Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 16
16
CHAPTER 3
Revised Simple Performance Test System
3.1 Revised Simple Performance of the project to meet the revised requirements for master
Test System Equipment curve testing and to procure new SPTs. Contracts for upgrade
Specification work were negotiated directly with Interlaken Technology
Corporation, Inc. and IPC Global.
Equipment to perform the abbreviated dynamic modulus The process used in Phase II of this project to procure the
master curve testing presented in Chapter 2 requires additional first article equipment was used to procure the new equipment
low temperature and loading capabilities compared to the SPT in Phase IV. A request for proposal (RFP) was issued to man-
developed in Phases I and II. Table 6 compares the require- ufacturers who expressed interest in providing equipment
ments for the SPT developed in Phases I and II, a testing device under NCHRP Project 9-29. Table 7 lists the manufacturers
to produce dynamic modulus master curves using the abbre- that provided an RFP package consisting of Version 2.0 of the
viated testing protocol, and a device to produce dynamic mod- equipment specification and a copy of the Phase II evaluation
ulus master curves using AASHTO TP62. Table 6 also includes report (10). The RFP required the manufacturers to submit a
an estimate of the cost of each system. The primary differences detailed proposal describing the proposed equipment and pro-
in the equipment are the temperature range and the required viding supporting documentation that the proposed equip-
dynamic loading capacity. The substantial difference in the ment meets the specification requirements. Additionally, the
low-temperature range of the environmental chamber is manufacturers were asked to identify unique features offered
responsible for the increase in the estimated cost of the equip- in their equipment and to provide a firm fixed price for the
ment. The increased dynamic loading capacity results in a equipment delivered to Sterling, VA. Four manufacturers sub-
nominal increase in the estimated cost of the equipment. mitted complete proposals in response to the Phase IV RFP:
The equipment specification developed in Phases I and II
(10) was revised to specify a device capable of performing the · Interlaken Technology Corporation,
three simple performance tests and developing dynamic · IPC Global,
modulus master curves using the abbreviated testing proto- · James Cox and Sons, Inc., and
col developed during this phase of the project. This specifica- · Medical Device Testing Services, Inc.
tion was designated as Version 2.0 and is reproduced in
Appendix B. It was produced by modifying Version 1.1 of the Cooper Research Technology, Ltd submitted an incom-
specification developed in Phase II of the project to include plete proposal, and Shedworks, Inc. submitted a document
the 39°F temperature control, the increased dynamic load describing a more general system capable of performing the
capacity, and the 0.01 Hz load control needed for master tests required by the SPT specification as well as other tests.
curve testing. Version 1.1 of the specification included the The four complete proposal were evaluated, and three were
improvements identified by the first article evaluation. selected for award. The following criteria were used in the
evaluation, listed in order of importance:
3.2 Simple Performance Test System
Procurement and Evaluation 1. Documented ability of the proposed equipment to meet
the specification requirements,
3.2.1 Procurement
2. Unique advantages offered by the proposed equipment,
Version 2.0 of the Equipment Specification for the SPT was and
used to upgrade the first article devices purchased in Phase II 3. Cost of the proposed equipment.
OCR for page 17
17
Table 6. Comparison of dynamic modulus testing devices.
Simple Performance
Test System for
Simple Performance Rutting and AASHTO TP62
Test System for Abbreviated Master Master Curves for
Item Rutting Curve Testing Structural Design
Temperature 20 to 60 oC 4 to 60 oC -10 to 60 oC
Range (68 to 140 oF) (39 to 140 oF) (14 to 140 oF)
Temperature 0.5 oC ( 1.0 oF) 0.5 oC ( 1.0 oF) 0.5 oC ( 1.0 oF)
Control
Dynamic Load 6 kN (1.3 kips) 12.5 kN (2.8 kips) 22.5 kN (5.0 kips)
Capacity
Loading Rates 0.1 to 25 Hz 0.01 to 10 Hz 0.1 to 25 Hz
Confining Pressure YES YES NO
Estimated Cost $45,000 $60,000 $100,000
The equipment proposed by the four manufacturers was included detailed design drawings for the major components
similar to the first article devices evaluated in Phase II of the of the system.
project. All were relatively small, bottom-loading, servo- Costs for the proposed equipment ranged from approxi-
hydraulic machines with automated testing chambers that mately $52,000 to $68,000. Table 8 presents the proposed
serve as a confining pressure cell and temperature control costs. The Cox and Medical Device Testing proposals indi-
chamber. No manufacturer proposed an alternative to the cated that the proposed prices included initial development
standard glued gage point system with LVDTs for measuring costs of approximately $18,000 and that future production
specimen deformations in the dynamic modulus test. Ver- units would cost approximately $50,000. A contract was
sion 2.0 of the specification allows alternatives to be consid- awarded to IPC Global as the lowest bidder. Considering that
ered provided the manufacturer can demonstrate that the one of the overall objectives of NCHRP Project 9-29 is to
alternative produces deformation measurements that are the stimulate the development of commercial equipment, it was
same as the standard glued gage point system. Interlaken, decided to award contracts to James Cox and Sons, Inc. and
Cox, and Medical Device Testing proposed equipment with Medical Device Testing Services, Inc. even though they did
two LVDTs spaced 180° apart on the specimen. IPC Global not provide the lowest prices. Through these two Phase IV
proposed equipment with three LVDTs spaced 120° apart. contracts and the Phase II first article contracts, seed funding
Because they were selected as the first article manufacturers was made available to four equipment manufacturers: IPC
in Phase II of the project, the IPC Global and Interlaken pro- Global, Interlaken Technology Corporation, James Cox and
posals included specifications and photographs of completed Sons, Inc., and Medical Device Testing Services, Inc. Unfor-
equipment. The Cox and Medical Device Testing proposals tunately James Cox and Sons, Inc. was not able to complete
Table 7. Equipment manufacturers receiving Phase IV RFP.
Manufacturer Address Phone Contact
Cooper Research Technical Centre 44 (1) 773 512174 Andrew Cooper
Technology, Ltd 11 High Holborn Road
Codnor Gate Business Park Ripley
Derbyshire DE5 3NW
ENGLAND
Interlaken Technology 8175 Century Boulevard (952) 856-4210 Tom Driggers
Corporation Chaska, MN 55318
Instron Corporation 825 University Ave. (800) 473 7838 Leslie Dixon
Norwood, MA 02062-2643
IPC Global 4 Wadhurst Drive 61 (0) 3 9800 2200 Con Sinadinos
Boronia Vic 3155
Australia
James Cox and Sons, Inc. 1085 Alpine Way (530) 346-8322 James Cox
Colfax, CA 95713
Medical Device Testing 6121 Baker Road, Suite 101 (952) 933-1152 Kent Vilendrer
Services, Inc. Minnetonka, MN 55345
MTS Systems Corporation 14000 Technology Drive (952) 937-4000 Scott Johnson
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Shedworks, Inc. 2151 Harvey Mitchell Parkway, S. (979) 695-8416 Bill Crockford
Suite 320
College Station, TX 77840-5244
