Evaluation Of Corrosion Inhibitors - Rutgers CAIT

2y ago
45 Views
2 Downloads
5.52 MB
162 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Ciara Libby
Transcription

FHWA NJ 2001-023Evaluation of Corrosion InhibitorsFINAL REPORTOctober 1999Submitted byDr. P. BalaguruProfessorCenter for Advanced Infrastructure & Transportation (CAIT)Civil & Environmental EngineeringRutgers, The State UniversityPiscataway, NJ 08854-8014NJDOT Research Project ManagersMr. Carey Younger & Mr. Robert BakerIn cooperation withNew JerseyDepartment of TransportationDivision of Research and TechnologyandU.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway Administration

Disclaimer Statement"The contents of this report reflect the views of theauthor(s) who is (are) responsible for the facts and theaccuracy of the data presented herein. The contents donot necessarily reflect the official views or policies of theNew Jersey Department of Transportation or the FederalHighway Administration. This report does not constitutea standard, specification, or regulation."The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors,who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of theinformation presented herein. This document is disseminatedunder the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation,University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest ofinformation exchange. The U.S. Government assumes noliability for the contents or use thereof.

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE1. Report No.2. Government Accession No.3.Recipient’s Catalog No.5.Report DateFHWA 2001-0234.Title and SubtitleOctober 1999Evaluation of Corrosion Inhibitors6. P e r f o r m i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n C o d eCAIT/Rutgers7.Author(s)8. Performing Organization Report No.Dr. P. BalaguruFHWA 2001-0239. Performing Organization Name and Address10. Work Unit No.New Jersey Department of TransportationCN 600Trenton, NJ 0862511.13.12. Sponsoring Agency Name and AddressType of Report and Period CoveredFinal Report06/27/1997 - 12/31/2000Federal Highway AdministrationU.S. Department of TransportationWashington, D.C.15.Contract or Grant No.14.Sponsoring Agency CodeSupplementary Notes16. A b s t r a c tCorrosion of reinforcement is a global problem that has been studied extensively. The use of goodquality concrete and corrosion inhibitors seems to be an economical, effective, and logical solution, especially fornew structures. A number of laboratory studies are available on the performance of various corrosion inhibitingadmixtures. But studies on concrete used in the field are rare. A new bypass constructed by the New JerseyDepartment of Transportation provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the admixtures in the field. Five newbridge decks were used to evaluate four corrosion inhibiting admixtures.The concrete used in the four bridge decks had one of the following admixtures: DCI – S, XYPEX C1000, Rheocrete 222 , Ferrogard901. All the admixtures are commercially available and used in the field. Thefifth deck was used as a control. All the decks with admixtures had black steel where as the control deck hadepoxy coated bars. Extra black steel bars were placed on the control deck.Both laboratory and field tests methods were used to evaluate the admixtures. The uniqueness of thestudy stems from the use of field concrete, obtained as the concrete for the individual bridge decks were placed.In addition to cylinder strength tests, minidecks were prepared for accelerated corrosion testing. The bridgedecks were instrumented for long term corrosion monitoring. Tests to measure corrosion rate, corrosionpotential, air permeability, and electrical resistance were used to determine the performance of the individualadmixtures .The evaluation produced an overall best performing admixture though the differences in the overallperformance of the admixtures were not significant. The admixtures were ranked from best to worst in corrosionprotection for each test.In terms of scientific observations, xypex provides a denser concrete. If the concrete can be kept free ofcracks this product will minimize the ingress of liquids reducing corrosion. The other three provides a protectionto reinforcement by providing a barrier, reducing the effect of chlorides or both. In order to distinguish thedifferences the study should continue as explained in the following recommendation section.18. D i s t r i b u t i o n S t a t e m e n t17. K e y W o r d scorrosion, reinforcement, inhibitor, minideck,admixture, bridge deck, protection, chloride,barrier19. S e c u r i t y C l a s s i f ( o f t h i s r e p o r t )UnclassifiedForm DOT F 1700.7 (8-69)20. S e c u r i t y C l a s s i f . ( o f t h i s p a g e )Unclassified2 1 . N o o f P a g e s 22. P r i c e163

Executive SummaryCorrosion of reinforcement is a global problem that has been studied extensively. The useof good quality concrete and corrosion inhibitors seems to be an economical, effective, and logicalsolution, especially for new structures. A number of laboratory studies are available on theperformance of various corrosion inhibiting admixtures. But studies on concrete used in the fieldare rare. A new bypass constructed by the New Jersey Department of Transportation provided aunique opportunity to evaluate the admixtures in the field. Five new bridge decks were used toevaluate four corrosion inhibiting admixtures.The concrete used in the four bridge decks had one of the following admixtures: DCI - S,XYPEX C-1000, Rheocrete 222 , Ferrogard 901. All the admixtures are commercially availableand used in the field. The fifth deck was used as a control. All the decks with admixtures hadblack steel where as the control deck had epoxy coated bars. Extra black steel bars were placed onthe control deck.Both laboratory and field tests methods were used to evaluate the admixtures. Theuniqueness of the study stems from the use of field concrete, obtained as the concrete for theindividual bridge decks were placed. In addition to cylinder strength tests, minidecks wereprepared for accelerated corrosion testing. The bridge decks were instrumented for long termcorrosion monitoring. Tests to measure corrosion rate, corrosion potential, air permeability, andelectrical resistance were performed at regular periods throughout the year. Data obtained from thelaboratory and field such as corrosion rate, corrosion potential, air permeability, and electricalresistance were used to determine the performance of the individual admixtures.The evaluation produced an overall best performing admixture though the differences in theoverall performances of the admixtures were not significant. The admixtures were ranked frombest to worst in corrosion protection for each test.In terms of scientific observations, xypex provides a denser concrete. If the concrete canbe kept free of cracks this product will minimize the ingress of liquids reducing corrosion. Theother three provides a protection to reinforcement by providing a barrier, reducing the effect ofchlorides or both. In order to distinguish the differences the study should continue as explained inthe following recommendation section.

RecommendationsSince the study was tied with the construction of 133, the time schedule had to be altered.The test samples were prepared using the field concrete and hence the start of the experiments weredelayed more than 4 months. In order to obtain distinguishable differences the laboratoryaccelerated test should continue for at least another 6 months.The instrumentation in the field is working well. The original proposal had a provision tocontinue the measurements by NJDOT. A proposal is written to facilitate the continuation of fieldmeasurements for at least 2 years. Note that the bridges are not open to traffic. At least twowinters under loading are needed to obtain meaningful readings.iii

AcknowledgementsThe authors gratefully acknowledges the support provided by NJDOT and the cooperationof Mr. Carey Younger and Mr. Robert Baker. The encouragement and contribution of ProfessorAli Maher, Chairman and Director of CAIT are acknowledged with thanks.The contribution of the following gradute students and Mr. Edward Wass are alsoacknowledged.Mr. Nicholas WongMr. Anand BhattMr. Hemal ShahMr. Yubun Auyeungiv

Table of ContentsPageTitle Page1Abstract11AcknowledgementsivTable of Contentsv1List of TablesVlllList of Figuresxi1. Introduction12. Background lnformation33 . Experimental Program63.1 Test Variables83.2 Test Methods123.2.1 GECOR 6 Corrosion Rate Meter123.2.2 Surface Air Flow Field Permeability Indicator173.2.3 Electrical Resistance Test for Penetrating Sealers253.2.4 Standard Test Method for Determining the Effects of Chemical28.Admixtures on the Corrosion of Embedded Steel Reinforcementin Concrete Exposed to Chloride Environments - ASTM G 1093 . 3 Instrumentation for Field Tests313.4 Specimen Preparation for Laboratory Tests654. Results and Discussion704.1.1 North Main Street Westbound: Laboratory Tests714.1.2 North Main Street Westbound: Field Tests744.2.1 North Main Street Eastbound: Laboratory Tests824.2.2 North Main Street Eastbound: Field Tests854.3.1 Wyckoff Road Westbound: Laboratory Tests934.3.2 Wyckoff Road Westbound: Field Tests964.4.1 Wyckoff Road Eastbound: Laboratory Tests104

4.4.2 Wyckoff Road Eastbound: Field Tests1074.5.1 Route 130 Westbound: Laboratory Tests1154.5.2 Route 130 Westbound: Field Tests1184.6 Comparison of Corrosion Inhibiting Admixtures1275. Conclusions1436. Appendix1447. References145vii

List of TablesPageTable 3.1 : Bridge Locations with Corresponding Corrosion InhibitingAdmixtures and Reinforcing Steel Type8Table 3.2: Mix Design of North Main Street - Westbound9Table 3.3: Mix Design of North Main Street - Eastbound9Table 3.4: Mix Design of Wyckoff Road - Westbound10Table 3.5: Mix Design of Wyckoff Road - Eastbound10Table 3.6: Mix Design of Route 130 - Westbound11Table 3.7: Interpretation of Corrosion Rate Data (Scannel, 1997)16Table 3.8: Interpretation of Half Cell (Corrosion) Potential Readings[ASTM C 876116Table 3.9: Relative Concrete Permeability by Surface Air Flow24Table 3.10: Preliminary DC Testing of Gauge (Electrical Resistance Sealer Test)27Table 3.1 1 : Minideck Sample Location, Admixture Type, and Designation.69Table 4. I : Fresh Concrete Properties70Table 4.2: Hardened Concrete Properties70Table 4.3: Minideck A - ASTM G 109 Corrosion Rate ( A/cm2)71Table 4.4: Minideck A - ASTM G 109 Corrosion Potential (mV)71Table 4.5: North Main Street Westbound GECOR 6 Corrosion Rate ( A/cm2)74Table 4.6: North Main Street Westbound GECOR 6 Corrosion Potential (mV)75Table 4.7: North Main Street Westbound GECOR 6 Electrical Resistance (KQ)75Table 4.8: North Main Street Westbound Air PermeabilityVacuum (mm Hg), SCCM (ml/min)76Table 4.9: North Main Street Westbound Electrical Resistance Sealer Test (KQ)76viii

Table 4.10: Minideck B - ASTM G 109 Corrosion Rate ( A/cm2)82Table 4.1 1: Minideck B - ASTM G 109 Corrosion Potential (mV)82Table 4.12: North Main Street Eastbound GECOR 6 Corrosion Rate ( A/cm2)85Table 4.13: North Main Street Eastbound GECOR 6 Corrosion Potential (mV)86Table 4.14: North Main Street Eastbound GECOR 6 Electrical Resistance (KQ)86Table 4.15: North Main Street Eastbound Air PermeabilityVacuum (mm Hg), SCCM (ml/min)87Table 4.16: North Main Street Eastbound Electrical Resistance Sealer Test (KR)87Table 4.17: Minideck C - ASTM G 109 Corrosion Rate ( A/cm2)93Table 4.18: Minideck C - ASTM G 109 Corrosion Potential (mV)93Table 4.19: Wyckoff Road Westbound GECOR 6 Corrosion Rate ( A/cm2)96Table 4.20: Wyckoff Road Westbound GECOR 6 Corrosion Potential (mV)97Table 4.2 1: Wyckoff Road Westbound GECOR 6 Electrical Resistance (KR)97Table 4.22: Wyckoff Road Westbound Air Permeability Vacuum (mm Hg),SCCM (ml/min)98Table 4.23: Wyckoff Road Westbound Electrical Resistance Sealer Test (KR)98Table 4.24: Minideck D - ASTM G 109 Corrosion Rate ( A/cm2)104Table 4.25: Minideck D - ASTM G 109 Corrosion Potential (mV)104Table 4.26: Wyckoff Road Eastbound GECOR 6 Corrosion Rate ( A/cm2)107Table 4.27: Wyckoff Road Eastbound GECOR 6 Corrosion Potential (mV)108Table 4.28: Wyckoff Road Eastbound GECOR 6 Electrical Resistance (KR)108Table 4.29: Wyckoff Road Eastbound Air Permeability Vacuum (mm Hg),SCCM (ml/min)109Table 4.30: Wyckoff Road Eastbound Electrical Resistance Sealer Test (KR)109Table 4.3 1: Minideck E - ASTM G 109 Corrosion Rate ( A/cm2)115ix

Table 4.32: Minideck E - ASTM G 109 Corrosion Potential (mV)115Table 4.33: Route 130 Westbound GECOR 6 Corrosion Rate ( A/cm2)118Table 4.34: Route 130 Westbound GECOR 6 Corrosion Potential (mV)119Table 4.35: Route 130 Westbound GECOR 6 Electrical Resistance (KR)120Table 4.36: Route 130 Westbound Air Permeability Vacuum (mm Hg),SCCM (ml/min)121Table 4.37: Route 130 Westbound Electrical Resistance Sealer Test (KR)121Table 4.38: Ranked Results of Evaluation140Table 4.39: Points Evaluation of Corrosion Inhibiting Admixtures141Table 6.1 : Interpretation of Corrosion Rate Data (Scannell, 1996)144Table 6.2: Interpretation of Half Cell (Corrosion) Potential Readings[ASTM C 8761144Table 6.3: Relative Concrete Permeability by Surface Air Flow (Manual for theOperation of a Surface Air Flow permeability Indicator, 1994)144X

List of FiguresPageFig. 3.1 : Components of the GECOR 6 Corrosion Rate Meter13Fig. 3.2: GECOR 6 Corrosion Rate Meter Sensor with Sponge13Fig. 3.3: Surface Air Flow Field Permeability Indicator (Front View)18Fig. 3.4: Surface Air Flow Field Permeability Indicator (Front View)19Fig. 3.5: Surface Air Flow Field Permeability Indicator(Top View of Digital Displays)20Fig. 3.6: Drawing of Concrete Surface Air Flow Permeability Indicator21Fig. 3.7: Schematic of Concrete Surface Air Flow Permeability Indicator22Fig. 3.8: Strips of Silver Conductive Paint25Fig. 3.9: Equipment Required for Electrical Resistance Test for PenetratingSealers26Fig. 3.10: View of Concrete Minideck29Fig. 3.1 1: Locations of GECOR 6 Corrosion Rate Meter TestsNorth Main Street Westbound33Fig. 3.12: Locations of GECOR 6 Corrosion Rate Meter TestsNorth Main Street Eastbound34Fig. 3.13: Locations of GECOR 6 Corrosion Rate Meter Tests Wyckoff RoadWestbound35Fig. 3.14: Locations of GECOR 6 Corrosion Rate Meter Tests Wyckoff RoadEastbound36Fig. 3.15: Locations of GECOR 6 Corrosion Rate Meter Tests Route 130Westbound37Fig. 3.16: Locations of Uncoated Steel Reinforcement Bars on Route 130Westbound38Fig. 3.17: Insulated Copper Underground Feeder Cables39Fig. 3.18: Connection to North Main Street Westbound40xi

Fig. 3.19: Connection toNorth Main Street Eastbound41Fig. 3.20: Connection to Wyckoff Road Westbound42Fig. 3.2 1: Connection toWyckoff Road Eastbound43Fig. 3.22: Connection to Route 130 Westbound44Fig. 3.23: Conduits and Enclosure - North Main Street Westbound45Fig. 3.24: Conduits and Enclosure - North Main Street Eastbound45Fig. 3.25: Conduits and Enclosure - Wyckoff Road Westbound46Fig. 3.26: Conduits and Enclosure - Wyckoff Road Eastbound46Fig. 3.27: Conduits and Enclosure - Route 130 Westbound47Fig. 3.28: Vibrating of Fresh Concrete at North Main Street Eastbound48Fig. 3.29: Placement on Fresh Concrete at North Main Street Westbound48Fig. 3.30: View of Connections at North Main Street Westboundduring Concrete Placement49Fig. 3.3 1: Bridge Deck over North Main Street Westbound near Completion50Fig. 3.32: Bridge Deck over North Main Street Eastbound near Completion50Fig. 3.33: Bridge Deck over Wyckoff Road Westbound near Completion51Fig. 3.34: Bridge Deck over Wyckoff Road Eastbound near Completion51Fig. 3.35: Bridge Deck over Route 130 Westbound near Completion52Fig. 3.36: Locations of Surface Air Flow Field Permeability IndicatorReadings North Main Street Westbound54Fig. 3.37: Locations of Surface Air Flow Field Permeability IndicatorReadings North Main Street Eastbound55Fig. 3.38: Locations of Surface Air Flow Field Permeability IndicatorReadings Wyckoff Road Westbound56xii

Fig. 3.39: Locations of Surface Air Flow Field Permeability IndicatorReadings Wyckoff Road Westbound57Fig. 3.40: Locations of Surface Air Flow Field Permeability IndicatorReadings Route 130 Westbound58Fig. 3.4 1: Locations of Electrical Resistance Tests North Main StreetWestbound60Fig. 3.42: Locations of Electrical Resistance Tests North Main StreetEastbound61Fig. 3.43 : Locations of Electrical Resistance Tests Wyckoff Road Westbound62Fig. 3.44: Locations of Electrical Resistance Tests Wyckoff Road Eastbound63Fig. 3.45: Locations of Electrical Resistance Tests Route 130 Westbound64Fig. 3.46: Prepared Minideck Mold65Fig. 3.47: Minideck after Removal from Mold66Fig. 3.48: View of Plexiglas Dam67Fig. 3.49: Ponded Minideck Samples68Fig. 4.1 : Minideck A - Average Corrosion Rate Macrocell Current (PA)72Fig. 4.2: Minideck A - Average Corrosion Potential (mV)72Fig. 4.3: North Main Street Westbound GECOR 6 Average Corrosion RateMacrocell Current (PA)77Fig. 4.4: North Main Street Westbound GECOR 6 Average CorrosionPotential (mV)78Fig. 4.5: North Main Street Westbound GECOR 6 Average ElectricalResistance AC (KO)79Fig. 4.6: North Main Street Westbound Average Air Flow Rate (ml/min)80Fig. 4.7: North Main Street Westbound Average Electrical Resistance AC (KQ)81Fig. 4.8: Minideck B - Average Corrosion Rate Macrocell Current (PA)83Fig. 4.9: Minideck B - Average Corrosion Potential (mV)84.Xlll

Fig. 4.10: North Main Street Eastbound Average Corrosion Rate MacrocellCurrent (PA)88Fig. 4.1 1: North Main Street Eastbound GECOR 6 Average CorrosionPotential (mV)89Fig. 4.12: North Main Street Eastbound GECOR 6 Average ElectricalResistance AC (KQ)90Fig. 4.13 : North Main Street Eastbound Average Air Flow Rate (ml/min)91Fig. 4.14: North Main Street Eastbound Average Electrical Resistance AC (KQ) 92Fig. 4.15: Minideck C - Average Corrosion Rate Macrocell Current (PA)94Fig. 4.16: Minideck C - Average Corrosion Potential (mV)95Fig. 4.17: Wyckoff Road Westbound GECOR 6 Average Corrosion RateMacrocell Current (PA)99Fig. 4.18: Wyckoff Road Westbound GECOR 6 AverageCorrosion Potential (mV)100Fig. 4.19: Wyckoff Road Westbound GECOR 6 Average ElectricalResistance AC (KQ)101Fig. 4.20: Wyckoff Road Westbound Average Air Flow Rate (ml/min)102Fig. 4.21 : Wyckoff Road Westbound Average Electrical Resistance AC (KO)103Fig. 4.22: Minideck D - Average Corrosion Rate Macrocell Current (PA)105Fig. 4.23 : Minideck D - Average Corrosion Potential (mV)106Fig. 4.24: Wyckoff Road Eastbound GECOR 6 Average Corrosion RateMacrocell Current (PA)110Fig. 4.25: Wyckoff Road Eastbound GECOR 6 AverageCorrosion Potential (mV)111Fig. 4.26: Wyckoff Road Eastbound GECOR 6 Average Electrical ResistanceAC (KQ)112Fig. 4.27: Wyckoff Road Westbound Average Air Flow Rate (ml/min)113xiv

Fig.428: Wyckoff Road Eastbound Average Electrical Resistance AC (KR)114Fig. 4.29: Minideck E - Average Corrosion Rate Macrocell Current (PA)116Fig. 4.30: Minideck E - Average Corrosion Potential (mV)117Fig. 4.3 1: Route 130 Westbound GECOR 6 Average Corrosion RateMacrocell Current (PA)122Fig. 4.32: Route 130 Westbound GECOR 6 Average Corrosion Potential (mV)123Fig. 4.33: Route 130 Westbound GECOR 6 AverageElectrical Resistance AC (KR)124Fig. 4.34: Wyckoff Road Westbound Average Air Flow Rate (ml/min)125Fig. 4.35: Route 130 Westbound Average Electrical Resistance AC (KR)126Fig. 4.36: Comparison of Corrosion Inhibitors Minideck AverageCorrosion Rate Macrocell Current (PA)128Fig. 4.37: Comparison of Corrosion Inhibitors Minideck AverageCorrosion Potential (mV)129Fig. 4.38: Comparison of Corrosicln Inhibitors GECOR 6Average Corrosion Rate Macrocell Current (PA)130Fig. 4.39: Comparison of Corrosioln Inhibitors GECOR 6 Average CorrosionPotential (mV)131Fig. 4.40: Comparison of Corrosion Inhibitors GECOR 6 Average ElectricalResistance AC (KR)132Fig. 4.41 : Comparison of Corrosio'n Inhibitors Average Air Flow Rate (ml/min)133Fig. 4.42: Comparison of Corrosio'n Inhibitors Average Electrical ResistanceAC (KR)134xv

-11. IntroductionCorrosion of reinforcement is a global problem that has been studiedextensively. Though the highly alkali nature of concrete normally protects reinforci

Table 4.10: Minideck B - ASTM G 109 Corrosion Rate ( A/cm2) Table 4.1 1 : Minideck B - ASTM G 109 Corrosion Potential (mV) Table 4.12: North Main Street Eastbound GECOR 6 Corrosion Rate ( A/cm2) Table 4.13: North Main Street Eastbound GECOR 6 Corrosion Potential (mV) Table 4.14: North

Related Documents:

5 J Corrosion Inhibitors S. PAPAVINASAM CANMET Materials Technology Laboratory Ottawa, Ontario, Canada A. INTRODUCTION A corrosion inhibitor is a chemical substance which, when added in small concentrations to an environment, minimizes or prevents corrosion [I]. Corrosion inhibitors are used to protect metals

and phosphates do not afford the degree of protection provided by chro-mates and nitrites; however, they are very useful in situations where nontoxic additives are required. 10.2.5 Volatile corrosion inhibitors Volatile corrosion inhibitors (VCIs), also called vapor phase inhibitors (VPIs), are compounds transported in a closed environment to .

An amino alcohol corrosion inhibitors can be mixed within the fresh concrete (admixture inhibitor), or can be applied on the surface of existing concrete structures. In this study the contribution of both types' admixtured and spraying applied corrosion inhibitors was investigated. Moreover, when the corrosion action was under progress,

reported ndings, the combination of MEK inhibitors with chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors or BRAF inhibitors is highly signicant for improving clinical ecacy and causing delay in the occurrence of drug resistance. This review summarized the existing experimental results and

Choose materials compatible with environment. Do not create corrosion cell through design/construction details. Corrosion Inhibitors Alter the environment adjacent to metal to passivate and protect metal. Concrete or mortar on steel are inhibitors Concepts of the Four Basic Methods Corrosion Control

Corrosion inhibitors N, N'-ortho-phenylenacetyle acetone imine (S1) and 4-[(3-{[1-(2-hydroxy phenyl)methylidene]amino}propyl]ethanemidol]-1, 3-benzenediol (S2) have been studied as corrosion inhibitors on two different microstructures by impedance method in 1MHCl.20 Two different microstructures are produced by different heat treatment process. .

Other resourceful websites 16 Website Purpose sims.rutgers.edu/rosters Online roster sis.rutgers.edu/soc Schedule of classes ctaar.rutgers.edu Instructor rating surveys Website Purpose classrooms.rutgers.edu Classroom Information libraries.rutgers.edu Library Services rutgersfaculty.bncollege.com Order

The Asset Management Strategy is aligned to other key policies including, but is not limited to: Allocations Policy, Procurement Strategy, Repairs and Maintenance Policy, Estate Management Policy, Adaptations Policy, and Rent and Service Charge Policy. The AMS is also aligned to the current relevant legislation and statutory requirements outlined within each Policy. In .