Page 252 - Challenges in Corrosion Costs Causes Consequences and Control(2015)
P. 252

230                                 CORROSION CONTROL AND PREVENTION

           TABLE 4.16  Summary of Costs and Life Expectancy for Rehabilitation Methods
                                       Average    Range     Average    Range of
           Type of                       Cost     of Cost    Life      Expected
                                           2
                                                      2
           Maintenance                  ($/m )    ($/m )    (Years)   Life (Years)
           Impressed current (CO) (deck)  114     92–137      35        15–35
           Impressed current CP          143      76–211      20        5–35
             (substructure)
           Sacrificial anode CP          118     108–129      15        10–20
             (substructure)
           Electrochemical removal (deck)  91     53–129      15        10–20
           Electrochemical removal       161     107–215      15        10–20
             (substructure)




           the prestressing steel and concrete and possible hydrogen embrittlement (from
           overprotection of the prestressing steel) have been alleviated by the establishment of
           criteria for the qualification of prestressed concrete bridge components for CP.
              The costs of electrochemical rehabilitation alternatives for bridge structures are
           given in Table 4.16.
              In general, electrochemical methods are in competition with rehabilitation utiliz-
           ing an overlay such as low-slump, high-performance, or latex-modified concrete. The
           deck condition is often the controlling factor in the selection of the rehabilitation
           method. In some instances, a combination of these methods is selected. For example,
           electrochemical removal of chloride followed by an overlay or an overlay in conjunc-
           tion with CP to mitigate any further corrosion.
              Salt-induced reinforcing steel corrosion in concrete bridges is a serious problem
           and an economic burden. Although the positive effect of corrosion protection mea-
           sures can be seen on individual cases, there are many bridges (thousands) without
           corrosion control.
              It is useful to note that even the latest corrosion control methods are not likely to
           prevent all corrosion for the life of the bridge structure. Therefore, there is a need for
           repair/rehabilitation of bridge structures, and the mitigation of existing corrosion will
           draw the attention of bridge engineers for years to come.
              There are several methods for the rehabilitation of concrete structures that have
           deteriorated because of chloride-induced corrosion of the reinforcing steel. The
           problems in concrete structure are generally found after significant deterioration
           has resulted in the cracking and spalling of the concrete, and the majority of the
           remedial measures are applied after removal and patching of the damaged concrete.
           The available methods are based on one of the following principles (16).

             1. Provision of a barrier on the surface of the concrete to prevent future ingress of
                chloride (overlays, membranes, etc.).
             2. Control of the electrochemical reactions at the steel surface to mitigate the cor-
                rosion reactions by imposing proper voltage field on the rebar CP.
   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257