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.

Field Evaluation of Elliptical Steel Dowel Performance, 2006

Joints are always a concern in the construction and long-term performance of concrete pavements. Research has shown that we need some type of positive load transfer across transverse joints. The same research has directed pavement designers to use round dowels spaced at regular intervals across the transverse joint to distribute the vehicle loads both longitudinally and transversely across the joint. The goal is to reduce bearing stresses on the dowels and the two pavement slab edges and erosion of the underlying surface, hence improved long-term joint and pavement structure performance. Road salts cause metal corrosion in doweled joints, excessive bearing stresses hollow dowel ends, and construction processes are associated with cracking pavement at the end of dowels. Dowels are also a cost factor in the pavement costs when joint spacing is reduced to control curling and warping distress in pavements. Designers desire to place adequate numbers of dowels spaced at the proper locations to handle the anticipated loads and bearing stresses for the design life of the pavement. This interim report is the second of three reports on the evaluation of elliptical steel dowels. This report consists of an update on the testing and performance of the various shapes and sizes of dowels. It also documents the results of the first series of performance surveys and draws interim conclusions about the performance of various bar shapes, sizes, spacings, and basket configurations. In addition to the study of elliptical steel dowel performance, fiber reinforced polymers (FRP) are also tested as elliptical dowel material (in contrast to steel) on a section of the highway construction north of the elliptical steel test sections.

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.