ATTENTION: The software behind KU ScholarWorks is being upgraded to a new version. Starting July 15th, users will not be able to log in to the system, add items, nor make any changes until the new version is in place at the end of July. Searching for articles and opening files will continue to work while the system is being updated. If you have any questions, please contact Marianne Reed at mreed@ku.edu .

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorO’Reilly, Matt
dc.contributor.advisorDarwin, David
dc.contributor.authorVosough Grayli, Pooya
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-25T20:08:18Z
dc.date.available2023-06-25T20:08:18Z
dc.date.issued2022-12-31
dc.date.submitted2022
dc.identifier.otherhttp://dissertations.umi.com/ku:18619
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1808/34428
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 epoxy-coated 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 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.
dc.format.extent347 pages
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherUniversity of Kansas
dc.rightsCopyright held by the author.
dc.subjectCivil engineering
dc.subjectChromX
dc.subjectconcrete
dc.subjectcorrosion
dc.subjectepoxy-coated reinforcement
dc.subjectgalvanized reinforcement
dc.subjectXypex
dc.titleEVALUATION OF MULTIPLE CORROSION PROTECTION SYSTEMS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE BRIDGE DECKS
dc.typeDissertation
dc.contributor.cmtememberLepage, Andrés
dc.contributor.cmtememberLequesne, Rémy
dc.contributor.cmtememberBarati, Reza
dc.thesis.degreeDisciplineCivil, Environmental & Architectural Engineering
dc.thesis.degreeLevelPh.D.
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6671-698Xen_US
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record