Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVosough Grayli, Pooya
dc.contributor.authorO’Reilly, Matthew
dc.contributor.authorDarwin, David
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-31T13:31:00Z
dc.date.available2023-07-31T13:31:00Z
dc.date.issued2023-07
dc.identifier.citationVosough Grayli, P., O’Reilly, M., and Darwin, D., “Evaluation of Multiple Corrosion Protection Systems for Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks,” SM Report No. 152, University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc., Lawrence, KS, July 2023, 322 pp.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1808/34665
dc.description.abstractThis study evaluated the corrosion resistance of epoxy-coated (ASTM A775), hot-dip galvanized (ASTM A767), and continuously galvanized (ASTM A1094) reinforcement, and the conventional reinforcement (ASTM A615) used to produce them, as well as ChromX reinforcement (ASTM A1035 Type CS) under the rapid macrocell, Southern Exposure, and cracked beam tests. To simulate the effects of handling, placing, and construction practices in the field, epoxy-coated and galvanized bars were tested in the as-received condition, with intentional damage to the coating, and after bending. To simulate the effects of outdoor exposure on epoxycoated reinforcement, selected epoxy-coated reinforcing bars were tested under accelerated ultraviolet exposure cycles, both without and with physical damage. The corrosion performance of conventional and ChromX reinforcement was also evaluated in conjunction with IPANEX and Xypex, two waterproofing admixtures. Additionally, a 100-year life cost analysis was conducted to compare the cost-effectiveness of the reinforcing bars and admixtures evaluated in providing corrosion resistance based on construction costs in the states of Oklahoma and Kansas. Finally, the effect of variability in corrosion on the predicted service life is investigated using a Monte Carlo simulation using data from conventional, ECR, and ChromX reinforcement from the current study and previous studies.

Epoxy-coated reinforcement exhibited much greater corrosion resistance than conventional reinforcement, even after damage; however, ultraviolet exposure equivalent to as low as 1.2 months of outdoor exposure reduced the effectiveness of the coating resulting in increased corrosion rates. Both A767 and A1094 reinforcement exhibited better corrosion resistance than conventional reinforcement, but corrosion rates on both types of galvanized reinforcement increased when the bars were bent. Xypex was generally effective at reducing the corrosion rate iv of conventional reinforcement, but not ChromX reinforcement; further study is recommended on the effects of Xypex on the corrosion resistance of reinforced concrete. IPANEX did not affect the corrosion resistance of either type of reinforcement. Over a 100-year design life, epoxy coated, galvanized, and ChromX reinforcement are all cost-effective solutions.
en_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Kansas Center for Research, Inc.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesSM Report;152
dc.relation.isversionofhttps://iri.ku.edu/reportsen_US
dc.subjectChloridesen_US
dc.subjectConcreteen_US
dc.subjectCorrosionen_US
dc.subjectChromXen_US
dc.subjectEpoxy-coated reinforcementen_US
dc.subjectGalvanized reinforcementen_US
dc.subjectIPANEXen_US
dc.subjectXypexen_US
dc.titleEvaluation of Multiple Corrosion Protection Systems for Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decksen_US
dc.typeTechnical Reporten_US
kusw.kuauthorO’Reilly, Matthew
kusw.kuauthorDarwin, David
kusw.kudepartmentCivil, Environmental and Architectural Engineeringen_US
kusw.oastatusna
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6671-698Xen_US
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3968-4342en_US
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-5039-3525en_US
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccessen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record