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.

Fly Ash Affect on Alkali-Aggregate Reactivity, MLR-88-7, 1989

Cement-aggregate reactions were first reported in the 1940's. Depletion of quality aggregate, changes in cement and the use of fly ash make cement-aggregate reactions a problem still today. This latest research into alkali-aggregate reactivity was initiated to evaluate the new ASTM style test containers and evaluate the effect of Class C fly ash on the expansive reaction. Three aggregates were tested in combination with three cements and three fly ashes available in Iowa. Thirty-six combinations were made and tested over a six-month period. The conclusions were: (1) the new style ASTM containers were much more effective than the containers used by the Iowa DOT in the past; (2) some mixes with 15 percent Class C fly ash had increased expansion over comparative mixes without fly ash; and (3) the Oreapolis #8 pit did not appear to have an alkali-silica reaction problem based on this testing and earlier reported testing.

Special Report on Alkali-Aggregate Reactivity in Iowa, MLR-80-03, 1980

The purpose of this investigation was to obtain information relative to the alkali-silica reaction in Iowa aggregates. Of particular concern were those aggregates in southwestern Iowa thought to be potentially alkali reactive. Further, should those aggregates have proven to be alkali-reactive, at what cement alkali content could these aggregates be considered to be deleteriously reactive? If the aggregates were proven to be reactive, what types of effects might show up in a structure in which an alkali-silica reaction has occurred? Also, what environmental conditions would cause the reaction? Finally, based on the information obtained from the investigation, would it be possible to raise the cement alkali content specifications? Would the Iowa DOT eliminate the alkali content limits altogether except for cement used with reactive aggregate in the same manner as AASHTO or ASTM? Also, would there be any other side effects that might occur as the result of using high alkali-cement?