 2.  Scope and introduc�ons: Facilitator: Alan McLennan 3.  Short presenta�ons:

–  Overview of long term future for asphalt mix & inclusion in pavement design: ARRB & AAPA Na�onal Technology Commi�ee – Erik Denneman

–  Current status of asphalt design, manufacture & performance in Australia: Asphalt Research WG – Warren Carter & Bevan Sullivan

–  Queensland need for change: QTMR (PD&O and E&T) Peter Evans

–  Opportuni�es & challenges of poten�al changes for Qld asphalt producers: AAPA Q Chairman : Rob McGuire

5.  Facilitated session: Alan McLennan First Workshop Session : Outline the desired future for asphalt supply in Q (10 year) Second Workshop Session: a) What long range strategies are needed to create the desired future? b) What immediate (short term) ac�ons are required to orientate to the future direc�on?

6.  Ac�on plan from Workshop

1


Current and future developments in asphalt technology Erik Denneman

For presentation at AAPA and QTMR Workshop

5 April 2013, Eagle Farm

www.arrb.com.au Trusted advisor to road authorities for technical input and solutions

Structure of short presentation

2

  Conventional asphalt mix design   Current directions in asphalt technology   Current Austroads related work

–  Improved design procedures for asphalt pavements –  High modulus asphalt –  Maximising the re-use of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement


Conventional mix design

  Differs per road authority, bot nationally and internationally but typically: –  Focus on volumetrics and specification of

components (grading, binder)   Advantages:

–  Straightforward –  Decades of experience –  Fairly reliable determination of optimum binder

content l  Disadvantages:

–  No direct link to pavement design methods –  Empirical, reactive specifications

3 www.arrb.com.au Trusted advisor to road authorities for technical input and solutions

Directions in asphalt technology

  Strong international trend towards performance related design   Concept of performance specifications:

–  Evaluate mix properties based on field loading conditions (climate, traffic) relevant to site.

–  Describe required performance, rather than prescribing mix composition.

–  Testing mostly mix and binder type blind. –  Simplification: fewer, but more reliable tests, only one test per

performance parameter. –  Reduces barriers to innovation and promotes efficient use of

natural resources, without sacrificing performance.

4


Directions in asphalt technology   SUPERPAVE in the US

–  Performance Grade (PG) binder selection, based on traffic loading and field temperature

–  Performance related testing for permanent deformation, fatigue cracking and low temperature cracking

  EN 13108 and EN 12697 standards series in Europe –  Second generation to be completely performance related –  Performance related tests for: workability, elastic modulus,

permanent deformation, fatigue and durability –  CE Marking of performance properties for asphalt designs

  Performance related design in Austroads guide part 4B –  State of the art at time of introduction –  Link with pavement design could be improved –  No plans to revisit the design method at this stage 5 www.arrb.com.au Trusted advisor to road authorities for technical input and solutions

Vision of performance related design

6

Vertical plane parallel to Y-Z at X = 0

Shear Strain YZ

0.000010-0.000056-0.000122-0.000188-0.000254-0.000320-0.000386-0.000452-0.000517-0.000583-0.000649-0.000715-0.000781-0.000847-0.000913-0.000979-0.001045-0.001111-0.001177-0.001243

Pavement analysis

Property value

E* [GPa] > 5

Fatigue [με to 106] > 300

Perm. def. [εp] < 2%

Structural requirements

Property value

E* [GPa] > 5

Fatigue [με to 106] > 300

Perm. def. [εp] < 2%

Workability [voids] < 6%

Durability [TSR] > 80%

Tender specificationMix selectionProperty Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3

E* [GPa] 14 6 3

Fatigue [με to 106] 220 370 280

Perm. def. [εp] 0.8 % 1.5 % 4.2 %

Workability [voids] 5.0 4.5 5.2

Durability [TSR] 90 85 75

2



Note:

  The previous slides showed an overview of international trends, there are currently no Austroads projects planned to further the implementation of performance related asphalt design in Australia.


Current related Austroads projects

  TT1353: Asphalt properties and mix design procedures –  SMA design procedures –  Restructuring of Part 4B –  High modulus asphalt: Best practice review and limited

laboratory testing   TT1826: Improved design procedures for asphalt pavements

–  Review US work on healing and fatigue in asphalt –  Review potential application of E* master curves (flexural,

dynamic, other)   TT1817: Maximising the re-use of reclaimed asphalt

pavement materials –  Characterisation of the binder blend containing RAP –  Characterisation of performance of mixes containing RAP

8


High modulus asphalt

  Origin: France early 90s “Enrobés à Module Elevé” (EME)   Typical characteristics:

–  High binder content ≈ 6% by mass of aggregate, –  Hard grade binder: Pen 10-25, –  Low air voids content, –  High Modulus > 14 GPa at 15°C, 10 Hz, –  High resistance against permanent deformation, –  Good fatigue resistance, –  Impermeable, –  High mixing temperature.


Modulus

10


Improved design procedures for asphalt pavements

  Pavement temperature prediction:


Maximising the use of RAP

12

10/04/13

1

AAPA Pavement Solu�ons for Life

Material Characterisa�on of Australian Asphalts

Progress Summary Report – April 2013 Bevan Sullivan Fulton Hogan

  Australia designs some of, if not, the thickest asphalt pavements in the world   Fa�gue Endurance Limit valid and accepted   Poor correla�on between how and when damage occurs and design models

Why APS – fL

  Project Management   Na�onal Asphalt Materials Characterisa�on   Interna�onal Valida�on – NCAT   Calibrate model against NCAT track data   Informa�on Dissemina�on & Training   LLAP Design So�ware and Manual   Environment & Sustainability Study & Report

APS-‐fL Project Elements

  Why Dynamic Modulus – Characterises material proper�es over a full range of loading �mes and temperatures

– Ability to develop “mater curves” – Established researched test method interna�onally used

– Link to overseas performance studies

Material Characterisa�on

Dynamic Modulus Test Temperature Shi�ing

10/04/13

2

Temperature Shi�ing Master Curve

Comparison with NCAT Data Comparison with NCAT Shi�ed

Sample Comparison

Materials tested   Commercial project mixes ex produc�on plant (from all states) – 28 mixes in total: 14 x AC14: 14 x AC20 – Binders: C320; C450; C600; A15E; Mul�grade

Australian Materials Characterisa�on

10/04/13

3

Mix Grada�ons-‐AC14 Mix Grada�ons– AC20

Material Characterisa�on

  Dynamic Modulus characterisa�on – 28 standard produc�on mixtures tested – The ability now exists to characterise Australian mixtures for any load �me or temperature

  Link established link between Australian test results and NCAT

Level 1 Design Recommenda�ons

  Pavement designer will not have access to mix design characteris�cs – Use confidence based Master Curves with field shi� factors (as being developed)

– Frequency related to depth in the pavement (the rela�onship is to be calibrated)

  Based on grouping common Australian produc�on mixtures   Confidence based on t-‐distribu�on around common mixtures   No difference between Australian Mixtures

Level 1 Master Curves Temperature Shi�

10/04/13

4

Master Curve C320 Binder Master Curve C450 Binder

Master Curve C600 Binder Master Curve A15E Binder

Dynamic Modulus vs. Field   Results are logical   Results are higher than design modulus used in Australia   We are undervaluing the performance of asphalt in pavement design   Outcomes of this work can immediately deliver significant benefits for Australian road communi�es   Immediate (interim) changes can be made to achieve first step benefits

Modulus Summary Comments

10/04/13

5

Next Step Empirical Calibra�on -‐ NCAT

Thank you

Asphalt Pavement Solu�ons – for Life

Department of Transport and Main Roads Macintosh HD:Users:rob_vos:Documents:Strategic Alliance:Comms:Events:20130404 Asphalt Q:Speaking notes AAPA Workshop 5 April 2013.doc

Delivering Asphalt in Queensland – “the Future Direction”

Speaking Notes for AAPA Workshop – Friday 5 April 2013 Background - Change is coming, and has already commenced.

Queensland Government is now focusing strongly on $, and previous DG was personally reviewing projects to minimise costs.

Move to smaller government. Herson Lab had 82 technicians two years ago – now 36. We

expect that this trend will continue.

Less tolerance for risk in Government – e.g. Health Department – problem sheeted home to Government even if issue arose with private supplier.

Strong desire from industry for consistency between states.

Move to term maintenance contracts – DDG has announced that new maintenance

contracts in SEQ will be performance based in 3 years. Unlikely that prime contractors will not pass on the warranty obligations to their asphalt suppliers.

TMR Response TMR currently working with a consultant Hyder to conduct “due diligence” on a proposal to

align the asphalt procurement process in Queensland with that used by RMS in New South Wales.

Under current arrangements, TMR currently is heavily involved in the mix design process for new asphalt mix designs, and conducts laboratory testing to validate mix designs. As such, TMR assumes partial responsibility for the final product.

As mentioned, with the 2012 reduction in laboratory staffing, (laboratory staff reduced from 82 to 36) and the coming retirement of a key staff member (Senior Principal Advisor (Materials Testing)) involved in the mix registration process, TMR is now unable to continue to adequately resource the current mix registration process. A 2012 backlog of mix designs in the TMR laboratory has now been largely addressed by temporarily reallocating staff, and negotiating with AAPA to have increased mix design testing performed by industry. However, within TMR there is a strong desire for future involvement in mix design assessment to be reduced to an auditing role.

The default defects liability period for asphalt in Queensland is 90 days. This reflects the joint responsibility for the product. However, it considerably increases the risk to the State of financial responsibility for premature failure, if defective asphalt ruts, ravels, bleeds or strips when exposed to rain for the first time after the first 90 days.

The RMS asphalt procurement system provides a 12 or 24 month warranty (moving to all 24 months) and much increased penalties for excessive voids than Queensland. RMS also has an extensive, project funded, audit program which tests asphalt from production.

Queensland currently requires a sealing layer between the surfacing layer and the structural layer, to address stripping if there are excessive voids. RMS does not require this layer, and have less expensive asphalt due to less disruption to paving and the cost of this seal.

Department of Transport and Main Roads Page 2 of 2

Harmonisation of asphalt specifications would align with a desire by industry for consistency between states.

Issues and Suggested Approach There are some technical areas where the Queensland approach is thought to be superior to

that in RMS. For example:

− Queensland controls binder content volumetrically, and this is believed to account better for rock of different Specific Gravity than the RMS system of specifying binder content.

− The specified properties and requirements are attuned to achieving adequate performance under Queensland conditions, which may not be achieved under those specified by RMS.

− There will be an economic need to amend some design parameters due to availability of better source rock in NSW than Queensland.

− Queensland has a quarry management system in place to provide assurance of quality particularly for our basaltic quarries which we would need to retain.

− RMS have a centrally managed panel procurement process for small asphalt jobs. With the change to road asset management contracts in South East Queensland, panel contracts could have a limited role here, so restricting scope to alignment of technical specifications and warranties would appear to present best value for TMR.

The current work with Hyder is identifying these differences in approach and working through their implications. One approach would be to modify the RMS system (and clearly identify the changes) where good technical or economic reasons exist, rather than try to change the TMR system. RMS are comfortable with their system and envisage little change going forward.

A small group of TMR engineers and laboratory staff have recently met with RMS staff at Ballina in NSW. The impression gained was that RMS staff are very comfortable with their current approach to procurement of asphalt, and believe that they are consistently achieving well performing asphalt.

Although there would appear to be obvious benefits in aligning more closely with the RMS process, the TMR “due diligence” process is still underway, and it would be premature to predict the final outcome.

TMR will work closely with AAPA to keep them informed of the likely changes and to agree on a timetable for implementation. However, at this stage, it seems likely that Queensland will move to implement a similar system to RMS.

Peter Evans (Deputy Chief Engineer, Pavements, Materials and Geotechnical) Telephone… (w) 3066 9611… (m) 0427 429 501 Version date 5 April 2013

1


Opportuni�es & challenges of poten�al changes for Q asphalt producers 1

Strategic Allia

nce Worksho

p 5 Ap

ril 201

3

Strategic Alliance Workshop

Rob McGuire AAPA Q Chairman

Delivering asphalt in Queensland – the future direc�on

Opportuni�es & challenges of poten�al changes for Q asphalt

producers


Strategic Allia

nce Worksho

p 5 Ap

ril 201

3

Scope • Current situa�on • Opportuni�es • Challenges


Strategic Allia

nce Worksho

p 5 Ap

ril 201

3

Current situa�on:

• Low risk • Low responsibility • Limited need for technical staff • Limited opportunity


Strategic Allia

nce Worksho

p 5 Ap

ril 201

3

Opportuni�es:

• Suppliers greater control, responsibility & flexibility

•  Increased competency and skills to deliver improvements

• Awareness of performance outcomes • Value-‐for-‐money & innova�on • Asphalt standards for Local Gov. use


Strategic Allia

nce Worksho

p 5 Ap

ril 201

3

Challenges:

• Time needed to make the change • Rapid loss of skills & competency in client base

• Specifica�ons linked to performance •  Improving construc�on efficiency • TMR Region differences in approach


Strategic Allia

nce Worksho

p 5 Ap

ril 201

3

Close:

• General Managers keen to take responsibility with more flexibility from the clients

• Must consider the future needs – performance / systems / methods

• Work together to agree on the path

WORKSHOP FLIP CHART DETAILS APPENDIX F TABLE A Desired futures

Priority 1: Increase sustainability and safer delivery / in-‐service (best use of resources & value-‐for-‐money)

Priority 2: Industry responsible for long-‐term performance of products

Government set policy (social / political) – private sector responsible to implement (ROLES)

Integration State & Local Government (standards) Collaboration & sharing information between government & industry to better manage

risks and assets

Short term strategies

Sustainability

Partnering with TMR, Local Government, AAPA & Austroads in reviewing procurement systems & specifications

Need a plan to capture knowledge data base with loss of skilled persons

Performance based specifications

Peer review pavement designs with other international bodies (AASHTO) for structural asphalt

Support development of: c. PBS maintenance contracts d. Functional wearing courses

TABLE B 10 Year Outlook

Priority 1: Leading edge in safety as an industry

Priority 2: Smaller government -‐ Risk shift | Increased industry capacity | Maintaining government assets

Performance Based Products / Contracts Appetite for innovation More responsive processes Efficiency

Short Term Strategies

AAPA Safety Working Group – include TMR Harmonisation project – deadline for decision end June 2013 o Undertake GAP analysis – QTMR/RMS (AAPA)

Review Asphalt Supplier Registration system Training – Industry Handover (Immediate clarity on what industry can do to assist) TMR guidelines Performance Base Maintenance Contracts – Best Practice Production Based Mixes Review

TABLE C Desired Futures

Priority 1: Exhibiting mutual respect and trust amongst all stakeholders (end the “them” & “us” mentality)

Priority 1: Partnerships & defined roles in delivery chain & defined functionality of materials (flexibility & functionality

Priority 2: Sustainability

à Commercially à Environmentally à Safe Industry à Performance (& Value) End & Long Term à Attractive industry to work in

Performance based procurement systems Well trained competent & professional industry Workable system for innovation National harmonisation of standards / practice / procurement systems / etc

Long Term Strategies

Implement performance based systems (both product & contract including WOLC) Improved training programs at all levels Integrated mix & pavement designs nationally Improved safety performance – public acceptance of safety for road workers Renew & continue with the Alliance principles & extend to a national framework

o Develop and deliver objectives o Define risk sharing

Prove “value for money” as an Industry. Develop framework to show this. Maintain commitment to collaborative R&D

Appendix G

Australian Asphalt Pavement Association and Queensland Transport and Main Roads

Strategic Alliance v8 8/4/2013 WORKSHOP: DELIVERING ASPHALT IN QUEENSLAND – THE FUTURE DIRECTION

Participants List:

NAME ORGANISATION NAME ORGANISATION AAPA Q – Asphalt GMs ARRB 1 Rob McGuire Boral 1 Laszlo Petho Queensland 2 Tony Wehl RPQ 2 Erik Denneman Asphalt 3 Julian Balmer Downer QTMR PD&O Region 4 Mark Taylor BCC 1 Alan Stone South Coast Region 5 Rod MacBeth Allens Asphalt 2 Patrick Dennehy Metropolitan Deputy Regional Director 6 Sunny Ng PNQ 3 John Roberts North Coast Regional (Senior Tech) AAPA Q – Technology 4 Shane McNamee South Coast Region Mgr (D&O) 1 Les Millar SGQ 5 Larry Mudge North Queensland Regional 2 Peter Carbone Boral 6 Adam Garvin Downs South West Region – Mgr (D&O) 3 Rob Pollock BCC 4 Peter Pezet FH QTMR E&T 5 Adrian Grbac BP 1 Peter Evans ED P&M 6 Rob Vos AAPA 2 Mike Pickering D P&M AAPA National Technology 3 Peter Bryant Pavements 1 Trevor Distin Boral 4 Jason Jones Asphalt 2 Bevan Sullivan Fulton Hogan 5 Barry Rule Asphalt 3 Bevan Painter SAMI Bituminous Materials 7 Andrew Munro Hyder Consulting – QTMR Advisors 4 Nigel Preston Shell 5 Dougal Broadfoot Convenor 1 Alan McLennan FACILITATOR