Date post: | 27-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | patrick-morrissey |
View: | 376 times |
Download: | 7 times |
ConSpec Associates, Inc.
Materials Selection Criteria
Forced Ranking
Flashcards for Engineers
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
OBJECTIVE DEFENDABLE SPECIFICATIONS
Purpose: In-Depth method of proper material selection based upon individual project needs and
anticipated material performance.
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
OBJECTIVE DEFENDABLE SPECIFICATIONS
Scope: Analyze, set order of priority for material properties needed, evaluate materials based on those properties,
and specify materials in order of “anticipated” performance.
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
OBJECTIVE DEFENDABLE SPECIFICATIONS
System
Three sets of evaluation cards plus worksheet & instructions
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
• OBJECTIVE (White) – These properties re those that are quantifiable by ASTM, AASHTO, or other recognized test procedure
• SUBJECTIVE (Canary) – Properties or Attributes not easily quantified, heavily dependant upon individual preference
• PROCEDURAL (Green) – Field accountability of all aspects of repair from pre-bid site visit to final punch list.
OBJECTIVE DEFENDABLE SPECIFICATIONS
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
OBJECTIVE DEFENDABLE SPECIFICATIONS
OVERVIEW – Repair projects have for some time been reviewed, evaluated, and specified based
upon “New Construction” criteria. In many cases, these criteria are not only inappropriate
but also counterproductive to the repair process. A new thought process must be undertaken if
the repair is to be a success.
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
• Select Objective cards based upon the material properties/needs of the project.
• Place them in order of priority/need for the condition under consideration.
• Insert the resultant list (in order) in the column “PROPERTY” on theselection table.
INSTRUCTIONS OBJECTIVE PROPERTIES
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
INSTRUCTIONS
– List the 3, 4 or more manufacturers being considered under “MFGR”.
– Determine each manufacture’s number (psi, inches/inch, etc.) for each property and assign a rating from 4 (BEST) to 1 (WORST). Inserting in appropriate manufacturer’s R (Rating) column for each property. (NOTE: Best is not always the highest number for a given property, i.e., the lower the shrinkage the better.)
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
INSTRUCTIONS- Multiply the W (Weight) by the R (Rating) to
get the T (Totals) for each property and sum the results to get a weighted total.
(NOTE: Do not be limited by the property cards included in the CSA deck, or by the total of ten lines on the Product Selection Table. Other properties such as ELONGATION, VISCOSITY, etc., may be applicable for the particular product you are analyzing, such as urethane, epoxy or other repair material. The CSA Material Selection Criteria should be a solid base but not “Carved-In-Stone” depending on your particular needs.)
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
• Analyze the products to see if any do not meet a specified “minimum” or “maximum” criteria you may have for a particular property. Eliminate the product if this is the case.
• List the products in your specification in order of performance, not in alphabetical or order of familiarity.
INSTRUCTIONS
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
OBJECTIVE PROPERTIES
BOND
STRENGTH
(psi)
FLEXURAL
STRENGTH
(psi)
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(psi)
SPLITTING
TENSILE
STRENGTH
(psi)
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
OBJECTIVE PROPERTIES
SHRINKAGE
(inch/inch)
RAPID
CHLORIDE
PERMEABILITY
(Coulombs)
MODULUS OF
ELASTICITY IN
COMPRESSION
(psi)
LINEAR COEF.
OF THERMAL
EXPANSION
(inch/inch/deg.f)
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
OBJECTIVE PROPERTIES
ABRASION
RESISTANCE
H22 WHEEL
(% loss)
WATER
ABSORPTION
(%)
WATER VAPOR
TRANSMISSION
(US Perms)
CHLORIDE ION
PENETRATION
(% water absorption
reduction)
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
OBJECTIVE PROPERTIES
POTLIFE
(minutes)
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
SUBJECTIVE PROPERTIES
USER FRIENDLY
FAMILIARITY PAST
PERFORMANCE
TRACK RECORD
COST MFGR'S
REPUTATION
TECHNICAL
SUPPORT SINGLE
SOURCE
RESPONSIBILITY
LOCAL
AVAILABILITY
DEPTH OF
PRODUCT LINE
RANGE OF ARCH
COATINGS, COLORS & TEXTURES
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
PROCEDURALSITE VISITS
ARCHITECT
ENGINEER
PUNCHLIST
SIGN-OFF
PRE-BID
VISIT - MEETING
PRE-
CONSTRUCTION
MEETING
FIELD
MOCKUP
SITE VISITS
MANUFACTURER
INSTALLER
CERTIFICATION
CONTROLLED
INSPECTION
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
CSA MATERIAL SELECTION CRITERIA
PRODUCT SELECTION TABLE
MFGR 1 PRODUCT
MFGR 2 PRODUCT
MFGR 3 PRODUCT
MFGR 4 PRODUCT
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
Please note: Shrinkage compensated does not mean 0% shrinkage. Actual shrinkage should be reported in inches/inch or percentage(%). Also 0% expansion does not mean a material has no shrinkage and again should be reported as inches/inch
or percentage(%). When wet and dry shrinkage values are given, dry shrinkage is a more stringent test and closer to field conditions. All comparative test results must be from the same
ASTM/AASHTO test method.
If no values are available or Max/Min are exceeded T=0 (ie W x R therefore = 0 )
W = Weight R =Rating (1-4) T = Total (W x R)
CSA Preliminary Material Review for 9 Products ©’93
Bonsal Conproco Euclid Five Star Degussa Degussa Sika Silpro Sto# of Mfgrs providing Same Tests
V.O. Repair Conpro Set Verticoat St Conc V/O HBA HB2 123 Plus VO Patch OhMor 702Agency Standard Property a b c d e f g h i ASTM C39 Comp Str 4000 5000 2 of 9ASTM C39 Coef of TE 4.8 x 10-6 4.5 x 10-6 2 of 9ASTM C109 Comp Str 5000 6525 6500 5000 5000 5800 7000 6300 8 of 9ASTM C157 Len Change 500 0.04% 350 350 0.19% 0.10% 6 of 9ASTM C191 Set Time 14 - 20 25 - 40 15 - 30 180 - 240 20 - 30 5 of 9ASTM C293 Flex Str 2000 1500 2 of 9ASTM C307 Tensile 680 1 of 9ASTM C348 Flexural 930 1500 750 1000 1180 5 of 9ASTM C469 M of E 2.7 x 10-6 1.9 x 10-6 2.0 x 10-6 2.26 x 10-6 4 of 9ASTM C496 Split Ten 660 360 500 900 565 5 of 9ASTM C531 Coef of Exp 5.0 x 10-6 1 of 9ASTM C666 Freeze Thaw >80% 96 100 98 99 5 of 9ASTM C672 Res F/T 50 cyc - 0 1 of 9ASTM C882* Bond Strength 2200 1250 2400 2200 1650 5 of 9ASTM C928 Comp Str 6500 1 of 9ASTM C932 Ten Bond 400 1 of 9ASTM C1042 Sl-Sh Bond 1605 1760 670 941 4 of 9ASTM C1202 Coulombs <1000 1 of 9ASTM D2240 Durometer 80-85% 1 of 9ASTM D4541 Dir Ten Bond 500 1 of 9AASHTO T-277 Coulombs 500 1 of 9 Tests Available 2 10 5 5 11 11 6 6 6
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
PROPERTY METHOD MAX MINMFG
BW R T MFG E W R T
MFG F
W R TMFG
HW R T
C-157 SHRINKAGE 50010 350
10 350
10 ---
10
C-882 BOND --- 9 1250 9 2400 9 1650 9
C-496 SPLIT TEN 660 8 360 8 500 8 --- 8
C-109 COMP 5000 7 5000 7 5800 7 6500 7
C-666 F/T --- 6 96 6 100 6 99 6
C-348 FLEX 930 5 750 5 1000 5 1180 5
B 4 E 4 F 4 H 4
B 3 E 3 F 3 H 3
B 2 E 2 F 2 H 2
B 1 E 1 F 1 H 1
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
PROPERTY METHODMFG
BW R T
MFG E
W R T MFG F W R TMFG
HW R T
C-157 SHRINKAGE 500 10 3 350 10 4 350 10 4 --- 10
C-882 BOND --- 9 1250 9 2 2400 9
4 1650 9 3
C-496 SPLIT TEN 660 8 4 360 8
2 500 8
3 --- 8
C-109 COMP 5000 7 2 5000 7 2 5800 7 3 6500 7 4
C-666 F/T --- 6 96 6 2 100 6
4 99 6
3
C-348 FLEX 930 5 2 750 5
1 1000 5
3 1180 5
4
4 4 4 4
3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
PROPERTY METHODMFG
BW R T
MFG E
W R TMFG
FW R T
MFG H
W R T
C-157 SHRINKAGE 50010
3 30 350
10
4 40 350
10 4 40 ---
10
0 0
C-882 BOND --- 9 0 0 1250 9
2 18 2400 9
4 36 1650 9 3 27
C-496 SPLIT TEN 660 8 4 32 360 8
2 16 500 8 3 24 --- 8
0 0
C-109 COMP 5000 7 3 21 5000 7 3 21 5800 7 4 28 --- 7 0 0
C-666 F/T --- 6 96 6 2 12 100 6
4 24 99 6
3 18
C-348 FLEX 930 5 2 10 750 5
1 5 1000 5
3 15 1180 5
4 20
93 112 167 65
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
OBJECTIVE DEFENDABLE SPECIFICATIONS When can/should it be used?
1 - Select Materials For Specific ProjectCards require both tactile response and
thought process by the specifier to determine best properties for application
under consideration
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
OBJECTIVE DEFENDABLE SPECIFICATIONS When can/should it be used?
2 - Evaluate Substitute Materials After Award
CSA MSC allows contractor to submit substitute material for evaluation after
project award with objective review based upon second forced ranking
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
OBJECTIVE DEFENDABLE SPECIFICATIONS When can/should it be used?
3 - Provide Traceability of Selection in Case of Litigation
Should a review of the material selection ever come into question, say in the case of
a “repair of the repair”, the specifier can provide an “objective” review of his
selection process.
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
OTHER APPLICATIONS
Selection Process is good for any class/set/group of materials that have
quantifiable test results based on a recognized set of standards.
THANK YOU
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
OBJECTIVE DEFENDABLE SPECIFICATIONS
CSA Material Selection Criteria ©’93
PROPERTY METHOD MAX. MINMFG
1W R T
MFG 2
W R TMFG
3W R T
MFG 4
W R T
10
10
10
10
9 9 9 9
8 8 8 8
7 7 7 7
6 6 6 6
5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4
3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1