NCHRP Web Doc 11 Synthesis 257 - Maintenance Issues and Alternate Corrosion Protection Methods for Exposed Bridge Steel

Questions? Call 888-624-8373

PAPERBACK
list:$23.00
Web:$20.70
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

Free Resources

Display this book
on your site!

Related Titles

NCHRP Web Doc 11 Synthesis 257 - Maintenance Issues and Alternate Corrosion Protection Methods for Exposed Bridge Steel - Appendix C: Survey Responses (1998)
Transportation Research Board (TRB)

Web Search Builder Use this book's key terms to search within this book, across our collection, or across the Web.
Skim This Chapter Skim this chapter and use this chapter's key terms to search within this book.
Reference Finder Paste in your own text to find books that relate to your topic.

Page
1


E-mail Facebook Digg Stumble Twitter More

Page
1

NCHRP Synthesis 257: Maintenance Issues and Allternate Corrosion Protection Methods for Exposed Bridge Steel (R1-R2)

APPENDIX C: Survey Responses (1-76)

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 1
NCHRP Web Document 11 NCHRP Synthesis 257: Maintenance Issues and Alternate Corrosion Protection Methods for Exposed Bridge Steel APPENDIX C: Survey Responses ( Abbreviations at end of each table) | Painting (Section I A) All VOC VOC Plan Bolts Box Girder Interiors Edges Shop Limits | ~l l l | Painted System ~ Why | Prep ~ Why AK Y Y MAKE HD MG Y PRIME CP R. G CSP EQUAL TRCOAT AL N Y GO TO HD,MG N R. G ALWAY l l | WATER | 32 l l | REQ | S NG AZ SAME HD N G NG AR N MAKE HD MG SAME CP G ~ ALWAY EQUAL B2 S NG CA N Y ALREADY HD MG Y SAME CP G NG COMPLIAN B2 VIS T CT Y INT Y HD MG CP EI R CSP NG MEMBE B2 WHITE VIS R ONLY TOPCO CO Y Y _ B2 Y PRIME CP EI G NG ONLY DE Y Y MG SAME CP G A SAME FL CP EI _ VIS Existing Policy REP OC Z REP OC REP REP OC REP Z OCSP REP Z SPOC ZSPOC REP SP ZOC REP Z SPOC 1 .;

OCR for page 3
NCHRP Web Document ~ I, continuec! Synthesis 257 survey responses Painting (Section I A) | All | lOC | VOC Plan | 301ts | Box Girder Interiors | Edges Shop Limits Painted System ~ Why ~ Prep ~ Why ME | Y | ~| | ID MG | Y EXI ~| CP | R | A NG | | 3 | | WHITE I l Ml | Y | r | SAME l l EXI | CP El | R | CS NG MN | N | r | MEET~ \1GZn T Y | IZ | CPEI T R MO N r WILLBE GB2 Y IZ CPEI G NG | COMPL OR | l l | ANPOPTLY l l l l l l MT N WEA ST TYPE 3 PRIME CP VIS R NG NC | Y l| <350 | HD | Y | EXI' | CP VIS | R G NG ND | Y l | CHANGE | HD MG | Y | Y | CP | G C5 NG NE | N l | CURRENT | B | N l l | R G | NG NH | Y l | <350 | MG B2 Y EXT ~ CP El j G NJ Y Y CHANGE HD MG Y EXT CP VIS G A l l | MHARNU F | B2 | | WHITE | NM | N |, | EMQAUAEL | B2 | Y | SAME | CP | R NV l N | B2 | Y | SAME | CP | R | ALWAY NY | Y l | <350 | Bl | Y | | CP | N | ALWAY | Existing Policy REP SP OC REP REP SP ZOC REP SP ZOC REP SP REP OC z REP OC OC REP OC Z REP OC SPZ OC 3

OCR for page 4
NCHRP Web Document ~ I, cont~nuect Synthesis 257 survey responses Painting (Section I A) AllVOC VOC Plan Bolts Box Girder Interiors Edges Painted System Why Prep Why OH N Y ONLY HD DON'T R G NG PRIMER USE OK N N CHANGE SAME CP N N OR Y Y CHANGE HG B2 Y SAME CP R,G CSP PA Y Y TASK HD MG Y SAME CP EI G A FORCE VIS | N | r | SAME | ~)MG T N l l | G | CS SC | N 1 ~| CHANGE l l l l | | S CSP SD Y Y NOT G CSP ADDRESSE D TN MAY Y <340 MG B2 SAME CP G ALWAY S TX UT NO PLAN B2 PRIME CP R,G CSP NG VA N Y MAKE HD.MG PRIME EI G NG COMP B2 R/ TCOAT VE Y Y HD MG NO USE R ALWAY SNG WA N Y B2 EXT CP EI R NG WHITE VIS Wl | Y | Y | MEET | HDB | DONT 1 | | G T CSPNG Existing Policy REP MOST Z LITTLE REP Z SPOC REP Z SPOC REP OC REP SPOC REP SP ZOC REP Z SP OC REP REP Z SPOC REP OC OC REP SP 4

OCR for page 5
NCHRP Web Document ~ I, continuec! Synthesis 257 survey responses Painting (Section I A) VOC ~ VOC Plan Bolts Box Girder Interiors Edges Shop Limits l j Painted System | Why Prep | WV | MAY | ~ ~| EXIST | ID MG | Y SAME | CP | G WY ~ N ~ TO VOC ~ 32 ~ ~ ~ G ~ CSP NG ALB j N WS ~N/A ~EN ~ NSATI j ~ BC | MAY | , | CHANGE | HD MG | Y SAME | CP | R. G | INC NB | N | | N/A | HD B2 | Y PRIME | CP | R. G ONT | Y l | N/A | HD | N | | N I _ NF I r | NO PLAN | HGMG | N I T | G NS l l l l l l l l l SAS N N NO USE G NG Existing Policy REP Z SPOC OC REP OC SPZ REP Z SPOC REP Z SPOC REP SP OCZ REP REP OC Bl=Black with tolaant pnmer, B2=Black wl~ system pnmer, EM - oxy mastic 5

OCR for page 6
NCHRP Web Document ~ I, continuec! Synthesis 257 su~vey responses Paint-Nev' (Table A) | Paint-Existing Type ~ VOC ~ Appl ~ Prep ~ Slip ~ Spec ~ Costs ~ Type ~ VOC ~ Appl ~ Prep ~ Spec AK l ZMCU/ <340 | S | SP10 | B | STATE | 0.30/ | ZM2W | <340 | S SP6 | STATE | UMMCU/MC | l l l | | LB | M~CU/MCU l l l l l l l l | | M~ CU/MMCU/MCU <340 | S SP6 PW | STATE AL I I I I T I T I I I AR 1 IZ/PU/PU -- | S | SP10 | A | M300 | | RE IZ/PU/PU | SP10 | M300 l l l l | | STATE l l | | STATE CA | WIZ | O | AIR | SP10 | | M300 | 5.00 | WE VA/WBA <250 | AIR SP6 | STATE CT | IZ/EP/PU | <420 | MR | SP10 | B | NEPCOl T | 2.66 | RE] ' IZ EP PU <420 | MR SP10 | NEPCOAT l l l l l | | SP ALKYD <420 | B,R SP3 | STATE CO I IZ/PU <240 T s tSP6 1 A 1 1 1 MCU 1 1 DE l IZ/EP/PU <350 | B OR S | SP10 | l l | RE SP Z | SPI,SP2 | ~ 1 ~ ~LLLU~ FL IZ/EP/PU <420 S/RSIS SP10 _ STATE _ AEM AEM <420 SR SP3 or SP6 STATE l l l l l l l | | SR l GA ALKYD <340 S SP6 STATE WBA/ <240 B S R SP6 STATE | MCU | | MR | SP3 l l | | M('U | | MR SP3 l Costs $17/ SF $4/SF $15 1 1.50 10.00 20.00 7.00 REP 1 1.00 S 15-20.00 Z 1 1-15.00 OC3-10.00 6

OCR for page 8
NCHRP Web Document ~ I, continued Synthesis 257 survey responses | Paint-New (Table A) | Paint-Existing | Type VOC | App! | Prep | Slip | Spec | Costs | Typ ~| VOC | Appi | Prep | Spec L I I I I I | | VAF ES ~ SP6 ~ MO ~IZ/EP/PU <350 ~SR ~SP10 ~M300 ~ OCt aSULFONATE ~<350 ~SBR | SP2 | STATE MT IZ/EP/PU NO S SP5 DONT STATE REP IZ/EP/PU MR SP1 REQ OR 10 PAINT SP OC . l l l l l | SUR TOL.EP/WBEP l l l l NC WBAIWBA/ <240 S SP6 N/A STATE REP WBA/WBA/WBA <240 S B R SP6 STATE | | WBA l l l | | Z Ot ALKYDJALKYD | <350 | | SP3 l l l l l l l | OR iBA l l l l | ND T WPU/PU | MR | SP10 | - T STATE | T REP WPU/PU 1 | MR | SP6 | STATE | OC. EM/PU l l l l NE | IZ/WBAOR <360 | MR | SP10 N/A | STATE | | PP/( XPRIMER/WBA <360 | SP2 | STATE PU l l l l I I EPI {IMER/MCU NH IZ OR <420 MR SP10 B M300 OR REP ZNMCU/MMCU/ SP6 OZ/EP/PU NEPCOAT MMCU SP2 OR 3 MCU/MMCU/MMCU SP11 OR 6 NJ IZ/EP/PU MR SP10 B STATE 2.00 OZ/EP/PU <500 P MR SP10 NM I SP l l SP10 | UP | STATE | 3-4 | PU EM/PU SNPOT | S SP6 l NV | IZ/EP/PU <420 | S 1 SP10 l l l | EM M/PU | SANDBLA | | OH l l l l l l l l l l Costs 8

OCR for page 9
NCHRP Web Document ~ I, continuec! Synthesis 257 survey responses r Paint-New (Table A) ~Paint-Existing Type ~ VOC ~ Appl ~ Prep ~ Slip ~ Spec ~ Costs ~ Ty~: ~ VOC ~ Appl ~ Prep ~ Spec OK l IZ/EP/PU <350 | MR | SP10 B | STATE | | RE IZ/EP/PU <350 | OC EXPERIMENTAL <420 | OR | WIZ/PU | 350 | MR | SP10 | B | STATE | | RE] ZMCU/MCU ~<350 | MR | SP6 | STATE T I 1 1 7 7 1 7 oc ~MCU/ l <350 7 MR | SP6 | STATE PA l IZ/PU <420 | MR | SP10 | B | NEPCO] T | | IZ/1 P/PU <420 | MR REPSP10 | NJ/FLA AEM AEM PU OTHER l l l l l l l | OZ MCU/MCU ~| SP6 l Rl l OZOR <420 | MR | SP10 T N/A T STATE T I RE SPOC <360 | MR SPII | STATE iZtVARIOU AEM/AEMNARIOUS Is L I I I I I I I I SC | IZ/EM/PU | <350 | MR | SP10 | B | STATE | | EM EM | SP6 | STATE SD l iZ/PU 7 T MR 7 SP10 7 A l STATE 7 2.33 l RE~ SPZOCALK/ALK l MR S,PWSP6 T STATE TN | IZ/PU | <350 | S | SP10 | B | STATE | | RE IZ/ PU l l 1 7 | 7 I 1 1 T oc <3so | S SP2,PW T STATE TX l l l l l l l l l l UT | IZ/EP/PU | NO | MR | SP10 | | STATE | $3.00 | IZ~ P/PU NO | MR SP10 | STATE | | LIMIT | l l l l | LIMIT | l VA | IZOR l <420 7 MR l SP10 l B T STATEl)R | T RE~ IZOR NO | MR SPIOFOR T STATE, OZIVARIO SCEF OR OZNARIOUS LIMIT RUST SCEF US NEPCOAT SP Z OC ALKYD, REM NEPCOAT l l l l l l | | WB, AEP VE | IZ/EP/PU | <420 | MR | SP10 | B | STATE OR | | RE l l WA | IZ/EP/PU | <420 | S | SP5 | B | STATE | | OZ `4MCU/MCU NONE | SP SP6 | STATE Costs $12-15 5-6 REP 6.50 S 7.50 Z 7.00 OC 5.50 $4-5 $2-3 $7.00 8.00 3-5.00 $6-8 9

OCR for page 11
NCHRP Web Document 11, continued Synthesis 257 survey responses Z=zinc; MCU-moisture cure urethane; PU=polyurethane; IZ=inorganic zinc; OZ=organic zinc; A--aluminum; EM= epoxy mastic; WP=watff, E~epoxy; WBA=water home acrylic; WBVA= watt home vinyl acrylic;V=vinyl; 11

OCR for page 66
NCHRP Web Document ~ I, continued Synthesis 257 survey responses PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE VS. OTHER MAINTENANCE Section V, Question 6) British Columbia could be called routine mains done by main. contractors Prince Edward Island Quebec Yukon Tenritones l New Brunswick | washing of bridges and goosing of bearings Ontario prey. main done on routine basis. regardless of condit Ben. main done as needed Nr wfoundland | _ Nova Scotia Saskatchewan example is electro chemical chloride removal from reinforced column Manitoba Northwest Territories 66

OCR for page 67
NCHRP Web Document ~ I, continued Synthesis 257 survey responses | REHABILITATION VS. F~EPLACEMENf I action V, Question 7) Alabama Remaining est. ser. Fife and life cycle cost Alaska remaining life, funding sources, cost comparison Arizona | If rehab = 6o3/o oPre~olacernent~ repl strongly or iidered Arkansas Amount of Federal participation California Cost, load capacity of st. qtr. and current standard req. Colorado Economics Connecticut Sufficiency ratings based on qtr. deficiency and functinal obsolescence det rehab or repl. Historical signif.entff also Delaware Cond. of all components, traffic vol and historical signif Florida | Georgia Cost and traffic control Hawaii | serviceability of structure Idaho Illinois If cost of rehab. exceed or nearly exceed cost of never qtr. Indiana Condition of str Io`Ya Type of bridge, ref. cost, 30% of repl, do rehab. level of service of highway Kansas Degree of deterioration and serice life Kentucky | Posting, goern. br. width, cost is also a factor Louisiana Other bridge factors such as loading, deck coed. width Maine T cost trantlc need Maryland | Usu.o~stoondition and str.capacity Massachusetts Michigan Cost. Br. Design Div does cost comparisons Minnesota Cost is primary factor, incl. approach work Missouri Deck and several ratings and funding 67

OCR for page 68
NCHRP Web Document ~ I, continued Synthesis 257 survey responses REHABILITATION VS. REPLACEMENT (Section V, Question 7) Montana cost Nebraska If substr. in good shape, then br. cold be rehab. Nevada Soundness of elements which may be left in place and cost to bring up to current standards versus repl. Historical value is a consideration New Jersey repl. considered for var. reas., bunch obsolete, qtr. deficient New York Cost, coed. of var. elements, capacity, alignment New Hampshire Functinally obsolete structural type, long term mains costs and cost New Mexico Cost rehab. vs repl, cond of substr.and life exp. of alternative North Carolina Cost versus increased service life North Dakota Amt. of paint failure and condition of bridge Ohio If rehab cost exceed 50�/O of replacemnt Oklahoma Substr. coed, superstr. coed, width of qtr. Cost effective compared to repl Oregon | Costis biggest factor Historir~signif entersil dso Pennsylvania Cost If rehab> 70% of repl, look at it. Other factors incl lead paint removal, service life, lenght, location/site restraints Rhode Island South Dakota Safety coed. servicability, economics, funding available South Carolina Tennessee Cost effectiveness Texas Utah Gen. coed, cost of rehab vs repl., traffic loads and geometry of of the structure Vermont T % delaminaltion or severe surfsealing % of ar of artiveconosion rend of deck solicit ... Vlrgmla Washington | Cost and functionaliyt of the bridge Washington, DC West Virginia Degradation of steel, funding for repl Wisconsin Wyoming Sufficiency rating, load capacity Alberta Life cycle cost analysis British Columbia Cost 68

OCR for page 69
NCHRP Web Document ~ I, continuer! Synthesis 257 survey responses | REHABILITATION VS.REPLACEMENT ~ ;ection V,Ouestion7) j Prince Edward Island l l Quebec Yukon Territories New Brunswick Cost, funds available, traffic,loads alignment, age and capacity Ontario Prepare life cycle to present value, Financial analysis for competitive options Newfoundland Rehab. 50% of repl Nova Scotia l l Saskatchewan Level of service. public safety cost Manitoba Northwest Territories 69

OCR for page 70
NCHRP Web Document ~ I, continued Synthesis 257 survey responses Defer Defena1 criteria Alabama Alaska no policy but needs beyond funds are deferred Arizona But if work can be more cheaply by combining with other act. it is considered Arkansas When major work is ached. in near future California But main. eng. will determine overall needs and may defer Colorado need Connecticut N not a policy but will defer when larger scale main is anticipated in area. Impact of defer is considered. Delaware but only if repVrehab is upcoming Florida Georgia Hawaii n Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa n Kansas Kentucky Not a fommal policy funding based Louisiana Y money Maine Life cycle costs Maryland Limited funds and manpower cone. on those activities that impove qtr. cap and maintain current accept level Massachusetts x Michigan Only for large projects, then minimal money spent til funded Minnesota no written policy, but traffic consid and limited funds make this practice essential Missouri If rehab or repl is ached. for near future 70

OCR for page 71
NCHRP Web Document 1 I, continues! Synthesis 257 survey responses Defff Deferral criteria Montana Y If bridge is in program or planned to be replaced :~ ~ Nevada If rehab or repl is ached. for near future New Jersey Cost and if future rehab/repl planned New York N May deferred because of priorites, lack of funds, but sch work but no formal policy New Hampshire Y Depends if on 10 yr plan and where New Mexico N North Carolina North Dakota Amount of funding available Ohio If other work is scheduled, such as 4 laning will delay br work until then. Oklahoma Defer paint if sch for repl within 10 years Oregon Cost Pennsylvania Y age condition, nut. repl/rehab. Many deferre til funding becomes avail. Rhode Island Soup Dakota Y If sch. for repl, minimal mains performed to provide for public safety. South Carolina Manpower and funding Tennessee Age, cond and costs balanced against when funding available for repVrehab Texas Utah Y to the planning of other projects in the area Vermont x Virginia ~ . Washington Y Washington, DC West Virginia Y Funding Wisconsin Wyoming If br is be rehab/repl in 5 years, main. is deferred Alberta Disruption to public, safety considerations, mobilization.inc. costs from deferral 71

OCR for page 72
NCHRP Web Document ~ I, continued Synthesis 257 survey responses Defer Deferral criteria British Columbia Y Avail of funds or other act. that would preclude, destroy or compromise coating system. Prince Edward Island Quebec Yukon Territories New Brunswick Y May be deferred to coincide with other maintenance activities. Ontario Y Avail. of fund, other work in area importanc of str, traffic vol and detours avail. Newfoundland Y funding Nova Scotia Saskatchewan Y Structure age, cost benefit risk to public Manitoba Northwest Territories 72

OCR for page 73
NCHRP Web Document ~ I, continued Synthesis 257 survey responses MAJOR VS. REHAB VS. REPLACEMENT Alabama High cost, ser factors enter the decision Alaska use of specialized br. repair News and materials. rehab and repl would be by contract Arizona Marjor mains is when repla is not an option. Arkansas Costly act. Maj main only restores, not improves. California Maj done by contract. Rehab is to improve exist. coed. std and capacity Repl is to repl exist. str which is below coed. rating Colorado Connecticut Maj = work unable to completed by st. forges alone. Once identifiedd, scope is determined by const and design forces Delaware Florida Georgia | maj = modularjt repl.,deck repl. Tic Rehab me ns bring whole structure up to standards Hawaii Idaho Illinois < $25000 done in house. Contrac main < $150000. Rehab usu exceeds $150000. repl is by contract Indiana activity state forces cannot do Iowa n/a Kansas Maj = Maint done by contract . Rehab and repl = difffunding category Kentucky Maj mains does not result in upgrading structure Louisiana Maine Maint. Repairs a sp. deficiency. Rehab will restore to acceptable standard which may be an improvement over origial design Maryland Maj= act perfommed to preserve existing qtr. Rehab = deck and parapet repl. widenings, substr or superstr repl. Replacement= all existing components Massachusetts Michigan Spot paint and topcoat entir qtr. On small qtr. br. mains Rev might clean and paint entire bridge Minnesota Maj = utilization of larger than nommal portion of labor resoruce does not directly relate to extent of work on a particular str Missouri Painting entire supastr. without any rehab would be mad. maintenance because of removal of exist. paint Montana Maj work that state forges can't do Nebraska 73

OCR for page 74
NCHRP Web Document ~ I, continuer! Synthesis 257 survey responses MAJOR VS. REHAB VS. REPLACEMENT Nevada Maj = no altering of orig. design and contracting of work(>$50,000) New Jersey Maj = replacement in kind while rehab. Ben is an improvement New York | extent, nature and mst det categ. Maint only pi belly adders of elements whereas rehab/repl address all some overlap New Hampshire Maj = widening, new deck: rehab = new curb and rail, jt repl. Repl. = new qtr. New Mexico an act that can't done solely by st. forces, usu only certain elements worked. under rehab all deficincies are corrected. North Carolina repl or repair is a major qtr. component : ~do not do mad. Maint. rehab would be blast clean and repaint Ohio Major = deck overlay with a specialty concrete. Deck repl and/or widening = rehab. Oklahoma Typically substructure repair Oregon Pennsylvania Maj main.= work too intensive for st. forces, but is still considered a mains. act Rhode Island South Dakota work done by st. forces mad work needed due to accident or natural disaster, regionide scope of work sched. for qualifying strs. South Carolina Maj = activity which cannot be performed by st. forces but nec to maintain str safety and capability Tennessee Maj= work approaching 50 60% of repl without widening to meet current stds. Rehab= repairs and rennovation including increased width to bring qtr. to NBIS 80 sufficiency rating. Texas Utah scope of work and cost Vermont | do not d6tinqursh Virginia Washington Act. over $15000. Rehab and repl done by contract Washington, DC West Virginia Mar= cleaning and painting minor repair. Rehab = replacing one or more members and making qtr. stronger Wisconsin Wyoming Rel. cost: rehab is never coside to incl repl, only work done to existing qtr. Alberta ~ $50000 cost incl rehab or repl as option British Columbia rel cost is sole diffbet major and minor rehab involves qtr. modification. Repl is where cost and othe cosideration make new enhanced qtr. more efficient Prince Edward Island Quebec | 74

OCR for page 75
NCHRP Web Document ~ I, continuer! Synthesis 257 survey responses MAJOR VS. REHAB VS. REPLACEMENT Yukon Territories l Ne~vBrunr,~vick | Maj =such things as replacing mainstr. memo r, jackingto rapt bearings. nailing is detened and minimal work done | Ontario | Maj work done under a capital program oontnu Routine main covered under main. funding which is very variable in commitment l Newfoundland Nova Scotia Saskatchewan | Maj mains only addresses one bridge deficient rrhab/repl addresses more than one defiencey l Manitoba Northwest Territories 75

OCR for page 76
NCHRP Web Document ~ I, continued Synthesis 257 survey responses Research responses Limited evaluation of compositional formulations and proprietary coatings Field evaluation of metallizing and organic zinc; informal evaluation of zinc rich and overcoat materials California Connecticut Delaware Georgia Illinois Evaluation of MCU and proprietary grease for bearings: determined Calcium Sulfonate system too soft Adhesion tests on inorganic zinc Comparing Calcium Sulfonate, MCU, PU, MIO, Epoxy sealers, Epoxy Mastics and acrylic water borne topcoats to standard SSPC alkyd Extensive 6 year evaluation of overcoating Informal evaluation of overcoating Experimental project evaluation of Calcium Sulfonate and epoxy Mastic Participated in Ocean City/FHWA research project on overcoating and has a 3 year overcoating evaluation underway Numerous weathering steel reports included 35 systems applied to Mathis Bridge VOC compliant systems evaluated at Manteo and Overcoat at Manns Harbor, See report in Journal of Protective Coatings and Linings, May, 1995, pp. 23-29 Evaluating MIO MCU and overcoating Included ratings on accelerated performance study of 5 proprietary systems and field evaluation of 7 overcoating systems. Conclusions not reported Continuous ongoing performance panel testing of various materials Research analysis of plastic flame coat and metallizing underway Evaluating use of clear epoxy sealers for use on weathering steel to seal out moisture l Evaluation of multiple overcoat systems on poorly adhered existing paint Coating project to isolate galv. baseplates from caustic grouts Coatings are field tested prior to inclusion on approved list L ab evaluation of overcoat materials with test patches on bridges Kentucky Maryland Missouri New Hampshire Michigan New Jersey Norm Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Washington Virginia Alberta British Columbia Ontario 76

Representative terms from entire chapter:

nchrp web

Free Resources

Related Titles

NCHRP Web Doc 11 Synthesis 257 - Maintenance Issues and Alternate Corrosion Protection Methods for Exposed Bridge Steel - Appendix C: Survey Responses (1998) Transportation Research Board (TRB)

NCHRP Web Doc 11 Synthesis 257 - Maintenance Issues and Alternate Corrosion Protection Methods for Exposed Bridge Steel - Appendix C: Survey Responses (1998)
Transportation Research Board (TRB)