Evalution of Hot Mix Asphalt Moisture Sensitivity Using the Nottingham Asphalt Test Equipment, July 2005

Moisture sensitivity of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) mixtures, generally called stripping, is a major form of distress in asphalt concrete pavement. It is characterized by the loss of adhesive bond between the asphalt binder and the aggregate (a failure of the bonding of the binder to the aggregate) or by a softening of the cohesive bonds within the asphalt binder (a failure within the binder itself), both of which are due to the action of loading under traffic in the presence of moisture. The evaluation of HMA moisture sensitivity has been divided into two categories: visual inspection test and mechanical test. However, most of them have been developed in pre-Superpave mix design. This research was undertaken to develop a protocol for evaluating the moisture sensitivity potential of HMA mixtures using the Nottingham Asphalt Tester (NAT). The mechanisms of HMA moisture sensitivity were reviewed and the test protocols using the NAT were developed. Different types of blends as moisture-sensitive groups and non-moisture-sensitive groups were used to evaluate the potential of the proposed test. The test results were analyzed with three parameters based on performance character: the retained flow number depending on critical permanent deformation failure (RFNP), the retained flow number depending on cohesion failure (RFNC), and energy ratio (ER). Analysis based on energy ratio of elastic strain (EREE ) at flow number of cohesion failure (FNC) has higher potential to evaluate the HMA moisture sensitivity than other parameters. If the measurement error in data-acquisition process is removed, analyses based on RFNP and RFNC would also have high potential to evaluate the HMA moisture sensitivity. The vacuum pressure saturation used in AASHTO T 283 and proposed test has a risk to damage specimen before the load applying.

Laboratory Study of Structural Behavior of Alternative Dowel Bars, April 2006

Load transfer across transverse joints has always been a factor contributing to the useful life of concrete pavements. For many years, round steel dowels have been the conventional load transfer mechanism. Many problems have been associated with the round steel dowels. The most detrimental effect of the steel dowel is corrosion. Repeated loading over time also damages joints. When a dowel is repeatedly loaded over a long period of time, the high bearing stresses found at the top and bottom edge of a bar erode the surrounding concrete. This oblonging creates multiple problems in the joint. Over the past decade, Iowa State University has performed extensive research on new dowel shapes and materials to mitigate the effects of oblonging and corrosion. This report evaluates the bearing stress performance of six different dowel bar types subjected to two different shear load laboratory test methods. The first load test is the AASHTO T253 method. The second procedure is an experimental cantilevered dowel test. The major objective was to investigate and improve the current AASHTO T253 test method for determining the modulus of dowel support, k0. The modified AASHTO test procedure was examined alongside an experimental cantilever dowel test. The modified AASHTO specimens were also subjected to a small-scale fatigue test in order to simulate long-term dowel behavior with respect to concrete joint damage. Loss on ignition tests were also performed on the GFRP dowel specimens to determine the resin content percentage. The study concluded that all of the tested dowel bar shapes and materials were adequate with respect to performance under shear loading. The modified AASHTO method yielded more desirable results than the ones obtained from the cantilever test. The investigators determined that the experimental cantilever test was not a satisfactory test method to replace or verify the AASHTO T253 method.

Guide to Dowel Load Transfer Systems for Jointed Concrete Roadway Pavements, September 2011

This guide provides a summary of the factors and design theories that should be considered when designing dowel load transfer systems for concrete pavement systems (including dowel basket design and fabrication) and presents recommendations for widespread adoption (i.e., standardization). Development of the guide was sponsored by the National Concrete Consortium with the goal of helping practitioners develop and implement dowel load transfer designs based on knowledge about current research and best practices.

Evaluation of Hot Mix Asphalt Moisture Sensitivity Using the Nottingham Asphalt Test Equipment, July 2005

Moisture sensitivity of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) mixtures, generally called stripping, is a major form of distress in asphalt concrete pavement. It is characterized by the loss of adhesive bond between the asphalt binder and the aggregate (a failure of the bonding of the binder to the aggregate) or by a softening of the cohesive bonds within the asphalt binder (a failure within the binder itself), both of which are due to the action of loading under traffic in the presence of moisture. The evaluation of HMA moisture sensitivity has been divided into two categories: visual inspection test and mechanical test. However, most of them have been developed in pre-Superpave mix design. This research was undertaken to develop a protocol for evaluating the moisture sensitivity potential of HMA mixtures using the Nottingham Asphalt Tester (NAT). The mechanisms of HMA moisture sensitivity were reviewed and the test protocols using the NAT were developed. Different types of blends as moisture-sensitive groups and non-moisture-sensitive groups were used to evaluate the potential of the proposed test. The test results were analyzed with three parameters based on performance character: the retained flow number depending on critical permanent deformation failure (RFNP), the retained flow number depending on cohesion failure (RFNC), and energy ratio (ER). Analysis based on energy ratio of elastic strain (EREE ) at flow number of cohesion failure (FNC) has higher potential to evaluate the HMA moisture sensitivity than other parameters. If the measurement error in data-acquisition process is removed, analyses based on RFNP and RFNC would also have high potential to evaluate the HMA moisture sensitivity. The vacuum pressure saturation used in AASHTO T 283 and proposed test has a risk to damage specimen before the load applying.

Concrete Pavement Construction Basics, June 2006

General principles • Everyone at the construction site, particularly foremen and supervisors, is responsible for recognizing and troubleshooting potential problems as they arise. • Batches of concrete should be consistent and uniformly mixed. • A major cause of pavement failure is unstable subgrade. The subgrade should consist of uniform material, and the subgrade system must drain well. • Dowel bars are important for load transfer at transverse joints on pavements with high truck volumes. Dowels must be carefully aligned, horizontally and vertically, to prevent pavement damage at the joints. • Stringlines control the slipform paver’s horizontal and vertical movement and ensure a smooth pavement profile. Once stringlines are set, they should be checked often and not disturbed. • Overfinishing the new pavement and/or adding water to the surface can lead to pavement surface problems. If the concrete isn’t sufficiently workable, crews should contact the project manager. Changes to the mixture or to paver equipment may reduce the problem. • Proper curing is critical to preventing pavement damage from rapid moisture loss at the pavement surface. • A well spaced and constructed system of joints is critical to prevent random cracking. • Joints are simply controlled cracks. They must be sawed during the brief time after the pavement has gained enough strength to prevent raveling but before it begins to crack randomly (the “sawing window”). • Seasonal and daily weather variations affect setting time and other variables in new concrete. Construction operations should be adjusted appropriately.

Load Ratings For Secondary Bridges Final Report Highway Research Advisory Board Project HR-239, May 1991

Load Rating: . , :Evaluation of the capacity of a bridge to carry vehicle Inventory Rating: Lbad level which can safely utilize the bridge for an indefinite period of time Operating Rating: Absolute maximum permissible load level for the bridge A load rating states the load in tons which a vehicle can impose on a bridge. Changes in guidelines, standards, and customary uses of bridges require analyses of bridges to be updated and re-evaluated. In this report, twenty-two secondary bridge standards for three types of bridges are rated for the AASHTO HS20-44 vehicle configuration and three typical Iowa legal vehicles

Development of LRFD Procedures for Bridge Pile Foundations in Iowa: Volume I: An Electronic Database for PIle LOad Tests, September 2011

• Examine current pile design and construction procedures used by the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT). • Recommend changes and improvements to these procedures that are consistent with available pile load test data, soils information, and bridge design practice recommended by the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) approach.

Demonstration of Load Rating Capabilities through Physical Load Testing: Sioux County Bridge Case Study, RB32-013, 2013

The objective of this work, Pilot Project - Demonstration of Capabilities and Benefits of Bridge Load Rating through Physical Testing, was to demonstrate the capabilities for load testing and rating bridges in Iowa, study the economic benefit of performing such testing, and perform outreach to local, state, and national engineers on the topic of bridge load testing and rating. This report documents one of three bridges inspected, load tested, and load rated as part of the project, the Sioux County Bridge (FHWA #308730), including testing procedures and performance of the bridge under static loading along with the calculated load rating from the field-calibrated analytical model. Two parallel reports document the testing and load rating of the Ida County Bridge (FHWA #186070) and the Johnson County Bridge (FHWA #205750). A tech brief provides overall information about the project.

Demonstration of Load Rating Capabilities through Physical Load Testing: Ida County Bridge Case Study, RB32-013, 2013

The objective of this work, Pilot Project - Demonstration of Capabilities and Benefits of Bridge Load Rating through Physical Testing, was to demonstrate the capabilities for load testing and rating bridges in Iowa, study the economic benefit of performing such testing, and perform outreach to local, state, and national engineers on the topic of bridge load testing and rating. This report documents one of three bridges inspected, load tested, and load rated as part of the project, the Ida County Bridge (FHWA #186070), including testing procedures and performance of the bridge under static loading along with the calculated load rating from the field-calibrated analytical model. Two parallel reports document the testing and load rating of the Sioux County Bridge (FHWA #308730) and the Johnson County Bridge (FHWA #205750). A tech brief provides overall information about the project.

Demonstration of Load Rating Capabilities through Physical Load Testing: Johnson County Bridge Case Study, RB32-013, 2013

The objective of this work, Pilot Project - Demonstration of Capabilities and Benefits of Bridge Load Rating through Physical Testing, was to demonstrate the capabilities for load testing and rating bridges in Iowa, study the economic benefit of performing such testing, and perform outreach to local, state, and national engineers on the topic of bridge load testing and rating. This report documents one of three bridges inspected, load tested, and load rated as part of the project, the Johnson County Bridge (FHWA #205750), including testing procedures and performance of the bridge under static loading along with the calculated load rating from the field-calibrated analytical model. Two parallel reports document the testing and load rating of the Sioux County Bridge (FHWA #308730) and the Ida County Bridge (FHWA #186070). A tech brief provides overall information about the project.

Pilot Project - Demonstration of Load Rating Capabilities through Physical Load Testing: Tech Transfer Summary, RB32-013, 2013

This project demonstrated the capabilities for load testing bridges in Iowa, developed and presented a webinar to local and state engineers, and produced a spreadsheet and benefit evaluation matrix that others can use to preliminarily assess where bridge testing may be economically feasible given truck traffic and detour lengths.

Demonstration of Load Rating Capabilities through Physical Load Testing (4 vol), RB32-013, 2013

The objective of this work, Pilot Project - Demonstration of Capabilities and Benefits of Bridge Load Rating through Physical Testing, was to demonstrate the capabilities for load testing and rating bridges in Iowa, study the economic benefit of performing such testing, and perform outreach to local, state, and national engineers on the topic of bridge load testing and rating. The three final reports document one each of three bridges inspected, load tested, and load rated as part of the project. The bridges include the Sioux County Bridge (FHWA #308730), the Ida County Bridge (FHWA #186070), and the Johnson County Bridge (FHWA #205750). Actions included testing procedures and performance of the bridge under static loading along with the calculated load rating from the field-calibrated analytical model. A Tech Transfer Summary provides overall information about the project.

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.

Load Ratings for Standard Bridges, HR-239 Phase IV, 2008

In this report, sixteen secondary and primary bridge standards for two types of bridges are rated for AASHTO HS20-44 vehicle configuration utilizing Load Factor methodology. The ratings apply only to those bridges which: (1) are built according to the applicable bridge standard plans, (2) have no structural deterioration or damage, and (3) have no added wearing surface in excess of one-half inch integral wearing surface.

Load Ratings for Standard Bridges, HR-239 Phase III, 1998

In this report, 25 secondary bridge standards for three types of bridges are rated for the AASHTO HS20-44 vehicle configuration and five typical Iowa legal vehicles. The ratings apply only to those bridges which: (1) are built according to the applicable bridge standard plans, (2) have no structural deterioration or damage, and (3) have no added wearing surface in excess of 0.5-in. (1.27-cm) integral wearing surface. Appendix A contains the results of the original October 1982 report on load ratings for standard bridges.