An Investigation of User Costs and Benefits of Winter Road Closures, June 2005

This project explores the user costs and benefits of winter road closures. Severe winter weather makes travel unsafe and dramatically increases crash rates. When conditions become unsafe due to winter weather, road closures should allow users to avoid crash costs and eliminate costs associated with rescuing stranded motorists. Therefore, the benefits of road closures are the avoided safety costs. The costs of road closures are the delays that are imposed on motorists and motor carriers who would have made the trip had the road not been closed. This project investigated the costs and benefits of road closures and found that evaluating the benefits and costs is not as simple as it appears. To better understand the costs and benefits of road closures, the project investigates the literature, conducts interviews with shippers and motor carriers, and conducts case studies of road closures to determine what actually occurred on roadways during closures. The project also estimates a statistical model that relates weather severity to crash rates. Although, the statistical model is intended to illustrate the possibility to quantitatively relate measurable and predictable weather conditions to the safety performance of a roadway. In the future, weather conditions such as snow fall intensity, visibility, etc., can be used to make objective measures of the safety performance of a roadway rather than relying on subjective evaluations of field staff. The review of the literature and the interviews clearly illustrate that not all delays (increased travel time) are valued the same. Expected delays (routine delays) are valued at the generalized costs (value of the driver’s time, fuel, insurance, wear and tear on the vehicle, etc.), but unexpected delays are valued much higher because they result in interruption of synchronous activities at the trip’s destination. To reduce the costs of delays resulting from road closures, public agencies should communicate as early as possible the likelihood of a road closure.

End of Life Conversations, October 2003

A short course designed for adult study groups Prepared by the Curriculum Task Force of the End-of-Life Care Coalition of Central Iowa

Laboratory Investigation of Concrete Beam-End Treatments, RB08-013, 2015

The ends of prestressed concrete beams under expansion joints are often exposed to moisture and chlorides. Left unprotected, the moisture and chlorides come in contact with the ends of the prestressing strands and/or the mild reinforcing, resulting in corrosion. Once deterioration begins, it progresses unless some process is employed to address it. Deterioration can lead to loss of bearing area and therefore a reduction in bridge capacity. Previous research has looked into the use of concrete coatings (silanes, epoxies, fiber-reinforced polymers, etc.) for protecting prestressed concrete beam ends but found that little to no laboratory research has been done related to the performance of these coatings in this specific type of application. The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) currently specifies coating the ends of exposed prestressed concrete beams with Sikagard 62 (a high-build, protective, solvent-free, epoxy coating) at the precast plant prior to installation on the bridge. However, no physical testing of Sikagard 62 in this application has been completed. In addition, the Iowa DOT continues to see deterioration in the prestressed concrete beam ends, even those treated with Sikagard 62. The goals of this project were to evaluate the performance of the Iowa DOT-specified beam-end coating as well as other concrete coating alternatives based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) T259-80 chloride ion penetration test and to test their performance on in-service bridges throughout the duration of the project. In addition, alternative beam-end forming details were developed and evaluated for their potential to mitigate and/or eliminate the deterioration caused by corrosion of the prestressing strands on prestressed concrete beam ends used in bridges with expansion joints. The alternative beam-end details consisted of individual strand blockouts, an individual blockout for a cluster of strands, dual blockouts for two clusters of strands, and drilling out the strands after they are flush cut. The goal of all of the forming alternatives was to offset the ends of the prestressing strands from the end face of the beam and then cover them with a grout/concrete layer, thereby limiting or eliminating their exposure to moisture and chlorides.