Durable, Cost-Effective Pavement Markings Phase I: Synthesis of Current Research, June 2001

Pavement marking technology is a continually evolving subject. There are numerous types of materials used in the field today, including (but not limited to) paint, epoxy, tape, and thermoplastic. Each material has its own set of unique characteristics related to durability, retro reflectivity, installation cost, and life-cycle cost. The Iowa Highway Research Board was interested in investigating the possibility of developing an ongoing program to evaluate the various products used in pavement marking. This potential program would maintain a database of performance and cost information to assist state and local agencies in determining which materials and placement methods are most appropriate for their use. The Center for Transportation Research and Education at Iowa State University has completed Phase I of this research: to identify the current practice and experiences from around the United States to recommend a further course of action for the State of Iowa. There has been a significant amount of research completed in the last several years. Research from Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Ohio, and Alaska all had some common findings: white markings are more retro reflective than yellow markings; paint is by-and-large the least expensive material; paint tends to degrade faster than other materials; thermoplastic and tapes had higher retro reflective characteristics. Perhaps the most significant program going on in the area of pavement markings is the National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP). This is an ongoing research program jointly conducted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and its member states. Field and lab tests on numerous types of pavement marking materials are being conducted at sites representing four climatological areas. These results are published periodically for use by any jurisdiction interested in pavement marking materials performance.At this time, it is recommended that the State of Iowa not embark on a test deck evaluation program. Instead, close attention should be paid to the ongoing evaluations of the NTPEP program. Materials that fare well on the NTPEP test de cks should be considered for further field studies in Iowa.

Durable, Cost-Effective Pavement Markings Phase I: Synthesis of Current Reseaech, June 2001

Pavement marking technology is a continually evolving subject. There are numerous types of materials used in the field today, including (but not limited to) paint, epoxy, tape, and thermoplastic. Each material has its own set of unique characteristics related to durability, retroreflectivity, installation cost, and life-cycle cost. The Iowa Highway Research Board was interested in investigating the possibility of developing an ongoing program to evaluate the various products used in pavement marking. This potential program would maintain a database of performance and cost information to assist state and local agencies in determining which materials and placement methods are most appropriate for their use. The Center for Transportation Research and Education at Iowa State University has completed Phase I of this research: to identify the current practice and experiences from around the United States to recommend a further course of action for the State of Iowa. There has been a significant amount of research completed in the last several years. Research from Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Ohio, and Alaska all had some common findings: white markings are more retroreflective than yellow markings; paint is by-and-large the least expensive material; paint tends to degrade faster than other materials; thermoplastic and tapes had higher retroreflective characteristics. Perhaps the most significant program going on in the area of pavement markings is the National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP). This is an ongoing research program jointly conducted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and its member states. Field and lab tests on numerous types of pavement marking materials are being conducted at sites representing four climatological areas. These results are published periodically for use by any jurisdiction interested in pavement marking materials performance. At this time, it is recommended that the State of Iowa not embark on a test deck evaluation program. Instead, close attention should be paid to the ongoing evaluations of the NTPEP program. Materials that fare well on the NTPEP test de cks should be considered for further field studies in Iowa.

Water planning law and government.

Water planning efforts typically identify problems and needs. But simply calling attention to issues is usually not enough to spur action; the end result of many well-intentioned planning efforts is a report that ends up gathering dust on a shelf. Vague recommendations like “Water conservation measures should be implemented” usually accomplish little by themselves as they don’t assign responsibility to anyone. Success is more likely when an implementation strategy — who can and should do what — is developed as part of the planning process. The more detailed and specific the implementation strategy, the greater the chance that something will actually be done. The question then becomes who has the legal authority or responsibility to do what? Are new laws and programs needed or can existing ones be used to implement the recommendations? ... This document is divided into four main parts. The first, “Carrots and Sticks” looks at two basic approaches — regulatory and non-regulatory — that can be, and are, used to carry out water policy. Both have advantages and disadvantages that need to be considered. The second, “The powers of federal, state and local governments…,” looks at the constitutional powers the federal government and state and local governments have to carry out water policy. An initial look at the U. S. Constitution might suggest the federal government’s regulatory authority over water is limited but, in fact, its powers are very substantial. States have considerable authority to do a number of things but have to be mindful of any federal efforts that might conflict with those state efforts. And local governments can only do those things the state constitution or state legislature says they can do and must conform to any requirements or limitations on those powers that are contained in the enabling acts. Parts three and four examine in more detail the main programs and agencies at the federal level as well as Iowa’s state and local levels and the roles they play in national and state water policy.

Evaluation of Corrosion Resistance of Different Steel Reinforcement Types, 2006

The corrosion of steel reinforcement in an aging highway infrastructure is a major problem currently facing the transportation engineering community. In the United States alone, maintenance and replacement costs for deficient bridges are measured in billions of dollars. The application of corrosion-resistant steel reinforcement as an alternative reinforcement to existing mild steel reinforced concrete bridge decks has potential to mitigate corrosion problems, due to the fundamental properties associated with the materials. To investigate corrosion prevention through the use of corrosion-resistant alloys, the performance of corrosion resistance of MMFX microcomposite steel reinforcement, a high-strength, high-chromium steel reinforcement, was evaluated. The study consisted of both field and laboratory components conducted at the Iowa State University Bridge Engineering Center to determine whether MMFX reinforcement provides superior corrosion resistance to epoxy-coated mild steel reinforcement in bridge decks. Because definitive field evidence of the corrosion resistance of MMFX reinforcement may require several years of monitoring, strict attention was given to investigating reinforcement under accelerated conditions in the laboratory, based on typical ASTM and Rapid Macrocell accelerated corrosion tests. After 40 weeks of laboratory testing, the ASTM ACT corrosion potentials indicate that corrosion had not initiated for either MMFX or the as-delivered epoxy-coated reinforcement. Conversely, uncoated mild steel specimens underwent corrosion within the fifth week, while epoxy-coated reinforcement specimens with induced holidays underwent corrosion between 15 and 30 weeks. Within the fifth week of testing, the Rapid Macrocell ACT produced corrosion risk potentials that indicate active corrosion for all reinforcement types tested. While the limited results from the 40 weeks of laboratory testing may not constitute a prediction of life expectancy and life-cycle cost, a procedure is presented herein to determine life expectancy and associated life-cycle costs.