Tree and Brush Control For County Road Right-of-Way, Ocotober 2002

This manual summarizes the roadside tree and brush control methods used by all of Iowa's 99 counties. It is based on interviews conducted in Spring 2002 with county engineers, roadside managers and others. The target audience of this manual is the novice county engineer or roadside manager. Iowa law is nearly silent on roadside tree and brush control, so individual counties have been left to decide on the level of control they want to achieve and maintain. Different solutions have been developed but the goal of every county remains the same: to provide safe roads for the traveling public. Counties in eastern and southern Iowa appear to face the greatest brush control challenge. Most control efforts can be divided into two categories: mechanical and chemical. Mechanical control includes cutting tools and supporting equipment. A chain saw is the most widely used cutting tool. Tractor mounted boom mowers and brush cutters are used to prune miles of brush but have significant safety and aesthetic limitations and boom mowers are easily broken by inexperienced operators. The advent of tree shears and hydraulic thumbs offer unprecedented versatility. Bulldozers are often considered a method of last resort since they reduce large areas to bare ground. Any chipper that violently grabs brush should not be used. Chemical control is the application of herbicide to different parts of a plant: foliar spray is applied to leaves; basal bark spray is applied to the tree trunk; a cut stump treatment is applied to the cambium ring of a cut surface. There is reluctance by many to apply herbicide into the air due to drift concerns. One-third of Iowa counties do not use foliar spray. By contrast, several accepted control methods are directed toward the ground. Freshly cut stumps should be treated to prevent resprouting. Basal bark spray is highly effective in sensitive areas such as near houses. Interest in chemical control is slowly increasing as herbicides and application methods are refined. Fall burning, a third, distinctly separate technique is underused as a brush control method and can be effective if timed correctly. In all, control methods tend to reflect agricultural patterns in a county. The use of chain saws and foliar sprays tends to increase in counties where row crops predominate, and boom mowing tends to increase in counties where grassland predominates. For counties with light to moderate roadside brush, rotational maintenance is the key to effective control. The most comprehensive approach to control is to implement an integrated roadside vegetation management (IRVM) program. An IRVM program is usually directed by a Roadside Manager whose duties may be shared with another position. Funding for control programs comes from the Rural Services Basic portion of a county's budget. The average annual county brush control budget is about $76,000. That figure is thought not to include shared expenses such as fuel and buildings. Start up costs for an IRVM program are less if an existing control program is converted. In addition, IRVM budgets from three different northeastern Iowa counties are offered for comparison in this manual. The manual also includes a chapter on temporary traffic control in rural work zones, a summary of the Iowa Code as it relates to brush control, and rules on avoiding seasonal disturbance of the endangered Indiana bat. Appendices summarize survey and forest cover data, an equipment inventory, sample forms for record keeping, a sample brush control policy, a few legal opinions, a literature search, and a glossary.

Heat Dissipation and Crack Control in Massive Concrete at the Burlington Bridge, MLR-94-1, 1995

The large concrete placements at the Burlington Bridge were expected to cause great temperature differentials within the individual placements. In an attempt to reduce cracking due to the large temperature differentials, the Iowa Department of Transportation required that contractors continuously monitor the temperatures and temperature differentials in the concrete placement to assure that the temperature differentials did not exceed 35 deg F. It was felt that if temperature differentials remained below 35 deg F, cracking would be minimized. The following is a summary of the background of the project, and what occurred during individual concrete placements. The following conclusions were drawn: 1) Side temperatures are cooler and more greatly affected by ambient air temperatures; 2) When the 35 deg F limit was exceeded, it was almost exclusively the center to side differential; 3) The top temperature increases substantially when a new pour is placed; 4) The use of ice and different cement types did seem to affect the overall temperature gain and the amount of time taken for any one placement to reach a peak, but did not necessarily prevent the differentials from exceeding the 35 deg F limit, nor prevent cracking in any placement; and 5) Larger placements have a greater tendency to exceed the differential limit.

Development of LRFD Procedures for Bridge Pile Foundations in Iowa Volume III: Recommended Resistance Factors with Consideration of Construction Control and Setup, TR-584, 2012

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) mandated utilizing the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) approach for all new bridges initiated in the United States after October 1, 2007. As a result, there has been a progressive move among state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) toward an increased use of the LRFD in geotechnical design practices. For the above reasons, the Iowa Highway Research Board (IHRB) sponsored three research projects: TR-573, TR-583 and TR-584. The research information is summarized in the project web site (http://srg.cce.iastate.edu/lrfd/). Two reports of total four volumes have been published. Report volume I by Roling et al. (2010) described the development of a user-friendly and electronic database (PILOT). Report volume II by Ng et al. (2011) summarized the 10 full-scale field tests conducted throughout Iowa and data analyses. This report presents the development of regionally calibrated LRFD resistance factors for bridge pile foundations in Iowa based on reliability theory, focusing on the strength limit states and incorporating the construction control aspects and soil setup into the design process. The calibration framework was selected to follow the guidelines provided by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), taking into consideration the current local practices. The resistance factors were developed for general and in-house static analysis methods used for the design of pile foundations as well as for dynamic analysis methods and dynamic formulas used for construction control. The following notable benefits to the bridge foundation design were attained in this project: 1) comprehensive design tables and charts were developed to facilitate the implementation of the LRFD approach, ensuring uniform reliability and consistency in the design and construction processes of bridge pile foundations; 2) the results showed a substantial gain in the factored capacity compared to the 2008 AASHTO-LRFD recommendations; and 3) contribution to the existing knowledge, thereby advancing the foundation design and construction practices in Iowa and the nation.