Bridge engineers and managers in coastal areas and cold regions frequently specify the application of surface treatments on concrete bridge decks as barriers against chloride ingress. In consideration of concrete cover thickness and the presence of stay-in-place metal forms (SIPMFs), the objective of this research was to determine the latest timing of initial surface treatment applications on concrete bridge decks subjected to external chloride loading before chlorides accumulate in sufficient quantities to initiate corrosion during the service life of the deck. Chloride concentration data for this research were collected from 12 concrete bridge decks located within the I-215 corridor in Salt Lake City, Utah. Numerical modeling was utilized to generate a chloride loading function and to determine the diffusion coefficient of each deck. Based on average diffusion coefficients for decks with and without SIPMFs, chloride concentration profiles were computed through time for cover thicknesses of 2.0 in., 2.5 in., and 3.0 in. The results of the work show that the average diffusion coefficient for bridge decks with SIPMFs is approximately twice that of decks without SIPMFs and that, on average, each additional 0.5 in. of cover beyond 2.0 in. allows an extra 2 years for decks with SIPMFs and 5 years for decks without SIPMFs before a surface treatment must be placed to prevent excessive accumulation of chlorides. Although the data generated in this research are based on conditions typical of bridge decks in Utah, they clearly illustrate the effect of cover depth and the presence of SIPMFs. Given these research findings, engineers should carefully determine the appropriate timing for initial applications of surface treatments to concrete bridge decks in consideration of cover depth and the presence of SIPMFs. For maintenance of concrete bridge decks with properties similar to those tested in this study, engineers should follow the guidelines developed in this research to minimize the ingress of chlorides into the decks over time and therefore retard the onset of reinforcement corrosion; altogether separate guidelines may be needed for decks having substantially different properties. Surface treatments should be replaced as needed to ensure continuing protection of the concrete bridge deck against chloride ingress.

The objectives of this research were to investigate the effect of stay-in-place metal forms (SIPMFs) on the performance of concrete bridge decks in Utah. The research program included six bridge decks with SIPMFs and six decks without SIPMFs, which were all located within the Interstate 215 corridor in the vicinity of Salt Lake City, Utah, and therefore subject to similar traffic loading, climatic conditions, and maintenance treatments, including applications of deicing salts during winter months. All of the tested decks were constructed between 1984 and 1989 using epoxy-coated rebar. Several tests were performed at each of six locations on each deck, including visual inspection, chain dragging, hammer sounding, Schmidt hammer testing, half-cell potential testing, and chloride concentration testing. Because differences in deck age and average cover for the two deck types were found to be statistically significant, the collected data were subjected to analysis of covariance (ANOCOVA) testing, with age and cover as covariates. All calculated p-values were compared to the standard value of 0.05. The distress survey results indicate that the average crack width and crack density for decks without SIPMFs were greater by 41 and 25 percent, respectively, than the corresponding values for decks with SIPMFs and that decks without SIPMFs had more potholes than decks with SIPMFs. However, the delamination density for bridge decks with SIPMFs was 71 percent higher than that of decks without SIPMFs. The average Schmidt rebound number for decks with SIPMFs was higher than that for decks without SIPMFs by an equivalent of 1,400 psi. The half-cell potential for decks with SIPMFs was 0.123 lower than that of decks without SIPMFs, indicating that a more active state of corrosion exists on decks with SIPMFs. On average, the chloride concentration in the bridge decks with SIPMFs was 205 percent greater than the concentration in the decks without SIPMFs. Among all of the distress measurements evaluated in the ANOCOVA, crack width was the only parameter that was determined to be significantly different between the two types of decks at the time of testing. In addition, Schmidt rebound number, half-cell potential, and chloride concentration at 2-in. depth all yielded p-values less than 0.05, indicating that significant differences in these properties exist between decks with and without SIPMFs. Specifically, the decks with SIPMFs have a higher compressive strength, a more active state of corrosion, and a higher chloride concentration, which may all be attributable to elevated moisture contents in decks with SIPMFs arising from the reduction in deck surface area from which moisture may evaporate. These data indicate that decks with SIPMFs are clearly more susceptible to reinforcement corrosion compared to decks without SIPMFs and may therefore exhibit greater magnitudes of damage with time. Given these research findings, engineers should carefully compare the short-term advantages against the potential long-term disadvantages associated with the use of SIPMFs for concrete bridge deck construction. If SIPMFs are approved for use, engineers may consider applying surface treatments to the affected decks early in the deck life to minimize the ingress of chlorides into the concrete over time and therefore retard the onset of reinforcement corrosion.