Construction Program Management and Inspection Guide

Materials and Quality Control
Report Item
The specified quality has been obtained on all materials
incorporated into the project to date.
The compaction testing was accomplished with a nuclear
gauge, and all testing for the day’s laydown was found to have
passed the required 92 percent density. The density ranged
from 92.2 percent to 94.0 percent.
The stockpiling of materials was situated such that
contamination or segregation was minimized.
M. Gardner indicated that the burner was not functioning
properly for about 3 hours in the afternoon and that mix was
being delivered to the street at approximately 115–118 ºC
(240–245 ºF). The plant was run at approximately 146 ºC
(295º F) thereafter.
A quality level (QL) analysis was performed on the aphalt
concrete pavement Class B material, particularly the #10 and
#200 sieves and asphalt content. The QLs were 82, 100, and
100 respectively. The QL for the #10 sieve was less than the
desirable 90. The material tests showed a wide variability and
one test to be out of specifications, but within tolerance limits.
The traffic has been moved to the new lane, and the old
pavement has been milled and stockpiled for future recycling
into the asphalt-treated base. The recycled asphalt appears
uniformly graded and has no noticeable contamination.
Approximately 457 m (1,500 ft) of the base lift were rejected,
removed by the contractor, and replaced at his expense. I
inspected the material before it was removed from the road
and concur with the State’s action. The asphalt did not coat
the aggregates well. It is felt that possibly the wrong asphalt
had been delivered to the project.
Aggregate moisture samples had not been taken for
approximately 5 days; moisture content was being estimated
for water/cement ratio calculation.
Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)
Comments
This statement is all-inclusive and does not reflect any
particular effort by the field engineer to verify it. It would be
appropriate to include the source and basis for this statement.
The reporting of specific data is helpful in supporting quality
evaluations. This comment should include the type of nuclear
gauge and test method followed.
Comments such as this reinforce the validity of test results.
Comments received verbally without confirmation should be
identified as such.
It is meaningful to note that QL analysis is being made.
Specific findings are stated together with a further explanation
of the reason for the low quality level. It further indicates
specification compliance.
Observations of visual acceptability add to the value of the
inspection report.
Here the field engineer recorded a problem and corrective
action. In addition, the engineer chose to document FHWA
support of the State’s action and speculate on the cause of the
problem.
Adverse findings should be supported with specifics. Action
that FHWA will be taking as a result of improper testing
procedures should be noted and documented.
F–5