FHWA/NJ-82/001
REPORT NO.82-001-7799, ITEM 7
EXPERIMENTAL
COST EFFECTIVE RECONSTRUCTION
BRIDGE DECKSOF
AN INTERIM REPORT
JULY 1981
BY
CAREY L. YOUNGER
SENIOR RESEARCH ASSISTANT
Prepared By
New Jersey Department of Transportation
Division of Research and Demonstration
In Cooperation With
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
NOTICE
lhis publication is disseminated in theinterest of information exchange.
The opinions. findings, and conclusionsexpressed in the publication are those ofthe author and not necessarily those ofthe New Jersey Department of Ttansportationor the Federal Highway Administration.
This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation.
TECHNICAL REPORT STANOARO TITLE PAGE
Go..mm.n' Acc-;..ion No. 3:R.cipi.nt'. t.:~oIO9 No.Report No.
FHWA/NJ-82/001
~. title and Subtitl.
I EXPERIMENTAL COST EFFECTIVE RECONSTRUCTION
,OF BRIDGE DECKS
Report Dote
July 1981--~
6. P~rforrnin9 Or~oni &otion Cod.
1 8. p.,iormin9 °'9anizotion R.po,t No.
82-001-7799, Item 7
Auf"Orl sI
Carey Lo Younger
Work Unit No.9-:-P.,forming O,9~izo,ion N.;;;;. ondi:i:j;... i New Jersey Department of Transportation
i Division of Research and Demonstration
11035 Parkway Avenue
~-enton, New Jersey 08625
.COnfrocf or Gronf No.
N..J. HPR Study 7799, Item 7
! 13. Type of Report ond Period Co¥ered
12. Sponsorin9 A9.ncy Nom. ond Add;;"
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of TransportationI
Washington, D.C. 20590
Interim Report
Spon.o~-:a.--;;ncy Cod.
IS. Supplementary Hate.
16. AbstractThis report presents the results of an evaluation of the initial period of perfor-mance of experimental reconstruction systems designed to effectuate an economicextension of the life of bridge decks in which salt contaminated concrete has beenleft in place. To date, four structures have been restored by this design alter-nate, employing sheet-type membranes as the protective measure against continueddeck deterioration. The field evaluation included visual inspection and performantesting immediately after installation and at a time-in-service ranging from two tthree years. Testing included measurement of electrical potential and electricalresistance between the steel reinforcement and the deck surface. Electrical potential measurements are interpreted as indicating the presence of active corrosion,resulting from accumulation of deicing salts at the level of the top mat of rein-forcing steel in an amount sufficient to permit corrosion at a destructive rate(1)-
I The measurement of electrical resistance is interpreted as indicating the effec-! tiveness of the membrane-pavement system in preventing penetration by water andI deicing salts. All membrane systems were judged to have performed satisfactorily, during this initial evaluation period.
le
Due to the limited time in service of these installations and only isolated inci-dence of premature failure, no attempt was made in this report to draw conclusionswith respect to their ability to achieve the desired goal. It is hoped that moni-toring efforts thru the duration of the study will yield more definitive informa-tion in this regard .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1CONCLUSIONS.
1RECOMMENDATIONS.
3INTRODUCTION.
Problem Statement 3.
Ob j ec t1 ve s 3
Background. 3
4STUDY PROCEDURES.
SYSTEMS UNDER TEST 6
1METHODS OF EVALUATION
Physical Condition Survey 7
Electrical Potential Survey 7
Electrical Resistance Survey 8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 9
Condition Evaluation of Existing Structures 9
Condition Evaluation of Experimental Systems 10
Performance Testing Evaluation 11
7.3.1 Electrical Potential Survey 17
7.3.2 Electrical Resistance Survey 18
11
APPENDICES
Page
APPENDIX A: 20IDENTIFICATION OF TEST BRIDGES
APPENDIX B:21
DIAGRAM OF TEST ARRANGEMENT FOR ELECTRICALPOTENTIAL MEASUREMENTS
APPENDIX c:22
TYPICAL GRID LAYOUT FOR RESISTANCE ANDHALF-CELL POTENTIAL MEASUREMENTS
APPENDIX D:
23
DIAGRAM OF TEST ARRANGEMENT FOR ELECTRICAL
RESISTANCE MEASUREMENTS
APPENDIX E:24
RESULTS OF EXISTING CONDITION SURVEY ANDAPPRAISAL EVALUATION.
APPENDIX F: FHWA BRIDGE DECK CONDITION CATEGORYCLASSIFICATION (FHWA PROGRAM MANUAL ,TRANSHIn AL 188) 25
APPENDIX a: RESULTS OF FOLLOW-UP PERFORMANCE TESTING
EVALUATION 27
APPENDIX H: REFERENCES 28
111
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
TABULATION OF ELECTRICAL MEASUREMENTS ON MEMBRANE-TREATED DECKS .'2
FIGURE 1: DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE MEASUREMENTSON MEMBRANE-TREATED DECKS BY LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE. ...13
FIGURE 1A: DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICAL POTENTIAL MEASUREMENTSON MEMBRANE-TREATED DECKS BY LEVEL OF CORROSIONACTIVITY , 3
FIGURE 2: DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE MEASUREMENTSON INDIVIDUAL MEMBRANE-TREATED DECKS BY LEVEL OFPERFORMANCE. 14
FIGURE 3: DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICAL POTENTIAL MEASUREMENTS
ON INDIVIDUAL MEMBRANE-TREATED DECKS BY LEVEL OF
CORROSION ACTIVITY 15
FIGURE 4: PROPORTION OF ELECTRICAL POTENTIAL MEASUREMENTSIN THE ACTIVE CORROSION ZONE, BY STRUCTURE ANDLOCA TION 16
iv
The1 four membrane-pavement systems studied have performed
satisfactorily during this initial period of evaluation
Isolated areas on Sites 1 , 2 4and exhibited prematuresome
deterioration of the asphalt overlay and protective membrane affecting less
than 1% of total deck areas. However, these areas were repaired and have
shown no apparent adverse effect on the overall integrity of the protective
systems
2. The level ot corrosion activity as determined by the halt-cell
potential technique appears to be unrelated to the apparent performance of
the membrane-pavement system as determined by electrical resistance.
The results of the half-cell potential surveys strongly suggest a
trend toward decrease ina corrosion activity within the subject
structures.
The results of the electrical resistance survey provide no defini-
tive information at this time.
1. For fUture studies of this type, the employment of a non-
destructive test method for rapid, local, in-situ determination of chloride
content would be a valuable addition to the currently used battery of per-
formance testing methods. Research by others, as well as results in this
study indicate that half-cell potential measurements, indicating the
general level of corrosion activity at the time of measurements, are
directly related to chloride concentration in the concrete at the rebar
level. This relationship should prove especially useful in the interpreta-
tion of potential measurements within the "uncertain" zone and thus in the
early detection of possible trends in performance. The nuclear prototype
2 -
"Chloride-in-Bridge-Deck Analyzer" currently being developed by the
2. A stratified grid similar to that used for potential measure-
ments should be employed for the collection of resistance measurements to
allow for an analysis of measurements by location (1.e., curb line, 5 feet
from curb, 10 feet from curb, etc.) This might also be useful in deter-
mining the source of the intrusion of water and or salts (i.e., through or
around the membrane)
3. An alternative patching material (to Octocrete) is suggested
for use in the repair of existing concrete decks. Although the cause of
the patching failures cited in this report is believed to be chiefly the
result of unfavorable working conditions, recent reports of poor field per-
formance of Octocrete by our maintenance forces warrant the employment of
an improved patching material.
Department the following products are recommended as the most viable alter-
natives for general purpose patching:
Product Producer
Set-45 Set Products
Sika Set Mortar Sika Chemical Corporation
Darex 240 W'.R. Grace & Co.
-3 -
3.0 INTRODUCTION
3.1 Problem Statement
information availableThere is presently insufficient to ade-
bridge deck restoration methods,quately predict the extent to which
applied to decks in which salt contamination is allowed to remain in situ,
will achieve the desired goal of an economic extension of the life of the
structure.
3.2 Objectives
The objectives of this research are to determine under what cir-
cumstances the Experimental Cost Effective Systems approach is a viable
alternative to an extensive reconstruction of deteriorated bridge decks and
to determine the relative economics or those rehabilitation procedures
which prove successful.
The intent of this report is to provide an account of the perfor-
mance of protective membranes installed on four of the structures (Appendix
At this writing the time in serviceA) thus far selected for this study.
of these installations ranged from two to three years.
3.3 Background
Premature deterioration of bridge decks is recognized as a major
problem, both nationally and in New Jersey. The costs involved in main-
taining restoring these structures toor a ~erviceable condition are
substantial. It has been concluded the primary cause of bridge deck
deterioration is the accelerated corrosion of reinforcing steel in the pre-
of deicing chemicals. The steel inreinforcementsence new or
reconstructed concrete bridge decks thus must be protected from the intru-
sion of salt if such premature or continued deterioration is to be avoided.
-4 -
A variety ot alternate measures have been employed tor protecting
bridge deck steel from corrosion, including use of specially coated rein-
forcing bars, internal waterproofing. protective membranes, and increased
Many of these protective measures are the subject ordepth of cover.
ongoing New Jersey research projects.
FHWA guidelines(2) require that as a prerequisite to employing any
of these protective in federally-funded permanent deckmeasures a
restoration, all in highly chloride-contaminated areas and/orconcrete
areas of active rebar corrosion must be removed. As an alternate to such
full-scale, permanent restorations, the FHWA guidelines provide for another
category of federally-participating bridge deck rehabilitation measures
identified as "Experimental Cost Effective Reconstruction". The objective
of this latter category of reconstruction is to achieve a minimum 10 to 15
This design alternative allowsyears extension of the life of the deck.
salt-contaminated deck concrete to be left in place.
As indicated by the title, the efficacy of the "Experimental Cost
Effective Systems" category of restorations 1s completelydeck not
established. The relative effectiveness of this concept will be determined
by the collection and analysis of data on the preexisting condition and
subsequent durability service history of decks restored by this design
alternate, as well as an analysis or the relative economics or various suc-
cessful alternate methods.
4 .O STUDY PROCEDURES
Evaluative and restoration activities for the subject structures
evaluationincluded of the existing condition and extent oran
deterioration, removal of all obviously deteriorated concrete, reparation
necessary for the protective system selected; system installation andas
5
the initial and follow-up non-destructive performance testing of the
system.
The pre-restoration deck condition appraisals involved the deter-
mination of the location and degree of reinforcing steel corrosion by the
use of half-cell corrosion detection equipment, delamination detection with
the appropriate equipment to determine the location of areas of unsound
concrete, chloride analyses to provide a quantitative measure of chloride
ion content of the concrete at var1ous levels in the deck, determination of
areas with inadequate concrete cover over the reinforcing steel by use of
the appropriate equipment, and subjective visual assessments.
Preliminary repair work generally entailed the stripping of old
asphalt down to the existing deck, sampling for chloride
analyses( 3) removal of unsound concrete and patching with Octocrete. In at
least one instance (Route N.J. 35), Class B concrete was used as an alter-
nate patching material because the faster setting time of the Octocrete
made it very difficult to use when large quantities of patching mix were
required. This operation was followed by a deck surface preparation
(sweeping, then application of tack coat or primer), installation of the
sheet type protective membrane and finally, placement of a 1-1/2 to 2 inch
bituminous wearing surface.
Initial performance test data were then collected employing the
half-cell corrosion detection equipment cited earlier and an electrical
method for measuring the waterproofing effectiveness of membrane pavement
systems when applied to concrete bridge decks. This data will serve as
base measurements for bi-annual resurveys through 1982.
6
5.0 SYSTEMS UNDER TEST
While this study was not designed to evaluate protective systems
on an individual product basis, some detailed information about the sheet-
type membranes selected for use on the subject structures is provided in
this section.
Membrane No.1: Royston Bridge Membrane No.10
Supplier: Royston
Co~osition: Heat-modified bituminous resinwith inner layers of open-weave,mesh and polyester top surface.
compositionfiberglass
Thickness: 80 mils
Size: 4-rt x so-rt rolls
Primer: Royston Bridge Membranerubber and resin basedorganic solvent system.
Primer 713,formulation
syntheticin an
0.1 gal/sq.yd.Coverage:
Current( 1978) Cost: $6.00/sq.yd.,course).
in-place (includes cost of wearing
Membrane No.2: Heavy-Duty Bituthen!
Supplier: W.R. Grace Co.
High strength woven mesh embedded between a layerof self-adhesive rubberized asphalt and non-tackybituminous compound.
Composition:
Thickness: 80 mils
Size: 3-ft x SO-ft rolls
Primer: Bituthene Primer,
asphalt.
75% solvent with 25% rubberized
Coverage: 0.02- 0.04 gal/sq.yd.
Current( 1978) Cost: $1S.00/sq.yd., in-place (includes cost of wearingcourse).
-1 -
6.0 METHODS OF EVALUATION
Beginning immediately after restoration a bi-annual performance
evaluation schedule for the test structures was initiated employing the
following techniques as recommended in FHWA guidelines .
6.1 Physical Condition Survey
A visual inspection to determine general deck condition noting
of of asphalt overlay and/or protectivedeterioration theevidence
membrane
6.2 Ele~trical Potential Survey
This method, adopted as a standard test by ASTM(4) in 1977, covers
the estimation of the electrical half cell potential of reinforcing steel
in concrete, for the purpose of determining the corrosion activity of the
reinforcing steel. A diagram detailing the equipment used and basic test
arrangement is shown in Appendix B. Measurements are taken by placing the
porous tip of the copper sulfate electrode in contact with the deck surface
and measuring the electrical potential with a high-impedance voltmeter. To
minimize large errors in measurement, contact resistance is reduced by use
or a sponge soaked in an electrical contact solution and placed between the
electrode and deck surface. Measurements are taken utilizing a grid pat-
Ideally, the grid spacing shouldtern over the surface being investigated.
the minimum spacing of the reinforcing bars (seenot be greater than
Appendix C for diagram of typical grid pattern). With respect to interpre-
tation or results, potential values greater than -0.35 volts indicate a
greater than 90 percent probability that corrosion is occurring in that
Values between -0.20 and -0.35 are in anarea at the time of measurement.
area where corrosion activity is uncertain. Values less -Q.20 indicate a
greater than 90 percent probability that no corrosion is occurring at that
-8 -
time and location. In relation to the Cu/CuSO4 reference electrodes the
potential of the rebar is almost always active and thus, more active corro-
sion gives a more negative potential (e.g. -0.35 > -0.20). However, for
clarity, the sign of the potential will be disregarded with data presented
herein. Using this convention of a numerically larger value signifies a
more active potential.
This technique has served as a very useful tool in detecting areas
of corrosion or potential corrosion even prior to any visible indication of
distress. However, while the validity of the electrical potential tech-
nique has been verified by a number of researchers, caution must be exer-
ciaed in the interpretation of the data(5).
This nondestructive method thecovers measurement of' the
waterproofing effectiveness of membrane pavement systems when applied to
concrete bridge decks. The basic concept involves measuring (with an
ohmmeter) the gross electrical resistance between an electrode placed on
to which it has been electrically connected (see Appendix D for diagram of
test arrangement). Readings are interpreted to indicate variation in the
imperviousness or the membrane and the relative degree or wetness condition
of the underlying concrete surface. The degree of wetness is inversely
proportional to the resistance reading. In particular, based on criteria
developed by California & Stratrull(6),researchers Spellman observed
resistances of 500,000 ohms and over indication ofare an excellent
-9 -
performance; 500,000 to 100,000 are considered questionable performance,
while reading below 100,000 indicate poor performance.
7.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
7.1 Condition Evaluation or Existing Structures
After limited field condition surveys were conducted to identify
structural inadequacies and the degree of deicing chemical contamination,
the bridge decks were subjected to a detailed field appraisal. A summary
of these appraisals 1s prov1ded in Appendix E.
Application of condition survey criteria developed by the FHWA
(Appendix F) detailed field appraisals resulted in the following classifi-
cation of the subject structures.
SiteNo. Condition ClassificationBridge Identification
Category 3- Light to NoActive Corrosion
1 Route U.S. 22, EastboundViaduct over Liberty Streetand Lehigh Valley R.R.Structure No.2004-153
Category' -ExtensiveActive Corrosion
2 Bloy Street over Route U.S. 22Structure No.2004-152
3 Category 2- Moderate
Active Corrosion
Route U.S. 22 over theElizabeth RiverStructure No.2004-151
4 Category 1 -ExtensiveActive Corrosion
Route N.J.35 over theNavesink RiverStructure No.1312-154
10
7.2 Condition Evaluation of Experimental Systems
Visual inspection to determine the general deck condition of the
subject bridges at the end of this initial evaluation period revealed some
the two structuresdeterioration of the pavement systemsmembrane on
carrying Route U.S. 22 and the Route N.J. 35 bridge over the Navesink
River
As noted in Appendix G, early signs of distress occurred in the
form of alligator cracking after the installations had been in service for
This condition rapidly worsened, resulting in theapproximately 20 months.
breaking up of the asphalt overlay and tearing of the protective membrane
in three isolated areas on the Liberty Street structure, one area on the
River (westbound roadway) and thebridge the Elizabeth one onover
southerly most span of the bridge over the Navesink River
Further investigations of the affected area (Route 22 bridges)
revealed that the displaced materials (principally, Octocrete patching) had
Because of the concentrated state of this salt-an efflorescent coating.
based coating, it is believed to be the result or numerous deicing salts
region.*severe winters in thisapplications of the mostduring one
Unfortunately, no information is available at this time with re3pect to the
total amount of deicing salts applied at these locations during the period
in question or the composition or the coating.
.1978-79: 14 snowstorms resulting in approximately 52 inches or precipita-
tion (See reference 7).
11
from affected 1sThe material recovered theOctocrete areas
believed to have come from deteriorated patches in the existing concrete
The failure of the patching effort and subsequent localized failuredeck.
in part, be attributed to a patchingof the overlay and membrane may,
operation under adverse weather (rain) and traffic conditions during the
With respect to the formers the presence of waterprellm1nary repair work.
in excess of the mix proportion has been reported to adversely affect the
The operation on the viaduct-type structurebonding ability of Octocrete.
over Liberty Street was further complicated by a nbouncingn action of the
deck apparently induced by heavy traffic flow in lanes adjacent to the work
It is believed that the cohesiveness or the patching material wasarea.
detrimentally affected, as its components appeared to separate due to the
resultant vibrations.
These isolated problem areas were subsequently repaired and have
exhibited no significant adverse affect on the overall integrity of
membrane-pavement systems.
7.3 Performance Testing Evaluation
A summary of the results of electrical potential and resistance
measurements collected on these experimental systems 1s presented 1n
For more ready interpretation, the tabulated datatabulation on Page 12.
Figuresis presented in Figures 1, 1A, 2 and 3 in the form of bar charts.
1 and 1A present a percentile distribution of the combined results
systems) of the respective test methods, while Figure 4 gives a distribu-
tion of results by the proportion of potential measurements in the active
corrosion zone by structure and location (i.e., curb line, 5 feet
curb, 10 feet from curb). By plotting the change in proportion of measure-
occurring in this category for individual deck and locat1on 1t 1sments
I(\I-
~~u~QQ~fooC~~fooI~ZC~;~0~Z~IaI~=~C~~CU~t;~&
i
a......o.c>
... >\t\
00 \t\
.~...
a G
GII..
0C
CO
I\G
...GG
...>U
CS
... Ll'
0 f\I
-G
GO
f\l ~
~
f\I
,,"0'"~0.
...'"=
.0G
""~o
=~
G"
"... >
...~..
00 ~
~
.Uf\l~
-0~..""
....0
0i-
v
O~
IJ.C
av...,..
ovo
...3() -
...CV
CIJ..
v ()CIJO
'"~
~~
SIJ
OO
o~V
OO
'"~O
-G
~
Il'IO
IJ..'C
..~
a..~
... ~
...~...
On
U
O...~
Il'I
n O
I\
G~-
~'-[
o c
V«1
.C.U
B...V
V
\D
\D
\D
O~
'-c. e-
e- e-
...a =
N
N
N
=le.'
~=
Ie
1-
-I
G 'C
I...
O G
- 11
'" .c>1I
... ...to
~ ~
C~ 0.
-0 UJ
G 2:
C =
C ~
5 fo
'"
~
~
...O
av
" C
J c
v c
v.Q
IGa
a v
~
II "
Z..~
a II
VIe
'.'=1.
,2
c .
1..O
...z
fI] G"i
l=
=
O
1- 1-
=.fJ
I t
IQ
G)
.=
0
alII
c.. ~
I;~
.
!c:1
'Ow
i
03 .
tI -0
Z
N
-~""; 0,
0~ o o
o o
o 0
I£"\ O
0- O
~
0~
«).='
~(\I
~(\I
OIn -=-
In =-- N..,
N 1- 1-
OI'j
I'j ,
O
N
0.-- -I~"...t.0,
0~
..-
~
-~~
-
G
QI
'""
Z
~~~ C¥\
C¥\
C¥\
C¥\
C¥\
C¥\
t'- O
"! ~
o o
.., =
\0.Q"
~
..,N
1- ""
- c- o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 O
N.
N.
0\ ~-
o 0
t- r-
0.., 0
N0. 1'-0\ 0 0- 0"' 0-
~ ~
~
Ot-
t- ~
I I
I#
~
0-
o o
0ID
ID
ID
i.."...Q,
~=~"O"",j ~. -t- 1'-
II\N
.
N
03 -
G
II'\z
(\I
.0-. II'\.II'\
t'-
c II\ o o
o o
o 0
N
a)-\Q~
""'
o 0
4' -0
0'=' O(\I
2. ...,1\1
~ In ON ON
~ 1'00 1'00
O~
~
«i
1'00 "'
~
i....'"..aQ
,G
I~.'"0...
18 II\ II\
II\'"'
'"' '"'
.C\
O1"1:'
C'!
C'!
(\I ~
O\Q ~""
0~G
Nz
..,
0.(\I o
o
o o
o o
=
0=
O0\
~
~N
-~N
~~ o-N N InIn
-13-
D
~z'"0UN.
~~N~~~.Z~2
-..I
O't.J
-
I
't.J
~ ~ I I I I I I I I -o o o o o o o o o o 0O 0) ~ ~ <0 In ..~ N
&aJ~>~&aJcn
z
~2
...D~o0A.
10.1~ :.:c, :"'.
':"
...
...
m
..
!
~
...
J
O
~
1-
Z
...
...
...
...
u
x
...
O'4oJ
~uz~...cn-f/)"'~
.J~u
~...u"'.J~
~o
z
2...~m-~...f/)c
.:.:.1G~~o
ia:
~ ~ ~ I I III I 1-o o o o o o o o o o oo 0) m ,.. CD In ...If) N
S~N3w3~ns~3W ,~~O~ ~O ~N3~~3d
Q"'
~"'~t-I
"'Z4~m2"'~
ZO
U)t-Z"'~"'~~U)4"'~
~uzc
2
~
O&A..
~
~a.
&A..
0
..J
~>~
..J
>-=
(I)
~
u
~
Q
-14-
zo
(i:f.(;~~. ~:~~~~:{i{;.~r~ ~:;;;~.::: ::t~~
I
'tJ
0,0.;;.~,~~~~~; ~~w ~ jj;~:1~~~::~~~: ~i l!~i
0."".:o:.~~.':,o
>m
cn~uw0
laIw
zc~
Im2
I",
z-
~~~ *:~;~;{~~:~t~~~~j~:t;~::(~: ~~
~
IOLAJu..", ->~LAJ(/)
.oz
I&J~,j...u,j~...cn
"'~0
~...z"'.J.J"'
~"'
I&J-2
1-' ~:fi~;~;~~~~:i.: :;~f~~;i .:~~j,.~;f
N
I&Juzc
(I)-(I)I&J~
.Jcu-~
uI&J..JI&J
&I..0
z
2
~m
~
(I)-Q
~
,..J
1-tJ°:0 ~: ! ! ~o ~ ! ~.!t ~1~ i ~ #[ i\ ~~ ~ i ~{ ~~t~;~ :; f[f;It
oo
0~
OP-o
OcD
O111
0~
0It)
ON
0 0
SJ.N3w3~nsv3w "YJ.OJ. ~o J.N3J~3d
\I.
O
-I
"'
>
1&1
-I
-15-
~~
~
~
zo
fI'...z~2~~~fI'~~2
11.O
D.J"'>"'.J
!: ~~~t :;Ti1iii:~:~!~. ~~~1t~i~:i ~ !~:i:
\&J\&J>z~oUN.c
~
o
0+1 ~It)
>-~I 1&1
~ cn
)-m o
z:~ l: ::~ t~ ~~ ~~ f~~ !;t~. ~ ~:~i. ~~ ~~:!i: ;.! ; ~y~~~;~~ i:;:
.Jc-t-z"'
If
cn¥uwQ
~i~:;:~ I&J~~1-U~~1-cn
z
z
<...~L&Ju
z:)
QI&J...cI&J=...
"",".
:"..,.:...
~-~
-+.1 ~.Jc~~..u..,.J..,
}:z~:~;(!.~!1i~~~[i;~:.:~;1:~~:. "'~
~z >-4 ...~ -m >2 ~~ U24
~
I~~>~-z~oo&tNQ.
zo
~=m
it-Ut-a
..J z-c o~ -o cn-0> ~-~o 0
~ u
:i~~:~:W:~t;:9~.~:: ~;~\\~~~~~~:(i~:::i
.;~¥:{~~;tii~~!;).~;;j~;j.?~;:~{;~!:;i~:~~i[;.~:~.~~~;i.( :
i l~:t:;t\j:1~.~~i~~~;~::;;~!;:~!jji~tf~~:i~t!~3.:~;~::..t ~
oo-
0~
0~
OCD
0~
0"'
0~
0If)
0N
0 0
S.1.N3W3~ns~3W '~.1.0.1. ~o .1.N3~~3d
~z0N
-16-
.Q~~
u
eQ~
~
-uu
~
It)
,g~~
u
=0~
~
-..
~
2
.=
..J
~
.a-~
(.J
~
Gj~ ~ L] D~
~
;
~10!-
~
oz
~
~
~
...
u
~
~...(/)
N
~
~~
SlN3w3~ns~3~ '~lOl
~O lN3~~3d
zo...c(uO..J
0zc(
~~~
u~~...tn
>-~
~z0N
zoV)0~~0u
-17
hoped that a reasonable judgment of relative condition can be made. The
values presented in the tables and figures herein disagree somewhat because
of the rounding off technique applied.
The maximum time in service among the subject systems at this eva-
luation is 33 months. Because this is such a short time in the expected
life and there has been only isolated incidence of premature failure, no
attempt will be made at this point to draw conclusions with respect to the
ability of a particular system to achieve the desired goal. Thus, the
interpretation of findings herein are directed toward the detection of
possible trends developed during this initial performance period which
might be used in predicting future performance.
7.3.1 Electrical Potential,
From an inspection or the distribution or the combined electrical
potential data presented in Figure 1A, there appears to be a general trend
toward a decrease in the level of corrosion activity within the group of
bridges
An analysis or pre-restoration ("t-1") data revealed that approxi-
mately 11% of the total mea5urement5 indicated the probability that corro-
sion of reinforcing steel was occurring. Immediately after restoration
(time "to") this figure dropped slightly to 9%. By the end of the initial
performance period ("t,"= 25 to 33 months), the proportion in the "active"
corrosion zone had decreased to approximately 7S. This trend of decreasing
corrosion activity is supported by a 20S increase in measurements in the
"passive" or "safe" zone and a 30% decrease in the "uncertain" zone since
installation of the system.
-'8 -
On an 1ndiv1dual bas1s, Figure 3 shows that data from Structure
No. 1 (Liberty St.) and Structure No.3 (Elizabeth River) followa trend
somewhat different to that of the group as a whole. In these cases the
proportion of potentials indicating probable corrosion activity increased
from less than 1J to 5% and from O to 4J respectively. A further investi-
gation of data from Structure No.1 indicates that this increase in acti-
vity occurred exclusively in Span No.5 of the structure. Thirteen out of
eighty-one or 16% or the measurements taken in this area indicated the pre-
sence of active corrosion. It should be noted than Span No. 5--the longest
within the structure--was also the only span showing any initial corrosion
activity or any visible signs of distress during this evaluation period.
An examination of data from Structure No.3 revealed no apparent explana-
tion for the slight increase in corrosion activity.
In an attempt to detect rurther trends within the results yielded
by this technique, the proportions of measurements in the active corrosion
category have been divideQ by locations (ieee, curbline, 5 feet from the
and 10 feet from curb). In the distribution of active corrosion
measurements displayed in Figure 4, 66S of the pre-restoration data, 97S of
initial and 80% of the follow-up data occurred 10 feet from the
curbline. These percentages strongly suggest that the corrosion process
tends to be more active in the traffic lane than in the curbline and
shoulder areas. This is somewhat surprising in that is is usually at the
boundary areas that water and salts intrude.
7.3.2 Electrical Resistance SurveI
While an examination or the distribution or the results yielded by
this method (see Figures 1 and 2) reveal an apparent increase in the pro-
portion of measurements in the "poor" performance category, any suggestion
-19
of a possible trend in this direction cannot be confirmed after only two
observations within such a relatively short test period. Therefore, the
discussion of these results will be l1mited to possible sources of measure-
ment variation.
Resistance may be relatively high at the time or the initial
reading because of the relative dryness of the parent deck surface at the
time or the membrane installation. After installation however, moisture
tends to accumulate in the deck thereby reducing electrical resistance to a
relatively low level. In the presence of small amounts of moisture,
resistance has been reported to remain essentially constant in the
"questionable" category. However, an accumulation of moisture and salts in
the deck can be expected to cause a substantial and often sudden drop in
resistance.
In the case of the subject installations, a 9% overall increase in
the proportion of measurements in the "poor" performance category is more
than. offset by a zn increase at the "excellent" level.Individually,
although structure numbers 2 and 4 do not follow that performance pattern
in percentile grading, all of the installations display an increase in the
median resistance value, suggesting a drier condition beneath the membrane.
In summary, these factors suggest that the membranes have been at
least moderately effective in preventing the fUrther intrusion of water and
salts.
io(\I
c~=zb1tc ti8~m...CI)
~~~...~~...~Q
~C=C
0
~
,...0
,Q
.>oD
It\
...flln"...~1
C
C-D
C...#
O
~..,Q
~C
O=
N~
C
.#
~
.c 0
...0 N
- ~
U
.N
."...
0C
~...
~D
.CC
ZD
CC
.'...~
DO
~c
3V
)-0~...D
C
"=
C...~
==
D
00C
...~
D
...=C
.0
~
~
.=...=
OC
.~
""
OD
~
~
0]~V
)~V
)
~
31
..~
0... ~
.D
'" °
..'"fI~C8 ~
-
1 ...!i8
~I-
!'0..
.-0..
C~
.0 O
~
II 011111
...C'-C
~S
D
OQ
,~I1'-~
...'-' 0...
0] D
II,Q
II>
801111
0~11~
'-.C~
:az:~Q
,~
""....
~
~
~
~
e ...
B
C
"" ""
""...~
o M
O...
.M.M
InM
O~
fI o...t-
"QC
eO
\ N
.
Q,
t! C
C
-C-
Q,B
eee
.c: jj~
jj
cO.....I-;' O
.D
~
.c
.
O
>c
.'"' t-t-al-"IIiII>OZ
N
~
e~
C00
000.0elG
)""C
OO
SoQ
,ce",..""
0...'e.Q
G
)~
...aoG)~
'GG
)~".C
~~
X~
Q,C
N"'c
-0
I
...O'-0
O-~
N
~a]
0 --.
N~
>-O
...N",...Z
~
...C-a]..=
-'-
.r.°,-...=
.U=
a] -C
0
>
-0=o=
~...'-
...0..'C...
==
..=a]
...#IC\0too
~~Q\
-'"~j~0-!
C
~0
.~
'"...,"11~.II~
II .
~'"
~o~
~
'"110 O
Q.
~
IIQ
,," IC
~~
II
~
0 0
.-II C
~
...
O~
' .
.C~
I1.C.C
>-~
I...~
C
Q
~
~...0~
...11~.1I
CIIC
IO,"0I1S
CO
Q.IIQ
.~
,"aII...IC
," ...0
11...11~...
...Q.
B,,"N
~1111"'...11
.~0...,","."',"
t;CC
OO
Q.,"
...11...
110 ...N
....'"~
"'...~
Q.
C~
..."'g~o~
1I~
~.0~
...o,"
..,
08~ C~
O~
C#O
~IC
.QO
O...Q
I-.'..
~:
-~
~r-0.-...a"=.Gcoz
=-
!' !'
..-0.. -
.w
C
-'" C
00 O
~
.0 O
~.0.1.
O.I~
'-'-C~
S
C'-C
~S
CQ
,..,- O
Q,G
~'
'-' 0
...'-' 0...
o~,Q
,"
IJ~.Q
w
~=
...eo.' >
so.,.,
°G4!=
'- om
-,,=,-.c
~~
z: Q
, =
~Z
: Q
,IJ
c::eG
-""
Q, 08
IC
II .
1'- e
1'-'--8 .
Q,~
~.
..~=
C
"' C
..."'
0 ..0
C..
..I.. ~
I
ON
0'- C
0.X
t)..~
GJC
. C
~
C
,.,V
»GJ
N
V)...c..
.0>
..., N
..~
o "'~
~o
N~
~...Z
'.'>
OZ
."' C
..B
V)...c~
~
",)ZC
GJ
.08...0'- .0'-
=~
~t)~
Z
,-Z=
.,Q
...G
~...C
O
~>
C.O
No=
...O
G=
=~
'-
=
>'-
o'.'...C...
0=
~..~
=U
) ~
~~
U)
1-1-0.-to~'i~>oz
I ~
.
...'"~
.~
a~
~~
c~
~«1,"
~~
'"...~
... caa
a.~
=B
O
...«I
,"a," '"O
B
,"~«1~
~C
O~
D
C...
~
...~D
~
CC
='"
C
...a,"tl ~
...'"
...~
CD
>.~
«1«1«1O
BD
...,"C...
...tI ...,".«I
...8aD=
,","a
«I O
DO
'" .-'"
«I O
B
C
tlflaBO
«1Oa.,"
O
So
Otl...fI«1~
...C
.-O
~
O
CO
.-a
C
...
c.ce,","o
...~~
GlD
~
~
B
.>.C
CO
tlCO
tl
~D
...a.B...~
-21-
APPENOIX ~
DIAGRAM OF TEST ARRANGEMENT
FOR
ELECTRICAL POTENTIAL MEASUREME~NTS
Copper- Copper Sulfate Half Cell-moyed obout on deck lurfoce
to mealure potential of reinforcin9 steel at yarioul lacationl.
Electrical
electrical
Junction Device- spon9. pr.w.tt.d with low
r.sistanc. contact solution
Concrete
Reinforcin9 st..1
<S) Voltmeter
~~
(I)t-
N
z~-~
~~(I)
~z
(I)c(
c(0..
~(I)
~ zIAJ
~~ m~,10,m
.-u -
c .
o u
I.--.-.0~
:
..
O
8
-c .
O.---0 -
~0.J-c"e"~
-~
-
..0"~
-23-
APPENOIX ~
DIAGRAM OF TEST ARRANGEMENT
FOR
ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE MEASUREMENTS
( I ) Ohmmeter, 20,000 ohms per volt ratin9
(2) Copper (or oluminium) plOtl, 12 In. I 12 in. I 1/8 in
(3) Polyurethane sponge. 12 in. x 12 in. x 1t2in. ta be attached to the
copper plate with rubber bands or other suitable means- when
assembled. this apparatus is called the ~ .
(4) Bituminous pavement surface
(~) Waterproofin9 membrane
(6) Concrete bridge deck
(7) R.inforclnq steel mot
(8) No.18 insulated wire, 8elden test probe wire or 8quivalentj
two spools I minimum length I 125 ft .
-=-
N
zo...
...oC=..JoC>r8J
..JoC~oC=A
.A.
cQzc>-
r8J
>==(/)zo.........Qz8oz...
...(/)...~~OaJ...5&
1=~>
C
~z~~~..
O'J
...-J-JO
"'
oC>
U
.
O.;-J
O~
c I\
t;~
~
~Z
-Jr.I IIC
r.I... II~
0 G
.c~
-J...
.a
S
",~i
\DQ
! ~
.B
C
~
-G
>
'-S
0 II
=U
a
.IM
.. C
~
i..
ti N
~
"-U
O
~Z
0
0 ~
U
\D
G
=,Q
G.c
>
II'-
0 G
...,. G
S,-
~>
G.c
0' ~
, N
Q
,Q
=
11
G
0.; .G
~O
~
o
>0~
0...
, -JZ
"i,Q
Q,
:r.I ~
G
u... IM
a '-
.
Z O
~
0 o.s
U ZNOO~C
C...
0.....IG
~
..Q,
~..a ~
.
C~
~~
OC
o 0.
G~C
I) '"~
CI)
..C\00
0\00...
.J .~
..>000
=
...a-C
I) ...I
In>
'".c~
~'"
C..~
~...>
C
" 0
G>
...G
..Z
l'"
...G
0 G
..," 'O
B..
e.. 0..
c B
)C~
Z
O
()O
'"
GZ
...Q
,~c
Q,
~
...~'"'
faI .c
OQ
~
'"..G
~...>
0U
JO-
NN~
~
..1t'I~
1t'I... fII-
Z
C-fII
..NO
=
~
=
~
It'IO
~>
.. It'I
C
-Q
C...~
-G
=
IC
..."
I ...~
tJ "
G>
.~
=.0
z .~
.QG
0
O~
O
~O
~
~.;...
0 ~
~
NJ...
N
-N
=
."
.Z
C
N
.,,».0 G
.>
.0~
tJ ~
G
...Z
>~
...ZQ
O
>.C
C
O
CJ
fII-O~
=G
-=
G..;0"
.8
'"~
Q
=c
CtJ=
...c
=oz
00G
...f110 ...
QC
G
.;=.JC
o .;C
o
~
0=
>
0=~
=
0=~
.;," 00.;'"
m
OG
) C
C...
...GC
...
~fII>
==
fII m
fll=fII
n .
G~
Q,O
-a.c#can.~
G
N
"".c
" 0
...'"
IN
"-G1"1>~
0
#' B
.O;i
-..c
..~IIC
3OG.Q-0~
In'":'0"'~~N ~...."~
~'g
oi~
!I' .
0-....I
OO
"
.c~,,~
...~O
>
~U
20'g
s
~i...
-c...
IM
3OG.0~OO-
In""Oi\-N ...-;,..~
n~G...
...oa.
c..crr\S
f)..G
rr\f)to.c
"~...o
IIC
to-Q0>.0
..c~
.....,~-,Q
.-C
N
In0...
-I
...~
~O
O
~£.
OV
2~
N>
.0 .
N
>to
N~
...Z
.In C
V2-
~~
=~
8~
c ...
v.£.co...~
0
~~
~>
..£.o~
..c...=
-=~
U)
11'1
~0"-=~ -In-'" .
~
la>
~
0 '".
~...~.0'" ~
.-0-0i'O
~
.-I!' "
G
CI
CC
>
OQ
...Q
..Q
00 s.s.
ca
~
CI
aOG
s. ~
~
~
~
C
I ..S
ClC
... a>
o Q
C
,,!UO
~ao"
~,"a~
,,:s g,G
Q
s. C
O:JC
OO
G
.~-
a O
...~
G
g,
.c s.
.c .-
CO
.C
os.a IC
.. G
..~,
Q
CI
O
~
CI
" ~
...O
.
C
s.8
...S.c
a C
I:JCI"
oas. G
C
I "
~s.
...ClG
~
~~
O
~
a
..G~
CI
~
C
G
OC
C
...OG
G
:Sa..c
OG
~Q
O
~
O
g,G...
s.C
s.~g,
c.c"s. .G
~
OG
CIC
ac>
. ...O
~C
I~...Q
a""..
g,\QC
I
Q
S
CI.C
:J
s." "
S."
Q
G~
:J~
,,~
CI
s.O8
.s C
...~
'". ~
~C
lg,O
g,O
4IOC
S
.O
~C
~M
~..,,"
OC
..."".cs. ~
.OC
I II .
G~
o ii.
O-fl.II
G=
'-
~~
110..
IIC~
'-O
Q)
O
>-0
",a-:
i(\I
c
"iIIC
~G.Q~.a-
=C
~U'I'..
C
->-
0 '"
I.....Q
) N
C...>
-0
0.. ""
Q)~
--
U1
-
U'I~
.0.
""..OZ
C.II
tJ~
Q)
Q).
.>.c'"~
ZIa...=Z
=...II
Q)
OoC
...,"B~
1a=
Q)C
,"Q,
O>
O...U
1~
0Z:U
1-
-25 -
APPENDIX F: FHWA BRIDGE DECK CONDITION CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION
(FHWA PROGRAM MANUAL, TRANSMITTAL 188)
Category 1- Extensive Active Corrosion 5 percent or over of
the deck visibility spalled, OR 40 per,~ent or over of the
deck area having deteriorated and/or cont;aminated concrete or
active rebar corrosion as indicated by a summation of non-
duplicating areas consisting of the following 1) spalls, (2)
(3)delaminations, electrical potentials over 0.35 volts
(CSE), and (4) chloride content samples ~~reater than 2 pounds
of chloride per CY of concrete as detEirmined by 10 random
samples of the deck area excluding the area of spalls, dela-
minations and potentials over 0.35 volts"
Category 2- Moderate Active Corrosion O to 5 percent of the
deck visibly spalled, OR 5 to 40 percent of the deck area
having deteriorated and/or contaminated concrete or active
rebar corrosion as indicated by a summation of nonduplicating
consisting ofareas the following: (1) (2)spalls,
delaminations, (3) electrical potentials over 0.35 volts
(CSE) , and (4) chloride content samples e~reater than 2 pounds
of chloride per CY of concrete as determined by 10 random
samples of the deck area excluding the area of spalls, dela-
minations and potentials over O .35 volts "
Catego!:y3 -Light to No Active Corrosion)No visible spalls,
OR a to 5 percent of the deck area having deteriorated
and/or contaminated concrete or active rebar corrosion as
indicated by a summation or nonduplicating areas consisting
26 -
of the following: (1) delaminations, (2) electrical poten-
tials over 0.35 volts (CSR), and (3) chloride content samples
greater than 2 pounds of chloride per' cy of concrete as
determined by 10 random samples of the deck area excluding
the area of spalls, delaminations and potentials over 0.35
volts.
II-NI
zo...-c=.,j-c>[IIoz...rI1
~[IIuz~~Ola.~[IIc.c.=:io.,j
5la.
ra.0rI1...5~~0"Qz[IIc.c.-c
z0.....~t)z...0~
...
..-Zt)
~o
Q~
...Q
~z
8-...~~ ~ ~
I'-:)1-0
~~ 1-0>-
O~~
~ ~tJ>CQ
~~
V)
zgJ
~
~~
~=
i:a ~c...too
~tooornQ
otoo~~
oc>u...~t;r.J
~
...z~%~a)a)-c..J-c=a)> II
c0~~
>.
0 >
G
GO
...02
...,.a.
~o>C
=
=~
.c ~
o.~
Lt\.Q
-
,.a>.c
III
.>...
J ,.a
o~
r.. C
OLt\~
="'
.-c8
t\I ..
"'~
0C
.C
Z..,.ao
02 02...G
.r.. C
,"=
..>
.=
=
G
'" .0
G
.=
=~
.Q~
'"0""...
~-..J~
02
.~G...O
c
G
..'"'.c
~r..,",...
c =
.
" a
G
aG
Q
.
,",=,",r
.a. Q
""
~r..C
...O.
G
..Q
,Gr
N~
OO
.Q0...0B
...,",QG
>G
~
>r...
~G
G
.N...
~n~
n .
==
>
~=
.0...0
=:..
..G...
..>
r..a...G
O.=
...OB
.=r..0
.CQ
...N
~o>
0,",
...0""r..0...Q
,...~
==
Q,~
OC
\0N.c-.'" .
'i~~ "'~QI\-"' o9"-N..,
IIIIG"...II...~~OaC~...D0ZNN
...rl)1n
.-N=
In
~
-.C
,
~
O0..
O~
. N
-s.
.V
->
.0>
~..Z
O...'C-~
..
8s.
..C
~rl)0..
..CC
I>
...O~
0C1..S
.vc..
~rI)=
rI) .~N
." .
j~~ ..,.., "'~O"~0 0~"~0-
~.c
I"\..-.
DC
. -
ON
In
..~~
,O
~..#
.CO
~1.~
O.ON
.>C
.)N
0
.N
C
o~
oZ.In
~-C
..~
I.
~~
~
C
.....1.0
...~~
~>
'"0
~-~
~
G~
'"~C
~
G
G
'" .c
G
0>
G
~~
~~
G~
.e ~
..oG
G...
~,"C
.-
G
.G
Q.G
'".C"
oO.Q
...OCB
'".G
>.
Q..C
>'"8
.Q...
.G
G
C.
.~
e~o
eGG
~
e,"~
C...G
G.
C
..'" >
-8
~
~,"e.
e,"oo.c
OG
'" G
~
.C
G
G
.N~
O>
C O
O.~
.
G
..O
CC
,"OO
4N
N..
8CN
.I. .
i:i! InN In~0"MI¥\
0~"-0N
~v>
.
08=
.
~.c
~
...>0
C~
°
~Il'C
..-0
...I00N-
V%
--
~
..,
--~
-~
C
Il'V
..
..'>0
..z~
.=
.., V
-
.~~
.
ZC
~fI
VflO
C
...V
~
.
~>
~g,
O
f/)
=Z
f/)-
~~
f. .!
==
~
..I
NG
e
'ae .
'"='"
.88..e
01 8
88Z=
1.
'al.~
el..8
.~..o
a.81..G
~0
0 ~
a.
.N
0B
Ct)
..88>
1-.'"'a
>
'" G
88 C
I.N...
'ae'aO..
.c...
>...
~C
...'a...O=
... ..88..
...>.0
l.e.00~~
0.C
8B.C
'" '"
..~88,"IC
~o>
C.o,"
..800 1.0
...8a....O
CC
.ca.~~
N
In~O"~\0-.c-.'" .
j:i! N1"'1
0~"-InIn
-28 -
REFERENCESAPPENDIX H:
Rehabilitation",1 ) "Waterproofing tor Bridge Deck ResearchMembranes
Report 52, N.Y.S.D.O.T., May 1977.
2) Section 2, Subsection 7, FHWA Transmittal 188, April 1976.
3) Berman, Horace A., "Determination or Chloride in Hardened Portland
Cement Paste, Mortar and Concrete", Interim Report No. FHWA-RD-72-12,
FHWA, September 1972.
ASTM C876-77,4) Standard for "Half Cell Potentials ofTest Method
Reinforcing Steel in Concrete".
5) Ellis, William J. and Bianchetti, Ronald L., "State-of-the-Art Report,
Corrosion Control and Repair of Concrete Bridge Structures", NCHRP
Project No. 12-19, April 1979. Chamberlain, W.P., Irwin, Richard J.
and Amsler, Duane E.
6) Spellman, D.L. Stratfull, R .F ., "An Electrical Method forand
Evaluating Bridge Deck Coatings", Highway Research Record 357, Highway
Research Board, 1971.
7) Local Climatological Data Summary, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Winter 1978-79
8) Rhodes, Stout, Siebers and Schindler, "In Situ Determination of the
Chloride Content or Portland Cement Concrete Bridge Decks" Report No
FHWA/RD-80/030, FHWA, August 1980.
