Bridge Stay Cable Corrosion Protection. I: Grout Injection and Load Testing
by H. R. Hamilton, III, (Asst. Prof. of Civ. Eng., Univ.of Wyoming, P.O. Box 3295, Laramie, WY 82071-3295), J. E. Breen, (Nasser Al-Rashid Chair in Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Texas at Austin, 10100 Burnett Rd., Pickle Res. Ctr., FSEL, Austin, TX 78758), and K. H. Frank, (Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Texas at Austin, 10100 Burnett Rd., Pickle Res. Ctr., FSEL, Austin, TX)
Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 2, May 1998, pp. 64-71, (doi 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(1998)3:2(64))
Download fulltext
Purchase Subscription
Permissions for Reuse 
View Issue Table of Contents
| Document type: |
Journal Paper |
| Award Title: |
J. James R. Croes Medal |
| Abstract: |
This paper is the first of two companion papers that cover the results of corrosion and structural testing of eight large-scale stay cable specimens. Four of the specimens had the traditional stay-cable corrosion protection system of portland cement (PC) grout and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) sheathing, whereas the second four specimens used improved protection systems such as epoxy-coated, galvanized, greased, and sheathed strand or am improved grout with silica fume in the grout. A unique accelerated corrosion testing technique developed for bridge stay cables is also described. Among other critical findings, it was found that the PC grout would crack within 2-3 days after the exterior sheathing was cut to simulate accidental breaks in the field. It was also found that precompressing the grout was not effective in reducing the amount and size of cracks in grout. In addition, it was found that the presence of grout did not significantly increase the axial or flexural stiffness of the test specimens. |
|
