Construction of a Bridge Floor Using High Range Water Reducer, Construction Report, HR-192, 1978

The use of a high range water reducer in bridge floors was initiated by an Iowa Highway Research Board project (HR-192) in 1977 for two basic reasons. One was to determine the feasibility of using a high range water reducer (HRWR) in bridge floor concrete using conventional concrete proportioning, transporting and finishing equipment. The second was to determine the performance and protective qualities against chloride intrusion of a dense concrete bridge floor by de-icing agents used on Iowa's highways during winter months. This project was basically intended to overcome some problems that developed in the original research project. The problems alluded to are the time limits from batching to finishing; use of a different type of finishing machine; need for supplemental vibration on the surface of the concrete during the screeding operation and difficulty of texturing. The use of a double oscillating screed finishing machine worked well and supplemental vibration on one of the screeds was not needed. The limit of 45 minutes from batching the concrete to placement on the deck was verified. This is a maximum when the HRWR is introduced at the batch plant. The problem of texturing was not solved completely but is similar to our problems on the dense "Iowa System" overlay used on bridge deck repair projects. This project reinforced some earlier doubts about using truck transit mixers for mixing and transporting concrete containing HRWR when introduced at the batch plant.

Protection of Structural Concrete Substructures, HR-220, Progress Report, 1984

The corrosion of reinforcing steel within concrete has always been a problem in construction of bridge decks. With low slump concrete and epoxy rebar, progress has been made in controlling the corrosion. There is concern, however, that the chloride also attacks the substructures, specifically the pier columns. They are subject to chloride attack by chemical deicers in the drainage from the bridge deck. Piers supporting grade separation bridges are also subject to chlorides contained in the direct splash from the lower level traffic. In this project, a field evaluation was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of commercially available products in preventing chloride intrusion.

Performance of Concrete Bridge Deck Overlays, HR-501, 1990

Chloride-ions penetrating into bridge decks and corroding the steel have been a major problem. As the steel corrodes it exerts stresses on the surrounding concrete. When the stresses exceed the strength of the concrete, cracks or delaminations occur. This, of course, causes deterioration and spalling of bridge deck surfaces. Both the Latex and Iowa Method were used to repair bridge decks for this project. The concrete was removed down to the steel and replaced with approximately 1 1/2 inches of low slump or latex modified concrete. The removal of unsound concrete below the top layer of steel was sometimes necessary. The objective of this project was to determine if the bridge overlays would provide a cost effective method of rehabilitation. To do this, unsound and delaminated concrete was removed and replaced by an overlay of low slump or latex modified concrete.

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.