durability

Study on Cover Depth for

Prestressed Concrete Bridges in
Airborne-Chloride Environments
Yoshiki Tanaka
Senior Research Engineer
Bridge Structure Research Team
Public Works Research Institute
Tsukuba, Japan
Hirotaka Kawano, Ph.D.
Director for Materials and Geological
Engineering Research Group
Public Works Research Institute
Tsukuba, Japan
Hiroshi Watanabe, M.S.
Team Leader
Structure Management Technology
Research Team
Public Works Research Institute
Tsukuba, Japan
Tomoyoshi Nakajo
Principal Bridge Engineer
Japan Prestressed Concrete Contractors
Association
Tokyo, Japan
42 PCI JOURNAL
In Japan, prestressed/reinforced concrete bridges
often suffer deterioration from steel corrosion in the
chloride-laden air of marine environments with high
concentrations of airborne chloride particles. Only a
few decades after erection, several prestressed concrete
bridges have already been replaced due to significant
corrosion in the main girders. To develop a reasonable
design policy for building more durable concrete
bridges that require less maintenance, the performance
of conventional concrete cover as corrosion protection
in coastal environments needs to be properly evaluated.
In this paper, the authors address the effectiveness of
conventional concrete cover with a water-cement ratio
of 0.36 and 0.43 in airborne-chloride environments
and propose a realistic evaluation method based on
Japanese surveys of airborne chloride distribution and
deterioration in existing concrete highway bridges.
The proposed evaluation method uses the chloride
diffusion coefficient for uncracked concrete exposed
to the choride atmosphere and the boundary chloride
level based on its relationship to airborne chloride
levels. The results of this research provide the basis
for a cogent policy for corrosion protection in coastal
areas for concrete bridges with 100-year design lives.
C
hlorides that can lead to premature deterioration of
reinforced and prestressed concrete bridges are abun-
dantly supplied by marine environs or by roadway
deicing chemicals, creating a corrosive environment for steel
reinforcing. Chloride-induced deterioration often results not
only in increased bridge maintenance but also in a shortened
structural life for reinforced, post-tensioned, and precast,
prestressed concrete structures. In the worst cases, significant
corrosion has led to replacement of concrete bridges.1 Thus,
corrosion protection is a high priority for transportation au-
thorities concerned about improving concrete bridge sustain-
ability in corrosive environments.
Since the late 1960s in the United States, premature and
serious deterioration of bridge decks has often occurred as a
result of the increased use of deicing salts.2 In the mid-1980s,
premature, chloride-induced deterioration of concrete bridge
piers containing epoxy-coated steel reinforcing bars was
documented for bridges in the Florida Keys.3,4 In research to
find solutions for early infrastructure deterioration, numerous
studies were carried out involving various methods of corro-
sion protection, such as increased concrete cover depth, use
of low-permeability concrete, designs with epoxy-coated re-
inforcing bars, and cathodic protection. Recently, new metal-
lic reinforcing bars similar in material properties to stainless
steels have also been studied as alternative designs.57 Several
of these investigations reported that conventional concrete
with increased cover specifications and lowered water-ce-
ment ratios (w/c) seemed effective against chloride ingress.8,9
Currently in Florida, use of low-permeability concrete is rec-
ommended as the most effective corrosion protection for new
Regional difference caused by
wind, wave, and topography
Reduction depending on
distance from coastline
Airborne chloride
Regional difference
in same structure
Chloride on surface
Decided at design
Error in formwork
Slippage during concreting
Cover depth
Fig. 1. Schematic presentation of chloride attack in airborne-chloride environments and factors that influence corrosion in
reinforced concrete.
MarchApril 2006 43
bridge construction in coastal areas.10
In contrast to the U.S. experience, significant corrosion has
been observed in concrete bridge superstructures near the
coast of Japan since the late 1970s.11,12 The Guide Specifica-
tions on Corrosion Protection for Highway Bridges recom-
mended an increased cover for conventional concrete struc-
tures.13 Although these guidelines led to improved durability
in general for concrete bridges in coastal areas, the adequacy
of the 1984 specifications was not verified with respect to
ensuring a 100-year design life. In efforts to create a valid
design policy for more durable and lower-maintenance con-
crete bridges, the in-place effectiveness of the conventional
concrete cover design needs to be evaluated. In Japan, the
United States, and other countries, the common concern re-
garding premature chloride-induced deterioration of concrete
bridge structures will require ongoing research.
For predicting chloride ingress, some evaluation tools have
been established.14,15 To date, these tools have some difficul-
ties in determining the valid chloride boundary condition at
the concrete surface. For structures in marine locations, it has
long been recognized that invisible airborne chloride particles
are mainly responsible for concrete bridge deterioration.13
In 1993, a nationwide survey established a relationship be-
tween a concentration level of invisible chloride particles and
the chloride boundary condition.16 A quantitative evaluation
method for adequate concrete cover depth in relation to air-
borne chloride levels, however, has not yet been developed.
In this paper, the authors address the effectiveness of con-
ventional concrete cover as corrosion protection against air-
borne chloride through a proposed realistic evaluation meth-
Inside of concrete is generally
not corrosive because of high-
alkaline environment
Much chloride becomes
corrosive even in concrete
Supply of oxygen and water
have an effect, as well as chloride
Corrosion in concrete
Depends on:
Quality of concrete
Type of concrete
Water-cement ratio
Construction conditions
Deterioration such as cracking,
carbonation
Chloride permeability
Table 1. Minimum Specified Cover Depth for Highway Corrosion of Concrete Bridges
Bridges.19 in Japan
Beams By 2001, approximately 140,000 highway bridges with
Deck, Curb, Precast Beams Except a bridge length of more than 49 ft (15 m), including about
Railing, Slab Concrete Precast Con- 80,000 concrete bridges, have been constructed in Japan. It
Types of
Bridges with Members crete, Slab is estimated that about 15% of these structures were locat-
Members
Span of Less Bridges with ed within 1640 ft (500 m) of the coastline, where airborne
Than 10 m Span of More chloride has caused corrosion problems in concrete bridges.
Than 10 m Several prestressed concrete bridges, including both post-
Minimum 30 mm 25 mm 35 mm tensioned and precast/prestressed, were replaced due to sig-
cover depth nificant corrosion only a few decades after completion.17,18 In
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 m = 3.28 ft.
some cases, the cumulative maintenance costs at replacement
of the deteriorated bridges exceeded the initial construction
od based on research and field survey data. The evaluation cost.1
method uses the chloride diffusion coefficient obtained from A schematic of chloride-induced deterioration in un-
exposure tests of uncracked concrete in the airborne-chloride cracked concrete is illustrated in Fig. 1. Micropores and gel
environment and a boundary chloride level based on its rela- water, typically present in hardened concrete, serve as routes
tionship with airborne chloride. The values of the diffusion for chloride ion transport. The concrete matrix pore structure
coefficients are compared with distributions of diffusion co- depends on the type of cement used, mixture proportions,
efficient data obtained from field surveys of existing bridge and concrete quality. In the airborne-chloride environment
girders. Predicted cover depths are comprehensively verified of coastlines, a large amount of chloride adheres to con-
by comparison with deterioration in existing concrete bridg- crete surfaces and chloride ions permeate the concrete,
es. From the results of this research, a corrosion protection reaching the steel reinforcing bars. Chloride ions can break
specification for a 100-year design life in concrete bridges in the passive oxide film on black reinforcing steel and initi-
coastal areas is presented. ate corrosioneven under corrosion-deterrent conditions of

Fig. 2. Corrosion-induced deterioration of post-tensioned concrete bridge girders before the first repairs, only 16 years after
completion.

44 PCI JOURNAL
Fig. 3. Corrosion-induced deterioration of precast, prestressed concrete bridge girders before repairs, 13 years after construction.
high alkalinity in the concrete. The expansion of corroded
reinforcing bars causes severe cracking and spalling of the
surrounding concrete. Once large cracks typical of chloride-
induced corrosion are present, even major repairs may prove
ineffective. It is, unfortunately, difficult to detect the exis-
tence of early products of corrosion in uncracked concrete
with typical bridge inspection methods.
Design Cover Depth Before 1984
An adequate concrete cover depth is required to protect steel
reinforcing bars from corrosion, maintain sufficient concrete-
to-steel bond strength, and facilitate concrete placement.
Particularly in coastal areas, the cover depth is specified for
corrosion protection. The minimum cover depths prescribed
in the 1978 Design Specifications for Highway Bridges are
shown in Table 1.19 Most existing Japanese highway bridge
superstructures in marine conditions were designed accord-
ing to 1978 specifications (or earlier guidelines with similar
cover-depth minimums) until publication of new guidelines
in 1984.
Nationwide Survey
Corrosion-induced deterioration of concrete bridges has
been evident on Japans coast since the late 1970s. Instances
of severe deterioration in post-tensioned and precast, pre-
stressed concrete bridges are shown in Fig. 2 and 3. In 1981,
significant corrosion of post-tensioning tendons in a bridge
MarchApril 2006 45
above seawater was found during the initial repair. A dissec-
tion conducted after replacement of the 34-year-old bridge
revealed that only 21% of the original cross-sectional tendon
area remained at the most severely deteriorated section of the
girder.17
In 1982, the Public Works Research Institute in Tsukuba,
Japan, conducted a nationwide survey to identify damage in
concrete highway bridges located within 1640 ft (500 m) of
the coast. Figure 4 shows a survey map of deficient bridges.
Regional differences in the levels of deterioration of concrete
bridges were identified. High levels of bridge deterioration
were often located in Regions A and B (Fig. 5). Distribution
of deteriorated bridges is shown in Fig. 6a and 6b, with the
distance from the coastline and service life. It can be seen
that most of the significantly deteriorated bridges are located
within 330 ft (100 m) of the coast.
It is important to note that the data in Fig. 6a and 6b in-
dicate that corrosion-induced deterioration of precast, pre-
stressed concrete bridges was seldom found, even with pre-
cast, prestressed concretes relatively shallower cover depth
compared with that of post-tensioned and reinforced concrete
bridges. These results indicate that precast, prestressed con-
crete is generally more durable than cast-in-place concrete
and that this durability is a result of precast concretes inher-
ent manufacturing quality controls. Manufactured precast,
prestressed concrete is of higher quality because the cover
depth and concrete quality are ensured through accurate plant
 The distance from Tokyo to Osaka is about 250 miles
(400 km), and to Okinawa, about 990 miles (1600 km).
The total length of coastline in Japan is about 22,000 miles
(35,000 km) according to the national coastal statistics

Fig. 4. Survey map of deficient bridges located within 1640 ft (500 m) of Japans coastline in 1982.

location of reinforcing steel and lower forming and placing

tolerances than that of cast-in-place concrete.
Two decades later, in 2000, a follow-up survey focused
on repaired bridges in Japanese coastal areas.1 The chloride
profile data from concrete cores taken from existing concrete
girders during repair work were gathered. The data provided
distributions of the chloride ion diffusion coefficients for
each type of structure, as shown in Fig. 7. The study assumed
that all cores were made of ordinary concrete because the ad-
dition of pozzolans is uncommon for bridge superstructures
in Japan. From Fig. 7, it can be seen that precast, prestressed
concrete typically presented a much lower diffusion coeffi-
cient. This data agreed with earlier research results that found
a lower w/c demonstrated a lower diffusion coefficient.2022
Typically, precast, prestressed concrete is specified at a lower
w/c (for obtaining high-early strength) than that for cast-in-
place concrete.

Design Cover Depth After 1984

Fig. 5. Map identifies regions referenced in the 1984 Guide Based on the results of the bridge deterioration survey, the
Specifications on Corrosion Protection for Highway Bridges.13 Guide Specifications were published in 1984.13 The major
46 PCI JOURNAL
Fig. 6a. Distribution of deficient concrete bridges in Regions A and B except precast, prestressed concrete bridges. Note: 1 m = 3.28 ft.

Fig. 6b. Distribution of deficient precast, prestressed concrete bridges in Regions A and B. Note: 1 m = 3.28 ft.

MarchApril 2006 47

Fig. 7. Diffusion coefficients of chloride ions for concrete
cores taken from existing bridges. Ordinary design concrete
strength is shown in parentheses. Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi;
1 m2/s = 10.7 ft2/s.
recommendations in the Guide Specifications were to in-
crease the cover depth, depending on the distance from the
coastline in each region, as shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4 and
Fig. 5; restrict the maximum w/c allowable; control flexural
cracking; and use the optional measures of epoxy-coated re-
inforcing bars or coating on concrete surfaces.
A follow-up survey showed that before 1995, more than
400 concrete highway bridges were completed according
to the 1984 Guide Specifications.1 About two decades have
passed since completion of bridges using the 1984 guidelines,
and significant bridge deterioration has not been observed,
with the exception of a few cases of very poor workmanship.
As a result of this survey, the Guide Specifications has been
acknowledged for its contributions to improved durability
of concrete bridgesespecially in light of the fact that the
Table 2. Regions Requiring Preventative Measures
Against Chloride Attack.
Legends Regions Requiring Preventative Measures
A Okinawa Prefecture
B Areas within 300 m of coast and above sea in
regions shown in Fig. 5
C Areas within 200 m of coast and above sea ex-
cept the Regions A and B
Note: 1 m = 3.28 ft.
48 PCI JOURNAL
Table 3. Measure Levels.
Regions Distance from Coast Level
Less than 100 m and above sea I
A
Except the above region II
Less than 100 m and above sea I
B 100200 m II
200300 m III
Above sea I
C Less than 100 m II
100200 m III
Level of corrosion protection required based on geographic location, with I being the
most protection required and III being the least.
Note: 1 m = 3.28 ft.
majority of significant deterioration of existing bridges built
before the 1984 guidelines occurred within 15 years of con-
struction. To ensure the durability of bridges designed for a
100-year life, however, the required cover depths need to be
reassessed according to an evaluation method incorporating
extended design life.
Cover Depth Evaluation Method
The process of chloride ingress into concrete is usually ex-
pressed by Ficks equation. For evaluating the required cover
depth, a basic formula was prepared based on Cranks solu-
tion of the equation as shown in Eq. (1):
x
C ( x , t ) = Co 1 erf + Cinit < Ccorr (1)
2 Dct
where
x = depth from concrete surface
t = time
Co = boundary chloride level at concrete surface
erf = error function
Dc = diffusion coefficient
Ccorr = chloride threshold level to initiate corrosion
Cinit = initial chloride level in concrete
Various models for predicting chloride ingress have been
presented in literature to date. The complex models, how-
ever, often have difficulty in establishing validity because
time-dependent data required for analyzing the influences of
hydration and environmental conditions on chloride ingress
(such as temperature, humidity, carbonation, and chloride
ions absorption into hydrated compounds) have yet to be ob-
tained. Although Eq. (1) may not always precisely express the
actual process, it is the simplest equation available to express
the process of chloride ingress with a minimum number of
essential parameters x, t, and Co corresponding to environ-
mental inputs and Dc dependent on cement type and mixture
proportions. Since this simple model has been applied in the
analysis of numerous tests and field investigations, a relative
abundance of data for the surface chloride level and the dif-
Table 4. Minimum Cover Depth Described in the Guide Specifications (mm).13
Superstructure Substructure

Beam
Level Bottom of Deck, Precast, Beam Column
Curb, Railing Prestressed Other Type
Concrete

I 50 50 70 70 70

II 40 35 50 50 50

III 30 25 35 35 40
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

fusion coefficient based on this model have been amassed. Boundary Chloride Level
Therefore, it was decided to adopt Eq. (1) as the most practi-
Blocks made of conventional concrete with w/c of 0.39
cal and valid evaluation method for durability design avail-
and 0.58 were simultaneously exposed to airborne chloride
able at this time.
at 76 observation points.11,16 The surface chloride level (the
In this paper, the required cover depth is defined as the
boundary chloride level, Co) of each block was determined
minimum cover depth for preventing chloride concentration
in relation to the airborne chloride level, Cair. In Fig. 9, this
at reinforcing steel surface in concrete from exceeding the
correlation can be represented by Eq. (3):
chloride threshold level during the specified design lifetime.

Airborne Chloride Co = 1.5Cair 0.4 (3)

For three years, beginning in 1984, a nationwide survey of
the airborne chloride distribution in coastal areas was con- where
ducted.16 The mass of chloride ions captured on a stainless Cair = airborne chloride level (mdd of Cl-)
steel plate with a 3.9 in. 3.9 in. (0.1 m 0.1 m) area was Co = boundary chloride level on concrete surface
measured at 266 observation points within 10 km (6.2 miles) Note: The equation was determined with a unit of Co de-
of the coast every month. In this paper, the airborne chloride fined as kg of Cl-/m3.
level at each observation point is represented by the annual In other investigations, it was found that the surface chlo-
average. In Fig. 8, the result in Region B is shown as an ex- ride level of concrete in the splash zone ranged from about
ample of the measured airborne chloride in relation to the 17 lb/yd3 to 34 lb/yd3 (10 kg/m3 to 20 kg/m3).1,10
distance from the coastline. It can be seen that the logarithm
of airborne chloride, Cair, has a linear relation to the loga-
rithm of the distance. From the nationwide data, it was found
that the slope of the relation was typically constant regardless
of region, whereas the point interceptions varied by region.
Consequently, Eq. (2) was proposed for predicting the air-
borne chloride level.

Cair = C1d 0.6 (2)

where
Cair = airborne chloride level (mdd of Cl-)
Note: The unit mdd is an abbreviation of mg/100 cm2/
day.
C1 = regional coefficient
d = distance from the coastline (km)
The regional coefficient, C1, is to express the airborne chlo-
ride level in each region. The coefficient for regions where se-
vere corrosion-induced deterioration was frequently observed
was larger than that of the other regions. It was concluded that
sea winds and wave conditions were mainly responsible for the Fig. 8. Survey results for Region B show the relationship between
regional differences recorded. The values for C1 for Regions A, measured airborne chloride and the distance from the coastline.
B, and C were determined to be 0.6, 0.6, and 0.2, respectively. Note: 1 km = 0.622 miles.
MarchApril 2006 49
 C0 (kg of CI /m3)
-

C0 = 1.5 Cair0.4

-
Airborne chloride Cair (mdd of CI )

Fig. 9. Relationship between Co and Cair. Note: 1 kg/m3 = 1.68 lb/yd3.

Diffusion Coefficient concrete under the airborne-chloride environment in coastal

areas.20 It can be seen that with the w/c ranging from 0.25 to
The diffusion coefficient, Dc, of chloride ions in concrete
0.55, a lower value of w/c results in a lesser diffusion coef-
depends on many factors, including concrete pore structure,
ficient, especially notable for concrete with w/c values less
mixture proportions, cement types, and curing conditions. In
than 0.4. This data agrees with survey results indicating that
particular, the w/c is the most significant factor influencing
precast, prestressed concrete bridges with w/c of 0.3 to 0.4
the diffusion coefficient in uncracked ordinary concrete.
rarely deteriorated. In addition, results from the exposure test
In Fig. 10, the relationship between the diffusion coef-
were similar to the average values of the diffusion coefficient
ficient and w/c is plotted. The resulting data were obtained
distributions shown in Fig. 7.
from an exposure test of high-early-strength portland cement
Research on the exposure tests revealed that the diffusion
coefficients obtained were about one-tenth less than typical
ponding test data despite use of the same concrete batch and
w/c.20 It should be noted that the relationship shown in Fig. 10
is not applicable for structures submerged in chloride solu-
Diffusion coefficient Dc (m2/s)

tions or seawater. In this study, the effects of pozzolans were

not considered, though other research has shown that ground
granulated blast furnace slag, silica fume, and fly ash are ef-
fective in creating a tight concrete pore structure if proper
curing procedures are used.

Chloride Threshold Level

Dc = 510-11e - 1.6(c/w) Worldwide, an accepted common value of the chloride
threshold level for black steels has not been developed. In
the United States, chloride threshold value is commonly recog-
nized as 1.2 lb/yd3 (0.7 kg/m3) of acid-soluble chloride ions.6,23
In Japan, the acceptable value is from 2.0 lb/yd3 to 4.2 lb/yd3
(1.2 kg/m3 to 2.5 kg/m3). These chloride threshold value differ-
w/c ences may be the result of testing conditions, a lack of precise
definitions for corrosion level, and a non-standard definition
Fig. 10. Relationship between Dc and w/c. Note: 1 m2/s = 10.7 ft2/s. of the threshold level.
50 PCI JOURNAL
 Chloride threshold values in Japan were initially obtained
from two experimental studies.24,25 Some investigations of
existing structures showed that corrosion of black steels was
seldom observed in concrete with a chloride content of less
than 2.0 lb/yd3 (1.2 kg/m3) and that concrete surrounding sig-
nificantly corroded steel was often contaminated by chloride
ion concentrations of more than 4.2 lb/yd3 (2.5 kg/m3).12,17
In this paper, the chloride threshold value is assumed to be
2.0 lb/yd3 (1.2 kg/m3).
Since corrosion of black steel also depends on the supply
of oxygen and the moisture conditionseven within the con-
cretethe depth and the permeability of concrete cover may
influence the chloride threshold level. The impact of these
factors, however, has not yet been identified.
Initial Chloride Level
Currently, the initial chloride content in fresh concrete
should be controlled to less than 0.50 lb/yd3 (0.3 kg/m3) in
Japan. A survey showed that most Japanese ready-mixed Fig. 11a. Concrete cover depth required for post-tensioned
concrete plants control the initial chloride level to less than concrete with w/c of 0.43. Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.;
0.17 lb/yd3 (0.1 kg/m3).26 Another survey focusing on precast, 1 km = 0.622 miles.
prestressed concrete manufacturing facilities indicated that
these operations can control the chloride level to less than
0.17 lb/yd3 (0.1 kg/m3).11

Comprehensive Verification
In order to verify the proposed evaluation method, required
cover depths were calculated using Eq. 1, 2, and 3 with test
parameters as follows:
C1 = 0.6 for Regions A and B and 0.2 for Region C
Ccorr = 2.0 lb/yd3 (1.2 kg/m3)
Cinit = 0.5 lb/yd3 (0.3 kg/m3)
Dc was defined by the function with w/c as shown in
Fig. 10.
w/c = 0.36 and 0.43, corresponding to precast, prestressed
concrete and post-tensioned concrete, respectively.
Design lifetime = 50 years

Comparison with Bridge Deterioration Data

Calculated cover depths for 50-year design life are shown
in Fig. 11a and 11b. The following results were obtained:
1. Until establishing the Guide Specifications in 1984,
the minimum cover depth for post-tensioned concrete
bridges was 1.4 in. (35 mm), even in highly corro-
sive coastal areas. From data in Fig. 11a, research-
ers concluded that 1.4 in. (35 mm) of concrete cover
was insufficient for concretes with w/c of 0.43 within
several hundred meters of the coast in Regions A and
B. Similarly, Fig. 11b shows that 1.0 in. (25 mm) of
concrete cover prescribed for precast, prestressed
concrete bridges was insufficient in the same areas.
These results help to explain why significant corro-
sion was frequently observed on concrete bridges
completed in coastal areas in Japan before 1984.
2. Calculated cover depths for 50-year design life were
similar to the minimum cover depth recommended in
the Guide Specifications as drawn by a stepped line
in each figure. The results agree with survey results
MarchApril 2006 51
Fig. 11b. Cover depth required for precast, prestressed
concrete with w/c of 0.36. Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.;
1 km = 0.622 miles.
indicating that corrosion signs were rarely observed
on bridges built after 1984. Consequently, the mini-
mum cover depths recommended in the 1984 Guide
Specifications were reassessed as adequate for 50-year
bridge design life according to the evaluation method.
3. The required cover depths for concrete with w/c
of 0.43 located at more than 1000 ft (300 m) in-
land from the coastline were less than the minimum
cover depth of 1.4 in. (35 mm). This cover depth is
adequate because it is supported by results show-
ing that significant corrosion was negligible on
post-tensioned concrete bridges in these areas.

Fig. 12. Schematic summary of proposed corrosion protection
policy for concrete highway bridges with 100-year design life
in coastal areas.
As a result of this study, the proposed evaluation method
and test parameters were deemed acceptable to appropriately
estimate the required cover depth for prestressed concrete su-
perstructures in coastal areas. The results for 50-year design
life structures increased understanding of chloride-induced
deterioration in concrete bridges in a marine environment.
Corrosion Protection for
100-Year Design
According to the proposed evaluation method, the cover
depths required for 100-year design life of uncracked con-
crete were predicted as illustrated in Fig. 11a and 11b. The
results indicated that the minimum cover prescribed in the
1984 Guide Specifications was insufficient for 100-year
bridge designs. Researchers concluded that the extension of
bridge design life to 100 years requires increased concrete
cover depth in coastal areas. Results indicate that the area re-
quiring increased concrete cover depth for bridges should be
expanded several hundred meters inland. In addition, within
several dozen meters of the coast, cover should be increased
to more than 2.8 in. (70 mm) or alternative corrosion-protec-
tion measures should be taken. Particularly for superstruc-
tures in these areas, it may be advisable to use less-permeable
concretes or use epoxy-coated, stainless clad, or stainless
steel reinforcement; increased cover can significantly add to
superstructure dead loads and a greater risk of shrinkage-in-
duced cracking.
In the United States, stainless clad or stainless steel re-
inforcing bars have been used in several bridge decks. A
five-year-long U.S. Federal Highway Administration study
revealed that the chloride threshold level for stainless steels
(Type 304 and 316) in concrete was from 18 lb/yd3 to 30 lb/yd3
(11 kg/m3 to 18kg/m3).57 In aggressive marine environments, it
may be valuable to consider use of stainless steel reinforcing as
a practical way to improve durability of bridge superstructures,
even though it is more expensive than black steel.
52 PCI JOURNAL
Based on study results, a proposed specification for corro-
sion protection for 100-year design in coastal areas is sum-
marized in Fig. 12. It is noteworthy that the follow-up sur-
vey of existing concrete highway bridges revealed that a few
bridges designed according to the 1984 Guide Specifications
were inadvertently built with failure to meet cover tolerance.1
Therefore, quality control assessment of as-built concrete
cover depth should be improved by effective post-construc-
tion inspection involving nondestructive testing.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this paper, the required cover depth for prestressed con-
crete bridges in coastal areas was assessed according to the
proposed evaluation method and verified by comparison with
bridge deterioration surveys and follow-up research. The
results of this investigation indicated that the conventional
cover depths of 1 in. to 1.4 in. (25 mm to 35 mm) were not
sufficient as a corrosion protection for concrete bridges lo-
cated in coastal areas. The minimum cover depths prescribed
in the 1984 Guide Specifications, however, are sufficient for
bridges with 50-year design life.
The cover depth required for 100-year design life indi-
cated that the 1984 Guide Specifications were insufficient.
Results showed that the cover depth prescribed in the Guide
Specifications should be increased about 0.8 in. (20 mm).
Further, regions where bridges need increased concrete
cover should be expanded about several hundred meters in-
land. It was also suggested that an increased cover alone
may no longer be appropriate for superstructures within
several dozen meters of the coast.
Precast, prestressed concretes have a greater potential du-
rability against chloride attack because of inherently lower
w/c values for satisfying high-early strengths, as well as
good manufacturing quality control. This study showed that
concretes with lower w/c values (less than 0.4) typically
provided durability advantage in precast, prestressed con-
crete based on as-built data obtained from several surveys
of existing bridges.
The quantitative evaluation of the airborne chloride plays a
crucial role in establishing a valid and economically feasible
durability design for bridge superstructures in coastal areas.
Note: Although cracking due to shrinkage or flexure may
affect the durability of concrete structures, only corrosion-in-
duced cracking is addressed in this paper because the research
focused primarily on the durability of prestressed concrete
superstructureswhere prestressing forces are expected to
mitigate shrinkage and flexural cracking.5,8,27
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the many staff members in the Ministry
of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (formerly the Ministry
of Construction and the Hokkaido Development Bureau); the
Okinawa General Bureau; and all prefecture offices that as-
sisted with the surveys presented in this paper. The authors
express their gratitude to the PCI Journal reviewers for their
constructive comments.
 REFERENCES
1. Public Works Research Institute, March 2001, Investigation
on Life Cycle Cost of Concrete BridgesDeterioration and
Maintenance Cost of Concrete Bridge, Technical Memorandum
of PWRI No. 3811, Tsukuba, Japan. (in Japanese)
2. Virmani, Y. P. and Clemena, G. G., September 1998, Corrosion
ProtectionConcrete Bridges, Report No. FHWA-RD-98-
088, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
3. Kessler, R. J. and Powers, R. G., September 1987, Corrosion
evaluation of substructure Long Key Bridge, Interim Report,
Florida Department of Transportation.
4. Kessler, R. J. and Powers, R. G., August 1988, Corrosion of
Epoxy Coated Rebar Keys Segmental Bridges Monroe County,
Report No. 88-8A, Florida Department of Transportation.
5. Pfeifer, D. W., 2000, High Performance Concrete and
Reinforcing Steel with a 100-Year Service Life, PCI Journal,
V. 45, No. 3, MayJune 2000, pp. 4654.
6. McDonald, D. B.; Pfeifer, D. W.; and Sherman, M. R., December
1998, Corrosion Evaluation of Epoxy-Coated, Metallic
Reinforcing Bars in Concrete, Report No. FHWA-RD-98-153,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 137 pp.
7. McDonald, D. B.; Sherman, M. R.; Pfeifer, D. W.; and Virmani,
Y. P., 1995, Stainless Steel Reinforcing as Corrosion Protection,
Concrete International, V. 17, No. 5, May 1995, pp. 6570.
8. Poston, R. W.; Carrasquillo, R. L.; and Breen, J. E., 1987,
Durability of Post-tensioned Bridge Decks, ACI Materials
Journal, JulyAugust 1987, pp. 315326.
9. Smith, J. L. and Virmani, Y. P., August 1996, Performance of
Epoxy Coated Rebars in Bridge Decks, Report No. FHWA-
RD-96-092, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C.
10. Sagues, A. A., et al., May 1994, Corrosion of Epoxy Coated
Rebar in Florida Bridges, Final Report, Florida Department of
Transportation.
11. Public Works Research Institute, December 2000, Study on
Prestressed Concrete Bridges Minimizing Maintenance
Required Cover Depth for Concrete Highway Bridges, Joint
Research Report No. 258, Tsukuba, Japan. (in Japanese)
12. Public Works Research Institute, March 2001, Study on
Prestressed Concrete Bridges Minimizing Maintenance
Corrosion Protection for Prestressed Concrete Bridges, Joint
Research Report No. 270, Tsukuba, Japan. (in Japanese)
13. Japan Road Association, February 1984, The Guide Specifications
on Corrosion Protection for Highway Bridges. (in Japanese)
14. Thomas, M. D. A. and Bentz, E. C., October 2000, Life-365
Computer Program for Predicting the Service Life and Life-
Cycle Costs of Reinforced Concrete Exposed to Chlorides.
15. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, January 2000, Standard
Specifications for Concrete Structures. (in Japanese)
16. Public Works Research Institute, March 1993, Nationwide
Survey on Airborne Chlorides, Technical Memorandum of
PWRI No. 3175, Tsukuba, Japan. (in Japanese)
17. Tanaka, Y.; Kawano, H.; Watanabe, H.; and Kimura, T., June
MarchApril 2006 53
2001, Chloride-Induced Deterioration and Its Influence on
Load Carrying Capacity of Post-Tensioned Concrete Bridges,
Proceedings of Third International Conference on Concrete
under Severe Conditions, Vancouver, B.C., pp. 495502.
18. Tanaka, Y.; Kawano, H.; Watanabe, H.; and Suzuki, M.,
November 1999, Bending Behavior of Prestressed Concrete
Girders Damaged by Salt Attack, Proceedings of 15th U.S.-
Japan Bridge Engineering Workshop, Technical Memorandum
of PWRI No. 3694, Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba,
Japan, pp. 291300.
19. Japan Road Association, 1978, Design Specifications for
Highway Bridges. (in Japanese)
20. Tanaka, Y.; Fujita, M.; Cheong, H.; Watanabe, H.; and Kawano,
H., October 2002, Chloride Permeability of High-Strength
Concrete, Proceedings of fib 2002 Osaka Congress, pp. 145
154.
21. Sherman, M. R.; McDonald, D. B.; and Pfeifer, D. W., 1996,
Durability Aspects of Precast, Prestressed ConcretePart 2:
Chloride Permeability Study, PCI Journal, V. 41, No. 4, July
August 1996, pp. 7595.
22. Sherman, M. R.; McDonald, D. B.; and Pfeifer, D. W., 1996,
Durability Aspects of Precast, Prestressed ConcretePart 1:
Historical Review, PCI Journal, V. 41, No. 4, JulyAugust
1996, pp. 6274.
23. Hope, B. B. and Ip, A. K. C., 1987, Chloride Corrosion
Threshold in Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, JulyAugust
1987, pp. 307314.
24. Miyagawa, T., February 1985, Early Chloride Corrosion of
Reinforcing Steel in Concrete, Doctoral thesis, University of
Kyoto.
25. Otsuki, N.; Yokoi, T.; and Shimozawa, O., August 1985,
Influence of Chlorides on Passivation Film on Surface of Steel
Bars in Mortar, Proceedings of JSCE, No. 360, Japan Society
for Civil Engineers, pp. 111118. (in Japanese)
26. Public Works Research Institute, November 2001, Second
Investigation on Ready-Mixed Concrete Quality in 1999,
Technical Memorandum of PWRI No. 3838, Tsukuba, Japan.
(in Japanese)
27. Rodriguez, O. G. and Hooton, R. D., 2003, Influence of Cracks
on Chloride Ingress into Concrete, ACI Materials Journal,
MarchApril 2003, pp. 120126.
Appendix: Notation
x = depth from concrete surface
t = time
Co = boundary chloride level at concrete surface
Dc = diffusion coefficient
Ccorr = chloride threshold level to initiate corrosion
Cinit = initial chloride level in concrete
Cair = airborne chloride level
C1 = regional coefficient
d = distance from the coastline