table of contents - iowa state universityhome.eng.iastate.edu/~jea/proposal.docx · web viewthis...

DTFH61-12-R-00005

Quantifying Real-World Assessment of Pavement Albedo and

Its Impact on Urban Heat Island Behavior Plus Sustainability Rating Correlation

Volume I – Technical Proposal

submitted to

Federal Highway AdministrationOffice of Acquisition Management

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SoutheastWashington, DC 20590

Attn: Juanita Manley (Room E65-101, HAAM-20)

by the

National Concrete Pavement Technology Center at Iowa State University

and the

National Center for Asphalt Technology at Auburn University

2711 South Loop Drive, Suite 4700Ames, IA 50010

(515) 294-3781 voice(515) 294-0467 fax

[email protected]

January 12, 2012

mailto:[email protected]

ISU-InTrans-CPTech-Auburn-NCAT “Quantifying Real-World Assessment of Pavement Albedo…” 1/23Volume I: Technical & Management Proposal [DTFH61-12-R-00005]

NOTE-1: FIX THE PAGE NUMBERS HERENOTE-2: See XXX for additional changes neededNOTE-3: Talk to Mike about budgetNOTE-4: Talk to Mike about NCAT ‘manual’ products

NOTE-5: Talk to Mike about Tom Burch…’Visiting’ status?

NOTE-6: Talk to Mike about Saeed and Tom…NCAT title?


PART I. TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT PLAN

I.1 Overview__________________________________________________________________

This proposed FHWA sponsored research effort will evaluate and characterize the “heat island” phenomenon connected with pavement albedo and associated heat sorption and release dynamics, as are experienced with real-world, urban paving materials. Specifically, the proposed study will involve field albedo measurements completed on different asphalt and concrete pavement sections relative to the following variations:

- pavement type, - pavement age, - pavement mix components

(e.g., fine and coarse aggregate character, etc.),- geomorphic solar radiance intensity, - local climate exposure, and- service conditions (i.e., traffic density).

To date, existing data in regards to the pavement albedo behavior, let alone the broader context of heat sorption and release phenomenon, is largely limited to either lab-type testing or highly site-specific field testing which is not sufficiently diverse to facilitate comprehensive evaluation. As shown in the following NASA-based schematic there is general consensus that this ‘heat island’ behavior commonly takes place within urban settings where pavement land coverage varies between 29 and 39% by surface area (USEPA, 2005), such that there is a distinct, multi-degree increase in urban temperatures as a result of energy uptake and re-release by pavements.

There are both favorable and unfavorable aspects with this ‘heat island’ mechanism and observed elevated temperatures in an urban environment. Ice and snow melting in cold weather regions (i.e., with darker pavements which collect and release more heat) is one such favorable outcome. Conversely, there are also ‘light-pavement’ benefits where more reflective pavements require less road illumination.

However, these possible benefits are outweighed by multiple unfavorable concerns tied to ‘heat island’ outcomes with higher urban temperatures, including:

- higher energy costs required for mechanical cooling, and- higher smog levels.

Figure 1. Urban Heat Island Profile


These impacts are significant; simulations of a nominal pavement albedo increase (i.e., by 0.25) within the Los Angeles area predicted a $15 million reduction in cooling costs and a $76 million annual reduction in smog-related medical and lost-work expenses (Rosenfeld, 1998).

The adjacent figure schematically depicts the complex circumstance of solar heat energy which is reflected, sorbed, stored, and re-released by pavement materials (see USEPA, 2005, and NASA URL: http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/912/urban/background.htm). These mechanisms are dependent on the composition, color, texture, heat capacity, mass, reflectance, and thermal conductivity of a given pavement material exposed to solar radiation.

In general, there following factors play an important role with pavement ‘heat island’ behavior (USEPA, 2005), including:

- Albedo…which defines solar reflectance in terms of surface’s ability to reflect light (i.e., where a higher albedo pavement reduces solar energy absorbance and stays cooler, while lower albedo levels yield hotter pavements). Quantitatively, albedo is defined as the ratio of reflected solar radiation relative to total radiation falling on a surface. More simply, albedo = solar reflectance = fraction of incident sunlight that is reflected. A perfect absorber of sunlight has an albedo of 0; a perfect reflector of sunlight has an albedo of 1.

- Conductivity…which measures the ratio of heat flux (power/area) to temperature gradient. Low conductivity pavements will become hotter at the surface more quickly, but will not store as much heat as would a higher conductivity pavement.

- Emissivity…is the ratio of the rate at which a surface emits thermal radiation to the rate at which a black body (perfect emitter) at the same temperature emits thermal radiation.

On the one hand, the latter ‘emissivity’ factor will probably be fairly consistent with all pavement types, with thermal emittance values in the range of 0.90 – 0.95. One of the compelling motivations behind this proposed research effort, though, is that pavement albedo and conductivity properties will both vary relative not only to different types of construction materials but also their ages. Indeed, light colored concrete pavements tend to darken with age, while dark colored asphalt pavements will tend to lighten.

For example, published findings with newly-cured concrete pavements typically show albedo

Figure 2. Pavement Heat Transfer Mechanisms

http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/912/urban/background.htm


readings in the range of 0.35 - 0.40 for grey cements (and double that for white or titanium oxide blended cements) (Santero, et al., 2011, ACPA, 2002), and aging will reduce these readings by 35 to 45%. Asphalt, on the other hand, tends to lighten with age by way of the combined impacts of oxidation and binder wear which then reveals what is often a lighter-colored aggregate. The following figure qualitatively describes these respective changes.

INSERT NEW FIGURE 3 HEREIt is also worth noting that aging similarly plays a significant role with reflectance changes in both pavement and roofing materials…and in the case of roofing materials this very sort of real-world assessment has already been started (e.g., see Berdahl, et al., 2008; Sleiman, et al., 2011). Indeed, the Cool Roof Rating Council has an established program for qualifying the aging impacts on reflectance of commercial roofing products (i.e., see www.coolroofs.org). In this case, their real-world testing was conducted in three states (i.e., Miami, Florida, Cleveland, Ohio, and Phoenix, Arizona) with results documented for a three-year aging period (Sleiman et al., 2011).

This study will, therefore, gather real-world pavement reflectance data at seven different US urban locations, and will then use these results to develop an analytical utility model which quantitatively predicts pavement albedo character and change in relation to pavement composition, aging, service, etc. In addition, this utility model code will also be written to further cross-correlate these albedo changes with sustainability rating factors, by which the overall circumstance of pavement albedo on heat island impacts can be gauged.

I.2 Scope of Work______________________________________________________________

The scope of this work will include testing of both concrete- and asphalt-based pavements, plus composite sections thereof, on roadway pavements. Pavement ages will be studied ranging from new construction (i.e., of less than one year) to aged materials that are up to 20 years old.

I.3 Objectives_________________________________________________________________

1. Quantify the rate and magnitude of albedo change (i.e., on a yearly basis) by pavement type, makeup, time, location, and service level.

2. Develop a utility model to determine the relative impact of albedo on heat collection, storage and transmission potential associated with the developed albedo rate functions by pavement type and material constituents.

3. Determine the level of significance with these utility model pavement albedo relationships on the outcome of at least two (2) pavement sustainability rating tools and one (1) pavement design procedure.

4. Provide recommendations for use of the albedo rate function model on choosing appropriate pavement albedo inputs for pavement sustainability rating tools and

http://www.coolroofs.org/


pavement design tools.

I.4 Project Task Activity Elements________________________________________________

We intend to abide by the following ‘task activity’ elements listed in Amendment #3 for this RFP (i.e., dated 12 December 2011):

XXXGET ALL TO MATCH THE NEW RFP…both in SOW and TIMEFRAME

I.4.A Phase I Tasks

Task Activity1.1 First, we would intend to compose a comprehensive literature review and synthesis on

past and current research on the factors relevant to the objectives and scope of the project. This will also include available data sets and models and their suitability to meet project objectives.

Second, we would cull out relative technical ‘strengths’ and ‘weaknesses’ within the published body of knowledge using sound judgment in an open, transparent process of consolidating prior best practices for testing.

1.2 First, and based on task 1.1 outcomes, our team would then propose a statistically-designed experimental plan and modeling framework to quantify pavement albedo temporal changes by pavement type, material constituents and age. The plan will describe how the findings may be considered in the context of the pavement sustainability rating factors and pavement design.

Second, our team would present our draft experimental plan to our FHWA COR, and revise as deemed necessary.

1.3 First, our team would then develop an implementation and marketing plan, identifying the target audience, stake holders, and taking into account obstacles, such as regulatory matters and industry competition.

Second, we would then plan to establish a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), tentatively expected to include ~10 members who had been jointly selected in collaboration with our FHWA COR and whose membership would include federal, state, asphalt, and concrete industry representatives.

Third, we would request approval for dissemination and review within our TAC group of the experimental plan and modeling framework developed during Task 1.2.

Fourth, we would review with the TAC and FHWA COR both the best-practices summary of strengths and weaknesses established previously during Task 1.1 as well as the draft experimental plan developed during Task 1.2, with an overall intent of ensuring stakeholder buy-in to the upcoming field testing process and procedures.


1.4 Draft Phase I Report: We would then intend to combine the results of the literature review in Task 1.1, the framework and experimental plan in Task 1.2, and the implementation and marketing plan in Task1.3 into Draft Phase I report. The Draft Phase 1 report shall be delivered to the CO and COR for review and comment. The CO/COR will review the report and provide comments back to the Contractor. After revisions have been made, the Contractor shall submit a finalized copy of the Phase I Report to the CO and COR for final approval.

1.5 First, our team will coordinate teleconferences, web conferences and face-to-face meetings with the CO/COR as needed, (including travel, lodging and per diem.) Face-to-face meetings will be held at a location deemed most appropriate at the time by the CO/COR at a frequency of one (1) meeting per year. Web and teleconferences shall be conducted on demand at a minimum frequency of one (1) meeting per quarter.

Second, our team would also intend to conduct a continuing series of web-based virtual meetings with our Technical Advisory Committee, as had been started during Task 1.3 efforts, for ongoing review our project findings.

1.6 Our team will prepare and deliver three (3) presentations to relevant conferences and symposiums, such as the annual Transportation Research Board (TRB). The presentation material should be available to the COR for review and comment at least five (5) business days prior to presentation.

I.4.B Phase II Tasks

Authorization for our team to proceed forward with Phase II (Option Period-CLIN 0101) work activities would be contingent upon receipt of a formal, written modification to the contract.

Task Activity2.1 Our team would proceed with the approved experimental plan developed and approved

under Task 1.2.2.2 Our team will conduct the experiment, as per the approved experimental plan,

including albedo measurements as well as other relevant data such as materials evaluation and climate.

2.3 Our team will conduct modeling relevant to the physical experiment as per the modeling framework submitted with the experimental plan developed under Task 1.2.

2.4 Our team will use the outcome of the experiment and modeling to develop an analysis tool useful for evaluating the impact of pavement albedo on the urban heat island effect and its influence on pavement sustainability ratings. The same tool should also be used to determine the influence the findings have on pavement designs, where albedo is one of the inputs. The tool shall provide the opportunity to weigh factors other than the actual pavement albedo, such as material constituent selection, layer thickness, climate and geomorphology. The tool should allow the users to determine the influence of albedo on the overall benefit ratio and allow them to make decisions in terms of their preference as well as giving them the opportunity to analyze alternative scenarios.

2.5 Our team will develop a Draft Phase II Report and a draft analysis utility. The Draft Phase II Reports and the draft analysis utility shall become come a finalized report and


a finalized analysis utility. The Draft Phase II report shall include documentation of all relevant physical materials, equipment, instrumentation, experimental, analysis, modeling, computer code and user aids. The draft analysis utility shall be able to execute either stand-alone or in a spreadsheet application and shall include a manual with user guidelines and documented source code. These draft deliverables will be given a technical review by the COR. The Contractor shall edit reports based on the COR’s technical review.

2.6 First, our team will coordinate teleconferences, web conferences and face-to-face meetings with the CO/COR as needed, (including travel, lodging and per diem.) Face-to-face meetings will be held at a location deemed most appropriate at the time by the CO/COR at a frequency of one (1) meeting per year. Web and teleconferences shall be conducted on demand at a minimum frequency of one (1) meeting per quarter.

Secondly, and as previously mentioned in Tasks 1.3 and 1.5, our team would also intend to continue an ongoing series of web-based virtual meetings with our Technical Advisory Committee, by which this representative set of external stakeholders is kept updated with our ongoing efforts and findings.

2.7 Our team will prepare and deliver three (3) presentations to relevant conferences and symposiums, such as the annual Transportation Research Board (TRB). The presentation material should be available to the COR five (5) business days prior to presentation.

2.8 Our team will prepare articles for periodicals such as Public Roads, Transportation Research Record and FOCUS, as requested by the COR.

I.5 Projected Analytical Methods_________________________________________________

The following analytical methods will be employed during this study:

1) Albedo: Field Testing: ASTM E1918 – Standard Test Method for Measuring Solar Reflectance

of Horizontal and Low-Sloped Surfaces in the Field Lab Testing: ASTM C1549 and/or ASTM E903 for lab measurement of the solar

reflectance using cored samples (e.g., C1549 - Standard Test Method for Determination of Solar Reflectance Near Ambient Temperature Using a Portable Solar Reflectometer).

2) Emissivity: ASTM Standard C1371 - Standard Test Method for Determination of Emittance of

Materials Near Room Temperature Using Portable Emissometer

3) Thermal Conductivity: ASTM C1363 - 11 Standard Test Method for Thermal Performance of Building

Materials and Envelope Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus(i.e., this method will be employed during lab testing of cored samples).

ASTM C177- Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and


Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus(i.e., this test method allows the measurement of the steady-state heat flux through flat, homogeneous specimen(s) when their surfaces are in contact with solid, parallel boundaries held at constant temperatures using the guarded-hot-plate apparatus).

ASTM E 1952- Standard Test Method for Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Diffusivity by Modulated Temperature Differential Scanning Calorimetry.(i.e., this test method describes the determination of thermal conductivity of homogeneous, non-porous solid by modulated temperature differential scanning calorimeter…and this input data is used in relation to MEPDG).

4) Heat Capacity: ASTM D 2766. Standard Test Method for Specific Heat of Liquids and Solids

(i.e., this heat capacity parameter is defined as the amount of heat required to raise a unit mass of material by a unit temperature; here again, this input data is used in relation to MEPDG).

I.6 Anticipated Technical Challenges______________________________________________

The following technical issues, and prospective study challenges, were considered during the preparation of this proposal, and are raised herewith as ‘food for thought’ perspectives which will be further discussed with the COR and TAC prior to starting the project:

1) How many ‘factors’ would actually be integrated into the overall ‘albedo’ modeling?

This modeling effort will be complicated by the sheer number of factors which might come into play during this effort, and the value of our overall model might negatively be compromised by this variability. In turn, we anticipate a possible testing strategy whose breadth of key variables has been somewhat restrained to perhaps 3 to 4 key, high impact factors, as follows:

Pavement Heat Model = function of (albedo, conductivity, emissivity)

Albedo Model = function of (pavement type, aggregate type, surface age, level of traffic)

Conductivity Model

= function of (pavement structure, material density, moisture, air temperature, and wind)

Emissivity = assumed equal for all pavements

In turn, the following synopsis offers a general sense of our team’s perspective of the variable factors connected to this upcoming analytical and modeling assessment:

Study Variable

Degrees of variability

Full Factorial

combinations

Reduced Variables

PartialFactorial Elements

Pavement Asphalt-Concrete 2 2 2 Asphalt &


material concreteSurface

aggregateLight-dark,dull-glassy 4 4 2 Focus on color

Pavement Surface

Age

0-15 years (continuous) 4 ranges 3 ranges 3

Focus on 0-5, 5-10, and 10-15

year age groupings

Traffic None (e.g., shoulder)-low-heavy 3 2 1

(partial) Drop shoulders

Pavement structure

AC-PC-Comp,thin-thick 6 3 1

Focus on surface type, not thickness

Mix density Dense-porous 2 2 1

(partial)Pavement moisture Dry-wet 2 0 Not measured

Air temp and wind

Air temp: Low-highWind: low-high 4 1 1 Focus on high

temp, no windTest Combinations 9216 288 12

Cities 7Sites per City 10

Test Combinations 70 70/12 6 replicate

2) How would actual field testing sites be chosen?

First, we anticipate that these sites will be decided by our project team leadership in consultation with our COR as well as our Technical Advisory Committee, based on the following factors:

Geographical location and varied aggregate character. Aggregate color…and inherently geology…will be a key factor, particularly with regard to the asphalt segment of the pavement testing. A matrix will have to be developed to ensure that the critical variables are addressed in sufficient number to be statistically valid. This is compounded in that records available from pavement owners are normally incomplete, especially for systems more than 5 years old. Should a test site be chosen within the State of Iowa, though, there is an inherent, compelling benefit afforded our CP Tech center partner and their strong DOT affiliation, where the IADOT has compiled an extremely unique, comprehensive ‘history’ of county highway pavement mix properties and locations dating back many decades.

We will also need to pay close attention with our ability to secure local and state support for our field testing campaign, in terms of access to sites with appropriate service levels, timeframes for availability, pavement ages, pavement options, known histories of pavement materials, etc. It should be duly noted, therefore, that this proposal’s budget includes significant funds to cover this traffic control effort.


XXXADD DISCUSSION ABOUT paying for traffic control should greatly help with inducing cities to team up

Secondly, it is assumed that urban testing sites would be used given the focus on urban heat island behavior. However, selecting and using urban sites could well be complicated by difficulties with access and safety in high traffic highways. Urban locations will also be subject to building shading and tree canopy shading. As a result, a question appears warranted as to whether “outside the city” locations could be chosen, assuming that desired variations in service levels could be found.

3) How many field testing sites will be chosen?

Our proposed effort would intend to conduct field testing at seven (7) different locations geographically spread around the country, including all major geographical areas. Of these seven locations, our paired center team members (i.e., CP Tech and NCAT) would plan to conduct the first field testing effort at a joint location (e.g., St. Louis, MO), such that we could confirm our respective testing procedures both achieve the same results. At each location an array of pavements will be tested and cored to cover the range of variables that influence albedo. Following that first study, we would then have each center group conduct another three site-specific studies. Overall, therefore, each center team would conduct four site evaluations, including the one shared site plus three additional independent sites.

4) What strategy would be used to select the alternative ‘sustainability rating’ and ‘pavement design’ methods?

First, after further deliberation about the ‘sustainability rating’ options, our team leadership has concluded that this element of study would best pursue a process of formally consulting with the FHWA Sustainable Pavement Technical Working Group into to determine the best recommendation as to which rating tools should be examined. At present, tools such as ‘envision’ and ‘Greenroads’ are being considered.

Second, for the pavement design task, we concluded that our efforts should focus on the DARWin-ME integrated climate model.

Third, both of these strategies would be finally resolved early in our Phase I task efforts.

I.7 Work Plan for Measuring Real-World Pavement Albedo__________________________

Our tentative plan for the number, location, and procedures used with the site-specific pavement testing sites would be as follows:

- Our field studies will provide real-world in-place measurements with pavement surfaces of highly diverse ages, with pavements grouped into the following three age ranges spanning 0 to 15 years: 1) 0-5 years, 2) 5-10 years, and 3) 10-15 years.


- Field testing limitations would include: cloudless-haze-free day (NOTE: the solar iris must be distinctly visible), dry pavement, regionally common temperature range, angle of the sun, and wind velocity. Each day of testing would measure reflectivity from 10AM to 2PM and pavement core procurement would be completed before and after that test window. Optimistically, we intend to complete all field testing within summer months.

- Field testing will be completed with close cooperation and coordination with local public agencies. Here again, it should be emphasized that a considerable investment for traffic control budgeting has been included in our proposed project budget, and was considered important to insure our efforts secure optimal local agency cooperation.

XXXHYPE THIS BENEFIT

- We would select one initial site (e.g., St Louis, MO) at which we would then conduct a joint testing effort to insure that our respective analytical results validate our overall consistency.

XXXHYPE proof of similar results AND proof RE: testing protocols

- Each center team (CP Tech and NCAT) would then proceed to conduct another set of three-each separate, parallel field studies…thereby adding a total of six more site-specific urban datasets.

- Collectively, the latter field testing series would consequently involve a total of seven site-specific field studies. A visual schematic of this tentative testing regime is given on the following page. It should be noted that the cities circled in this schematic are tentative, pending further deliberation as to suitability (i.e., relative to aggregate types, etc.).

WSW

MWE

SE

NEMWFigure 4:

Projected urban pavement ampling locations @ 4 total per team…with one shared location to confirm reciprocity

Figure 4.


- As explained in the following section, field testing results would be complemented by collecting pavement coring samples and then analyzing in our labs for both thermal conductivity, heat capacity, and at least on a nominal level, for emissivity.

- The lab work will permit controlled testing to better measure and compare material response. This lab versus field testing component would also allow for the measurement of differences between dry and saturated specimens, should that belatedly prove to be desirable. This could be a factor in the use of albedo in different climates. Lab testing for thermal conductivity will require a test modification to account for difference in pavement surface texture/voids/aggregate exposure.

- Similar to the initial joint field testing, a laboratory verification testing plan will be established and 5% of all lab testing will be validated between the two labs

I.8 Projected Field and Lab Analyses Plus Core Sampling Efforts_____________________

XXXSOFTEN NARRATIVE AND TABLES RE: thermal cond & emissivity

The details for our projected field testing activities will be as follows:

At each of our seven (7) testing cities we will identify five (5) concrete and five (5) asphalt pavement locations (i.e., switching to a new location on five consecutive testing days),

We anticipate spending either a morning (or afternoon) at each such location, including travel time for travel within the city,

At each of these five concrete or five asphalt pavement locations we anticipate gathering four (4) thermal reflectance tests (i.e., ASTM Method E1918; assuming ~45-60 min per site), and gathering four (4) core samples at each of the same spots, and

Overall, these seven (7) city locations would then be expected to involve a total of 7*5*4 = 140 concrete field pavement albedo tests and a similar set of 140 asphalt tests, plus gathering a set of 7*5*4 = 140 concrete core and 140 asphalt core samples.

- The details for our projected lab testing activities will be as follows:

We will conduct thermal reflectance tests (i.e., ASTM Method C1549) tests with all of our 140 concrete core samples and all of our 140 asphalt core samples,

We will also conduct thermal conductivity tests (i.e., ASTM Method C1363) tests with all of our 140 concrete core samples and all of our 140 asphalt core samples, and

We will conduct a more limited number of emissivity tests (i.e., ASTM Method C1371) using a ~5% sub-set of the core samples, to confirm that these results show expected, consistently-high values, and

The summary metrics for our ‘per testing city’ analytical measurements would consequently be as follows:


- 7 testing cities,- 5 concrete and 5 asphalt pavement test locations per testing city,- 4 field reflectance tests per each pavement location…for a total of 20 (5*4) concrete field

reflectance tests and a similar number of 20 (5*4) asphalt field reflectance measurements per testing city,

- A similar number (5*4 each) number of concrete and asphalt core samples collected per testing city…which would then be used for a similar number of lab reflectance, thermal conductivity, and heat capacity tests, and

- One (1) emissivity test conducted on one (1) concrete core and one (1) asphalt core per each testing city (i.e., ~5% of our core samples).

CP Tech’s four (4) testing cities would consequently involve the following total test numbers:

Test Options Test #’sField concrete reflectance tests 4*5*4 = 80Field asphalt reflectance tests 4*5*4 = 80Lab concrete core reflectance tests 4*5*4 = 80Lab asphalt core reflectance tests 4*5*4 = 80Lab concrete core thermal conductivity tests 4*5*4 = 80Lab asphalt core thermal conductivity tests 4*5*4 = 80Lab concrete core heat capacity tests 4*5*4 = 80Lab asphalt core heat capacity tests 4*5*4 = 80Lab concrete core emissivity tests 4*1 = 4Lab asphalt core emissivity tests 4*1 = 4

Similarly, NCAT’s four (4) testing cities would consequently involve the following cumulative test numbers:

Test Options Test #’sField concrete reflectance tests 4*5*4 = 80Field asphalt reflectance tests 4*5*4 = 80Lab concrete core reflectance tests 4*5*4 = 80Lab asphalt core reflectance tests 4*5*4 = 80Lab concrete core thermal conductivity tests 4*5*4 = 80Lab asphalt core thermal conductivity tests 4*5*4 = 80Lab concrete core heat capacity tests 4*5*4 = 80Lab asphalt core heat capacity tests 4*5*4 = 80Lab concrete core emissivity tests 4*1 = 4Lab asphalt core emissivity tests 4*1 = 4

I.9 Project Deliverables________________________________________________________

Deliverable Notes Due Date1 Draft Phase I report Literature synthesis, experimental, Within 90 days from


analysis and implementation Plan the effective date of the contract

2 Final Phase I reportIncorporates technical feedback from

COR; serves as basis for phase II effort.

2 weeks following receipt of the COR technical review

3 Draft Phase II Report

Includes documentation of all experimentation, results, analysis

modeling, conclusions and recommendations

Within 24 months from the effective

date of Option Period I

4 Analysis Utility (trial version)

Executable utility and manual with user guidelines including documented

source code

Within 24 months from the effective

date of Option Period I

5 Final reportIncorporates technical feedback from COR on Phase II Draft report and the

Phase I Final Report

2 weeks following receipt of the COR technical review

6Analysis Utility(final version)

Executable utility and manual with user

guidelines including documented source code

2 weeks followingreceipt of the COR technical review

7 Quarterly Progress Reports See G.9

By the 15th of the month following the

reporting period

All deliverables will be delivered, under transmittal letter, to the assigned COR at the following address:

Federal Highway AdministrationAttention: To be determined

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, Office of Infrastructure6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101-2296

A copy of the transmittal letters for all deliverables shall be delivered to the Contract Specialist/Administrator at the following address:

Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast - Mail Stop: E65-101, Washington, DC 20590

Attention: Juanita Manley

I.10 Project Completion Milestones and Overall Timeframe___________________________

The preceding table of project deliverables and due dates indicates that Phase I would be completed within ~3.5 months (i.e., including 90 days for deliverable #1 and 2 weeks for deliverable #2), and that Phase II would be completed within ~24.5 months (i.e., including 24 months for deliverables #3 and 4 plus another two weeks for deliverables #5 and 6). When combined, therefore, the RFP’s Amendment #3 document identifies a total project period of 28


months. Our project planning has, therefore, targeted a 30 month cumulative timeframe to pro-actively allow for time needed with COR document review, etc.

A visual breakdown of our team’s projected timeline for task completion and deliverable completion is provided below.

Task # Task Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30PHASE 1

1.1 Lit.review1.2 Work plan1.3 Implem. & market plan1.4 Draft-final report1.5 Meeting/telecon coord1.6 Presentations

PHASE 22.1 Proceed - coord sites2.2 Field albedo testing2.3 Modeling2.4 Analysis tool2.5 Draft-final report2.6 Meeting/telecon coord2.7 Presentations2.8 Articles

DELIVERABLES1 Draft Phase 1 Report >2 Final Phase 1 Report > > >3 Draft Phase 2 Report >4 Analysis Utility (Trial) >5 Final Report > > >6 Analysis Utility > > >7 Quarterly Report Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q

Months From Notice to Proceed

I.11 Manual Preparation and Related Technical Transfer Experience___________________

XXXMIKE WILL SEND SOME INFOR FOR NCAT

Our joint centers with this proposal have significant experience with the preparation and dissemination of technical manuals which are held in high industry regard, quite literally considered to be, “under the front seat,” publications carried and used widely by field pavement engineers. Indeed, over the past six years, the following manuals have been generated:

REINSERT MANUAL FIGURE 3 HERE• IMCP (Integrated Materials and Construction Practices) Manual • Materials and Construction Optimization Testing Guide • Guide to Concrete Overlays, Editions 1 and 2 plus Engineers Packet • Preservation Workshop Reference Manual • Building Sustainable Pavements with Concrete • Guide for Roller Compacted Concrete Pavement • Integrated Pavement Solutions


In addition, both centers have strong records of complementary activities (i.e., workshops, technical presentations, tech briefs, project reports, handbooks, E-news release announcements, etc.) which will be highly valuable with this proposal’s amended scope-of-work requirements with work product dissemination and technical transfer outcomes (i.e., Tasks 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9). For example, the following page provides an overview of related 2005-2011 CP Tech activities.

Workshops/Technical Presentations Over 300 workshops and presentations Over 15,000 participants

Tech Briefs and Summaries 55 totalResearch project final reports 44 total

Handbooks, Other References

Concrete Paving Workforce References – 4

Construction – 5 Preservation/Maintenance – 2 Training/Education – 3

National Highway Institute (NHI) On-Demand Training modules

IMCP modules – 11 modules Concrete Pavement Preservation

modules – 10 modules Self-consolidating Concrete – 2

modulesE-News 18 issues

In this regard, it should also be noted that funding has been included within our proposal to cover not only technical editor and graphic artist effort hours, but also final manual printing costs. Conceivably the latter printing expense might be carried directly by FHWA, at which point it would be expected that this cost was subtracted from our final proposed budget.

I.12 Correspondence Procedures_________________________________________________

To promote timely and effective administration, correspondence (except for invoices), submitted under this contact shall be subject to the following procedures:

a) Technical Correspondence - Technical correspondence (as used herein, this term excludes technical correspondence which proposes or otherwise involves waivers, deviations or modifications to the requirements, terms or conditions of this contract) shall be addressed to the COR with an informational copy of the basic correspondence to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer.

b) Other Correspondence - All other correspondence shall be addressed to the Contracting Officer, in duplicate, with an informational copy of the basic correspondence to the COR.

c) Subject Lines - All correspondence will contain a subject line, starting with the contract number.

I.13 Quarterly Progress Report Submission________________________________________


We intend to duly submit progress reports to the COR and the Contract Administrator. These reports will be prepared on a quarterly basis and submitted by the 15th of the month following the reporting period. Each progress report will include updated summaries of key project accomplishments covering the activities relevant to the contract, including:

a) A clear account of the work performed under each task during the report period.

b) An outline of the work to be accomplished during the next report period.

c) A description of any problem encountered or anticipated that will affect the completion of any work within the time and fiscal constraints set, together with recommended solutions to such problems; or, a statement that no problems were encountered.

d) A tabulation of the planned, actual and cumulative percent of effort expended by the personnel.

e) A chart showing current and cumulative expenditures versus planned expenditures

The quarterly progress reports will be delivered via email to the Contract Administrator (CA) and the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COR) at the following email addresses:

COR: To be determinedCA. [email protected]

I.14 Past Performance Reference Letters__________________________________________

Sealed, confidential copies of our ‘past performance reference’ letters were sent to FHWA with our prior proposal submission as part of Volume II, Part III – Past Performance. These items were not returned to us, and as a result we are anticipating that FHWA has retained the copies in preparation for this following second-generation proposal.

I.15 References________________________________________________________________

ACPA. 2002. Albedo: “A Measure of Pavement Surface Reflectance.” Skokie, IL: American Concrete Pavement Association.

Berdahl, P., Akbari, H., Levinson, R., and Miller, W.A. (2008). “Review: Weathering of roofing materials – An overview,” Construction and Building Materials, 22, 423–433.

Boriboonsomsin Kanok; Reza Farhad (2007). “Mix design and benefit evaluation of high solar reflectance concrete for pavements,” Transportation Research Record, 2011, 11-20.

Cambridge Systematics Inc. (2005). “US EPA Cool Pavements Study – Task 5, Cool Pavement Report,” US EPA Heat Island Reduction Initiative, Cambridge Systematics, URL: www.camsys.com, June 2005.

http://www.camsys.com/


Carlson, J. D., Bhardwaj, R., Phelan, P. E., Kaloush, K. E., and Golden, J. S. (2010). Determining Thermal Conductivity of Paving Materials Using Cylindrical Sample Geometry, ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 22, 2, 186-195.

Cool Roofs Rating Council (2011). www.coolroofs.org

Gui, G.J., Phelan, P.E., Kaloush, K.E., and Golden, J.S., (2007). “Impact of Pavement Thermophysical Properties on Surface Temperatures,” ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 19, 8, 683-690.

Iaquinta, J., and Fouilloux, A. (2004). “Modeling of light scattering by rough surfaces with relevance to pavements monitoring sensors,” Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 41, 687–702.

Ki, S-M., and Nam, J-H. (2010). “Measurements and Experimental Analysis of Temperature Variations in Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Systems,” Road Materials and Pavement Design, 11, 3, 745-771.

Levinson, R. and Akbari, H. (2010). “Effects of composition and exposure on the solar reflectance of portland cement concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, 32, 11 , 1679-1698.

Menon, S., Akbari, H., Mahanama, S., Sednev, I, and Levinson, R. (2010). Radiative forcing and temperature response to changes in urban albedos and associated CO2 offsets, Environmental Research Letters, 5, 1-11.

Santero, N., Loijos, A., Akbarian, M., and Ochsendorf, J. (2011). “Methods, Impacts, and Opportunities in the Concrete Pavement Life Cycle,” MIT Concrete Sustainability Hub, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA 02139, 95 pgs.

Pomerantz, M.B., Pon, B., Akbari, H., and Chang, S.C. (2000). “The Effect of Pavements on Air Temperatures in Large Cities,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,” LBNL-43442.

Puttonen, E., Suomalainen, J., Hakala, T., and Peltoniemi, J. (2009). Measurement of Reflectance Properties of Asphalt Surfaces and Their Usability as Reference Targets for Aerial Photos, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 47, 7, 2330-2339.

Rosenfeld, A.H., Akbari, H., Romm, J.J., Pomerantz, M. (1998). “Cool communities: strategies for heat island mitigation and smog reduction,” Energy Build., 28, 1, 51– 62.

Sleiman, M., Ban-Weiss, G. Gilbert, H.E., Francois, D., Berdahl, P., Kirchstetter, T.W., Destaillats, H., and Levinson, R. (2011). “Soiling of building envelope surfaces and its effect on solar reflectance—Part I: Analysis of roofing product databases.” Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells, 95, 3385–3399.

Sridhar B. B. Maruthi; Chapin T. L.; Vincent R. K.; et al. (2008). “Identifying the effects of different construction practices on the spectral characteristics of concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, 38, 4, 538-542.

http://www.coolroofs.org/


Twomey, S.A., Bohren, C.F., Mergenthaler, J.L. (1986). “Reflectance and Albedo Differences Between Wet and Dry Surfaces,” Applied Optics, 25, 3, 431-437.

Wikipedia – BDRF (2011). Bidirectional reflectance distribution function, URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidirectional_reflectance_distribution_function

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidirectional_reflectance_distribution_function


PART II. STAFFING AND QUALIFICATIONS

II.1 Projected Team Organization and Management Plan___________________________

A significant positive aspect of our proposed research effort is that we will be synergistically melding the high-level expertise and resources of our nation’s two preeminent national pavement centers, including:

- the National Concrete Pavement Technology Center (CP Tech Center) at Iowa State University, and

- the National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) at Auburn University.

Both joint and parallel field testing will be completed by each center, both centers will conduct both asphalt and concrete pavement assessments, and both centers will collaboratively decide which sites will be tested, what methods will be used for testing, what modeling strategies will be followed, and what strategies will be pursued in terms of overall sustainability rating evaluations.

This high-level team strategy was, indeed, pro-actively conceived in order to negate any argument that analytical bias had played a part in the study’s findings, and we sincerely believe that our study’s findings will be readily defensible in terms of reaching our bottom-line assessment goals.

II.2 Key Project Personnel______________________________________________________

The following ‘key’ individuals will be responsible for leadership roles during this projected effort:

Name Position

James E. Alleman, PhD Principal Investigator Peter C. Taylor, PhD Co-Principal InvestigatorMichael A. Heitzman, PhD Co-Principal Investigator

Dr. James E. Alleman will serve as our Project Principal Investigator, and as such will be responsible for our team’s technical and administrative contact between FHWA, our research team personnel, and our Technical Advisory Committee. Specifically, Dr. Alleman will be responsible for formulating, developing, conducting and monitoring the work performed under this contract (i.e., which as defined in the RFP also indicates “with minimal input from the FHWA”). Dr. Alleman’s background and expertise is in the area of environmental engineering. At present, he is co-directing a recently initiated research projected on the use of a titanium dioxide admixture with a full-scale MODOT two-lift concrete paving project in St. Louis, Missouri, with which there are issues at hand (e.g., pavement reflectivity, pavement soiling and aging, etc.) that are highly intertwined with those of this new proposal’s albedo-related aspects.

Dr. Peter C. Taylor will serve as our project’s Co-Principal Investigator, and will cover both


technical and administrative responsibilities. In general, Dr. Taylor will manage the CP Tech-side of our project team’s activities. Dr. Taylor’s career includes ten years of concrete-related research and project management with Construction Technology Laboratories (CTLGroup), with principal engineer and group manager responsibilities. In 2007, Dr. Taylor then joined Iowa State University as Associate Director of the National Concrete Pavement Technology Center.

Dr. Michael A. Heitzman will serve as our project’s Co-Principal Investigator, and will cover both technical and administrative responsibilities. In general, Dr. Heitzman will manage the NCAT-side of our project team’s activities. Dr. Heitzman’s career includes nearly twenty years of asphalt-related research and project management with Federal Highway Administration, nine years as Asphalt Pavement Engineer with the Iowa DOT. In 2007, Dr. Heitzman then joined Auburn University’s National Asphalt Pavement Technology Center as Assistant Director, where he continues his research emphasis on asphalt pavements.

Summary resumes for all three of these individuals are provided in Appendix A.

II.3 Complementary Team Engineer Staffing ______________________________________

Extending beyond the aforementioned ‘key’ personnel, our project team’s engineering staffing will also include the following individuals, and here again resumes covering educations, experience and qualifications for each such engineer are provided in Appendix B. General summaries for these additional project staff are provided as follows:

Name & Affiliation Project Engineering Responsibility

Dr. Fatih BektasIowa State University National CP Tech Center

- CP Tech Research Assistant Professor- Research interests include:

Concrete admixture options Characterization of concrete making materials Destructive and non-destructive cement-based testing.

Robert SteffesIowa State University National CP Tech Center

- CP Tech Research Engineer- Research interests include:

Concrete aggregate materials and characteristics Concrete porosity & thermal behavior High performance concrete

Dr. Carolina RodeznoAuburn University –NCAT

- NCAT Lead Engineer- Research interests include:

Advanced asphalt materials characterization Thermal properties of asphalt & rubber asphalt Pavement conductivity PhD work @ Arizona State

Dr. J. Richard WillisAuburn UniversityNCAT

- NCAT Research Assistant Professor- LEED certified- Research interests include:

Perpetual pavement design HMA recycling Asphalt shingles


Dr. Saeed MaghsoodlooAuburn UniversityNCAT

- NCAT Visiting Research Professor- Research interests include:

Statistical quality control Taguchi methods Multivariate analysis

Dr. Thomas BurchAuburn UniversityNCAT

- NCAT Visiting Research Assistant Professor- Research interests include:

Industrial energy utilization HVAC systems Gasification

Summary resumes for all of these aforementioned individuals are provided in Appendix B.

It should also be noted that both the CP Tech Center and NCAT have expertise and experience with pavement reflectance. CP Tech personnel, in consort with our proposal PI, are currently evaluating a titanium oxide based ‘self-cleaning’ pavement section in St. Louis, which represents the first full-scale pavement test section in the US. NCAT’s experience and expertise also includes a significant history of pavement reflectivity testing, including monitoring at their NCAT ‘test track’ which has accumulated reflectivity data (i.e., including quarterly testing @ 2010-2011), as well as pavement temperature gradient data on a continuous basis. Furthermore, NCAT has also completed a related study on behalf of the Mississippi DOT relative to an MEPDG climate study.

II.4 External Expert Consulting__________ ______________________________________

Dr. Ronnen Levinson will serve as projects ‘expert consultant,’ and as such will provide highly specialized knowledge and guidance in relation to the physics and engineering aspects of heat transfer in relation to pavement systems. Dr. Levinson is a scientist in the Heat Island Group in the Environmental Energy Technologies Division of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, CA. His research has included development of cool roofing and paving materials, improvement of methods for the measurement of solar reflectance, and heat-transfer analysis of the indirect cooling benefits of vegetation and high-albedo surfaces. Dr. Levinson conducts courses for the Cool Roof Rating Council in which he and his colleagues at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab teach the measurement of solar reflectance and thermal emittance. He also serves on the CRRC’s technical committee and has developed several solar reflectance measurement techniques for the CRRC. He holds a B.S. in engineering physics from Cornell University (Ithaca, NY) and an M.S. and a Ph.D. in heat transfer from the University of California at Berkeley. He has authored or co-authored over 40 publications.

A summary resume for Dr. Levinson is provided in Appendix C, and a ‘letter of confirmation’ validating his availability and commitment to this project is provided in Appendix D.

XXXADD CONFIRMATION FROM NCAT TO APPENDIX D

II.5 Research Team Plus Technical Advisory Committee Organizational Chart__________


An overall team organizational chart, covering key and complementary team members, plus our Technical Advisory Committee, is given on the following page:ADD TOM BURCH

Technical Advisory

Committee

Alleman[PI]

Taylor[Co-PI @ CPTech]

BektasSenior Engr

SteffesRes Engr

Heitzman[Co-PI @ NCAT]

RodenzoSenior Engr

WillisRes Engr

Levinson[Expert

Consultant]

Heat Modeler

Programmer

CP Tech Center

NCAT

Figure 3. Project Team Organizational Chart

SaeedMaghsoodloo[Statistician)

ProjectLeadership

Team

We anticipate that representatives for our Technical Advisory Committee will include a balanced set of industry representatives from each pavement type, and that we would secure COR input and approval during the process of nailing down these individuals. Quarterly teleconference meetings are then anticipated with this group to insure that they are fully aware of our efforts and ongoing findings.

II.6 Projected Work Breakdown Structure_________________________________________

A ‘work breakdown structures’ table is provided on the following page, identifying individual team member names, labor categories, and proposed Level of Effort (LOE’s) [i.e., direct hours per each task within the two sequential project phases]. In each case, these faculty plus CP Tech and NCAT center team members are current full-time employees with either Iowa State or Auburn University, and are collectively committed to successfully fulfilling the estimated LOE requirements being specified.

Contracting to secure the consulting services of our external consultant, Dr. Ronnen Levinson, will be arranged on a ‘Professional Services Agreement’ (PSA), and here again Dr. Levinson is similarly available to complete this work and is duly committed to successfully fulfilling the estimated LOE requirements being specified.GET THESE TABLE #’s TO MATCH NCAT #’s

Figure 5. Project Team Organizational Chart


Center Partner

Research Team Member

Labor Category

Task 1.1

Task 1.2

Task 1.3

Task 1.4

Task 1.5

Task 1.6

Subtotal Phase - I

Task 2.1

Task 2.2

Task 2.3

Task 2.4

Task 2.5

Task 2.6

Task 2.7

Task 2.8

Task 2.9

Subtotal Phase -II

Totals per

personPrincipal

Investigator w/ Project Funding

5 15 5 5 5 5 40 5 5 5 5 10 5 5 5 5 50 90

Principal Investigator w/ no-cost research incentive funding

10 10 10 10 10 50 10 20 10 10 10 10 30 10 20 130 180 (no-cost)

TaylorCo-Principal Investigator

10 20 10 20 10 70 10 30 30 30 35 10 20 165 235

Bektas

Junior Research Engineer

30 20 10 50 10 120 10 30 10 30 30 20 130 250

Steffes

Senior Research Engineer

10 10 80 80 90

Shields-CookTechnical

Writer10 10 200 10 30 240 250

Programmer @ ISUMid-Level

Professional20 20 40 40 80 100

HeitzmanCo-Principal Investigator

20 20 20 20 10 10 100 15 30 20 20 20 20 10 20 20 175 275

Willis


30 20 10 30 10 100 10 30 30 30 30 20 150 250

Rodezno

Junior Research Engineer

30 20 10 50 10 120 10 80 10 10 30 20 20 180 300

Magso../StatisticianSenior

Statistician20 20 40 40 20 100 120

Heat Modeler @ NCAT


20 20 90 10 100 120

External Expert ConsultantSenior

Research Engineer

28 29 57

Totals per task 125 195 75 185 35 65 658 70 285 195 255 160 360 55 125 1509 2137

Iowa State

InTrans CP Tech Center

Auburn NCAT

Center

Table 1. Work Breakdown Structures Spreadsheet [Hrs Effort per Task Area]

28 29

Alleman

The following clarifications are offered with respect to this ‘work breakdown’ and the overall hours of effort:

1) The cumulative hours given in the preceding table are admittedly higher than the original RFP’s projected value - at 2137 hrs versus 1870 hrs.

2) We believe that this nominal increase is warranted, however, based both on the following factors:

a. Our preparation of a manual (i.e., as stipulated by the RFP Amendment #1 @ 2 December 2011) involves a considerable increase in time beyond the hours for ‘technical writing’ estimated within the original RFP. Indeed, we are projecting that this effort will add an additional 170 hrs effort, which consequently represents the majority of the inherent hours difference.

b. Our field testing effort includes seven (7) cities, and this number has a direct impact on effort hours.

XXXc. TRUTHFUL ADMISSION ABOUT FIELD SERVICE HRS

table of contents - iowa state universityhome.eng.iastate.edu/~jea/proposal.docx · web viewthis...

Documents