Job Site Evaluation of Corrosion Resistant Alloys for Use as Reinforcement in Concrete: Innovative Bridge Construction Program

Premature deterioration of the nation's concrete highway and bridge structures as a consequence of chloride (salt) exposure and resultant corrosion of reinforcing steel has evolved during the past four decades to become a formidable technological and economic problem. In response to this, epoxy-coated reinforcing steel (ECR) was adopted in the mid-1970's as a pro-active measure to control this problem. Premature corrosion induced cracking of marine bridge substructures in Florida indicated, however, that ECR is of little benefit for this type of exposure; and while performance of ECR in northern bridge decks has been generally good to-date (30-plus years), still the degree of corrosion resistance to be afforded in the long-term to major structures with design lives of 75-100 years is uncertain. Corrosion resistant reinforcements, including stainless steels, are an alternative for such applications, and a component of the FHWA Innovative Bridge Research and Construction (IBRC) program addressed incorporation of such reinforcements into approved state bridge construction projects. The present project evaluated a selected number of these in terms of the type of reinforcement used and difficulties and advantages that were encountered. Of the 27 approved state projects for which information could be gathered; 20 were either completed as planned or utilized an alternate corrosion resistant reinforcement. The different reinforcement types were solid Type 316 (three projects), 2201LDX (one project) and 2205 (five projects) stainless steels, Type 316 stainless clad black bar (three projects), MMFX-II (Trademark) (thirteen projects), and galvanized steel (three projects). In some cases, more than one corrosion resistant reinforcement was used on a single project. The various state projects demonstrated that, subject to availability, corrosion resistant reinforcing steel can be incorporated into bridge construction with relative ease and placed with less difficulty than ECR. Thus, these reinforcements are a viable technical alternative to ECR. Realizing the full benefit of this IBRC program, however, will depend upon individual states acquiring performance data and maintaining records on these structures for decades into the future.

• Record URL:
  https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/research/reports/fdot-bd440-rpt.pdf
• 
• Summary URL:
  https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/research/reports/fdot-bd440.pdf
• Corporate Authors:

  Florida Atlantic University, Dania Beach

  Center for Marine Materials, 101 North Beach Road
  Dania Beach, FL  United States  33004

  Florida Department of Transportation

  State Materials Office, Materials Research Park, 5007 Northeast 39th Avenue
  Gainesville, FL  United States  32609

  Florida Department of Transportation

  605 Suwannee Street
  Tallahassee, FL  United States  32399-0450
• Authors:
  • Hartt, William H
  • Lysogorski, Diane K
• Publication Date: 2005-12

Language

• English

Media Info

• Media Type: Web
• Edition: Final Report
• Features: Appendices; Bibliography; Figures; Photos; Tables;
• Pagination: 82p

Subject/Index Terms

• TRT Terms: Bridge decks; Bridge substructures; Chlorides; Clad metals; Construction projects; Corrosion resistant alloys; Cracking; Deterioration by environmental action; Epoxy coatings; Evaluation; Galvanized metals; Innovation; Reinforced concrete bridges; Reinforcing steel; Stainless steel
• Identifier Terms: Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program
• Subject Areas: Bridges and other structures; Construction; Design; Highways; I24: Design of Bridges and Retaining Walls;

Filing Info

• Accession Number: 01019962
• Record Type: Publication
• Contract Numbers: BD 440
• Files: TRIS, STATEDOT
• Created Date: Mar 13 2006 8:47AM