Determination of entrance loss coefficients for pre-cast reinforced Concrete Box Culverts, December 2012

There is an increased interest in constructing Pre-Cast (PC) Twin and Triple Reinforced Concrete Box (RCB) culverts in Iowa due to the efficiency associated with their production in controlled environment and decrease of the construction time at the culvert sites. The design of the multi-barrel PC culverts is, however, based on guidelines for single-barrel cast-inplace (CIP) culverts despite that the PC and CIP culverts have different geometry. There is scarce information for multiplebarrel RCB culverts in general and even fewer on culverts with straight wingwalls as those designed by Iowa DOT. Overall, the transition from CIP to PC culverts requires additional information for improving the design specifications currently in use. Motivated by the need to fill these gaps, an experimental study was undertaken by IIHR-Hydroscience & Engineering. The goals of the study are to document flow performance curves and head losses at the culvert entrance for a various culvert geometry, flow conditions, and settings. The tests included single-, double- and triple-barrel PC and CIP culverts with two span-to-rise ratios set on mild and steep slopes. The tests also included optimization of the culvert geometry entrance by considering various configurations for the top bevel. The overall conclusion of the study is that by and large the current Iowa DOT design specifications for CIP culverts can be used for multi-barrel PC culvert design. For unsubmerged flow conditions the difference in the hydraulic performance curves and headloss coefficients for PC and CIP culverts are within the experimental uncertainty. Larger differences (specified by the study) are found for submerged conditions when the flow is increasingly constricted at the entrance in the culvert. The observed differentiation is less important for multi-barrel culverts as the influence of the wingwalls decreases with the increase of the number of barrels.

Reflective Crack Mitigation Guide for Flexible Pavements, TR-641, 2015

Reflective cracks form in pavements when hot-mix asphalt (HMA) overlays are placed over jointed and/or severely cracked rigid and flexible pavements. In the first part of the research, survival analysis was conducted to identify the most appropriate rehabilitation method for composite pavements and to evaluate the influence of different factors on reflective crack development. Four rehabilitation methods, including mill and fill, overlay, heater scarification (SCR), and rubblization, were analyzed using three performance indicators: reflective cracking, international roughness index (IRI), and pavement condition index (PCI). It was found that rubblization can significantly retard reflective cracking development compared to the other three methods. No significant difference for PCI was seen among the four rehabilitation methods. Heater scarification showed the lowest survival probability for both reflective cracking and IRI, while an overlay resulted in the poorest overall pavement condition based on PCI. In addition, traffic level was found not to be a significant factor for reflective cracking development. An increase in overlay thickness can significantly delay the propagation of reflective cracking for all four treatments. Soil types in rubblization pavement sites were assessed, and no close relationship was found between rubblized pavement performance and subgrade soil condition. In the second part of the research, the study objective was to evaluate the modulus and performance of four reflective cracking treatments: full rubblization, modified rubblization, crack and seat, and rock interlayer. A total of 16 pavement sites were tested by the surface wave method (SWM), and in the first four sites both falling weight deflectometer (FWD) and SWM were conducted for a preliminary analysis. The SWM gave close concrete layer moduli compared to the FWD moduli on a conventional composite pavement. However, the SWM provided higher moduli for the rubblized concrete layer. After the preliminary analysis, another 12 pavement sites were tested by the SWM. The results showed that the crack and seat method provided the highest moduli, followed by the modified rubblization method. The full rubblization and the rock interlayer methods gave similar, but lower, moduli. Pavement performance surveys were also conducted during the field study. In general, none of the pavement sites had rutting problems. The conventional composite pavement site had the largest amount of reflective cracking. A moderate amount of reflective cracking was observed for the two pavement sites with full rubblization. Pavements with the rock interlayer and modified rubblization treatments had much less reflective cracking. It is recommended that use of the modified rubblization and rock interlayer treatments for reflective cracking mitigation are best.