Job Site Evaluation of 

Corrosion-Resistant Alloys for 

Use as Reinforcement in Concrete

PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-HRT-06-078 JUNE 2006

Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296
FOREWORD 

Economic considerations have historically precluded consideration and widespread use of highperformance (corrosion-resistant) reinforcements such as stainless steels in bridge construction. 

However, with the advent of life-cycle cost analysis as a project planning tool and of a 

requirement that major bridge structures have a 75–100 year design life, the competitiveness of 

such steels has increased such that enhanced attention has now focused in recent years upon 

these materials. 

This investigation was a component of the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction (IBRC) 

Program that was authorized by Congress in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

(TEA-21) legislation. The project objective was to evaluate and provide a historical record of 

approved State bridge construction projects throughout the United States that employed 

corrosion-resistant reinforcement. The study involved site visits, documentation of attributes and 

any problems associated with the various reinforcement types, and acquisition and testing of 

reinforcement samples. 

Gary Henderson 

Director, Office of Infrastructure 

 Research and Development 

Notice 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of 

the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, 

specification, or regulation. 

The U.S. Government and the State of Florida do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade 

and manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document. 

Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to 

ensure continuous quality improvement.
Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

FHWA-HRT-06-078 

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

5. Report Date 

June 2006 

4. Title and Subtitle 

Job Site Evaluation of Corrosion-Resistant Alloys for Use as 

Reinforcement in Concrete 6. Performing Organization Code: 

FAU-OE-CMM-05 

7. Author(s) 

 William H. Hartt, Rodney G. Powers, Diane K. Lysogorski, Mario 

 Paredes, and Y. Paul Virmani 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. 

Center for Marine Materials 

Florida Atlantic University–Sea Tech Campus 

101 North Beach Road 

Dania Beach, Florida 33004 

Florida Department of Transportation–State Materials Office 

5007 NE 39th Avenue 

Gainesville, FL 32609 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Final Report 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Office of Infrastructure Research and Development 

Federal Highway Administration 

6300 Georgetown Pike 

McLean, VA 22101-2296 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes 

The contract officer technical representative (COTR) for this document is Paul Virmani, HRDI-10. 

16. Abstract 

Premature deterioration of the Nation’s concrete highway and bridge structures as a consequence of chloride (salt) 

exposure and resultant corrosion of reinforcing steel has evolved during the past four decades to become a 

formidable technological and economic problem. In response to this, epoxy-coated reinforcing steel (ECR) was 

adapted in the mid-1970s as a proactive measure to control this problem. Premature corrosion-induced cracking of 

marine bridge substructures in Florida indicated, however, that ECR is of little benefit for this type of exposure; and 

while performance of ECR in northern bridge decks has been generally good to date (30-plus years), still the degree 

of corrosion resistance to be afforded in the long term to major structures with design lives of 75–100 years is 

uncertain. Corrosion-resistant reinforcements, including stainless steels, are an alternative for such applications, 

and a component of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Innovative Bridge Research and Construction 

Program addressed incorporated of such reinforcements into approved State bridge construction projects. The 

present project evaluated a selected number of these in terms of the type of reinforcement used and difficulties and 

advantages that were encountered. Of the 27 approved State projects for which information could be gathered; 20 

were either completed as planned or utilized an alternate corrosion-resistant reinforcement. The different 

reinforcements types were solid Types 316 (3 projects), 2201LDX (1 project), and 2205 (5 projects) stainless steels, 

Type 316 stainless clad black bar (3 projects), MMFX-II (13 projects), and galvanized steel (3 projects). In some 

cases, more than one corrosion-resistant reinforcement was used on a single project. The various State projects 

demonstrated that, subject to availability, corrosion-resistant reinforcing steel can be incorporated into bridge 

construction with relative ease and placed with less difficulty than ECR. Thus, these reinforcements are a viable 

technical alternative to ECR. Realizing the full benefit of this IBRC program, however, will depend upon individual 

States acquiring performance data and maintaining records on these structures for decades into the future. 

17. Key Words 

Corrosion, corrosion-resistant reinforcing 

steel, stainless steel, concrete, bridges 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. This document is available to the public through 

the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. 

19. Security Classif. (of this 

report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this 

page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of 

Pages 

86 

22. Price 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 
ii

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH 

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL 

gal gallons 3.785 liters L 

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS 

oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC 

or (F-32)/1.8 

ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N 

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH

mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

AREA mm2

 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 

VOLUME 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 

MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF 

ILLUMINATION 

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2

*SI is the symbol for th International System of Units. Approp e riate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. 

(Revised March 2003)
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION................................................................................. 1

PROJECT OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................ 3

IBRC PROJECTS INVOLVING CORROSION-RESISTANT REINFORCEMENT ......... 5

General ........................................................................................................................................ 5 

Results and Discussion................................................................................................................ 9 

CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 17

APPENDIX A FHWA PROJECT NUMBER DE-00-01......................................................... 19

APPENDIX B FHWA PROJECT NUMBER FL-00-01, PART 1.......................................... 25

APPENDIX C FHWA PROJECT NUMBER FL-00-01, PART 2 ......................................... 29

Evaluation Report...................................................................................................................... 29 

Florida Department of Transportation Corrosion Research Laboratory ................................... 36 

Type 2201 Stainless Steel Surface Preparation Procedure........................................................ 39 

APPENDIX D FHWA PROJECT NUMBER MO-00-01........................................................ 41

APPENDIX E FHWA PROJECT NUMBER MT-01-01 ........................................................ 45

APPENDIX F FHWA PROJECT NUMBER NH-02-03......................................................... 53

APPENDIX G FHWA PROJECT NUMBER OK-01-01........................................................ 63

APPENDIX H FHWA PROJECT NUMBER SC-00-01 ......................................................... 69

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................... 75

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 77
iv

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Distribution of information acquisition and analysis for the IBRC projects................... 9 

Figure 2. Accelerated testing data for Type 2201 stainless steel specimens. ............................... 12 

Figure 3. Accelerated testing data for MMFX-II steel specimens................................................ 13 

Figure 4. Accelerated testing data for stainless steel job site bars................................................ 14 

Figure 5. Cost comparison of the various reinforcements. ........................................................... 15 

Figure 6. Side view of Bridge No. 1-119...................................................................................... 19 

Figure 7. Photograph of the bridge deck with MMFX-II reinforcement in place. ....................... 20 

Figure 8. General view of in-place reinforcement, girders with studs, curb, and bulkhead......... 21 

Figure 9. Closeup view of reinforcing steel, girder with shear studs, gusset plate, and 

forming for bulkhead. .................................................................................................... 21 

Figure 10. Photograph of reinforcing steel and a girder with studs.............................................. 22 

Figure 11 Closeup view of in-place reinforcing steel showing superficial corrosion. ................. 22 

Figure 12. Photograph of MMFX-II reinforcement details acquired from the job site. ............... 23 

Figure 13. Perspective view of replacement Bridge Number 890146. ......................................... 25 

Figure 14. Photograph of substructure components prior to decking........................................... 26 

Figure 15. Photograph of MMFX-II deck steel in place............................................................... 26 

Figure 16. Second view of MMFX-II deck steel in place............................................................. 27 

Figure 17. Photograph of stored MMFX-II reinforcing steel at the job site................................. 28 

Figure 18. Perspective photograph of the Jensen Beach Causeway Bridge under 

construction................................................................................................................. 30 

Figure 19. Photograph of driven, cut-off prestressed piles for pier 11......................................... 31 

Figure 20. Photograph of formwork, piles, and reinforcement being placed in the footer of 

pier number 12. ........................................................................................................... 31 

Figure 21. Photograph of formwork, piles, and reinforcement being placed in the footer of 

pier number 12. ........................................................................................................... 32 

Figure 22. View of 2201 ss in place at the base of the footer formwork...................................... 32 
v

Figure 23. Photograph of 2201 ss reinforcement cage for the column of pier number 11. .......... 33 

Figure 24. Closeup view of a portion of the 2201 ss reinforcing bars in the column cage 

prior to placement in pier number 11.......................................................................... 33 

Figure 25. Photograph of the conventional bar reinforcement cage for a hammerhead column 

cap............................................................................................................................... 34 

Figure 26. Photograph of pier number 11 column formwork and 2201 ss cage in place. ............ 34 

Figure 27. Bars positioned in salt fog chamber. ........................................................................... 36 

Figure 28. Bars 1A and 1B. .......................................................................................................... 37 

Figure 29. Bars 2A and 2B. .......................................................................................................... 37 

Figure 30. Bars 3A and 3B. .......................................................................................................... 38 

Figure 31. Bars 4A and 4B. .......................................................................................................... 38 

Figure 32. General view of the Route 6 bridges. .......................................................................... 41 

Figure 33. Side view of Bridge Number 6059.............................................................................. 42 

Figure 34. View of bridge deck with stainless steel in place........................................................ 42 

Figure 35. View of deck with stainless steel reinforcement placement in progress..................... 46 

Figure 36. Photograph of bundled/wrapped bars at the job site. .................................................. 47 

Figure 37. View showing carbon steel shear studs protruding through bottom mat of 

stainless steel reinforcement. ...................................................................................... 47 

Figure 38. Examples of rust spots on reinforcement: (a) bundled bent bars in opened 

cardboard container and (b) straight reinforcement in place. ..................................... 48 

Figure 39. View showing cardboard packaged bent reinforcement details.................................. 49 

Figure 40. View of a guard angle adjacent to an expansion joint................................................. 49 

Figure 41. Array of plastic chairs to which bars from both mats are tied..................................... 50 

Figure 42. Closeup view of a plastic chair to which bars are tied. ............................................... 50 

Figure 43. Examples of stainless steel reinforcement details acquired from the job site. ............ 51 

Figure 44. General view of the Brown Avenue Bridge under construction. ................................ 53 
vi

Figure 45. View of the in-place girders on the Brown Avenue Bridge. Note ECR extending 

from the top of the backwall. ...................................................................................... 54 

Figure 46. In-place galvanized reinforcement on the Frontage Road Bridge deck. ..................... 54 

Figure 47. Bundled/wrapped bars at the Frontage Road job site.................................................. 57 

Figure 48. Fabricated galvanized bars at the Frontage Road Bridge job site. .............................. 57 

Figure 49. Stored galvanized bars at the Brown Avenue Bridge job site..................................... 58 

Figure 50. As-delivered galvanized bars at the Brown Avenue site after pulling back the 

plastic wrap. ................................................................................................................ 58 

Figure 51. Closeup view of the in-place galvanized reinforcement relative to carbon steel 

studs. ........................................................................................................................... 59 

Figure 52. Deposits on galvanized reinforcing bars. .................................................................... 60 

Figure 53. In-place bottom galvanized rebar mat with plastic mat spacer. .................................. 60 

Figure 54. Examples of disbonding of the galvanized layer on fabricated bars for the Brown 

Avenue Bridge. ........................................................................................................... 61 

Figure 55. Galvanized layer disbonding and icicle on reinforcing bars. Examples of 

disbonding are also apparent....................................................................................... 61 

Figure 56. General view of the I-35 northbound bridge. .............................................................. 63 

Figure 57. In-place deck reinforcing steel. ................................................................................... 64 

Figure 58. Closeup view of MMFX-II deck reinforcing steel...................................................... 64 

Figure 59. Reinforcing steel as placed in the deck and parapet wall............................................ 65 

Figure 60. Perspective view of steel storage site. ......................................................................... 66 

Figure 61. Closeup view of stored bars on timbers at job site...................................................... 66 

Figure 62. General view of the bridge under construction. .......................................................... 69 

Figure 63. View of MMFX-II placement in span 5...................................................................... 71 

Figure 64. View of 2205 stainless steel placement in span 2. ...................................................... 71 

Figure 65. View of in-place clad stainless in span 3..................................................................... 72 
vii

Figure 66. View of in-place black bars (span 1) along with discrete galvanic anodes................. 72 

Figure 67. Closeup view of discrete galvanic anodes on in-place span 1 black bars. .................. 72 
viii

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Listing of approved IBRC projects involving innovative reinforcing steel...................... 6 

Table 2. Listing of innovative reinforcements employed in IBRC projects................................... 9 

Table 3. Number of projects involving various innovative reinforcement types. .......................... 9 

Table 4. Chemical composition for corrosion-resistant rebar samples......................................... 11 

Table 5. Listing of mechanical properties for job site acquired bars............................................ 11 

Table 6. Concrete mix design. ...................................................................................................... 23 

Table 7. Concrete mix design. ...................................................................................................... 28 

Table 8. Concrete mix design. ...................................................................................................... 35 

Table 9. Listing of reinforcements and surface condition for each. ............................................. 36 

Table 10. Concrete mix design. .................................................................................................... 46 

Table 11. Reinforcing steel costs.................................................................................................. 55 

Table 12. Concrete mix design. .................................................................................................... 56 

Table 13. Concrete mix design. .................................................................................................... 65 

Table 14. Reinforcement requirements and suppliers................................................................... 70 

Table 15. Cost data for the different types of reinforcement........................................................ 70 

Table 16. Concrete mix design. .................................................................................................... 71 
1

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 

For a Nation to be productive, its transportation system must be efficient and reliable. While 

deterioration of highway structures over time is a normal and expected occurrence, the rate at 

which this has occurred for bridges in the United States, since the advent in the 1960s of a clearroads policy and the use of roadway deicing salts in northern locations, has been severe and 

posed significant challenges, both economically and technically. Also important is the 

accelerated deterioration of bridges that has occurred in coastal locations, both northern and 

southern, as a consequence of exposure to sea water (chlorides) and sea spray. In both cases 

(deicing salts and marine exposure), the deterioration is a consequence of the aggressive nature 

of chlorides in combination with moisture and oxygen.(1) More than half of the total bridge 

inventory in the United States is of the reinforced concrete type, and these structures have proved 

to be particularly susceptible. A recent study has indicated that the annual direct cost of corrosion 

to bridges is $5.9 to $9.7 billion. If indirect factors are included also, this cost can be as much as 

10 times higher.(2,3)

In response to this problem, research studies that focused upon the utility of epoxy-coated 

reinforcing steel (ECR) were initiated. In the early 1970s, ECR was qualified as an alternative to 

black bar.(4,5) Consequently, for the past 30 years, ECR has been specified by State Departments 

of Transportation (DOTs) for major decks and substructures exposed to chlorides. At the same 

time, ECR was augmented by use of low water-to-cement ratio (w/c) concrete, possibly with 

pozzolans or corrosion inhibitors (or both), and covers of 65 mm or more.(6)

However, in Florida coastal waters, ECR has proven ineffective(7–10) because of the combined 

effects of higher average temperature and more prolonged moist exposure. Several 

comprehensive research studies, including evaluations on actual bridges, were conducted that 

further investigated, first, the suitability of epoxy coatings for reinforcement corrosion control 

and, second, in-service ECR performance.(11–13) These studies generally found that time-tocorrosion initiation for ECR and black bar are approximately the same but that the propagation 

period for ECR to cause concrete surface cracking can range from about the same as for black 

bar, as noted for Florida bridge substructures, to decades in northern bridge decks. Thus, while 

ECR performance in the latter type application has been generally good to date and results from 

long-term testing programs indicate that two mats of ECR in bridge decks should provide a 75–

100-year service life with minimal maintenance as presently specified for major bridge 

structures,(13) still this is not known with certainty. In response to this, interest has focused during 

the past decade upon alternatives that afford more corrosion resistance than ECR—stainless 

steels in particular. Such corrosion-resistant steels become particularly competitive on a lifecycle cost basis, since the higher initial expense of the steel may be recovered over the life of the 

structure via reduced repairs and rehabilitations. 

The Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program (IBRC)1 was authorized by Congress 

in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) legislation initially as a 6-year 

effort (fiscal year (FY) 1998–2003) but was subsequently extended through May 2005. The 

 

1

 Statutory references: 23 U.S.C. 503(b)(3)(A)(ii) & 503 (b)(3)(B); TEA-21 Section 5103. 
2

program objective was to provide resources whereby States could demonstrate the utility of 

innovative materials and technology in construction of bridge and highway structures. The 

majority of the funding ($142 million) was for actual repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of 

existing structures and for new construction with a lesser amount ($4 million) for research, both 

based upon innovative materials. Corrosion-resistant reinforcements constitute one component of 

the program. 
3

PROJECT OBJECTIVES 

As part of IBRC, a three-year study was performed by Florida Atlantic University (FAU) and the 

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to document the projects that employed 

corrosion-resistant reinforcements and to provide an evaluation of their use. Specific project 

objectives were as listed below: 

I. Provide a summary of the different alternative reinforcement products that have become 

available and which are being used in bridge construction. 

II. Provide a summary of representative IBRC projects that have employed corrosionresistant reinforcements. 

III. Acquire samples of the alternative reinforcement employed in IBRC projects from the 

different job sites and characterize these in terms of mechanical properties, uniformity, 

conformance to specification (where applicable), and performance in accelerated 

corrosion tests. 

IV. Establish a repository for the acquired reinforcement samples and preserve these as an 

archival record and reference for historical documentation purposes. 

5 

IBRC PROJECTS INVOLVING CORROSION-RESISTANT REINFORCEMENT 

GENERAL 

Task I was accomplished in conjunction with a companion research project and resulted in 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) publication.(14) Table 1 lists information that was 

made available to the project team regarding approved State IBRC projects involving innovative 

reinforcement (Task II). This shows that 27 State projects were approved; and of these, 20 were 

either completed as planned or with an alternate innovative reinforcement. These completed 

projects include seven different types of innovative reinforcements, as listed in table 2.2

 A dual 

listing is given for clad stainless steel since two very different production methods are involved. 

Likewise, table 3 lists the number of projects, both as-planned and as-completed, that employed 

each specific reinforcement type. Those involving ECR and black bar reflect instances where the 

supplier was unable to meet schedule in providing the specified innovative reinforcement, and so 

these were used as the fallbacks. Delivery was particularly a problem in the case of stainless clad 

reinforcement: one producer (Stelax, Inc., steel designated below as “Source 1”) went into 

receivership during the project time frame; the other (CMC Steel Group, designated as “Source 

2”) experienced unexpected technical production difficulties. This was disappointing since 

stainless clad rebar has the potential of providing excellent corrosion resistance at relatively low 

unit cost. These two companies are addressing their respective difficulties, and one is now 

producing again and the second hopes to be in production in 2007. In many of the instances 

where a specified alternative reinforcement could not be delivered on schedule, MMFX-II served 

as the replacement. This reinforcement was consistently delivered in a timely manner even 

though the lead time was sometimes short. 

Figure 1 shows the number of projects in each of the table 1 footnote classes. This indicates that 

the project team visited five of the projects (Note 1 designation) and in each case, acquired 

samples of the innovative reinforcement. For two additional projects (FHWA Project Numbers 

MO-00-01 and SC-00-01), one of which was completed prior to the present study, sufficient 

information was provided by the respective State DOT personnel that a report was prepared. 

Each of these seven reports is included below as appendixes A–G. In instances where samples of 

the innovative reinforcement were acquired from a job site, composition and mechanical 

properties were determined; and in some cases accelerated corrosion tests were performed.

 

2

 Galvanized steel reinforcement does not strictly qualify as innovative in that it has been available for many years 

and has been employed on a limited basis in past bridge construction. 
6

Table 1. Listing of approved IBRC projects involving innovative reinforcing steel

FHWA Project 

Number 

DOT Structure No. Road DOT Contact Reinforcement Specified Reinforcemen

DE-00-01 1-119 SR 82 Keith Gray SS Clad MMFX-I

FL-00-01 150048 SR 679 William Domico Clad 316 SS Solid Type 22

890146 MMFX-II MMFX-I

FL-01-01 

890145 

Jensen Beach 

Causeway William Nickas Solid Type 2201 SS Solid Type 22

GA-02-01 123-00282D-004.00E SR 282 Paul Liles SS Clad Black Ba

ID-02-01 18710 Westmond Br, U.S. 95 Luis Zarate Clad 316 SS MMFX-IID-02-02 12871 SH21 Ken Classen MMFX-II MMFX-I

IL-98-07 011-6011 N 18th St Bridge Roy Baranzelli — Galvanize

IN-00-01 I-65-267-5055A & JA I-65 Tommy Nantung SS Clad ECR IA-01-01 new Hwy 520 Norm McDonald MMFX-II MMFX-I

KY-01-02 105-1218-C0034 CR1218 Galloway Rd Steve Goodpaster MMFX-II MMFX-I

MI-01-02 33133045000R123 EBD I-496 Dave Juntunen SS Clad Solid SS 

MN-00-02 27168 T.H. 100 under Erik Wolhowe SS Clad — MO-00-01 A6059 Rte 6 Ray Purvis Solid 316LN SS Solid 316LN MO-02-02 A6369 Rte 136 Ray Purvis MMFX-II ECR MO-01-02 A6098 Rte 86 Ray Purvis SS Clad ECR 

MT-01-01 P00001180+0.399-1 U.S. 2 Joe Kolman, Nigel Mends Solid Type 316 or 2205 SS Solid Type 316

NC-02-02 SR1178 over I-95 Roger Roschell MMFX-II MMFX-I

ND-00-01 94-290.803 I-94 Clayton Schumaker SS Clad SS Clad 

NE-01-02 SLB00317 Skyline Drive Gale Barnhill SS Clad ECR 

NH-02-01 003501370012300 I-93 Mark Whittemore MMFX-II MMFX-I

I-293 WB 

over Frontage Rd. Clad 316L SS ECR (EB) Galv

(WB) NH-02-03 

016101850007700 I-293 WB over Brown Ave. Paul Nadeau Type 316L or 316LN SS ECR (EB) Galv

(WB) 
7

Table 1. Listing of approved IBRC projects involving innovative reinforcing steel—Con

FHWA Project 

Number 

DOT Structure No. Road DOT Contact Reinforcement Specified Reinforcemen

NJ-02-01 1604-161 Rte 23 NB NJ-02-01 1604-162 Rte 23 NB ramp I NJ-02-01 1604-163 Rte 23 SB ramp B NJ-02-01 1604-164 Rte 23 SB NJ-02-01 1606-175 Rte 46 WB, ramp G NJ-02-01 1609-153 I-80 ramp B NJ-02-01 1606-176 Rte 46 EB, ramp D & E NJ-02-01 1606-177 Rte 46 WB, ramp I NJ-02-01 1604-411 West Belt Bridge 

Harry Capers MMFX-II 

MMFX-II n

qualified based 

NJDOT testing

stainless steel 

specified but re

to ECR when 

could not b

delivered

OK-01-01 14514 I-35 John Leonard Jay Gilbreath SS Clad MMFX-I

PR-02 0000002061 PR-102 Javier E. Ramos MMFX-II MMFX-I

SC-00-01 264007300200 Rte SC73 Randy Cannon Clad (Source 2), 2205 SS, and MMFX

SD-01-01 07-112-326 U.S. 281 Dan Johnston MMFX-II then Clad 316 SS Type 2205 SD-02-01 50178191 Russell Avenue Dan Johnston MMFX-II then Clad 316 SS Type 2205 SD-02-01 51180180 Maple Avenue Dan Johnston MMFX-II then Clad 316 SS Type 2205 SD-02-01 50181180+50179191 I-29 Dan Johnston MMFX-II ECR 

TX-02 — Washington Street under I-40 — MMFX-II — 

UT-01-01 2D653 EB SR-79 — SS Clad ECR 

VA-98-01 new WBL Rte 460 Steve Sharp SS Clad SS Clad (SourVA-01-01 6200 & 6202 Route 123 bridge over Occoquan Steve Sharp SS Clad MMFX-

VT-02-01 200034006410072 VT 105 David Scott MMFX-II MMFX-I
8

Table 1. Listing of approved IBRC projects involving innovative reinforcing steel—Con

FHWA Project 

Number 

DOT Structure No. Road DOT Contact Reinforcement Specified Reinforcemen

WI-00-02 B-56-153 US 12 Gerry Anderson SS Clad ECR 

WV-02-01 000011A074 Truss .07 mi E C/R 119-13 Terry Bailey SS Clad Black Ba

Note 1: Project visited and inspected. Samples acquired and report issued. Note 2: Project completed prior to the present study. No report issued but samples available. Note 3: Project modified. Innovative reinforcement not used. Note 4: Project not visited or inspected. No samples available. Note 5: Project completed prior to the present study. No report or material available. Note 6: Funds diverted to another project that did not involve innovative reinforcement. Note 7: Project completed prior to the present study. Report issued. No material available. Note 8: Project not visited. Samples acquired. 
9 

Table 2. Listing of innovative reinforcements employed in IBRC projects. 

Designation Common Name 

— Clad 316 SS (1) 

— Clad 316 SS (2) 

ASTM A615, Grade 75 MMFX-II 

ASTM A955-98 SS Type 2201LDX 

UNS-S31603 SS Type 316LN 

UNS 31803 SS Type 2205 

— Galvanized Steel 

Table 3. Number of projects involving various 

innovative reinforcement types. 

Planned Constructed 

Solid SS 4 9 

Clad SS 18 3 

MMFX-II 24 13 

Galvanized Steel 0 3 

ECR — 7 

Black Bar — 2 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Frequency

12345678

Note Number (see table 1)

Figure 1. Distribution of information acquisition and analysis for the IBRC projects. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Hallmark Projects 

Two of the projects for which reports were written (MT-01-01 and SC-00-01) merit special 

comment because of their unique nature. The first involved a replacement bridge across the 
10 

Middle Fork of the Flathead River on U.S. 2 in Flathead County, MT. Permitting and closure for 

repair issues are such that it was desirable to have this bridge in uninterrupted service for as long 

as possible. With regard to permitting, one end of the bridge terminates on land owned by 

Glacier National Park and the other on land administered by Flathead National Forest. At the 

same time, the Flathead River is under jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

and contains several threatened or endangered species. Permitting for this project was 

complicated because these entities, as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and various 

State agencies, were also involved. Consequently, it was reasoned by the Montana Department of 

Transportation that any future repairs, rehabilitations, or replacement would be complex and 

difficult. In addition, because of the rural setting and mountainous surroundings, closure of this 

bridge results in a 480-kilometer (km) (300-mile (mi)) detour for motor traffic. For these reasons, 

the added initial cost of corrosion-resistant reinforcement was particularly justified. 

An additional, particularly noteworthy issue arose in conjunction with project MT-00-01. The 

specification called for either Type 2205 or 316LN stainless as the reinforcement. It was 

assumed that the latter would be delivered because it generally is less expensive; however, the 

bridge engineer subsequently identified the bars as Type 2205 stainless steel. While both 

materials met specification and were acceptable, this situation points out a potential problem in 

that different stainless grades are generally not visually distinguishable. Consequently, where 

stainless reinforcement is employed, an independent determination should be made to confirm 

that the delivered product conforms to what was specified. 

The second project, SC-00-01, was particularly noteworthy because it incorporated five different 

reinforcement scenarios, (1) black bar with discrete Galvashield XPTM embedded galvanic 

anodes, (2) black bar without anodes, (3) Type 2205 stainless steel, (4) Type 316 clad black bar 

(Source 2), and (5) MMFX-II. Individual spans were constructed using one of these five 

alternatives. It was initially intended that the black bar without anodes span would use 316 clad 

stainless steel from Source 1; however, the delivery delays discussed above precluded this. As 

constructed, this bridge affords an excellent opportunity for side-by-side comparison of a variety 

of reinforcing steel corrosion control alternatives. 

A number of other projects also provide the opportunity for future side-by-side comparisons but 

in these cases between the corrosion-resistant reinforcement and ECR. Thus, in instances of a 

divided highway, one bridge commonly used ECR and the second, an innovative reinforcement. 

Compositional Analyses of Innovative Reinforcements from Job Sites 

Chemical analysis was performed on samples of bars from six job sites, as reported in table 4. 

The results indicate that composition for all MMFX-II bars is within the specified range for that 

material. For the Source 2 cladding (SC-00-01), carbon concentration exceeds the upper limit for 

some 316 grades and is at the upper limit for others. Bars of this composition should not be 

welded unless special precautions are taken. The MT-01-01 bars are within the specified 

composition range for 2205 stainless. 
11 

Table 4. Chemical composition for corrosion-resistant rebar samples.

Project Composition, weight percent 

Number 

Reinforcement 

Type C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Cu N Fe 

MT-01-01 Type 2205 0.03 1.79 0.029 0.001 0.32 22.46 5.09 3.16 0.24 0.17 Bal.

PA* MMFX-II 0.07 1.45 0.011 0.014 0.22 9.19 0.12 0.01 0.09 — Bal.

PR-02 MMFX-II 0.09 1.20 0.012 0.006 0.24 9.21 0.16 0.02 0.08 — Bal.

OK-01-01 MMFX-II 0.08 0.57 0.015 0.020 0.11 8.47 0.14 0.01 0.15 — Bal.

DE-00-01 MMFX-II 0.11 1.09 0.011 0.008 0.18 9.35 0.13 0.01 0.13 — Bal.

SC-00-01 Clad (Source 2) 0.08 1.44 0.001 0.001 0.47 16.18 10.34 2.51 0.21 — Bal.

* Not an IBRC project. 

Mechanical Properties of Innovative Reinforcement Samples from Job Sites 

Mechanical properties of samples of the same six corrosion-resistant reinforcements that were 

chemically analyzed (table 4) were determined, and the results are listed in table 5. All bars were 

#5 and qualified as Grade 60, although the MMFX-II is of considerably higher strength than is 

normally experienced here. All bars met their applicable standard specification, where one exists. 

Table 5. Listing of mechanical properties for job site acquired bars.

Weight, lb/foot 

Project 

Number 

Reinforcement 

Type 

Yield 

Point, 

ksi 

Tensile 

Strength, 

ksi Elong., % Theor. Actual 

Cold 

Bend++ 

Deform. 

Height, 

in. 

MT-01-01 Type 2205 98 115 24 1.043 1.070 OK @ 180 0.043 

PA* MMFX-II 145 162 6 1.043 1.003 +++ 0.031 

PR-02 MMFX-II 140 158 10 1.043 1.018 +++ 0.037 

OK-01-01 MMFX-II *** 159 9 1.043 1.004 OK @ 180 0.036 

DE-00-01 MMFX-II *** 173 5+ 1.043 1.047 OK @ 180 0.035 

SC-00-01** Clad (Source 2) 72 105 15 1.043 1.059 OK @ 180 0.033 

ksi = 1000 pounds per square inch 

* Not an IBRC project 

** Material tested was stainless clad black bar from source 2. 

*** No yield point identified. 

+ Did not break in gage area. 

++ Pin diameter 2.19 in. 

+++ Insufficient length to test. 

Corrosion Testing of Job Site Bars 

Type 2201 stainless samples acquired from the job site of Project FL-01-01 and clad bar samples 

(Source 2), which were from the same production run as those used in Project SC-00-01, were 

subjected to corrosion testing in conjunction with a companion research project.(15) Several 

different surface preparations (as-received (rolled), carbon steel shot blasted, silica sand blasted, 

and stainless steel shot blasted) were used for the former alloy (2201) as a part of an FDOT 

program to identify the most appropriate condition. Based upon that program, silica sand blasted 

2201 was qualified for the project. Accelerated corrosion testing of MMFX-II bars from three 

job sites (PR-02, OK-01-01, and DE-00-01) as well as the Type 2205 bars from MT-01-01 were 

also tested. 
12 

The accelerated test procedure was modeled after that from an earlier program(16) and involved 

exposure of triplicate specimens to repetitive cycles of 1.75 hours wet and 4.25 hours dry, for a 

total of 84 days. The test solution was 0.3N KOH-0.05N NaOH (pH ~ 13.40) simulated pore 

water with 3.00, 9.00, and 15.00 weight percent NaCl (1.82, 5.46, and 9.10 weight percent Cl-

) 

for each of three successive 28-day periods. Polarization resistance (inversely proportional to 

corrosion rate) measurements were made periodically during the exposures using a Gamry 

CMS100 potentiostat with a scan rate of 0.333 millivolts per second (mV/sec) and polarizations 

of +/-0.020 V referenced to the free corrosion potential. Prior to scanning, potential was 

monitored for 300 seconds or to a time lapse until any variations were less than 0.1 mV/sec. 

Figure 2 shows a plot of polarization resistance (Rp) as a function of exposure time for the 

various Type 2201 stainless specimens along with data for black bar and Type 316 stainless for 

comparison. Specimens labeled according to the four surface conditions were provided directly 

by FDOT (see Appendix C1), whereas the specimens designated “Jensen Beach” (these were 

silica sand blasted) were acquired directly from the job site, where they had been stored 

uncovered about one kilometer inland for approximately six weeks. The data show that Rp for 

the Type 2201 specimens occupy a band about 1–2 orders of magnitude above that for black bar 

and 1–2 orders of magnitude below the Type 316. Scatter of Rp for the different categories of 

Type 2201 specimens is about one order of magnitude, with the silica sand and stainless steel 

blasted materials occupying the upper range. Also, there is a tendency beyond about 50 days for 

Rp to decrease with time (increasing corrosion rate). 

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+07

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Exposure Time, days

Polarization Resistance, Ohm.cm2

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Chloride Concentration, w/o

2201-As-Received 2201-Fe Blasted

2201-SS Blasted 2201-Sand Blasted

2201 - Jensen Beach 316

Black bar ClFigure 2. Accelerated testing data for Type 2201 stainless steel specimens. 

Figure 3 shows a plot of Rp for MMFX-II specimens from three of the job sites compared to data 

for straight and bent bar specimens of this same steel (labeled “Lab”) that were provided directly 

to the project by MMFX Steel Corporation of America. Specimens designated MMFX (DE), 

MMFX (OK), and MMFX (PR) are from project numbers DE-01-01, OK-01-01, and PR-02, 
13 

respectively (see table 1). The results indicate general consistency between the different job site 

and lab MMFX-II specimens with Rp for these being 5–10 times greater than for black bar. 

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+07

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Exposure Time, days

Polarization Resistance, Ohm.cm2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Chloride Concentration, w/o

Lab MMFX (Straight) Run 1

Lab MMFX (Straight) Run 2

Lab MMFX (Straight) Run 3

Lab MMFX (Bent) Run 1

Lab MMFX (Bent) Run 2

Lab MMFX (Bent) Run 3

MMFX (DE)

MMFX (OK)

MMFX (PR)

Black Bar

316

ClFigure 3. Accelerated testing data for MMFX-II steel specimens. 

Figure 4 shows Rp versus time data for specimens prepared from project number MT-01-01 job 

site bars (Type 2205) and clad bars from the same heat as project number SC-00-01 (not actually 

from the job site). Data for the Type 316 and Type 2205 stainless that was provided directly to 

the project by a supplier are shown for comparison. Polarization resistance for the SC-00-01 clad 

bars varies from the lower range to an order of magnitude below that for the solid 316 (higher 

corrosion rate for the former). Results for the MT-01-01 specimens fall 3–10 times below those 

for the laboratory Type 2205 specimens. Thus, while data for laboratory received and job site 

MMFX-II bars are comparable, corrosion rate for the more corrosion-resistant job site bars was 

higher than for the laboratory received counterpart. These differences are being evaluated in 

conjunction with the companion activity.(15)

Conformance of Innovative Reinforcement to Specification 

Mechanical properties of specimens prepared from the corrosion-resistant reinforcement samples 

that were acquired from job sites (table 5) were compared with those listed in the relevant 

specifications (reference 17 for Type 2205 stainless steel, reference 18 for MMFX-II,” and 

reference 19 for clad stainless steel). All properties of the stainlesses, both solid and clad, 

conformed to the applicable specification (ASTM A 955/A 955M-06a(16) and AASHTO 

Designation MP 13M/MP 13-04,(17) respectively). The same applies to MMFX-II (ASTM A 1035/ 

A 1035M-05(18)) with the exception of elongation, where 6 percent was measured for project 
14 

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+07

1.00E+08

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Exposure Time, days

polarization Resistance, Ohm.cm2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Chloride Concentration, w/o

316 SC-00-01

2205 MT-01-01

Black Bar ClFigure 4. Accelerated testing data for stainless steel job site bars. 

PA (not an IBRC project) bars (see tables 4 and 5) and 5+ percent for SC-00-01 but with the 

specification value being 7 percent. It should be pointed out, however, that the ASTM 

specification pertaining to MMFX-II was only issued in 2004, and the bars in question were 

produced prior to that date. 

Reinforcement Costs 

Economics are an important component of any construction materials evaluation. For the reason 

of evaluating this within the context of the present study, reinforcement costs were acquired for 

projects for which reports were issued and are presented in figure 5. This shows that the average 

cost for the 316 and 2205 stainlesses was $5.34/kilogram (kg) and for the MMFX-II $1.46/kg. 

These values may be misleading, however, for the following reasons: 

1. Reinforcement costs can be expected to decline if the materials become more 

common. 

2. For some unknown reason, the cost for MMFX-II employed in conjunction with 

project FL-01-01 is unrealistically low (less than for black bar). On the other hand, 

the MMFX–IITM for DE-00-01 and OK-01-01 was provided on short notice because 

the originally specified clad bar could not be delivered in a timely manner. This 

could have elevated the cost. 
15 

3. The listed unit cost is not necessarily the lowest that was available, as material costs 

were often lumped into the contractor’s bid. In the case of project MT-01-01, the bid 

unit costs ranged from $4.10 to $5.27/kg. Apparently, by going with the lowest 

overall contractor bid, a premium was paid for the reinforcing steel. 

5.20

2.43

0.80

0.60

5.34

2.80

1.37

5.20

5.63

1.77

1.40

1.72

1.94

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

22052201

MMFX

Black

Bar

2205Clad

MMFX

2205

316LN

ECR

Black

Bar

MMFXMMFX

MT01-01FL-01-01 SC-00-01 MT01-01MO-00-01 DE00-01OK01-01

Figure 5. Cost comparison of the various reinforcements. 

Cost, $/k

g

17 

CONCLUSIONS 

The various IBRC projects demonstrated that, in most situations and subject to availability, 

corrosion-resistant reinforcing steel can be incorporated into bridge construction projects with 

relative ease. Construction personnel at several job sites indicated that corrosion-resistant 

reinforcement placement was more straightforward than for ECR because of the care that must 

be exercised to avoid coating damage on the latter. Further alloy development, particularly in the 

case of stainless clad, should be encouraged. Attempts should be made to compare results from 

ongoing laboratory studies, wherein methodologies for projecting long-term performance of 

corrosion-resistant reinforcement from short-term tests are being developed, with data from the 

IBRC bridges as the latter become available. This will require, however, that states maintain 

records for the respective bridges and commit to a long-term monitoring and data acquisition 

program. 

19 

APPENDIX A 

FHWA PROJECT NUMBER DE-00-01 

TEA-21 INNOVATIVE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 

Evaluation Report3

State: Delaware. 

State DOT Contact: Mr. Keith Gray [(302) 760-2327]. 

Bridge Number: 1-119. 

Project Type: Deck Replacement. 

Location: Bridge on SR 82 crossing Red Clay Creek in Ashland, New Castle 

County, DE. 

Innovative Material: MMFX-II reinforcing steel. 

Bridge Description: The bridge is a relatively short, historical, single span structure on a 

secondary roadway. As such, no deicing salts have normally been employed. Deterioration of the 

old deck involved concrete cracking and other distress that was apparently a consequence of 

freeze-thaw damage. The reinforcing steel (conventional black) was said to have been in good 

condition. Initially, stainless steel clad reinforcement was specified; but because of delivery 

problems, this was changed to MMFX-II. The project consisted of a full deck replacement and 

painting of the existing steel girders. The approach roadway was repaved, and new steel beam 

guardrails (polyester coated brown) were placed. The guardrail was attached to new barrier walls 

that were constructed adjacent to the existing barrier. This was designed to match the historic 

architecture of the existing barrier. The existing alignments and roadway widths were 

maintained. Figure 6 shows a side view of the bridge and of Red Clay Creek, while figure 7 is a 

photograph of the deck prior to concrete pouring but with the MMFX-II reinforcement in place. 

Figure 6. Side view of Bridge No. 1-119. 

 

3

 The description for this bridge utilizes English and not metric units since the project documents and 

specifications were so based. 
20 

Figure 7. Photograph of the bridge deck with 

MMFX-II reinforcement in place. 

Innovation Justification: The bridge is subject to application of deicing salts, and chloride 

levels in the old deck were extremely high. It was considered that specification of a corrosionresistant reinforcement in the replacement deck would reduce maintenance costs and extend the 

life of the bridge. 

Construction Sequence: The contractor’s construction sequence for the deck replacement 

involved the following sequential steps: 

1. Removal of the existing deck. 

2. Partial removal of the backwalls and construction of new joints. 

3. Sandblasting the steel girders. 

4. Placement of welded on shear studs. 

5. Painting. 

6. Placement of the reinforcing steel and monitoring devices (the monitoring devices 

were placed by the University of Delaware to assess load-deflection behavior). 

7. Construction of formwork including a longitudinal bulkhead. 

8. Pouring of the south side of the bridge deck. 

9. Pouring of the north side. 

10. Construction of the longitudinal joint. 

11. Pouring of curbs and safety walk. 

12. Mechanically grooving the bridge deck. 

Figure 8 shows a general view of the in-place reinforcement, including that for the curb along 

one of the railings. Also shown are the girders and welded shear studs. Figure 9 provides a view 

of forming for the bulkhead at the other bridge end. A closer view of reinforcing bars and a 
21 

girder with welded shear studs is shown in figure 10. The longitudinal and transverse bars are 

#5s, with spacing for the former being 10 inches and the latter, 12 inches. Figure 11 is also a 

closeup view of the in-place reinforcement showing superficial rusting. The steel had been onsite 

for approximately 20 days with rain having occurred during much of this time. This corrosion 

was judged to be less than what would have occurred with conventional uncoated black steel. 

Figure 8. General view of in-place reinforcement, 

girders with studs, curb, and bulkhead. 

Figure 9. Closeup view of reinforcing steel, girder with 

shear studs, gusset plate, and forming for bulkhead. 
22 

Figure 10. Photograph of reinforcing steel 

and a girder with studs. 

Figure 11 Closeup view of in-place reinforcing 

steel showing superficial corrosion. 

Reinforcement Specification: Delaware DOT (DelDOT) did not have a material specification 

because, first, the use of MMFX-II steel was a field change and, second, the product is new. The 

design was based upon properties of conventional steel, and it was considered that the higher 

strength of MMFX-II would provide a further factor of safety. 

Concrete Specification: The concrete was DelDOT Class D, “Deck Concrete,” the mix design 

for which is given in table 6. Slab thickness varied from 10.5 inches at the center to 8.5 inches at 

the outside. Design cover over the reinforcement was 2.5 inches. 
23 

Table 6. Concrete mix design. 

Cement Content (Type I), pcy* 458 

Slag/Fly Ash, pcy 247 

Fine Aggregate, pcy 1,051 

Coarse Aggregate, pcy 1,846 

Water Content, gal/cy** 33.9 

Water-Cement Ratio 0.4 

Water Reducer Admixture (Sikament-MP), 

1 oz/94 lbs cementitious material 40–80 

Air Content, percent 5–8 

Polypropylene Fibers, pcy 1.5 

 *pcy = pounds per cubic yard; **cy = cubic yards

Job Contractor: Greggo and Ferrara, Inc. 

4048 New Castle Avenue 

New Castle, DE 19720 

(302) 658-5241 

Steel Supplier: MMFX Steel Corporation of America, Inc. Subsequent to FHWA approval for 

substituting MMFX-II for stainless steel clad reinforcement, the contractor contacted MMFX-II 

directly to determine cost and availability. Straight bars were shipped to the contractor’s steel 

fabricator (ReSteel) where cuts and bends were made. ReSteel then shipped the bars directly to 

the job site. There were no delays or delivery problems in acquiring the MMFX-II reinforcing 

steel. 

Material Cost: The MMFX-II material cost for 8.79 metric tons was $15,120 for a unit price of 

$0.78/lb ($1.72/kg). The in-place reinforcing steel cost was $2.95/lb ($6.49/kg). 

Job Site Storage: The reinforcing steel was delivered elevated on a flatbed truck and stored 

elevated and uncovered on the ground. 

Material Acquisition: Six bent bar details were made available from the job storage site for 

testing by FAU and FDOT. Figure 12 shows a photograph of these. 

Figure 12. Photograph of MMFX-II reinforcement 

details acquired from the job site. 

25 

APPENDIX B 

FHWA PROJECT NUMBER FL-00-01, PART 1 

TEA-21 INNOVATIVE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 

Evaluation Report 

State: Florida. 

State DOT Contact: Mr. Randall Scott [(772) 225-1888]. 

Bridge Number: 890146 (East Relief Bridge). 

Project Type: Replacement. 

Location: Bridge crossing the St. Lucie River at Jensen Beach, FL. 

Innovative Material: MMFX-II Reinforcing Steel. 

Bridge Description: This bridge is the eastern of two four-lane structures4

 in a causeway 

between Jensen Beach and Stuart in southeast Florida. It replaces a 50-year-old, low-profile, 

two-lane bridge that has badly deteriorated because of the combined effects of brackish water, 

near-ocean exposure, and age; it is now functionally obsolete. Figure 13 shows a perspective of 

what will be the two northern lanes (westbound). Construction of the southern (eastbound) lanes 

will start once the northern is completed. The project is scheduled for completion in March 2004. 

Each bent consists of four 0.6-m (24-inch) square prestressed pilings, conventionally reinforced 

pile caps, and 16 deck spans. These components, plus barrier and parapet walls, are reinforced 

with conventional steel except for eight deck spans (numbers 9–16), reinforced with MMFX-II. 

The deck spans are formed cap-to-cap using an assembly of plywood on transverse and then on 

longitudinal I-beams. The framing is pulled subsequent to concrete setting and is reused. 

Figure 13. Perspective view of replacement 

Bridge Number 890146. 

 

4

 The second or western bridge (Frank A. Wacha Bridge of Bridge Number 890145) is addressed in a companion 

IBRC report. 
26 

Innovation Justification: The bridge is subject to a marine exposure in a semitropical south 

Florida coastal environment. It is anticipated that MMFX-II reinforcement will provide improved 

corrosion resistance and thereby facilitate achieving a 100-year design life. 

Construction Sequence: The contractor’s construction sequence involves the following steps: 

1. Driving of conventional prestressed piles. 

2. Forming, steel placement, and pouring of pile caps. Figure 14 shows a view of piles 

and pile cap for a specific bent. 

3. Deck forming, steel placement and pouring of the deck. The deck is being placed 

from west to east with each span being formed and poured as a separate unit. 

Figures 15 and 16 show photographs of the MMFX-II steel in place on the deck. 

Figure 14. Photograph of substructure components 

prior to decking. 

Figure 15. Photograph of MMFX-II deck steel in place. 
27 

Figure 16. Second view of MMFX-II deck steel in place. 

Reinforcement Specification: At the time of construction, no national standard existed for 

MMFX-II reinforcing steel. In lieu of this, the manufacturer’s “Product Bulletin” dated 

September, 2001 was employed. The eight MMFX-II deck spans require a total of 145,004 kg 

(319,734 pounds) of reinforcement. All longitudinal bars for both mats are #32 (metric 

designation) and are spaced at 165 mm in the top mat and 200 mm in the bottom. All transverse 

bars are #16 (metric designation) and are spaced at 300 mm in the top and 255 mm in the bottom 

mat. 

Concrete Specification: The concrete was specified as conforming to Class IV of Section 346 of 

the FDOT State Specifications Office. Table 7 provides a listing of required properties. 
28 

Table 7. Concrete mix design. 

Min. Cementitious Content (Type II + pozzolans), kg/m3 390 

Maximum Water-Cement Ratio 0.41 

Target Slump, mm 75 

Air Content Range, percent 1–6 

Minimum Compressive Strength (28d), MPa* (ksi) 38 (5.5) 

Water-Cement Ratio 0.41 

 *MPa = megapascal; 1 MPa = 20.885 ksi 

Job Contractor: Archer Western, Inc. 

Jacksonville, FL 

Steel Supplier: MMFX Steel Corporation of America, Inc. 

Material Cost: The contractor indicated the in-place cost for MMFX-II as $0.80/kg 

($0.36/pound). This is an abnormally low figure, particularly in view of the fact that the 

corresponding cost for black steel was $1.00/kg ($0.45/pound). 

Job Site Storage: The bars were stored wrapped with polyethylene and elevated. Figure 17 

shows a photograph of this. This specific measure was considered important because there was a 

single delivery of all reinforcement. Consequently, bars for the southern (eastbound) bridge for 

which construction has not yet commenced will be on site for a number of months prior to 

placement. 

Figure 17. Photograph of stored MMFX-II 

reinforcing steel at the job site. 

Construction Difficulties: No construction difficulties have been encountered. 
29 

APPENDIX C 

FHWA PROJECT NUMBER FL-00-01, PART 2 

TEA-21 INNOVATIVE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 

EVALUATION REPORT 

State: Florida. 

State DOT Contact: Mr. Randall Scott, P.E. [(772) 225-1888]. 

Bridge Number: 890145 (Frank A. Wacha Bridge). 

Project Type: Replacement. 

Location: Bridge crossing the St. Lucie River at Jensen Beach, FL. 

Innovative Material: Type 2201 Stainless Steel Reinforcement. 

Bridge Description: The bridge is the center of three two-lane structures5

 that serve as a 

causeway between Jensen Beach and South Hutchinson Island on the southeast Florida coast. It 

is replacing a 50-year-old, low-profile, two-lane bascule bridge that has become badly 

deteriorated because of the combined effects of brackish water exposure and age, and is now 

functionally obsolete. Figure 18 shows a perspective photograph of the project which is 

scheduled for completion in March 2005 (note the old bridge in the background). The 

substructure design involves conventional, driven prestressed piles, cast-in-place footers, 

columns and cast-in-place hammerhead column caps. The superstructure is constructed with 

precast Florida bulb-tee beams and a cast-in-place deck. Unlike northern areas that employ 

deicing salts such that deterioration from embedded steel corrosion and concrete cracking and 

spalling is largely confined to the deck, it is the substructure of coastal bridges in Florida that 

typically experiences the greatest distress. While most of the reinforcement in this bridge is 

conventional bar or prestressing strand, the footer and column of two piers (numbers 11 and 12, 

which are just to the right of the leftmost crane in figure 18) are being constructed using Type 

2201 stainless steel. The eastern bridge, the construction of which is of longer duration, will have 

MMFX-II reinforcement in eight deck spans. 

 

5

 The second or eastern bridge (East Relief Bridge or Bridge Number 890146) is addressed in a companion IBRC 

report. 
30 

Figure 18. Perspective photograph of the Jensen Beach 

Causeway Bridge under construction. 

Innovation Justification: The bridge is subject to a marine exposure in a semitropical south 

Florida coastal environment. It is anticipated that 2201 stainless steel (ss) reinforcement will 

provide improved confidence that structures of this type can achieve a 100-year life. 

Construction Sequence: The contractor’s construction sequence involved the following 

sequential steps: 

1. Driving of conventional prestressed piles. Figure 19 shows a photograph of these, as 

driven, for the number 12 pier. 

2. Cut prestressed pilings to grade. 

3. Placement of 203-mm (8-inch) thick seal slab and associated footer formwork. 

4. Placement of footer reinforcement. Figure 20 shows a photograph of this in progress 

for the footer of pier number 11, and figure 21 does the same for pier number 12. 

5. Pouring of footer concrete. 

6. Placement of prefabricated column reinforcement cage. 

7. Placement of column formwork. 

8. Pouring of column concrete. 

9. Placement of hammerhead cap form. 

10. Placement of cap steel. 

11. Pouring of cap concrete. 

12. Placement of Florida bulb-tee beams. 

13. Deck placement. 
31 

Figure 19. Photograph of driven, cut-off 

prestressed piles for pier 11. 

Figure 20. Photograph of formwork, piles, and 

reinforcement being placed in the footer of pier number 12. 
32 

Figure 21. Photograph of formwork, piles, and 

reinforcement being placed in the footer of pier number 12. 

Figure 22 shows a closer view of the in-place 2201 bars at the bottom of the footer for 

pier number 12. The threaded conventional steel bars and support I-beams upon the 

piles remain in place, but the black bars will be isolated from the 2201 prior to 

concrete pouring. The tie wire is also stainless steel (type unknown). 

Figure 22. View of 2201 ss in place 

at the base of the footer formwork. 

Figure 23 shows a perspective view of the reinforcement cage for column number 11 as 

fabricated prior to placement. At the time of this photograph, the cage had been in this position 

for approximately six weeks. Figure 24 is a closeup view of a portion of the cage showing the 
33 

bars to be generally excellent condition. Figure 25 shows a conventional bar reinforcing steel 

cage for a hammerhead column cap that had been exposed for approximately the same length of 

time as the column cage (figures 23 and 24). Here, rusting over the whole surface is apparent. 

Figure 23. Photograph of 2201 ss 

reinforcement cage for the column of pier number 11. 

Figure 24. Closeup view of a portion of the 2201 ss 

reinforcing bars in the column cage prior to 

placement in pier number 11. 
34 

Figure 25. Photograph of the conventional bar 

reinforcement cage for a hammerhead column cap. 

Figure 26 shows a photograph that was taken several weeks after the ones above of the 

column steel and forms of pier number 11 in place. 

Figure 26. Photograph of pier number 11 

column formwork and 2201 ss cage in place. 
35 

Reinforcement Specification: The column and bottom mat footer bars are #36 (metric 

designation) and the top mat footer bars are #19 (metric designation). A total of 8,048 kg (17,746 

lb) of reinforcement was required for each footer. The column of pier number 11 required 10,422 

kg (22,981 lb) of reinforcement and for pier number 12, 9,741 kg (21,479 lb), with the difference 

resulting from the difference in height. Clear cover in both cases is specified as 115 mm (4.5 

inches). 

Concrete Specification: The concrete was specified as conforming to class IV of section 346 of 

the FDOT State Specifications Office. Table 8 provides a listed of required properties. 

Table 8. Concrete mix design. 

Min. Cementitious Content (Type II + pozzolans), kg/m3 390 

Target Slump, mm 75 

Air Content Range, percent 1–6 

Minimum Compressive Strength (28d), MPa (ksi) 38 (5.5) 

Maximum Water-Cement Ratio 0.37 

 MPa = megapascal; 1 MPa = 20.885 ksi 

Job Contractor: Archer Western, Inc. 

Jacksonville, FL 

Steel Supplier: Gerdau Ameristeel, Inc., as supplied by Avesta Sheffield in Sweden. 

Material Cost: The delivered cost was $2.43/kg ($1.10/lb). 

Job Site Storage: The column cage fabrication commenced shortly after bars were delivered. 

Consequently, the bars were stored elevated but uncovered per FDOT Specification 415. 

Special Considerations: Prior to delivery of the steel, the supplier (Gerdau Ameristeel, Inc.) 

expressed concern that the as-rolled 2201 would develop surface rust as a consequence of the use 

of carbon steel rolling and handling equipment. A test program was performed by the FDOT 

Corrosion Laboratory in Gainesville, FL, to assist in selection of an appropriate surface 

treatment. A copy of the report issued by FDOT is attached as appendix C1. Based upon this, 

blasting with silica sand was selected with the specification for this, as is described in appendix 

C2. From the appearance of the stainless steel at the job site (see figures 20–24), this treatment 

accomplished what was intended. 

During construction, ground leads were installed to the 2201 column steel. The purpose of these 

was to facilitate subsequent continuity and corrosion test measurements. The work was 

performed by Concorr Florida, Inc., under direction from the FDOT Corrosion Laboratory in 

Gainesville, FL. 

Construction Difficulties: The 2201 column and footer cages were fabricated on the 

construction site. Because the source of replacement reinforcement was in Sweden, possible 

delay resulting from mistakes raised concerns. However, the fabrication occurred without 

incident; and so this concern did not materialize. 
36 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CORROSION RESEARCH 

LABORATORY 

Four sets of 16-mm bars of alloy 2201 stainless steel furnished by Gerdau Ameristeel, Inc., were 

received for testing per ASTM G85, “Standard Practice for Modified Salt Spray (Fog) Testing.” 

The four sets received had different surface condition per table 9: 

Table 9. Listing of reinforcements and surface condition for each. 

Set # As Received Surface Condition 

1 Carbon Steel Shot Blasted (Fe blasted) 

2 Plain (As received) 

3 Sand Blasted 

4 Stainless Steel Shot Blasted (ss blasted) 

Half of the bars for each set were pickled per ASTM A380, “Standard Practice for Cleaning, 

Descaling, and Passivation of Stainless Steel Parts, Equipment, and Systems,” Table A1.1 “Acid 

Descaling (Pickling) of Stainless Steel,” Code B, followed by scrubbing with plastic fiber brush 

in hot running tap water. The bars were exposed in salt spray tank for 3 days positioned 

horizontally as shown in figure 27. 

Figure 27. Bars positioned in salt fog chamber. 

The photographs in figures 28–31 show the condition of the bar samples after salt spray 

exposure. 
37 

Figure 28. Bars 1A and 1B. 

• Bar 1A: Shot blasted with carbon steel, 98 percent area corroded, heavy corrosion 

• Bar 1B: Shot blasted with carbon steel and pickled, 3 percent area corroded, light 

corrosion. 

Figure 29. Bars 2A and 2B. 

• Bar 2A: Plain, 98 percent area corroded, heavy corrosion. 

• Bar 2B: Plain pickled, 2 percent area corroded, light corrosion. 
38 

Figure 30. Bars 3A and 3B. 

• Bar 3A: Sand blasted with silica sand, 5 percent area corroded, light corrosion. 

• Bar 3B: Sand blasted with silica sand and pickled, 1 percent area corroded, light 

corrosion. 

Figure 31. Bars 4A and 4B. 

• Bar 4A: Shot blasted with stainless steel, 50 percent area corroded, light corrosion. 

• Bar 4B. Shot blasted with stainless steel and pickled, less than 1 percent area 

corroded, light corrosion. 
39 

TYPE 2201 STAINLESS STEEL SURFACE PREPARATION PROCEDURE 

 Jacksonville Mill 

217 Yellow Water Road 

Jacksonville, FL 32234 

Stainless Blasting 

Procedure 

 Work to be performed at Blast Tech. 

1. Rod Powers, State Materials Office, will be notified prior to blasting. 352–337–3134 

work, 352–334–1649 fax, Rodney.powers@dot.state.fl.us e-mail. 

2. Bars will be placed on work stands approximately one-third full. This will depend on 

the diameter of the bars. Bars will be blocked if the blasting causes them to roll. 

3. The bars will be hand blasted with silica sand covering approximately one-half the 

diameter. Blasting sand will not be reused. 

4. The bars will then be rotated one-third of a turn. 

5. The bars will be hand blasted with silica sand covering approximately one-half the 

diameter. 

6. The bars will then be rotated another one-third of a turn. 

7. The bars will be hand blasted with silica sand covering approximately one-half the 

diameter. 

8. The blasters will then remove their hoods and inspect the bars, touching up as 

needed. The bars shall be free of mill scale and red rust. 

9. The bars will then be tied with 9-gauge [polyvinyl chloride] PVC coated wire using 

eight ties. 

10. The bundles will then be handled using a spreader beam and nylon straps to load on 

a spare trailer. The bars will be maintained upon wooden or padded cribbing during 

transport and storage. 

11. Bill Stephens will visit and inspect loads prior to shipping. 

41 

APPENDIX D 

FHWA PROJECT NUMBER MO-00-01 

TEA-21 INNOVATIVE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 

Evaluation Report6

State: Missouri. 

State DOT Contact: Mr. John D. Wenzlick [(405) 521-2606]. 

NBI Bridge Number: 6059. 

Project Type: Replacement Bridge. 

Location: Bridge crossing Medicine Creek and an adjoining field runoff stream 

on SR 6 near Galt, MO (~100 miles northwest of Kansas City, MO). 

Innovative Material: Solid Type 316LN Stainless Steel. 

Bridge Description: The new bridge is one of a sequential pair, where the companion bridge 

(Bridge Number A6060) is approximately 600 feet east of the bridge in question. Bridge Number 

A6059 consists of a reinforced concrete slab that was formed conventionally. Bridge Number 

A6060, on the other hand, employed permanent precast prestressed structural form panels and a 

cast-in-place topping between the external girders. The slab overhang from the external girders 

was conventionally formed. ECR was employed for the companion bridge. Roadway width and 

girder spacing are the same for the two bridges, but span length and skew differ. Both bridges 

were opened to traffic in June 2001. Figure 327

 provides a perspective view of the two bridges, 

and figure 33 shows a profile of one of the two. Figure 34 provides a view of the stainless steel 

reinforcement, as placed in the deck of Bridge Number A6059. A report detailing the bridges and 

planned comprehensive evaluation program is available from Missouri DOT (MoDOT).(20)

Figure 32. General view of the Route 6 bridges. 

 

6

 The description for this bridge utilizes English and not metric units since the project documents and 

specifications were so based. 

7

 All photographs courtesy of Mr. John Wenzlick, MoDOT. 
42 

Figure 33. Side view of Bridge Number 6059. 

Figure 34. View of bridge deck with 

stainless steel in place. 

Innovation Justification: The anticipated good corrosion resistance of the Type 316LN 

stainless reinforcing steel compared to ECR and certainly to black steel should result in reduced 

maintenance and life-cycle cost for the bridge. 

Construction Sequence: Unknown. 

Reinforcement Specification: The Type 316LN stainless steel met the specification of ASTM 

A955M Grade 420 deformed bars that were called for in special provisions. 

Concrete Specification: Unknown. 

Job Contractor: Unknown. 

Steel Supplier: Empire Specialty Steel, Inc., Dunkirk, NY. 
43 

Material Cost: Material cost for the stainless steel for Bridge Number A059 was $2.55/lb 

($5.63/kg). The ECR material cost for Bridge Number A6060, on the other hand, was $0.80/lb 

($1.77/kg). Black steel priced at $0.64/lb ($1.40/kg). 

Job Site Storage: No information available. 

Problems: No information available. 

Material Acquisition: No steel from the job site was available for evaluation. 

45 

APPENDIX E 

FHWA PROJECT NUMBER MT-01-01 

TEA-21 INNOVATIVE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 

Evaluation Report 

State: Montana. 

State DOT Contact: Mr. Nigel Mends [(406) 444-9221]. 

NBI Bridge Number: P00001180+0.399-1. 

Project Type: Replacement. 

Location: Bridge crossing the Middle Fork of the Flathead River on U.S. 2 near 

Essex, Flathead County, MT. 

Innovative Material: Solid Stainless Steel Type [American Iron and Steel Institute] AISI 

316LN or 2205 reinforcement and related hardware. 

Bridge Description: The new bridge is replacing an older one that is structurally obsolete. It is 

190 m long with four spans of lengths 43, 52, 52, and 43 m. The two-lane roadway width is 12 

m. Alignment is tangent across the bridge except for the last span which lies on a 5-degree spiral. 

Four welded plate weathering steel girders, each with a 900x22 mm web and 400 mm wide 

flange which varies in thickness from 19 mm at midspan to 64 mm over the piers, support the 

deck. The cast-in-place deck has a constant 2 percent superelevation. The specified deck 

thickness is 215 mm and the concrete cover over the top reinforcement 60 mm. 

Innovation Justification: One end of the bridge terminates on land owned by Glacier National 

Park and the other on land administered by Flathead National Forest. The Flathead River that the 

bridge crosses is under jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Permitting 

was complicated because these, as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and various State 

agencies, were involved. Consequently, it was reasoned by the Montana Department of 

Transportation (MDT) that any future repairs, rehabilitations, or replacement would be complex 

and difficult. The bridge was anticipated to require relatively high maintenance if it were built 

using conventional reinforcement (ECR) because it is in a heavy snow area that experiences 

wintertime applications of MgCl2 (liquid form) and numerous freeze-thaw cycles. In addition, 

because of the rural setting and mountainous surroundings, any bridge closure involves a 480-km 

(300-mile) detour. For this reason, extra expense that promoted longevity with minimal 

maintenance was considered justified. 

Construction Sequence: The four piers were formed and poured during the second half of 2001, 

and the deck was placed in June and July 2002. The site was visited on June 24, 2002, at which 

time approximately two-thirds of the reinforcement had been placed. Figure 35 shows a 

photograph of the deck at that time. 
46 

Figure 35. View of deck with stainless steel 

reinforcement placement in progress. 

Reinforcement Specification: The reinforcement for both mats was specified as pickled AISI 

Stainless Steel Type 316LN or 2205 which was to be delivered to the construction site free of 

any rusting. 

Concrete Specification: The concrete was termed, “Special Deck,” with properties as specified 

in table 10. 

Table 10. Concrete mix design. 

Cement Content (minimum), kg/m3 390 

Water Content (maximum), kg/m3 155 

Slump Range, mm 40–80 

Air Content, percent 6±1 

Maximum Coarse Aggregate, mm 19 

Compressive Strength (minimum), MPa 34 

Job Contractor: Frontier West, Inc. 

P.O. Box 16295 

Missoula, MT 59808 

Steel Supplier: Empire Steel. The reinforcing steel was acquired from Spain and shipped to the 

United States. Cutting and bending, where necessary, were performed in Colorado; and the steel 

was then shipped to the job site. Guard angles were provided by Watson Bowman Acme Corp. in 

New York. 

Material Cost: The reinforcement cost was estimated as $3.50/kg ($1.60/lb). Five bids were 

obtained that ranged from $4.10/kg ($1.86/lb) to $5.27/kg ($2.39/lb). The lowest bidder for the 

overall project was awarded the contract, with the reinforcement cost being $5.20/kg ($2.36/lb). 

A total of 106.5 tons of reinforcement was required. 
47 

Job Site Storage: Two truckloads arrived at the job site on June 13, 2002, and the remaining 

three truck loads during the week of June 17. These were off-loaded onto wooden 2-ft by 4-ft 

supports on the ground. Figure 36 shows a photograph of this storage. The storage time was 

short, as placement commenced shortly after delivery. Packaging and covering are described 

below. No problems were encountered in connection with delivery and storage. 

Figure 36. Photograph of bundled/wrapped 

bars at the job site. 

Presence of Carbon Steel: Shear studs on the top girder flanges are carbon steel. Figure 37 

shows how these penetrate the bottom mat of stainless steel. The specification requires that there 

be no contact between the studs and reinforcement. This was accomplished using plastic caps 

over the studs. These had not been placed at the time on this site visit, and so they do not appear 

in figure 37. Stainless steel in the structure backwalls is tied to black bar. 

Figure 37. View showing carbon steel shear studs protruding 

through bottom mat of stainless steel reinforcement. 

Carbon 

Steel 

Stainless 

Reinforcement 
48 

Problems: The following difficulties were encountered when incorporating stainless steel into 

this project. 

1. MDT personnel indicated that industry was very encouraging with regard to using 

stainless steel reinforcement but was less than enthusiastic when specialized 

treatment and handling became involved. As one example, the supplier’s pickling 

bath was 10 m long; and they would not invest in lengthening this to accommodate 

longer bars. Consequently, longer bars had to be cut for pickling and unnecessarily 

spliced when placed. This increased cost because of the additional material required 

for the lap splices. 

2. The bars were processed and packaged in Spain using Teflon-coated stainless steel 

bands and a water-repellant, heavy paper-like wrapping. This wrapping can be seen 

in figure 36. When these bundles were opened at the job site, the reinforcement was 

clean and bright, and no rust spots were evident. However, bundles that were opened 

in Colorado for cutting and bending exhibited rust spots. Figure 38 shows examples 

of these. Such corrosion apparently resulted because carbon steel (nonstainless) 

handling and bending equipment was used in conjunction with the cutting and 

bending operations. This is in spite of a preconstruction meeting with the supplier, at 

which time the need for special handling was discussed and agreed to. The bent bar 

details were repackaged in cardboard boxes only, as shown in figure 39. MDT is 

requiring that rusted bars be retreated in place according to ASTM Specification 

A380-94a. 

 

 (a) (b) 

Figure 38. Examples of rust spots on reinforcement: 

(a) bundled bent bars in opened cardboard container and 

(b) straight reinforcement in place. 

3. Procurement of the expansion joint guard angles was expensive because, first, the 

manufacturer treated this as a special order and, second, they were not used to 

fabricating stainless steel. The guard angles arrived at the site packaged with carbon 

steel bands. Figure 40 is a view of a guard angle in place. 

4. Placement of the stainless steel rebar was estimated to have taken 1.5–2 times longer 

than for conventional steel. This resulted because stainless steel chairs were not 

available as epoxy-coated ones are for ECR, and reinforcement had to be tied with 
49 

Figure 39. View showing cardboard packaged 

bent reinforcement details. 

Figure 40. View of a guard angle adjacent 

to an expansion joint. 

wire individually to each plastic chair. Figure 41 shows an array of chairs on the deck 

in preparation for placement of the top mat (see figure 35 also), and figure 42 shows a 

closeup view of a completed placement area where both the top and bottom bars are 

tied with wire to a chair. This difficulty should be overcome as stainless steel 

reinforcement use becomes more common, at which time stainless steel or plastic chairs 

should be available. 
50 

Figure 41. Array of plastic chairs to which 

bars from both mats are tied. 

Figure 42. Closeup view of a plastic chair 

to which bars are tied. 

5. MDT personnel assumed that the reinforcement would be AISI 316LN rather than 

2205, which was also allowed, because the former is less expensive. Compositional 

analyses subsequent to placement revealed, however, that the reinforcement was 

2205. While this, in and of itself, was not a problem, it does point out a need for 

identity confirmation of as-received stainless steel reinforcement. 

6. Mass of the #22 (metric designation) stainless steel bars averaged 2.80 kg/m3, 

whereas the specification requires 2.85 kg/m3

. Consequently, the bar mass was 98 
51 

percent of what was required. The reduced mass was subtracted from payment to the 

contractor based on the bid price per kg. 

7. The specification deformation height for the #13 (metric designation) bars was 0.51 

mm, whereas the actual height was approximately 0.33 mm (65 percent of what was 

required). A percentage reduction of payment to the contractor, based upon the bid 

price, resulted. 

Material Acquisition: Four bent bar details were made available from the job site for testing by 

FAU and FDOT. Figure 43 shows examples of these. 

Figure 43. Examples of stainless steel 

reinforcement details acquired from the job site. 

53 

APPENDIX F 

FHWA PROJECT NUMBER NH-02-03 

TEA-21 INNOVATIVE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 

Evaluation Report 

October 27, 2004 

State: New Hampshire. 

State DOT Contact: Mr. Paul Nadeau [(603) 645-1760]. 

NBI Bridge Number: 016101850007700. 

Project Type: Replacement. 

Location: Bridges on I-293 over Frontage Rd. and Brown Ave., Manchester, NH. 

Innovative Material: Galvanizing reinforcing steel. 

Bridge Description: These two bridges are discussed in a single report because of construction 

and innovative reinforcement commonalities and their proximity to one another. In each case, 

there are two-lane east- and westbound bridges that are part of a number of bridge 

reconstructions and replacements along I-293. The Frontage Road Bridge is about 300 mi east of 

the Brown Avenue Bridge. Figure 44 shows a perspective view of the latter bridge where the 

girders are set but the deck formwork has not been placed. Note job site storage of the galvanized 

reinforcement (circled) to the right of the in-place girders. Figure 45 provides a closer view. The 

deck specifications call for longitudinal #5 bars with 8-inch spacing and transverse #6 at 6-inch 

spacing. While a pavement overlay is normally employed for New Hampshire bridges, this is not 

being called for on the Frontage Road or Brown Avenue Bridges. 

Figure 44. General view of the Brown Avenue Bridge 

under construction. 
54 

Figure 45. View of the in-place girders on the Brown Avenue Bridge. 

Note ECR extending from the top of the backwall. 

Classification of galvanized reinforcement as innovative is conjecture, since this material has 

been available for decades, although its use as reinforcement in bridge construction has been 

limited. The fact that results from both research and field experience have been mixed from the 

corrosion performance standpoint, however, warrants its being included in this program. 

Construction Sequence: At the time of the site visit (May 6, 2004), only the girders were in 

place on the Brown Avenue Bridge as noted above in conjunction with figures 44 and 45. 

Construction was more advanced at Frontage Road as explained below. Figure 46 shows a 

general view of the galvanized bar placement on the Frontage Road deck. 

Figure 46. In-place galvanized reinforcement 

on the Frontage Road Bridge deck. 
55 

Reinforcement Specification: Initially, Type 316L or 316LN reinforcement conforming to 

AASHTO M 31M (M31) in accordance with ASTM A-955M-96 was specified for both Brown 

Avenue Bridges and 316L clad black bars (AASHTO M 31M (M31)) for the Frontage Road 

ones. The two east bound bridges were replaced in 2003; but because suppliers were unable to 

provide the stainless steel, ECR was substituted. This same supply problem arose for the clad 

reinforcement in 2004, and galvanized reinforcement was used as a substitute here. 

Material Cost: Table 11 lists the as-bid costs for both the originally specified stainless and 

stainless clad reinforcement and for the replacement galvanized reinforcement for both bridges. 

Table 11. Reinforcing steel costs. 

Reinforcement Type Bridge Est. Quantity, kg 

Unit 

Price Est. Cost 

Type 316L or 316LN $5.15/kg $308,882 

Galvanized Brown Avenue 59,977 $2.92/kg $175,133 

Clad Type 316L $4.15/kg $213,061 

Galvanized Frontage Road 51,340 $3.54/kg $181,743 

Concrete Specification: The concrete mix design is shown in table 12. This requires a minimum 

30 MPa (4,000 psi) compressive strength at 28 days. 
56 

Table 12. Concrete mix design. 

 Sat'd Weight Surface Dry Yield, m3

Cement Quebec Type II 173 kg 0.055 

Blue Circle NewCem 173 kg 0.059 

Manch. S&G Fine Aggr. 700 kg 0.264 

Manch. S&G 0.75 inches 864 kg 0.327 

Manch. S&G 0.375 inches 211 kg 0.080 

Water 155 liters 0.155 

Total Air 6.0% 0.060 

Total 1.001 

 

Daracem-100 3460 ml 

Micro Air 2.0 ml 

Water/cement ratio 0.45 

Slump 127–203 mm 

Unit Weight 2274 kg/m3

 

Prime Job Contractor: George R. Cairns & Sons 

8 Ledge Road 

Windham, NH 03087 

(603) 421-1888 

Subcontractor: E.D. Swett, Inc. 

8 Industrial Park Dr. 

Concord, NH 03301 

(603) 224-7401 

Steel Supplier: Barker Steel Company, Inc. 

55 Sumner Street 

Milford, MA 01757 

Job Site Storage: The galvanized steel for both bridges was delivered in plastic wrapping just 

prior to the placement schedule for the Frontage Road Bridge. Figures 47 and 48 show views of 

bar storage at this latter site. A distant view of bars at the Brown Avenue Bridge was indicated in 

figure 44, and figures 49 and 50 show closer views of straight and fabricated bars, respectively, 

at this location. 
57 

Figure 47. Bundled/wrapped bars at the Frontage Road job site. 

Figure 48. Fabricated galvanized bars 

at the Frontage Road Bridge job site. 
58 

Figure 49. Stored galvanized bars at the 

Brown Avenue Bridge job site. 

Figure 50. As-delivered galvanized bars at the Brown Avenue site 

after pulling back the plastic wrap. 

Presence of Carbon Steel: Shear studs on the top girder flanges are carbon steel. A distant view 

of these can be seen in figure 46, and figure 51 provides a closer view. While no instances of 

electrical contact between the two metal types were apparent, this could inadvertently occur. 

Because potential of galvanized steel can be active to passive black steel, a corrosion cell could 

be established. 
59 

Figure 51. Closeup view of the in-place galvanized 

reinforcement relative to carbon steel studs. 

Innovation Justification: Northern bridge decks in New Hampshire endure heavy winter 

precipitation and deicing salt use. Innovative reinforcements that provide enhanced corrosion 

resistance relative to that of black steel are being increasingly recognized as competitive on a 

life-cycle cost analysis basis. 

Problems: The following difficulties and potential difficulties were cited for these two bridge 

projects: 

1. The problems associated with acquisition of both the 316L/316LN stainless steel 

reinforcement (Frontage Road Bridge) and clad 316L stainless reinforcement (Brown 

Avenue Bridge) were noted above. 

2. The potential galvanic corrosion problem that could arise from the galvanized 

reinforcement contacting the carbon steel studs that project from the top of girders 

was mentioned above. 

3. Many of the as-delivered galvanized bars had a brown-greenish surface deposit. 

Examples of this can be seen on some of the bars in figure 51, and a closer view is 

shown in figure 52 This caused delays and additional effort in that the contractor was 

told to remove the deposits to the extent possible. It was later determined that the 

deposits were residuals from a chromate pretreatment. It is not unexpected for such 

“lack of prior experience” problems to arise with innovative reinforcement. 

4. A concern was expressed that concrete cracking along the plastic mat spacers could 

occur because the openings in these may be too small to pass the coarse aggregate as 

the concrete is placed. Figure 53 shows a spacer in place. This, of course, is not 

related to the use of innovative reinforcement. 
60 

Figure 52. Deposits on galvanized reinforcing bars. 

Figure 53. In-place bottom galvanized rebar mat 

with plastic mat spacer. 

5. Fabricated bars for the Brown Avenue Bridge, in particular, exhibited areas of 

disbonded zinc coating. This apparently resulted when bars were bundled together as 

the galvanized layer dried and the bars were subsequently pulled apart. Zinc layer 

dendrites (or icicles) were also present. Examples of the former are shown in figure 

54 (circled regions) and of the latter in figure 55. 
61 

Figure 54. Examples of disbonding of the galvanized layer 

on fabricated bars for the Brown Avenue Bridge. 

Figure 55. Galvanized layer disbonding and icicle on reinforcing bars. 

Examples of disbonding are also apparent. 

Material Acquisition: The project team was able to acquire samples of the galvanized bars from 

the job site for analysis. 

63 

APPENDIX G 

FHWA PROJECT NUMBER OK-01-01 

TEA-21 INNOVATIVE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 

Evaluation Report8

State: Oklahoma. 

State DOT Contact: Mr. John Leonard [(580) 336-7374] 

Mr. James Gilbreath [(580) 336-7374]. 

NBI Bridge Number: 26415. 

Project Type: Replacement Bridge. 

Location: Bridge crossing Chickaskia River on I-35 in Kay County, OK. 

Innovative Material: MMFX-II Reinforcing Steel. 

Bridge Description: The new bridge comprises the two northbound lanes at the above location. 

The southbound bridge of the same design was completed one year earlier and employed epoxycoated reinforcing steel. Overall length of the bridge is 200 m (657 ft) and total width 12.3 m 

(40.4 ft) and consists of five spans on four piers with 1.80 m (5.90 ft) diameter drilled shafts with 

cast-in-place caps and bulb-tee prestressed concrete beams. Deck design was by the empirical 

method. Initially, stainless steel clad reinforcement was specified; but because of delivery 

problems, this was changed to MMFX-II. Figure 56 shows a general view of the bridge at the 

time when the deck was being formed. 

Figure 56. General view of the I-35 northbound bridge. 

 

8

 The description for this bridge utilizes English and not metric units since the project documents and 

specifications were so based. 
64 

Innovation Justification: The anticipated good corrosion resistance of MMFX-II reinforcing 

steel is anticipated to result in reduced maintenance and life-cycle cost for the bridge. 

Construction Sequence: The deck was placed from south to north with each span being formed 

and poured as a separate unit. Figure 57 shows a perspective view of the as-formed deck 

reinforcing steel as seen from east to west across span 1. Figure 58 provides a closer view, 

including an ECR spacer that separates the two mats and reinforcing steel from a girder. Figure 

59 shows the tie-in of the parapet wall reinforcing steel to the deck. Slab thickness is 8 inches 

and the reinforcement is comprised of #4 and #5 bars. Cover over the top steel is 2.4 inches. 

Figure 57. In-place deck reinforcing steel. 

Figure 58. Closeup view of MMFX-II deck reinforcing steel. 
65 

Figure 59. Reinforcing steel as placed 

in the deck and parapet wall. 

Reinforcement Specification: At the time of construction, no national standard existed for 

MMFX-II reinforcing steel. In lieu of this, the manufacturer’s “Product Bulletin” dated 

September 2001 was employed. 

Concrete Specification: The concrete was termed, “Special Deck,” with mix design as specified 

in table 13. Because MMFX-II was anticipated to be less corrosion-resistant than the clad 

stainless steel, the admixture IPANEX®, which has corrosion inhibiting attributes, was added via 

a change order. 

Table 13. Concrete mix design. 

Cement Content (Type I), pcy 559 

Slag/Fly Ash, pcy 133 

Fine Aggregate, pcy 1,272 

Coarse Aggregate (#67), pcy 1,710 

Water Content, gal/cy 33 

Water-Cement Ratio 0.40 

Air Entraining Agent, oz. 6 

Air Content, percent 5 
66 

Job Contractor: Muskogee Bridge Co., Inc. 

 P.O. Drawer 798 

 Muskogee, OK 74402 

 (918) 683-3051 

Steel Supplier: MMFX Steel Corporation of America, Inc. The steel was produced by 

Birmingham Steel, 3630 Fourth Street, Flowood, MS 39208. 

Material Cost: A total of 167,790 pounds of MMFX-II reinforcing steel was ordered for the 

project. The unit material cost was $0.88/lb for a total cost of $146,863. 

Job Site Storage: The steel was delivered via truck and stored uncovered outdoors on timbers. A 

crane was employed to move the steel to the deck, where it was placed by hand. Figure 60 shows 

a perspective view of the storage location, and figure 61 provides a closeup view. 

Figure 60. Perspective view of steel storage site. 

Figure 61. Closeup view of stored bars on timbers at job site. 

Problems: Difficulties that were encountered with the companion, southbound bridge, which do 

not relate to the reinforcement but rather to structural problems, led to doing away with the 
67 

elastomeric pads at piers 1 and 4 and installing expansion joints at these locations. Closure pours 

were not made here; and instead, these areas were poured with the adjoining slabs. The 

longitudinal steel was shortened to allow for expansion devices. 

There was a 5-week period between the time the order for MMFX-II was placed and the steel 

was delivered. Because the change from clad stainless steel to MMFX-II reinforcement was 

anticipated ahead of time, no project delay resulted. 

Material Acquisition: Several lengths of reinforcing steel were made available from the job site 

for testing by FAU and FDOT. 

69 

APPENDIX H 

FHWA PROJECT NUMBER SC-00-01 

TEA-21 INNOVATIVE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 

Evaluation Report9

October 27, 2004 

State: South Carolina. 

State DOT Contact: Mr. Clay Bodiford [(843) 740-1574]. 

NBI Bridge Number: 107005400100. 

Project Type: Replacement. 

Location: Bridges on S-54 (Chisholm Road over Tidal Creek), Charlestown 

County, SC. 

Innovative Material: Stainless steel Type 2205, Type 316 clad black bar, and MMFX-II. 

Bridge Description: The bridge is two lanes with the substructure consisting of six conventional 

prestressed piling bends with cast-in-place pile caps. These support five 28- by 30-ft reinforced 

concrete deck spans (total length 150 feet). Figure 62 provides a perspective view of the bridge 

under construction. The five spans, designated 1–5, extend generally from north to south and, 

along with the barrier parapets, were placed with, respectively, black bar with discrete 

Figure 62. General view of the bridge under construction. 

 

9

 The description for this bridge utilizes English and not metric units since the project documents and 

specifications were so based. 
70 

Galvashield XP embedded galvanic anodes, Type 2205 stainless steel, Type 316 clad black bar, 

black bars,10 and MMFX-II. This combination of reinforcement types provides a unique 

opportunity to assess the relative long-term performance of these materials in an actual service 

environment. 

The deck slabs are 19 inches thick with 1) #5 longitudinal and transverse top mat bars on 16-inch 

centers and 2) #5 transverse bars with 12-inch spacing and staggered #5 and #9 longitudinal bars 

with 6-inch spacing in the bottom. Bar supports are plastic. 

Reinforcement Specification: As noted above, innovative reinforcement was used in spans 2, 3 

and 5, in addition to incorporation of discrete galvanic anodes on the black bars in span 1. Table 

14 gives details for the different reinforcement types. 

Table 14. Reinforcement requirements and suppliers. 

Reinforcing Steel Specification Supplier Grade 

Black Bar ASTM A706 ― 60 

Type 2205 SS ASTM A955 Talley Metals 75 

Type 316 stainless Slad ASTM A615 or A706 CMC Steel Group 60 

MMFX-II Company Spec. MMFX Steel Corp. 100 

Material Cost: Table 15 lists the as-bid costs for the different reinforcement types. 

Table 15. Cost data for the different types of reinforcement. 

Reinforcement Type Quantity, lbs. Unit Cost per lb. Total Cost 

Black Bar 22,529 $0.27 $6,083 

Type 2205 Stainless Steel 10,990 $2.42 $26,500 

Type 316 Clad Stainless 10,990 $1.27 $14,000 

MMFX-II 11,107 $0.62 $6,900 

Steel Supplier: All reinforcement was purchased through CMC Steel Group although producers 

of the Type 2205 stainless and MMFX-II are as indicated in table 14. 

Concrete Specification: The concrete mix specification was for Class 4000 concrete (4,000 psi 

minimum compressive strength at 28 days). This was supplied by Van-Smith Concrete Company 

in Charleston according to the mix design in table 16. 

Prime Job Contractor: Cape Romain Contracting, Inc. 

660 Cape Romain Road 

Wando, SC 29492 

(843) 884-5167 

 

10 It was originally planned that span 4 would utilize stainless clad bars from a second source; however, these 

could not be delivered according to the construction schedule. 
71 

Table 16. Concrete mix design. 

Material Source Amount, cy 

Cement Holman Type I 541 lbs. 

Fly Ash 140 lbs. 

Fine Aggr. Palmetto 1,093 lbs. 

Coarse Aggr. 1,810 lbs. 

Air 4.50% 

Water-Cementitious Ratio 0.40% 

WRDA-35 WR Grace 26 oz. 

Darex II WR Grace 6 oz 

Weight per cf 142.8 lbs. 

Construction: Figures 63–67 show various aspects of the deck steel placement and concrete 

pouring. 

Figure 63. View of MMFX-II placement in span 5. 

Figure 64. View of 2205 stainless steel placement in span 2. 
72 

Figure 65. View of in-place clad stainless in span 3. 

Figure 66. View of in-place black bars (span 1) 

along with discrete galvanic anodes. 

Figure 67. Closeup view of discrete galvanic 

anodes on in-place span 1 black bars. 
73 

Presence of Carbon Steel: Carbon steel A25 dowels extend into the deck slabs from the 

backwalls. An example of these can be seen in the right foreground of figure 64. The 

specification calls for these to be wrapped with roofing felt, rubber, or another seepage-proofed 

compressible material to allow 0.25 inches of compressible material between the concrete and 

dowel. As such, electrical contact between the dowels and reinforcement was avoided. 

Innovation Justification: The salt water climate of coastal South Carolina can result in 

shortened service life for bridge substructures and for decks in cases where profile is low. This 

project provides an excellent opportunity to investigate and compare various innovative, 

corrosion-resistant reinforcement options in side-by-side, actual bridge comparisons. 

Problems: As noted above, the original bridge specification called for Stelax clad 316 black core 

bars in span 4. The company was unable to deliver these according to the project timing, and 

plain black bars were substituted. 

75 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The author would like to thank the engineers of the many State departments of transportation 

who cooperated in both time and effort with this study. Their names are too numerous to 

mentioned here but are listed as the State contact in table 1 and in appendixes A–H. 

77 

REFERENCES 

1. Virmani, Y.P, W.R. Jones, and D.H. Jones, “Steel Corrosion in Concrete: pH at 

Corrosion Sites,” Public Roads, vol. 84(3), 1984, p. 96. 

2. Koch, G.H., P.H. Brongers, N.G. Thompson, Y.P. Virmani, and J.H. Payer, Corrosion 

Costs and Prevention Strategies in the United States, Report No. FHWA-RD-01-156, 

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, March 2002. 

3. Yunovich, M., N.G. Thompson, and Y.P. Virmani, “Life Cycle Cost Analysis for 

Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks,” paper no. 03309, CORROSION/03, March 10–14, 

2003, San Diego, CA. 

4. Stafford, R.T., “Epoxy Coated Rebars,” Parking, March–April 1973, p. 39. 

5. Clifton, J.R., H.F. Beehgly, and R.G. Mathey, Non-Metallic Coatings for Concrete 

Reinforcing Bars, Report No. FHWA-RD-74-18, Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC, February 1974. 

6. Virmani, Y.P., and G.G. Clemena, Corrosion Protection: Concrete Bridges, Report No. 

FHWA-RD-98-088, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, September 

1998. 

7. Powers, R.G., and R. Kessler, Corrosion Evaluation of Substructure, Long Key Bridge, 

Corrosion Report No. 87-9A, Florida Department of Transportation, Gainesville, FL, 

1987. 

8. Powers, R.G., Corrosion of Epoxy-Coated Rebar, Keys Segmental Bridges, Monroe 

County, Report No. 88-8A, Florida Department of Transportation, Gainesville, FL, 

August 1988. 

9. Zayed, A.M., and A.A. Sagues, “Corrosion of Epoxy-Coated Reinforcing Steel in 

Concrete,” paper No. 386 presented at CORROSION/89, New Orleans, LA, April 21, 

1989. 

10. Gustafson, D.P., “Epoxy Update,” Civil Engineering, vol. 58, no. 10, p. 38, 1988. 

11. Clear, K.C., Effectiveness of Epoxy-Coated Reinforcing Steel, final report submitted to 

Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, December 1991. 

12. Clear, K.C., W.H. Hartt, J. McIntyre, and S-K Lee, Performance of Epoxy-Coated 

Reinforcing Steel in Highway Bridges, Report 370, Transportation Research Board, 

National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1995. 

13. Lee, S.-K., and P.D. Krauss, Long-Term Performance of Epoxy-Coated Reinforcing Steel 

in Heavy Salt Contaminated Concrete, Report No. FHWA-HRT-04-090, Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC, June 2004. 

14. Hartt, W.H., R.G. Powers, V. Leroux, and D.K. Lysogorski, A Critical Literature Review 

of High-Performance Reinforcements in Concrete Bridge Applications, Report No. 

FHWA-HRT-04-093, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, July 2004. 
78 

15. Hartt, W.H., R.G. Powers , D.K. Lysogorski, V. Liroux, and Y.P. Virmani, Corrosion 

Resistant Alloys for Reinforced Concrete, Draft Interim report submitted to FHWA by 

Florida Atlantic University, June 15, 2005. 

16. McDonald, J.B., D.F. Pfiefer, and G.T. Blake, The Corrosion Performance of Inorganic-, 

Ceramic-, and Metallic-Clad Reinforcing Bars and Solid Metallic Reinforcing Bars in 

Accelerated Screening Tests, Report No. FHWA-RD-96-085, Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC, October 1996. 

17. ASTM A 955/A 955M-06a, “Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain StainlessSteel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” Annual Book of Standards, vol. 01.04, American 

Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006. 

18. AASHTO MP 13M/MP 13-04, “Standard Specification for Stainless Clad Deformed and 

Plain Round Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2002. 

19. ASTM A 1035/A 1035M-06a, “Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain, Lowcarbon, Chromium, Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” Annual Book of Standards, 

vol. 01.04, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006. 

20. Wenzlick, J.D., and X. Yin, Evaluation of Stainless Steel Reinforcement, Construction 

Report, Report No. RDT03-003, Missouri Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 270, 

Jefferson City, MO 65102, February 2003.