AASHTO re:source Q&A Podcast Transcript

Season 4, Episode 12: August PSP Insights - Marshall and Hveem

Recorded: August 8, 2023

Released: August 15, 2023 

Hosts: Brian Jonson, AASHTO Accreditation Program Director; Kim Swanson, Communications Manager, AASHTO re:source 

Guests: John Malusky, Proficiency Sample Program Director; Ryan LaQuay, Laboratory and Testing Manager; Joe Williams, Senior Quality Analyst, AASHTO re:source

Note: Please reference AASHTO re:source and AASHTO Accreditation Program policies and procedures online for official guidance on this, and other topics. 

Transcription is auto-generated. 

[Theme music fades in.] 

00:00:02 ANNOUNCER: Welcome to AASHTO resource Q & A. We're taking time to discuss construction materials testing and inspection with people in the know.  From exploring testing problems and solutions to laboratory best practices and quality management, we're covering topics important to you. Now here’s our host, Brian Johnson.

00:00:22 BRIAN: Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A. I'm Brian Johnson.

00:00:25 KIM: And I'm Kim Swanson. And we have another one of those PSP insights episodes. And I'm actually pretty excited about this one. What are we talking about today, Brian?

00:00:37 BRIAN: Well, this week we are going to talk about a few samples that just came out, including the asphalt mixture design, Marshall sample and the design Hveem samples, which we're going to get into that. It was 1 sample that was divided into 3 parts. Now it is 3 separate samples. And with us to talk about it, are three AASHTO Resource employees who know something about it? First and foremost, John Malusky, Director of the Proficiency Sample Program. Welcome, John.

00:01:09 JOHN: Hey, thanks, Brian. Glad to be here for another one of these.

00:01:12 BRIAN: And then we have Ryan LaQuay, position unremembered by me - Laboratory and Testing Manager.

00:01:21 RYAN: There you go.

00:01:22 BRIAN: With AASHTO resource.

00:01:23 RYAN: Thanks, Brian. We'll get there eventually.

00:01:25 BRIAN: Thanks for thanks for coming Ryan, I'll remember.

00:01:26 KIM: Every episode. 

00:01:28 RYAN: It's tradition now, so.

00:01:30 BRIAN: You know, I know Ryan to see him.

00:01:34 JOHN: I would hope so. He's been here for 10 years.

00:01:37 BRIAN: And then last, we've got Joe Williams.

00:01:41 JOE: Hey Brian.

00:01:41 BRIAN: Senior Quality Analyst.

00:01:41 JOE: Thanks for having me on again. - Senior Quality Analyst.

00:01:45 BRIAN: He is our gatekeeper for all proficiency sample policies for the AASHTO Accreditation Program, and generally knowledgeable person about these sort of things.

00:01:57 JOHN: Ryan, you should feel a little bit better because at least Brian hesitated when he went over Joe's position. And you know, he specifically works in AAP so.

00:02:06 BRIAN: I did that for dramatic effect, yes.

00:02:09 JOE: Because I've transcended the role of Senior Quality Analyst. Nobody knows what my position I am.

00:02:14 BRIAN: That is true. Joe does a lot more than what the garden variety Senior Quality Analysts would do. Actually, none of them are garden variety. They all have specialties. [JOHN: Heirloom Quality Analyst.]

00:02:25 BRIAN: And just, yes they are, is that should that be a new position title heirloom quality analyst, I like it, John, good job you get credit for that one. OK, so back to the matter and let's talk about proficiency samples. First, we'll talk about the boring one, the Marshall design sample that I say boring because it has been around forever and you would really think that everybody would have this test down by now, but we still do get some suspensions. Let's talk about anything that might have been interesting with this particular design sample. We'll go to Ryan.

00:03:00 RYAN: Nothing super interesting on this design sample we make up the mix design beforehand and try and come up with the unique enough specimens there, so I'm going to talk about with this one is how well, we did.

00:03:14 RYAN: In lab in development compared to the actual results, nothing.

00:03:18 RYAN: You here but.

00:03:19 JOHN: Like giving yourself a pat on the back.

00:03:21 RYAN: Hey, someone's got to, you know, give us kudos when we can. This was a team effort with me and John. But you know, if we do, if we look at our own ratings, compare our data compared to what was, you know sent back, we got fives and fours.

00:03:34 KIM: Wasn't it the last episode that we did about this that you said you always or do lower or something and so?

00:03:40 RYAN: So that's yeah. So that's the one with the liquid asphalt specific gravity, we're always a little skewed off, but this one. You know our maximum gravity, our bulk specific gravity pretty close to the money. Interesting though our specimen heights were higher than what was reported back. So I was actually look back on our previous sample, see if that was a trend, maybe in development we have to shoot a little more higher than we think we do.  Well, that's interesting.

00:04:08 BRIAN: You're saying your specimen heights when you compacted your own specimens were higher. All right, let's diagnose that problem. Alright, Joe, you deal with a lot of low ratings.  If you had a laboratory that. That had specimens that were coming in high. Higher than the average and they said, boy, we were really having a hard time figuring out what might have gone wrong. What do you think might have gone wrong there, Joe?

00:04:32 JOE: Could be a couple different things. You got to remember that it's not just the compaction, it's the measurement itself.  So they could be measuring a little off maybe their hammers a little light, maybe a little worn out. Maybe they're batching is little bit off, could be a couple of different things. I mean, there's a lot to look at the. There, you know, sometimes it's just a matter of bad luck, to be honest with you. I mean, they got to do, you know, all of their corrective action stuff and root cause analysis. But if everything they look at in the past, you know from, they typically do well and then they look at this sample and they didn't do too well, you know kind of and they can't find anything. Sometimes you can just chalk it up to. Bad luck and anomaly and then kind of wait till next to your sample and see if see if. Something else turns up.

00:05:15 BRIAN: I think you're getting jaded. Looking at all. These corrective actions where they didn't look hard enough.

00:05:20 JOHN: Joe, I'm going to throw a. Little wrinkle in here. I would totally agree with you 100%.

00:05:25 JOHN: If our air voids were higher than everybody else's, but our air voids are actually below the average, OK, and our specimens are. Higher and your heights were higher. [BRIAN: That's weird.] Yeah, see, so look at. This is just all kinds of crazy now.

00:05:38 BRIAN: That's interesting. I'm sure there's somebody listening those.

00:05:39 JOE: So you just have no idea. What you're doing?

00:05:43 RYAN: That's what it comes down to.

00:05:44 KIM: So, for those that maybe are not super familiar with the sample. You're saying, John, because your specimens were higher, that you would expect. You would also have high more air voids or bigger air voids or whatever the right term is to help increase it, but because yours are lower than it's like 2 things that are like puzzling to you is that did I restate that correctly for not knowing what you're talking about?

00:06:10 JOHN: Either that or we're screwing up our bulk specific gravity. That's the only other option. We could be doing something wrong with our SD mass or our immersed mass. I would imagine it's probably the SSD mass where we were, you know, we obviously don't do it as much as other laboratories do. So we might have a little bit of bias because we, you know, do these mixed designs basically two months a year. That was my thought when I looked. At the numbers and maybe we have a little bit of variation in our bulk density values so.

00:06:38 KIM: Oh, that makes sense, I think. Maybe I lied. It doesn't make sense to me, but I'm sure that makes sense to some people, but I want to put our listener’s minds at ease that it doesn't really matter what our internal ratings were that is not has nothing to do with the way that ratings and the statistic analysis that you do. Once you get the ratings so it doesn't really. It just helps you for the design mix purposes. Am I correct in that?

00:07:09 JOHN: Yeah, that's correct. It's consensus based. So we don't use the AASHTO resource as the reference method, but it just gives us a little bit of support and backing to say that we're still doing the test methods in accordance with them. And we're doing reasonably well, so. We're happy and it it's actually quite a bit of work. You know it. It's just like a mixed design from a laboratory who's doing total design work right from the get go. Everything goes into it, you know, aggregate calculations, sieve analysis, specific gravity. These we go through the whole deal just like any other laboratory would to get these mixed designs and we try to do our best to make sure that they actually meet the specifications. So they would be put down on the road, hit an easel requirement, and look at the voids and mineral aggregate voids with asphalt dust to bind the ratio with the holes should bang just like everybody else.  So I think. I might be speaking for Ryan here a little bit as well, but it kind of feels good when we go through all this work.  And we get numbers that are comparable to everybody else.

00:08:05 BRIAN: That is pretty good considering that you don't do it all the time.  You're messing around with this once a year really, but it's like there are a ton of things that can go wrong. I mean, you guys all mentioned some, but you know you could have your aggregate not dry enough, you're weighing moisture instead of actual aggregate. You could have too much asphalt binder, you could have the temperatures.  You're wrong on compaction.  Temperatures are wrong on mixing. Get the blow count wrong on the on the Marshall Hammer.  It just goes on and on. You could have issues with the balance and then and what John was saying is it could even be something not related to the actual martial compaction. It could be that air void calculate, you know one of the factors that goes into the air void calculation they could.  Be throwing a.  A fake clue at you. You know, this whole concept of it was coming out high, but there.  Their boys were lower. Well, what if that had nothing to do with the actual compaction of the specimen? It was something related to the tests either the maximum specific gravity or the bulk specific gravity, so it goes on and on.

00:09:06 BRIAN: Now looking at this, John, let's, let's talk about how we make these samples for the Marshall. When the laboratory gets it so somebody's not enrolled in this program, what do they get and what do?  They have to do so.

00:09:20 JOHN: Each laboratory will receive the sample box and it's basically all of the raw material. Nothing is premixed. Nothing's prefabricated. The material is prepared by the AASHTO Resource Proficiency Sample Program Crew, we order, for example, the aggregate, it comes in, in the ash, tow or ASTM, you know, stone size. 67-57 whatever it is, we sip it through our processing screens. We run it through some city checks on our own to make sure that we're hitting specific requirements.  And then the.  Material is bagged separately by size fraction, so we'll send a bag of half inch a bag of three eighth a bag of #4A bag of #8.  And a bag of sand and the sand is all minus #8. If the mix design that Ryan and I work up requires mineral filler because we need to add a little bit more passing the 200 will include mineral filler in the mixed design and have a separate bag for it. For that, then we'll also send a.

00:10:20 JOHN: Can of.  Liquid asphalt and basically you. Get the batching instructions and you mix it just like you're making the recipe. We tell you the exact amount of aggregate to add in each size fraction and the amount of asphalt.  Mix it up by hand.  Your first mix is a butter batch, so you can toss that out of your bowl and use it for your rice.  And then once you get your bowl buttered, you prepare 3 compaction specimens.  And get after it.

00:10:44 KIM: We actually do.  Have an unboxing video that kind of shows all of the materials that laboratories are sent, so that might be interesting to some people. If you haven't seen that, to go to our YouTube channel, I'll put a link in our show notes as well.

00:10:59 BRIAN: John, what do you tell people if they don't customarily mix their own specimens? I'm sure you get that question sometimes.

00:11:06 JOHN: Yeah, we do. It's a little bit challenging. Marshall's not so bad because the samples are so small.  But when it comes to the territory specimens, it's kind of tricky just because there's so. Much larger, you know.  But unfortunately, if your laboratory is compacting for Marshall and you, you do not have the testing for cores, you know the accreditation component.  Where you're testing specific cores of asphalt, then you're going to be required to mix and perform your rice testing.  So yeah, unfortunately just got to do it kind of things to do it. By hand, but it is what it is.

00:11:39 BRIAN: Yeah, let's talk about those proficiency sample rules for accreditation, Joe. What does somebody? Need to know about when they're testing the Marshall sample if they're also accredited for some of those tests that are included.

00:11:51 JOE: I think there's two things of interest here. One is that none of our proficiency sample programs include T275 or D1188, which is bulk specific gravity. Using paraffin or parafilm. I'm not sure I've got the order of that right one ones one and ones. Weather. So if a laboratory were to get low ratings on T166 and D 2726, the bulk specific gravity test, those tests would be suspended as well because they're essentially the same test, except you're using paraffin or parafilm in that testing. And again, just a reminder that suspensions. Come from low ratings, which we consider which the low ratings we look at are zeros or ones on both samples for a single line item two years in a row.  So really it's it takes 4 samples of low ratings to take a suspension.  So just a reminder. Real quick, the other interesting one there is the height of the specimen taken in accordance with D3549.

00:12:53 JOE: If a suspension were to take place there, then also the accreditation for R68 and or D6926 would be suspended and the reason for that is we don't really have a way to know. How those low ratings came to be? Was it the compaction effort? Was it the measurement itself? So those who are are suspended the the compaction effort and the measurement are suspended in conjunction if flow ratings?  Are received on the height measurement.

00:13:21 BRIAN: Alright, so those are the tricky ones. Otherwise you've got air voids, right?

00:13:25 JOE: Yeah, air void specific gravity stability and flow.  They're all pretty standard and how we review those, those are kind of the only two. So we're a little tricky ones that a laboratory might if if a suspension were to take place, they. Would say well. You know, paying I'm accredited for paraffin bulk specific gravity, and that's not even this sample. Why it's why am I suspended for that and that's? That's the reason why.

00:13:47 BRIAN: And I know we don't have the results out yet for the list of laboratories.  That are getting suspended this round as we're recording this, but in general, in your experience, what tests are the most challenging what ones end up getting suspended more than not?

00:14:04 JOE: Any of the compaction ones, maximum specific gravity seems to be a big one that gets suspended and specific to Marshall we see stability and flow gets suspended a good bit and again like you just said, we haven't gotten the list yet. But another reminder, a lot of our suspensions come. And conjunction in some part with a laboratory missing around or not submitting data for a specific test. So can you know, make time make time to test your samples and get the data and to avoid any suspensions down the road even if you might think ohh I've got this one chance.  If I don't submit it this year, I'm fine because then if something happens the next year, then you're then you're getting that suspension so.

00:14:49 BRIAN: Good advice, as always, Joe. Now let's talk about the Hveem sample. John, tell us what has happened this year with the Hveem round.

00:14:59 JOHN: So this year we made the move to separate the Hveem samples by the method of compaction.  Essentially the methods were combined or the methods of compaction were combined into one sample round. That doesn't mean the data was all pulled together, we still separate everything by compaction. But you know, and looking back at the information that we would provide to the laboratories.  The data sheets instructions announcement letter the whole situation was very, very confusing. We would have essentially 7 pages of instructions pages like two and three were for California, three and four or four, and five were for Texas and six and seven were for a Colorado. Each one has a slightly different mix design based off the amount of material that's needed, so it just ended up being. A lot more chance just for errors and mistakes just because of the nature of the way that the instructions were in the whole round phased itself out.

00:16:00 JOHN: So we decided to separate the three methods by our three compaction methods and just run three separate samples.  It didn't really have too much of an effect on anything from a production standpoint. I think the biggest thing was more on the end of Ryan and myself with having to create the new sample. Sounds in the database, but for the proficiency sample crew was really just printing out a few different labels and labeling boxes and bags a little bit differently, but beyond that, I think it seems like it made a lot. Of sense we.  Have not I I've just actually run and I took a peek at the data sheet comments and feedback this morning and for this is one of the first years where we did not have any negative feedback on the instructions and clarity of them.  So that was a a huge, a huge thing to take care of. So, you know, continual improvement, that's where. About, you know, we took feedback from all the participants and actually made a change that appears to be meaningful right now.

00:17:06 JOE: Are all of the labs.  Regardless of sample type, are they essentially sent the same sample?

00:17:11 RYAN: Yeah, yeah.

00:17:12 JOE: Yeah. OK.

00:17:13 JOHN: Everything is still based on the same design, it's just proportionalism different. Even though the compaction effort is different now, it's obviously way different for something like the translatory sheer and the Colorado foreign or foreign. Territory because they're completely different compaction effort.  You know needing. Compactor is a little bit more similar to Marshall, right? You have that you know that constant blow or whatever the blow count specifically with a certain amount of pressure.  And I know the territory does as well. But when you're. Looking at the you know a certain pressure, but when you're talking about the Texas territory and the Colorado, you actually. Have a gyration.  It's not a meeting or you know, straight blow count or blow effort.  Actually effort. So there is going to be a difference and you know Ryan, I think you were looking at some of that stuff this morning to see how the things.  How was comparable to one another.

00:18:02 RYAN: Especially now that they're broken apart, we can see how the results compare. Apples to oranges to pears, as it were.  You can't compare all the results, but you can compare your maximum gravity.  Your bulk gravity, uh, and your percent air voids and they're all in the general ballpark of each other. For example, maximum specific gravity, California inspector 2.60 for Texas. 2.60 rounded for Colorado 2.61 for the bulks to 492-5125 to so again all in that same ballpark. The one thing that we found.  Interesting the percent air voids. So for Colorado and Texas, those are both around 3.363.41.  So 3.4 California 4.4% so it just shows the difference in the machines there. Essentially how it's compacted.

00:19:00 JOHN: Have the Hveem stability look around if you got that data pulled up because that's one thing, right? We've got three different compaction methods. Yeah, and the air voids are different. But we're it's interesting, right? So it makes sense that all of the maximum specific gravity is at the same right.  It's the same mixed design, the same proportion, the asphalt contents the same, so those should be very, very close. Folks are going to be slightly different, but the real interesting thing should be the the stability.

00:19:25 RYAN: So all our stability worked out really well. This is our first time trying it with these samples across all three and we pull them up here to make sure. But they all came in pretty much right on or very near to the control line.

00:19:42 BRIAN: You're talking about the stability value.

00:19:45 RYAN: No, sorry.

00:19:45 JOHN: Is that the the 1S stability value?

00:19:48 RYAN: Our stability or the sample?

00:19:50 JOHN: What are the average stability values look like when you compare child orado Texas and California?

00:19:57 RYAN: Alright, well alright.

00:19:58 JOHN: Right, cause you have three different compaction efforts.

00:19:58 RYAN: Try again.  I'm used to stability in a different sense.

00:20:03 JOHN: Not the instability, yeah.

00:20:06 RYAN: So they are. Or uncorrected, we got a little bit of we got decent enough difference. So California's average value is around 38 Colorado average values around 42 and Texas around 48. Correction doesn't add too much there, so. So definitely a little bit difference there between the three.

00:20:28 BRIAN: And you didn't get much feedback from anybody about whether they felt like that was a expected result, because usually I assume when you've. That results in very different, you know, far from what they're used to. They usually tell you about it, right?

00:20:43 RYAN: Often and loudly. Yes, correct.

00:20:45 BRIAN: Right, right. Yeah, I've heard that with some of the soil feedback at times from different parts of the country.

00:20:51 KIM: Since I don't know what you're talking about, why would that test for stability? Why would that differ based on the compaction method where some of the other ones would be the same?

00:21:03 JOHN: It's just the amount of effort that's used to compact the sample and put it in that mold. You know, they all have a different force applied and a different way that they get the material in the mold like I mention. You know needing. Compactor just basically presses it into the mold the territory presses it but with an angle and an oscillation or gyration. So as it goes into the mold differently, it's going to have, you know, different viscosity, different effort and it should make it make it change a little bit.

00:21:35 KIM: Thank you for that clarification because I was lost.

00:21:38 BRIAN: It's correlated to strength, right? It's related to how?  Tightly those connections are made, you know, like how together are those specimens after compaction and you've got a lot more oscillating action going on. I guess that's oscillating is not the right term [JOHN: gyrating] that gyrating or kneading or you have a better chance of getting those particles to lock together a little better.  I guess, which is kind of what I was, I was not surprised to hear that the air voids were higher on the California needing compactor because of the difference between how that is with that kind of press and hold method of compaction. That and it often looks a little fluffier. As it's compacting compared to the two methods of gyratory compaction, I would have expected those to be a little bit more densely compacted, but I was surprised to hear the results of the stability numbers, but maybe that's because I'm thinking about that the wrong way. What were those numbers again, Ryan?

00:22:39 RYAN: Sure. So stability values for California were about 38.  Colorado's 42 Texas was 40.

00:22:47 JOHN: 8 No, that makes that makes sense.

00:22:47 BRIAN: Ohh no, that'd be that.  That makes perfect sense.

00:22:50 JOHN: So yeah.

00:22:50 BRIAN: Sorry, I was just remembering those incorrectly.

00:22:52 RYAN: So lowest values for California for stability and they have the highest percent air voids.

00:22:57 BRIAN: And I don't know which one correlates better to what happens under a typical roller condition, and I'm sure that each of those states probably think that their method is the more accurate, or we probably wouldn't have 33 methods of compaction with just a guess. I'm not really sure how that all evil.

00:23:16 KIM: I'm looking in at the sample types and tests lists on the website for these because again, I'm trying to follow along and I'm lost, but I do notice that for the California needing compaction, there are no state test methods listed there, but for the. Texas and Colorado, they do seem to have state methods listed under the. Is there any explanation to that or can you expand on why that is?

00:23:48 BRIAN: They created the test method, so Francis Hveem from Caltrans invented that test method and his method was the eventual. Tests you know, and then these other states figured out. Different methods of compassion that they liked and then but they still like the Hveem methodology for getting that stability test at the. End years ago I wrote this article that's on our website about Francis Hveem. After talking to Phil Stolarski, formerly of Caltrans, and he told me about.  Francis Hveem and he had a really nice story. And so we published.  This little story about Francis Hveem , which was basically just taken from things that I learned about him or read about him.  So it's almost like a book report that I would have written in in high school.

00:24:38 JOHN: All of the literature review Brian, it sounds better.

00:24:42 BRIAN: Yeah, it was a good way to tell the story that had been forgotten. And actually the information that I got it from was something that would be almost impossible to find. So it does kind of create promotion of that legacy of Francis Hveem s career, which I think was a good thing to do. And I actually got a call from his.  Daughter and she said how much she enjoyed it. I was a little nervous when I got a voicemail from her. So I was like ohh.  I wonder, I wonder what this is going to be, but she said she really enjoyed it and it would.  It made her feel good, so that made me feel good. That that's still the like.  Probably the best thing I've ever done because of that reaction that I got professionally anyway. OK.

00:25:23 KIM: I will link to that article in the show notes as well, and as soon as you started talking about that answering my question, Brian, I recalled that article, but it was from 2014. So it took a minute to remember that it. That's what that was from.  So thank you for that.

00:25:40 BRIAN: Nine years ago. I can't believe it was that long ago. Now let's go to Joe for a minute. We've talked about the results. Let's talk about what happens on the accreditation side. What do people typically stumble on as far as repeat low ratings are concerned on the Hveem samples?

00:25:59 JOE: Not submitting data.

00:26:01 BRIAN: Not submitting data, still undefeated.

00:26:03 JOE: The Hveem samples, and I'm sure this will.   Continue with these two. Well, the three now. They usually don't generate very many accreditation suspensions for us, which is great as far as things to look out for.  What I talked about with the Marshall sample with the paraffin parafilm standards.  Being suspended along with bulk specific gravity of that suspended.  Laboratories need to submit data for both the uncorrected and corrected stability values, and we do assess both of those.  That's it for these something that John and I talked about last week with the sample was we will probably on future samples be removing floor lock, the vacuum sealing bulk specific gravity from this because they're just. Doesn't seem to be enough laboratories in the Hveem sample that perform door lock. It's very few. I think we found two labs that only compact using Veeam and had core lock so that they might be impacted a little bit, but for the most part we just there didn't seem to.  Be a lot of. Value in keeping that in this sample. So that might be a change.  John, do you have anything more on that?

00:27:11 JOHN: Thanks for summarizing that up.  I mean, we, we actually had to have our IT manager go into the data analysis and populate fake data for some of our if you want to call them dummy labs that we have here at resource. To allow the analysis to be conducted and we basically ran the analysis and suppressed right away just because of the lack of data and participation.  So that will be a change for next year. We'll probably remove the T331. I don't remember what the ASTM is, but the.

00:27:43 JOE: D6752 is that yes.

00:27:46 BRIAN: One last question I had for you, John, about these results. Did you see any particularly high percent ones values of coefficient of variation? Is the proper term for that, but it's a. It's a related term to the percent 1S or is it the?

00:28:03 JOHN: Term it's the term, the coefficient variation or percent 1. So it's the same thing.

00:28:07 BRIAN: Yeah. OK. Kim’s upset. Yeah.

00:28:10 KIM: I know I really just as soon as you started talking glazed over.  It's statistics are not. I'm just like that just seemed way confusing, so I apologize if the look on my face, but our listeners can't see.  Was me just being glazed over?  I have no clue what you're talking about.

00:28:25 JOHN: They can imagine, but now just to answer by this question.  Now it didn't appear to be any different than any other round.  You know, Ryan tracks the stability and performance.  Sorry, not the Hveem stability, the stability of the samples throughout the round for ISO accreditation and what he mentioned a little bit ago, we didn't see any variation or any major deviation from that.  So it appears to be another normal round that was satisfactory.

00:28:55 BRIAN: Well, that's good. And I and I do want to apologize to Ryan, not forgetting his title wrong, but for getting the title of the test result wrong.  I was calling it stability.  I should have been calling it the stable ometer value.

00:29:10 RYAN: I mean it's uh, it's an easy uh crossover. But yeah, I use the term Stability Day in day out for something completely different so.

00:29:18 KIM: Well, I was having a hard time following along as well looking for stability in the list of test methods.  I'm like, I don't know what you're talking about, so that was helpful there to put the correct term for that.  I did have a question for you all because this is.  Samples one and two for the since we Broke them out.  For the suspensions, I know we don't quite know who.  We haven't run that analysis yet of who's getting suspended, but the data previously, this isn't like other first round samples, right? Like people will get suspended for things. On these samples versus when it's a brand new thing. 

00:30:04 JOE: That is correct. This is very similar to. To what was at 2021 when we switched from fine aggregate and coarse aggregate to aggregate graduation and gravity and aggregate degradation. The tests are still there, the data is all still there, so this this isn't a new sample. These aren't really new samples, it's just that all of these.  Tests were in a previously squeezed into a single sample, and we've just broken them.  For better, better analysis and also just, uh, an. Easier way to to. Track ratings.

00:30:39 KIM: So it's more of a rebrand as opposed to a new thing.

00:30:42 JOE: That is a good way to put it, yes.

00:30:44 KIM: Then I just want to make sure that was clear because I know sometimes when people see the one and two like samples one and two, they're like, oh, this is a clean slate.  It doesn't matter.  I'm not going to get suspended, but that's not the case in this instance.

00:30:59 JOHN: Now that's a good point to bring up as well. Kim, just to make sure that everyone is aware.  The data from previous rounds will pull through because it's not set up by specific sample scheme. It's set up by test property.  So even though these are one and two last year's samples I think were 77 and 78.  If I remember correctly.  So when you look at your compilation of statistics, you should see HVEEM 7778 and then HCO one and two HCA one. And two HT X1 and.

00:31:36 KIM: So peoples performance charts and stuff like that, it's all.

00:31:38 JOHN: They'll pull right through.

00:31:39 KIM: Going to be awesome.

00:31:40 JOHN: Yeah, they'll pull right through.  Something we thought we were going to break during the transfer for the aggregate samples. With fortunately it worked.

00:31:49 BRIAN: Yeah, that's great. Any final thoughts about this round from anybody?

00:31:53 JOE: I've got one final thought, not so much about the round, but for being testing itself that this is a question we get pretty often.  If a if a standard is withdrawn. Do we keep accrediting for it? And the answer is yes. So currently California needing compactor that the SCM version 1561 is it withdrawn standard I believe 1560 it would need to be updated by the end of this year before it becomes a withdrawn standard and. And I don't think there's much work going on with that, Brian once said to me when I asked that him that question, he said specifiers be specifying. So as long as a specifier for projects once labs to run that standard, even if it is withdrawn as long as labs want to maintain accredited for it and there's a good number of labs that want to do so, we will keep offering the accreditation services, even if it's a withdrawn standard.

00:32:50 JOE: So if you pull up the ASTM. When you see those big red letters withdrawing standard, that's not going to impact your accreditation. We're not going to withdraw it. Or anything like that.

00:33:02 BRIAN: So I think that's it for now.  That's probably enough on those.  I didn't get into how to make the Hveem samples because it's pretty much the same process as the Marshalls. We didn't need to belabor that, but I want to thank John Malusky Proficiency Sample Program Director. Ryan LaQuay, Laboratory and Testing Manager and.

00:33:22 BRIAN: Joe Williams, Heirloom Quality Analyst. Thank you. Copyright John Malusky, 2023.

00:33:26 JOE: I’ll take it.

[Theme music fades in.]   

00:33:28 ANNOUNCER: Thanks for listening to AASHTO re: source Q & A. If you'd like to be a guest or just submit a question, send us an email at podcast@aashtoresource.org or call Brian at 240-436-4820. For other news and related content, check out AASHTO re:source's social media accounts or go to aashtoresource.org.