Discussions and Closures
Perhaps the reduction in the radius (instead of the diameter) of the
Discussion of “Electrochemical-Mechanistic
Model for Concrete Cover Cracking due to
Corrosion Initiated by Chloride Diffusion”
by G. Nossoni and R. S. Harichandran
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000470
José R. Martí-Vargas 1
1
Professor, Institute of Concrete Science and Technology, Universitat
Politècnica de València, 4G, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 103.214.200.106 on 11/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Spain. E-mail: jrmarti@cst.upv.es
The discussed paper presents a holistic electrochemical-mechanistic
model for the corrosion of steel reinforcing bars inside concrete
in the presence of chloride ions. First the model was calibrated us-
ing experimental data from accelerated corrosion tests conducted
on small cylindrical specimens. Parameters such as diffusion of
oxygen and moisture into concrete and rust layers, densification
of rust due to confinement, flow of rust into concrete pores, devel-
opment of internal pressure due to rust buildup, and the concrete
cover cracking were accounted. Second, the model was used to
predict the corrosion current and the time to cracking of the con-
crete cover for three typical classes of concrete components in
bridges. The authors should be congratulated for producing a
detailed paper that reports valuable findings of interest. This is
acknowledged by the discusser, who would like to provide some
comments for their consideration and response.
Based on the assumption that the density of the porous core and
top layer is in accordance with pressure and 3.75 and 4.20 times
lower than the density of steel, the authors define the buildup rate of
corrosion products by two components: one for the porous core
[Eq. (14)] and another for the top layer of rust [Eq. (15)]. In these
two equations, parameter K P is included as a correction factor that
accounts for the pressure dependency of the density of the corro-
sion products. Thus, an initial ratio value of density to density of
steel (1=3.75 or 1=4.20) is employed and then corrected by calibrat-
ing K P using the experimental test results. In the discusser’s opin-
ion, it seems more reasonable to consider different correction
factors in Eqs. (14) and (15) without an initial density value which,
in turn, is pressure-dependent. In this way, the corresponding K P
value would directly characterize the density of the corrosion prod-
ucts in each zone (porous core and top layer) as a result of the dif-
ferent pressures. Furthermore, one can assume that a different
pressure may result from the different density of the corrosion
products.
The thicknesses of the porous core (δ1 ) and the top layer of rust
(δ2 ), together with loss in rust layer thickness due to the diffusion of
rust products into concrete (δ0 ) and the reduction in diameter of the
steel bar due to corrosion (δ 3 ), are included in Eq. (17), which
serves to obtain the radial strain rate due to rust layer thickening.
© ASCE 07015003-1
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(6): 07015003
steel bar due to corrosion should be used as δ3 . In addition, it seems
that some notation has not been included in the paper [e.g., param-
eters of Eq. (16), f t in Eq. (21), value of n in Eq. (32)].
Figs. 7 and 13 depict rust thickness over time. The discusser
believes that it is of interest to know how the thicknesses of the
porous core (δ 1 ) and the top layer of rust (δ 2 ) vary. In order to offer
a better understanding, can the authors detail what thickness (δ 1 , δ 2 ,
total) is depicted?
For the small cylindrical specimens with a thickness of 25 mm
(1 in.) used in the accelerated corrosion tests, different ratios k ¼
D=d (where D is the diameter of the concrete cylinder, and d is the
diameter of the steel bar) were considered. A #4 carbon steel bar in
the center and three #1 carbon steel wires were used as the anode
and cathodes, respectively. A major event in the tests is concrete
cracking. In fact, although the main purpose of the test was to es-
timate rust thickness and time to concrete cracking in accordance
with the applied current, the test was continued even after concrete
cracked. Some details on when the first crack appeared for the dif-
ferent k ratios are reported. As specimen observation was made
under an optical microscope, perhaps this first crack is an internal
crack (or microcrack) that is not reflected on the visible concrete
surface. In light of the interest of this topic on the durability of
reinforced concrete, can the authors confirm this and also report
some details on the length and width of the observed cracks?
The model was used to calculate the corrosion current and the
time to cracking of the concrete cover for three typical bridge struc-
tural components categorized as supersestructure, splash, and sub-
merged components. The authors selected different concrete cover
values to yield the same k ratios as in the specimens used in the
calibration process, but with dimensions close to those of full-sized
structural components. As stated, different ratios k ¼ D=d were
considered. However, it seems that the concrete cover does not
correspond to parameter D as indicated in Table 2. Furthermore,
although the k ratios are correct, it is noteworthy that there are some
differences between the test conditions applied in the calibrating
process and the boundary conditions considered in the practical ap-
plication, as follows: (1) cathodes (the three #1 carbon steel wires)
were used in the small cylindrical specimens. These cathodes were
placed into the concrete cover, equidistantly from each other and
the anode, and close to the specimen’s outer edge; and (2) cylindri-
cal specimens present an axysimetric configuration.
Finally, the authors draw a general conclusion: that increasing
the water-cement ratio by 0.1 decreases the time to cracking by
1.5–3 times (depending on other factors) due to the combination
of decreased concrete strength and decreased porosity. The dis-
cusser points out that a 0.1 reduction in the water-cement ratio
from 0.6 to 0.5 has a stronger effect that from 0.5 and 0.4, as ob-
served in Figs. 8–10 for the corrosion current and in Fig. 13 for
rust thickness, respectively, which perhaps has not been noted by
the authors.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.