A Further Evaluation of Concrete Bridge Deck Surfacing in Iowa, MLR-79-1, 1979

The Iowa Department of Transportation has overlaid 446 bridge decks with low slump dense concrete from 1964 through October 1978. The overall performance of these decks has been satisfactory. Nineteen bridges that were resurfaced with either low slump dense concrete (LSDC) or latex-modified concrete were analyzed for chloride content, electrical corrosion potential, delaminations or debonding, and deck surface condition. The resurfacing ages of these bridges range from 5 to 13 years. None of the bridges showed any evidence of surface distress and the chloride penetration into the resurfacing concrete is relatively low. There are delaminations in the original decks below the resurfacing on the majority of bridges examined. The delaminations are concluded to be caused by either (A) reinforcing steel corrosion, (B) not removing all delaminated concrete prior to placing the resurfacing concrete, or (C) creating an incipient fracture in the top surf ace of the original deck through the use of scarification equipment. The active corrosion of the reinforcing steel is predominately in the gutter line on the majority of bridges evaluated. Recommendations for future deck repairs include removal of concrete to the top layer of reinforcing steel in areas where an electrical corrosion potential of -0.35V or more is detected, providing more positive methods of locating delaminated concrete, and treating the curb and gutter line to reduce the potential damage from salt water.

Mission-Oriented Dust Control and Surface Improvement Processes for Unpaved Roads, HR-194, 1981

Six subject areas prompted the broad field of inquiry of this mission-oriented dust control and surface improvement project for unpaved roads: • DUST--Hundreds of thousands of tons of dust are created annually by vehicles on Iowa's 70,000 miles of unpaved roads and streets. Such dust is often regarded as a nuisance by Iowa's highway engineers. • REGULATIONS--Establishment of "fugitive dust" regulations by the Iowa DEQ in 1971 has created debates, conferences, legal opinions, financial responsibilities, and limited compromises regarding "reasonable precaution" and "ordinary travel," both terms being undefined judgment factors. • THE PUBLIC--Increased awareness by the public that regulations regarding dust do in fact exist creates a discord of telephone calls, petitions, and increasing numbers of legal citations. Both engineers and politicians are frustrated into allowing either the courts or regulatory agencies to resolve what is basically a professional engineering responsibility. • COST--Economics seldom appear as a tenet of regulatory strategies, and in the case of "fugitive dust," four-way struggles often occur between the highway professions, political bodies, regulatory agencies, and the general public as to who is responsible, what can be done, how much it will cost, or why it wasn't done yesterday. • CONFUSION--The engineer lacks authority, and guidelines and specifications to design and construct a low-cost surf acing system are nebulous, i.e., construct something between the present crushed stone/gravel surface and a high-type pavement. • SOLUTION--The engineer must demonstrate that dust control and surface improvement may be engineered at a reasonable cost to the public, so that a higher degree of regulatory responsibility can be vested in engineering solutions.