Maintenance and Design of Steel Abutment Piles in Iowa Bridges, TR-622, 2014

Soil consolidation and erosion caused by roadway runoff have exposed the upper portions of steel piles at the abutments of numerous bridges, leaving them susceptible to accelerated corrosion rates due to the abundance of moisture, oxygen, and chlorides at these locations. This problem is compounded by the relative inaccessibility of abutment piles for close-up inspection and repair. The objective of this study was to provide bridge owners with recommendations for effective methods of addressing corrosion of steel abutment piles in existing and future bridges A review of available literature on the performance and protection of steel piles exposed to a variety of environments was performed. Eight potential coating systems for use in protecting existing and/or new piles were selected and subjected to accelerated corrosion conditions in the laboratory. Two surface preparation methods were evaluated in the field and three coating systems were installed on three piles at an existing bridge where abutment piles had been exposed by erosion. In addition, a passive cathodic protection (CP) system using sacrificial zinc anodes was tested in the laboratory. Several trial flowable mortar mixes were evaluated for use in conjunction with the CP system. For existing abutment piles, application of a protective coating system is a promising method of mitigating corrosion. Based on its excellent performance in accelerated corrosion conditions in the laboratory on steel test specimens with SSPC-SP3, -SP6, and -SP10 surface preparations, glass flake polyester is recommended for use on existing piles. An alternative is epoxy over organic zinc rich primer. Surface preparation of existing piles should include abrasive blast cleaning to SSPC-SP6. Although additional field testing is needed, based on the results of the laboratory testing, a passive CP system could provide an effective means of protecting piles in existing bridges when combined with a pumped mortar used to fill voids between the abutment footing and soil. The addition of a corrosion inhibitor to the mortar appears to be beneficial. For new construction, shop application of thermally sprayed aluminum or glass flake polyester to the upper portion of the piles is recommended.

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.

Demonstration and Field Evaluation of Alternative Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Reinforcement Materials, Construction Report, HR-1069, 1998

The function of dowel bars is the transfer of a load across the transverse joint from one pavement slab to the adjoining slab. In the past, these transfer mechanisms have been made of steel. However, pavement damage such as loss of bonding, deterioration, hollowing, cracking and spalling start to occur when the dowels begin to corrode. A significant amount of research has been done to evaluate alternative types of materials for use in the reinforcement of concrete pavements. Initial findings have indicated that stainless steel and fiber composite materials possess properties, such as flexural strength and corrosion resistance, that are equivalent to the Department of Transportation specifications for standard steel, 1 1/2 inch diameter dowel bars. Several factors affect the load transfer of dowels; these include diameter, alignment, grouting, bonding, spacing, corrosion resistance, joint spacing, slab thickness and dowel embedment length. This research is directed at the analysis of load transfer based on material type and dowel spacing. Specifically, this research is directed at analyzing the load transfer characteristics of: (a) 8-inch verses 12-inch spacing, and (b) alternative dowel material compared to epoxy coated steel dowels, will also be analyzed. This report documents the installation of the test sections, placed in 1997. Dowel material type and location are identified. Construction observations and limitations with each dowel material are shown.

High Molecular Weight Methacrylate Sealing of a Bridge Deck, HR-2031, Construction Report, 1988

The Iowa Department of Transportation used a high molecular weight methacrylate (HMWM) resin to seal a 3,340 ft. x 64 ft. bridge deck in October 1986. The sealing was necessary to prevent deicing salt brine from entering a substantial number of transverse cracks that coincided with the epoxy coated top steel and unprotected bottom steel. HMWM resin is a three component product composed of a monomer, a curnene hydroperoxide initiator and a cobalt naphthenate promoter. The HMWM was applied with a dual spray bar system and flat-fan nozzles. Initiated monomer delivered through one spray bar was mixed in the air with promoted monomer from the other spray bar. The application rate averaged 0.956 gallons per 100 square feet for the tined textured driving lanes. Dry sand was broadcast on the surface at an average coverage of 0.58 lbs. per square yard to maintain friction. Coring showed that the H.MWM resin penetrated the cracks more than two inches deep. Testing of the treated deck yielded Friction Numbers averaging 33 with a treaded tire compared to 36 prior to treatment. An inspection soon after treatment found five leaky cracks in one of the 15 spans. One inspection during a steady rain showed no leakage, but leakage from numerous cracks occurred during a subsequent rain. A second HMWM application was made on two spans to determine if a double application would prevent leakage. This evaluation has not been completed.