PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsmitigation requirements are sufficient (low alkali cement, fly ash and slag).■ WSDOT does not use the alkali loading approach in addressing ASR concerns. The research would not have animmediate impact on our specifications.■ Has some promise and addresses issues that affect concrete in our bridges■ Suggest funding level of $600,000.■ As it has been mentioned in the reviewer comments, this research should recognize the ongoing research by otherorganizations. This problem statement could be proposed with higher prediction of ASR damage to pavements andstructures.■ Subcommittee on Materials rated this proposal as a HIGH priority. The proposer strikes at a couple of potential issuesthat caused us to start looking at our specifications related to available alkali available for ASR. We do not calculateavailable alkali like Texas does, but have considered their approach. The issue presented with cement production is avery real issue.Other■ [Rating: 5] This would be highly useful information in this time of changing manufacturing processes and environmentalconstraints. . Needs a more appealing title. Those who do not read the problem statement will rate this low based on thetitle.■ [Rating: 5] The proposed research deals with determining the Na2O equivalent alkali content of the cement and its usefor predicting the potential alkali reaction (ASR) damage of the concrete.- Concrete damage due to ASR reaction has been observed in highway pavements and bridge structures, accurateprediction models will help highway agencies taking the necessary measures to mitigate such damage.- The proposed research seems to focus on the alkalis in the cement although other cementitious materials used in theconcrete mixture could affect its susceptibility to ASR.- The research should recognize the ongoing research by FHWA and other organizations, the previous researchperformed under SHRP, and the numerous studies conducted on this topic to avoid duplication.- Although the proposed research seems to be basic in nature, it could helpful in better predicting potential ASR damageto pavements and structures.- The problem statement has not provided an estimate of required funds; a funding level of $600,000 is recommended.This is the number 3 priority project for the SOM.Item #81:F-06Cross Asset Funding Investment Strategies forMaintenance(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 4 4 4 3 1RAC 3 6 13 12 11 4Standing Committee on Research■ This proposal develops a synthesis of practice. As such other NCHRP funding sources are available and moreappropriate. Virginia has been on the cutting edge of asset management practice and such a report would be of marginalvalue to us. With many more research needs than funding, other needs should take priority.■ Recommended funding of $200,000 seems high for this work.■ Recommend a synthesis■ Synthesis■ Envisioned product is a synthesis report, this should be a candidate for 20-5■ SynthesisIV-58