Evaluation of Multiple Corrosion Protection Systems for Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks

Evaluation of Multiple Corrosion Protection Systems for Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks
Author: Matthew O'Reilly
Publisher:
Total Pages: 522
Release: 2011
Genre: Concrete bridges
ISBN:

"The performance of corrosion protection systems for reinforcing steel in concrete is evaluated. In addition to conventional and conventional epoxy-coated reinforcement, the corrosion protection systems tested include epoxy coatings with improved adhesion to the underlying steel, conventional and conventional epoxy-coated reinforcement used in conjunction with concrete containing one of three corrosion inhibitors, DCI-S, Rheocrete 222+, or Hycrete, epoxy-coated reinforcement with a microencapsulated calcium nitrite primer, multiple-coated reinforcement with a layer of zinc between the epoxy and steel, and pickled 2205 duplex stainless steel. The systems are evaluated using bench-scale and field tests. Two bridges in Kansas, cast with 2205 stainless steel, are monitored using corrosion potential mapping. Epoxy-coated and multiplecoated bars are evaluated to determine the effect of corrosion loss and time on the disbondment of the epoxy coating. Conventional, galvanized, and epoxy-coated reinforcement are evaluated using impressed current to determine the corrosion loss required to crack concrete for each system. A finite element model is developed to represent general and localized corrosion, and the results are used to develop a relationship between concrete cover, bar diameter, and area of bar corroding, and the corrosion loss required to crack concrete. An analysis of pore solutions expressed from cement pastes containing corrosion inhibitors is performed, with pH and selected ion concentrations measured from solutions collected one and seven days after casting. The results obtained from bench-scale and field test specimens are used to estimate cost effectiveness for each system under a 75-year service life. The results show epoxy coatings significantly reduce the corrosion rate compared to conventional reinforcement. Corrosion inhibitors significantly reduce corrosion rates in uncracked concrete. In cracked concrete, corrosion inhibitors also reduce corrosion rates, but their relative effectiveness is reduced. Specimens containing Hycrete exhibit the lowest corrosion rates; however, field specimens containing Hycrete also show signs of scaling. Epoxies with improved adhesion exhibit no improvement over conventional epoxy-coated reinforcement in terms of corrosion rate or disbondment of the epoxy coating. Multiple-coated reinforcement exhibits significantly less disbondment than epoxy-coated reinforcement. Pickled 2205 reinforcement exhibits the least corrosion among all systems tested. Testing of conventional and galvanized reinforcement indicates galvanized reinforcement requires more than twice as much corrosion loss to crack the surrounding concrete compared to conventional reinforcement."--Technical report documentation page.

Corrosion Protection of Reinforcing Steels

Corrosion Protection of Reinforcing Steels
Author: fib Fédération internationale du béton
Publisher: fib Fédération internationale du béton
Total Pages: 123
Release: 2009-01-01
Genre: Technology & Engineering
ISBN: 2883940894

It has long been recognised that corrosion of steel is extremely costly and affects many industry sectors, including concrete construction. The cost of corrosion of steel reinforcement within concrete is estimated at many billions of dollars worldwide. The corrosion of steel reinforcement represents a deterioration of the steel which in turn detrimentally affects its performance and therefore that of the concrete element within which it has been cast. A great amount of work has been undertaken over the years concerning the prevention of corrosion of steel, including the application of coatings, which has included the study of the process of corrosion itself, the properties of reinforcing steels and their resistance to corrosion as well as the design of structures and the construction process. The objective of fib Bulletin 49 is to provide readers with an appreciation of the principles of corrosion of reinforcing steel embedded in concrete and to describe the behaviour of particular steels and their coatings as used to combat the effects of such corrosion. These include galvanised reinforcement, epoxy coated reinforcement, and stainless reinforcing steel. It also provides information on the relative costs of the materials and products which it covers. It does not deal with structure design or the process of construction or with the post-construction phase of structure management including repair. It is hoped that it will nevertheless increase the understanding of readers in the process of corrosion of reinforcing steels and the ability of key materials and processes to reduce its harmful effects.

Investigation of Field Corrosion Performance and Bond/Development Length of Galvanized Reinforcing Steel

Investigation of Field Corrosion Performance and Bond/Development Length of Galvanized Reinforcing Steel
Author: Phares Brent
Publisher:
Total Pages: 39
Release: 2014
Genre: Buchanan County (Iowa)
ISBN:

In reinforced concrete systems, ensuring that a good bond between the concrete and the embedded reinforcing steel is critical to long-term structural performance. Without good bond between the two, the system simply cannot behave as intended. The bond strength of reinforcing bars is a complex interaction between localized deformations, chemical adhesion, and other factors. Coating of reinforcing bars, although sometimes debated, has been commonly found to be an effective way to delay the initiation of corrosion in reinforced concrete systems. For many years, the standard practice has been to coat reinforcing steel with an epoxy coating, which provides a barrier between the steel and the corrosive elements of water, air, and chloride ions. Recently, there has been an industry-led effort to use galvanizing to provide the protective barrier commonly provided by traditional epoxy coatings. However, as with any new structural product, questions exist regarding both the structural performance and corrosion resistance of the system. In the fall of 2013, Buchanan County, Iowa constructed a demonstration bridge in which the steel girders and all internal reinforcing steel were galvanized. The work completed in this project sought to understand the structural performance of galvanized reinforcing steel as compared to epoxy-coated steel and to initiate a long-term corrosion monitoring program. This work consisted of a series of controlled laboratory tests and the installation of a corrosion monitoring system that can be observed for years in the future. The results of this work indicate there is no appreciable difference between the bond strength of epoxy-coated reinforcing steel and galvanized reinforcing steel. Although some differences were observed, no notable difference in either peak load, slip, or failure mode could be identified. Additionally, a long-term monitoring system was installed in this Buchanan County bridge and, to date, no corrosion activity has been identified.

Field Performance of Epoxy-coated Reinforcing Steel in Virginia Bridge Decks

Field Performance of Epoxy-coated Reinforcing Steel in Virginia Bridge Decks
Author:
Publisher:
Total Pages: 38
Release: 2000
Genre: Concrete bridges
ISBN:

In this study, the corrosion protection performance of epoxy-coated reinforcing steel (ECR) was evaluated using approximately 250 concrete cores from 18 bridge decks in Virginia. The decks were 2 to 20 years old at the time of the investigation. The deck field inspections included a crack survey and cover depth determination in the right traffic lane. A maximum of 12 cores with the top reinforcement randomly located in the lowest 12th percentile cover depth were taken from each bridge deck. Because of the safety concerns associated with taking cores from the lower steel mat, and to minimize damage to the bridge, a maximum of only 3 cores were taken through the truss bars. The laboratory evaluation of the concrete cores included a visual examination and a determination of the carbonation depth, moisture content, absorption, percent saturation, and chloride content at a 13-mm depth. The rapid chloride permeability test was also performed for the surface and base concrete on samples obtained from the cores taken through the truss bars to determine chloride permeability. The ECR inspection consisted of a visual examination, a damage evaluation, and a determination of coating thickness and adhesion. The condition of the steel underneath the epoxy coating was also evaluated. Adhesion loss of the epoxy coating to the steel surface was detected in all but one deck that was 4 years old and older. The epoxy coatings were debonding from the reinforcing bars. Whereas a bonded coating can be expected to protect the steel, a debonded coating allows chlorides, moisture, and oxygen to reach the steel and initiate a rapid corrosion mechanism. Reinforcing bars in various stages of adhesion loss showed visible signs of a corrosion process underneath the coating, suggesting that ECR will provide little or no additional service life for concrete bridge decks in comparison to bare steel. Other systems that will provide longer protection against chloride-induced corrosion of the reinforcing steel with a higher degree of reliability should be considered.

Multiple Corrosion Protection Systems for Reinforced Concrete Bridge Components

Multiple Corrosion Protection Systems for Reinforced Concrete Bridge Components
Author:
Publisher:
Total Pages: 260
Release: 2011
Genre: Concrete bridges
ISBN:

Eleven systems containing epoxy-coated reinforcement (ECR) in combination with another corrosion-protection system are evaluated using the rapid macrocell, southern exposure, cracked beam, linear polarization resistance, and field tests. The systems include bars pretreated with zinc chromate to improve the adhesion between the epoxy and the reinforcing steel, two epoxies with improved adhesion to the reinforcing steel, one inorganic corrosion inhibitor (calcium nitrite), two organic corrosion inhibitors (Rheocrete® 222+ and HycreteTM), an epoxy-coated bar with a primer containing microencapsulated calcium nitrite, three epoxy-coated bars with improved adhesion combined with the corrosion inhibitor calcium nitrite, and multiple-coated (MC) bars with an initial 50-microm (2-mil) coating of 98 percent zinc and 2 percent aluminum followed by a conventional epoxy coating. The systems are compared with conventional uncoated reinforcement and conventional ECR. The coatings on all bars are penetrated to simulate the effects of damage during fabrication and placement in the field. The results presented in this report indicate that the coated bars provide superior corrosion protection to the reinforcing steel and that bars with damaged coatings initiate corrosion at chloride contents within concrete that are several times greater and corrode at rates that are typically two orders of magnitude below those exhibited by conventional reinforcement. Limited additional protection is achieved using bars with the primer coating, MC bars, and concrete containing the corrosion inhibitors calcium nitrite and one of the organic corrosion inhibitors, although the latter resulted in reduced compressive strength and reduced resistance to surface scaling. The differences in costs over a 75-year design life are relatively small for coated bars. Cracks in concrete directly over and parallel to the reinforcement, such as found in bridge decks, result in earlier corrosion initiation and higher corrosion rates than obtained with intact concrete for all systems. Epoxies that provide initially high adhesion to the underlying steel provide no advantage over conventional epoxy coatings. All coated bars that were evaluated exhibited corrosion losses at openings through the coating. A reduction in adhesion between an epoxy coating and the reinforcing steel occurs after a period of exposure to corrosive conditions. This reduction increases with increasing chloride content in the concrete and in the presence of cracks and decreases with the use of corrosion inhibitors, with the use of MC reinforcement, and with electrical isolation of the epoxy-coated bars from each other. Corrosion products form under the coating where adhesion has been reduced. For periods up to five years under exposure conditions representative of those in bridge decks, the reduction in adhesion between an epoxy coating and the reinforcing steel did not affect the rate at which coated bars corrode.

Service Life Extension of Virginia Bridge Decks Afforded by Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement

Service Life Extension of Virginia Bridge Decks Afforded by Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement
Author: MC. Brown
Publisher:
Total Pages: 13
Release: 2006
Genre: Concrete
ISBN:

A study was conducted on concrete core samples each containing a single top-mat reinforcing steel bar from ten bridge decks in Virginia. Two of the bridges contained conventional, uncoated mild reinforcing steel (Bare), and eight of the bridges were constructed with epoxy-coated reinforcement (ECR). The bridges ranged in age from 4 to 18 years, and were built under same specifications for concrete water-to-cement ratio (w/c) and cover depth. In the laboratory, the subject cores were prepared and corrosion activity was monitored via electrochemical impedance spectroscopy while subject to cyclic ponding of a 3 % NaCl solution over a 22-month exposure period. The relative corrosion performance of the Bare and ECR bars were evaluated, by comparison of the time to corrosion initiation and time to failure, as designated by visible cracking of the concrete cover. A stochastic model was employed, using bootstrap resampling techniques, to project the corrosion protection service life extension provided by epoxy-coated reinforcement as compared to Bare steel for the population of Virginia bridge decks. Less than 25 % of all Virginia bridge decks built under specifications in place since 1981 were projected to corrode sufficiently to require rehabilitation within 100 years, regardless of bar type. The corrosion service life extension attributable to ECR in bridge decks was found to be approximately 5 years beyond that of Bare steel.