STEELBRIDGEDESIGNHANDBOOK

Corrosion Protection
of Steel Bridges
Chapter 23
National Steel
Bridge Alliance
Disclaimer
All data, specifications, suggested practices, and drawings presented herein, are based on the best
available information and delineated in accordance with recognized professional engineering princi-
ples and practices, and are published for general and procedural information only. Procedures and
products, suggested or discussed, should not be used without first securing competent advice respect-
ing their suitability for any given application.
Publication of the material herein is not to be construed as a warranty on the part of the National Steel
Bridge Alliance - or that of any person named herein - that these data and suggested practices are suit-
able for any general or particular use, or of freedom from infringement on any patent or patents.
Further, any use of these data or suggested practices can only be made with the understanding that
the National Steel Bridge Alliance makes no warranty of any kind respecting such use and the user
assumes all liability arising therefrom.
Table of Contents
Introduction and Background .............................................................................1
Key Issues............................................................................................................1
Environment .................................................................................................1
Materials of Construction..............................................................................6
Coatings for Blasted Steel .......................................................................6
Metalizing ..............................................................................................8
Galvanizing ............................................................................................8
Weathering Steel ....................................................................................9
Design Detailing.........................................................................................10
Cost............................................................................................................13
Fabrication Costs ..................................................................................14
Maintenance Painting costs ..................................................................14
Cost of the Coating System..................................................................14
Life of Coatings ....................................................................................15
Corrosion Protection by Use of Weathering Steel..................................16
Financial Considerations .......................................................................16
Sample Analysis ....................................................................................17
Results ..................................................................................................17
Risk.......................................................................................................18
Summary ..........................................................................................................19
23-1 STEELBRIDGEDESIGNHANDBOOK
Corrosion Protection
of Steel Bridges
INTRODUCTION
and BACKGROUND
Corrosion is a serious threat to the long-
term function and integrity of a steel
bridge. Structural steel will corrode if left
unprotected or inadequately protected
from the natural environment. This corro-
sion can take the form of general uniform
thickness loss or concentrated pitting
depending on exposure to the environ-
ment and the steel design detail in ques-
tion. The designer should view corrosion as
a long term threat to the integrity of the
bridge structure a critical design consid-
eration that must be addressed in a ration-
al manner during the design process.
Corrosion is a time-based process that gen-
erally takes several years to develop deteri-
oration significant enough to cause con-
cern. For this reason, corrosion is often
considered an ownership or maintenance
issue. While this may be true in practical
terms, corrosion is most appropriately
addressed by specification of a proper cor-
rosion protection system during the design
phase. It has been shown that corrosion
played a significant role in the catastroph-
ic collapse of both the Silver Bridge (Point
Pleasant, WV) in 1967 and the Mianus
River Bridge (Connecticut) in 1983 (1) (2).
Therefore, corrosion is not an issue to be
taken lightly by the designer.
It is important to place the issue of corro-
sion in perspective. Corrosion is a concern
beyond steel bridges alone. Because rein-
forced concrete and prestressed concrete
bridges also employ steel components in
their designs, these bridges are also sus-
ceptible to the effects of corrosion. It can
be reasonably argued that although steel
bridges tend to show the outward effects
of corrosion more readily than concrete
structures, steel bridges are inherently eas-
ier to inspect and maintain than concrete
bridges.
While there are several proven strategies
for corrosion protection of steel bridges,
there is no universal solution. The proper
system must be chosen to accommodate
cost, fabrication and productivity, long
term performance and maintenance.
Additionally, each corrosion protection sys-
tem must be selected based on the antici-
pated exposure of the structure to corro-
sive elements over its lifetime. The follow-
ing chapter highlights the most common
issues confronting the steel bridge design-
er regarding corrosion protection and pro-
vides some guidance in this area.
KEY ISSUES
There are four key issues to consider in the
design of a bridge corrosion protection
system: Environment, Materials of
Construction, Design Detailing, and Cost.
Environment
The local environment of a structure sub-
stantially influences the rate of corrosion of
exposed steel and the deterioration of the
protective coating. Traditionally, corrosion
engineers have classified the general
(macro) environment surrounding a struc-
Figure 1
Connection broken due to
corrosion.
CORROSION PROTECTION OF STEEL BRIDGES
23-2
ture as mild (rural), industrial, moderate, or
severe (marine). These general classifica-
tions are of some limited use to the bridge
designer as a starting point for determining
the appropriate level of corrosion protec-
tion required for the structure. The design-
er should begin by assessing the surround-
ing environment for the subject bridge
with specific focus on the potential for salts
or deleterious chemicals to contact and
remain on the steel surfaces and for exces-
sive amounts of moisture to remain on
steel surfaces. For highway bridges the fol-
lowing types of environments are distin-
guished (3):
Mild (Rural): Little to no exposure to nat-
ural airborne and applied deicing salts.
Low pollution in the form of sulfur diox-
ide, low relative humidity, absence of
chemical fumes, usually an interior
(inland) location.
Industrial: High sulfur dioxide or other
potentially corrosive airborne pollutants,
moderate or high humidity. This classifi-
cation has become less important in
recent years as long-term corrosion data
shows the corrosive effects of airborne
pollutants has diminished with the imple-
mentation of clean stack gas regulations.
This atmospheric classification is still a
consideration directly downwind of
known corrosive process stream contam-
inants.
Moderate: Some (occasional) exposure to
airborne salts or deicing salt runoff.
Severe (Marine): High salt content from
proximity to seacoast or from deicing
salt, high humidity and moisture.
The above definitions are, by necessity,
generic. Many bridges will not fall distinct-
ly into any of the categories. Some bridges
may have intermediate climates with mod-
erate sulfur dioxide and moderate humidi-
ty, while others may suffer from high
humidity, high sulfur dioxide, and salt.
Frequently there is a large variation in the
environment even within a very small geo-
graphic area due to local effects. Salt and
moisture levels may vary substantially from
one end of a structure to the other. The
direction of sun and wind and the degree
of sheltering strongly influence the highly
critical time of wetness of structural mem-
bers. Steel that is never exposed to sunlight
may have a much higher time of wetness
than unsheltered members. It does not
appear that there is a specific critical or
threshold acceptable time of wetness.
Rather, a higher time of wetness combined
with higher levels of contamination in the
moisture and on the steel surface leads to
higher corrosion rates (4). Also, since a true
wet-dry cycle is necessary for the proper
formation of protective corrosion films on
weathering steel, details that remain
almost constantly wet will not be able to
form this protective film and will continue
to corrode during their lifetime.
For the purposes of steel bridge design, the
most important designation is the break-
point between a moderate and a severe
environment. For mild environments, cor-
rosion is a less critical issue and there are
many options available for the designer.
For severe or marine environments, the
choices are limited to highly durable
options due to the high corrosivity of the
site. It is the large number of sites that fall
into the moderate designation where
under- and overdesign of the corrosion
protection system most frequently occur.
Significant historical data exist that show
airborne salt levels fall off dramatically as
the location moves away from the shore-
line. This effect shows that in some loca-
tions the marine characteristic of a
coastal environment can abate even within
a few hundred meters from the shore (5).
However, in other locations, although the
gross corrosion rate does diminish inland,
the corrosivity remains relatively high sev-
eral miles from the coast. In addition, it has
been shown that storms can carry airborne
salts miles inland on a frequent basis. These
data and the experiences taken from past
bridge performance indicate that the cor-
rosivity of a specific location is highly site-
specific, depending on proximity to the
ocean, but also on wind patterns, storm
Figure 2 -
Corrosion of prestressing
strands on underside of two
prestressed concrete
bridges.
23-3 STEELBRIDGEDESIGNHANDBOOK
frequency, and height above the water.
Therefore, there is not a specific detailed
map defining the boundary between mod-
erate and severe corrosion sites. If a struc-
ture is to be located over or within several
miles of natural salt water, the designer
should investigate the potential corrosivity
in detail prior to choosing a suitable pro-
tection system and err on the side of con-
servatism.
Table 1 shows section loss data developed
in a comprehensive study conducted by
the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) in the 1960s (6). The
data show the rapid general falloff in cor-
rosion rates of carbon steel in moving from
a marine to an industrial to a rural site. The
data also show that there is a wide varia-
tion in corrosion rates within each macro-
environment depending on such variables
as distance from the shoreline, height
above ground level, and others. It is also
important to note that these are corrosion
rates for 1960s-era carbon steel under
ambient conditions with no direct expo-
sure to deicing salts. Direct, frequent con-
tact between bare steel and deicing salts
will produce corrosion rates closer to those
listed for a marine environment.
Away from the coast, the question of des-
ignation between moderate and severe
becomes one of frequency of deicing salt
application and the realistic ability for
keeping the deicing salt runoff from con-
tacting the steel superstructure. Again,
there are areas of the country where deic-
ing applications are frequent and heavy. In
these (mostly northern) areas the default
position must be a high durability corro-
sion protection system, unless the design-
er can painstakingly detail the particular
bridge to avoid all potential contact
between regular salt containing runoff and
splash and the structural steel.(7)(8)(9)
There is also a large portion of the country
where deicing salts are never used. It is the
area in the middle latitudes of the country
where deicing salts are applied inconsis-
tently or infrequently and where the ques-
tion of adequate long-term corrosion pro-
tection must be addressed in a rational,
site-specific manner.
Identifying the corrosion environment is
important because the suitability of weath-
ering grade steels and the durability of
protective coatings are directly affected by
their exposure environment. Thus, in some
locales, there may be several corrosion
protection options appropriate for the
exposure; whereas in more severe loca-
tions; however, only a maximally durable
coating system would be acceptable.
Figure 3 was constructed as a composite
from long term corrosion exposure data
available in the literature (10). The values
used are averages from various exposure
programs under a variety of conditions
Table 1
Corrosion rates for carbon
steel at various locations.
Environment Section loss Section loss
Location (macro) (m) 1 yr (m) 2 yr
Phoenix, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .rural . . . . . . . . . . .6.6 . . . . . . . . . .9.2
Vancouver, B.C. . . . . . . . . .rural-marine . . . . . . .17.3 . . . . . . . . .26.7
Detroit, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . .industrial . . . . . . . . .23 . . . . . . . . . .28.9
Potter County, PA . . . . . . . . . . .rural . . . . . . . . . .21.8 . . . . . . . . .41.1
State College, PA . . . . . . . . . . .rural . . . . . . . . . .25.1 . . . . . . . . .45.9
Durham, NH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .rural . . . . . . . . . .35.4 . . . . . . . . .54.7
Middletown, OH . . . . . . . .semi-industrial . . . . . . .36.2 . . . . . . . . .57.6
Pittsburgh, PA . . . . . . . . . . . .industrial . . . . . . . . .42.8 . . . . . . . . .61.3
Bethleham, PA . . . . . . . . . . . .industrial . . . . . . . . .55.1 . . . . . . . . .75.3
Newark, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .industrial . . . . . . . . .72.4 . . . . . . . . .102
Bayonne, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . .industrial . . . . . . . . .127 . . . . . . . . .155
East Chicago, IN . . . . . . . . . .industrial . . . . . . . . .111 . . . . . . . . .169
Cape Kennedy, FL . . . . . . . . . .marine . . . . . . . . .41.1 . . . . . . . . .173
0.8 km from coast
Brazos River, TX . . . . . . . .industrial-marine . . . . . .107 . . . . . . . . .187
Cape Kennedy, FL . . . . . . . . . .marine . . . . . . . . .61.3 . . . . . . . . .263
54 m from coast, 18 m elevation
Kure Beach, NC . . . . . . . . . . .marine . . . . . . . . .85.1 . . . . . . . . .292
240 m from the coast
Cape Kennedy, FL . . . . . . . . . .marine . . . . . . . . .70.8 . . . . . . . . .330
54 m from coast, 9 m elevation
Daytona beach, FL . . . . . . . . .marine . . . . . . . . . .209 . . . . . . . . .592
Cape Kennedy, FL . . . . . . . . . .marine . . . . . . . . . .191 . . . . . . . . .884
54 m from coast, ground level
Point Reyes, CA . . . . . . . . . . . .marine . . . . . . . . . .315 . . . . . . . . .1004
Kure Beach, NC . . . . . . . . . . .marine . . . . . . . . . .712 . . . . . . . . .1070
24 m from the coast
Cape Kennedy, FL . . . . . . . . . .marine . . . . . . . . .1057
beach
CORROSION PROTECTION OF STEEL BRIDGES
23-4
and do not rep-
resent worst
case estimates
for the particu-
lar cited macro-
envi ronment.
However, these
curves do show
the relative cor-
rosivity differ-
ences between
different gener-
al classifications
of macro-envi-
ronment as well as the relative benefit to
corrosion protection of the weathering
grade steels in each of the environments.
Clearly the figure shows that marine envi-
ronments produce corrosion rates which
are unacceptably high. In addition to the
highest measured rates, data for marine
environments show the most scatter. The
designer must exercise caution and conser-
vatism when citing anticipated corrosion
performance from single marine exposure
datapoints as individual datapoints can be
either low or high.
Figure 3 also illustrates a key performance
property of weathering steel. The initial
(years 1 and 2) corrosion rates for weather-
ing steels are lower, but similar to that of
carbon steel; however, weathering steel
corrosion rates tend to flatten out over
time, yielding long-term rates which are
much more acceptable than those for plain
carbon steel. The flattening of the corro-
sion curve determines the acceptability of a
particular environment for bare weathering
steel. As is evident in the marine curves, the
rate for weathering steel reduces over time
but does not fully flatten out. This behavior
will lead to long-term section loss that will
continue over time and eventually become
a maintenance or performance issue. For
the other environments, the curves flatten
out to an ambient corrosion rate that is
negligible.
The key variables for defining the corrosivi-
ty of a particular bridge site are as follows:
Time of Wetness The cumulative amount
of time the steel surfaces will stay wet. This
is affected by proximity to water sources,
ambient humidity, local rainfall, etc.
Salt Airborne salt from natural sources
that can settle on steel surfaces as well as
salt from deicer runoff.
Other contaminants Airborne pollutants
and runoff or debris from traffic can
increase corrosion rates.
Temperature Corrosion rates tend to
increase with increasing ambient tempera-
ture.
Wind Direction Local wind conditions
have a significant impact on salt and con-
taminant distribution from ambient
sources.
Anticipated Traffic Loading High traffic
loading on or under a structure tends to
increase deicer application rates and
increase airborne levels of deicing salts.
The general environment of a structure can
be determined from the macro-environ-
ment: the geography (proximity of sea-
coast, industry, cities) and climate (acidity
and quantity of rainfall, relative humidity
and pollution levels). However, the deci-
sion regarding an appropriate corrosion
protection system also requires an exami-
nation of microenvironments anticipated
for the bridge in question. Specifically, the
designer has to anticipate the long term
impact of the combination of environmen-
tal factors and the influence of specific
structural configurations on the concentra-
tion of corrosive elements on the steel sur-
faces. The designer should minimize the
areas on the structure that will have a high
time of wetness and areas that will fre-
quently be exposed to salt. (7) (8) (9)
Time of wetness can become an issue for
areas of the structure that trap or retain
water or debris. These areas include hori-
zontal plates or elements or configurations
that form a pocket at the junction of two or
more members. Such configurations
should be avoided if possible; or, if neces-
sary, drainage paths should be provided. It
Figure 3
Corrosion rates for carbon
and weathering steel in
various environments.
23-5 STEELBRIDGEDESIGNHANDBOOK
should be noted that weep holes (drainage
holes at low points) and drip bars (small
bars that allow water to channel off and
drip away from structures at high points)
are good practice where the detail itself
cannot be modified to eliminate the
potential for trapping and carrying unin-
tended drain water; however, these ele-
ments are not always reliable over the long
term, as weep holes can clog and drip bars
are only effective for low drainage flow
(e.g., condensation) situations. In addi-
tion, designers should recognize that tradi-
tionally, deck drainage systems have
shown a limited effectiveness due to being
undersized and inefficient in moving
stormwater from decks. Therefore, it
should be assumed that steel below the
deck will not be kept dry by such systems.
Debris buildup can also occur from nesting
birds. If possible, access to the interior of
box beams should be screened to keep
birds from nesting inside them.
Another significant design consideration is
the effect of saltwater splash onto steel or
painted steel surfaces. This effect is partic-
ularly critical for bridges spanning salt
water and for grade separations that have
significant truck traffic passing under-
neath. Truck traffic at highway speeds cre-
ates a significant water (and salt, if
applied) plume to a height well above traf-
fic. There has been insufficient research to
strictly define a typical plume height for
salt above a highway roadbed, so there is
no specific limitation in this regard.
However, grade separations with only a
few feet of clearance above treated roads
are exposed to significant airborne salt
throughout the winter. For heavily salted
roads with heavy traffic, this effect can dra-
matically increase the local corrosivity of
the steel areas directly above and to the
side of traffic. For example, a weathering
steel bridge showing an ambient corrosion
rate of less than 1 mil per year (0.0254 mm
per year) can show a corrosion rate of four
times that on bottom flanges just above
truck travel lanes (11).
Deicing salt application history for the
intended location of the new bridge is
another key piece of information for the
bridge designer in selecting a corrosion
protection strategy. Exact local salt usage
data is generally difficult to obtain with
any reliability, as it is not kept consistently
and relies on local maintenance records.
However, analyzing factors such as typical
local snowfall, traffic levels, and proximity
to metropolitan areas can yield a reason-
able qualitative estimate of road salting fre-
quency. Over the past two decades, with
the aggressive philosophies adopted by
most transportation departments regard-
ing bare, safe driving pavement during
winter freezing events, the frequency of
salt application to roadways has gone up
dramatically. This increased use of deicing
chemicals has placed an increased burden
on the corrosion protection systems for all
bridges in these environments. The
designer should be cognizant of the fact
Figure 4 (above left)
Heavy construction of
bottom flange and web due
to collection of of constantly
wet debris.
Figure 5 (above right)
Debris accumulation at a
connection point.
CORROSION PROTECTION OF STEEL BRIDGES
23-6
that although there are isolated experi-
mental uses of alternative, non-corrosive
deicing agents, these technologies are far
from establishing any significant market
share. The designer should assume with
some conservatism that the effects of cor-
rosive highway deicers will continue well
into the future. For this reason, the design-
er should assume that the steel will become
contaminated with salt in areas that receive
frequent applications of deicers. This
assumption will drive the structure into a
moderate to severe corrosion classification.
The designer may then choose to use a less
durable corrosion protection system, but
only after ensuring appropriate detailing to
keep the salt off of the steel. These local
areas and details must be protected with a
high performance coating system. This phi-
losophy drives the current requirement
(FHWA Technical Advisory T5140.22
Uncoating Weathering Steel in
Structures) to paint the ends of weather-
ing steel beams a length of 1.5 times the
web depth to protect the steel directly
beneath expansion joints. This same philos-
ophy should be applied to other steel
members expected to lay in the drainage
path or splash areas of the bridge.
Materials of Construction
Coatings for Blasted Steel
For several decades, the predominant pro-
tective coating system used for bridge steel
was several coats of lead-containing alkyd
paint. This system was inexpensive, easy to
apply, and provided reasonable corrosion
protection as long as periodic maintenance
painting was performed. This system was
generally applied directly over intact
millscale with little-to-no surface prepara-
tion (12). In the 1970s, the advantages of
abrasive blasting to remove millscale and
provide a clean surface for paint applica-
tion became well known. Since this time,
full-scale surface cleaning by abrasive blast-
ing has become standard practice. The
benefits of this surface preparation to the
performance of coatings are unquestioned
today (13). The use of sophisticated surface
preparation opened the door for the use of
truly high performance coatings primari-
ly multicoat systems using a zinc-rich
primer as the main corrosion protection
component. Today (2006) it is standard
practice in the steel fabrication shop to
completely abrasive-blast all structural
steel. For weathering grade steels that do
not receive paint, this practice removes
millscale which can promote corrosion of
the base steel and allows uniform initial
formation of an adherent protective corro-
sion patina. For steel to be painted, shop
preparation is generally specified as an
SSPC SP-10 Near White metal blast with
additional specification of a surface profile
depth (generally 2 to 4 mils) compatible
with the particular primer being used
most frequently a zinc-rich primer.
Over the past three decades, advances in
paint chemistry and environmental regula-
tions have driven various formulation
changes in paints. These changes have
brought to market coatings that continue
to perform better than their predecessors.
At the same time, performance across the
spectrum of bridge paints has much
greater variation (13). In other words, it is
more important than ever to specify an
appropriate coating system that is known
(through testing and validation) to perform
well. Specification of coatings by generic
type or using an or equal approach can
lead to disappointing performance results.
The majority of state highway departments
currently specify the use of some type of
zinc-rich primer based coating system. For
new steel, although the use of full shop
application for all coats is increasing, the
predominant approach is to blast and
prime in the shop and apply topcoats fol-
lowing erection of the structure. In this sce-
nario, ethyl silicate inorganic zinc is the
primer of choice. A 1996 survey by the
Transportation Research Board found that
42 of 54 bridge agencies specify zinc-rich
primers for new construction (14).
An additional motivation for using inor-
ganic zinc primers in the shop is the
23-7 STEELBRIDGEDESIGNHANDBOOK
requirement for slip and creep resistance
of the coating system used between steel
plates at a bolted connection. This require-
ment reflects the concern that using a full
three-coat system on each side of adjacent
bolted surfaces would place perhaps 20
mils of paint between the bolted plates.
This thickness of paint may slip and creep
over time causing the connection to
become loose (15). Since the inorganic
zinc provides the primary corrosion pro-
tection of the paint system, and because
of its inherent hardness, a single coat of
inorganic zinc is usually applied in these
splice plate areas. Testing of these primers
confirms the acceptability of individual
paint formulations.
Initial applications of zinc-rich coating sys-
tems to bridges beginning in the 1970s
used vinyl topcoats. With recent regula-
tions limiting the amount of solvent in
coatings, vinyls have been replaced in the
industrial coatings marketplace. The pre-
dominant topcoating system used now
(2006) for zinc-rich primers consists of an
epoxy midcoat with a polyurethane top-
coat. This three-coat approach to bridge
painting is accepted practice over much of
the nation. In this approach, the zinc-rich
primer provides the primary corrosion pro-
tection for the steel. The epoxy midcoat
provides an excellent moisture barrier and
adds physical protection to the zinc primer.
The polyurethane topcoat forms a
weatherable additional moisture barrier
with long-term color and gloss retention
and resistance to gradual erosion (chalk-
ing) caused by exposure to sunlight.
Other agencies use systems that substitute
waterborne acrylic for the obsolete vinyl
topcoat. A few states use a multicoat, all
waterborne acrylic system for bridges that
do not have heavy salt exposure.
Most agencies maintain their own unique
set of qualification factors for proprietary
coatings. These systems employ standard
accelerated torture tests which attempt
to mimic years of harsh exposure over the
period of a few thousand hours in a test
cabinet. Recently, the bridge community
has established a cooperative testing pro-
gram for bridge paint performance. This
Figure 6
Testing of various generical-
ly similar paint systems
shows wide variations in
performanance.
program, the National Transportation
Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP), is
maintained by the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) and provides the first national
level clearinghouse for bridge paint per-
formance data (16). This program will
bring a greater level of consistency and
performance to bridge paint coatings. The
designer should consider this a unique,
unbiased resource for paint material selec-
tion.
Quality of application is a key factor in the
success or failure of any paint system. The
AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration
has produced a guide specification for
shop painting steel structures (17). This
document represents a good collection of
detailed language and specification refer-
ences for achieving quality. Good Painting
Practice, Volume 1, published by SSPC, the
Society for Protective Coatings, also pro-
vides an excellent reference for the detailed
issues involved in painting bridges and
other industrial steel structures.
In the future, there is great potential for
paint performance to improve in many
areas. The aforementioned national testing
program has opened the opportunities for
bridge owners and specifiers to reexamine
many of the entrenched practices of a
three-coat paint specification. Efforts are
underway to develop coatings that can
match the performance of multicoat sys-
tems with a single, fast-drying coat of
paint. Success on this front would remove
a significant production bottleneck from
the steel fabrication shop allowing time
for paint to dry before handling and also
potentially save significant cost.
In addition, specifiers have given little
weight to the long-term aesthetic perform-
ance of bridge paint systems. Properties
such as color and gloss retention can now
be more easily analyzed for specific paint
formulations. As the aesthetics of bridges
become more important to engineers and
community groups alike, the robust per-
formance characteristics of modern indus-
trial coating systems will become more
important to bridge construction and reha-
bilitation efforts.
Metalizing
A small but growing number of bridges
and bridge components have been metal-
ized for corrosion protection. Metalizing is
a process in which modified gas or electric
arc welding equipment is coupled with
compressed air to melt and project zinc or
aluminum alloy wire onto a steel surface.
Correctly applied, metalized coatings show
outstanding corrosion protection quality.
The metalizing industry highly recommend
at least a sealer and often a sealer and fin-
ish coat over metalizing (18). Several fac-
tors have held the proliferation of metaliz-
ing in check in the bridge market. The con-
cerns of owners and fabricators include
cost, productivity, and the learning curve
of the industry with regard to the nuances
of the metalizing process. Metalizing
requires at least an SSPC SP-10 abrasive
blast cleaning and application of 8 to 12
mils of thermal sprayed metal (either zinc
or zinc/aluminum alloy). This system has
demonstrated durability in marine environ-
ments, and recent improvements in the
productivity of application equipment may
make metalizing more attractive for both
shop and field applications (19) (20).
Galvanizing
Bridge components have been hot-dip gal-
vanized for many years. This process places
the entire steel component into a molten
kettle of molten zinc. The zinc coats the
steel with the heat of the process causing
the formation of several metallurgical tran-
sition layers between the steel and zinc.
This process results in a corrosion-resistant,
adherent coating on the steel. Corrosion
resistance of galvanized steel is dependent
upon the thickness of the applied zinc and
the self corrosion rate of zinc in the given
exposure environment. Historically, galva-
nized surfaces have been troublesome to
paint, limiting color choice to the gray
spangled and mottled appearance of the
galvanizing. However, in recent years the
CORROSION PROTECTION OF STEEL BRIDGES
23-8
23-9 STEELBRIDGEDESIGNHANDBOOK
galvanizing industry educated many own-
ers on the specific procedures necessary for
successful painting, and topcoated galva-
nized steel is now commonplace.
For steel bridges, the two primary limita-
tions for galvanizing have been transporta-
tion costs and galvanizing kettle size and
availability. Since the structural element
must be fully immersed in the kettle, large
beams are a challenge. There are now sev-
eral kettles in North America between 50
and 80 feet in length (21).
Weathering Steel
Weathering steel is an important option for
the bridge designer. The availability of high
performance steel (HPS) grades 70 and
100 has broadened its applicability. These
steels are designed as weathering grade
steels and have corrosion resistance essen-
tially equal to that of ASTM 588 weather-
ing steel.
The FHWA Technical Advisory T5140.22
Uncoated Weathering Steel in Structures
(22) provides guidance to the states for
development of their own policies regard-
ing the use of weathering steel. This docu-
ment contains a digest of the primary ben-
efits and concerns regarding weathering
steel and provides specific guidance on its
appropriate use. Written in 1989, the doc-
ument is undergoing a review and rewrite;
however, the majority of its content
remains useful as a starting point.
Weathering grade steels have been avail-
able for several decades. They have been
produced in various proprietary
chemistries; but essentially small amounts
of copper, chromium, nickel and silicon are
added to carbon steel to achieve an alloy
with enhanced weathering properties.
These steels will form a rust patina when
exposed to the environment providing a
barrier between the bare steel and the cor-
rosive elements of the environment. When
properly detailed and exposed to environ-
ments that include cyclic wet/dry expo-
sures and do not introduce significant
amounts of corrosive contaminants to the
steel surface, this tightly adherent patina
provides a weathering steel structure with
its own protective coating that slows the
self-corrosion rate of the steel to a very low
rate.
Although highway bridges were not the
first industrial application of weathering
grade steels, they have been the primary
market for the material since the first
weathering steel bridges were built in the
mid 1960s. Since then over 4,000 weath-
ering steel bridges have been placed in
service on the national highway system
(10). After some corrosion problems were
experienced by various states, resulting
from improper detailing and overextension
of the technology to a few highly corrosive
applications, several agencies discontinued
the use of weathering steel. However,
increased understanding of the benefits
and limitations of weathering steel, cou-
pled with the introduction of weathering
grade high performance steels, and the
economic and productivity concerns of
painting, has created a revived market for
weathering steel in the construction of
new bridges.
The primary benefit of weathering steel is
the promise of long-term corrosion protec-
tion without the need for either initial or
maintenance painting. The steel industry
has made the point that weathering steel,
when properly applied, results in a struc-
ture that provides first cost and life cycle
cost savings. A recent FHWA-sponsored
study indicates the median cost of shop
coating is 7% (primer) and 11% (three
coats) of the cost of the fabricated girder
(23). With the subsequent recent dramatic
movements in steel prices, it is difficult to
define the premium paid for weathering
grade versus carbon steel, but historically,
this premium has been around 4%. So it
seems on the surface that from a first cost
basis, weathering steel is an obvious
choice. However, due to the assumption
that all bridge expansion joints will eventu-
ally leak, current guidelines require weath-
ering steel bridge elements to be painted
CORROSION PROTECTION OF STEEL BRIDGES
23-10
at non-integral beam ends to a length of
1.5 times the girder depth. In addition,
weathering steel girders are shop blasted
to remove millscale so that the initial pro-
tective oxide layer is uniform. These
requirements offset some of the potential
cost savings associated with weathering
steel versus painted steel.
Extensive data exist regarding the corro-
sion performance of weathering steels.
Most of these data are taken from studies
with small, thin test panels exposed to the
general environment in various locations
around the world. Caution should be exer-
cised when scaling this data up to judge
the potential for corrosion of a large, com-
plex structure. In addition, there is a grow-
ing body of data taken directly from the
performance of bridge structures. The fol-
lowing highlights conclusions taken from
the pertinent data:
Weathering steel requires some amount
of moisture and a wet/dry weathering
cycle over a period of time to develop a
tightly adherent, protective oxide layer.
However, excessive moisture or the pres-
ence of salt will disrupt this process and
result in a structure that corrodes at an
unacceptable (much higher) rate (5)
(24) (7).
Weathering steel, like all steels, will cor-
rode at varying rates from structure to
structure and element to element.
Corrosion is a complex phenomenon
relying upon the macro- and micro- envi-
ronments, the temperature, specific con-
centration of contaminants, and the spe-
cific surface structure of the individual
piece of steel. Engineers should expect
corrosion rates to occur over a broad
range, even in similar situations. For this
reason, it is improper to look only at aver-
age rates of corrosion. Credence must
also be given to data from the higher end
of the range the extreme value of the
data- for this is where the potential first,
failure lies.
Improperly located and/or detailed
weathering steel structures have shown
average corrosion rates of up to 0.004
inches (4 mils) per year per exposed side.
Since weathering steel tends to exhibit
local pitting as it corrodes, the depth of
pits can be much deeper (10) (9) (4).
Nearly all of the reported failures of
weathering steel on bridges have
occurred in applications where the steel
is wet for a significant portion of time or
the steel is exposed to salt from the
ocean or deicing operations.
Properly functioning weathering steel will
corrode at a steady-state rate less than
0.3 mils per year (7.5 microns per year).
Corrosion in excess of this rate indicates
that weathering steel should not be used
bare at that location (5) (25).
Design Detailing
The most important considerations in
designing for corrosion protection of a
steel bridge are preventing water ponding,
diverting the flow of runoff water to pre-
vent it from impinging on the steel struc-
ture, preventing the accumulation of
debris that traps salt and moisture, and
preventing natural salt or applied deicing
salt from contacting the steel surface (7).
Steel bridge designs continue to evolve so
that there are many different types cur-
rently in service. Steel bridges can be sim-
ple, rolled beam or plate girder construc-
tion with all of the steel located below the
level of the roadway deck. They can be
constructed of a combination of steel
trusses located below and above the deck.
They can have unique, challenging com-
ponents such as main cables and sus-
pender cables on a suspension or cable-
stayed bridges, or they can be highly com-
plex with moving parts such as a bascule
or liftspan bridge. From the perspective of
corrosion protection and coatings, the fol-
lowing variables are considered important
in that they may impact coating materials
or methods chosen:
Complexity Bridges with high levels of sur-
face complexity are more difficult and
expensive to clean and paint. Complex
Figure 7
The corroded off stubby end
of a deck drain downspout.
This drainage was under-
sized and designed with
sharp angles in the down
spoutting. It eventually cor-
roded out and now sprays
salt laden deck drainage
directly onto structural steel.
23-11 STEELBRIDGEDESIGNHANDBOOK
details include box beams, riveted con-
struction, lacing bars, and tight clearances
between members.
Height and access Rigging for access to
steel surfaces is often an important factor
in the cost and schedule of a bridge coat-
ing project. By their very function, bridges
cross difficult-to-access areas. Often, access
to a structure is also heavily impacted by
local traffic patterns. Sometimes viaducts
and overpasses may be accessed from
below. Arch, truss, suspension and bridges
over water, however, require at least some
closure of the bridge deck for access and
equipment placement. Also, bridge paint-
ing operations must be contained and ven-
tilated to trap, collect, and dispose of blast-
ing waste and paint overspray.
Large and unique structures Cable-stayed
and suspension bridges have unusual fea-
tures which require a separate approach
when performing maintenance painting.
There may be a requirement for separate
specifications and contracts for painting of
tower, cables, anchorage areas, fixed
approach spans and suspended truss
spans. In addition, moveable bridges have
obvious special requirements associated
with moving mechanical parts. These
unique features require protective coatings
with added flexibility and compatibility
with specific lubricants.
Utilities Many bridges serve as a piggy-
back for local utility crossings. Live utilities
attached to bridge steel can impact the
maintenance-painting operation. Utilities
must be protected during painting opera-
tions, and their physical presence may
obstruct maintenance painting of underly-
ing structural steel.
Rail sharing Some bridges share their
capacity between automotive traffic and
rail traffic. This presents the unique chal-
lenge of operating with deference to the
rail schedule for access. The proximity of
high voltage third rails can also restrict the
use of certain surface preparation meth-
ods, particularly the various surface prepa-
ration methods using high pressure water
to clean.
Since many bridges cross a body of water,
there is an inherent source of local mois-
ture to promote corrosion and coating
deterioration. This is especially true if salt
or brackish water is crossed by the bridge.
For highway bridges, the other primary
source of corrosivity is the large quantity of
deicing salt spread on the roadway during
the winter months. This is a factor only in
areas that experience freezing tempera-
tures and frequent winter storms. Where
salt is applied, it tends to drain from the
bridge deck, through expansion joints and
other designed-drainage areas onto the
painted structural steel below, collecting
onto horizontal surfaces and continuing to
damage the coated steel for several
months or years after application.
There are several areas on each structure
that should be examined separately from
the standpoint of localized corrosivity.
These include:
Drainage areas various areas of the steel
structure below the roadway surface will
see the majority of drainage and runoff
from the deck above. These areas will have
a higher time of wetness than the rest of
the steel structure. They will also receive an
increased level of dirt and debris from the
roadway. This is critical in areas that receive
significant amounts of deicing salt. These
areas will often have a much higher corro-
sion rate relative to the rest of the bridge.
Designed, directed drainage is often inad-
equate and deck-mounted expansion
joints often leak as well.
Splash zones - Splash zones exist in the
lower parts of bridges over any body of
water and also in areas that receive signifi-
cant splash and spray from traffic. These
areas include the lower parts of towers and
pilings; parapets, curbs, and guardrails;
and lower portions of overhead truss struc-
tures and overpasses.
Fascia beams and other outboard mem-
bers Salt and moisture carried by prevail-
ing coastal winds and increased ultraviolet
exposure (sunlight) can accelerate corro-
sion and paint failure in these areas.
Figure 8
Girder end on a bearing
below a leaking deck joint.
Horizontal flange and
vertical stiffeners create
an excellent trap for debris
and moisture.
CORROSION PROTECTION OF STEEL BRIDGES
23-12
Bottom flanges Coatings on the lower
portions of flanged structures break down
early due to higher times of wetness for
these parts relative to the rest of the
bridge. The higher time of wetness is
caused by preferential condensation on the
lower portions of a steel element.
Deck joints Eliminate or minimize the
number of deck joints. Use of integral
abutments rather than expansion joints at
the ends of spans can significantly reduce
the maintenance needs of a bridge. In
cases where joints must be employed, min-
imize the number of joints by employing
continuous spans, and use closed or sealed
joints as opposed to open joints with
troughs. Experience shows that troughs
tend to fail or become clogged with debris
over time, limiting their effectiveness.
Consider use of sealed modular joints in
place of multiple single compression seal
joints (26).
Clearance Vertical and lateral clearance is
required on a macro scale to prevent the
splash and spray of traffic from increasing
local corrosion rates in these areas of the
structure. For specific details, clearance
must be provided to allow for cleaning and
coating of steel in a maintenance scenario.
Unique details Coatings for suspender
cables are required that demonstrate excel-
lent long-term performance and flexibility
under corrosive and high sunlight expo-
sure. Success has been found with certain
unique formulations of waterborne acrylic
as well as calcium-sulfonate-modified alkyd
coatings with slow-dry properties.
Gratings, bearings, and curbs These ele-
ments are difficult and inefficient to paint
in the traditional manner. They are often
galvanized, metalized or fabricated from
inherently corrosion resistant alloys.
Detailing
Water/debris traps should be avoided at
all costs. These areas are the traditional
breeding ground for rapid corrosion of
structural steel.
Inaccessible details that do not allow for
inspection and maintenance are poor
design practice and must be avoided.
Edges tend to show coating breakdown
well before the general flat surfaces of
steel in corrosive atmospheres. This is the
reason that good painting practice
includes hand striping of coatings on
edges and complex surfaces prior to
application over larger flat surfaces.
Built-up members and back-to-back
members should be avoided since they
are impossible to maintain and generally
only receive an initial coat of primer for
protection. Where built-up members are
unavoidable, durable caulking systems
can be used to add protection from
water seepage into the faying surface.
Drains and scuppers have traditionally
been undersized and receive little atten-
tion in maintenance. Most frequently,
these systems have a useful life of only
the first few years. They should be mini-
mized or carefully designed to remain
Figure 9
Steel directly beneath
transverse and longitudinal
expansion joints that have
leaked corrosive runoff from
the deck.
23-13 STEELBRIDGEDESIGNHANDBOOK
clear of debris and have adequate capac-
ity. Drainage pipes should have a steep
slope and no sharp bends to minimize
debris build-up.
Box or tubular members should be fabri-
cated airtight and, thus, watertight, if
possible. If not possible, then provisions
for airflow and drainage must be made in
these members.
Experience indicates that welded box
girders cannot be made watertight for
the long term. These structural elements
should be provided with drainage holes
at low points and hatches for access and
inspection. It is often common to paint
the inside of boxes with white topcoats
to facilitate inspection and to provide
corrosion protection, since box interiors
are not readily available for maintenance.
Avoid direct contact between dissimilar
metals. In this scenario, the more electro-
chemically active metal will sacrifice (cor-
rode) to protect the more noble metal
(27). Direct contact between steel and
aluminum, steel and stainless steel, steel
and bronze, etc., in a wet environment,
will cause accelerated corrosion of one of
the two metals.
Cost
Significant analysis has been made regard-
ing life cycle corrosion control strategies
for existing steel bridges (28) (29). These
analyses researched the highly variable
cost factors associated with field coating
removal and application for bridges. In
addition, the variability in performance of
maintenance coating systems based on
surface preparation, coating material for-
mulation, and specific environmental
exposure has been documented (13).
Through this research, well-founded
approaches to life cycle cost analysis have
been formulated, and useful tools for com-
paring the many possible scenarios associ-
ated with bridge maintenance painting
have been developed.
Similar analysis has been accomplished for
new steel structures. The following is an
effort to apply the tools and concepts
recently used for maintenance painting
scenarios to analyze corrosion control
options for new steel.
Alternative bridge corrosion protection
costs may be compared by determining
an equivalent cost for each of several
maintenance scenarios, considering the
cost of each scenario over the entire life
cycle of the structure, and using simple
financial principles that consider the time
value of the cash flows representing each
scenario. This type of analysis results in the
long-term financial advantages or disad-
vantages of maintenance options with var-
ious initial costs.
From the perspective of corrosion control
design, life-cycle cost is defined as follows:
The total cost of corrosion protection
for a structure in present-day dollars.
This cost includes fabrication, con-
struction, corrosion control system
installation, and corrosion control sys-
tem maintenance for the defined life-
time of the structure.
Determining life-cycle cost requires knowl-
edge of the material cost, the shop surface
preparation and coating application costs,
the expected useful life of the corrosion
control system, the maintenance costs for
each particular scenario, and the estimated
Figure 10
The area under an open
grid deck acting as one
large leaking joint.
service life of the structure. By considering
the entire maintenance life of a structure,
the life-cycle cost impact of selecting a par-
ticular corrosion protection strategy can be
determined.
A comparative cost analysis must consider
various options for initial and maintenance
corrosion control systems. For simplicity,
three fabrication options will be illustrated
herein. The first option is A709 grade 50
steel with a shop-applied zinc-rich primer
and two topcoats applied after erection in
the field. The second option is fabrication
from A709 grade 50 steel with shop sur-
face preparation and application of ther-
mal sprayed zinc (metalizing). The third
option is fabrication from A709 grade 50W
weathering steel. For maintenance, the
analysis will consider several options (each
potentially optimum) based on the specific
environment of the bridge. All costs pre-
sented are in terms of 2006 dollars.
Fabrication Costs
Since current cost data for maintenance
painting options are in the units of dollars
per square foot of surface area, it would be
most convenient to develop generic or
typical fabrication costs in the same
units. This is difficult since steel costs reflect
commodity pricing trends which fluctuate
on many variables. Also, these prices are
available per pound or per ton of steel.
Conversion to area-based costs are
dependent on design specifics. The litera-
ture cites various conversion factors in the
range of 100 to 200 square feet per ton.
Assuming delivered steel costs are in the
range of $1.00 per lb. ($2,000 per ton)
and using 150 square feet per ton yields a
steel cost of $13.33 per square foot.
Weathering steel (A709 grade 50W) is cur-
rently delivered at a premium of about
$0.04 per pound or 4% over conventional
grade 50. This premium yields a cost for
A709 grade 50W of $13.86 per square foot
(a premium of $0.53 per square foot over
conventional grade 50 steel) (30).
Cost for shop application of primers are
difficult to break out due to the unique
design of each bridge and the unique
setup of each fabrication shop. A reason-
able estimate is approximately 7% (blast
and prime) (23). This yields an assumed
delivered cost of $14.26 per square foot (a
premium of $0.93 over uncoated grade
50). Various bridge owner agencies have
their own estimates for a full 3-coat paint
system application for new steel; however,
for consistency, this analysis will use the
same model used for maintenance paint-
ing cost analysis. Using this model to
approximate the cost of field application of
topcoats to newly erected steel yields an
estimated cost of $1.61 per square foot.
Maintenance Painting Costs
The past several years have introduced sig-
nificant changes in the methods of bridge
maintenance painting operations. The
most significant changes have been in
response to dramatic increases in environ-
mental and worker protection regulations.
The use of containment structures to cap-
ture hazardous waste and pollutants gen-
erated during removal of old coatings, and
the gradual institutionalization of worker
health and safety practices associated with
the removal of hazardous materials have
introduced significant cost impacts to
bridge maintenance painting. These regu-
lations are relatively new, and states are at
various stages of the engineering learning
curve in terms of striking an efficient bal-
ance between prudent engineering main-
tenance decisions and fiscal realities. This
has caused a large diversity in operational
practices and their cost.
Cost of the Coating System
At present, costs of total paint removal and
repainting jobs can range from $4.00 per
square foot to as much as $20.00 per
square foot (14). Some of this range can be
explained by factors that make each bridge
maintenance job unique (e.g., access for
high structures or structures over water,
condition of bridge deterioration, unusual
traffic control, etc.). Most typical blast
and repaint jobs are between $7 and $10
per square foot. The alternative approach
CORROSION PROTECTION OF STEEL BRIDGES
23-14
to bridge maintenance painting involves
using a water wash, minimal removal of
existing paint and rust with power tools,
and application of a maintenance coating
system. This method is commonly referred
to as overcoating and costs between
$1.50 and $5 per square foot. Techniques
employing a mixture of pressurized water
and abrasive have also become popular.
These techniques provide surface prepara-
tion quality and productivity advantages
over tool cleaning while not requiring the
containment (and associated cost) of dry
blasting. These techniques range in cost
between $3.00 and $6.00 per square foot.
Table 2 shows the significant initial cost
savings achieved by specifying overcoating
rather than full abrasive blasting. As
expected, the theoretical cost for the abra-
sive+water option falls in between the
overcoating and blasting options. Relating
these cost numbers in a meaningful way
requires reliable information regarding the
expected performance of each option.
Life of Coatings
The second essential question to be
answered before performing a life-cycle
analysis is how long a coating system will
perform in the given environment.
Research and in-service documented expe-
rience has generated a significant amount
of performance data on various coating
systems.
Of particular interest is the difference in
coating system life expectancy between
high-performance coatings (e.g., zinc-rich
or metalizing) applied over steel prepared
to SSPC SP-10 (near white metal abrasive
blasted surface) and typical "maintenance"
coatings (e.g., epoxy, alkyd, or moisture-
cured urethane) applied over existing
bridge paint prepared to SSPC SP-3 (power
tool-cleaned surface with adherent old
paint and rust remaining). These are the
two most probable painting options facing
bridge coating specifiers.
For 3-coat, zinc-rich primer paint systems
(e.g., ethyl silicate inorganic zinc) data
suggest marine environment performance
of 15-20 years and performance of 25
years in less aggressive, salt containing
environments. This data has been con-
firmed by inspection of coatings applied to
bridges in Iowa, West Virginia, Louisiana
and other states where zinc-rich systems
applied in the mid-to-late 1970's are now
beginning to require some maintenance
painting. For metalized systems (zinc and
zinc/aluminum alloy), the data in the liter-
ature suggest service life expectancies of at
least 20-25 years in marine and salt-rich
environments and up to 40+ years in less
severe salt-containing environments (13).
Because of the diversity of materials used,
and the wider variation in the quality of the
surface preparation, performance of over-
coating applications is more difficult to
quantify. In testing sponsored by the
Federal Highway Administration, various
commercial overcoating products were
evaluated on steel of varying initial cleanli-
ness exposed to widely different environ-
ments. Under more corrosive conditions
(e.g., marine, or near salt-laden drainage)
even the best performers began to show
significant failure after only 2 years of serv-
ice; however, some of the better coatings
performed quite well for several years
under less severe exposure.
23-15 STEELBRIDGEDESIGNHANDBOOK
Table 2
Estimated maintenance
painting costs.
Total Job Cost of Cost of Total Cost
Cost Labor Materials per sq. ft.
$197,988 $44,844 $23,849 $6.60
(23%) (12%)
$60,727 $27,876 $8,567 $2.02
(46%) (14%)
$111,112 $38,784 $13,305 $3.70
(35%) (12%)
Method
Abrasive Blast
plus 3-coat
paint system
Hand Power
tool clean (5%
deterioration)
with spot prime
and 2 full
overcoats
Spot & Sweep
with abrasive-
injected water
blasting (5%
deterioration)
plus spot prime
and 2 full
overcoats
Sometimes this variation in performance
can be seen on different areas of the same
structure. Where overcoating techniques
are used to repair areas of structures that
have deteriorated, but have reasonably
well-adhered existing paint and only minor
surface rusting, successful performance of
7-10 years has been documented.
However, in areas showing marginal to
poor adhesion of the existing coating and
significant rusting (e.g., measurable metal
loss), overcoating applications carry much
more risk and failures have occurred after
less than three years of service. The subject
cost analysis must assume that overcoating
applications are only selected only for areas
where there is a reasonable chance of
longer-term success.
Corrosion Protection by Use of
Weathering Steel
The use of weathering steel as the primary
corrosion protection system for bridge
steel has been the source of much debate
over the past two decades. The literature
cites a myriad of successes and failures
of weathering steel in this role. What is
known is that weathering steel provides
significantly enhanced resistance to gener-
al corrosion rate (versus conventional
grade 50 steel) in virtually all highway
bridge environments. However, it is also
clear that weathering steel suffers unac-
ceptable rates of corrosion in areas where
salt, debris, or moisture accumulate on
steel surfaces. Many of the cited failures
of weathering steel in the past have been
attributed to design details which allowed
these accumulations or to misapplication
of weathering steel in locations that were
inherently highly corrosive (e.g., marine
environments). For the most part, the les-
sons learned have been applied to improve
the success rate of weathering steel; how-
ever, many applications in northern areas
still require application of coatings at beam
ends and around drainage areas. These
specifications may offset some of the
intended cost savings associated with the
selection of weathering steel.
For the purposes of this discussion, weath-
ering steel is considered a viable corrosion
protection system, but is not maintenance-
free. It is reasonable to assume that some
degree of maintenance coating or addi-
tional corrosion protection is necessary for
weathering steel in salt-containing envi-
ronments. The subject analysis examines
three alternative maintenance scenarios
with regard to weathering steel. There are
obviously many other possible scenarios.
The development of user-friendly tools for
assessing the relative cost impacts of vari-
ous corrosion control options with respect
to each individual maintenance decision is
necessary for efficient analysis. An easy-to-
use, spreadsheet-based bridge mainte-
nance cost model has been developed by
FHWA (13). This model uses traditional
financial discounting techniques (i.e., total
present value analysis) to obtain the equiv-
alent uniform annual cost (EUAC) of vari-
ous bridge maintenance options. It is
designed to be useful to the bridge engi-
neer with little specific training in coatings
technology and cost estimating. Data must
be input for expected coating system per-
formance, installation cost, and expected
remaining life of the structure. Using these
inputs, the model calculates the EUAC for
the specific parameters entered. Various
corrosion control options can be compared
by changing the listed variables to reflect
different maintenance scenarios. For exam-
ple, changing the input values for variables
that effect production rates of the opera-
tion (e.g., surface preparation or applica-
tion rates) or changing the estimated val-
ues for coating lifetime can have a signifi-
cant effect on the output of the model.
Financial Considerations
A life-cycle analysis will result in $/ft
2
/year
to represent the cost of a particular life
cycle corrosion protection scenario. This
term represents an "annualized" cost per
square foot for various cash flows that rep-
resent various corrosion control scenarios
available for designing and maintaining a
particular structure (e.g., painted steel with
maintenance vs. weathering steel with
CORROSION PROTECTION OF STEEL BRIDGES
23-16
maintenance). The following formulas are
derived from simple engineering econom-
ics and are used to determine the annual-
ized cost per unit area ($/ft
2
/year):
FC = IC (l+e)
np
Where: FC = future cash flow,
IC = initial cost,
e = escalation rate (inflation,
assumed for this analysis as
1.9% for materials and 4%
for labor), and
np = number of periods (years).
PV = FC/ (1+I)
np
Where: PV = present value and
I = interest rate.
TPV = PV
Where: TPV = total present value,
EUAC = TPV*((I*(1+I)
L
)/((1+I)
L
1))
Where: EUAC = equivalent uniform
annual cost
L = expected lifetime of bridge
Sample Analysis
This analysis uses the EUAC financial
method and analyzes its effect on the life-
cycle cost of several hypothetical corrosion
control options. The single value used to
quantify the cost of painting options is the
total present value (TPV) of the cash flow
for each option. The TPV is the amount of
money necessary today to install and con-
duct maintenance for the design life of a
structure, considering the cost of inflation
and a money discount factor. In this analy-
sis, options with the lowest TPV are
favored.
This hypothetical analysis assumes a non-
marine environment with winter applica-
tion of deicing salts. The cost of raw steel is
cancelled out in each comparison, so only
the premium values for initial painting or
metalizing and weathering steel are includ-
ed in the analysis. Erection costs are
assumed to be equal for each scenario. The
cost and maintenance frequencies for this
exercise are assumed and should not be con-
sidered reflective of current values or practices.
Results
Figure 11 presents the results of the EUAC
analysis for each of the six scenarios out-
lined above. The figure shows the type of
comparative result that is obtained with
this analysis technique. It is important to
note that the results of this analysis are heav-
ily dependent upon the assumptions made
for each scenario analyzed. For example,
the chart shows that two of the three
weathering steel scenarios (2 and 3) are
slightly more costly than the two scenarios
shown for painted steel (1 and 4). This is a
23-17 STEELBRIDGEDESIGNHANDBOOK
Table 3
Life cycle costing scenarios
1-A709 grade 50 steel with
shop-applied zinc primer and
two field coats. Full removal
and repaint every 20 years
7% premium for shop applied
primer; $1.61/ft
2
for 2 field
topcoats, $6.60/ft
2
for each
repainting
2-A709 grade 50W
weathering steel, maintenance
painting at selected areas
beginning year 10.
4% premium for weathering
steel, $3.70/ft
2
for
maintenance painting
3-A709 grade 50W
weathering steel, full blast and
paint at year 15 and thereafter
4% premium for weathering
steel, $6.60/ft
2
for repaint
4-A709 grade 50 with shop
primer, periodic maintenance,
and full repaint at 30 years
7% premium for shop prime,
$1.61/ft
2
for 2 field topcoats,
$3.70/ft
2
for maintenance
painting, $6.60/ft
2
for full
repaint
5-A709 grade 50 with shop
applied metalized coating,
maintenance painting at 30
years, repaint at 50 years and
thereafter
15% premium for metalizing,
$3.70/ft
2
for maintenance
painting, $6.60/ft
2
for full
repaint
6-A709 grade 50W weathering
steel, properly detailed with
maintenance painting in corro-
sive areas every 20 years
4% premium for weathering
steel, $3.70/ft
2
for
maintenance painting
SCENARIOS COSTS
direct result of the
maintenance paint-
ing intervals
assumed in these
scenarios. While it
is arguable that the
maintenance paint-
ing schedules for
the weathering
steel scenarios (2
and 3) are aggres-
sive for many envi-
ronments, these results do demonstrate
the fact that the life cycle cost of various
cashflows is not intuitive based on initial
cost comparisons.
The hypothetical analysis also shows the
third weathering steel scenario (#6) as
being the lowest overall cost scenario. This
particular scenario assumes the initial cost
savings associated with weathering steel
and proper design detailing and place-
ment of the bridge in an appropriate envi-
ronment such that only touch-up mainte-
nance painting is required every 20 years.
This can be a common scenario, but care
must be taken to meet these detailing and
application parameters in order to realize
the potential cost savings associated with
weathering steel. Misapplication or
improper detailing will lead to scenarios
closer to 2 or 3 requiring increased mainte-
nance painting and associated increased
cost.
Figure 11 also shows scenario 5 (metaliz-
ing) as having significant cost savings over
the life of the structure when compared to
the painting scenarios and two of the three
weathering steel scenarios. This is due to
two factors in the analysis. First, the rela-
tively low assumed installation cost for
shop metalizing when compared to shop
priming and field topcoating. Second, the
assumed durability (time to first mainte-
nance) for the metalizing system has the
largest effect on its low apparent cost.
Most important in the subject analysis is
the method used to compare various spe-
cific options in great detail over the life of
the structure. By changing variables in
each scenario, the optimum scenario can
easily change, but analysis shows quickly
that corrosion durability has a large effect
and is often much more important than
differences in initial cost.
Risk
It must be emphasized that cost must be
considered together with the risk associat-
ed with each corrosion protection option.
The performance of all corrosion protec-
tion systems will vary with factors such as
environmental exposure, design details,
quality of coating application, and preven-
tive maintenance. It is most often the
unexpected, unplanned, and unbudgeted
corrosion problem that becomes a severe
cost item.
It is also important to consider the nature of
the investment in long-term bridge mainte-
nance. While life cycle cost analyses are
useful tools for discriminating among vari-
ous steel bridge maintenance options, the
case should also be made for consideration
of the most durable and feasible corrosion
protection option, regardless of cost. This
viewpoint is necessary at the design stage
of a structure in order to put maintenance
requirements into a competitive perspec-
tive with more traditional design drivers
such as strength, capacity, and con-
structability. The traditional approach of
considering corrosion control (often the
determining factor in the long-term cost to
maintain a structure) after the other funda-
mental design parameters have been
decided will not serve the current aggres-
sive lifecycle goals we are now placing on
our bridges (e.g., rapid maintenance oper-
ations and a 75-year design life).
CORROSION PROTECTION OF STEEL BRIDGES
23-18
Figure 11
EUAC analysis
SUMMARY
Corrosion is a considerable threat to the
integrity of highway bridges. The inherent
corrosivity of many natural environments
and the highly corrosive nature of deicing
salts applied to highways over much of the
U.S. create challenging conditions for the
long-term maintenance-free function of a
bridge. Designers, however, have many
corrosion protection options at their dis-
posal. Protective coatings, when properly
applied, can provide many years of protec-
tion for very little initial cost. Weathering
grade steels are available in strengths up to
100 ksi as well. These steels provide an
excellent low-cost corrosion protection
option, but the designer must be realistic
about the potential environmental expo-
sure both on a macro and micro level.
Detailing the structure to eliminate joints
(which will eventually leak) and areas that
trap and maintain wet conditions is essen-
tial for all structures, painted and unpaint-
ed. Designers are encouraged to learn from
past practices where corrosion protection
was not considered a priority in the initial
design stage. Past errors in judgment have
underestimated the potential effects of
moisture and salt and have led to signifi-
cant costs for replacement of elements, and
whole structures well before their function-
al obsolescence. This chapter presents an
overview of important issues and consider-
ations for the designer with regard to cor-
rosion protection. Designers are directed
toward the references used to develop this
chapter for more robust guidance.
23-19 STEELBRIDGEDESIGNHANDBOOK
REFERENCES
1. A Highway Accident Report Collapse of U.S. 35 Highway Bridge, National Transportation
Safety Board, 1971.
2. A Highway Accident Report Collapse of a Suspended Span of Rt 95 Highway Bridge Over the
Mianus River, Greenwich, CT, June 28, 1983, National Transportation Safety Board, July 19,
1984.
3. Painting Steel Bridges and Structures, Good Painting Practice, Volume I, Chapter 6.1; SSPC:
The Society for Protective Coatings, 2002.
4. Characterization of the Environment, Federal Highway Administration Research Report, FHWA-
RD-00-030, August 2000.
5. Albrecht P., and Naeemi A., Performance of Weathering Steel in Bridges, Transportation
Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report 272, July 1984.
6. Corrosiveness of Various Atmospheric Test Sites as Measured by Specimens of Steel and Zinc,
Metal Corrosion in the Atmosphere, ASTM STP 435, American Society for Testing and Materials,
1968.
7. Albrecht P., Coburn S.K., Wattar F.M., Tinklenberg G., and Gallagher P., Guidelines for the Use of
Weathering Steel in Bridges, Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, Report 314, June 1989.
8. Performance of Weathering Steel in Highway Bridges A Third Phase Report, American Iron
and Steel Institute, 1995.
9. McDad B., Laffrey D., Damman M., and Medlock R., Performance of Weathering Steel in TxDOT
Bridges, Texas Department of Transportation, May 2000.
10. Albrecht, P. and Hall, T.T., Atmospheric Corrosion Resistance of Structural Steels, Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol 15, Issue 1, Jan/Feb 2003.
11. American Iron & Steel Institute Corrosion Advisory Group case studies.
12. Kogler, R., Steel Bridge Lifecycle Corrosion Control Options, Transportation Research Board
Annual Mtg 2002.
13. Environmentally Acceptable Materials for the Corrosion Protection of Steel Bridges, Federal
Highway Administration Report FHWA-RD-96-058, Jan 1997.
14. Appleman, B., Lead-based Paint Removal for Steel Highway Bridges, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program Synthesis 251, 1997.
15. Specification for Structural Joints Using ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts, Appendix A, Class B,
Research Council on Structural Connections, June 23, 2003.
CORROSION PROTECTION OF STEEL BRIDGES
23-20
16. Project Work Plan for the Evaluation of Structural Steel Coatings, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, National Transportation Product Evaluation Program,
www.ntpep.org, June 2004.
17. Standard Specifications for Highway Steel Bridge Coating Systems with Inorganic Zinc-rich
Primer, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials/National Steel
Bridge Alliance Steel Bridge Collaboration, 2003.
18. Specification for the Application of Thermal Spray Coatings (Metallizing) of Aluminum, Zinc,
and Their Alloys and Composites for the Corrosion Protection of Steel, SSPC-CS 23.00/AWS C
2.23M/NACE No.12, July 2003.
19. Ellor, J., Young, W., and Repp, J., Thermal Sprayed Metal Coatings to Protect Sheet Piling: Final
Report and Guide, National Cooperative Highway Research Program report 528, 2004.
20. FHWA Bridge Coatings Technical Note Metalizing, 1998.
21. American Galvanizers Association, www.galvanizeit.org
22. Federal Highway Administration Technical Advisory, UNCOATED WEATHERING STEEL IN STRUC-
TURES, T 5140.22, 1989.
23. Appleman, B. and Kline, E., Analysis of Costs for Shop Painting of Bridges, September, 2003,
FHWA-RD-05-xxxx, unpublished.
24. Performance of Weathering Steel in Highway Bridges A First Phase Report, American Iron
and Steel Institute, August 1982.
25. Corrosion of Metals and Alloys Corrosivity of Atmospheres guiding values for corrosivitiy
categories. International Standardization Organization Standard 9224 (1992).
26. Dexter, R., Performance Testing of Modular Bridge Joint Systems, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program report 467, 2002.
27. Corrosion Engineering, Mars Fontana, 1986, pg 292.
28. Kogler, R., Coating Material Selection for Optimum Steel Bridge Life Cycle Cost, 16th Annual
US/Japan Bridge Engineering Workshop, Oct 2000.
29. Issues Impacting Bridge Painting: An Overview, Federal Highway Administration research
report FHWA-RD-94-098, August 1995.
30. Private correspondence with steel industry personnel