INDOT Standards Committee Actions Update – September 2018

Summary prepared by Indiana Constructors, Inc. Staff

Effective Date Range: Jan. 1, 2018 to Sept. 1, 2018

 


 SECTION 100


SECTION – 108.01 Unapproved Sub-Contractors

Issue: We have received questions from several district construction staff about payment for work performed by unapproved sub-contractors. This issue has been discussed at length and we feel we do not have legal footing to not pay for acceptable work performed by unapproved sub-contractors per our current specification. Therefore clarification is needed in section 108 of the Standard Specifications to allow for nonpayment of work done by unapproved subs.

Solution: Incorporate the necessary revisions to 108 to ensure that the standard specifications are correct and consistent with current field practice.

RSP: 108-C-260
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: March 15, 2018

 

SECTION – 108.09 Failure to Complete on Time

Issue: The Department’s current liquidated damages rates schedule has not been updated in near a decade and therefore not in compliance with 23 CFR 635.127 which require INDOT to review the rates at least every 2 years and provide updated rates to FHWA for approval.

Solution: The objective of the effort is to establish new liquidated damages rates that closely approximates the actual average daily CE costs associated with the size of the projects in the state. A study was performed between FHWA and the Department by which a new schedule was derived and agreed upon.

RSP: 108-C-260 
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: March 15, 2018


SECTION 200


SECTIONS 207 and 214 – Subgrade and Geosynthetic Confining System

Issue: Section 207 – Subgrade has a number of issues. There has been a lack of clarity on the subgrade soils requirements, and no requirement for proofrolling currently exists. Also, there is confusion about the intended scope of payment for items included in other pay items such as geotextile. A need for a geosynthetic confining system for certain subgrade treatment types has been identified.

Solution: Subgrade soil requirements and subgrade treatment types have been placed into a table. Editorial changes have been made throughout to organize the construction specifications. A requirement for proofrolling has been added. A Geosynthetic confining system has been added to certain subgrade treatment types, and edits to section 214 have been made accordingly.

RSP: 207-R-669 and 214-R-670 
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017


SECTION 300 (NO ITEMS)


SECTION 400


SECTION 401.18(c) – Smoothness Correction

Issue: The grinding of current pavement bumps over 0.3 inches, as identified by profilograph traces, has been questioned as to whether it is intended to include a range between 0.25 inches to 0.34 inches due to the presumed Department rounding range.

Solution: To clarify the intent of the bump correction specification, the significant digits for a pavement bump will be increased and will be represented as 0.30 rather than 0.3. With this revision, bump corrections would range from 0.295 to 0.304 inches.

RSP: 400-R-667 and 501-R-668
EFFECTIVE DATE: Feb. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 410 – QC/QA HMA, SMA Pavement

Issue: When determining bulk specific gravity, SMA specs still require AASHTO T 275 (Paraffin) to be used when the percent water absorbed exceeds 2.0. Recently the 401 and 402 specs have been changed to AASHTO T 331 (Corelok). There are also a few other minor edits that were made in the 401 section that should be made in the 410 section

Solution: Revise language in 410 to require AASHTO T 331 for testing consistency and match revisions in the 401 section.

RSP: 410-R-667
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: April 19, 2017

 

SECTION 406 – Tack Coat Application

Issue: Tack coat application consistency varies widely in the field. Best practices are routinely not followed as evidenced by the commonly seen “corn rows”. It was noticed that the 406 section is lacking in basic direction regarding cleaning and uniformity of application.

Solution: Revise language for clarification and consistency

RSP: 406-R-676
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: March 1, 2018


SECTION 500


SECTION 501.25 – Pavement Smoothness

Issue: The grinding of current pavement bumps over 0.3 inches, as identified by profilograph traces, has been questioned as to whether it is intended to include a range between 0.25 inches to 0.34 inches due to the presumed Department rounding range.

Solution: In order to clarify the intent of the bump correction specification, the significant digits for a pavement bump will be increased and will be represented as 0.30 rather than 0.3. With this revision, any potential rounding of bump corrections would range from 0.295 to 0.304 inches. This range is more in line with the original intent of the bump grinding specification.

RSP: 400-R-667 and 501-R-668
EFFECTIVE DATE: Feb. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 501.25(c) – Pavement Smoothness

Issue: The grinding of current pavement bumps over 0.3 inches, as identified by profilograph traces, has been questioned as to whether it is intended to include a range between 0.25 inches to 0.34 inches due to the presumed Department rounding range.

Solution: In order to clarify the intent of the bump correction Specification, the significant digits for a pavement bump will be increased and will be represented as 0.30 rather than 0.3. With this revision, any potential rounding of bump corrections would range from 0.295 to 0.304 inches. This range is more in line with the original intent of the bump grinding specification.

RSP: 501-R-668
EFFECTIVE DATE: Feb. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 502.04 – PCCP, Slump

Issue: Mix workability is an ongoing struggle for applications that involve concrete delivered via ready mix trucks. INDOT specifications generally limit slump to four inches, but contractors prefer a slump of approximately five inches to ease placement and finishing. Contractors typically add water to the mix on-site in order to improve the workability. However, adding water after batching is high risk to INDOT since it increases the water-cement ratio of the batch which may exceed the specification limit resulting in poor durability and can also create non-uniform mixtures. Sprinkling water to the surface of concrete for finishing is also highly detrimental because it significantly increases the water-cement ratio which creates a much less durable wearing surface and promotes scaling. The current slump restrictions promote conflict at the jobsite to police the addition of water to both the delivery truck and to the surface of the plastic concrete for finishing. However, it is extremely difficult for INDOT project personnel to continuously monitor and control the addition of water.

Solution: There is nothing inherently detrimental about using properly designed concrete mixes with moderately higher slump than is currently allowed by the specification. Ready mix concrete suppliers have the ability to chemically modify concrete slump with admixtures. This does not increase the water-cement ratio, but improves workability and finishability. Increasing the allowable slump will permit mix producers to properly design and supply mixes that are workable as delivered. This will dramatically reduce the contractor’s incentive to modify the mixes at the jobsite by adding water.

RSP: 502-R-678
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: April 19, 2018

 

SECTION 503.06 – PCCP, Random Crack Remediation

Issue: Section 503.06 provides the remedies for random cracking in PCCP. The spec is currently too permissive in the repairs available for longitudinal cracking that is more than 18” outside of the longitudinal joint. The reasoning is that within 18” of the longitudinal joint cracks will be held tight by the tie steel, but outside of 18” there is no steel to restrain the cracks. It is also difficult to determine the actual cause of cracks outside of 18 inches. Therefore, repairs such as stitching may not provide an adequate long-term solution and the pavement may not survive the design life without excessive maintenance.

Solution: Require remove and replace as the only repair option for longitudinal and skewed cracks in pavement that are more than 18 inches from the longitudinal joint.

RSP: 503-R-671
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Nov. 15, 2017


SECTION 600


SECTIONS 601, 911.02(f) and 926.03 – Guardrail, Treated Lumber and Alternate Material Guardrail Blocks

Issue: The transition to MGS w-beam as the Department standard for guardrail supports the AASHTO/FHWA Joint Implementation Agreement for installing MASH-compliant safety hardware. The MGS w-beam guardrail standard drawings were approved as revised during the May 2017. Standards Committee meeting (RPD 601-R-658d). Revisions to the Standard Specifications were not included. Revisions to SS section 601 are necessary to add the MGS w-beam guardrail and to differentiate it, where necessary, from the current strong-post w-beam guardrail. MGS w-beam guardrail system uses the same components as the current strong-post w-beam guardrail – w-beam rail section, assembly bolts, steel or timber post, timber or composite blockout. However, the MGS w-beam guardrail assembly makes the system distinctly different.

Solution: Revise the Standard Specifications sections 601, 911.02, and 926.03 to complement the MGS w-beam standard drawings and the July 1, 2018 (letting) sunset date for guardrail end treatments. “MGS w-beam guardrail” is used to differentiate the system from “w-beam guardrail” in both the specification and the pay items.

Section 601 revisions:

  •  Revise “block” to “blockout” to be consistent with MASH terminology.
  • Revise “wood” to “timber” to be consistent with MGS system FHWA eligibility letter and standard drawing callouts.
  • Add “MGS w-beam guardrail” into the section and distinguish its use (where appropriate) from “w-beam guardrail”.
  • Add sunset date when the 27 3/4” end treatment cannot longer be substituted for a 31” guardrail end treatment. [Prior to July 1, 2018: NCHRP 350 compliant, 31-in. or 27 ¾-in. plus height transition. After July 1, 2108: MASH compliant, 31-in only.]
  • Add requirement for the contractor to provide the manufacturer’s FHWA eligibility letter for both end treatments and impact attenuators. Update language to “NCHRP 350 or MASH”. The approved materials list will control whether devices have been crash tested under NCHRP 350 or MASH.
  • Revise method of measurement and basis of payment, and add MGS pay items.

Section 911.02(d) revisions:

  • Revise “block” to “blockout” to be consistent with MASH terminology.
  • Add language that restricts the use of a timber post for w-beam guardrail and explicitly allows steel or timber for MGS w-beam guardrail. [The w-beam guardrail did not pass MASH with timber posts. The w-beam guardrail did pass MASH with steel posts but the w-beam rail element tore.]

Section 926.03 revisions

  • Revise “block” to “blockout” to be consistent with MASH terminology.
  • Update language to “NCHRP 350 or MASH”.
  • Revise certification requirements to providing an FHWA eligibility letter. IDM sections 49-4.0 thru 49-9.0 are under review and will be provided at a later date.

RSP: 601-R-660
EFFECTIVE DATE: Jan. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: July 19, 2017

 

SECTION 601 – Guardrail

Issue: The transition to MGS w-beam as the Department standard for guardrail supports the AASHTO/FHWA Joint Implementation Agreement for installing MASH-compliant safety hardware. The MGS w-beam guardrail standard drawings were approved as revised during the May 2017 committee meeting (RPD 601-R-658d). The MGS Long-Span is detailed on sheet 8 of the approved RPD 601-R-658d. The minimum length of MGS w-beam guardrail required upstream and downstream of the outermost CRT post is shown to be included with the MGS Long-Span, Type 1 and Type 2 for both the detail and the pay item. For designer and construction clarity, we believe the pay item for MGS Long-Span should only run between the outermost CRT posts and the minimum length of MGS w-beam guardrail required upstream and downstream of the MGS Long-Span should be paid for separately. The minimum length of MGS w-beam guardrail required upstream and downstream of the outermost CRT post, may also include a guardrail end treatment, terminal end anchor, or transition. By separating the MGS Long-Span and minimum length of MGS w-beam guardrail into two pay items, it should clarify that guardrail end treatments, terminal end anchors, and transitions are paid for as each, even though they may be included in the minimum length of MGS w-beam guardrail.

Solution: Revise sheet 8 of the approved RPD 601-R-658d by: Changing the following description, “MGS Standard Post Spacing” to “Minimum MGS w-beam guardrail”. The minimum length given on the sheet is not for MGS standard post spacing (6′-3″) but for a minimum length of MGS w-beam guardrail which could include a guardrail end treatment, terminal end anchor, transition, or an omitted post in accordance with RDP 601-R658d sheet 6.

  • Revising the limits of the MGS Long-Span, Type 1 and Type 2.
  •  Adding dimensions of the minimum length of MGS w-beam guardrail required upstream and downstream of the outermost CRT posts.
  • Editing the last sentence of Note 1 to state, “This length may include the length of a guardrail end treatment, terminal end anchor, or transition.
  • Removing the reference to the table in Note 1. Text added to clarify the limits of the MGS Long-Span in the RSP 601-R-660. A revision to the pay will not be required. The current pay item unit for MGS Long-Span is Each.

RSP: 601-R-658d, 601-R-660
EFFECTIVE DATE: Jan. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Nov. 15, 2017

 

SECTION 604 – Curb Ramp Elements

Issue: The curb ramp element depths have not been shown on previous standard drawings and are not shown on the current Standard Drawing Series 604- SWCR. In addition, the curb ramp element depths are not given in the Standard Specifications. The curb ramp element depths has been in question in the field and needs to be noted. After meeting with Greg Pankow and Rob Goldner, it was decided to include the curb ramp element depths in the current Standard Drawing Series 604-SWCR.

Solution: Revised the Standard Drawing Series 604-SWCR to include the depth of the curb ramp components, sheets 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11.

STND DWGS: 604-SWCR Series
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: N/A
APPROVED: March 15, 2018

 

SECTION 615 – Monuments, Markers and Parking Barriers

Issue: RSP 615-R-020 WOOD POST PARKING BARRIER has a revised statement that clarifies that the cost of backfill, disposal of surplus materials and all other necessary incidentals shall be included in the cost of the pay items shown in the 615 section but due to limiting Basis for Use for this RSP “Required for all contracts with the Parking Barrier Wood Post pay item” only, this revised statement was missed in contracts with other 615 pay items.

Solution: To discontinue use of mentioned RSP and to create new with the Basis for Use to be included in contracts with any 615 pay items. Also, to be incorporated into 2020 Standard Specifications.

RSP: 615-R-666 
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 622 – Landscape Planting

Issue: Standard Drawing series 622-LSPL (Landscape Planting) do not reflect proper installation methods.

Solution: Revise the 622-LSPL Standard Drawings to provide clarification and proper installation methods.

STND DWGS: 622-LSPL-01-11
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: N/A
APPROVED: March 15, 2018

 

SECTION 629 – Plant Growth Layer

Issue: Problems have been encountered when phosphorus within existing soils is found to be extremely low. The rates that would need to be added to the soil to bring the mixture into current acceptable range would be detrimental to newly planted vegetation. Since phosphorus is absorbed within the soil structure very slowly, there would also be an increased potential for runoff of excess phosphorus reaching bodies of water.

Solution: Reducing the acceptable range of phosphorus for topsoil mixtures from the existing 46 – 110 ppm to 20 – 80 ppm will help eliminate the detrimental effects on newly planted vegetation. Also, a limit (150 lbs. per acre per year) will be placed on the quantity of phosphorus that can be placed within a soil mixture. Both of these efforts will help eliminate the risk of excess phosphorus within new topsoil mixtures.

RSP: 629-R-630
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Nov. 15, 2017


SECTION 700


SECTION 702.04 – Structural Concrete, Slump

Issue: Mix workability is an ongoing struggle for applications that involve concrete delivered via ready mix trucks. INDOT specifications generally limit slump to four inches, but contractors prefer a slump of approximately five inches to ease placement and finishing. Contractors typically add water to the mix on-site in order to improve the workability. However, adding water after batching is high risk to INDOT since it increases the water-cement ratio of the batch which may exceed the specification limit resulting in poor durability and can also create non-uniform mixtures. Sprinkling water to the surface of concrete for finishing is also highly detrimental because it significantly increases the water-cement ratio which creates a much less durable wearing surface and promotes scaling. The current slump restrictions promote conflict at the jobsite to police the addition of water to both the delivery truck and to the surface of the plastic concrete for finishing. However, it is extremely difficult for INDOT project personnel to continuously monitor and control the addition of water.

Solution: There is nothing inherently detrimental about using properly designed concrete mixes with moderately higher slump than is currently allowed by the specification. Ready mix concrete suppliers have the ability to chemically modify concrete slump with admixtures. This does not increase the water-cement ratio but improves workability and finishability. Increasing the allowable slump will permit mix producers to properly design and supply mixes that are workable as delivered. This will dramatically reduce the contractor’s incentive to modify the mixes at the jobsite by adding water.

RSP: 702-R-679
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: April 19, 2018

 

SECTION 706.03 Bridge Railings

Issue: In 2017 INDOT identified significant deterioration in slip formed bridge railings and an investigation to determine the cause was conducted. Cores were taken from the railings of four bridges that were placed from 2001 to 2016. It was determined that the deterioration was advanced freeze-thaw damage that was caused by two main issues. The first issue is that the mixes used had very low slump which does not allow the mix to flow very well resulting in poor consolidation. The railing mixes also have a high cement content and are difficult to properly hydrate with a low slump. Contractors subsequently have to increase vibration and/or use less optimally graded mixes in order to place the mix and comply with the specifications. It is also difficult to adequately air entrain concrete that has very low slump and undergoes excessive vibration. The second issue is that the steel configuration in the standard drawing is very tight near the top of the railing which further restricts the flow and consolidation of concrete mixes that are already stiff. The current configuration also does not provide the cage with enough rigidity to resist movement from pressure and vibration inside the mold.

Solution: The specification currently restricts slump for slip formed railing to between 0” and 1”. When mixes are properly designed railing can be slip formed at higher slumps. Increasing the slump will allow for much better consolidation with less compaction effort. It will also allow better hydration of the cementitious materials and air entrainment. The contractors may choose to achieve the higher slump with chemical admixtures which does not change the water content, but if water is increased the mixes will still be well below the allowable maximum water-cement ratio. Contractors will still have to use mix designs that facilitate their equipment setup and provide a finished product that meets the dimensional tolerances. The slump requirements will be revised in section 706.03 for slip formed railing to 1 3/4 in ± 3/4 in. The requirement to include a water-reducing admixture in slip formed railing will be waived if the railing concrete contains silica fume in accordance with section 709.05(e). The standard drawing is being reviewed for possible changes to the steel configuration and is not part of this proposal. The spec changes in this proposal can stand on their own.

RSP: 706-B-306
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: March 15, 2018

 

SECTION 709.05(e) – Alternate to Concrete Sealers

Issue: Section 709.05(e) allows the use of an alternate concrete mix design in lieu of surface sealing for barrier rail and bridge railing. The alternate mix design must include one of two supplemental cementitious materials (SCMs), silica fume or ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS). The specification has been in place since the late 1990s and multiple research projects over the past few years including SPR-3104 by Frosch (2010) and SPR-3864 by Weiss (2016) have further emphasized the significant benefits of including SCMs in concrete. The benefits include reduced permeability, increased durability and reduced strains. The alternate mix option is also attractive to contractors since it eliminates an operation and they do not have to wait 28-days to apply clear sealers. The problem is that the current specification is restricted to railing.

Solution: Revise section 709.05(e) to include bridge decks, bridge approaches, pier and bent caps, and mudwalls.

RSP: 709-C-256
EFFECTIVE DATE: Feb. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 718 – Geotextiles for Underdrain

Sec 718 has been revised and there are five geotextile Types for the underdrain application and underdrain Sec 718.10. The current Pay item only has one.

RSP: 718-R-673
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Nov. 15, 2017


SECTION 800


SECTION 801 – Law Enforcement Officers

An RSP was approved to add a pay item to add Indiana State Law Enforcement Academy trained officers to assist with work zone safety.

RSP: 801-R-672 / 801-R-672A
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: NO
APPROVED: Nov. 15, 2017

 

SECTION 801 – Signs – “Next Level Roads”

Per Governor’s request, a recurring plan detail with shop drawings and typical placement locations has been generated.

SDs: 801-TCSN-02, 801-TCSN-04 and 801-TCSN-05
EFFECTIVE DATE: Jan. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: NO
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 805 – Wireless Vehicle Detection System

Issue: Currently the repeaters and receiver processors for wireless vehicle detection systems cannot be mounted on a sign post. Some cost savings could be realized if sign posts were allowed to support these devices. In addition, the sign posts are much easier to move if the repeaters need to be relocated after a speed limit change or as tree growth begins to interfere with the wireless communication signal strength.

Solution: Revise the recurring special provision for wireless vehicle detection systems to allow a receiver processor or a repeater to be mounted on a sign post.

RSP: 805-T-173
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: NO
APPROVED: Jan. 18, 2018

 

SECTION 805 – Signal Pole Foundations – Standard Drawing Correction

Issue: The standard pay items for the signal pole foundations are now based on the size of the foundation. However, the standard drawing for the signal pedestal pole foundation refers to it as a type A foundation.

Solution: Change the title of the standard drawing and add a note to reference the older terminology.

RSP: 805-SGCF-03
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: NO
APPROVED: Jan. 18, 2018

 

SECTION 805 – Single Arm Traffic Signal Cantilever Structure – Standard Drawing Correction

Issue: Two of the dimensions in the standard drawing for a single arm traffic signal cantilever structure are incorrect. The signal arm mounting height can exceed 22 ft. but hand hole B must be 6 in. from the top cover.

Solution: Correct the dimensions on the standard drawing relating to the signal arm mounting height and hand hole B.

RSP: 805-TSCS-02
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: NO
APPROVED: Jan. 18, 2018


SECTION 900


SECTION 902 – PCC Sealers and Healers
Issue: A frequency manual change to PG binder sampling frequency resulted in confusion as to how to handle a failed PG binder sample, because the current specification was based on daily sampling.

Solution: Revise to ensure clarity. Eliminate lot and sublot system, as it is no longer relevant. Add statement that failed test applies to week’s production.

RSP: 902-C-258
EFFECTIVE DATE: Feb. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 902.01 (a and b) – Asphalt Emulsions
Issue: There is little to no oversight in our current emulsion acceptance procedures.

Solution: Implement ITM 593 which is already in place and mimics our current approved binder supplier program.

RSP: 902-R-674
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Jan. 18, 2018

 

SECTION 909.02(b) – Epoxy Intermediate Paint
Issue: Some products have a shorter pot life than currently specified in 909.

Solution: Revise to require manufacturer recommended time for pot life.

RSP: 909-C-257
EFFECTIVE DATE: Feb. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 910.18 – Fence, Fittings and Gates
Issue: The steel laboratory at OMM performs one hundred or more tests per year on fence and fence materials that rarely fail and pose little to no risk to the Department if they do fail. This laboratory time could be better used on more critical materials. This also reduces the time spent sampling the materials in the field.

Solution: Revise 910.18 to accept all fence and fence materials by Type C Certification. A draft Frequency Manual revision is also attached.

RSP: 910-C-259
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 918.01 – Geosynthetic Materials
Issue: Sec 918 is not clear enough regarding the Approved Material List and ITM 806. Also, minor revisions to the properties are needed to expand the current Approved Material List.

Solution: Sec. 918 been revised to include ITM 806 references to help Vendors provide correct documents for material approval. Minor revisions to the properties are included to expand the Approved Material List.

RSP: 918-R-675
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Jan. 18, 2018

image_pdfimage_print