Corrosion Measurement Techniques in Steel Reinforced

Journal of ASTM International, Vol. 8, No. 5 Paper ID JAI103283 Available online at www.astm.
org
A. Poursaee1
Corrosion Measurement Techniques in Steel Reinforced Concrete

ABSTRACT: The main goal of this study was to evaluate different corrosion measurement techniques in order to determine the most accurate methods for measuring the corrosion rate of steel bars in reinforced steel concrete. For this purpose, reinforced concrete specimens were cast and exposed to salt solution and the corrosion activity of the bars was investigated by half-cell potential, potentiostatic linear polarization resistance, galvanostatic pulse polarization, Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy, potentiodynamic cyclic polarization, and galvanodynamic polarization. The results obtained by the aforementioned methods were then compared with the actual mass loss of the steel bars due to corrosion gravimetry test and it shows that techniques based on applying potential are more reliable measuring techniques compared to those based on applying current. KEYWORDS: corrosion, reinforced concrete, electrochemical techniques
Introduction Low cost, readily available raw materials, and ease of forming at ambient temperatures make steel reinforced concrete the most widely used structural material. Concrete provides corrosion resistance to the steel reinforcement physically, by acting as a barrier and chemically, due to its high pH. However, reinforcing steel does corrode. The two most common causes of reinforcement corrosion are localized breakdown of the passive lm on the steel by chloride ions and general breakdown of passivity due to neutralization of the concrete pore solution by reaction with atmospheric carbon dioxide. Corrosion of reinforcing steel in concrete is a serious problem from the point of view of both safety and economy. In spite of using the same principles for determination of the corrosion rate, there are inconsistencies between data obtained using different electrochemical measurements 15 . Therefore, it is essential to have reliable measurement techniques to evaluate the corrosion condition of the steel bars in the reinforcing concrete. The aim of this project was to evaluate different corrosion measurement techniques in order to recommend the most reliable method for the laboratory investigations. The test methods used in this study were chosen based on their popularity and applications in the laboratory and eld examinations. Advantages, disadvantages, and their applicability for laboratory measurements are investigated and explained in this paper.
Materials and Methods Ordinary Portland cement concrete and plain carbon steel bars, which are the most common combination in reinforced concrete structures, were chosen. Table 1 shows the concrete mixture proportion used for preparing the 1 m3 concrete. Five beams with one pre-weighted segmented 10 M rebar = 10 mm in each were cast with the cover depth of 50 mm, as illustrated in Fig. 1. To separate and isolate the steel segments, a small plastic spacer was used between each segment. Segments and plastic spacers were tapped and were connected together by a 6 mm threaded rod. For electrical connection, copper wires were used and connected to each steel segment. To prevent extraneous effects, the ends of the bars and all connections were coated with epoxy resin to dene the exposed length of 200 mm for each bar. The concrete for each beam was cast in two parts: the concrete for one half was as given in Table 1 while that
Manuscript received July 21, 2010; accepted for publication April 4, 2011; published online May 2011. 1 Ph.D., P.Eng., Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634, e-mail: amire@clemson.edu
Copyright 2011 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Aug 25 15:36:10 EDT 2011 Downloaded/printed by National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
2 JOURNAL OF ASTM INTERNATIONAL

TABLE 1Concrete mixture proportion for making 1 m3 concrete. Component Type 10 Portland, kg Sand, kg Stone 20 mm, kg Water, L Eucon MRC air entrainment W/CM
355 770 1070 160 40 mL/100 kg cement 0.43
FIG. 1Schematic drawing of a beam with segments steel bar. for the second half had the same mixture proportions but with 2.5 % Cl by weight of cement added to the mixing water as NaCl. Later in the process, a ponding well was installed on the Cl contaminated part of each beam and that section was alternately exposed to two week periods with saturated sodium chloride solution then two weeks without solution to accelerate the corrosion on that side. Corrosion Evaluation Techniques The corrosion condition of the rebars in the beams was evaluated for 2.5 years by 1 half-cell potential, 2 potentiostatic linear polarization resistance LPR , 3 galvanostatic pulse polarization, 4 Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy EIS , 5 potentiodynamic cyclic polarization, and 6 galvanodynamic polarization. Both EIS and cyclic polarization tests are time consuming experiments and based on the extent of the corrosion, more than one week may be required to perform each of these tests 6 . Therefore, these tests were performed less frequently compared to the other electrochemical measurements. All measurements were performed during the second week of the wet period and in the laboratory condition at a temperature of 23 C and relative humidity of 50 %. When the bars were deemed to have corroded sufciently to allow gravimetric measurements of the mass loss due to corrosion, the specimens were autopsied and the extent and distribution of the corrosion were recorded. These actual corroded surface areas were used to calculate the corrosion current density in all measurements. The bars were then weighed and a comparison of the mass loss determined by gravimetry test, which is the most accurate corrosion measuring method, and that estimated by the cumulative values of icorr, was performed. The PARSTAT 22632 potentiostat was used to perform all electrochemical experiments except the galvanostatic pulse technique. To perform the tests with the PARSTAT, a 100 200 mm stainless steel plate with the hole at its center = 15 mm was placed on the concrete surface, on top of each segment. Saturate Calomel Electrode SCE was used as the reference electrode and was placed in the hole. Figure 2 a schematically shows the test setup for all measurements using potentiosat/galvanostat. Sponge was used to improve the contact between the counter and the reference electrodes and the surface of the concrete. The GalvaPulse was used for galvanostatic pulse technique with guard ring. Half-Cell Potential TechniqueThe half-cell potential technique is the most widely used technique of corrosion measurement of the steel rebars in concrete. It was introduced in the 1970s by Richard F. Stratfull in North America 7,8 . In 1980, the test was approved as a standard, as ASTM C876-09,
2
Certain commercial products are identied in this paper to specify the materials used and procedures employed. In no case does such identication imply endorsement by the author, nor does it indicate that the products are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
POURSAEE ON CORROSION MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES 3
FIG. 2Schematic drawing of the setup used for (a) corrosion rate measurements and (b) half-cell potential measurement. Standard Test Method for Half-Cell Potentials of Uncoated Reinforcing Steel in Concrete 9 . This technique is based on measuring the electrochemical potential of the steel rebar with respect to a standard reference electrode placed on the surface of the concrete and can provide an indication of the corrosion risk of the steel. Figure 2 b schematically shows the test setup for half-cell potential measurement. A sponge is used to improve contact between the reference electrode and the surface of the concrete. The suggested reference electrode by ASTM is a copper/copper sulfate electrode CSE . The recommended guidelines for interpretation of the half-cell potential results according to ASTM are given in Table 2. It should be noted that the probability of corrosion and not the actual corrosion rate can be determined by this technique. In this study, the half-cell potential values of the segmented steel bars were measured versus CSE, starting 24 h after casting, using an HP model 34401A high impedance digital multimeter. Potentiostatic Linear Polarization ResistanceIn the potentiostatic LPR technique, a constant potential signal is applied for a certain period of time, which is determined by the time for the current to reach steady state in the form of a square wave between the working electrode steel bar in concrete and the reference electrode; and the response current I in Fig. 3 is measured. By using Eq 1, the R P and SternGeary equation Eq 2 10 corrosion current can be calculated
TABLE 2Probability of corrosion according to half-cell potential reading [9]. Half-Cell Potential Reading Versus Cu/CuSO4 More positive than 200 mV Between 200 and 350 mV More negative than 350 mV Corrosion Activity 90 % probability of no corrosion An increase probability of corrosion 90 % probability of corrosion
FIG. 3Concrete resistance values of the beams. Rp = E I B Rp 1
Icorr =
B is the SternGeary constant. The value of B is empirically determined and has been measured as 0.026 V for active and 0.052 V for passive corrosion of plain carbon steel in concrete 11,12 . The corrosion current density, icorr, can then be calculated by dividing the corrosion current Icorr by the surface area of the polarized area A as follows: icorr = B R pA 3
The relationship between Icorr and mass loss or reacted m in an electrochemical reaction is given by Faradays law m= Icorr n t a F 4
where: m = mass g , t = time s , a = atomic weight g/mol , n = number of equivalents exchanged, and F = Faraday s constant 96 500 coulomb/equivalent . In this study, 20 mV was used as the applied potential. It should be mentioned that the polarization measurements in concrete include an ohmic potential drop through the concrete cover. This ohmic potential drop always occurs between the working electrode and the capillary tip of the reference electrode, which affects the detected potential by the reference electrode, and consequently, usually causes underestimation of the corrosion current density. Therefore, it is important to consider the concrete resistance in all the calculations. The concrete resistance shown in Fig. 4 was measured using the galvanostatic pulse method by applying 100 A for 60 s; and the effect of ohmic resistance on the applied potential was compensated in all calculations. Measurements were started four weeks after casting. Galvanostatic Pulse MethodThe galvanostatic pulse technique was introduced for eld application in 1988 13 . This method is a rapid non-destructive polarization technique. In this method, a short-time anodic current pulse is applied galvanostatically between a counter electrode placed on the concrete surface and the rebar. The applied current is usually in the range of 10 100 A and the typical pulse duration is between 5 and 30 s. The reinforcement is anodically polarized and the resulting change of the electrochemical potential of the reinforcement is measured with a reference electrode, which is usually in
FIG. 4Applied potential and current response during LPR measurement. the center of the counter electrode and recorded as a function of polarization time 14,15 . A typical potential response for a corroding reinforcement is shown in Fig. 5. The polarization resistance R P can be determined by this technique and the corrosion current Icorr can then be calculated from the SternGeary equation. The major sources of error when measuring the corrosion rate of steel in concrete are the uncertainty of the area of the steel bar affected by the electrical signal from the counter electrode and the non-uniform current distribution on the steel rebar, and this has been studied by many researchers 1622 . One of the approaches to overcome the aforementioned difculties is using a second electrode to conne the polarized area, and this is employed by most commercially available instruments for eld measurements. In this approach, the extra electrode, a guard ring usually ring-shaped is used to conne the signal applied from the counter electrode to a known length at the working electrode steel bar . A secondary current is applied between the guard ring and the rebar while the rebar is polarized by the counter electrode 2,18,2325 . The objective is for the current applied from the guard ring to repel the lines of current from the central counter electrode and conne them to an area of the structure located approximately under the
FIG. 5Schematic illustration of galvanostatic pulse results.

FIG. 6Schematic plan of the instrument using guarding to limit the polarized area while performing the corrosion measurement. counter electrode Fig. 6 . In this study, the GalvaPulse system, developed by FORCE Technology in Denmark, was used. The electrode assembly has an Ag/AgCl reference electrode at the center with a zinc counter electrode and a zinc guard ring, as illustrated in Fig. 6. The instrument consists of a handheld computer that generates a small galvanostatic pulse, controls the pulse duration, and processes the data. The applied current was chosen as 25 A for 60 s during the experimental period. Measurements were started 24 h after casting Electrochemical Impedance SpectroscopyThe popularity of the EIS method for reinforced concrete has increased remarkably in recent years. Analysis of the system response can provide information about the double-layer capacitance, interface, structure, reactions that are taking place, corrosion rate, and electrolyte environment resistance 2628 . EIS studies the system response the impedance of a system to the application of a small amplitude alternating potential usually 20 mV signal at different frequencies. The most common expression of the data obtained by EIS is in a Bode plot and a Nyquist plot. A Nyquist plot is the plot of the imaginary impedance component Z against the real impedance component Z at each excitation frequency. The Bode plot format examines the absolute impedance, Z , as calculated and the phase shift, , of the impedance, each as a function of frequency. In this study, the Nyquist plots were used to measure the values of polarization resistance and concrete resistance. Figure 7 shows an illustration of a Nyquist plot Potentiodynamic Cyclic PolarizationThe cyclic potentiodynamic polarization technique is a relatively non-destructive measurement that can provide information about the corrosion rate, corrosion potential, and susceptibility to pitting corrosion of the metal. The technique is built on the idea that predictions of the behavior of a metal in an environment can be made by forcing the material from its steady state condition and monitoring how it responds to the force as the force is removed at a constant rate and the system is reversed to its steady state condition. The cyclic polarization curve of one of the steel segments in a chloride free section is shown in Fig. 8. Applied potential is the force and is raised at a continuous, often slow, rate by using potentiostat. This rate is called the polarization scan rate and is an experimental parameter. It is very important to choose the most appropriate scan rate, specically in the complicated system such as reinforced concrete; otherwise, the result does not reect the actual corrosion behavior. The appropriate scan rate was determined before each experiment, using the method described in Ref 29. For all of the experiments, the scan started at 100 mV below half-cell potential, increased to +500 mV, and decreased to 500 mV versus SCE. Galvanodynamic PolarizationGalvanodynamic polarization refers to a technique in which current that is continuously varied at a selected rate is applied to an electrode rebar in an electrolyte concrete pore solution . The galvanodynamic method plots the variation in potential versus the controlled current. This is a relatively fast method to obtain the value of R P, and consequently, the corrosion rate. In this
FIG. 7Nyquist plot of one of the segments in chloride contaminated section.
experiment, an applied current was raced continuously between 100 and +100 A at the rate of 10 A / s and the resultant potential was monitored. The value of R P is the slope of the potential versus current curve at i = 0 A. Where there is hysteresis, the slope of the line between the maximum values of the current positive and negative is taken as R P, as shown in Fig. 9. Measurements were started one month after casting.
FIG. 8Cyclic polarization curve of one of the segments in chloride free section.
FIG. 9Schematic of a galvanodynamic polarization curve.
GravimetryTo evaluate and determine the most accurate electrochemical corrosion measurement technique, all beams were autopsied and each segment was weighed and the amount of mass loss was determined. To perform the test, the corrosion products were removed using the Clark solution 1000 ml HCl with specic gravity= 1.19+ 20 g antimony trioxide Sb2O3 + 50 g stannous chloride SnCl2 , according to the ASTM G1-90 30 standard procedure. This solution is effective in cleaning corrosion products at room temperature. The steel segments were immersed in Clark solution until the corrosion products were entirely removed. The time is based on the extent of the corroded area and could be more or less than 30 min. Due to the toxic nature of the Clark solution, the cleaning procedure must be carried out under a fume hood with safety glasses and gloves. Using the area under the corrosion current density versus time curves, the cumulative mass loss was calculated and compared to the actual mass loss obtained by the gravimetry method. Results and Discussions Figures 10 shows the half-cell potential values measured versus CSE for the chloride free and chloride contaminated sections of all beams. The dash lines indicate the ASTM C876-09 guidelines Table 2 for interpretation of the data. As can be seen, in the chloride contaminated concrete, the segments show the potential to be more negative than 350 mV versus CSE, indicating that there is a 90 % probability of active corrosion according to ASTM C876-09. The half-cell potential values of the steel segments in the chloride free section of the beams are more positive than 350 mV versus CSE, which is in uncertainty region based on the ASTM C876-09 recommendation. The potential values were uctuated considerably at the beginning of the test about 4 months but became more constant after this time, implying that the steel bars were in a more stable state. As mentioned before, the beams were broken at different times and after that time, there are no points for that broken beam in Fig. 10. Figures 1113 show the corrosion current densities of the segments, measured by potentiostatic LPR, galvanostatic pulse technique with GalvaPulse-guard on , and galvanodynamic LPR, respectively. It should be noted that the scale of the Y axis in Fig. 11 is different from that in Figs. 12 and 13. As can be seen in Figs. 1113, at the beginning of the measurement about 4 months , the corrosion current densities were higher than what was expected in a high alkaline environment when the steel is
FIG. 10Half-cell potential values of the segmented bars. expected to be in its passive state. As abovementioned, the half-cell potential values were also uctuating during that period of time. This can be attributed to the fact that the measured R p represents the current exchange of the redox process Fe2+ Fe3+ in the passive layer 3134 . At potentials more positive than 200 mV versus CSE, two processes act together at the metal/concrete interface: The corrosion process Fe Fe2+ + 2e and the phase transformation in the oxide layer according to the following process: 3Fe3O4 4 -Fe2O3 + Fe3+ + 3e
3+
As the value of the corrosion potential becomes more positive, more Fe presents in the oxide layer and consequently, the redox process contribution in whole process is more extended 32 . Therefore, due to the
FIG. 11Corrosion current density of the segmented bars, measured by the potentiostatic LPR technique.
FIG. 12Corrosion current density of the segmented bars, measured by the GalvaPulse, with the guard ring on. redox process, the measured corrosion current densities at the beginning of passivation of steel do not represent the actual steel dissolution. It should be noted that this process cannot be noticed clearly when the steel is showing active corrosion. It seems that in active corrosion, the redox process is masked by a faradaic corrosion of steel bar process 34 . The corrosion current densities, measured by the potentiostatic LPR technique Fig. 11 , show that all segments in chloride contaminated sections were actively corroding while the segments in chloride free concrete were not actively corroded and their corrosion current density stayed in the passive range 35 . Measurements carried out by the GalvaPulse Fig. 12 show at least two times higher values than
FIG. 13Corrosion current density of the segmented bars, measured by the galvanodynamic polarization technique.

TABLE 3Corrosion current density of some of the segmented bars measured with potentiostatic LPR, galvanostatic pulse, galvanodynamic LPR, cyclic polarization, and EIS. Corrosion Current Density A m2 Weeks Potentiostatic Galvanostatic Galvanodynamic After LPR Pulse LPR Casting Steel segments in chloride free concrete 23 0.0005 0.0049 0.0012 24 0.0039 0.0093 0.0124 54 0.0004 0.0030 0.0018 62 0.0028 0.0053 0.0083 87 0.0005 0.0049 0.0019 116 0.0004 0.0052 0.0009 119 0.0007 0.0059 0.0025 Steel segment in chloride contaminated concrete 17 0.015 0.015 0.048 25 0.018 0.029 0.042 52 0.014 0.005 0.039 69 0.011 0.016 0.039 84 0.011 0.003 0.044 118 0.011 0.008 0.044 120 0.015 0.050 0.051
Cyclic Polarization 0.0001 0.0040 0.0003 0.0015 0.0004 0.0004 0.0005 0.013 0.017 0.020 0.014 0.010 0.015 0.020
EIS 0.0003 0.0051 0.0001 0.0033 0.0003 0.0002 0.0003 0.017 0.012 0.012 0.010 0.013 0.012 0.014
values obtained by the potentiostatic LPR for similar segments. It should be noted that in all measurements, the guard ring in GalvaPulse was used and therefore this difference could be due to a higher current applied by the GalvaPulse 3 . In addition, current densities measured by the GalvaPulse show more uctuations and distinguishing the corrosion densities in chloride contaminated and chloride free sections is difcult. These behaviors could be attributed to the fact that applying the appropriate current by GalvaPulse to stay in the linear region of the potential versus current curve is a difcult task, while in the potentiostatic LPR, the applied potential is constant and certainly is in the linearity range. Difculties with the galvanostatic pulse technique with the guard ring are explained by the author and his colleague in previous studies 3 . Comparison between Figs. 11 and 13 shows that the galvanodynamic LPR compared to the potentiostatic LPR generally shows higher values. This could be due to the fact that applying 100 A to the steel bar polarized it between 50 and 100 mV, depending on the condition of the surface of the rebar, which is beyond the linear region of the potential versus current curve. However, compared to the galvanostatic pulse technique, the results of the galvanodynamic LPR show less uctuations and differentiating the corrosion densities of the segments in chloride free and chloride contaminated concrete is easier. Therefore, galvanodynamic LPR can be used as a rapid method to distinguish between actively corroded bars and the areas with less corrosion activities. This test is relatively fast and can be performed in the laboratory as well as eld measurements. It should be noted that the frequency of measurements performed by this technique was less than the potentiostatic LPR and the galvanostatic pulse technique. As mentioned before, the corrosion current densities of some of the segmented bars were also measured by cyclic polarization and electrochemical impedance techniques at different times, which are shown in Table 3. It is clear that the values of the corrosion current densities measured by the potentiostatic LPR, cyclic polarization, and EIS are close together and are lower than those measured by the other two techniques. To obtain the actual mass loss, the concrete beams were autopsied at different times, and then, by using the area under the corrosion current density versus time curves obtained by different techniques, the cumulative mass loss was calculated and compared to the actual mass loss. Figure 14 shows one of the segments in chloride contaminated concrete after the autopsy and cleaning the corrosion products from its surface. The actual mass loss during the period of the test for each beam is given in Table 4. In Fig. 15, the comparison between different techniques and the actual mass loss are shown. It is clear that the mass loss determined using the potentiostatic LPR technique is very close to the actual mass loss and both galvanostatic pulse and galvanodynamic LPR techniques overestimate the mass loss. Results from all measuring techniques conrm that potentiostatic LPR, cyclic polarization, and EIS
FIG. 14One of the steel segments after cleaning the corrosion products, removed from the chloride contaminated section of one of the concrete beams. techniques can estimate the most accurate mass loss during the corrosion process. In addition, measurements performed using these techniques show less uctuations. Since all measurements were carried out in the laboratory condition, the effect of the environment on corrosion measurements was minimized. Therefore, it can be concluded that techniques based on applying potential are more reliable than methods that are based on applying current. In spite of the fact that techniques based on applying current are fast, they usually overestimate the actual corrosion rate of the reinforcing steel bars. This could be due to difculties in maintaining the potential in the linear region and, consequently, not using accurate data in the Stern Geary equation Eq 2 to obtain the corrosion current. This is more signicant if the equipment with the guard ring is used. One of the variables in corrosion measurement could be the material and the geometry being used for the counter electrode. Therefore in this study, different counter electrodes, as summarized in Table 5, were also tested. The size of all the rings was chosen to match the size of the counter electrodes used in the GalvaPulse. The potentiostatic LPR technique was used in this experiment. The measurements were carried out on the steel segments in the chloride contaminated section. The standard deviation between the corrosion current densities obtained by different counter electrodes was about 0.001 A m2, which indicates that there is no signicant difference between different materials, size, and different shapes. It should be noted that this conclusion could only be valid for the corrosion measurements of steel in concrete and the results might be different in different solutions due to the exchange current density of the oxygen or hydrogen on different materials. Generally, the counter electrode should be made of materials that are inert to the electrolyte and they should have a high exchange current density. Conclusion Although variations in the half-cell potential values of all beams were observed, in most cases when the steel bars were corroding actively, the half-cell potential values were more negative than 350 mV versus CSE, which is in agreement with the ASTM C876-09 recommendations. However, it should be noted that all the experiments were carried out in the laboratory condition and the results might be different in eld measurements. Gravimetry test shows that techniques based on applying potential potentiostatic LPR, cyclic polarization, and EIS are more reliable measuring techniques compared to those based on applying current galvanostatic LPR and galvanodynamic polarization . The results obtained from techniques based on applying potential show less variation for all specimens. However, due to the required
TABLE 4Mass loss and date of autopsy for all beams. Mass Loss g Chloride Free Sections Beam 1 2 3 4 5 Date of Autopsy Weeks After Casting 61 80 87 120 120 1 0.04 0.1 0.05 0.26 0.39 2 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.1 Chloride Contaminated Sections 3 0.45 0.7 0.46 0.26 0.85 4 0.44 0.64 0.5 0.5 0.71
FIG. 15Comparison of mass loss determined by gravimetry and (a) potentiostatic LPR, (b) galvanostatic LPR, and (c) galvanodynamic LPR techniques, in chloride free and chloride contaminated concrete. Values are in grams.
time for both cyclic polarization and EIS, potentiostatic LPR seems a reasonable technique to be used in the investigations. Nevertheless, it is recommended to conrm the results every couple of tests with cyclic polarization and EIS, as well. The galvanodynamic LPR is a relatively fast measurement method; however, the measured corrosion current density values are higher than those values measured by the techniques based on applying potential. This is a good technique for comparison purpose, but it is not recommended for prediction and modeling the remaining service life of the structure.
Acknowledgments The writer gratefully acknowledges the support of the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario for this project and Professor Carolyn Hansson for her extensive contributions in this study.
TABLE 5Material, shape, and the size of the counter electrodes, used to determine the effect of counter electrode on the measurements. Material Stainless steel Stainless steel Galvanized steel GalvaPulse measuring unit-zinc Shape Plate rectangular Ring Ring Ring Size 100 180 mm ID= 30 mm, OD= 60 mm ID= 30 mm, OD= 60 mm ID= 30 mm, OD= 60 mm
References 1 Weiermair, R., Hansson, C. M., Seabrook, P. T., and Tullmin, M., Corrosion Measurements on Steel Embedded in High Performance Concrete Exposed to a Marine Environment, Third CANMET/ACI International Conference on Concrete in Marine Environment, New Brunswick, Canada, 1996, American Concrete Institute, St. Andrews by the Sea, NB, Canada. Gepraegs, O. K. and Hansson, C. M., A Comparative Evaluation of Three Commercial Instruments for Field Measurements of Reinforcing Steel Corrosion Rates, Electrochemical Techniques for Evaluating Corrosion Performance and Estimating Service-Life of Reinforced Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2004. Poursaee, A. and Hansson, C. M., Galvanostatic Pulse Technique with the Current Connement Guard Ring: The Laboratory and Finite Element Analysis, Corros. Sci., Vol. 50 10 , 2008, pp. 27392746. Andrade, C. and Alonso, C., On-Site Measurements of Corrosion Rate of Reinforcements, Constr. Build. Mater., Vol. 15, 2001, pp. 141145. Soleymani, H. R. and Ismail, M. E., Comparing Corrosion Measurement Methods to Assess the Corrosion Activity of Laboratory OPC and HPC Concrete Specimens, Cem. Concr. Res., Vol. 34, 2004, pp. 20372044. Poursaee, A. and Hansson, C. M., Potential Pitfalls in Assessing Chloride-Induced Corrosion of Steel in Concrete, Cem. Concr. Res., Vol. 39 5 , 2009, pp. 391400. Spellman, D. L. and Stratfull, R. F., Laboratory Corrosion Test of Steel in Concrete, Report No. M&R 635116-3, California Division of Highways, State of California, Sacramento, CA, 1968. Stratfull, R. F., Half-Cell Potential and the Corrosion of Steel in Concrete, Report No. CA-HYMR-5116-7-72-42, California Division of Highways, State of California, Sacramento, CA, 1972. ASTM C876-09, 2009, Standard Test Method for Half-Cell Potentials of Uncoated Reinforcing Steel in Concrete, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 3.02, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 446451. Stern, M. and Geary, A. L., Electrochemical Polarisation: I. A Theoretical Analysis of the Shape of Polarisation Curves, J. Electrochem. Soc., Vol. 104 1 , 1957, pp. 5663. Andrade, C. and Gonzlez, J. A., Quantitative Measurements of Corrosion Rate of Reinforcing Steels Embedded in Concrete Using Polarization Resistance Measurements, Werkst. Korros., Vol. 29, 1978, pp. 515519. Andrade, C., Marcias, A., Feliu, S., Escudero, M. L., and Gonzalez, J. A., Quantitative Measurement of the Corrosion Rate Using a Small Counter Electrode in the Boundary of Passive and Corroded Zones of a Long Concrete Beam, Corrosion Rates of Steel in Concrete, ASTM STP 1065, N. S. Berke, V. Chaker, and D. Whiting, Eds., ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1990. Newton, C. J. and Sykes, J. M., A Galvanostatic Pulse Technique for Investigation of Steel Corrosion in Concrete, Corros. Sci., Vol. 28 11 , 1988, pp. 10511074. Klinghoffer, O., In Situ Monitoring of the Reinforcement Corrosion by Means of Electrochemical Methods, Nord. Concr. Res., Vol. 16, 1995, pp. 113. Elsener, B., Klinghoffer, O., Frolund, T., Rislund, E., Schiegg, Y., and Bhni, H., Assessment of Reinforcement Corrosion by Means of Galvanostatic Pulse Technique, Repair of Concrete Structures, A. Blankvoll, Ed., Svolvr, Norway, 1997, pp. 391400. Wojtas, H., Determination of Corrosion Rate of Reinforcement with a Modulated Guard Ring Electrode; Analysis of Errors Due to Lateral Current Distribution, Corros. Sci. Vol. 46, 2004, pp. 16211632. Nygaard, P. V., Geiker, M. R., Mller, P., Srensen, H. E., and Klinghoffer, O., Effect of Guard Ring Arrangements on the Current Connement and Polarisation of Steel in Concrete-Experiments and Modeling, Eurocorr, Lisbon, Portugal, 2005. Feliu, S. and Gonzalez, J. A., Determining Polarization Resistance in Reinforced Concrete Slabs, Corros. Sci., Vol. 29 1 , 1989, pp. 105113. Feliu, S., Gonzalez, J. A., and Andrade, C., Multiple-Electrode Method for Estimating the Polarization Resistance in Large Structures, J. Appl. Electrochem., Vol. 26, 1996, pp. 305309. Videm, K. and Mydal, R., Electrochemical Behavior of Steel in Concrete and Evaluation of the
4 5
6 7 8 9
10 11
12
13 14 15
16
17
18 19 20
Corrosion Rate, Corros., Vol. 53 9 , 1997, pp. 734742. 21 Feliu, S., Gonzalez, J. A., Miranda, J. M., and Feliu, V., Possibilities and Problems of In Situ Techniques for Measuring Steel Corrosion Rates in Large Reinforced Concrete Structures, Corros. Sci., Vol. 47, 2005, pp. 217238. 22 Poursaee, A., 2010, Electrochemical Measurements of the Condition of Steel in Concrete, VDM Verlag Dr. Mller 256, Saarbrucken, Germany. 23 Feliu, S., Gonzalez, J. A., Feliu, S., Jr., and Andrade, C., Connement of the Electrochemical Signal for In-Situ Measurement of Polarization Resistance in Reinforced Concrete, ACI Mater. J., Vol. 87 5 , 1990, pp. 457460. 24 Kranc, S. C. and Sagues, A. A., Polarization Current Distribution and Electrochemical Impedance Response of Reinforced Concrete when Using Guard Ring, Electrochim. Acta, Vol. 38 14 , 1993, pp. 20552061. 25 Feliu, S., Gonzales, J. A., Andrade, C., and Feliu, V., On-Site Determination of the Polarization Resistance in a Reinforced Concrete Beam, Corros., Vol. 43 10 , 1987, pp. 761767. 26 Lasia, A., Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy and its Applications, Modern Aspects of Electrochemistry, B. E. Conway, J. Bockris, and R. E. White, Eds., Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 1999, pp. 143248. 27 Jones, D. A., Principles and Prevention of Corrosion, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1992. 28 Silverman, D. C., Simple Models/Practical Answers Using the Electrochemical Impedance Technique, Corrosion Testing and Evaluation, R. Baboian and W. Dean, Eds., ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1990. 29 Poursaee, A., Determining the Appropriate Scan Rate to Perform Cyclic Polarization Test on the Steel Bars in Concrete, Electrochim. Acta, Vol. 55 3 , 2010, pp. 12001206. 30 ASTM G1-90, 1999, Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 3.02, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 18. 31 Andrade, C., Merino, P., Novoa, X. R., Perez, M. C., and Solar, L., Passivation of Reinforcing Steel in Concrete, Mater. Sci. Forum, Vols. 192194, 1995, pp. 861898. 32 Alonso, C., Andrade, C., Izquierdo, M., Novoa, X. R., and Perez, M. C., Effect of Protective Oxide Scales in the Macrogalvanic Behaviour of Concrete Reinforcements, Corros. Sci., Vol. 40 8 , 1998, pp. 13791389. 33 Andrade, C., Keddam, M., Novoa, X. R., Perez, M. C., Rangel, C. M., and Takenouti, H., Electrochemical Behaviour of Steel Rebars in Concrete: Inuence of Environmental Factors and Cement Chemistry, Electrochim. Acta, Vol. 46, 2001, pp. 39053912. 34 Andrade, C. and Alonso, C., Test Methods for On-Site Corrosion Rate Measurement of Steel Reinforcement in Concrete by Means of the Polarisation Resistance Method, Mater. Struct., Vol. 37, 2004, pp. 623643. 35 Hansson, C. M., Comments on Electrochemical Measurements of the Rate of Corrosion of Steel in Concrete, Cem. Concr. Res., Vol. 14, 1984, pp. 574584.

Corrosion Measurement Techniques in Steel Reinforced

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corrosion Measurement Techniques in Steel Reinforced

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of ASTM International, Vol. 8, No. 5 Paper ID JAI103283 Available online at www.astm.

Corrosion Measurement Techniques in Steel Reinforced Concrete

2 JOURNAL OF ASTM INTERNATIONAL

355 770 1070 160 40 mL/100 kg cement 0.43

POURSAEE ON CORROSION MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES 3

4 JOURNAL OF ASTM INTERNATIONAL

FIG. 3Concrete resistance values of the beams. Rp = E I B Rp 1

POURSAEE ON CORROSION MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES 5

FIG. 5Schematic illustration of galvanostatic pulse results.

6 JOURNAL OF ASTM INTERNATIONAL

POURSAEE ON CORROSION MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES 7

FIG. 7Nyquist plot of one of the segments in chloride contaminated section.

8 JOURNAL OF ASTM INTERNATIONAL

FIG. 9Schematic of a galvanodynamic polarization curve.

POURSAEE ON CORROSION MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES 9

10 JOURNAL OF ASTM INTERNATIONAL

POURSAEE ON CORROSION MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES 11

12 JOURNAL OF ASTM INTERNATIONAL

POURSAEE ON CORROSION MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES 13

14 JOURNAL OF ASTM INTERNATIONAL

POURSAEE ON CORROSION MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES 15

You might also like