blank space

South Dakota Department of Transportation
Project Synopsis

Title: Evaluation of Corrosion-Resistant Reinforcing Steel
Project Researcher: David Darwin, The Universtiy of Kansas
Project Manager: Dan Johnston
Research Period: 3/12/2001 - 12/31/2001
Cost: $50,000.00

Problem Statement: The ongoing problem of corrosion of reinforcing steel in bridge decks has been addressed in South Dakota with increased concrete cover over reinforcement and the use of epoxy-coated rebar (ECR). To date, these measures appear to have worked well extending bridge deck life significantly. With the development of new materials and technologies, there maybe a potential for increasing deck life and/or reducing the amount of concrete cover on bridge decks. One of these new materials is MMFX Microcomposite steel. The MMFX Microcomposite steel may be much less susceptible to corrosion than black steel or ECR, and may provide the means of preventing corrosion caused by deicing salts from occurring throughout the life of a structure.

At the same time, doubts have been raised concerning the performance of epoxy-coated reinforcement due to failures in high chloride environments (i.e. a marine environment) within three years. Although the first epoxy-coated reinforcement bridge decks constructed in South Dakota exhibit no evidence of deterioration after more than twenty years, an attempt to evaluate their corrosion-resistance in situ was hampered by the lack of chloride ions at steel depth.

The purpose of this research is to evaluate the potential corrosion resistance, mechanical properties and uniformity of the MMFX Microcomposite steel using laboratory tests. Based on the results of these tests, South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) may design, construct and evaluate a bridge deck reinforced with MMFX Microcomposite steel. All test results will be compared with those from epoxy-coated reinforcement and mild steel. The research will provide information on the constructability and effectiveness of MMFX Microcomposite steel for use in bridge decks as well as performance, service life and cost-effectiveness data on both the MMFX Microcomposite steel and ECR systems.

Findings: The corrosion of reinforcing steel in highway structures results in maintenance and replacement costs in the United States that are measured in billions of dollars. The use of deicing salts has resulted in the steady deterioration of roadway bridge decks due to corrosion. One method to reduce corrosion is the use of corrosion-resistant alloys. A high-strength, high chromium reinforcing steel, MMFX Microcomposite steel, is evaluated for corrosion resistance, mechanical properties, applicability for structural applications, life expectancy and cost effectiveness. The steel is compared with conventional mild steel reinforcement, and epoxy-coated reinforcement. Principal emphasis is placed on corrosion performance of the steel, which is evaluated using rapid macrocell tests of bare and mortar-wrapped reinforcement and initial test results for Southern Exposure and cracked beam tests. Life expectancy and cost effectiveness are evaluated based on experience and costs in South Dakota, combined with laboratory results for the chloride content required for corrosion initiation and the rate of corrosion in cracked concrete. MMFX microcomposite steel has average yield strengths between 120 and 140 ksi. Most of the specimens tested satisfy the requirements for high-strength steel bars for prestressing concrete, as specified under ASTM A 722. In most cases, the steel also satisfies the requirements for conventional reinforcement under ASTM A 615, although some samples do not meet the requirements for elongation. MMFX steel bars satisfy the ASTM requirements for bar geometry and will provide satisfactory bond strength with concrete. Depending on bridge deck design, the use of MMFX Microcomposite steel provides few or no alternatives that satisfy all AASHTO bridge design criteria. The corrosion threshold of MMFX Microcomposite steel is approximately four times higher than that of conventional reinforcement. It has a corrosion rate between one-third and two-thirds that of uncoated conventional reinforcing steel. Epoxy-coated steel provides superior corrosion performance to MMFX Microcomposite steel. Bridge decks containing MMFX Microcomposite reinforcing steel will require repair approximately 30 years after construction, compared to 10 to 25 years for conventional steel and 40 years for epoxy-coated reinforcement under typical conditions in South Dakota. Bridge decks containing MMFX Microcomposite steel do not appear to be cost effective when compared to bridge decks containing epoxy-coated reinforcement. MMFX Microcomposite steel is not recommended for use in bridge decks without the use of a supplementary corrosion protection system.

Research Objectives:
1  Determine the corrosion-resistance of MMFX Microcomposite steel compared to ECR reinforcement.
2  Determine the mechanical properties, quality and suitability of MMFX Microcomposite steel for use in bridge decks.
3  Estimate life expectancy and cost effectiveness of MMFX Microcomposite steel, ECR and mild steel reinforcement in South Dakota.

Research Tasks:
1  Perform a literature search on MMFX Microcomposite steel and its use as reinforcement including a survey of any identified users.
2  Meet with the technical panel to discuss the project and scope of work.
3  Conduct a series of laboratory tests consisting at a minimum of elongation, yield strength, tensile strength, uniformity, thickness, variability, development length, effects due to deformation profile, composition, and corrosion rate on #4, #5, and #
4  Conduct a series of statistically valid comparative tests of corrosion resistance on MMFX Microcomposite steel, ECR and mild steel reinforcement to determine general corrosion properties both inside and outside concrete, stress and pitting corrosion
5  Analyze corrosion effects on MMFX Microcomposite steel and ECR using scanning electron microscopy.
6  Estimate life expectancy and cost effectiveness of MMFX Microcomposite steel, ECR and mild steel reinforcement in South Dakota.
7  Prepare a final report and executive summary of the literature review, research methodology, findings, conclusions, estimated life for each steel type, evaluation plan and recommendations.
8  Make an executive presentation to the SDDOT Research Review Board at the conclusion of the project.

Documents Available:
SD 2001_05_ExecutiveRpt.pdf

blank space