Effect of Corrosion On RC

EFFECT OF CORROSION ON PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF
REINFORCED CONCRETE
A Thesis
Presented to
The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
Srikanth Bajaj
December, 2012
EFFECT OF CORROSION ON PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF
REINFORCED CONCRETE
Srikanth Bajaj
Thesis
Approved: Accepted:
_________________________________ ______________________________
Advisor Department Chair
Dr. Anil Patnaik Dr. Wieslaw K. Binienda
_________________________________ ______________________________
Faculty Reader Dean of the College
Dr. Joe Payer Dr. George K. Haritos
_________________________________ ______________________________
Faculty Reader Dean of the Graduate School
Dr. Kallol Sett Dr. George R. Newkome
_________________________________ ______________________________
Faculty Reader Date
Dr. William H. Schneider
ii
ABSTRACT
Corrosion of reinforced concrete (RC) is a major factor contributing to
deterioration of structures, and billions of dollars are spent every year on the repairs of
structures due to corrosion of reinforcement. While the main causes of reinforcement
corrosion are carbonation and chloride attack, the deterioration of the reinforced concrete
does not occur due to direct effects of these corrosive agents. Rather, the deterioration
results from the pressure exerted on the concrete by the expansive corrosion products,
creating stress in the concrete cover that result in surface cracking. The surface cracks
allow an easy passage for the corrosive agent to reach the reinforcement, further
accelerating the corrosion process.
The bond between reinforcement and concrete is very important, as it enables the
reinforced concrete member to carry compressive and tensile loads. However, corrosion
weakens this bond and thus results in a weakening of the RC member. In the present
study, the amount of reduction in the bond strength due to corrosion, the thickness of
corrosion products for different levels of corrosion, and the width of cracks at steel-
concrete interface and concrete surface were studied.
The main objective of the research is to identify the effects of corrosion on
mechanical properties (bond strength) of reinforced concrete members. Pullout tests were
used for the determination of bond strength between reinforcement and concrete. A study
iii
was also conducted on the use of polypropylene fibers or basalt fibers as additives in the
concrete mix, as an attempt to improve the performance of reinforced concrete members.
It was found that uniform corrosion occurs only until the surface of the concrete
cracks; thereafter, the corrosion is non-uniform. Also, the bond strength of reinforced
concrete member increases with the increase in corrosion level up to critical percentage;
above this percentage, the bond strength decreases with any further increase in corrosion
level. This critical percentage was found to be 2%, 3.5%, and 4.5% for normal concrete,
polypropylene fiber induced concrete, and basalt fiber induced concrete, respectively.
This result demonstrates that the addition of fibers in concrete helps in improving the
bond between reinforcement and concrete. Moreover, concrete cover was found to play
an important role in protecting reinforcing steel against corrosion. The width of cracks in
the cover was shown to increase with an increase in corrosion level, and thicker concrete
cover results in reducing cracks for given corrosion level.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is with immense gratitude that I acknowledge the support and help of my
advisor, Dr. Anil Patnaik for his guidance throughout my graduate studies. He has been
inspirational to me as an individual and student, and his direction, assistance, and
patience during my research process has been invaluable.
I am also very thankful to Dr. Joe Payer, for helping me throughout my Master's
program with his invaluable suggestions. I am also very thankful to my committee
members, Dr. Kallol Sett and Dr. William H. Schneider, for their corrections.
This work is associated with the Corrosion and Reliability Engineering program
at The University of Akron. I acknowledge the support of the U.S. Department of
Defense Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight and the research sponsor, the US Air
Force Academy under agreement number FA7000-10-2-0013
My sincere appreciation is also extended to the following individuals who made it
possible for me to complete my graduate research:
 Dr. Yousif Hanaa for her help and guidance throughout my thesis. She was
always there for me in the lab and helped me in corroding and testing the
specimens.
 Dr. Xi Shan for his early support, particularly in helping me to understand the
corrosion process;
 Jeremy Lewis, co-partner in corrosion of reinforcement concrete member team;
v
 Sai K. Ganapuram and Sudeep Adhikari for helping me in making concrete
specimens;
 Mr. David McVaney, for helping me with materials, molds and testing corroded
samples.
 Sheila Pearson for helping me in editing my thesis.
 My family and friends for their support and encouragement as I pursued my
graduate studies.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ xii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1
1.1 Research Significance .....................................................................................2
1.2 Research Objectives ........................................................................................2
1.3 Research Methodology ...................................................................................3
1.4 Thesis Outline .................................................................................................3
II INTRODUCTION TO CORROSION ..........................................................................5
2.1 Corrosion Process ...........................................................................................6
2.1.1 Carbonation .........................................................................................9
2.1.2 Chloride Attack ...................................................................................9
2.2 Forms of Corrosion .......................................................................................10
2.2.1 General (Uniform) Corrosion ...........................................................10
2.2.2 Pitting Corrosion ...............................................................................11
2.2.3 Crevice Corrosion .............................................................................11
2.3 Corrosion Prevention Techniques .................................................................12
vii
2.3.1 Design and Construction Techniques ...............................................12
2.3.2 Monitoring of Structure ....................................................................13
2.3.3 Maintenance, Repair and Rehabilitation (MRR) of structures .........14
III LITERATURE REVIEW .........................................................................................15
3.1 Literature Review for the Bond Characteristics of RC Members .................15
3.1.1 Basic Introduction .............................................................................15
3.1.2 Bond Mechanism ..............................................................................18
3.1.3 Failure Mode .....................................................................................19
3.1.4 General Equations .............................................................................22
3.1.4.1 Average Bond Strength ..................................................24
3.1.4.2 True Bond Strength ........................................................26
3.1.5 Development Length .........................................................................26
3.1.5.1 Development Length of Deformed Bars in Tension ......28
3.1.5.2 Development Length of Deformed Bars in Compression

.......................................................................................29
3.1.6 Bond Strength Equations ..................................................................30
3.1.7 Epoxy – Coating on Reinforcement ..................................................31
3.1.8 Factors Influencing Bond Mechanisms, Failure, and Development

Length ...............................................................................................34
3.2 Literature Review on Influence of Reinforcement Corrosion on RC

Members .......................................................................................................37
3.2.1 General Introduction .........................................................................37
3.2.2 Losses in the Structural Performance of RC Members .....................37
viii
3.2.3 Bond Mechanism ..............................................................................38
3.2.3.1 Low Level Corrosion........................................................38
3.2.3.2 Mid level Corrosion..........................................................40
3.2.3.3 High level Corrosion ........................................................41
3.2.4 Cracking Stage ..................................................................................42
3.2.4.1 Pre-Cracking .....................................................................42
3.2.4.2 Primary Cracking .............................................................43
3.2.4.3 Final Concrete Cover Cracking ........................................43
3.2.5 Accelerated Corrosion ......................................................................45
3.2.6 Test Methods for Bond Strength .......................................................47
3.2.7 Cracking Model ................................................................................48
3.2.8 Method to Improve the Corrosion and its Effects .............................51
3.2.9 Empirical Formula Based on Literature Review ..............................52
IV EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES ..........................................................................55
4.1 Experimental Series ......................................................................................55
4.2 Casting of Specimens ....................................................................................57
4.2.1 Materials and Mix Design .................................................................57
4.2.2 Specimen Dimensions.......................................................................58
4.2.3 Casting Procedure .............................................................................58
4.3 Corrosion of Specimens ................................................................................60
4.3.1 Series 1 ..............................................................................................63
4.3.2 Series 2 ..............................................................................................64
ix
4.3.3 Series 3 ..............................................................................................65
4.3.4 Series 4 ..............................................................................................66
4.3.5 Series 5 ..............................................................................................67
4.3.6 Series 6 ..............................................................................................67
4.3.7 Series 7 ..............................................................................................68
4.3.8 Series 8 ..............................................................................................69
4.4 Testing Corrosion Effects .............................................................................70
4.4.1 Corrosion Study ................................................................................71
4.4.2 Pullout Test .......................................................................................76
V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................79
5.1 Series 1 ..........................................................................................................80
5.2 Series 2 ..........................................................................................................88
5.3 Series 3 ..........................................................................................................96
5.4 Series 4 ........................................................................................................106
5.5 Series 5 ........................................................................................................108
5.6 Series 6 ........................................................................................................109
5.7 Series 7 ........................................................................................................115
5.8 Series 8 ........................................................................................................118
5.9 Crack Width Comparison ...........................................................................122
5.9.1 Comparison between Series 2 and Series 3 ....................................122
5.9.2 Comparison between Series 6, Series 7 and Series 8......................125
5.10 Bond Strength Result Comparison.............................................................127
x
5.10.1 Comparison between Series 2 and Series 3 ..................................127
5.10.2 Comparison between Series 6, Series 7 and Series 8....................129
5.11 Load-Slip Relation .....................................................................................131
5.11.1 Comparison between Series 6, Series 7 and Series 8....................131
5.12 Comparison of Bond Strength determined by Other Authors ..................135
VI CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................141
6.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................141
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................143
APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................150
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 Details of Literature ..............................................................................................31
3.2 Merits and Demerits of Different Bond Tests.......................................................47
3.3 Details of Different Factors used in Research ......................................................52
4.1 Mix Design Proportion .........................................................................................57
4.2 Specimen Dimensions for Series 1-4 – Cylindrical Specimens............................58
4.3 Specimen Dimensions for Series 5-8 – Cubical Specimens .................................58
4.4 Series 1 – Test Schedule .......................................................................................63
5.1a Series 1 Specimen 1 – Corrosion Study .................................................................80
5.1b Series 1 Specimen 3 – Corrosion Study.................................................................81
5.1c Series 1 Specimen 4 – Corrosion Study .................................................................83
5.1d Series 1 Specimen 5 – Corrosion Study.................................................................83
xii
5.1e Series 1 Specimen 6 – Corrosion Study .................................................................85
5.1f Series 1 Specimen 7 – Corrosion Study .................................................................86
5.1g Series 1 Specimen 8 – Corrosion Study.................................................................86
5.1h Series 1 Specimen 9 – Corrosion Study.................................................................87
5.2a Series 2 – Corrosion Studies ..................................................................................90
5.2b Series 2 – Crack Width Measurements ..................................................................94
5.2c Series 2 – Degree of Corrosion Vs Bond Strength ................................................95
5.3a Series 3 – Corrosion Studies ..................................................................................97
5.3b Crack Width Measurements .................................................................................101
5.3c Series 3 – Degree of Corrosion Vs Bond Strength ..............................................102
5.3d Series 3 – Pullout Test Results.............................................................................105
5.4a Series 4 – Degree of Corrosion Vs Bond Strength ..............................................107
5.5a Pullout test Result ................................................................................................109
5.6a Crack Width Measurements .................................................................................110
5.6b Pullout Test Results .............................................................................................112
5.7b Pullout Test Result ...............................................................................................116
5.8b Pullout Test Result ...............................................................................................120
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1 Corrosion as an Electrochemical Process ...............................................................7
2.2 Relative Volume of Iron and its Corrosion Reaction Products...............................8
2.3 Maintenance Cycle of a Structure .........................................................................13
3.1 Flexural Load on Reinforced Concrete Member ..................................................16
3.2 Geometry of Deformed Bar ..................................................................................19
3.3 Force Distribution in RC Members during Pullout Test.......................................19
3.4 Resultant force Components .................................................................................20
3.5 Tepfers Theory Cylinders .....................................................................................21
3.6 Moment and Force Distribution at Cracks in RC Beam .......................................23
3.7 Force Distribution in RC Members during Pullout Test – Epoxy Coated Bars....32
3.8 Splitting Failure Pattern ........................................................................................35
3.9 Time Line for RC Member Deterioration .............................................................49
3.10 Degree of Corrosion Vs Normalized bond Strength .............................................54
4.1 Concrete Mixer .....................................................................................................59
4.2 Molds with caps (Before and After Casting) ........................................................60
4.3 PVC pipe in #3 bar to reduce bond length ............................................................60
4.4 Wooden Molds for cubes ......................................................................................60
4.5 Corrosion Initiation Test Setup .............................................................................62
xiv
4.6 Bars for Series 2 (Non-Threaded and Threaded) ..................................................64
4.7 Polypropylene Fiber ..............................................................................................69
4.8 Basalt Fiber (MiniBar) ..........................................................................................70
4.9 Corrosion Cell Setup .............................................................................................71
4.10 Corrosion Products on Concrete Surface ..............................................................71
4.11 Specimen before Spicing (C-3-004, 2%) ..............................................................72
4.12 Specimen after Spicing (C-3-004, 2%) .................................................................72
4.13 Diamond cut-off Blade used for Slicing Specimens .............................................73
4.14 Typical Sliced Specimen for Series 3 (C-3-004, 2%) ...........................................73
4.15 Grinding Machine ................................................................................................74
4.16 Crack Pattern around the Reinforcement ..............................................................74
4.17 Examined Slice using microscope ........................................................................75
4.18 Microscope used for Corrosion Product Measure ................................................75
4.19 Specimen before and after Pullout Test (P-3-004, 2%) ........................................76
4.20 Setup for Pullout Test ...........................................................................................77
4.21 Specimen before and after Splitting Failure (Series 6, 1% Corrosion Level) ......77
4.22 Compressive Strength Testing Machine ...............................................................78
4.23 Compression Test Cylinder Failure Mode ............................................................78
5.1a Thickness of Corrosion Products (Series 1 Specimen 1) ......................................81
5.1b Thickness of Corrosion Products (Series 1 Specimen 3) ......................................82
5.1c Thickness of Corrosion Products (Series 1 Specimen 4) ......................................84
5.1d Thickness of Corrosion Products (Series 1 Specimen 5) ......................................84
5.1e Thickness of Corrosion Products (Series 1 Specimen 9) ......................................87
xv
5.2a Thickness of Corrosion Products for Different Corrosion Level (Series 2) ........93
5.2b Degree of Corrosion versus Maximum Crack Widths (Series 2) ........................94
5.2c Degree of Corrosion versus Bond Strength (Series 2) .........................................95
5.3a Thickness of Corrosion Products for Different Corrosion Level (Series 3) ......100
5.3b Degree of Corrosion versus Maximum Crack Widths (Series 3) ......................101
5.3c Degree of Corrosion versus Bond Strength (Series 3) ......................................102
5.3d Types of Splitting failure ....................................................................................103
5.3e Specimens after Pullout Test (Series 3) .............................................................104
5.4a Basalt Wrap for Series 4 ....................................................................................106
5.4b Specimen after Pullout Test (Series 4)...............................................................107
5.4c Yielding of Threaded Portion (Series 4) ............................................................108
5.5a Specimen after Pullout Test (Series 5) ...............................................................109
5.6b Degree of Corrosion versus Crack Width (Series 6) .........................................110
5.6b Gripper for Reinforcement .................................................................................111
5.6c Typical Crack Width Measurement ...................................................................111
5.6d Degree of Corrosion versus Bond Strength (Series 6) .......................................112
5.6e Specimens before Pullout Test (Series 6) ..........................................................114
5.6f Reinforcing Bars after Pullout Test (Series 6)....................................................114
5.7a Degree of Corrosion versus Max. Crack Widths (Series 7) ...............................115
5.7b Degree of Corrosion versus Bond Strength (Series 7) .......................................117
5.7c Specimens before Pullout Test (Series 7) ..........................................................118
5.7d Specimens after Pullout Test (Series 7) .............................................................118
5.8a Degree of Corrosion versus Crack Widths (Series 8) ........................................119
xvi
5.6b Degree of Corrosion versus Bond Strength (Series 8) .......................................121
5.8c Specimens before Pullout Test (Series 8) ..........................................................122
5.8d Specimens after Pullout Test (Series 8) .............................................................122
5.9a Series 2 – Crack Width versus Degree of Corrosion .........................................123
5.9b Series 3 – Crack Width versus Degree of Corrosion .........................................123
5.9c Crack Width at Steel-Concrete Interface ..........................................................124
5.9d Crack Widths at Concrete Surface .....................................................................124
5.9e Crack Widths – Series 6, 7 and 8 ......................................................................126
5.10a Series 2 and Series 3 – Bond Strength Results .................................................127
5.10b Series 6, Series 7 and Series 8 – Bond Strength Results ..................................130
5.11a Load-Slip Curve for Series 6.............................................................................131
5.11b Load-Slip Curve for Series 7 ............................................................................132
5.11c Load-Slip Curve for Series 8.............................................................................132
5.11d Comparison of Load-Slip Curve for Series 6, 7 and 8 ......................................135
5.12a Comparison of Series 6 Result and Combined Other Author Result ................136
5.12b Comparison of Series 6 Result and Individual Author's Result ........................140
xvii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Civil structures are a part of every civilization, affecting social, cultural and
economic aspects of societies regardless of religion, geographical location or level of
economic development [1.1]. Reinforced concrete is the most successful construction
material as it is versatile and considered inexpensive compared to any other building
material [1.2]. It leads to an achievement of new heights in the construction field. Its
ability to take any shape allows engineers to use it for mega projects such as high-rise
buildings, bridges, tunnels, and airports, as well as for smaller projects such as one-story
buildings, pavements, parks decks, etc. [1.3]. In most cases, reinforced concrete
structures are durable and strong and perform their purpose for their entire service life.
However, in some cases, members do not perform as needed due to improper design or
construction or lack of quality control on construction material, or severe environment
conditions [1.4, 1.11].
Deterioration of reinforced concrete (RC) structures causes many problems. One
of the major deterioration mechanisms in RC members is reinforcement corrosion [1.5,
1.10]. The cause of reinforcement corrosion can be one or the combination of carbonation
or chlorine ingress, chemical attack, physical damage due to the freeze-thaw cycle, salt
scaling, abrasion, etc. [1.6]. Thus, corrosion of reinforcement is the main challenge that
civil engineers are facing in the construction industry today.
1
1.1 Research Significance
Reinforced concrete structures in the United States, as well in other parts of the
world, are suffering from deterioration due to corrosion. It was estimated in 1997 that the
costs associated with corrosion damage to bridges in the United States exceeded $150
billion [1.7]. Recent studies show that the yearly direct cost of corrosion on US bridges is
about $100 billion. Similar statistics were observed in Europe, Asia and Australia [1.8].
Another key issue is the negligence of corrosion, poor inspection and lack of knowledge
on-site leading to collapse of structures, which can lead to loss of life and property [1.9].
Therefore, structural damage and economic loss caused by corrosion is a very serious
problem and is being addressed by many researchers. Engineers should have an in-depth
knowledge of the corrosion process, its occurrence, and its effects on structural integrity
i.e. both physical properties such as distribution of corrosion product, cracking, and
spalling of concrete and mechanical properties such as bond strength.
1.2 Research Objectives
The main objective of this research effort is to identify the effects of corrosion on
mechanical properties of reinforced concrete member. This study provides a better
understanding about the levels of corrosion and their effects on bond strength between
reinforcement and concrete. The bond between concrete and reinforcement is of utmost
important for functionality of an RC member. Any reduction in the bond strength can
lead to reduction in the load carrying capacity of the structure and also can lead to failure
of the structure.
2
Another objective of the study is to develop understanding of the relationship of
corrosion levels with cracks and also the relationship between cracking and bond
strength. This insight will help us to identify the factors that have detrimental effects on
bond strength. Furthermore developments of ways to minimize cracking due to corrosion
and to improve bond strength are also needed. A secondary objective is to study the
change in the physical and mechanical properties of reinforced concrete members after
the addition of fibers like polypropylene or basalt fibers (known as Minibar).
1.3 Research Methodology
The mechanical properties of reinforced concrete members with different levels of
corrosion are determined in this study. Prior to the study on mechanical properties, an
extensive literature review was done to understand the process of corrosion, corrosion
rate, distribution of corrosion products at the steel-concrete interface, and crack depths at
steel-concrete interface and concrete surface to understand the basics of corrosion.
Standard pullout testing was used for the determination of bond strength between
reinforcement and concrete. A literature review on the relationship between corrosion and
bond strength was carried out. An empirical formula was developed for bond strength.
The use of polypropylene fibers and basalt fiber in concrete was also studied in an
attempt to improve the performance of reinforced concrete members.
1.4 Thesis Outline
This thesis is divided into 6 Chapters. The research significance and objectives for
this effort are discussed in chapter I. An overview of the methods used to accomplish are
3
also outlined. Chapter II explains the basics of corrosion: the corrosion process, the
causes of corrosion, the different forms of corrosion in reinforced concrete, and corrosion
mitigation. Literature review, which is included in chapter III is divided into two parts
with explanations of bond mechanisms and failure modes for (i) non-corroded RC
members and (ii) corroded RC members. The experimental setup and methodologies are
described in Chapter IV, while Chapter V covers the results and discussion and includes a
statistical analysis. Finally, Chapter VI summarizes the entire thesis and presents various
conclusions and recommendations that were based on the findings of this study.
4
CHAPTER II
INTRODUCTION TO CORROSION
The following sections provide information on the process of steel corrosion in
reinforced concrete members and the factors influencing the process. Furthermore, the
mechanisms of carbonation and chloride attacks are briefly explained. Corrosion
prevention and protection measures are also described.
In order to protect the steel bars from corrosion, the corrosion process and its
occurrence needs to be understood. An example for simple corrosion process is the
observation that a steel bar that is kept in the air or is immersed in water corrodes at a
very slow rate when compared to a steel bar that is subjected to wetting and drying
cycles. Therefore, a steel bar corrodes faster in the presence of air and water. As concrete
contains moisture due to its porous nature, why doesn’t the steel embedded in concrete
corrode? This is the first question that needs to be answered in order to understand the
corrosion process for steel embedded in concrete.
The answer to the above question is that concrete is alkaline is nature. Metals
(steel) corrode in an acidic environment, and alkalinity is opposite of acidity, so metals
are protected from corrosion by the alkalis in the concrete. The next question is Why is
concrete alkaline? The micro-voids of the concrete contain high concentration of the
oxides calcium, sodium and magnesium. In the presence of water (in the pores) these
oxides produce hydroxides that are highly alkaline in nature, with a pH in the range of
5
12.5 to 13.5 [2.1, 2.8, 2.12]. pH is defined as a negative logarithm of the hydrogen ions
concentration in the solution. A general description of pH is that it’s a measure of acidity
or alkalinity of the solution (based on the concentration of hydrogen ions). When pH = 1,
the solution is very acidic; and when pH = 14, it is highly basic (or alkaline) [2.2].
The high alkalinity of the concrete pore water leads to the formation of a passive
layer on the steel surface [2.3]. This passive layer, which is the combination of oxides
and hydrogen of iron and the minerals from the cement, will protect the steel from
corrosion. However, over a period of time, this layer is destroyed by carbonation [2.4] of
concrete and/or chloride attack [2.5], which will result in active corrosion of the steel
embedded in concrete [2.8, 2.9, 2.12].
2.1 Corrosion Process
The general chemical reaction during the corrosion process is explained in this
section. The chemical reactions are the same for both carbonation of concrete and for
chloride attack. When corrosion of reinforcement occurs, the steel dissolves in the void
that contains water and gives up electrons; this is called anodic reaction [2.1, 2.2, 2.6].
(2.1)
For the electrical neutrality, the above two electrons need to be consumed
elsewhere on the steel surface. However, we cannot accumulate large amount of electrons
in same position, thus there must be another reaction to consume electrons with water and
oxygen, this is called cathodic reaction [2.1, 2.2, 2.6].
6
(2.2)
For the above reaction to occur, the following condition needs to be satisfied [2.7, 2.9],
which is shown in Fig. 2.1.
 Anode
 Cathode
 Ionic Current Path
 Electronic Current Path
Figure 2.1: Corrosion as an Electrochemical Process
It is clear that cathodic reaction results in formation of hydroxide ions (OH-),
which increases alkalinity. But hydroxide ions (OH-) react with ferrous iron (Fe2+) to
produce ferrous hydroxide [2.1, 2.6, 2.8, 2.12].
(2.3)
The ferrous hydroxide again reacts with oxygen and water to produce ferric
hydroxide. And ferric hydroxide turns into hydrated ferric oxide, which is chemically
7
represented as Fe2O3.H2O and is commonly known as rust [2.1, 2.6, 2.8, 2.12]. The
chemical reaction is as follows:
(2.4)
(2.5)
Ferric oxide has a volume twice that of the original steel (as shown in Fig 2.2
[2.8]); when hydrated its volume is increased nearly 6 to 10 times and it become porous,
resulting in cracking and spalling of the concrete cover. Rust on the bar can be clearly
seen after spalling of concrete and before that rust stains can be seen near concrete
cracks.
Volume
Fe
FeO
Fe3O4
Fe2O3
Fe(OH)2
Fe(OH)3
Fe(OH)3.3H20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Figure 2.2: Relative Volume of Iron and its Corrosion Reaction Products [2.8, 2.9]
8
2.1.1 Carbonation
The process of interaction of atmospheric carbon dioxide with the alkaline
hydroxide in concrete is called carbonation, which results in the formation of carbonic
acid [2.1, 2.6]. This acid does not attack the cement paste but neutralizes the alkalis in the
pore water, forming a calcium carbonate. Even though the carbonation reaction occurs,
the pH level of 12 to 13 is maintained in the concrete pore because the amount of calcium
hydroxide in the concrete pores is much higher than the amount that can dissolve in pore
water. However, as carbonation is proceeding, carbon dioxide reacts with all the available
calcium hydroxide thereby dropping the pH of concrete pore to a level which will initiate
corrosion in the embedded steel.
(2.6)
(2.7)
2.1.2 Chloride Attack
Chloride ions act as a catalyst to the destruction of the protective passive layer
that resists corrosion, a process that is called depassivation [2.10]. Unlike carbonation,
there is no overall drop in pH due to chloride attack. The chloride ions can be induced
during casting from chloride containing admixtures (used to accelerate curing), usage of
sea water in the concrete mix, or use of contaminated aggregates. Moreover, chloride ions
can also diffuse in the concrete by sea salt spray, direct sea water wetting, and use of
deicing salts. The recycling property of chloride ions makes it difficult to eliminate them
9
from the concrete [2.8]. The term “chloride threshold” defines the minimum quantity of
chloride ions required for depassivation.
(2.8)
The above Fe2+ will react to water and oxygen to form Fe2O3 and 2Cl- and is recyclable,
which reacts with steel to form FeCl2 and the process continues.
2.2 Forms of Corrosion
In the study of corrosion of reinforced concrete, it is important to know the
different forms of corrosion. A better understanding of the forms of corrosion helps in
devising better methods for its prevention. In RC members, common corrosion forms are
discussed in the following subsections.
2.2.1 General (Uniform) Corrosion
General or uniform corrosion is the type of corrosion that proceeds at the same
rate over the entire surface of a material. This type of corrosion occurs due to carbonation
or due to the presence of large amount of chlorides. During this form or process of
corrosion, anodic and cathodic processes occur all along the surface and their respective
pH shifts cancel each other. The final product of this corrosion is solid rust, and this rust
on the reinforcing steel causes tensile forces on the concrete cover, which results in
cracking and spalling of concrete cover.
10
2.2.2 Pitting Corrosion
Pitting is a form of localized corrosion that is confined to a small area and takes
the form of cavities called “pits.” This corrosion is one of the dangerous forms of
corrosion, as it causes a small amount of loss of material on the surface, while it damages
the deep structure of the surface. Pitting corrosion of the steel bar in concrete is an
oxidation process that results in the breakdown of passive film due to the ingress of
chloride and carbon dioxide. Pitting corrosion is related with the formation of macro
cells, which consists of small anodic area and a large cathodic area. In this corrosion
form, the presence of oxygen is the important factor in determining the total amount of
corrosion.
2.2.3 Crevice Corrosion
Crevice corrosion is another form of localized corrosion of a metal or alloy
surface at or immediately adjacent to the gap between the two surfaces. This type of
corrosion can be formed between two metals or between a metal and a non-metallic
material. This corrosion can result from the deposition of dirt, dust, mud and deposits on
a metallic surface or result from the existence of voids, gaps and cavities between
adjoining surfaces. Crevice corrosion is initiated by a difference in concentration of some
chemical constituents, usually oxygen, which sets up an electrochemical concentration
cell.
11
2.3 Corrosion Prevention Techniques
As discussed in introduction, corrosion is the major factor that deteriorates concrete
members in a structure and affects its structural integrity, leading to structural failure and
financial losses. Thus, there is a great need to take preventive measures against corrosion.
These methods can be categorized into three groups:
 Design and construction techniques
 Monitoring of structures
 Maintenance, repair and rehabilitation (MRR) of structures
2.3.1 Design and Construction Techniques
The selection of materials plays a very important role in the design and construction
techniques. Care should be taken that all raw materials used in the construction of a
structure are not contaminated. The following measures can be taken to reduce corrosion
and its underlying effects [2.8, 2.10]:
 Low water-to-cement ratio – helps in reducing chlorine ingression
 Large concrete cover – provides a large barrier against aggressive environment
 Corrosion inhibitors as admixtures – helps to resist corrosion against corrosion
inducing sources
 Use of stainless steel as reinforcement – stainless steel is more difficult to
corrode, but much more expensive than carbon steel
 Epoxy coated rebar – provides a thicker passive layer
12
2.3.2 Monitoring of Structure:
Monitoring of structures involves the recording of time-dependent parameters
during a structure’s lifetime [2.11]. Monitoring of construction materials during
construction provides information about the types of materials used like concrete
(cement, water, fine and coarse aggregate), steel, admixtures, etc. and the various
parameters associated with them. It gives a complete overview of corrosion initiation,
corrosion rate during the propagation period (as shown in Fig 2.3), and the causes of
corrosion. Monitoring plays a major role in scheduling maintenance and repair of the
structures.
Figure 2.3: Maintenance Cycle of a Structure
Some of the monitoring techniques are [2.3]
 Visual inspection – gives details about the form of corrosion [2.8, 2.12]
13
 Sensors for concrete – provides information regarding the aggressiveness of the
electrolyte on micro-cracking of the concrete due to corrosion
 Corrosion current measurement – gives details on corrosion rate and level [2.8]
2.3.3 Maintenance, Repair and Rehabilitation (MRR) of Structures:
Maintenance, repair and rehabilitation activities are the important mechanism that
helps in reducing deterioration, and increases environmental resistance, strength, and
durability, of a structure [2.1, 2.3, 2.6, 2.8]. The maintenance and repair of the structure
is based on the analysis of the data obtained from monitoring as shown in Figure 2.3. Any
sign of deterioration of the structure needs to be remedied immediately, thereby
improving the lifespan of the structure. Repair techniques [2.8, 2.10] include the
following:
 Filling the cracks and cavities in concrete – resists further ingression of chemicals
 Painting the concrete surface – provides a layer to fight against corrosion agents
 Cathodic protection – reduces the corrosion current to a negligible value by
reducing the potential of reinforcing steel to more negative value; this is achieved
by attaching an anode to steel surface.
 Re-alkalization – this process reverses the carbonation and restores the passivity
of reinforcement, thus resisting further corrosion due to carbonation.
 Electrochemical chloride extraction – this process stops reinforcement corrosion
due to chloride attack and returns the internal reinforcing steel to its normal
passive state.
14
CHAPTER III
LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Literature Review for the Bond Characteristics of Reinforced Concrete Member
This section comprises the literature review done in regard to the study of bond
behavior of reinforcement within concrete. Since the actual research is on corrosion of
reinforcement and its influence on mechanical properties of a RC member, first the
concept of mechanical behavior of non-corroded reinforced concrete member needs to be
understood. This section provides information on bond mechanism, failure mode,
development length and epoxy coating of reinforcement. Also, factors affecting the above
properties are explained.
3.1.1 Basic Introduction
In a reinforced concrete member, the flexural compressive force is resisted by
concrete whereas the flexural tensile force is resisted by reinforcement (usually steel).
For the reinforced concrete member to act as intended, it is required to exhibit force
transfer, referred as a “bond” between the reinforcement and the concrete [3.1].
The following assumptions are required for the flexural analysis of reinforced concrete
members [3.2]:
15
1. Bernoulli’s hypothesis: Plane sections before bending remain plane after bending. The
assumption assures the absence of shear distortion and the consequent linear strain
distribution across the cross section of the beam.
2. Strain-compatibility: The strain in concrete at a particular point on the cross section
should be congruent to the strain in reinforcement at the same point.
3. The respective strain-strain curves of concrete and reinforcement are used
to calculate the internal stresses developed.
Figure 3.1: Flexural Load on Reinforced Concrete Member
16
Fig. 3.1 shows the general bond development (load carrying) mechanism of
reinforced concrete flexural members [3.3]. When the load is applied, the member tends
to deform such that tensile strain will be carried by the steel reinforcement. From Fig.
3.1, we can see that the mobilization of bond-stress is required between concrete and steel
bar. For the complete composite action, which requires congruency of strains in concrete
and reinforcement at the same point, a perfect bond is the foremost requirement. This
bond allows the force to transfer from concrete to steel and vice-versa. Figures 3.1c and
3.1d show the force acting on steel and concrete, and it is clear that the forces are in
equilibrium because the forces acting on concrete are equal and opposite of the forces
acting on steel. These forces will be analyzed in detail in section 3.4.
A bond is defined as an interacting force that prevents the slip of the longitudinal
bars relative to the surrounding concrete [3.4]. The bond is comprised of three
components [3.5]:
1. Chemical Adhesion
2. Friction
3. Mechanical Interaction
Based on the type of bar used, these components play their roles. For a plain bar
(without surface deformations), the bond depends on chemical adhesion and friction.
However, for a deformed bar, mechanical interaction between the reinforcement and
concrete is the primary component of bond, whereas chemical adhesion and friction are
secondary components [3.4, 3.6].
For plain bar, small magnitude of force can break the adhesion between the
concrete and the bar and friction resists the remaining load. In case of deformed bar, the
17
main resistance to the load is bearing of bar ribs on the concrete between them (also
referred as mechanical interlocking), and friction and adhesion also help in resisting the
total load.
Apart from adhesion, friction and mechanical interlocking, the bond strength also
depends on gripping effect (the result of drying shrinkage of concrete), concrete strength
(in tension and compression), and anchoring effects of the bars through development
length, splicing, and hooks of reinforcement. The most important factors are physical
properties such as the diameter, shape and also spacing of reinforcement [3.7]. These
factors are discussed in detail in section 3.8.
3.1.2 Bond Mechanism
The deformed bar in the RC member attempts to move or slip when a load is applied. The
slip is prevented by the mechanical interlock and adhesion between the bar and the
concrete. However, adhesion breaks after a certain load and the slip is now resisted by the
bearing of the ribs against the concrete between the ribs. This concrete between the ribs is
called a concrete key [3.8] and is shown in Fig. 3.2.
When the ribs apply the bearing force on the concrete, the concrete key slides up
the face of the ribs, resulting in the splitting of the concrete cover. But the frictional
component between the concrete and bar counter this sliding of the concrete key against
the ribs. Thus, the frictional forces lower the bearing action and the resultant tensile force
on concrete is reduced [3.9]. Figure 3.3 shows the forces acting on the bar during a
standard pullout test and the direction of these forces.
18
bar diameter
Figure 3.2: Geometry of Deformed Bar
Figure 3.3: Force Distribution in RC Members during Pullout Test
3.1.3 Failure Mode
For RC members with deformed bars, the failure mode in most cases is the
splitting of concrete. Thus, the amount of tensile force the concrete resists before splitting
will define the bond strength of the RC member. This tensile force, also referred as radial
pressure, on concrete cover is the vertical component of the resultant R, denoted as RV in
Figure 3.4 and the effective bond strength is the horizontal component of resultant R,
denoted as RH [3.10].
19
Figure 3.4: Resultant Force Components
The resultant from Figure 3.3 is resolved into RV and RH, as shown in Fig. 3.4.
The total force in the bar before failure is given by T, f is the frictional force, and α is the
angle of force. So the force RV is given by [3.10]:
(3.1)
One of the first predictions on bond force was made by Tepfers in 1979 [3.11]. In
his studies, Tepfers proposed that a concrete surrounded by reinforcement is illustrated as
a thick-walled cylinder subjected to internal shear and pressure. The internal shear and
pressure represent bond and radial pressure at the steel-concrete interface, respectively.
Therefore, the tensile hoop stress in the concrete surrounding the bar is determined by the
radial force transfer at the steel-concrete interface. This tensile hoop stress in turn helps
to determine the critical load, also referred to as bond strength and denoted by RV as
20
shown in Fig. 3.4. Tepfers proposed three modes of system failures: elastic, partially
cracked-elastic, and plastic. Out of the three modes of failure, partially cracked-elastic is
the most commonly occurring type of failure and is illustrated below.
The Tepfers theory of partially cracked-elastic assumes that the uncracked
concrete ring confines cracked concrete and reinforcement [3.12, 3.13] as shown in Fig.
3.5 in which the outer uncracked concrete confines the inner cracked concrete and the
reinforcement bar (at the center of the cylinder). Moreover, the bursting stresses radiating
outwards from the bar are resisted by this uncracked concrete ring.
Figure 3.5: Tepfers Theory Cylinder
In an RC member with transverse reinforcement, the transverse reinforcement
along with an uncracked concrete helps in resisting the radial pressure. Also, a large
uncracked concrete cover does the same [3.11]. Both the above cases represent well-
confined concrete. Thus, a well-confined concrete will be better able to resist the larger
forces as compared to unconfined concrete [3.4, 3.5]. Also, in a well-confined RC
member, the mode of failure can be changed from splitting to pullout [3.6, 3.8].
Therefore, when the main (longitudinal) steel is well confined (either by transverse
21
reinforcement and/or by a large concrete cover), pullout failure will occur. In this case,
friction does not play an important role as the bar is well confined and hence, the bearing
of the ribs results in shearing the concrete key from the concrete. In this case, the capacity
of concrete in direct shear governs the bond strength of the RC members.
For RC members with plain bars (relatively smooth bars without lug
deformations), the resistance to slip was due to adhesion between the concrete and the bar
[3.6]. Even with a low tensile force, there is sufficient slip just adjacent to a flexure crack
in the concrete to break the adhesion [3.4], after which only friction is left to resist further
movement of the bar.
3.1.4 General Equations
Whereas the forces acting on the bar and the concrete and the resulting failure
mode are explained in the previous section, the whole process is explained through
equations and will aid in developing a better understanding of the interaction between
reinforcement and concrete in a reinforced concrete member.
Fig. 3.6a shows the general loaded beam with two cracks at 1 and 2; Fig. 3.6b
depicts the moment diagram with the moments M1 and M2 at cracks 1 and 2, respectively;
and Fig 3.6c illustrates the forces on the rebar T1 and T2 at the crack points 1 and 2,
respectively. Here, M2 is greater than M1 and also T2 is greater than T1 [3.1]. For
equilibrium, a bond stress µ must act on the reinforcement surface. Thus, the sum of all
the horizontal forces from Fig 3.6c is equal to zero and we can find µavg based on
Equation 3.1.
22
Figure 3.6: Moment and Force Distribution at Cracks in RC Beam
(3.2)
From the figure, , where dT is the net pulling force [3.3].
Also,
(3.3)
where = stress in the reinforcement due to direct pull or bending stresses in a beam
[3.7].
Hence,
23
(3.4)
Finally, the average bond stress [3.1, 3.7] is given as follows:
(3.5)
For the short length of embedment, the bond stress can be determined by the above
equation, as the distribution of bond stress is almost uniform [3.17].
3.1.4.1 Average bond Strength
Consider the beam shown in Fig 3.1a. According to Wight [3.1] and Wang [3.4], the
force in the steel at any crack is given by:
(3.6)
where, jd is the internal lever arm and, M is the moment at the section.
As mentioned in Equation 3.1, the sum of horizontal force is equal to zero – i.e.,
the difference in the tensile force is equal to the product of the average bond stress, the
bar perimeter, and the embedded length. Thus, Equation 3.2 can be re-written as:
(3.7)
where, , db is the diameter of the bar and l is the bond length.
24
However, in this case l is the length between cracks and is equal to dx. Hence, the above
equation becomes:
(3.8)
Also, [3.3], the incremental tensile force in terms of the moment difference
between cracked sections 1 and 2. Now, equating Equation 3.6 and Equation 3.8 results
in the following:
(3.9)
(3.10)
But, ,
where, V is the shear force.
Hence,
(3.11)
The above equation is for a single bar with perimeter πdb. In case of more than one bar,
the sum of the perimeter is [3.7], giving,
25
(3.12)
The above equation represents the average bond stress between two cracks of the beam.
3.1.4.2 True Bond Strength
If we consider a small distance dx and equating, , then Equation 3.5
can be written as Equation 3.13 where µ represents the true bond stress acting through
length dx [3.1].
(3.13)
3.1.5 Development Length
Development length is the minimum length of embedment, through which the
force in the bar may increase from zero at its end to a point where its full strength is
available (i.e., the yield strength). In other words, the length of embedment equal to
development length is necessary to develop the full tensile strength of the bar. If an
adequate length is not provided, then the bar will either pull out or split the surrounding
concrete. However, the development length requirement is primarily governed by the
splitting resistance of the surrounding concrete rather than friction or adhesion pullout
resistance. Also, development lengths are different for tension and compression, as
tension-loaded bars require comparably longer development length because the
reinforcement is subjected to in-and-out bond stresses [3.1], whereas for compression-
26
loaded bars, the bearing stresses at the end of the bar will transfer part of the compression
force into the concrete.
The development length is expressed by re-writing Equation 3.1 in terms of the
ultimate value of average bond strength µavg [3.1] and fs, where fs is the difference of fB -
fA and is the average bond strength at the bond failure on a beam test.
Thus,
(3.14)
The development length depends on splitting resistance and pullout resistance.
Development length for pullout resistance is proportional to the bar diameter, whereas for
splitting resistance it is proportional to the bar area [3.5]. However, in both the cases
listed above, the development length depends on yield strength of the reinforcement.
Accordingly, it can be said that development length depends on both geometry and
material properties of reinforcement, such as bar size and yield strength. The test results
show a positive relationship between bond strength µ and compressive strength of
concrete, which is [3.7]:
(3.15)
If the bond strength equals or exceeds the yield strength of reinforcement with area Ab,
then the equation becomes:
27
(3.16)
Where, is the yield strength of the bar.
Now considering the above three equations (i.e. Equation 3.14, 3.15 and 3.16) [3.7], the
following can be obtained:
(3.17)
where K is the function of geometrical property of the reinforcement and the relationship
between bond strength and compressive strength of concrete.
3.1.5.1 Development Length of Deformed Bars in Tension:
According to ACI 318-08, section 12.2.3 [3.15], the development length of deformed
bars in tension is given as:
(3.18)
where the confinement term shall not exceed 2.5, but is not less than 1.5 and
shall not exceed 100 psi [3.7]. When is less than 2.5, splitting failure is
likely to occur; values above 2.5 will likely result in pullout failure. Also, any increase in
cover or transverse reinforcement is unlikely to increase the anchorage capacity. The
28
factors used in above equation of development length of deformed bars in tension are as
follows [3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.7, 3.15]:
t= reinforcement location factor
 For horizontal reinforcement so placed that more than 12in. of fresh concrete is
below the development length or splice:……………………………………….1.3
 Other situation:………………………………………………………………….1.0
e= coating factor
 Epoxy-coated bars or wires with cover less than 3db or clear spacing less than
6db:……………………………………………………………………………...1.5
 All other coated bars:……………………………………………………………1.2
 Uncoated reinforcement:………………………………………………………..1.0
s= reinforcement size factor
 No. 6 and smaller bars and deformed wires:……………………………….……0.8
 No. 7 and larger bars:……………………………………………………………1.0
For light weight concrete, ≤ 0.75 whereas for normal weight concrete, = 1.
3.1.5.2 Development Length of Deformed Bar in Compression
Reinforcement in compression requires shorter development length than
reinforcement in tension. This is due to the absence of the weakening effect of the tensile
cracks. Therefore, the development length is expressed as [3.4, 3.7, 3.15]:
, should be greater than (0.0003fy) db
Where, 0.0003 carries a unit of in.2/lb.
29
3.1.6 Bond Strength Equations
In this project, the bond length is a known parameter. Also, the bond stress
distribution is uniform for a short length of embedment [3.6, 3.22]. The bond strength
between the concrete and the reinforcement depends on concrete cover, bar diameter, and
concrete strength. Many current researchers use the equation for bond strength (small
embedment length) devised by Orangun [3.16], Esfahani [3.18] and Zuo and Darwin
[3.20].
Studies done by Orangun et al. [3.16] in 1977, indicate that µ varies linearly with
db/ld. This relation was also verified by Mathey and Watstein [3.21]. The following
equation was developed after regression analysis on the experimental results. All
dimensions are in American units.
(3.19)
Based on studies by Esfahani and Rangan [3.18, 3.19] in 1998, an equation was
developed to calculate the bond strength between concrete and reinforcement. All
dimensions are in SI units.
(3.20)
, for normal strength concrete and
30
The ratio is also mentioned in ACI 318-08 [3.15] for calculation of development
length and is referred to as the confinement term.
Zuo and Darwin [3.19, 3.20] calculated the bond strength based on the following
equation. They found that the ¼ power of compressive strength gives a better bond
strength between concrete and reinforcement. All dimensions are in American Units.
(3.21)
In all the above equations, µ is the bond strength; T is the force at failure; db is the bar
diameter; C is the cover; ld is the embedment length; Ab is the area of reinforcement; and
is the compressive strength of concrete. In this research, the value of was
always considered as 1. Table 3.1 gives the mean and standard deviation for the test data
used by researchers for their respective equations.
Table 3.1: Details of Literature
Research Mean Standard Deviation
Orangun, Jirsa, Breen (1977) 1.07 0.150
Esfahani and Rangan (1998) 0.97 0.139
Zuo and Darwin (2000) 1.02 0.128
3.1.7 Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement
Epoxy-coated reinforcing bars are being widely used in aggressive environments
and in structures used for highways, marine environments, and chemical plants. The
31
epoxy coating is a positive way to protect the bar from salt-induced corrosion [3.10]. The
corrosion of reinforcement is a major problem in reinforced concrete structures and has
received high priority in recent years due to both its widespread occurrence and the high
cost of repair and maintenance. The process of corrosion and the factors affecting the
corrosion rate have been explained in detail in Sections 2.1 and 2.2.
The epoxy coating helps in protecting the reinforcement against aggressive
environment that result in corrosion, but it reduces the mechanical properties [3.9, 3.10]
and requires an increase in anchorage length (ACI-318-08). The following section
explains the forces acting on coated bar and compares them to the force in Sections 3.2
and 3.3 on uncoated reinforcing bar. Also, the bond ratio of coated to uncoated bar for
same bond length is mentioned based on literature review.
Various studies [3.9, 3.10, 3.23] have shown a reduction in bond strength due to
epoxy coating. It has been observed that an epoxy-coated bar will develop about 65% -
90% bond strength as compared to an uncoated bar with similar variables. Also, the type
of failure is very important in deciding the bond reduction factors; for instance, in
splitting failure, the reduction is higher as compared to pullout failure [3.9]. This
reduction in bond strength with the use of a coated bar is shown in Fig 3.7.
Figure 3.7: Force Distribution in RC Members during Pullout Test – Epoxy Coated Bars
32
Since mechanical interlocking is a primary component of a bond, whereas
chemical adhesion and friction are secondary in a RC member with deformed bar, when
bars are coated, the adhesion between the concrete and coated bar is lost, resulting in the
loss of frictional force between reinforcement and surrounding concrete. As mentioned in
Section 3.2, when the ribs of the reinforcing bar bear the surrounding concrete, the
concrete key (the concrete in between the lugs) slides up the face of the rib, causing the
concrete cover to split. But the frictional component between the concrete and uncoated
bar will counter this sliding of concrete key against the ribs. Thus, the frictional forces
will lower the bearing action, and the resultant tensile force on the concrete is reduced
(refer to Figures 3.3 and 3.4 in the section on failure mode). However, this frictional
force is lost between the bar and concrete due to coating, and thus, the bearing force is
not reduced and the only component of the bond strength is the force perpendicular to the
rib face of the reinforcing bar as shown above in Fig. 3.7.
The angle of the rib face is also a very important factor in determining the bond
strength between the bar and concrete. A bar with a larger rib face angle has lesser effect
of epoxy coating (which reduces the frictional force) as compared to bar with a lower rib
face angle [3.8]. For a plain bar, where adhesion and friction are the primary components
of the bond between the bar and concrete, the reduction or loss of this adhesion due to
coating will nearly destroy the bond in the RC member.
Researchers also found that the deflection due to the coated bar does not
significantly differ from those of uncoated bar members [3.9]. But the epoxy coated RC
member has wider cracks. These wide cracks have a greater impact on durability and
serviceability of the RC member/structure with coated bars. Wide cracks will increase
33
freeze-thaw and scaling problems in cold regions and will allow the corrosive agents in
an aggressive environment to have a free passage to attack the reinforcement. This causes
an impact on the coating and may damage it, which can result in localized corrosion in
the area where the epoxy coating was damaged.
Based on literature review on epoxy-coated bars, the following points can be drawn
[3.9, 3.10, 3.23]:
1. Epoxy coating reduces the bond strength, and the amount of reduction depends on
type of failure.
2. The epoxy-coated bar can result in wider cracks.
3. In ACI Building code [3.15] for anchorage of epoxy-coated reinforcement, a
cover-to-diameter ratio of 3 is considered as the transition point from pullout
failure to splitting failure.
3.1.8 Factors Influencing Bond Mechanism, Failure, and Development Length
This section provides an understanding of some of the factors that affect bond
mechanism, failure, development length, and splitting patterns.
In a deformed bar, the ribs exert a tensile pressure on concrete, resulting in the
splitting of concrete parallel to the bar. These cracks will follow along the bottom or side
surface of the reinforcement depending on concrete cover and bar spacing in all direction.
The splitting failure mode depends on: a) concrete cover or bar spacing; b) tensile
strength of concrete; c) the average bond stress – an increase in the average bond stress
increases the wedging force resulting in splitting failure [3.24].
34
Figure 3.8: Splitting Failure Pattern
a) Side cover and half the bar space both less than bottom cover – [Side Split
Failure]
b) Bottom cover less than side cover and half the bar space – [Face and Side Split
Failure]
c) Bottom cover less than side cover and side cover less than half the bar space – [V-
Notch Failure]
The factors that influence the development length are studied in many studies. Based
on these studies, an empirical equation is derived for development length of
reinforcement, which already has been given in Section 3.4. The tensile strength of
concrete is important, as the type of failure depends on it. Also, in the equation for
35
development length, is in the denominator and this reflects its influence on concrete
tensile strength [3.3].
Cover distance, a measure of concrete cover from the center of bar to the nearest
concrete face, is also important as it has an influence on failure mode. As concrete cover
is increased, the resistance to wedging action increases, resulting in an improvement to
the splitting resistance. Therefore, a larger cover will result in reducing the development
length of reinforcement [3.1]. Also, as shown in Fig. 3.8, as bar spacing is increased more
concrete is available for the bar to resist horizontal splitting, which directly results in
reducing the development length.
The transverse reinforcement plays an important role in reducing development length,
as it provides a good resistance to tensile force by resisting the opening of concrete
cracks. Epoxy coating increases the development length of the reinforcement [3.9, 3.10],
as the frictional force that reduces the wedging action is lost. Thus, a longer bond length
is required to prevent splitting or pullout failure. Finally, bar size also determines the
development length: a smaller bar (No. 6 and smaller) will require a smaller development
length as compared to a bigger bar (No. 7 and larger) [3.4].
36
3.2 Literature Review on Influence of Reinforcement Corrosion on RC Members
In the previous section, the bond behavior between reinforcement (non-corroded)
and concrete were explained. This section elaborates the changes in the mechanical
behavior of reinforced concrete members due to corrosion of reinforcement. In addition,
this section provides information on bond mechanism, failure mode, cracking stages,
accelerated corrosion, and test methods for determining bond strength of corroded RC
members. Also, an empirical equation is derived based on experimental data from
literature studies.
3.2.1 General Introduction
Corrosion of reinforcement directly influences the mechanical behavior of a
reinforced concrete member [3.25]. The main mechanical property affected by bar
corrosion is the bond between reinforcement and concrete [3.28]. Loss of bond strength
would affect the serviceability and ultimate strength of RC member [3.26, 3.33, 3.35,
3.36, 3.37]. Hence, there is a need to determine a relationship between corrosion and
bond strength in order to find the residual strength of members, thereby predicting the
remaining service life of the structure.
3.2.2 Losses in the Structural Performance of RC Members
The losses in the structural performance are caused due to the following reasons
[3.27, 3.29, 3.32, 3.33, 3.34]:
 Reduction in effective cross-sectional area of reinforcement
37
 Concrete cover cracking, and
 Steel-concrete interface modifications
As explained in Section 2.1, the corrosion of metal results in formation of their
respective oxides, thereby reducing their effective cross-sectional area. These oxides have
a higher volume (as was shown in Fig. 2.2). This increase in volume exerts radial
pressure at steel-concrete interface, developing hoop tensile stress on concrete [3.36].
Once the hoop tensile stress exceeds the concrete tensile strength, the concrete cover will
crack [3.25, 3.30, 3.35, 3.39, 3.48]. The cracks in the concrete allow an easy access for
the aggressive corrosion agents to reach the reinforcing steel, leading to further corrosion
[3.39]. Furthermore, the rib height of the deformed bar is degraded [3.36], reducing the
interactive forces between concrete and reinforcement. However, corrosion at low levels
increases the bond between reinforcement and concrete due to the increase in friction and
confinement effect [3.26, 3.45].
3.2.3 Bond Mechanism
This section provides the information on bond between reinforcement and
concrete for different levels of corrosion. This corrosion level are divided into low,
medium, and high based on the literature review.
3.2.3.1 Low-Level Corrosion
The corrosion process begins once the passive layer of reinforcement is destroyed
in an RC member. The initial stage of corrosion is defined as low-level corrosion, and it
ranges from 0 – 4% [3.29, 3.31, 3.33]. The range depends on the diameter of longitudinal
38
reinforcement, concrete cover, transverse reinforcement, compressive strength of
concrete, and many other factors.
The deformed bar is resisted against slip due to adhesion, friction and mechanical
interlocking [3.4]. However, occurrence of corrosion changes these characteristics of the
reinforcement. During the initial stage of corrosion, the expansive corrosion products
exert the mechanical pressure on the surrounding concrete, which increases mechanical
interlocking and confinement of concrete around the reinforcement [3.31, 3.45].
Moreover, the bar roughness increases due to low-level corrosion, thereby increasing the
friction [3.31, 3.36]. Thus, low-level corrosion increases the resistance to the force and
prevents the slip of reinforcement in the RC member. The failure mode for low-level
corrosion is the same as the failure mode for non-corroded RC specimens.
The diameter of longitudinal reinforcement (other factors being constant) is
inversely proportional to the range of low-level corrosion: i.e., low-level corrosion for #6
bar ranges from 0 – 2% while for #3 it ranges 0 – 4% [3.32]. When transverse
reinforcement is not provided, then low-level corrosion range is minimized i.e. 0 – 2%
[3.34]. Fang et al., [3.34] observed that the ultimate load decreases from 110kN to 60kN
as corrosion percentage increases from 0 to 4% for a specimen without confinement;
whereas for a specimen with confinement (transverse reinforcement), 4% corrosion had
no substantial degradation in bond strength as compared to a control specimen (0%
corrosion) [3.37]. In this case, the transverse reinforcement provides sufficient
confinement despite the presence of fine cracks in the concrete [3.40]. Also, the tensile
hoop stress is resisted by the transverse reinforcement, thereby minimizing the crack
width [3.27].
39
3.2.3.2 Mid-Level Corrosion
Mid-level corrosion is defined as the corrosion stage when the RC member shows
visible cracks on the concrete surface. Loss in the structural performance and reduction in
bond strength is associated with this stage. The range of mid-level corrosion is defined as
2 – 6%, and this range depends on bar diameter, transverse reinforcement, concrete
cover, and compressive strength [3.31, 3.33, 3.34].
At mid-level corrosion, the expansive corrosion products exert high tensile
pressure on concrete, resulting in fine cracks [3.42]. RC specimens with mid-level
corrosion are weaker than non-corroded specimens. When load is applied, the resultant
force (RV, as shown in Fig 3.3 and 3.4) further widens the crack, thereby reducing the
confinement of the surrounding concrete on the bar [3.27]. In most cases, the failure
mode for mid-level corrosion follows the same trend as failure for non-corroded RC
specimens.
Mid-level corrosion is very critical, as most of the bond strength is changed in this
level. Data from many studies suggests the range of changes is from 20% – 50% [3.34],
but it will depend on many factors. Rebar size is one important factor: for #6 bar, the
range is 2 – 4% with a reduction in bond strength of 30 – 50% [3.32, 3.34]; for #4 bar, the
range is 2.5% – 5% with a bond strength reduction of 20 – 35% [3.31, 3.35]; and for #3
bar, it is in the range of 4 – 6% with a bond strength reduction of 20% to 30% [3.32].
However, the above ranges will vary based on the concrete cover or transverse
reinforcement; for example, a well confined concrete will show a reduction in bond
strength of 10 – 15% for mid-level corrosion.
40
3.2.3.3 High-Level Corrosion
The high-level corrosion is the final stage of corrosion where the structural
performance of the RC members is significantly degraded and the concrete surface is
cracked severely, with cracks visible throughout the concrete member. High-level
corrosion depends on bar size, confinement, and other factors, and it can be 4% and
above for large diameter bar (# 6 bar and above) and 6% and above for smaller diameter
(#3 bar to #5 bar) diameter bar [3.31, 3.32].
The RC members with high-level corrosion show wider cracks due to maximum
hoop tensile stresses caused by corrosion products. Also, the ribs of the reinforcement are
degraded significantly, reducing the mechanical interlocking between the bar and
concrete. In addition, the corrosion products will act as a lubricant around the bar,
making it easy to slip and thereby reducing the friction until it is almost lost [3.27].
Finally, the wide cracks reduce the confinement of surrounding concrete. Therefore, the
load capacity of the RC member with high-level corrosion is reduced significantly
compared to non-corroded RC members. The reinforcement with high-level corrosion
slips easily due to the above-mentioned phenomenon, resulting in the failure of the
specimens.
High-level corrosion of the structure is the worst stage of deterioration,where the
structure has almost lost its capacity. The range is defined from 4% and above for larger
diameter bars and from 6% and above for smaller diameter bars [3.27, 3.31, 3.34]. When
the RC member is at this level of corrosion, the complete rehabilitation of member is
immediately needed in order for the structure to remain intact. The strength reduction for
41
#3 bars is 50% for a 6% corrosion level and 75% for an 8% corrosion level, whereas for
#6 bars it is about 40 – 50% for a 4% corrosion level [3.32].
3.2.4 Cracking Stages
In this section, the process of bond mechanics is explained in terms of cracking
stages. This gives a better understanding about the relationship between cracking and
bond strength.
3.2.4.1 Pre-Cracking:
The pre-cracking stage is the stage of crack initiation at the steel-concrete
interface due to the pressure exerted by corrosion products. In this stage, the tensile
strength of concrete is more than the hoop tensile pressure from the corrosion products,
and the cracks are not visible on the concrete surface. From previous studies, it has been
found that a 0 – 4% corrosion level is the range for the pre-cracking stage. The pre-
cracking stage follows the same trend as low-level corrosion; however, factors such as
bar size, concrete cover, and transverse reinforcement will change the range of this stage
[3.27, 3.31, 3.33].
The pre-cracking stage occurs at low-level corrosion. The bond strength of the
specimen increases despite losses in the rib profile because of an increase in pressure
around the bar before the development of primary cracks. Moreover, the corrosion
product at low-level corrosion increases the friction between the steel-concrete interfaces
[3.32]. Specimens that are well confined (lateral reinforcement or huge concrete cover)
[3.4, 3.43] will show cracks at a corrosion level of 2 to 4%, whereas the corrosion level
42
for the pre-cracking stage for unconfined specimen is lower (1 – 2%). Also, bar diameter
changes the above percentage: for instance, a well confined specimen with #6 bar cracks
at 1 – 3% whereas the same specimen with #4 bar will crack at 2 – 4% and with #3 bar
will crack at 3 – 4%.
3.2.4.2 Primary Cracking
The development of the first crack due to corrosion at the concrete surface is
called primary cracking. This stage occurs at mid-level corrosion and the range is 2 – 6%
[3.32, 3.33]. This crack does not imply that the structure is severely damaged and is not
able to carry load. The confinement effect at the position of the crack is lost, but the
confinement around the bar still exists due to uncracked concrete [3.11]. This primary
crack acts as an easy passage for aggressive corrosive agents, which results in further
corrosion of reinforcement [3.39].
The cover-to-diameter ratio (C/d) plays an important role in deciding the
corrosion percentage required to produce a primary crack. According to a study by Al-
Sulaimani et al. [3.32], for C/d ratios of 3.75, 5.36, and 7.5, the corrosion percentage
required to crack the specimen is 1.5 – 2.5%, 2.5 – 3.5% and 4 – 5%, respectively. Also,
the cracking percentage for 10mm, 14mm and 20mm bar with the same variables were
4.75%, 2.75%, and 2%, respectively.
3.2.4.3 Final Concrete Cover Cracking
When the concrete crack pattern reaches a point where concrete no longer
provides any confinement to the bar, this stage is called final cracking stage. This stage
43
occurs at high-level corrosion and the corresponding range is 4% and above, depending
on compressive strength, bar size, and concrete cover [3.27, 3.31, 3.34]. The resistance to
the load is provided by the remaining concrete surrounding the bar. However, the
degradation in the rib profile caused by corrosion decreases the load capacity of the RC
members. The loss in confinement results in the slippage of reinforcement and this action
is aided by the frictional loss between reinforcement and concrete due corrosion product
at the steel-concrete interface.
At the primary cracking stage, the C/d ratio also defined by the range of final
cracking or post-cracking stage. For a C/d ratio of 3.75, the corrosion level to cause post-
cracking is 3 – 6% compared to a C/d ratio of 7, which requires 4.5 – 8%. The larger
diameter bar reaches the post-cracking stage at low-level corrosion; for instance, for a
C/d ratio of 3.75, #6 bar reaches post-cracking at 3% corrosion, whereas #4 bar reaches
this stage at 4% corrosion, and #3 bar reaches this stage at 6% corrosion.
From Section 3.2.3 and 3.2.4, the process of cracking caused by the bursting force
due to corrosion products is well understood. However, the bursting force causing cracks
is directly related to the bar size (i.e., the bursting force increases by an increase in bar
diameter). The concrete cover is the main parameter that resists the bursting force, and
for the better resistance to bursting force, the cover-to-bar diameter ratio (C/d) plays an
important role. Moreover, the transverse reinforcement resists the bursting force, thereby
increasing the corrosion percentage required to produce same amount of crack or
minimizing the crack width for same corrosion level compared to specimen without
transverse reinforcement.
44
3.2.5 Accelerated Corrosion
Initiation and propagation of corrosion in RC members (which was explained in
Fig. 2.6) depends on many factors. These factors include but are not limited to the
permeability of concrete, confinement of specimens, the electric current applied, time of
current applied, density of solution, and environmental temperature [3.34, 3.39]. For this
study, the corrosion in the laboratory to the desired degree of corrosion was achieved
using accelerated corrosion method using Faraday’s law.
In Faraday’s law, the amount of corrosion is a function current and time [3.29,
3.32, 3.38]. The derivation of the degree of accelerated corrosion based on Faraday’s law
is elaborated as follows [3.47]:
(3.22)
where, Δw is the metal weight loss due to corrosion; A is the atomic weight of iron (56g);
I is the corrosion current (amp); t is the time elapsed (sec); Z is the valency of the reacting
electrode (value is 2 for iron); and F is the Faraday’s constant (96500 amp sec).
The weight of metal lost due to corrosion can also be expressed as follows:
(3.23)
where a is the rebar surface area before corrosion (cm2); δ is the material loss (cm); and γ
is the density of material (7.86 g/cm3).
The corrosion current can be expressed as:
45
(3.24)
where i is the corrosion current density (amp/cm2).
Substituting 3.23 and 3.24 into 3.22, we obtain the following equation:
(3.25)
If R is defined as the material loss per year (R = δ/t), then its value can be determined by
substituting t = 1 year in above equation:
(3.26)
Thus, the degree of corrosion % (C0) is given by:
(3.27)
where T is time (years) and D is the diameter of the bar (mm).
Substituting R value in above equation, we obtain the following:
(3.28)
46
3.2.6 Test Methods for Bond Strength
The test method for the bond strength determination is based on the earlier
research because various bond strength tests have their advantages and disadvantages.
There are many tests available, but the selection of any particular test depends on the
outcome, its accuracy, and its cost-effectiveness. Table 3.2 lists the various bond tests
and presents the advantages and disadvantages for each.
Table 3.2: Merits and Demerits of Different Bond Tests [3.31]
Name Advantages Disadvantages
1) Simple to perform 1) The specimens in this test

2) It is used to compare the are not subjected to bending,
ASTM C234 bond strengths of different an external shear presents in
(Concentric Pullout types of concrete the actual structures
Test) 2) The concrete in the test is in
compression where as
concrete in real structure
surround the steel is in
tensile, thus this test shows
higher bond strength
1) Compression of concrete 1) Introduced problem with
in the specimen is splice spacing and the crack
Tension Pullout Test eliminated pattern was influenced by
this interaction
1) Used on beam specimens 1) Reaction restraints increase
larger in size compared to the splitting resistance
Bond Beam Test pullout test specimen because of the confining of
2) It represents the bond the concrete over the bar at
stresses conditions the supports
encountered in the actual
flexural member
Bureau of Standards 1) To overcome disadvantage 1) Difficult to Handle
Beam Test - of bond beam test i.e., 2) Expensive
The University of reaction restraints
Texas Beam Test
47
Merits and Demerits of Different Bond Tests (cont.)
1) This test produces a bond 1) Extra shield or soft cover is

stress situation similar to that required to prevent the
existing in the actual flexural confinement affect
Cantilever Bond Test members
2) Concrete and steel
experience similar tensile
strains, and strain gradients
produced in this specimen are
similar to those occurring in
actual structures
3.2.7 Crack Model
The time to crack due to corrosion plays an important role in evaluating the
service life of RC members. Primary crack act as a reference point for repair and
rehabilitation of structural member. According to Tuutti’s Model, the deterioration of a
concrete structure due to corrosion is divided into two phases [3.35, 3.41, 3.42, 3.44].
Phase one is the initiation of corrosion (T0), which is the time required for CO2 and Cl-
ions to diffuse and activate corrosion. The second phase is corrosion propagation (Tcr),
the duration between corrosion initiation and primary crack [3.42]. The corrosion
products occupy the higher volume than the original steel and will cause tensile pressure
on concrete at the steel-concrete interface, which is the primary cause of corrosion
cracking [3.36]. However, not all corrosion products will cause tensile pressure [3.41];
some corrosion products are used to fill the void in the concrete. This filling of void
increases the confinement; hence, the bond strength increases. Thus, the propagation
phase is divided into two different phases: the free expansion phase (Tfree), which is the
time required to fill the void of concrete by corrosion products, and the time required for
48
corrosion product to build up the tensile pressure to the point where it will cause cracking
(TStress). The conceptual model for modified deterioration process is shown in Fig 3.9
[3.41].
Figure 3.9: Time Line for RC Member Deterioration
An empirical equation based on field and laboratory data was proposed by Morinaga to
predict the time from corrosion initiation to corrosion cracking [3.46].
(3.29)
49
where Tcr is the time from corrosion initiation to corrosion cracking (days); D is the steel
bar diameter (mm); C is the clear concrete cover (mm); and icor is the corrosion rate (10-4
g/cm2/day).
According to above equation, the time from corrosion initiation to corrosion
cracking depends on corrosion rate, concrete clear cover, and steel bar diameter.
However, this equation does not account for the mechanical properties of concrete, which
would significantly affect the time to corrosion cracking. So, Maaddawy et al. [3.42]
developed a modified empirical equation for time from corrosion initiation to corrosion
cracking (Tcr) that takes concrete mechanical properties into consideration. The
Maaddaway et al. equation is as follows:
(3.30)
where
δ0 is thickness of porous zone and is equal to 10 for lower bound and 20 for upper bound;
ν is Poisson’s ratio (0.18 for concrete);
is concrete creep coefficient (2.35 for concrete);
is the compressive strength of concrete (MPa);
Ec is elastic modulus of concrete and is equal to (MPa);
Eef is effective elastic modulus of concrete and is equal to (MPa); and
fct is tensile strength of concrete and is equal to (MPa).
50
3.2.8 Methods to Improve the Corrosion and its Effects
Reinforcement corrosion has severe effects on bond strength of RC members.
Also, cracking of RC members due to reinforcement corrosion results in confinement
loss, thereby reducing the capacity of the structures [3.39]. The addition of external
materials to improve the permeability of concrete matrix, confinement effect, and other
properties can reduce the corrosion effects on structures. The addition of fly ash or silica
fume or fibers (polypropylene) in the concrete reduces the permeability of concrete and
decreasing the permeability of concrete increases its resistance to corrosion [3.32, 3.35,
3.48, 3.50]. While the use of these materials is well known to designers, a limited amount
of literature is available on the influence of these materials on the mechanical properties
of corroded RC members. Also, a low water/cement ratio will reduce permeability, and
hence will reduce the chloride penetration [3.48, 3.49].
According to Cabrera, the addition of fly ash (30% replacement of cement) in
concrete decreases the permeability of concrete, thus increasing the corrosion resistance
[3.35]. In addition, the corrosion current for normal concrete is more than that of concrete
with fly ash. The bond strength of the RC members increases with addition of fly ash in
concrete. Results show that for higher corrosion levels, the fly ash concrete specimen
resists 20 to 30% more load as compared to plain concrete specimens.
According to Al-Sulamanmi [3.32], the addition of polypropylene fibers (0.2% by
volume) in concrete increases the bond strength of the RC members. The improvement in
strength depends on the degree of corrosion. In pre-cracking and cracking stages, the
addition of fiber increase the bond strength about 10% as compared to plain concrete
specimens, whereas in the post-cracking stage, the increase is about 100%. Moreover, for
corrosion of 7.5% and above, the plain concrete resists negligible load whereas concrete
51
with polypropylene fiber retains bond strength of about 38% of non-corroded specimen
bond strength.
3.2.9 Empirical Formula Based on Literature Review
The tests mentioned above are widely used by different researchers in their
studies; each of the tests has its own advantages and disadvantages, but to date, no test is
proven to represent a realistic bond mechanism of RC members. This section compiles
the work of different researchers to evaluate a new empirical equation. For the sake of
simplicity, all the test data used to evaluate bond strength for different levels of corrosion
are gathered into a single table. Table 3.3 details the different factors used in the studies
by various researchers; these include corrosion percentage, bar size, concrete cover, and
transverse reinforcement.
Table 3.3: Details of Different Factors used in Research
Bar Size (d) Cover to Compressive Stirrups Corrosion Type of

Name mm – (in) bar dia. Strength (fc’) Percentage Test
Ratio (C/d) MPa – (psi) (%)
Al-Sulaimani 10 – (0.39) 3.75
et al. 1990 14 – (0.55) 5.36 30 – (4350) None 0 – 7.80 Pullout Test
20 – (0.79) 7.50
Rodriguez et 16 –(0.63) 1.5 40 – (5800) Yes* - Pullout test
al. 1994
Cabrera 1996 12 – (0.47) 6.75 - None 0 – 12.6 Pullout test
Almusallam et 12 – (0.47) 5.80 30 – (4350) Yes 0 – 80 Cantilever
al. 1996 Bond Test
Amleh et al. 19.5 – 2.56 25 – (3625) None 0 – 17.5 Tension
1999 (0.76) Pullout Test
Auyeung et al. 19 – (0.74) 4.60 28 – (4060) None 0 – 5.91 Pullout test
2000
Lee et al. 1.5 24.7 – 42.1 0 – 30 Pullout Test
2002 13 – (0.51) 2.5 (3580 – 6100) Yes*
3.5
52
Details of Different Factors used in Research (cont.)
Fang et al. 20 – (0.79) - 52.1 – (7550) Yes* 0–9 Pullout test

2004
*Few Specimens in the test were provided with stirrups
In a set of total 180 experimental data sets from the above table pertaining to pull-
out tests, 28 data sets are with stirrups. Therefore, majority of experimental data of pull-
out tests pertain to specimens without stirrups. The above table gives the details of
parameter used in the studies by different authors, and the data from all these studies are
combined to develop an empirical equation for normalized bond strength. Normalized
bond strength is the strength at any given percentage compared to the strength of non-
corroded specimen. According to Kapilesh et al., the bond strength increases with the
increase in corrosion up to 1.5% (also called critical percentage); thereafter, the bond
strength decreases with a further increase in corrosion as shown in Fig. 3.10 [3.25].
53
Figure 3.10: Degree of Corrosion versus Normalized bond Strength
The increase in strength is not considered in design, so any increase is normalized
as 1 or 100% to that of non-corroded specimen. Based on his study, normalized bond
strength for corrosion percentage greater than 1.5 (i.e. XP >1.5%) is given by
(3.31)
From literature review, many results support that the critical percentage for corrosion
level is 2. Thus, the new empirical equation is derived with R = 1.0 up to 2%.
54
CHAPTER IV
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
The experimental work done in relation to the effects of reinforcement corrosion on
RC members is presented in this chapter. Eight series of experiments were conducted.
The section is divided into three parts:
1) Casting of Specimens: includes materials and mix design, specimen dimensions
and casting procedure.
2) Corrosion of Specimens: includes soaking of specimens in NaCl solution,
impressing current to the specimens to achieve the desired degree of corrosion.
3) Testing Corroded Specimens: includes measuring corrosion products distribution
(series 1-3), bond strength (series 2 -8), crack width measurements (series 1-8).
4.1 Experimental Series
The overview of each of the experimental series are summarized as follows: series
1 through 4 used cylindrical RC specimens with bar #3, while series 5 used cubical RC
specimens with bar #3, and series 6 through 8 used cubical RC specimens with bar #6.
 Series 1: This was the preliminary series to understand corrosion initiation,
propagation and distribution of corrosion products along with crack patterns.
 Series 2: Identical specimens for each degree of corrosion were used in this
series. One specimen gives details on width of corrosion products, cracks at
55
steel-concrete interface and concrete surface, while the other specimen was
used to determine the bond strength of RC member.
 Series 3: This series was similar to series 2, where identical specimens were
used for each corrosion level and relation between degree of corrosion,
cracking width, corrosion product widths and bond strength was determined.
The difference between series 2 and 3 was the bond length: its value was 12
inches in series 2, whereas in series 3, it was 5 inches.
 Series 4: This series was identical with series 3 in terms of specimen
dimensions. However, corrosion products studies were not carried for this
series. The test series was carried out to determine the effects of confinement
on the corroded specimens; thus, the specimen was confined with Basalt fiber
wrap after achieving the desired degree of corrosion.
 Series 5: This was the first series of cube specimen. This series was carried
out to determine the bond strength of the RC members. The bar size was #3.
 Series 6: This was the first series with #6 bars. It was also carried out to
determine the bond strength of the RC members.
 Series 7: This series contains polypropylene fibers as an additive to the
concrete mix, as an attempt to improve the bond strength of RC members.
 Series 8: This series contains Minibar (basalt fibers) as an additive to the
concrete mix, as an attempt to improve the bond strength of RC members.
56
4.2 Casting of Specimens
Casting of specimens was the first step in studying the effect of reinforcement
corrosion on RC members. This section provides details on materials and mix design,
specimen dimensions and casting procedure (batching, mixing, and curing) for the
various series.
4.2.1 Materials and Mix Design
The materials used for concrete mix were ordinary (ASTM C150 Type I) Portland
cement, coarse aggregate, fine aggregate, water, and admixtures. The rebar used were
standard #3 bars for series 1 through 5 and #6 for series 6 through 8. Also, polypropylene
fiber was used in series 7 and MiniBar was used in series 8. The standard mix design was
used for all series as shown in Table 4.1, with a water-cement (w/c) ratio of 0.41 and 0.45
for series 1 through 5 and 6 through 8, respectively.
Table 4.1: Mix Design Proportion
Mix Proportion of Concrete (per 1 cubic-ft)

Series Cement Coarse Fine Water Admixtures w/c Compressive
No (OPC) Aggregate Aggregate (lb) Ratio Strength
(lb) (lb) (lb) (psi)
1-5 25 52.7 52.7 10.2 As needed 0.41 7500-8500
6-8 25 52.7 52.7 11.3 As needed 0.45 7000-8000
The bars used in pullout test specimens for series 2 through 5 were #3 bar size
with threading at one end (non-embedded end), and the diameter of the threads was 5/16-
18" as shown in Fig. 4.6.
57
4.2.2 Specimen Dimensions
The dimensions of the specimens were different for each series. This was because
different variables (such as bar size, embedded length and concrete cover) were needed to
obtain a better understanding of corrosion effects on RC members. The series
descriptions are is already given in section 4.1. The specimen dimensions for series 1
through 4 (cylindrical specimens) and series 5 through 8 (cubical specimens) are given
Table 4.2 and Table 4.3, respectively.
Table 4.2: Specimen Dimensions for Series 1-4 – Cylindrical Specimens
Series No of Length Diameter Bar Size Embedded Concrete

No Specimens (in) (in) (in) Length (in) Cover (in)
1 10 12 2 0.375 11 0.8125
2 20 12 2 0.375 12 0.8125
3 16 9 2 0.375 5 0.8125
4 8 9 2 0.375 5 0.8125
Table 4.3: Specimen Dimensions for Series 5-8 – Cubical Specimens
Series No of Length Breadth Height Bar Size Embedded Concrete

No Specimens (in) (in) (in) (in) Length (in) Cover (in)
5 8 6 6 6 0.375 6 2.8125
6 8 6 6 6 0.75 4 2.625
7 8 6 6 6 0.75 4 2.625
8 8 6 6 6 0.75 4 2.625
4.2.3 Casting Procedure
The specimens for series 1 through 4 were casted using PVC pipe of 2" internal
diameter as a mold. The specimens for series 1 were 12" in length with # 3 reinforcement
bar at the center and 1" above from the bottom of the concrete, thus the net embedded
length was 11". This was achieved through eye balling, which has potential to induce
some manual error such as eccentricity or the bar embedded length may not be exactly
58
11". To overcome these errors, series 2 was cast with PVC pipe covered at both ends with
caps. These caps contained a hole at the center which eliminated error in placement as
shown in Fig. 4.2. Series 3 and 4 have the same casting procedure. The specimens were
9" in length with 5" embedded length. The bond length of 5" was achieved by covering
the bar with PVC pipe of 0.4" internal diameter as shown in Fig. 4.3.
The casting procedure for series 5 through 8 was the same as above, (i.e., wooden
molds of 6"×6"×6" internal dimensions were used for casting as shown in Fig. 4.4.
Wooden molds were used rather than PVC, as they were easy to prepare for cubical
specimens. Bar #3 and #6 were used for series 5 and for series 6 through 8, respectively.
The concrete was mixed according to ASTM standards in a mixer shown in Fig. 4.1.
After mixing, the concrete was placed into respective molds for each series and
compaction was achieved by means of external vibration. Also, concrete cylinders of
4"×8" were cast for determining the compressive strength of concrete for each series. The
specimens were removed from the molds after one day and were cured for 7 days in the
humid room.
Figure 4.1: Concrete Mixer
59
Figure 4.2: Molds with caps (Before and After Casting)
Figure 4.3: PVC pipe in #3 Bar to reduce Bond Length
Figure 4.4: Wooden Molds for Cubes
4.3 Corrosion of Specimens
Prior to corrosion testing, the specimens were removed from the humid room and
kept in the air for 24 hours. Any rust and remaining concrete stacked on the surface of the
60
exposed bars were removed using SiC sandpaper, and a steel brush. A power supply with
an output voltage of 0-36 V DC and current of 0-3 A was used to induce direct current for
corroding the specimens. The current flow was kept constant and the voltage was
adjusted accordingly and power supply was attached to computer to record current flow
for every 30 min (Series 5-8). The electric connection of the reinforcement was secured
by fixing isolated copper wire to the reinforcing steel. The exposed portion of the
reinforcement was covered by heat-shrink tube. Stainless steel 316L was used as counter
electrode. The positive terminal of power supply was connected to the wire attached to
reinforcing steel and negative terminal to the wire of 316L counter electrode as shown in
Fig 4.5. The specimen was immersed partially (horizontal or vertical) in 3.5% NaCl
solution by weight (i.e. 35g of NaCl powder in 1 liter of water) for 72 hours before the
test. After this, accelerated corrosion test as mentioned in Section 3.2.5, was conducted
on each specimen to achieve the desired degree of corrosion.
61
Figure 4.5: Corrosion Initiation Test Setup
Series 1 was conducted as a preliminary series to understand the corrosion process
and to study corrosion product widths for different types of exposed conditions. Series 2
and 3 were conducted to study both the corrosion measurements and mechanical behavior
of RC specimen with corroded bar, so half of the specimens were cast with non-threaded
bars (the corrosion study set) and half with threaded bars (the pullout set) as shown in
Fig. 4.6. Moreover, Series 4 and 5 were conducted to study mechanical behavior of the
specimen, thus all the bars were threaded. This threading was performed in order to
attach the specimen to the existing pullout test setup available in the laboratory. The
following tables give details on corrosion current, total current, and time period of current
applied (Table 4.4).
62
Table 4.4: Series 1 – Test Schedule
Specimen Specimen Type of Current Total Time

Designation Direction Corrosion Density Current (hrs)
(mA/cm2) (mA)
Specimen 01 Horizontal Uniform 1 92 96
Specimen 02 Vertical Uniform 1 92 96
Specimen 03 Vertical Uniform 1 92 96
Specimen 04 Horizontal Non-Uniform 1 15.2 96
Specimen 05 Horizontal Non-Uniform 1 15.2 96
Specimen 06 Horizontal Uniform 0.1 8.4 24
4.3.1 Series 1
Series 1 was the preliminary series conducted to understand the corrosion process,
distribution of corrosion products, crack patterns, and crack effects on corrosion process.
Tests on Specimens 1 and 2 were conducted in horizontal and vertical direction,
respectively, in order to obtain uniform corrosion. However, specimen 2 shows end
effects due to corrosion (i.e., the bar was corroded heavily at the top), so specimen 3 was
repeated to overcome the error of specimen 2. This was accomplished by partially
immersing specimen 3 in NaCl solution.
Specimens 4 and 5 were corroded to achieve non-uniform corrosion along the
length of the reinforcement. The counter electrode in specimen 4 was changed to titanium
mesh of 1" length and was wrapped around the specimen at two different positions to
corrode the reinforcement at that point. Another technique was used for the same
objective and 316L stainless steel plate was used as counter electrode. The specimen was
wrapped with non-porous tape having two open windows to provide free interaction
between the concrete surface and NaCl solution.
63
Tests on Specimens 6 through 9 were conducted to study the effects of crack on
uniform corrosion. The current was the same for all the specimens, but the current time
was increased linearly for each specimen in order to understand the difference in
corrosion products distribution in the non-cracked specimen, the semi-cracked specimen,
and the fully cracked specimen.
4.3.2 Series 2
Series 2 was conducted to study the distribution of corrosion products and the
mechanical behavior of RC specimens for known degree of corrosion. The degree of
corrosion is calculated based on Faraday’s law. The tests were conducted on 16
specimens having two identical specimens for each degree of corrosion; the first
specimen (with non-threaded bar) was used to measure the corrosion parameter such as
the width of corrosion product, crack patterns, and crack width at the steel-concrete
interface and at the concrete surface while the second specimen (with threaded bar) was
used to study the bond strength between the reinforcement and concrete. This was done
for each degree of corrosion. Fig. 4.6 shows difference between non-threaded bars and
threaded bars.
Figure 4.6: Bars for Series 2 (Non-Threaded and Threaded)
64
Specimen Degree of Current Density Total Current Corrosion

Designation Corrosion (%) (mA/cm2) (mA) Duration (hrs)
Corrosion Study Specimens
C-2-000 0 - - -
C-2-001 0.25 0.5 48 18.75
C-2-002 0.50 0.5 48 37.5
C-2-003 1 0.5 48 75
C-2-004 2 0.5 48 150
C-2-005 3 .5 48 225
C-2-006 4 0.5 48 300
C-2-007 5 0.3 28.7 631
C-2-008 6 0.3 28.7 758
Pullout Test Specimens
P-2-000 0 - - -
P-2-001 0.25 0.5 48 18.75
P-2-002 0.50 0.5 48 37.5
P-2-003 1 0.5 48 75
P-2-004 2 0.5 48 150
P-2-005 3 0.5 48 225
P-2-006 4 0.5 48 300
P-2-007 5 0.3 28.7 631
P-2-008 6 0.3 28.7 758
4.3.3 Series 3
Series 3 tests were conducted to study the distribution of corrosion products and
mechanical behavior of RC specimens for known degree of corrosion, and the
methodology was similar to that for series 2. However, the difference between series 2
and 3 was the specimen length and bond length. Series 2 was 12" long with a bond length
of 12", whereas series 3 was 9" long with bond length of 5".
65

Corrosion Study Specimens
C-3-000 0 - - -
C-3-001 0.25 0.825 33 11.5
C-3-002 0.50 0.825 33 23
C-3-003 1 0.825 33 46
C-3-004 2 0.825 33 92
C-3-005 3 0.825 33 138
C-3-006 4 0.825 33 184
C-3-007 5 0.825 33 230
C-3-008 6 0.825 33 276
P-3-000 0 - - -
P-3-001 0.25 0.825 33 11.5
P-3-002 0.50 0.825 33 23
P-3-003 1 0.825 33 46
P-3-004 2 0.825 33 92
P-3-005 3 0.825 33 138
P-3-006 4 0.825 33 184
P-3-008 6 0.825 33 276
4.3.4 Series 4
Series 4 was also conducted to study the mechanical behavior of RC specimens
for known degree of corrosion, and the methodology used was similar to that for series 2
and 3. After the desired degree of corrosion was achieved, the specimens were wrapped
with basalt fiber wrap as shown in Fig. 5.4.a to externally confine the concrete. This was
done because in series 3, all the specimens failed due to splitting of concrete, so
specimens were externally wrapped to achieve pullout failure (i.e. slip of the bar from the
concrete).
66

P-4-000 0 - - -
P-4-001 1 0.825 33 46
P-4-002 2 0.825 33 92
P-4-003 3 0.825 33 138
P-4-004 4 0.825 33 184
P-4-005 5 0.825 33 230
P-4-006 6 0.825 33 276
4.3.5 Series 5
Series 5 was conducted to understand the relationhip between bond strength and
the degree of corrosion. Table 4.8 shows the amount of current and current duration for
each degree of corrosion. The specimen dimensions were different in this series: i.e., the
specimens are cubical rather that cylindrical. This series was also conducted to
understand the effects of concrete cover on corrosion cracking and mechanical behavior.

P-5-000 0 - - -
P-5-001 1 1 45.5 36
P-5-002 2 1 45.5 72
P-5-003 3 1 45.5 108
P-5-004 4 1 45.5 144
P-5-006 6 1 45.5 216
P-5-008 8 1 45.5 288
4.3.6 Series 6
This series was conducted to study the corrosion effects on bond strength. The
cubical specimens were cast with bar #6 and the bond length of the specimens was 4".
67
The specimens were corroded to a pre-defined degree of corrosion and were tested using
a standard pullout test.

P-6-000 0 - - -
P-6-001 1 2 121 36
P-6-002 2 2 121 72
P-6-003 3 2 121 108
P-6-004 4 2 121 144
P-6-006 6 2 121 216
P-6-008 8 2 121 288
P-6-010 10 2 121 360
4.3.7 Series 7
The failure mode in series 6 was by splitting of concrete and also the
reinforcement was completely removed from the concrete due to spalling. To overcome
this, polypropylene fiber as shown in Fig 4.7 was added to concrete in series 7. It was
observed that the failure mode was still the splitting of concrete, but the spalling of
concrete was eliminated.

P-7-000 0 - - -
P-7-001 1 2 121 36
P-7-002 2 2 121 72
P-7-003 3 2 121 108
P-7-004 4 2 121 144
P-7-006 6 2 121 216
P-7-008 8 2 121 288
P-7-010 10 2 121 360
68
Figure 4.7: Polypropylene Fiber
4.3.8 Series 8
Series 8 was also conducted in an attempt to eliminate the spalling of concrete with the
use of basalt fiber (also known as MiniBar) as shown in Fig 4.8. It was observed that
MiniBar eliminated the spalling of concrete due to splitting failure.

P-8-000 0 - - -
P-8-00A 1 2 121 36
P-6-002 2 2 121 72
P-6-003 3 2 121 108
P-6-004 4 2 121 144
P-6-006 6 2 121 216
P-6-008 8 2 121 288
P-6-010 10 2 121 360
69
Figure 4.8: Basalt Fiber (MiniBar)
4.4 Testing Corrosion Effects
After the specimens were corroded, they were tested for either corrosion study
(i.e. measurement of corrosion products width, crack patterns, and crack width) or bond
strength by concentric pullout test (ASTM C234) depending on the series number and
specimen designation as mentioned in Tables 4.4 through 4.11. Certain steps were
followed for preparing the specimens before their respective tests.
70
4.4.1 Corrosion Study
 The specimens were removed from the corrosion cell after achieving the desired
degree of corrosion. Fig. 4.9 shows a series of corrosion cells for inducing
corrosion.
Figure 4.9: Corrosion Cell Setup
 The specimens were cleaned to remove corrosion products on its surface (such as
those shown in Fig 4.10).
Figure 4.10: Corrosion Products on Concrete Surface
 Heat shrinkage tube and the wire connected to reinforcement were removed.
71
 Photographs were taken of all specimens before and after slicing as shown in Fig.
4.11 and Fig. 4.12.
Figure 4.11: Specimen before Slicing (C-3-004, 2%)
Figure 4.12: Specimen after Slicing (C-3-004, 2%)
 Each specimen was sliced using automatic abrasive cutter having a diamond
cutting blade designed for hard-brittle materials, as shown in Fig 4.13. The
specimens were sliced at a low feed rate (<0.3mm/sec). Fig 4.14 shows the sliced
specimens for series 3 (C-3-004, 2%).
72
Figure 4.13: Diamond cut-off Blade used for Slicing Specimens
Figure 4.14: Typical Sliced Specimen for Series 3 (C-3-004, 2%)
 The slices were marked and then subjected to grinding with SiC sandpaper (240,
800, 1200) using a grinding machine as shown in Fig 4.15.
73
Figure 4.15: Grinding Machine
 Crack patterns around the reinforcement were drawn as shown in Fig. 4.16.
Figure 4.16: Crack Pattern around the Reinforcement
 The slices were examined immediately (as can be seen in Fig. 4.17) using a
electronic microscope, shown in Fig 4.18.
74
Figure 4.17: Examined Slice using microscope
Figure 4.18: Microscope used for Corrosion Product Measure
 Corrosion product width of each slice was measured at four to eight different
locations (such as at positions 12, 3, 6, 9 as shown in Fig 4.16); crack width was
measured at the steel-concrete interface and the concrete surface.
75
4.4.2 Pullout Test
 The specimens were removed from the corrosion cell after achieving the desired
degree of corrosion.
 The specimens were cleaned to remove corrosion products on its surface as shown
in Fig. 4.10.
 Heat shrinkage tube and the wire connected to reinforcement were removed.
 Photographs were taken of all specimens before and after pullout test, as shown in
Fig. 4.19.
Figure 4.19: Specimen before and after Pullout Test (P-3-004, 2%)
 The specimen was attached to a standard pullout test machine as shown in Fig.
4.20. Load was applied on the machine at the standard rate of 5000 lb/min until
the specimen failed in one of the failure modes.
76
Figure 4.20: Setup for Pullout Test
 Fig 4.21 shows a specimen before and after splitting failure during pullout test.
Figure 4.21: Specimen before and after Splitting Failure (Series 6, 1% Corrosion Level)
 Compression strength of the cylinder was tested on the same day of the pullout
test in order to determine the strength on the day of test, using a standard
77
compressive testing machine as shown in Fig. 4.22. Typical failure mode of
concrete cylinders is shown in Fig. 4.23.
Figure 4.22: Compressive Strength Testing Machine
Figure 4.23: Compression Test Cylinder Failure Mode
78
CHAPTER V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section provides the comprehensive description of test results obtained from the
corrosion and pullout studies for series 1 through 8. Corrosion studies from test series 1
through 3 provides an understanding of the corrosion process, corrosion products
distribution for different levels of corrosion, and crack patterns. Pullout tests from series
2 through 8 provide an understanding of deterioration of RC members due to corrosion
and show the mechanical properties of corroded RC members. This chapter is divided
into two parts for each series:
1) Corrosion Products Measurement and Crack Widths
2) Pullout Test
The results from series 1 through 3 for corrosion products measurement, series 1
through 8 for crack widths, and series 2 through 8 for pullout tests are included in this
section. The specimens for series 1 through 3 were removed from the corrosion cell once
the desired degree of corrosion was achieved then specimens were sliced and marked as
shown in Figures 4.12 and 4.14 to measure the maximum corrosion product width at each
marked point. These slices were ground to achieve a polished surface in order to make
ready the slices for corrosion study: i.e., to measure corrosion product width, and crack
widths at steel-concrete interface and at the concrete surface using a scanning electron
79
microscope. The pull out strength between reinforcement and concrete was tested for
specimens of series 2 through 8 after corroding them to the desired degree of corrosion.
5.1 Series 1
Series 1 was the preliminary series in order to understand corrosion process. A
total of nine specimens were tested with different conditions, corrosion current, and
current time to determine the effect of counter electrode area on corrosion, corrosion
cracks effects on corrosion product width and specimen direction on the type of corrosion
(i.e., uniform and non-uniform corrosion).
Tables 5.1a – 5.1h and Figures 5.1a – 5.1e explain the corrosion widths, crack
widths at steel-concrete interface and concrete surface of 9 specimens
Table 5.1a: Series 1 Specimen 1 – Corrosion Study
Slice No Slice Length Thickness of Corrosion Products Crack Width

(in) (µm) (mm)
1 3 - - - - - -
2 1 98 212 502 150 0.973 1.09
3 1 85 187 498 246 0.333 0.442
4 1 16 150 663 214 0.641 1.032
5 1 32 139 714 49 0.222 0.380
6 1 37 230 364 145 0.308 0.290
7 4 - - - - - -
In specimen no. 1, slice no. 1 was not properly cut, and so measuring the corrosion width
was very difficult. Accordingly, it was excluded from the results. This specimen was
completely cracked and maximum corrosion width was observed at 6 o’clock (concrete
80
surface inside NaCl solution) for all the slices and the minimum corrosion width was
observed at 12 o’clock (concrete surface opposite to NaCl solution).
Corrosion Products Thickness

800
700
600
2
500
400 3
300 4
200
5
100
0 6
0 3
6
9
12
Corrosion Measurement Location
Figure 5.1a: Thickness of Corrosion Products (Series 1 Specimen 1)
Table 5.1b: Series 1 Specimen 3 – Corrosion Study
Slice Slice Thickness of Corrosion Products Crack width

No. Length (µm) (mm)
(in)
12 1:30 3 4:30 6 7:30 9 10:30 Steel Concrete
1 2.25 61 61 64 80 166 83 69 64 0.156 0.400
2 1.5 89 102 158 181 378 180 160 103 0.164 0.290
3 1.5 44 69 107 164 241 122 109 75 0.283 0.340
4 1.5 50 78 134 242 139 112 153 80 0.530 0.570
5 I.5 32 38 39 40 188 244 37 37 0.161 0.181
6 1.5 44 100 94 142 256 124 102 49 0.376 0.508
7 2.25 - - - - - - - - - -
81
400
300
1
200 2
100 3
4
0
5
6
Figure 5.1b: Thickness of Corrosion Products (Series 1 Specimen 3)
Specimens 2 and 3 were vertical specimens, which were completely immersed in
NaCl solution to achieve uniform corrosion. Specimen 2 was discarded for two reasons,
the first being that it had an end effect (i.e., most of the corrosion occurred at top of the
reinforcement) while second was the specimen were not sliced properly due to a problem
in the blade. To overcome these problems, specimen 3 was not completely immersed in
NaCl solution but 0.5-1" member was above NaCl solution and a new blade was ordered
to cut the specimen properly. It was observed that corrosion was non-uniform around the
reinforcement. The maximum corrosion width was measured where distance between
steel reinforcement and NaCl is minimum (i.e., at 6 o’clock), and minimum corrosion
was measured where distance between NaCl solution and steel reinforcement is
maximum (i.e., at 12 o’clock).
82
Table 5.1c: Series 1 Specimen 4 – Corrosion Study

(in)
12 1:30 3 4:30 6 7:30 9 10:30 Steel Concrete
1 3 4 4 3 4 5 3 4 4 - -
2 1 12 16 18 46 90 12 60 10 0.020 0.086
3 1 7 9 22 115 117 44 10 14 0.025 0.141
4 1 6 8 10 55 70 97 6 10 0.018 0.115
5 1 6 7 10 45 53 18 10 7 0.045 0.112
6 1 6 7 32 125 148 21 8 8 0.022 0.130
7 1 2 15 27 39 92 90 9 3 0.009 0.084
8 1 4 4 18 67 98 53 9 7 0.012 0.039
9 2 - - - - - - - - - -
Table 5.1d: Series 1 Specimen 5 – Corrosion Study

(in)
12 1:30 3 4:30 6 7:30 9 10:30 Steel Concrete
1 3 - - - - - - - - - -
2 1 - - 6 41 143 32 25 - - 0.024
3 1 - 14 51 75 257 75 56 16 0.009 0.119
4 1 34 7 15 49 137 42 20 6 0.012 0.164
5 1 - - - - 3 - - - - -
6 1 - - - 6 7 6 - - - -
7 1 6 17 33 37 113 45 14 9 0.009 -
8 1 5 10 14 74 197 70 56 11 0.025 0.045
9 2 - - - - - - - - - -
83
300
1
2
200
3
4
100 5
6
0 7
1 2 8
3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 5.1c: Thickness of Corrosion Products (Series 1 Specimen 4)

300
1
2
200
3
4
100 5
6
0 7
1 2 8
3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 5.1d: Thickness of Corrosion Products (Series 1 Specimen 5)
84
Specimen 4 and 5 were corroded to achieve non-uniform corrosion along the
length of the reinforcement. It was observed that corrosion is non-uniform both along the
length and around the circumference of the reinforcement. From Fig 5.1c, it can be seen
that slice 1 had uniform corrosion and Fig 5.1d depicts that the corrosion was uniform for
slices 4 and 5 with no crack on concrete surface and at the remaining parts, the corrosion
was maximum at crack (6 o’clock) and minimum away from crack (0 o’clock). Specimen
5 was more effective in achieving non-uniform corrosion compared to specimen 4,
because in specimen 4, NaCl and member were in direct contact throughout the length,
whereas in specimen 5 the solution and member contact was limited at the two windows.
Table 5.1e: Series 1 Specimen 6 – Corrosion Study

(in)
12 1:30 3 4:30 6 7:30 9 10:30 Steel Concrete
1 3 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 4 - -
2 1 4 3 5 4 5 5 3 4 - -
3 1 5 4 4 7 6 4 3 3 - -
4 1 3 2 3 5 5 4 3 2 - -
5 1 2 2 5 7 6 5 4 5 - -
6 1 3 3 4 5 6 4 2 3 - -
7 1 6 5 5 4 5 6 6 5 - -
8 1 7 6 5 7 7 4 5 4 - -
9 2 - - - - - - - - - -
85
Table 5.1f: Series 1 Specimen 7 – Corrosion Study

(in)
12 1:30 3 4:30 6 7:30 9 10:30 Steel Concrete
1 3 No Bar
2 1 6 5 6 4 6 5 3 3 - -
3 1 4 5 5 6 6 6 4 4 - -
4 1 6 5 5 5 6 6 5 5 - -
5 1 5 3 6 5 5 6 4 4 - -
6 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 - -
7 1 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 - -
8 1 5 6 5 5 6 5 4 5 - -
9 2 - - - - - - - - - -
Table 5.1.g: Series 1 Specimen 8 – Corrosion Study

(in)
12 1:30 3 4:30 6 7:30 9 10:30 Steel Concrete
1 3 6 5 9 7 33 8 8 4 - -
2 1 4 5 5 6 7 7 6 5 - -
3 1 5 4 5 7 9 8 7 5 - -
4 1 7 7 8 7 33 7 6 5 - -
5 1 5 6 6 8 8 7 8 7 - -
6 1 7 8 8 31 33 9 8 8 - -
7 1 31 32 31 32 31 32 32 33 - -
8 1 7 8 8 31 31 8 8 7 - -
9 2 - - - - - - - - - -
86
Table 5.1h: Series 1 Specimen 9 – Corrosion Study

(in)
12 1:30 3 4:30 6 7:30 9 10:30 Steel Concrete
1 3 6 6 6 4 5 5 6 5 - -
2 1 7 4 7 7 7 7 5 6 - -
3 1 5 7 8 5 8 12 6 8 - -
4 1 11 10 8 14 20 7 6 9 - -
5 1 12 6 70 57 25 10 9 6 4 12
6 1 9 10 32 91 80 12 9 12 13 55
7 1 7 10 65 88 75 9 5 12 12 60
8 1 10 65 81 95 59 10 6 9 14 73
9 1
8 10 85 105 77 10 6 8 13 68
10 1
- - - - - - - - - -
120
1
100 2
80 3
60 4
40 5
6
20
7
0
1 8
2 3 4 5 6 7 9
8 9
Figure 5.1e: Thickness of Corrosion Products (Series 1 Specimen 9)
87
Specimens 6 through 9 were corroded simultaneously in order to achieve uniform
and non-uniform corrosion. Keeping the current constant, the time period of current
applied was increased linearly: i.e., 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours and 96 hours for
specimen 6, 7, 8 and 9, respectively. It was observed that specimens 6, 7 and 8 were not
cracked and corrosion was uniform with corrosion product thicknesses in the range of 2 –
7, 3 – 7, and 4 – 13 µm, respectively. Specimen 9 was semi-cracked; corrosion was
uniform at un-cracked portion, partially uniform in the transition portion, and non-
uniform in the cracked portion of the specimen, as shown in Fig. 5.1e.
The corrosion products distribution near steel-concrete interface is well
understood through series 1: i.e., maximum corrosion occurs at the crack surface and
minimum at the opposite side. For horizontal specimens, the crack surface was mostly at
6 o’clock (the point where concrete touches the NaCl solution). However, for some
specimens, the maximum corrosion width was not at 6 o’clock but was found at 4:30 or
7:30. This was attributed to the fact that the bar was not exactly at center in some
specimens due to manual error, as was discussed in Chapter 4. This also gives rise to
crack of concrete surface away from 6 o’clock for horizontal specimen. To overcome the
above problem, caps were used for casting molds with holes at center in order to
eliminate the eccentricity error. This procedure was followed for series 2, 3, and 4.
5.2 Series 2
Series 2 was used to formulate the relation between degree of corrosion and
corrosion products distribution. Moreover, bond strength was evaluated for different
degree of corrosion in series 2. Two sets of specimens were corroded to 0.25%, 0.5%,
88
1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5% and 6% degree of corrosion. One specimen from each set was used
for corrosion studies and the other was used for pullout testing. This gives a relation
between degree of corrosion, corrosion products thickness, crack width, and pull out
strength. In series 2, each specimen was 12" long with a diameter of 2". After corrosion,
each specimen was sliced into twelve 1" slices and three of these were selected for
measuring corrosion products thickness and crack widths at the steel-concrete interface
and the concrete surface. The pullout specimens were tested for maximum load and slip
relation using pullout tests.
Table 5.2a and Fig. 5.2a present the corrosion product widths, cracks at steel-
concrete interface and concrete surface of 7 specimens. Table 5.2b and Fig 5.2b show the
relation between degree of corrosion and crack widths at steel-concrete interface and
concrete surface. Table 5.2c and Fig. 5.2c show the relation between bond strength and
Table 5.2a gives the details of slice number for which corrosion measurements
were taken at four different locations. Also, crack widths were measured for these slices.
The slices were selected based on the cut and the visibility of corrosion products. The
graphs given below show the variation of the corrosion products thickness within the
specimen with degree of corrosion for different specimens.
89
Table 5.2a Series 2 – Corrosion Studies

(in) (µm) (mm)
12 3 6 9 Steel Concrete
Specimen C-2-001, 0.25% Degree of Corrosion
2 1 7 7 8 6 - -
6 1 5 7 9 8 - -
8 1 6 5 7 6 - -
2 1 17 18 20 18 - -
5 1 16 17 18 18 - -
8 1 14 16 17 18 - -
Specimen C-2-003, 1% Degree of Corrosion
2 1 23 40 30 45 0.020 0.045
5 1 25 31 55 18 0.014 0.030
7 1 23 42 32 45 0.010 0.027
6 1 18 31 120 48 0.031 0.077
9 1 21 36 55 28 0.029 0.072
10 1 80 34 70 32 0.025 0.080
2 1 30 70 211 66 0.080 0.270
3 1 41 89 187 81 0.077 0.207
10 1 39 63 171 69 0.069 0.172
6 1 46 96 320 130 0.144 0.294
7 1 50 97 323 157 0.180 0.390
9 1 49 125 212 104 0.120 0.270
4 1 83 101 1054 132 0.285 0.530
5 1 103 123 890 143 0.311 0.542
8 1 94 142 922 119 0.306 0.531
3 1 132 193 922 185 0.385 0.579
5 1 142 223 1044 176 0.379 0.590
9 1 111 201 1121 194 0.351 0.632
90

1200
800
2
400
6
0
8
12 3 6 9 12

1200
800
2
400
5
0
8
12 3 6 9
12

1200
800
Series1
400
Series2
0 Series3
1 2 3 4 5
91

1200
800
6
400
9
0 10
12 3 6 9 12

1200
800
6
400
7
0
9
12 3 6 9
12

1200
800
4
400
5
0
8
12 3 6 9 12
92

1200
800
400 3
5
0
12 9
3 6 9 12
Figure 5.2a: Series 2 – Thickness of Corrosion Products for Different Corrosion Level
It is clear from the above graphs that as the degree of corrosion increases, the
corrosion product thickness increases. The concrete cover for 0.25% and 0.50% did not
crack, and corrosion products were uniform throughout the circumference and length of
the reinforcement. However, the concrete cover cracked for corrosion level of 1% or
above and corrosion product width were non-uniform. The maximum corrosion width
was measured where distance between steel reinforcement and NaCl is minimum (i.e., at
6 o’clock) and minimum corrosion product width was measured where distance between
NaCl solution and steel reinforcement is maximum (i.e., at 12 o’clock). Also, all the
slices for each degree of corrosion followed the same trend. The difference in the
corrosion products thickness between different location increases with the increase in
93
Table 5.2b Series 2 – Crack Width Measurements
Degree of Corrosion Max Crack Widths (× 10-3 mm)

(%) Steel-Concrete Interface Concrete Surface
0 0 0
0.25 2 0
0.50 5 0
1 20 45
2 31 80
3 80 270
4 180 390
5 311 541
6 485 632
Degree of Corrosion (%) vs Max. Crack Widths (mm)

0.7
0.6
Max. Crack Widths (mm)
0.5
0.4
Steel-Concrete
0.3 Interface
Concrete Surface
0.2
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Degree of Corrosion (%)
Figure 5.2b: Degree of Corrosion versus Maximum Crack Widths (Series 2)
The corrosion products occupy a higher volume than the original steel and thus
exert the tensile pressure on the surrounding concrete. Concrete cover cracks when the
tensile pressure exceeds the tensile strength of the concrete. However, in the initial stage
of corrosion, the cracks at steel-concrete interface is greater than or equal to concrete
94
surface cracking; as the corrosion level increases, the condition is reversed (i.e., the crack
width at concrete surface is greater than the crack width at steel-concrete interface).
In series 2, for each level of corrosion, two specimens were corroded (one for
corrosion measurement studies and the other for pullout testing). The results of corrosion
measurement studies are already discussed, and the following table (Table 5.2c) gives the
detail on the maximum load carried by the specimen before failure in the standard pullout
test.
Table 5.2c: Series 2 – Degree of Corrosion versus Bond Strength
Degree of Corrosion Load Bond Strength Actual Bond Strength

(%) (lb) (psi) (psi)
0 6000 424.2 424.2
0.25 6200 438.6 424.2
0.50 5740 406.0 424.2
1 5686 402.2 424.2
2 6028 426.4 424.2
3 5180 366.4 366.41
4 4329 306.2 306.2
5 4054 286.8 286.8
6 3676 260.0 260.0
Degree of Corrosion (%) vs Bond Strength (psi)

500.0
400.0
Bond Strength (psi)
300.0
200.0
Series 2
100.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 5.2c: Series 2 - Degree of Corrosion versus Bond Strength

95
The bond strength of the specimens with different corrosion levels were tested
using standard pullout testing. The specimen for 0 - 2% showed steel failure in the
extruded portion threaded to 5/16". Hence, the strength is under represented as the failure
was not by bond failure between steel and reinforcement. However, the bond strength for
corrosion level of 3% and higher was lower than that for the 2% specimen. Moreover, the
failure mode was the splitting of the surrounding concrete, which is a bond failure
between steel and concrete.
As the corrosion level increased, the bond strength between reinforcement and
concrete decreased for this series. However, the actual behavior is not defined by this
series as the failure was premature at the threaded portion and not by pull out.
In order to overcome this problem, the bond length is decreased in series 3 to
achieve a bond failure (i.e., to induce either pullout failure or splitting failure).
5.3 Series 3
Series 3 was also used to formulate the relation between degree of corrosion and
corrosion product distribution. Moreover, bond strength is evaluated for different degree
of corrosion in series 3. Two specimens were corroded to 0.25%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%,
5% and 6% degrees of corrosion. One was used for corrosion studies and the other was
used for pullout testing. This gives a relation between the degree of corrosion, corrosion
product thickness, crack width, and bond strength. In series 3, each specimen was 9" long
with a diameter of 2" and the bond length was 5". After the corrosion, the specimens
from corrosion studies were sliced into five 1" slices; three of these slices were selected
randomly and were measured for corrosion product thickness and crack widths at steel-
96
concrete interface and concrete surface. The pullout specimens were tested for maximum
load and slip using pullout tests.
Table 5.3a Series 3 – Corrosion Studies

(in) (µm) (mm)
12 3 6 9 Steel Concrete
1 1 12 13 15 11 - -
3 1 10 12 15 13 - -
4 1 11 12 14 14 - -
1 1 21 22 24 20 - -
2 1 19 18 23 17 - -
4 1 19 21 21 20 - -
1 1 24 34 44 23 0.018 0.028
4 1 27 34 61 37 0.024 0.032
5 1 22 28 55 30 0.022 0.029
3 1 17 53 84 52 0.026 0.064
4 1 19 58 88 58 0.034 0.081
5 1 17 55 86 50 0.027 0.068
1 1 20 77 135 65 0.055 0.095
2 1 24 65 142 46 0.044 0.101
3 1 19 57 125 49 0.045 0.085
2 1 34 116 360 93 0.079 0.189
3 1 31 111 320 78 0.068 0.138
4 1 22 98 281 69 0.070 0.145
2 1 77 121 893 147 0.147 0.298
3 1 81 132 855 121 0.134 0.261
4 1 69 154 911 142 0.128 0.275
1 1 108 185 995 190 0.179 0.394
2 1 88 191 1011 175 0.226 0.425
3 1 91 177 984 181 0.186 0.367
97
Tables 5.3a – 5.3b and Figures 5.3a - 5.3b explain the corrosion product widths,
cracks at steel-concrete interface and concrete surface of seven specimens; Table 5.3c
and Fig. 5.3c explain the relationship between bond strength and degree of corrosion.
The above table gives the details of corrosion measurements taken at four
different locations and crack widths measured for each slice of specimen at steel-concrete
interface and concrete surface. The graphs shown in Fig. 5.3a depict the variation in
corrosion product thickness along the length and circumference of the reinforcement
within the specimen and also with the degree of corrosion for different specimens.

400
300 1
200 2
100 3
4
0
5
12 3 6 9 12
98

400
300 1
200 2
100 3
0 4
12 3 5
6 9 12

400
300 1
200 2
100 3
0
4
1 2 3 4 5
5

400
300 1
200 2
100 3
0 4
12 3 5
6 9 12
99

400
300 1
200 2
100 3
0 4
12 3 5
6 9 12

400
300
1
200
100 2
0 3
12 3 4
6 9 12
Figure 5.3a: Thickness of Corrosion Products for Different Corrosion Level (Series 3)
It is clear from the above graphs that as the degree of corrosion increases, the
corrosion product thickness increases. The concrete cover for 0.25% and 0.50% did not
crack and corrosion products were uniform throughout the circumference and length of
the reinforcement. However, for corrosion level of 1% or above, the concrete cover was
cracked and corrosion product width was non-uniform for those specimens. The
maximum corrosion width was measured at 6 o’clock (the minimum distance between the
100
reinforcement and NaCl), and minimum corrosion product width was measured at 12
o’clock (the maximum distance between NaCl solution and steel reinforcement). Also, all
the slices for each degree of corrosion followed the same trend. The difference in the
corrosion product thickness between different location increases with increase in degree
of corrosion.
Table 5.3b: Crack Width Measurements:
Degree of Corrosion Max Crack Widths (x 10-3 mm)

(%) Steel-Concrete Interface Concrete Surface
0 0 0
0.25 0 0
0.50 0 0
1 24 45
2 34 81
3 55 101
4 79 181

0.25
0.2
0.15
Steel-Concrete
0.1 Interface
Concrete Surface
0.05
0
0 1 2 3 4
Figure 5.3b: Degree of Corrosion versus Maximum Crack Widths (Series 3)
101
During the initial stage of corrosion, the crack widths at steel-concrete interface
are greater than or equal to the widths of concrete surface cracks. As the corrosion level
increases, the condition is reversed: the crack width at concrete surface is greater than the
crack width at steel-concrete interface.
The results and discussion for the corrosion measurements are outlined in above
section. The results of the maximum load carried by the specimen before failure for each
degree of corrosion in standard pullout test is given in Table 5.3c.
Table 5.3.c: Series 3 – Degree of Corrosion versus Bond Strength:
Degree of Corrosion Max. Load Bond Strength

(%) (lb) (psi)
0 3960 672.3
0.25 4050 687.5
0.50 4200 713.0
1 4665 792.0
2 5095 865.0
3 4140 702.8
4 3420 580.6
6 3210 544.9

1000.0
Bond Strength (psi)
800.0
600.0
400.0
Series 3
200.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 5.3c: Degree of Corrosion versus Bond Strength (Series 3)
102
The bond length in series 3 was reduced to 5" to overcome the problem
encountered in series 2 related to splitting failure mode. It was observed that the failure
mode during pullout tests for specimens in Series 3 was splitting of concrete cover, as
shown in Fig 5.3d and Fig. 5.3e. Moreover, as corrosion level increases, the load carrying
capacity of specimen increases marginally up to approximate corrosion level of 2%; the
load capacity decreases with further increase in corrosion level.
Figure 5.3d: Types of Splitting failure
103
Figure 5.3e: Specimens after Pullout Test (Series 3)
The increase in the bond strength at initial stage of corrosion was due to one of
the following two reasons: either 1) the higher volume corrosion product exerts the
mechanical pressure on the surrounding concrete, which increases mechanical
interlocking or 2) the corrosion product occupies the micro-voids in the concrete, which
improves the confinement. Finally, the roughness of bar increased due to the formation of
corrosion products, thereby increasing the friction between reinforcement and the
surrounding concrete.
The increase in the bond strength due to corrosion is reversed once the corrosion
level reaches a critical value, which is about 2% in this case. Then the bond strength
decreases rapidly with a corresponding increase in the corrosion level. The decrease in
the bond strength due to corrosion was due to one of the following reasons: either 1) the
104
expansive corrosion products exert mechanical pressure on the surrounding concrete,
reducing mechanical interlocking or 2) the crack in the concrete cover reduces the
confinement. Moreover, the slippery corrosion products will result in a loss of friction
between the reinforcement and the surrounding concrete.
The slip in the reinforcement was recorded during pullout test using a standard
dial gauge, as the load is applied. Results in Table 5.3d show the maximum load and
maximum slip for different degrees of corrosion.
Series 5.3d: Series 3 – Pullout Test Results:
Degree of Corrosion Max. Load Max. Slip Type of Failure

(%) (lb) (in)
0 3960 0.167 Splitting Failure
0.25 4053* 0.221** Splitting Failure
0.50 4200 0.114 Splitting Failure
*Average of 2 tests for 0.25% corrosion level
** Maximum of 2 test value for 0.25% corrosion level, refer Appendix A, Table 12 and
Table 13.
For series 3, the maximum slip occurred at maximum load as shown in Table
5.3d, above. Also the failure was brittle for all the specimens once the maximum load
was reached. This is a major problem, as no warning is provided that may result in
casualties in real structures. In order to eliminate the above problem, series 4 was cast
with the same dimensions as series 3; however, after corroding the specimens for
different degrees of corrosion, the specimens were confined using basalt wrap. It was
assumed that the spalling of concrete will be eliminated and pullout of reinforcement
105
from the surrounding concrete or the slip of the reinforcement to a critical value will be
the failure mode.
5.4 Series 4
Series 4 was conducted to formulate a relationship between the degree of
corrosion and bond strength of externally confined concrete. As in series 3, series 4 has
each specimen 9" in length with a diameter of 2" containing bar #3 embedded at center
with bond length of 5". The only difference between series 3 and series 4 was that in
series 4, the specimens were confined using basalt wrap as shown in Fig 5.4a once the
desired degree of corrosion was achieved. The corrosion measures study was not carried
out for series 4, as they were identical to series 3. The pullout specimens were tested for
maximum load and slip using standard pullout test.
Figure 5.4a: Basalt Wrap for Series 4
The result of the maximum load carried by specimen before failure for each
degree of corrosion in standard pullout test is presented in Table 5.4a. The failure mode
for the specimens was either yielding of reinforcement at threaded portion or breaking of
106
reinforcement at the same point as in series 2 (as shown in Fig. 5.4b and Fig 5.4c). Thus,
the external confinement of specimens helps in carrying greater tensile force than
compared to non-wrapped specimen (as in series 3). However, the tensile strength of
threaded portion was smaller than the bond force (either splitting failure or pullout
failure). This series was unable to generate any relation between degree of corrosion and
bond strength.
Table 5.4a: Series 4 – Degree of Corrosion versus Bond Strength:
Degree of Corrosion Max. Load Bond Strength

(%) (lb) (psi)
0 6070 1138
1 6120 1039
2 5810 987
3 5740 975
4 5950 1010
5 5880 999
6 6020 1022
Figure 5.4b: Specimen after Pullout Test (Series 4)
107
Figure 5.4c: Yielding of Threaded Portion (Series 4)
5.5 Series 5
Series 5 was the first cube series with dimension 6" × 6" × 6" and bar size #3. The
bond length was 6" for all specimens. The specimens were corroded to 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%,
6% and 8% corrosion levels. After corroding the specimens to the desired degree of
corrosion, the specimens were removed from corrosion cell and cleaned of any corrosion
products on the concrete surface. The specimens were tested in pullout, and it was
observed that the specimens were again experiencing failure at threaded portion, as in
series 2 and 4, where the threaded portion was yielding and finally breaking on further
loading, as in the case of 1% and 2% shown in Fig 5.5a. To overcome this problem,
threaded portions were removed and the original reinforcement of bar size #3 was welded
to #6 bar size, as shown in Fig 5.5a.
However, it was observed that the welding of #6 bars to the reinforcement of the
specimen did not help in achieving any bond failure mode. The failure mode was shifted
to yielding and breaking of #3 bars as shown in Fig 5.5b. Table 5.5a gives the results of
108
pullout testing for Series 5. Series 5 was also not able to generate a proper relation
between bond strength and degree of corrosion. The relation between degree of corrosion
and crack widths are shown in Table 5.5b and Fig 5.5b.
Table: 5.5a: Pullout test Result
Degree of Corrosion Max. Load Failure Mode

(%) (lb)
0 11840 Breaking of #3 Bar
1 6150 Yielding of Threaded portion
2 5940 Yielding of Threaded portion
3 11660 Yielding of #3 Bar
Figure 5.5a: Specimen after Pullout Test (Series 5)
Thus, a new series of specimens was made with bar size #6 to overcome the type
of failure mentioned above, the yielding of non-embedded reinforcement.
5.6 Series 6:
Cube specimens with 6" × 6" × 6" and bar size #6 embedded at center with bond
length of 4" were used for series 6. The effective cover was increased to 3" compare to 1"
109
of series 2 through 4 to overcome the problem of sudden splitting of concrete cover as in
series 2 through 3. The bar size was increased to #6 from #3 to overcome the yielding
failure at threaded portion as in series 2, 4 or yielding of bar as in series 5. Also,
threading was not done because a gripper for bar size of #6 or above was available, as
shown in Fig 5.6b. The relationship between degree of corrosion and crack widths for
cube specimen with bar size #6 is given in Table 5.6a and Fig. 5.6a.
Table 5.6a: Crack Width Measurements:
Degree of Corrosion Crack Widths at Concrete Surface

(%) in – (mm)
0 No Crack
1 No Crack
2 No Crack
3 No Crack
4 0.004 – (0.106)
6 0.03 – (0.762)
8 0.04 – (1.016)
Degree of Corrosion (%) vs Max. Crack Widths (in)

0.05
Max. Crack Widths (in)
0.04
Concrete Surface
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 2 4 6 8
Figure 5.6b: Degree of Corrosion versus Crack Width (Series 6)
110
Figure 5.6b: Grips for Reinforcement
For series 6, the concrete surface was not cracked up to 3% corrosion level; above that
level, the crack widths at concrete surface increased with the corresponding increase in
the degree of corrosion. Fig 5.6c shows the crack width for corrosion level of 6%.
Figure 5.6c: Typical Crack Width Measurement
111
Table 5.6b and Fig. 5.6d explain the relation between degree of corrosion and
bond strength and Fig 5.6e and Fig 5.6f shows the specimen before and after pullout test,
respectively.
Table 5.6b: Pullout Test Results
Degree of Max. Load Bond Strength Max. Slip Failure Mode

Corrosion (%) (lb) (psi) (in)
0 12766 1355 0.1305
1 18140 1925 0.4015
2 14473 1536 0.2640
3 8192 869 0.4155 Splitting
4 5454 579 0.1935 Failure
6 3853 409 0.3400
8 2016 214 0.3500
10 1859 197 0.3800
Degree of Corrosion vs Bond Strrength

2500
2000
Bond Strength (psi)
1500
1000 Series 6
500
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 5.6d: Degree of Corrosion versus Bond Strength (Series 6)
112
The bond capacity increased with an increase in corrosion level up to 1%; above
that, any increase in corrosion level rapidly reduced the bond strength of the specimens.
However, the bond strength for the 2% corrosion level is more than the bond strength for
non-corroded bar specimen.
The increase in the bond strength at initial stage of corrosion was due to one of
the following reasons: 1) the corrosion product exerts the mechanical pressure on the
surrounding concrete due to its higher volume compared to original steel, which increases
mechanical interlocking; 2) the corrosion product occupies the micro-voids in the
concrete, which improves the confinement; and/or 3) the roughness of bar increased due
to the corrosion products, thereby increasing the friction between reinforcement and the
surrounding concrete.
The increase in the bond strength due to corrosion was reversed once the
corrosion level reached a critical value, which in this series was 2%. Above this level, the
bond strength decreased rapidly with an increase in the corrosion level. The decrease in
the bond strength due to corrosion was due to one of the following reasons: 1) the
expansive corrosion products exerts huge mechanical pressure on the surrounding
concrete, reducing mechanical interlocking; or 2) reduction in the confinement due to
corrosion cracks in the concrete cover. Moreover, the slippery corrosion products results
in reduction of friction in reinforcement from the surrounding concrete.
113
Figure 5.6e: Specimens before Pullout Test (Series 6)
Figure 5.6f: Reinforcing Bars after Pullout Test (Series 6)
The pullout test also recorded the slip of the reinforcement during pullout test as
the load was applied. Results in Table 5.6b show the maximum load and maximum slip
for different degrees of corrosion.
The maximum slip for specimens in series 6 did not occur at maximum load, as in
series 3. But the bar slips initially at maximum load and continues to slip while the load is
reduced or until the concrete cover completely falls. This type of slip pattern is necessary
in the structures as this gives a warning on imminent failure of the structure. However,
the spalling of concrete needs to be eliminated, as it might result in causalities or in
damage to property.
114
5.7 Series 7
Cube specimens with 6” × 6” × 6” and bar size #6 embedded at center with bond
length of 4” were used for series 7. The difference between series 6 and 7 was that series
6 was cast with normal concrete, whereas series 7 was cast with concrete containing
polypropylene fiber. It was assumed that the addition of polypropylene fiber will help in
reducing the crack widths, spalling of concrete, increasing the bond strength and finally
reducing the effect of corrosion on bond strength.
Table: 5.7a: Crack Width Measurements:
Degree of Corrosion Crack Widths

(%) in – (mm)
1 No Crack
2 No Crack
3 No Crack
4 No Crack
5 0.01 – (0.254)
6 0.025 – (0.635)
8 0.035 – (0.889)

0.04
0.03
0.02
Concrete Surface
0.01
0
0 2 4 6 8
Figure 5.7a: Degree of Corrosion versus Maximum Crack Widths (Series 7)
115
Relation between degree of corrosion and crack widths for cubic specimens with
#6 bar size is given in Table 5.7a and Fig. 5.7a.
For series 7, the concrete surface was not cracked up to 4% corrosion level and
then the crack widths at concrete surface increased with the corresponding increase in the
degree of corrosion. Use of polypropylene fiber in concrete mix helped in minimizing
crack width.
For series 6 (without polypropylene fiber), the initial crack was observed for 4%
corrosion level, whereas for series 7, the initial crack was observed at 5% corrosion level.
Also, crack width for series 6 at the 6% and 8% corrosion level was 0.03” and 0.04”,
respectively; whereas for series 7, it was 0.025” and 0.035”.
Table 5.7b and Fig. 5.7b give the relation between the degree of corrosion and the
bond strength, and Fig 5.8c and Fig 5.7d show the specimen before and after pullout test.
Table 5.7b: Pullout Test Results:
Degree of Max. Load Bond Strength Max. Slip Failure Mode

Corrosion (%) (lb) (psi) (in)
0 13650 1448 0.9535 Splitting Failure
1 14150 1501 0.630 without Spalling
2 16075 1705 0.4435 for Degree of
3 15100 1602 0.575 Corrosion
4 12950 1374 0.497
5 8950 949 0.444
6 7475 793 0.551
8 8350 886 0.466
116
2000
1600
Bond Strength (psi)
1200
800 Series 7
400
0
0 2 4 6 8
Figure 5.7b: Degree of Corrosion versus Bond Strength (Series 7)
The bond capacity increased with an increase in corrosion level up to 3%; above
that, any increase in corrosion level decreased the bond strength. However, for 6% and
8% corrosion levels, the decrease in bond strength is less than 50% of the original
(without corrosion) bond strength whereas for series 6 it was 70% - 90%. Thus, the use of
polypropylene fiber in concrete mix also helped in improvement of bond strength.
The fiber in concrete carries the tensile force caused as a result of bearing force
and friction force acting on the bar during the pullout test. When fibers were not used in
concrete, the tensile force was carried by concrete; but as the confinement was reduced or
lost due to large corrosion cracks, the concrete was not able to resist tensile load, causing
splitting at very small loads.
117
Figure 5.7c: Specimens before Pullout Test (Series 7)
Figure 5.7d: Specimens after Pullout Test (Series 7)
5.8 Series 8
Cube specimens with 6" × 6" × 6" and bar size #6 embedded at center with bond
length of 4" were used for series 8. The difference between series 6, 7 and 8 was that
series 6 was cast with normal concrete, series 7 was casted with polypropylene fiber
concrete and series 8 was casted with MiniBar (basalt fiber) concrete. It was assumed that
addition of basalt fiber will help in reducing the crack widths and reducing the spalling of
118
concrete, increasing the bond strength and finally reducing the effect of corrosion on
bond strength.
Relation between the degree of corrosion and crack widths for cube specimen with bar
size #6 is given in Table 5.8a and Fig. 5.8a.
Table 5.8a: Crack Width Measurements:
Degree of Corrosion Crack Widths

(%) in – (mm)
1 No Crack
2 No Crack
3 No Crack
4 No Crack
5 0.01 – (0.254)
6 0.02 – (0.508)
8 0.03 – (0.762)

0.04
0.03
0.02
Concrete Surface
0.01
0
0 2 4 6 8
Figure 5.8a: Degree of Corrosion versus Crack Widths (Series 8)
119
For series 8, the concrete surface was not cracked up to 4% corrosion level and
then the crack widths at concrete surface increased with the corresponding increase in the
degree of corrosion. Use of basalt fiber in concrete mix helped in minimizing crack
width.
For series 6 (without any fiber) initial crack was observed for 4% corrosion level,
whereas for series 7 and 8 the initial crack was observed at 5% corrosion level. Also, the
crack width for 6% and 8% corrosion levels for series 6 it was 0.03" and 0.04"; for series
7 it was 0.025" and 0.035"; and for series 8 it was 0.02 and 0.03. Thus, the concrete
mixed with Minibar gave the best results in protecting the corrosion crack width.
Table 5.8b and Fig. 5.8b show the relation between the degree of corrosion and
the bond strength, and Fig. 5.8.c and Fig. 5.8d show the specimen before and after pullout
test.
Table 5.8b: Series 8 - Pullout Test Results
Degree of Max. Load Bond Strength Max. Slip Failure Mdoe

Corrosion (lb) (psi) (in)
(%)
0 15771 1673 1.010
2 20499 2175 0.561 Splitting Failure
without Spalling
3 20821 2209 0.7445
for Degree of
4 21641 2296 0.432 Corrosion
5 16011 1699 0.395
6 15184 1611 0.4485
8 13254 1406 0.5120
120
Degree of Corroion (%) vs Bond Strength (psi)
2500
2000
Bond Strength (psi)
1500
1000 Series 8
500
0
0 2 4 6 8
Figure 5.6b: Degree of Corrosion versus Bond Strength (Series 8)
The bond capacity increased with an increase in corrosion level up to 3.5%; above
that, any increase in corrosion level decreased the bond strength. For 6% and 8%
corrosion levels, the decrease in bond strength is less than 20% of original bond strength
which is without corrosion, whereas for series 6 it was 70% - 90%, and for series 7 it was
about 50%. Thus, use of basalt fiber in concrete mix also helped in the improving the
bond strength.
The fibers mixed in the concrete carry the tensile force caused as a result of the
bearing force and friction force acting on the bar during the pullout test. When fibers
were not used in the concrete, the tensile force was carried entirely by the concrete.
However, as the confinement was reduced or lost due to large corrosion cracks, the
concrete was unable to resist the tensile load and resulting in splitting at very small loads.
121
Figure 5.8c: Specimens before Pullout Test (Series 8)
Figure 5.8d: Specimens after Pullout Test (Series 8)
5.9 Crack Width Comparison
5.9.1 Comparison between Series 2 and Series 3
The crack width increases with the increase in corrosion level at both steel-
concrete interface and concrete surface for both series 2 and 3 as shown in Fig. 5.9.a and
Fig. 5.9.b. The crack width at both steel-concrete interface and concrete surface for series
2 was higher than series 3 as shown in Fig. 5.9.c and Fig. 5.9.d. For example, for 4%
corrosion level the crack width for series 2 and series 3 was 0.390 mm (0.0154") and
0.189 mm (0.0074"), respectively.
122
0.7
Max. Crack Widths (mm) 0.6
0.5
0.4
Steel-Concrete
0.3 Interface
0.2 Concrete Surface
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 5.9a: Series 2 – Crack Width versus Degree of Corrosion

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Steel-Concrete
0.3 Interface
0.2 Concrete Surface
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 5.9b: Series 3 – Crack Width versus Degree of Corrosion
123
Degree of Corrosion (%) vs Crack Width (mm)
0.7
0.6
0.5
Crack Width(mm)
0.4
0.3 Series 2
Series 3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.25 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 5.9c: Crack Width at Steel-Concrete Interface
Degree of Corrosion (%) vs Crack Width (mm)

0.7
0.6
Crack Width (mm)
0.5
0.4
0.3 Series 2
Series 3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.25 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 5.9d: Crack Widths at Concrete Surface
124
The concrete cover for both the series was 0.8125". The specimen and embedded
length were 12" for series 2, whereas for series 3 the specimen length was 9" and the
embedded length was 5". Thus, the ratio of specimen length to embedded length for
series 2 was 1, whereas for series 3 it was 1.8. The above-mentioned ratio was one of the
reasons for the lower crack width observed in series 3. This can be further explained in
detail using the concept described in section 3.2.7 (Crack Model). After corrosion
initiation phase, there is a small period of free expansion as shown in Fig. 3.9; for series
2, this period is small, as a large quantity of corrosion products is available per unit
length of specimen compared to series 3. Also, a whole specimen is cracked in series 2
for low level corrosion (1%), and the crack width was fairly uniform throughout the
length of the specimen for a given corrosion level. The crack width (uniformly) increases
as the corrosion level increases throughout the length of the specimen. In series 3, only an
embedded portion of the specimen was cracked at 1% corrosion level, and the remaining
portion was semi-cracked. Also, as corrosion percentage increases, the crack width
increases for embedded portion, wheras the non-embedded portion was still in free-
expansion phase. Moreover, the tensile strength of non-embedded portion was greater
than the tensile pressure generated by corrosion products, which not only resisted the
cracking of non-embedded portion but also resisted the widening of cracks in the
embedded portion.
5.9.2 Comparison between Series 6, Series 7 and Series 8
The crack width at the concrete surface for plain concrete and concrete with
polypropylene fiber or MiniBar increases with an increase in the corrosion level, as can
125
be seen in Figure 5.9e. The crack width for plain concrete was more than the crack width
for polypropylene fiber concrete, which in turn was more than the crack width for
MiniBar concrete. The crack width is a function of tensile strength of concrete, the ability
of the concrete to resist the internal tensile pressure caused by expansive corrosion
products. Plain concrete is weak in tension whereas fibers act as reinforcements, which
can carry high tensile pressure. This was the reason of low crack width in concrete with
fibers compared to plain concrete. Also, MiniBar concrete was able to resist more tensile
pressure compared to polypropylene fiber concrete. Results show for 6% corrosion level
crack width for polypropylene fiber concrete was 0.025", whereas for MiniBar concrete it
was 0.02".

0.05
0.04
0.03 Plain Concrete
Polypropylene Fiber
0.02
Concrete
MiniBar Concrete
0.01
0
0 2 4 6 8
Figure 5.9e: Crack Widths – Series 6, 7 and 8
126
5.10 Comparison of Bond Strength Results:
5.10.1 Comparison between Series 2 and Series 3:

1000.0
800.0
Bond Strength (psi)
600.0
400.0 Series 2
Series 3
200.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 5.10a: Series 2 and Series 3 – Bond Strength Results
Bond strength results for series 2 and series 3 are presented in Figure 5.10a. In
series 2, up to 2% corrosion level, the failure mode was yielding of the steel at the
threaded portion, while for higher corrosion levels, the failure mode was splitting of
concrete. Thus, the maximum load recorded up to 2% corrosion level was actally
measuring the yielding strength of threaded portion but not the bond strength. This
implies that the actual bond strength was higher than yielding strength of threaded
portion. The bond failure for corrosion levels of more than 2% was splitting of concrete,
and the bond strength decreases with an increase in corrosion level. The reduction in
bond strength for 4% corrosion level was 30%; for 6% corrosion level, the reduction was
127
40%. However, the actual bond strength was higher for non-corroded reinforcement
compared to the recorded maximum load. Thus, reduction in the bond strength was more
than 30% and 40% for corrosion level of 4% and 6%, respectively. The reduction in the
bond strength is due to following reasons: 1) the concrete cover crack reduces the
confinement effect of the concrete resulting in reduced bond strength; 2) the corrosion
products are slippery in nature, thereby reducing the friction between reinforcement and
concrete; and 3) the corrosion products reduce the cross-sectional area and rib height,
leading to loss of mechanical interlocking. Thus, reduction of confinement and
mechanical interlocking or increase in friction, with an increase in corrosion level
reduces the bond strength of the RC members.
In series 3, the failure mode was bond failure by splitting of concrete for all
corrosion levels. The bond strength increased initially with an increase in corrosion level
up to 2%; above that, bond strength decreases with any further increase in corrosion
level. The increase in the bond strength is due to following reasons: 1) the low level
corrosion increases the friction between reinforcement and concrete, and expansive
corrosion products exerts the tensile pressure, which enhances the mechanical
interlocking; and 2) the corrosion product fills the voids in the concrete, increasing the
confinement effect. After 2% corrosion level, the bond strength reduces with an increase
in corrosion level, and the causes of this reduction have already been explained.
The bond strength for series 3 specimens was more than the bond strength of
series 2 specimens for all the corrosion level. As mentioned in Section 5.9 (crack
comparison), the specimen length to embedded length ratio for series 2 and series 3 was 1
and 1.8, respectively. Also, the crack width for series 2 was higher than series 3 for a
128
particular corrosion level. This higher crack width resulted in more reduction in
confinement effect, which resulted in low bond strength. Furthermore, the tensile
carrying capacity of un-cracked portion in series 3 specimen was higher than completely
cracked specimens of series 2.
The bond strength of series 6, 7 and 8 follows the same trend as series 2 and 3:
bond strength first increases with increase in degree of corrosion up to a critical
percentage, and then it decreases with any further increase in corrosion level. However,
the critical percentage varies, as new fiber materials were introduced to modify the bond
strength behavior of corroded RC members. Similar to series 2 and 3, the critical
percentage for series 6 (specimen casted with plain concrete) was 2%. It was assumed
that fibers increase the bond strength of the corroded RC members. The results show that
the assumption was correct and that addition of fibers (polypropylene fiber or MiniBar)
not only increased the bond strength of corroded RC members but also shifted the critical
percentage to higher value.
The shift in the critical percentage to a higher value is a positive sign in terms of
structural service life as shown in Fig. 5.10b. The decrease in capacity of RC member
which would happen at 2% corrosion level when plain concrete is used had shifted to
3.5% for polypropylene fiber concrete and 4.5% for MiniBar concrete. Thus, the service
life of the corroded structure is more in case of fiber induced concrete compared to plain
concrete.
129
2500
2000
Bond Strength (psi)
1500 Plain Concrete
Polypropylene Fiber
1000 Concrete
MiniBar Concrete
500
0
0 2 4 6 8
Figure 5.10b: Series 6, Series 7 and Series 8 – Bond Strength Results
Also, with the addition of polypropylene fibers or Minibar in the concrete, the
decrease in bond strength for corroded RC members was reduced. The reason for better
bond strength along with the increase in critical percentage is due to following reasons: 1)
the fibers resist the tensile load caused during the pullout tests, which stops the splitting
of concrete; 2) the fiber reduces the corrosion cracks, so the confinement effect was more
compared to plain concrete corroded specimens; and 3) fiber fills the micro-voids of the
specimens, increasing both confinement effect and mechanical interlocking.
130
5.11 Load-Slip Relation
The load-slip relation is shown in Figures 5.11a through 5.11d for cube series 6, 7
and 8. The graph is drawn with load on Y-axis and slip on X-axis. The graphs represent
an approximately linear relationship between load and slip. It was observed that for low-
to mid-level corrosion, no slip was observed up to maximum load, and specimens failed
at the maximum load with an initial slip of about 0.03" to 0.05" for all specimens of
series 6 and series 7, and initial slip of 0.01" for all specimens of series 8. The load was
measured up to the slip of 0.1" and also the maximum slip was recorded for all the
specimens. Results are shown in a tabular form in Appendix A.
20000
16000
0%
1%
12000
Load (lb)
2%
3%
8000
4%
6%
4000
8%
10%
0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125
Free End Slip (in)
Figure 5.11a: Load-Slip Curve for Series 6
131
20000
16000
0%
1%
12000
Load (lb)
2%
3%
8000
4%
5%
4000
6%
8%
0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125
Free End Slip (in)
Figure 5.11b: Load-Slip Curve for Series 7
24000
20000
16000 0%
2%
Load (lb)
12000 3%
4%
8000 5%
6%
4000 8%
0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125
Free End Slip (in)
Figure 5.11c: Load-Slip Curve for Series 8
132
For Non-Corroded Specimen
24000
20000
16000 Plain Concrete

Load (lb)
12000
Polypropylene
Fiber Concrete
8000
MiniBar
Concrete
4000
0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125
Free End Slip (in)
2% Corrosion Level
24000
20000
16000
Plain Concrete
Load (lb)
12000
Polypropylene
8000 Fiber Concrete
MiniBar
4000 Concrete
0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125
Free End Slip (in)
133
4% Corrosion Level
24000
20000
16000
Plain Concrete
Load (lb)
12000 Polypropylene
Fiber Concrete
8000 MiniBar
Concrete
4000
0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125
Free End Slip (in)
6% Corrosion Level
24000
20000
16000
Plain Concrete
Load (lb)
12000 Polypropylene
Fiber Concrete
8000 MiniBar
Concrete
4000
0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125
Free End Slip (in)
134
8% Corrosion Level
24000
20000
16000
Plain Concrete
Load (lb)
12000
Polypropylene
Fiber Concrete
8000 MiniBar
Concrete
4000
0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125
Free End Slip (in)
Figure 5.11d: Comparison of Load-Slip Curve for Series 6, 7 and 8
5.12 Comparison of Bond Strength determined by Other Authors
This section compares individually the results obtained from series 6 in this
research effort and those obtained in the work of different authors. Also, the data of
corrosion level equal and greater than 2% from all the research work of various authors
whose specimen types were similar to the current research (series 6) is combined, and a
best fit curve is then plotted using these data such that up to 2% corrosion level, R is
approximately equal to 100 and thereafter decreases exponentially, as shown in figure
5.12a. Also, an exponential curve is fitted to the result of series 6 as shown in Figure
5.12.a. Both of these curves follow the same trend, hence it can be said that the result
obtained in series 6 matches with the work of other authors. The equation for R
(normalized bond strength) is given by
135
(5.1)
140
120
Normalized Bond Strength
100
80
60 Literature
Research
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Degree of Corrosion
Figure 5.12a: Comparison of Series 6 Result and Combined Other Author Result
Figure 5.12b shows the normalized bond strength of corroded RC specimens of present
research and different authors. The data is then compared to the normalized bond strength
curve obtained from figure 5.12a.
136
200
Normalized Bond Strength (%) 160
120
Research
80 Al-Sulaimani et al.
40
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
200
Normalized Bond Strength (%)
160
120
Research
80 Cabrera
40
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
137
200
120
Research
80 Almusallam et al.
40
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
200
160
120
Research
80 Amleh and Mirza
40
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
138
200
120
Research
80 Auyeung et al.
40
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
200
160
120
Research
80 Lee et al.
40
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
139
200
120
Research
80 Fang et al.
40
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 5.12b: Comparison of Series 6 Result and Individual Author's Result
The data points from Al-Sulaimani et al. [3.32], Almusallam et al. [3.31], Lee et al.
[3.33], and Fand et al. [3.34] follows the same trend as that of current research and best
fit curve developed from the current study. The results of Auyeung et al. [3.29] are below
the under best fit curve of current study, whereas the results of Amleh and Mirza [3.36 ]
and Cabrera [3.35] are above best fit curve. When these data points are combined, they
distribute themselves evenly about the best fit curve to produce a best fit curve which
follows the same trend as current research as shown in Figure 5.12a.
140
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Conclusions:
Extensive experimental research were carried out to evaluate the changes in physical and
mechanical properties of RC specimens due to corrosion of the reinforcement. Based on
the results of these experiments following, conclusions were drawn:
 Uniform corrosion occurs only until the first splitting crack occurs on the concrete
surface; thereafter, corrosion is non-uniform.
 The bond strength increases with increase in corrosion level up to a critical
percentage and then decreases with any further increase in corrosion level.
 For plain concrete, the critical percentage was found to be 2%, whereas for
concrete with polypropylene or MiniBar as an additive, the critical percentages
were 3.5% and 4.5%, respectively.
 The crack width increases with an increase in corrosion level. The crack width for
plain concrete at any corrosion level was greater for cylindrical specimens when
compared to cubical specimens. This implies crack width is a function of concrete
cover; thus, the greater the concrete cover, the smaller the crack width for any
given level of corrosion.
141
 The crack widths for plain concrete were more than the crack widths for
polypropylene fiber concrete, which in turn were greater than the crack widths for
MiniBar concrete.
 The use of polypropylene fiber or MiniBar in concrete helps in improving bond
strength of corroded RC members and also helps in reducing the cracking due to
corrosion.
 The empirical formula derived based on literature review and experimental results
of cubical specimens was R = 1 for CL ≤ 2 and for CL > 2,
where R is normalized bond strength.
142
REFERENCES
Chapter 1
1.1 Glisic, B., and Inaudi, D. (2005). “Long-term monitoring of high-rise buildings
using Long-gage fiber optic sensors.” 7th International Conference on Multi-
purpose High-rise Towers and Tall Buildings, Dubai, UAM, December 10-11,
2005.
1.2 Nilson, A. H., Darwin, D., and Dolan, C.W. (2009). Design of Concrete
Structures. 14 Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
1.3 Wang, C. K., Salmon, C. G., and Pincheira, J. A. (2006). Reinforced Concrete
Design. 7 Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
1.4 Suo, Q., and Stewart, M. G. (2009). “Corrosion cracking prediction updating of
deteriorating RC structures using inspection information.” Reliability Engineering
and System Safety, 94(8), 1340–1348.
1.5 Torres-Acosta, A. A., Navarro-Gutierrez, S., and Terán-Guillén, J. (2007).

“Residual flexure capacity of corroded reinforced concrete beams.” Engineering
Structures, 29(6), 1145–1152.
1.6 Bohni, H. (2005). Corrosion in Reinforced Concrete Structures. Boca Raton, FL:
Woodhead Publishing Ltd.
1.7 Yoon, S., Wang, K., Weiss, W. J., and Shah, S. P. (2000). “Interaction between
loading, corrosion and serviceability of reinforced concrete.” ACI Materials
Journal, 97(6), 637-644.
1.8 El-Reedy, M. A. (2008). Steel – Reinforced Concrete Structures – Assessment

and repair of corrosion. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis.
1.9 Broomfield, J. P. (2007). Corrosion of Steel in Concrete – Understanding,

investigation and repair. 2 Edition. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
1.10 Bhargava, K., Ghosh, A. K., Mori, Y., and Ramanujam, S. (2007) “Corrosion-
induced bond strength degradation in reinforced concrete—Analytical and
empirical models.” Nuclear Engineering and Design, 237(11), 1140-1157.
143
1.11 Amleh, L., and Mirza, S. (1999). “Corrosion influence on bond between steel and
concrete.” ACI Structural Journal, 96(3), 415–423.
Chapter 2
2.1 Broomfield, J. P. (2007). Corrosion of Steel in Concrete – Understanding,

investigation and repair. 2 Edition. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
2.2 Schweitzer, P. A. (2010). Fundamentals of Corrosion – Mechanisms, causes and

preventive methods. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis.
2.3 Raupach, M., Elsener, B., Polder, R. and Mietz, J. (2007). Corrosion of
Reinforcement in Concrete – Mechanism, monitoring, inhibitors and
rehabilitation techniques. Boca Raton, FL: Woodhead Publishing Ltd.
2.4 Hussain, R. R., and Ishida, T. (2009). “Critical Carbonation Depth for Initiation of
Steel corrosion in Fully Carbonated Concrete and Development of
Electrochemical Carbonation Induced Corrosion Model.” International of
Electrochemical Science, 4, 1178 - 1195.
2.5 Abosrra, L., Ashour, A. F., and Youseffi, M. (2011). “Corrosion of steel
reinforcement in concrete of different compressive strengths.” Construction and
Building Materials, 25 (10), 3915-3925.
2.6 El-Reedy, M. A. (2008). Steel – Reinforced Concrete Structures – Assessment

and repair of corrosion. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis.
2.7 Bohni, H. (2005). Corrosion in Reinforced Concrete Structures. Boca Raton, FL:
Woodhead Publishing Ltd.
2.8 ACI Committee 222, (2001). “Protection of metals in concrete against corrosion.”
ACI 222R-01, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, American Concrete Institute.
2.9 Liu, Y., and Weyers, R.E. (1998). “Modeling the Time-to-Corrosion Cracking in
Chloride Contaminated Reinforced Concrete Structures.” Materials Journal,
95(6), 675 - 680.
2.10 Smith, J. L., Virmani, Y. P. (2000). “Materials and Methods for Corrosion
Control of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Structures in New Construction.”
McLean, VA: U.S. Department of Transportation. FHWA-RD-00-081. Sponsored
by Office of Infrastructure Research and Development, FHA, McLean, VA.
2.11 Glisic, B., Inaudi, D., and Vurpillot, S. (2002). “Whole Lifespan Monitoring of
Concrete Bridges.” 1st International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety
and Management, Switzerland, July 14 -17, 2002.
144
2.12 Ahmad, S. (2003). “Reinforcement corrosion in concrete structures, its
monitoring and service life prediction – a review.” Cement and Concrete
Composites, 25(5), 459-471.
Chapter 3
3.1 Wight, J. K., and MacGregor, J. G. (2008). Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and
Design. 5 Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
3.2 Adhikari, S., (2009). “Mechanical Properties and Flexure Application of Basalt
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Bars.” MS Thesis, The University of Akron, OH.
December 2009.
3.3 Nilson, A. H., Darwin, D., and Dolan, C.W. (2009). Design of Concrete
Structures. 14 Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
3.4 Wang, C. K., Salmon, C. G., and Pincheira, J. A. (2006). Reinforced Concrete
Design. 7 Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
3.5 Xu, F., Wu, Z., Zheng, J., Hu, Y., and Li, Q. (2012). “Experimental Study on the
Bond Behavior of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in Concrete Subjected to Lateral
Pressure.” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 23(1), 125-133.
3.6 ACI Committee 408, (1966). “Bond Stress-The State of the Art.” American
Concrete Institute, 63(11), 1161-1190.
3.7 Nawy, E. G. (2008). Reinforced Concrete – A Fundamental Approach. 6 Edition.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
3.8 Lutz, L. A., and Gergely, P. (1967). “Mechanics of bond and slip of deformed
bars in concrete.” American Concrete Institute, 64(11), 711–721.
3.9 Treece, R. A., and Jirsa, J. O. (1989). “Bond Strength of Epoxy-Coated

Reinforcing Bars.” ACI Materials Journal, 86(2), 167-174.
3.10 Cleary, D. B., and Ramirez, J. A. (1991). "Bond Strength of Epoxy-Coated

Reinforcement," ACI Materials Journal, 88(2):146-149.
3.11 Tepfers, R. (1979). “Cracking of concrete cover along anchored deformed

reinforcing bars.” Magazine of Concrete Research, 31(106), 3-12.
3.12 Goto, Y. (1971). “Cracks Formed in Concrete Around Deformed Tension Bars.”
American Concrete Institute, 68(4), 244-251.
145
3.13 Yankelevsky, D. Z. (1985). “Bond Action Between Concrete and a Deformed Bar
- A New Model.” American Concrete Institute, 82(2), 154-161.
3.14 ACI Committee 408, (2003). “Bond and Development of Straight Reinforcement
in Tension.”ACI 408R-03, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
3.15 ACI Committee 318, (2008). “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary.” ACI 318-08, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice,
American Concrete Institute.
3.16 Orangun, C.O., Jirsa, J. O., and Breen, J.E. (1977). “A Reevaluation of the test
Data on Developmental Length and Splices.” American Concrete Institute, 74(3),
114-122.
3.17 Esfahani, M. R., and Rangan, B. V. (1998). “Local Bond Strength of Reinforcing
Bars in Normal Strength and High-Strength Concrete.” ACI Structural Journal,
95(2), 96-106.
3.18 Esfahani, M. R., and Rangan, B. V. (1998). “Bond between Normal Strength and
High-Strength Concrete (HSC) and Reinforcing Bars in Splices in Beams” ACI
Structural Journal, 95(3), 272-279.
3.19 Darwin, D., Zuo, J., Tholen, M. L., and Idun, E. K. (1996). “Development Length
Criteria for Conventional and High Relative Rib Area Reinforcing Bars.” ACI
3.20 Zuo, J., and Darwin, D. (2000). “Splice Strength of Conventional and High
Relative Rib Area Bars in Normal and High Strength Concrete.” ACI Structural
Journal, 97(4), 630-641.
3.21 Watstein, D., and Mathey, R. G. (1959). “Width of Cracks in Concrete at the
Surface of Reinforcing Steel Evaluated by Means of Tensile Bond Specimens.”
American Concrete Institute, 56(7), 47-56.
3.22 Khayat, K. H. (1998). “Use of Viscosity-Modified Admixtures to Reduce Top-

Bar Effect of Anchored Bars Cast with Fluid Concrete.” ACI Structural Journal,
95(2), 158-167.
3.23 Hester, C. J., Salamizavaregh, S., Darwin, D. and McCabe, S. L. (1993). “Bond of
Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement: Splices.” ACI Structural Journal, 90(1), 89-102.
3.24 Orangun, C.O., Jirsa, J. O., and Breen, J.E. (1975), “Strength of anchored bars: A
re-evaluation of test data on development length and splices.” Center of Highway
Research, University of Texas at Austin, Research report 154-3F.
146
3.25 Bhargava, K., Ghosh, A. K., Mori, Y., and Ramanujam, S. (2007) “Corrosion-
induced bond strength degradation in reinforced concrete—Analytical and
empirical models.” Nuclear Engineering and Design, 237(11), 1140-1157.
3.26 Yoon, S., Wang, K., Weiss, W. J., and Shah, S. P. (2000). “Interaction between
loading, corrosion and serviceability of reinforced concrete.” ACI Materials
Journal, 97(6), 637-644.
3.27 Coronelli, D. (2000). “Corrosion Cracking and Bond Strength Modeling for
Corroded Bars in Reinforced Concrete.” ACI Structural Journal, 99 (3), 267-276.
3.28 Hou, J., Fu, X., and Chung, D. D. L. (1997). “Improving both bond strength and
corrosion resistance of steel rebar in concrete by water immersion or sand blasting
of rebar.” Cement and Concrete Research, 27(5), 679-684.
3.29 Auyeung, Y., Balaguru, P., and Chung, L. (2000). “Bond behavior of corroded
reinforcement bars.” ACI Material Journal, 97(2), 214–220.
3.30 Stanish, K., Hooton, R. D., and Pantazopoulou, S. J. (1999). “Corrosion effects on
bond strength in reinforced concrete.” ACI Structural Journal, 96(6), 915–921.
3.31 Almusallam, A. A., Al-Gahtani, A. S., Aziz, A. R., and Rasheeduzzafa. (1996).
“Effect of reinforcement corrosion on bond strength.” Construction and Building
Materials, 10(2), 123–129.
3.32 Al-Sulaimani, G. J., Kaleemullah, M., Basunbul, I. A., and Rasheeduzzafar,

(1990). “Influence of corrosion and cracking on bond behavior and strength of
reinforced concrete members.” ACI Structural Journal, 87(2), 220–231.
3.33 Lee, H. S., Noguchi, T., and Tomosawa, F. (2002). “Evaluation of the bond
properties between concrete and reinforcement as a function of the degree of
reinforcement corrosion.” Cement and Concrete Research, 32(8), 1313–1318.
3.34 Fang, C., Lundgren, K., Chen, L., and Zhu, C. (2004). “Corrosion influence on
bond in reinforced concrete.” Cement and Concrete Research, 34(11), 2159–2167.
3.35 Cabrera, J. G. (1996). “Deterioration of concrete due to reinforcement steel

corrosion.” Cement and Concrete Composition, 18(1), 47–59.
3.36 Amleh, L., and Mirza, S. (1999). “Corrosion influence on bond between steel and
concrete.” ACI Structural Journal, 96(3), 415–423.
3.37 Fang, C., Lundgren, K., Plos, M., and Gylltoft, K. (2006). “Bond behavior of
corroded reinforcing steel bars in concrete.” Cement and Concrete Research,
36(10), 1931–1938.
147
3.38 Chung, L., Kim, J. J., and Yi, S. (2008). “Bond strength prediction for reinforced
concrete members with highly corroded reinforcing bars.” Cement and Concrete
Research, 30(7), 603–611.
3.39 Capozucca, R. (1995). “Damage to reinforced concrete due to reinforcement

corrosion.” Construction of Building Materials, 9(5), 295–303.
3.40 Rodriguez, J., Ortega, L., and Garcia, A. (1994). “Corrosion of reinforcing bars
and service life of RC structures: corrosion and bond deterioration.” Concrete
across Borders, Denmark, 2, 315-326.
3.41 Liu, Y., and Weyers, R. E. (1998). “Modeling the time-to-corrosion cracking in
chloride contaminated reinforced concrete structures.” ACI Materials Journal,
95(6), 675-680.
3.42 Maaddawy, T. E., and Soudki, K. (2007). “A model for prediction of time from
corrosion initiation to corrosion cracking.” Cement and Concrete Composites,
29(3), 168-175.
3.43 Harajli, M. H., Hamad, B. S., and Rteil, A. A. (2004). “Effect of confinement on
bond strength between steel bars and concrete.” ACI Structural Journal, 101(5),
595-603.
3.44 Tuutti, K. (1982). “The corrosion of steel in concrete.” Swedish Cement and
Concrete Research Institute, Stockholm.
3.45 Lowes, L. N., Moehle, J. P., and Govindjee, S. (2004). “Concrete-steel bond
model for use in finite element modeling of reinforced concrete structures.” ACI
3.46 Morinaga, S. (1988). “Prediction of service lives of reinforced concrete buildings

based on rate of corrosion of reinforcing steel.” Report No. 23, P. No. 82, Shimizu
Corporation, Japan.
3.47 Mangat, P. S., and Elgarf, M. S. (1999). “Bond characteristics of corroding

reinforcement in concrete beams.” Materials and Structures Journal, 32(216), 89-
97.
3.48 ACI Committee 222, (2001). “Protection of metals in concrete against

corrosion.”ACI 222R-01, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, American Concrete
Institute.
3.49 Abosrra, L., Ashour, A. F., Youseffi, M. (2011). “Corrosion of steel

reinforcement in concrete of different compressive strengths.” Construction and
Building Materials, 25, 3915–3925.
148
3.50 Harajili, M. H. (2009). “Bond stress – Slip model for steel bars in unconfined or
steel, FRC or FRP confined concrete under cyclic loading.” Journal of Structural
Engineering, 135(5), 509-518.
149
APPENDIX
PULLOUT TEST RESULTS
Series 2:
Table A.1: Specimen: P-2-000 – 0% Corrosion Level
Load (lb) Slip (in) Note

0 0
500 0 Specimen failed by bond
1000 0 failure between steel and
1500 0.0005 concrete
2000 0.0005
2500 0.0005
3000 0.0005
3500 0.0005
4000 0.0005
4500 0.0005
5000 0.0005
5500 0.0005
6000 0.0005
Table A.2: Specimen: P-2-001 – 0.25% Corrosion Level

0 0
500 0 Steel Failure in the extruded
1000 0 threaded portion
1500 0
2000 0 Thread was 5/16-18"
2500 0 Diameter
3000 0
3500 0
4000 0
4500 0
5000 0
150
5500 0
6000 0
6222 0

0 0
1500 0
2000 0
2500 0
3000 0
3500 0
4000 0
4500 0
5000 0
5500 0
5949 0

0 0
1500 0
2000 0
2500 0
3000 0
3500 0
4000 0
4500 0
5000 0
5500 0
5686 0

0 0
151
1500 0
2000 0.0005
2500 0.0005
3000 0.0005
3500 0.0005
4000 0.0005
4500 0.0005
5000 0.0005
5500 0.0005
6000 0.0005
6028 0.0005

0 0
1500 0 concrete
2000 0
2500 0
3000 0
3500 0
4000 0
4500 0
5000 0
5180 0

1000 0 concrete
1500 0
2000 0
2500 0
3000 0
3500 0
4000 0
4329 0
152

1000 0 concrete
1500 0
2000 0
2500 0
3000 0
3500 0
4000 0
4054 0

1000 0 concrete
1500 0
2000 0
2500 0
3000 0
3500 0
3675 0
Table A.10: Detail of Pullout Test Results for Series 2 Specimens
Corrosion Max. Load Notes

Level (%) (lb)
0 6000 Specimen failed by bond failure between steel and concrete
0.25 6222 Steel Failure in the extruded threaded portion
0.50 5740 Steel Failure in the extruded threaded portion
1 5686 Steel Failure in the extruded threaded portion
2 6028 Steel Failure in the extruded threaded portion
153
Table A.11: Series 2 – Compression Strength Test Results
Cylinder No. Load (lb) Compressive Strength (psi)

1 102410 8154
2 96380 7674
3 98980 7881
Average Compressive Strength for Series 2 7903
Series 3:

0 0 Splitting Failure i.e.
1200 0 concrete
1600 0
2000 0
2400 0
2800 0
3200 0
3600 0
3960 0.167

1200 0.003 concrete
1600 0.003
2000 0.003
2400 0.003
2800 0.003
3200 0.004
3220 0.089
Table A.13: Specimen: P-3-001A – 0.25% Corrosion Level
154
1200 0 concrete
1600 0.0005
2000 0.0005
2400 0.0005
2800 0.0005
3200 0.0005
3600 0.0005
4000 0.0005
4400 0.0005
4800 0.0005
4885 0.221

1200 0 concrete
1600 0
2000 0
2400 0
2800 0
3200 0
3600 0
4000 0
4200 0.114

1200 0 concrete
1600 0
2000 0
2400 0
2800 0
3200 0
155
3600 0
4000 0
4400 0
4665 0.200

1200 0 concrete
1600 0
2000 0
2400 0
2800 0
3200 0
3600 0
4000 0
4400 0
4800 0.0005
5095 0.280

1200 0 concrete
1600 0
2000 0
2400 0
2800 0
3200 0
3600 0
4139 0.209

156
1200 0 concrete
1600 0
2000 0
2400 0
2800 0
3200 0
3420 0.054

1200 0 concrete
1600 0
2000 0
2400 0
2800 0
3200 0
3210 0.1035
Corrosion Level (%) Max. Load (lb) Notes

0 3960 Splitting Failure i.e. Specimen failed by
0.25 4053 bond failure between steel and concrete
0.50 4200
1 4665
2 5095
3 4139
4 3420
6 3210

1 97880 7788
2 96710 7695
3 98240 7818
157
Series 4:
All specimens in the pullout test failed due to yielding of threaded portion. Thus, no slip
of reinforcement happened for series 4 specimens.
Cylinder No. Load (lb) Compressive Note

Strength (psi)
1 96670 7692 Normal Cylinder
2 96920 7712 (Cylinder was not
3 96110 7648 wrapped with
Average Compressive Strength for Series 4 7684 basalt wrap)
non wrapped cylinder
1 65480 5211 Wrapped Cylinder
2 61490 4893 (Cylinder was
3 62130 4944 wrapped with
Average Compressive Strength for Series 4 5016 basalt wrap)
wrapped cylinder
Series 5:
Series 5 specimens were also failed due to yielding of threaded portion as series 4 or
yielding of actual bar. Thus, no slip of reinforcement occurred for series 5 specimens.

1 99430 7912
2 100230 7976
3 98630 7848
Series 6:

158
12766 0.050 failure between steel and
8000 0.095
4000 0.1305

10000 0.089
8000 0.098
3000 0.120
2500 0.185
2000 0.220
1500 0.255
1000 0.319
500 0.3955
0 0.4015

10000 0.08 concrete
8000 0.102
4000 0.115
2000 0.12
500 0.24
0 0.264

159
6000 0.072 concrete
4000 0.089
3000 0.100
2500 0.130
2000 0.169
1500 0.250
1000 0.320
500 0.4155

4000 0.09 concrete
3000 0.099
2000 0.121
1000 0.170
500 0.1935

3853 0.04 concrete
2000 0.07
1000 0.093
500 0.192
300 0.340

2016 0.05 concrete
1000 0.093
500 0.188
160
300 0.350

1859 0.055 concrete
1000 0.095
500 0.145
400 0.290
300 0.380

0 12766 Splitting Failure i.e. Specimen
1 18140 failed by bond failure between steel
2 14473 and concrete
3 8192
4 5454
6 3853
8 2016
10 1859

1 89270 7103
2 91080 7247
3 89610 7130
Series 7:

161
9000 0.093
8000 0.145
7000 0.194
6000 0.251
5000 0.295
4000 0.355
3000 0.465
2000 0.795
1000 0.9535

9000 0.100
8000 0.162
7000 0.210
6000 0.236
5000 0.276
4000 0.291
3000 0.320
2000 0.355
1000 0.630

9000 0.088 concrete
8000 0.106
7000 0.149
6000 0.186
5000 0.234
4000 0.263
3000 0.306
2000 0.345
162
1000 0.400

10000 0.0655 concrete
9000 0.104
8000 0.136
7000 0.204
6000 0.233
5000 0.256
4000 0.271
3000 0.298
2000 0.344
1000 0.575

9000 0.094
8000 0.131
7000 0.167
6000 0.209
5000 0.245
4000 0.279
3000 0.308
2000 0.356
1000 0.497

163
8950 0. 049 failure between steel and
8000 0.075 concrete
7000 0.108
6000 0.185
5000 0.278
4000 0.295
3000 0.315
2000 0.351
1000 0.444

7000 0.110 concrete
6000 0.175
5000 0.234
4000 0.289
3000 0.325
2000 0.371
1000 0.551

6000 0.118 concrete
5000 0.274
4000 0.285
3000 0.319
2000 0.352
1000 0.466
164
3 15100
4 12950
5 8950
6 7475
8 6350

1 104080 8282
2 103860 8264
3 103780 8258
Series 8:

14000 0.097
8000 0.110
7000 0.145
6000 0.210
5000 0.240
4000 0.275
3000 0.320
2000 0.360
1000 0.580

165
17000 0.071
15000 0.101
10000 0.182
9000 0.238
8000 0.295
7000 0.330
6000 0.340
5000 0.380
4000 0.590
3000 0.815
2000 0.882
1000 1.005

16000 0.087
15000 0.098
10000 0.230
9000 0.245
8000 0.268
7000 0.284
6000 0.302
5000 0.336
4000 0.358
3000 0.400
2000 0.860
1000 0.9695

16000 0.075
15000 0.104
10000 0.146
166
9000 0.168
8000 0.198
7000 0.234
6000 0.289
5000 0.445
4000 0.678
3000 0.767
2000 0.840
1000 0.9755

16011 0. 01 failure between steel and
10000 0.093
9000 0.104
8000 0.143
7000 0.171
6000 0.210
5000 0.250
4000 0.281
3000 0.312
2000 0.367
1000 0.525

10000 0.110
9000 0.123
8000 0.145
7000 0.178
6000 0.212
5000 0.256
4000 0.291
3000 0.323
167
2000 0.371
1000 0.477

10000 0.112
9000 0.173
8000 0.208
7000 0.245
6000 0.271
5000 0.312
4000 0.341
3000 0.378
2000 0.888
1000 0.953

0 15771
2 20499
6 15184
8 13254

1 98170 7812
2 97510 7759
3 98530 7840
168
169

Effect of Corrosion On RC

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Effect of Corrosion On RC

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

EFFECT OF CORROSION ON PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF

The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron

of the Requirements for the Degree

Corrosion of reinforced concrete (RC) is a major factor contributing to

structures due to corrosion of reinforcement. While the main causes of reinforcement

accelerating the corrosion process.

concrete interface and concrete surface were studied.

The main objective of the research is to identify the effects of corrosion on

concrete mix, as an attempt to improve the performance of reinforced concrete members.

cover results in reducing cracks for given corrosion level.

It is with immense gratitude that I acknowledge the support and help of my

inspirational to me as an individual and student, and his direction, assistance, and

patience during my research process has been invaluable.

program with his invaluable suggestions. I am also very thankful to my committee

at The University of Akron. I acknowledge the support of the U.S. Department of

Force Academy under agreement number FA7000-10-2-0013

My sincere appreciation is also extended to the following individuals who made it

possible for me to complete my graduate research:

 Jeremy Lewis, co-partner in corrosion of reinforcement concrete member team;

 Sheila Pearson for helping me in editing my thesis.

 My family and friends for their support and encouragement as I pursued my

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ xii

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiv

1.1 Research Significance .....................................................................................2

1.2 Research Objectives ........................................................................................2

1.3 Research Methodology ...................................................................................3

1.4 Thesis Outline .................................................................................................3

II INTRODUCTION TO CORROSION ..........................................................................5

2.1 Corrosion Process ...........................................................................................6

2.1.1 Carbonation .........................................................................................9

2.1.2 Chloride Attack ...................................................................................9

2.2 Forms of Corrosion .......................................................................................10

2.2.1 General (Uniform) Corrosion ...........................................................10

2.2.2 Pitting Corrosion ...............................................................................11

2.2.3 Crevice Corrosion .............................................................................11

2.3 Corrosion Prevention Techniques .................................................................12

2.3.2 Monitoring of Structure ....................................................................13

2.3.3 Maintenance, Repair and Rehabilitation (MRR) of structures .........14

III LITERATURE REVIEW .........................................................................................15

3.1 Literature Review for the Bond Characteristics of RC Members .................15

3.1.1 Basic Introduction .............................................................................15

3.1.2 Bond Mechanism ..............................................................................18

3.1.3 Failure Mode .....................................................................................19

3.1.4 General Equations .............................................................................22

3.1.4.1 Average Bond Strength ..................................................24

3.1.4.2 True Bond Strength ........................................................26

3.1.5 Development Length .........................................................................26

3.1.5.1 Development Length of Deformed Bars in Tension ......28

3.1.5.2 Development Length of Deformed Bars in Compression

3.1.6 Bond Strength Equations ..................................................................30

3.1.7 Epoxy – Coating on Reinforcement ..................................................31

3.1.8 Factors Influencing Bond Mechanisms, Failure, and Development

3.2 Literature Review on Influence of Reinforcement Corrosion on RC

3.2.1 General Introduction .........................................................................37

3.2.2 Losses in the Structural Performance of RC Members .....................37

3.2.3.1 Low Level Corrosion........................................................38

3.2.3.2 Mid level Corrosion..........................................................40

3.2.3.3 High level Corrosion ........................................................41

3.2.4 Cracking Stage ..................................................................................42

3.2.4.1 Pre-Cracking .....................................................................42

3.2.4.2 Primary Cracking .............................................................43

3.2.4.3 Final Concrete Cover Cracking ........................................43

3.2.5 Accelerated Corrosion ......................................................................45