Bridges for Service Life Beyond 100 Years: Innovative Systems, Subsystems, and Components (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2014 www.TRB.org RepoRt S2-R19A-RW-1 The Second S T R A T E G I C H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M Bridges for Service Life Beyond 100 Years: Innovative Systems, Subsystems, and Components Atorod AzizinAmini Florida International University EdwArd H. PowEr HDR Engineering, Inc. GlEnn F. myErs Atkins North America Inc. H. CElik ozyildirim Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research

Subject Areas Bridges and Other Structures Highways Maintenance and Preservation Materials

SHRP 2 Reports Available by subscription and through the TRB online bookstore: www.TRB.org/bookstore Contact the TRB Business Office: 202-334-3213 More information about SHRP 2: www.TRB.org/SHRP2 SHRP 2 Report S2-R19A-RW-1 ISBN: 978-0-309-27363-3 © 2014 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Copyright Information Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copy- right to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to repro- duce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular prod- uct, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and publication format. Report numbers ending in “w” are published as web documents only. Notice The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical committee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. The Second Strategic Highway Research Program America’s highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the nation. Developments in research and technology—such as advanced materials, communications technology, new data collection tech- nologies, and human factors science—offer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this important national resource. Breakthrough resolution of significant transportation problems, however, requires concentrated resources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, large-scale focus, integrates multiple fields of research and technology, and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission-oriented, discipline-based research programs that have been the mainstay of the highway research industry for half a century. The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, published in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SHRP 2, modeled after the first Strategic Highway Research Program, is a focused, time- constrained, management-driven program designed to comple- ment existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on applied research in four areas: Safety, to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behavior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid design and construction methods that cause minimal disruptions and produce lasting facilities; Reliability, to reduce congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and miti- gation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environ- mental, and community needs in the planning and designing of new transportation capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The program is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memorandum of understanding among the American Associa- tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sciences, parent organization of TRB and NRC. The program provides for competitive, merit-based selection of research contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci- plinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

Acknowledgments This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. The project was managed by SHRP 2 Renewal senior program officers Monica Starnes (December 2007 through January 2011), Mark Bush (January 2011 through November 2011), and Jerry DiMaggio (December 2011 onward). The principal investigator was Atorod Azizinamini, Chairperson of the Civil and Environmental Engi- neering Department at Florida International University. Contributions from the following research team members to this final report are greatly appreciated: Eric S. Kline of KTA, Inc.; David W. Whitmore of Vector Corrosion; Dennis R. Mertz of the University of Delaware; and Don White of the Georgia Institute of Technology. Graduate students Nima Ala, Saeed Doust, Marcelo Da Silva, and Ardalan Sherafati obtained their PhD degrees and Luke Glaser and Kyle Burnet obtained their MS degrees by carrying out various research tasks within Project R19A. The contributions of Aaron Yakel, research associate at Florida International Univer- sity, and Kromel Hanna, research associate at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln (Omaha campus), are also greatly acknowledged. Special thanks to Aaron Yakel for his assistance with putting the report in its final format, and to Christine Boyer of Boyer Associates for editing the final report. The authors also thank Martin Burke, private consultant; Reid W. Castrodale of Carolina Stalite Com- pany; David Darwin of the University of Kansas; Simon Greensted of Sterling Lloyd; Mark Kaczinski of D. S. Brown Company; Ralph Oesterle of CTL Group; Duncan Paterson of HDR Engineering, Inc.; Charles Roeder of the University of Washington; and Ronald J. Watson of R. J. Watson, Inc. Various bridge committees within the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures provided valuable input and review comments. Special thanks are due to AASHTO Technical Committee T-9 and its chair, Bruce Johnson, for his leadership and help. Members of Project R19A TETG are appreciated for their valuable technical comments and guidance throughout the project. The University of Nebraska– Lincoln (UNL) provided the testing facility to perform the experimental work while the principal investigator was at UNL. sHRP 2 stAFF Ann M. Brach, Director Stephen J. Andrle, Deputy Director Neil J. Pedersen, Deputy Director, Implementation and Communications Cynthia Allen, Editor Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability Eduardo Cusicanqui, Financial Officer Richard Deering, Special Consultant, Safety Data Phase 1 Planning Walter Diewald, Senior Program Officer, Safety Shantia Douglas, Senior Financial Assistant Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Carol Ford, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal and Safety Jo Allen Gause, Senior Program Officer, Capacity Rosalind Gomes, Accounting/Financial Assistant James Hedlund, Special Consultant, Safety Coordination Alyssa Hernandez, Reports Coordinator Ralph Hessian, Special Consultant, Capacity and Reliability Andy Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Linda Mason, Communications Officer Reena Mathews, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Matthew Miller, Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Michael Miller, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Rachel Taylor, Senior Editorial Assistant Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator

F O R EWO R D Jerry A. DiMaggio, D.GE, PE, SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer The design of bridges for service life is gaining importance. This report, Bridges for Service Life Beyond 100 Years: Innovative Systems, Subsystems, and Components, discusses the main product of SHRP 2 Project R19A within the Renewal area: the Design Guide for Bridges for Service Life (the Guide). Both are available at the Transportation Research Board website (http://www.trb.org/Design/Blurbs/168760.aspx). The main objective of the Guide is to provide information and guidance and to define procedures to systematically approach service life and durability for both new and existing bridges. The Guide equips users with knowledge to develop specific solutions for a bridge under consideration in a systematic manner by using a standard framework with specifics being different. In some respects, the R19A Guide may be considered a foundational refer- ence that will be built on, expanded, modified, and progressively embraced differently at project and program levels by the bridge and structures community. The future path of development and mainstream acceptance and implementation may be similar to that of load resistance factor design (LRFD) specifications. Results from the knowledge gained through the project are communicated throughout the report in ways that bridge professionals can implement in practice. Providing safety for the public by having adequate strength is the cornerstone of the frame- work used by engineers for bridge design. This approach has not been restricted to bridges; for example, it has also been the framework used in various building codes. Significant changes to our contemporary bridge design practice have also been mainly related to strength issues. The transition to LRFD is a well-known recent example. A review of bridges that have lasted more than 100 years provides valuable lessons related to achieving long service lives. The R19A Report details the steps undertaken in the development of the Guide. The report also provides results from extensive individual research efforts that have led to new concepts that can mitigate factors historically limiting the service life of bridges. The report high- lights the research approach, topics, and challenges in developing the Guide, as well as the literature searches that were conducted and identifies Phase 1 and Phase 2 tasks within the project. The report also provides information on a related project, R19B. Practical approaches to using the Guide, along with future development of the Guide, are also pre- sented in the report.

C O N T E N T S 1 Executive Summary 3 Chapter 1 Background 3 Second Strategic Highway Research Program Background 3 Problem Statement 3 Research Objectives 4 Scope of Study 4 Project Outcome 5 Chapter 2 Research Approach 5 Department of Transportation Surveys 5 Aspects of R19B Survey Results Related to R19A Scope of Work 5 Summary of Consultant Survey Results 8 Input from Long-Term Bridge Performance Program 8 Input from AASHTO Bridge Committees 9 Input from Experts Outside the R19A Research Team 9 Input from Industry 9 Literature Search 9 Phase 1 Major Findings 10 Guide: Project Main Product 11 Chapter 3 Findings and Applications 11 Categories of Bridge Service Life Issues 70 Research Categories 122 Development and Brief Content of Design Guide for Bridges for Service Life 127 Chapter 4 Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations 129 References 136 Appendix A. Brief Description of Category 3 Research Topics 154 Appendix B. Converting Existing Simple-Span Steel Bridges to Continuous 160 Appendix C. Joints in Modular Systems of Adjacent Box Girders 173 Appendix D. Wear of Sliding Surfaces in Bridge Bearings 209 Appendix E. Improving the Corrosion Resistance of Conventional Reinforcement 225 Appendix F. New Galvanic Systems to Achieve Long-Term Cathodic Protection