Evaluation of Rapid Determination of the Chloride Permeability of Portland Cement Concrete by AASHTO T277-83, MLR-86-11, 1987

An Iowa D.O.T. Laboratory built machine was constructed for the chloride permeability testing of concrete by measuring electric current through a specimen between a salt solution and a base solution. This study had two purposes. The first was to evaluate the machine's performance. To do this, three concrete mixes were made consisting of different cement factors and water/cement ratios. Each mix was tested for chloride ion content by the 90- day salt ponding method and for chloride permeability at a 28-day cure by the permeability machine. The results from each test were evaluated to see if there was correlation between chloride ion content and the chloride permeability. It was determined that there was a correlation and that the permeability machine was satisfactory for determining chloride permeability in concrete. The second purpose of this study was to examine the effects that pozzolans have on the chloride permeability of concrete. Four mixes were made: one without any pozzolans as a control, one with class C fly ash, one with class F fly ash, and one with silica fume. Specimens from each mix were evaluated for chloride ion content by the 90-day salt ponding test and by the laboratory built machine for chloride permeability after curing 28 days. Specimens from these mixes were also taken from the salt ponding slabs after completion of the ponding test to examine the effect chloride ion content has on the operation of the chloride permeability machine. Specimens containing pozzolans were also examined for chloride permeability after a cure of 180 days. It was determined that the addition of pozzolans to concrete lowers the chloride permeability as measured by the permeability machine. Class F fly ash and silica fume in the concrete had a major effect in lowering the chloride permeability in concrete as measured by the permeability machine.

Performance Evaluation Of Iowa Bridge Decks Constructed With Epoxy-Coated Reinforcing Bars, RB06-011, 2011

Epoxy coatings have been used on the embedded reinforcing bars of bridge decks since the mid-1970s to mitigate deterioration caused by chloride-induced corrosion. The use of chloride-based deicers became common in the early 1960s and caused corrosion of conventional uncoated bars in bridge decks within 5 to 10 years of commencement of deicer applications. In response to this rapid deterioration, the National Bureau of Standards researched coatings to protect the reinforcement (National Bureau of Standards, 1975), resulting in the development of epoxy-coated reinforcing bars, which were used in bridge decks beginning in 1973. While corrosion-related deterioration has been prevalent on bridge decks with uncoated reinforcing bars in northern climates where the use of deicing salts is common, bridge decks constructed after 1973 with epoxy-coated reinforcing have shown good corrosion resistance with only limited exceptions. On the whole, previous laboratory and field studies regarding the performance of epoxy-coated reinforcing bars are very promising; however, some laboratory and field studies have yielded differing results. In recent years, maintenance personnel for the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) have reportedly performed patch repairs to some bridge decks reinforced with epoxy-coated bars. At one such bridge, the southbound US 65 bridge (Bridge No. 7788.5L065) over the Union Pacific Railroad near Bondurant in Polk County, Iowa, deck repairs were performed by Iowa DOT maintenance personnel in the Spring of 2010, based on our communications regarding this topic with Mr. Gordon Port of the Iowa DOT. These repairs were observed by engineers from the Iowa DOT Office of Bridges and Structures, who reported that significant corrosion was found at a number of epoxy-coated reinforcing bars uncovered during this patch work. These repairs were reportedly performed at spalls and delaminated areas corresponding to cracks over transverse reinforcing bars, and involved careful removal of the concrete from over the bars. Figures 1 through 4 contain photographs provided by Iowa DOT personnel showing the removal process (Figure 1), the conditions encountered (Figures 2 and 3), and close-up views of the corroded reinforcing (Figure 4). As a result of these observations, the Iowa Department of Transportation has requested this study to gain further understanding of the long-term performance of bridge decks reinforced with epoxy-coated bars. The two main objectives of this study are to determine the long-term effectiveness of the epoxy coatings and to determine the potential causes for the deterioration at locations where corrosion has occurred. Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE) and the Iowa DOT identified eight different bridge decks across Iowa for this study that were constructed using epoxy-coated reinforcing bars. A field investigation consisting of visual inspections, a delamination survey, a concrete cover survey, electrical testing for susceptibility to corrosion, and concrete sampling was conducted within a survey area deemed to be representative of the condition of each bridge deck. Laboratory testing, including chloride ion content testing, characterization of the extracted bars, petrographic examination of the concrete, and carbonation testing, was conducted on the core samples taken from each bridge deck.

Evaluation of Dense Bridge Floor Concrete using Superplasticizer, HR-192, 1977

Much effort is being expended by various state, federal, and private organizations relative to the protection and preservation of concrete bridge floors. The generally recognized culprit is the chloride ion, from the deicing salt, reaching the reinforcing steel, and along with water and oxygen, causing corrosion. The corrosion process exerts pressure which eventually causes cracks and spalls in the bridge floor. The reinforcing· has been treated and coated, various types of "waterproof" membranes have been placed on the deck surface, decks have been surfaced with dense and modified concretes, decks have been electrically protected, and attempts to internally seal the concrete have been made. As of yet, no one method has been proven and accepted by the various government agencies as being the "best" when considering the initial cost, application effort, length and effectiveness of protection, etc.

Deicing Salt Corrosion with and without Inhibitors, MLR-87-8, 1989

Chloride ion penetration through concrete to reinforcing steel is causing the premature deterioration of numerous bridge decks in Iowa. The purpose of the research reported in this paper was to determine whether any of several additives or alternative deicing chemicals could inhibit corrosion of reinforcing steel. The deicers tested were calcium magnesium acetate (CMA), CMA plus NaCl (NaCl: sodium chloride), Quicksalt plus PCI, and CG-90, a polyphosphate solution being developed by Cargill. Two tests were established. First, steel coupons were placed in a 15% solution of a deicer and distilled water to determine which alternative deicer would cause the least amount of corrosion in solution. The coupons were weighed periodically to determine each coupon's weight loss from corrosion. The second test involved ponding a 15% solution of each material on reinforced concrete blocks. Weekly copper-copper sulfate electrical half-cell (CSE) potential readings were taken on each block to determine whether corrosive activity was occurring at the steel surface. When the ponding research was concluded, concrete samples were taken from one of the three blocks ponded with each deicer. The samples were used to determine the chloride ion content at the level of the steel. Results show that all the deicers were less corrosive than NaCl. Only pure CMA, however, significantly inhibited the corrosion of steel embedded in concrete.

Laboratory Investigation of Concrete Beam-End Treatments, RB08-013, 2015

The ends of prestressed concrete beams under expansion joints are often exposed to moisture and chlorides. Left unprotected, the moisture and chlorides come in contact with the ends of the prestressing strands and/or the mild reinforcing, resulting in corrosion. Once deterioration begins, it progresses unless some process is employed to address it. Deterioration can lead to loss of bearing area and therefore a reduction in bridge capacity. Previous research has looked into the use of concrete coatings (silanes, epoxies, fiber-reinforced polymers, etc.) for protecting prestressed concrete beam ends but found that little to no laboratory research has been done related to the performance of these coatings in this specific type of application. The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) currently specifies coating the ends of exposed prestressed concrete beams with Sikagard 62 (a high-build, protective, solvent-free, epoxy coating) at the precast plant prior to installation on the bridge. However, no physical testing of Sikagard 62 in this application has been completed. In addition, the Iowa DOT continues to see deterioration in the prestressed concrete beam ends, even those treated with Sikagard 62. The goals of this project were to evaluate the performance of the Iowa DOT-specified beam-end coating as well as other concrete coating alternatives based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) T259-80 chloride ion penetration test and to test their performance on in-service bridges throughout the duration of the project. In addition, alternative beam-end forming details were developed and evaluated for their potential to mitigate and/or eliminate the deterioration caused by corrosion of the prestressing strands on prestressed concrete beam ends used in bridges with expansion joints. The alternative beam-end details consisted of individual strand blockouts, an individual blockout for a cluster of strands, dual blockouts for two clusters of strands, and drilling out the strands after they are flush cut. The goal of all of the forming alternatives was to offset the ends of the prestressing strands from the end face of the beam and then cover them with a grout/concrete layer, thereby limiting or eliminating their exposure to moisture and chlorides.