ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 102-M29

Mechanical Properties of Corrosion-Damaged Reinforcement

by John Cairns, Giovanni A. Plizzari, Yingang Du, David W. Law, and Chiara Franzoni
Corrosion of embedded reinforcement is the most prevalent form of
degradation of reinforced concrete structures, and may impair
structural capacity through loss of bar section, loss of bond between
reinforcement and concrete as a result of longitudinal cracking, or
loss of concrete cross section. The effect of corrosion attack on
mechanical properties of reinforcement is investigated through
physical tests on bars with simulated and real corrosion damage
and through a simple numerical model. Bars subjected to local or
pitting attack may suffer a relatively modest loss of strength but a
significant loss of ductility, and this is related principally to the
variability of attack along the length of the bar. The numerical
model supplements experimental work through a parametric study
on the influence of steel characteristics. Finally, guidelines on
assessment are suggested that are derived from results reported in
the paper and from elsewhere in the published literature.
Keywords: corrosion; ductility; reinforcement.

INTRODUCTION
Corrosion of embedded reinforcement is the principal
cause of deterioration of structural concrete and a major
economic cost for maintenance of national infrastructures.1
The effect of this deterioration on residual capacity is therefore a matter of concern to those charged with ensuring safe
operation of concrete structures. It is clear, however, that
many reinforced concrete structures remain in service once
reinforcement has started to corrode and cover concrete over
the bars has begun to spall; there is extensive evidence that
modest amounts of corrosion do not pose an appreciable
threat to structural stability. Nonetheless, it is essential that
responsible engineers have at their disposal the means to
verify that the affected structures retain an acceptable margin
of safety. However, data and methods from which a reliable
assessment of residual capacity of corrosion-damaged
structures can be made are scarce.
Corrosion may affect residual capacity through several
mechanisms, including loss of bar section, loss of concrete
section as a result of longitudinal cracking and spalling, and
a reduction in the interaction, or bond, between reinforcement
and concrete.2,3 This study focuses on the first of these
mechanisms, namely the changes to mechanical properties
of reinforcement as a consequence of corrosion.
Corrosion attack may be broadly classified as either: 1)
uniform; or 2) localized, sometimes referred to as pitting attack.
The consequences of these two forms of attack differ markedly.
Uniform attack can be addressed simply by using the residual
cross section of the bar with essentially unchanged mechanical
properties; only in the case of substantial loss of section on reinforcement manufactured through the quenched and tempered
process might an adjustment be necessary to account for the
variation in material properties through the bar section.
Pitting attack is a more insidious form of attack for two
reasons. First, the localized nature of attack together with a
less expansive form of oxidation products from the corrosion
256

reactions means that substantial section loss may occur prior

to warning signs of longitudinal cracking becoming visible
on the surface of the member. Local corrosion sites are,
however, readily detectable by the half-cell method, where
they appear as a zone of strongly negative potential surrounded
by a high potential gradient. Second, pitting attack affects
not only strength, but also ductility. The normal design and
assessment rules established in codified procedures are based
on an assurance of adequate ductility that may no longer
be applicable under pitting attack, and could thus be unsafe.
This paper reports a study into the effects of corrosion on
residual mechanical properties of steel reinforcement
conducted through numerical modeling, physical tests in
which corrosion damage was simulated by machined defects,
and physical tests in which corrosion was accelerated by
means of anodic polarization. This report is confined to
performance under static loading only.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The paper describes the behavior of reinforcing bars
suffering irregular loss of cross section as a consequence of
corrosion and identifies the factors that will affect the
residual mechanical behavior of the bars. Although the
mathematical modeling techniques deployed are unlikely to
find direct use in practice, the understanding developed
through their use will guide engineers to be responsible for
safe operation of corrosion-affected concrete structures in
the application of empirical knowledge.
NUMERICAL MODELING
A simple nonlinear numerical model was constructed to
assess the influence of various parameters on residual
strength and ductility of corroded reinforcement, including
the effects of pitting attack. The model was implemented
through a spreadsheet.
A stress-strain relationship for an undamaged bar was first
obtained through testing (or, in the case of the parametric
study, assumed). Steel properties were assumed uniform
throughout the volume of the bar and to be unaffected by
corrosion. There is evidence from other studies, including
Palsson and Mirza,4 to support the latter assumption. In
analyses reported herein, a simple trilateral approximation to
the measured stress-strain relationship has been considered
adequate (Fig. 1, Plot A).
The bar was divided into short incremental lengths for
analysis. The variation of the cross-sectional area along a bar
was then measured, or an assumed variation was derived.
The elongation of each increment of bar length was then
ACI Materials Journal, V. 102, No. 4, July-August 2005.
MS No. 04-217 received July 9, 2004, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright 2005, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the MayJune 2006 ACI Materials Journal if the discussion is received by February 1, 2006.

ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2005

ACI member John Cairns is a senior lecturer in the School of the Built Environment,
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.
ACI member Giovanni A. Plizzari is a professor of structural engineering in the
Department of Engineering Design and Technology, the University of Bergamo, Italy.
His research interests include material properties and structural applications of highperformance concrete, fiber-reinforced concrete, concrete pavements, fatigue and
fracture of concrete, and steel-to-concrete interaction in reinforced concrete structures.
Yingang Du is a lecturer of civil and structural engineering at Telford College,
Edinburgh. He received his BEng and MEng from Xian University of Architecture and
Technology, China, and his PhD from The University of Birmingham, UK. His
research interests include the safety and durability of concrete structures under
corrosion, earthquakes, fire, and high temperature.
David W. Law is employed by the Advanced Materials Group for Maunsell Australia,
Melbourne, Australia. His research interests include corrosion monitoring using
nondestructive electrochemical techniques, durability assessment, predictive modeling,
and life-cycle management of reinforced concrete structures.
Chiara Franzoni is a professional engineer. She received her degree in civil engineering
from the University of Brescia. Her research interests include the durability of concrete,
corrosion of reinforcing bars, and zinc-coated reinforcing bars.

calculated under successive increments of load using the

average stress-strain relationship for the undamaged bar and
the residual cross-sectional area for that increment of length.
The model ignores stress concentration and eccentric load
effects, which test results show to have no appreciable effect
for an embedded bar under static loading. Average strain was
calculated by taking a summation of incremental elongations
and dividing by the gauge length. Fracture is taken to occur
when the most highly strained increment reaches u, the
strain at maximum load measured in the undamaged bar.
Average strain at fracture and ultimate load were calculated
at this point. Yield stress was also determined as 0.002 proof
stress, based on average elongation and stress.
Figure 1 shows the application of the model to a simple
case where the cross section of the bar is locally reduced by
10% over a length equal to one bar diameter. The gauge
length is taken as 20 bar diameters. Plot A shows the assumed
stress-strain relationship for the reference undamaged bar. The
plot shows an initial linear-elastic portion followed by a short
yield plateau and a strain-hardening phase. The ultimate tensile
strength of the bar is taken to be 1.15 times the yield strength.
Plot B shows results for the damaged case. Stress is based on
the reference cross section. A comparison of Plots A and B
shows no change in the apparent yield strength of the bar as
a result of local damage, but the ultimate tensile strength is
reduced by 10%. As code strength procedures are based on
yield rather than ultimate tensile strength, however, this
reduction would have little effect on calculated section
strength. The major change in mechanical characteristics is
in ductilitya property of particular significance for plastic

Fig. 1Analysis of bar containing single defect.

ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2005

analysis and seismic resistancewhich is reduced by

approximately 50% in this illustration.
Despite the local damage, apparent yield strength is
maintained because the ultimate tensile strength of the steel
can be exploited where the cross section is locally reduced.
The corresponding ultimate strains at the locally reduced
section develop only over the short length of the pit, and
hence have little effect on overall elongation. Strain capacity
at the reduced section is exhausted before appreciable
yielding can develop in the remainder of the bar and thus
overall elongation at fracture is reduced.
MECHANICAL TESTS ON BARS WITH
SIMULATED PITTING DAMAGE
A series of tests to investigate the influence of local
damage on mechanical characteristics of reinforcement were
conducted in the Structural Engineering Laboratories at the
University of Brescia. In this part of the study, corrosion
damage was simulated by removing a section of bar using a
multifluted, hemispherical end mill with a cylindrical shank
(Fig. 2). This enabled a realistic simulation of the pitting
corrosion. The tests were carried out on deformed B500B
bars having diameters of 12, 16, 20, and 24 mm. The steels
used in the tests conformed to draft European regulation
requirements.5 Several degrees of section reduction were
created using mills of 4, 6, 8, and 10 mm radii. The proportion
of the cross section removed at the most damaged section (on
the axis of the milled defect) were 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50%
of the nominal area of the bar section.
Reference undamaged and damaged bars were subjected
to tensile testing. The deformation of the bar in the damaged
area was measured by two linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) with gauge lengths equal to five times the
diameter of the bar. One transducer was placed in front of the
machined defect, while the other was placed behind it on the
intact side of the bar. Elongations plotted herein were
obtained from the average of the two measurements. Load
and displacement data were logged by a data acquisition
system at a frequency of 1 Hz.
Sample results from the tensile tests are presented in Fig. 3,
which shows load-displacement plots obtained from a 12 mmdiameter bar with various degrees of damage machined using
an end mill of 8 mm radius. The reduction of the maximum
load is proportionate to the damaged area, while the reduction
in the force at yield is slightly less-than-proportional to the
section loss. The main change in mechanical performance,

Fig. 2Schematic of machined defect geometry.

257

however, is the significant reduction in bar ductility caused

by the absence of yielding out with the damaged area.
The marked reductions in ductility measured on 12 mmdiameter bars are summarized in Fig. 4, which shows the
variation in displacement corresponding to a postpeak load
equal to 99% of the maximum load as a function of residual
cross section at the defect; ductility of bars with 5 and 50%
of section loss at the damage is reduced by 30 to 40% and by
approximately 80%, respectively. The diameter of the
artificially induced defect does not exert a significant
influence on mechanical properties. The other bar diameters
tested show similar results.
MECHANICAL TESTS ON BARS WITH
ACCELERATED CORROSION DAMAGE
Although simulated damage provides a convenient and
controlled way of investigating the effects of section loss, it
does not adequately represent the true nature of corrosion
attack. This section of the study reports tests on bars
subjected to corrosion attack. To obtain results within a
reasonable timescale, corrosion was accelerated under an
impressed current. Two types of specimens were tested: one
set at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh (designated as the
HW series), and a second at the University of Brescia
(designated as the UB series). The HW specimens used plain
round bars of 16 mm diameter, while the UB specimens used
20 mm-diameter high-yield ribbed bars. Test bars were cast
in concrete before being subjected to corrosion accelerated
by anodic polarization. This produced a mixture of general

Fig. 3Plots of load versus elongation from tensile tests on

12 mm-diameter bars with 8 mm-radius machined defects of
various depths.

Fig. 4Displacement at peak load for various damage

levels and geometries, 12 mm-diameter bars.
258

and pitting attacks of varying intensities throughout the

length of the bar, and although it cannot be claimed that the
procedure produced damage that exactly simulated longterm field corrosion, it is more representative than singlemachined defects.
Bars in Series HW specimens were cast in the corners of
cubic beam end-type bond specimens. Specimens were
conditioned under a cyclic wetting/drying regime of 1 day of
wetting by 3% salt solution followed by 6 days at a relative
humidity of approximately 70%. Stainless steel angle
sections were placed on the test specimens and connected to
the negative terminal of a controlled-current power supply.
Test bars were connected to the positive terminal of the
supply. A conductive foam was placed between cathodic
plates and concrete to ensure good connectivity. Current
densities of between 0.01 and 0.05 mA/cm2 were applied
during the no-spray part of the conditioning cycle. A total of
25 bars were tested.
In the six specimens in Series UB, bars were cast in
concrete cylinders, and after demolding, were conditioned
under an impressed anodic potential while partly immersed
in a 5% salt solution. At the end of the conditioning period,
bars were broken out of concrete and cleaned in an acid bath.
The bars were subjected to varying degrees of corrosion.
Some had only superficial corrosion with no significant loss
of section, while others underwent severe corrosion with up
to 72% of the section lost at the most severely damaged section.
Measurements of corrosion attack
Because of the different levels of corrosion attack induced
in the two sets of specimens, different methods were used to
measure section loss. In the less heavily corroded HW series,
bars were weighed to determine the average loss of the cross
section and average corrosion penetration was calculated.
Bars were also examined in detail, and dimensions of the largest
pits were measured by a graduated magnifier and micrometer.
The movable anvil of the micrometer was a conical shape
with a point radius of 1 mm to allow it to reach to the bottom
of the larger pits. The area lost at the pit was calculated as /4
times the depth and breadth of the pit. Test bars had mean
section loss (based on weight loss measurements) of up to 4%,
with a maximum reduction at an individual pit of 8%.
Residual cross sections of the more heavily corroded UB
series bars were measured using a liquid displacement
technique. The test bar was placed in a narrow calibrated
measuring cylinder, and a known quantity of liquid was
added to the cylinder. The volume of the test bar could then
be determined from the incremental rise in liquid level. The
procedure was repeated to obtain a profile of the cross
section along the entire gauge length.
Corrosion topography
Measurements on the relatively lightly corroded HW
series bars showed that the breadth of pits (that is, the
circumferential dimension) averaged slightly less than twice
the depth, confirming that the assumption that pits are
circular in cross section is reasonable. Section loss at a pit
thus increases approximately in proportion to the square of
its depth (or width).
The maximum loss of section at a pit averaged approximately
twice the average loss of section (Fig. 5), although there was
a wide scatter. The ratio of maximum pit depth to mean
penetration was generally in the range of 10 to 50, with a
tendency for the ratio of maximum pit depth to mean
ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2005

penetration to reduce as corrosion progresses (Fig. 6). In

pitting corrosion, a relatively large cathode drives corrosion
at a concentrated anode. As the size of the pit/anode
increases, the ratio of anodic area to cathodic area will
reduce, hence reducing the rate of depletion at the pit. It is
therefore to be expected that the rate of penetration at the pit
would slow in relation to the mean rate of penetration as
corrosion progresses. The ratio lies above that recommended
in the CONTECVET Manual,2 probably due to the higher
degree of corrosion covered in supporting investigations.
Two of the corroded test bars from Series UB are shown
in Fig. 7(a). One bar suffered only light surface corrosion,
and section loss did not exceed 2% in any length increment.
The second bar was severely corroded with approximately
72% of the cross section lost to corrosion at the most
severely damaged section. The variation in diameter and the
in cross-sectional area along the second bar are plotted in
Fig. 7(b); it illustrates the highly nonuniform nature of
localized corrosion attack. No meaningful conclusions can
be drawn about the relationship between local and mean attack
penetrations from these relatively short bar specimens, however.
Residual mechanical characteristics
of corroded bars: HW series
Tests for mechanical properties were conducted following
similar procedures to those used for bars containing machined
defects, with the exception that a gauge length of 12.5 times
bar diameter was used for HW series bars. Figure 8(a) shows
the stress-strain diagram for Bar F3, a representative
reference (uncorroded) bar from the HW series. The plot is
characteristic of a mild steel, with a clearly defined yield
point and yield plateau, followed by a strain-hardening
portion. The descending tail on the plot marks the unloading
of the bar shortly after peak stress when the test was halted
to avoid damage to the strain sensor if the test bar was to
fracture. Reference uncorroded test bars had a yield strength
of 311 N/mm2, an ultimate-to-yield strength ratio of 1.46, and
an elongation at fracture of 29%, exceeding the requirements
of the relevant standard.6 Mean strain at maximum force was
nearly 20%.
Even after corrosion, all test bars met the requirements of
the standard, although two of the bars came close to the limit
with an elongation at fracture of 22.5%, compared with the
specified minimum of 22%. Figure 8(b) plots yield and
ultimate tensile strengths of bars, calculated on the residual
cross section, against section loss at the largest pit. Figure 8(b)

shows there to be no loss in yield strength when strength is

calculated in this way, while ultimate tensile strength shows
a slight increase with increasing section loss. By the use of
linear regression analysis, it was found that the ultimate
tensile strength increased by approximately 5.7% for a 7.0%
loss in section at a pit. In effect, this means that the ultimate
force developed in the bar is reduced by only approximately
1% for a 7% loss in section. If results are plotted using mean
instead of maximum section loss, the change in peak strength
with corrosion is not found to be significant.
The apparent increase in the ultimate tensile strength at a
pit is at variance with what would be expected from both a
simple analysis and from the numerical model. A possible
explanation was put forward by Castel, Francois, and
Airliguie.7 If a bar does not have a completely uniform cross
section and material composition throughout its length, then
it would clearly be expected to fracture at the point where the
material is weakest. If the position of the pit does not coincide
with the location where the steel is weakest, an apparent
increase in strength (where this is based on the minimum
cross-sectional area) will be measured.
Corrosion initiates where micro-differences in environment
or materials composition allow micro-electropotential differences to develop. Steel strength is also influenced by minor
differences in alloy composition. If the differences that result in
one section being of stronger composition than the next also
caused corrosion to develop preferentially at the same location,

Fig. 6Decreasing rate of penetration at pit with increasing

corrosion.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 5Relationship between mean section loss and loss of

cross section at pit measured in HW series.
ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2005

Fig. 7Test bars from Series UB: (a) lightly corroded (Test 1)
and heavily corroded (Test 2) test bars; and (b) variation in
cross section and diameter along heavily corroded bar.
259

then it is apparent that bar strength would be reduced by a lesser

amount than the bar section. Given that pure iron generally
corrodes less but is weaker than a mild steel alloy, one can speculate that corrosion pits are more likely to develop where the
metallic structure is composed of a stronger alloy.
Figure 8(c) shows the influence of corrosion on ductility.
Two sets of data are represented. Open squares represent
strain at fracture and are plotted against the left-hand axis.
Filled triangles represent elongation at fracture (elongation
measured over the fracture on a gauge length of five times
the bar diameter), and are plotted against the right-hand axis.
Both measures show a reduction in ductility with increasing
corrosion. The reduction in ductility is evidently more
marked than the reduction in strength shown in Fig. 8(b).
Comparison with results from numerical
model: HW series tests
The numerical model was also applied to the test bars even
though the variation in cross section along test bars was not
measured in full detail. To simplify input data, it was assumed
that the mean loss of section occurred at all incremental
lengths, except for one increment where the area loss
corresponded to the area of the largest measured pit. Analysis
showed that results were not sensitive to the presence of
smaller pits. For a maximum section loss of 8%, corresponding
to the highest section loss plotted in Fig. 8(b) and (c), no
significant loss of yield strength was measured, and the
average strain at maximum load decreased from 0.20 to 0.15
(Fig. 8(d)). The numerical model results lie within the range
of the experimental scatter shown in Fig. 8(b) and (c).
Residual mechanical characteristics of corroded
bars: UB series
Plots of stress (based on original cross section) against
elongation measured for the two bars from the UB series

shown in Fig. 7(a) are presented in Fig. 9(a). The bar in Test
1 had suffered only a 2% loss of section, while the Test 2 bar
suffered a maximum section loss of around 70%. The reduction
in both strength and ductility is clearly evident.
Plots obtained from the numerical model are also
presented in Fig. 9(a). In this case, the bar cross section was
taken from the incrementally-measured variations throughout
the gauge length. The plot shows that the model provides a
reasonable representation of behavior, with estimated
reductions in both strength and ductility corresponding well
to measured values. In Fig. 9(b), the variations in strain
along the length of the bar calculated by the model are also
shown, and can be related to the variation in the cross section
presented in Fig. 7(b). The very high strains calculated at the
most severely attacked sections are evident, with fracture
deemed to occur when the local peak reaches a limiting
value. Overall elongation, however, is related to the integral
of strain along the bar, that is, to the area under the plot. It
can be seen that the contribution of the highly localized peak
strain does not provide a correspondingly large contribution
to overall elongation.
PARAMETRIC STUDY USING MODEL
Following validation against measured data, the numerical
model described previously has been used to investigate the
influence of corrosion attack and mechanical properties of
undamaged bars on residual mechanical performance.
Figure 10(a) shows the trilinear stress-strain relationships
used in analyses. Two lines are shown that represent the two
types of steel considered. The solid line HR represents a hotrolled mild steel, and the dashed line HRCW represents a
hot-rolled, cold-worked bar. The only difference between
the two is the value of stress assumed at a strain of 1 at the
end of the second component of the diagram. The influence

Fig. 8Results from Series HW bars.

260

ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2005

of the ratio of ultimate to yield strength fu/fy, of strain at peak

stress u, and of the type of bar, whether hot-rolled or coldworked, represented by the shape of the stress-strain
relationship and the ratio f1/fy have been investigated.
Default values in the analysis were taken as Es = 205 kN/mm2;
fy = 460 N/mm2; fu = 552 N/mm2 (fu/fy = 1.2); u = 6%; 1 =
4 fy/Es; average section loss = 8.6%; and f1/fy = 1.0005
(where f1 is the stress corresponding to strain 1), representing a hot-rolled bar with a clearly defined yield plateau.
Loss of section was represented by assuming that section
loss from corrosion followed a random normal distribution
along the bar. The validity of this assumption has not been
checked. The same randomized distribution was used in all
analyses. Different levels of corrosion were represented by
factoring this randomized distribution (Eq. (1)). This step is
questionable as the rate of penetration at pits in relation to the
average penetration is expected to reduce as the pits increase
in area. There is, however, no more accurate information on
which to proceed at this time. For these reasons, the parametric
analysis should be considered to provide only qualitative results
A res = UF A 0 ( 1 P F { Random ( A los ) } )

(1)

where A0 and Ares are the original and residual crosssectional areas, respectively, for the incremental length of bar
considered; {Random(Alos)} is a normally distributed random
variable representing the cross-sectional area lost to corrosion;
and UF and PF are coefficients representing mean and local
section loss, respectively, used in the parametric analysis.
The variation in mechanical characteristics of the bar with
increasing amounts of corrosion predicted by the model is
shown in Fig. 10(b). The variation in cross section along the
bar was obtained by varying coefficient PF in Eq. (1) while
maintaining coefficient UF = 1.0. Ultimate tensile strength
and yield strength are plotted on the left axis; strains are
plotted on the right. Bar stress is based on the average
residual cross section. Figure 10(b) shows ultimate tensile
stress fu to reduce with mean section loss, that is, with
corrosion. Bar tensile strength is determined by minimum
cross section, and thus reduces more rapidly than an average
loss of bar section. Nominal yield strength fy also reduces
with increasing corrosion, although the reduction is somewhat less marked. At an average section loss of 10%, for
example, fu and fy were calculated to reduce by approximately
20 and 10%, respectively. The calculated reduction in
ductility is substantially greater, however, at around 75%. At
a mean section loss of 20%, the strain at fracture is reduced
close to the yield strain, and any semblance of overall plastic
behavior is lost. As stated previously, only a qualitative
assessment can be made because of the assumptions made,
particularly in respect to corrosion topography, and the
values given herein are intended only to demonstrate that bar
strength may reduce more rapidly than a mean loss of section
alone would predict, and that the effect on ductility will be
substantially greater than the effect on strength.
Uniformity of corrosion attack also influences residual
mechanical properties (Fig. 10(c)). Herein, the uniformity of
corrosion is adjusted by varying coefficient PF in Eq. (1) and
adjusting coefficient UF to maintain a constant average
section loss. Lower values on the horizontal axis thus represent
more marked pitting attack, whereas a ratio of 100% represents
uniform corrosion. Stress and strain are again plotted against
left- and right-hand axes, respectively. Effective strength
ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2005

and ductility (based on residual mean cross section) both

reduce as pitting becomes more marked, but the effect on
ductility is much greater. Note that if the plot were based on
a minimum residual cross section, the ultimate bar strength
would remain constant and the yield strength would increase
with increasing corrosion.
The influence of a change in ultimate tensile strength while
yield strength remains constant is examined in Fig. 10(d). Stress
and strain are again plotted against left- and right-hand axes,
respectively. Ductility is strongly impaired for bars with a
low ratio of fu/fy, but the effect on yield strength is small.
Similarly, ductility is strongly impaired for bars with a low
fracture strain u (Fig. 10(e)).
Figure 10(f) shows stress-strain plots for two different
types of bar in both a corroded and noncorroded state. Plots
are offset from the origin to differentiate each set. The lefthand pair of plots represent a bar in which cold-working has
removed a clearly defined yield point. The right-hand pair of
plots represent a hot-rolled bar that has a clearly defined
yield point and plateau before strain hardening begins. In
each pair, the left-hand plot represents the noncorroded bar,
and the right-hand plot represents the corroded bar. The
difference between the two is solely the value of f1, which is
greater in the case of the cold-worked bar. The two types of
bars have similar residual ultimate and yield strengths, but
the corroded cold-worked bar has appreciably poorer
ductility than its hot-rolled companion.
RESULTS FROM OTHER INVESTIGATIONS
Although the numerical model outlined previously shows
a satisfactory correlation with test data and is useful for
understanding of the factors that influence residual mechanical
characteristics of reinforcement, it is not suitable for practical
use because of the lack of information on corrosion topography.
Practical models for residual strength and ductility are, at
present, thus confined to empirical correlations with section

Fig. 9Results from Series UB bars.

261

loss. Such relationships may be represented by the expressions

given in Eq. (2) to (4)
f y = ( 1.0 y Q corr )f y0

(2)

f u = ( 1.0 u Q corr )f u0

(3)

u = ( 1.0 1 Q corr ) 0

(4)

where fy, fu, and u represent yield strength, ultimate tensile

strength, and elongation corresponding to ultimate strength
after time t, based on the original cross section, respectively; fy0,
fu0, and 0 represent yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, and
elongation of the noncorroded bar, respectively; Qcorr is
average section loss, expressed as a percentage of original cross
section; and y, u, and l are empirical coefficients.

A summary of coefficients determined from various

investigations, mainly derived from the work of Du,8 are
summarized in Table 1. An y or u value of 0.01 represents
a uniform corrosion attack where loss of strength is directly
proportional to the average loss of section. Values of y or
u in excess of 0.01 represent the effects of nonuniform
corrosion attack.
All but two investigators report values in excess of 0.01,
indicating a more rapid reduction in strength properties than
in mean cross-sectional area. The relatively low weight loss of
test samples in the other two studies by Maslehuddin et al.9
and by Allam et al.10 may have obscured any variations.
Castel, Francois, and Airliguie7 reported a 10% increase in
ultimate strength at the most heavily attacked section, but
herein, stress was derived from the dimensions of the
minimum cross section. The majority of results indicate that
the reduction in the force at which a bar yields and its ultimate
tensile strength is between 20 and 70% greater than would be

Fig. 10Results from parametric study.

262

ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2005

estimated on the basis of average loss of cross section. The

reduction in elongation is always greater than the reduction
in strength. Changes are attributable to the nonuniform
nature of corrosion attack as discussed previously.
-coefficients determined from the HW series reported
herein tend to be less than in the majority of studies. The
plain round mild steel bars used in the HW series tests had
high ductilities and high ultimate-to-yield strength ratios
(fu/fy). The parametric analysis reported previously
demonstrated that such bars would be less susceptible to
the consequences of pitting attack.
Several other points are worth noting from the studies
reviewed in Table 1, although cross-study conclusions regarding
the effect of other parameters must be highly tentative due to
the several differences in exposure/conditioning of test
samples, test procedures, steel properties, bar diameters, and
concrete qualities between studies.
Morinagas study,11 in which bars were corroded in
service, produced larger reductions in strength and
elongation than accelerated tests. This may indicate
that accelerated corrosion produces more uniform
section loss than service conditions.
Zhang, Lu, and Lis test bars, in which corrosion
resulted from carbonation, tend to show lesser reductions
than studies in which corrosion was chloride-induced.12
This is to be expected, as carbonation-induced corrosion
is more uniform than chloride-induced.
For the present, therefore, models must remain semiempirical, and their predictions must be treated with caution.
EFFECT ON STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE
In considering the significance of these results, it should
be noted that the full ultimate tensile strength of reinforcement is not normally usable in concrete construction as the
strain capacity of concrete limits the reinforcement strains
that can be developed. Design calculations are normally
based on yield strength, ignoring any potential enhancement
from strain hardening. Yield strength and ductility are thus
the more important properties on which to focus.
Reinforcement strength is explicitly considered in design
codes. The effect of reinforcement section loss on section

strength could reasonably be estimated from original material

properties and mean section loss modified by a residual
strength function based on Eq. (2) to (4) together with an
appropriate choice of an coefficient.
Reinforcement ductility is not explicitly considered in the
majority of national design codes. Instead, design rules
assume that a minimum ductility, based on standard specifications, is provided with detailed design rules derived using
this assumption. As long as the residual ductility of the
corroded reinforcement satisfies standard requirements, then
there is no need to adjust design procedures in respect of
ductility. If residual ductility reduces below the standard
specification, due allowance must be made if it is intended to
exploit any form of plastic behavior (including redistribution
of elastic moments) in an assessment, and special procedures
would have to be followed.
It is emphasized, however, that the loss of a bar section is
only one of several mechanisms through which corrosion of
reinforcement may affect residual strength and performance
of concrete structures, and that the effects of loss of concrete
cross section and of loss of bond must also be considered in
an assessment.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Mechanical properties of reinforcing bars may be affected
by corrosion. The effect is attributable to the uneven nature
of corrosion attack along the length of the bar. Results from
a simple nonlinear numerical model of the effects of variations
in cross section along a bar were validated against physical
tests on corroded bars, and satisfactory agreement was obtained.
For the plain mild steel bars subjected to light amounts (up
to 7%) of corrosion, the reduction in yield strength is not
markedly greater than the reduction in the cross-sectional
area. For heavily corroded high-yield bars, the reduction in
yield strength was less than the maximum reduction in the
cross section. The reduction in ductility was appreciably
greater than the reduction in yield strength in both cases; for
example, a bar with a maximum reduction in cross section of
8% lost approximately 20% of its ductility. The numerical
model has also been used to show that, for a given corrosion
topography, residual mechanical properties of bars with a

Table 1Empirical coefficients for strength and ductility

reduction of reinforcement
Authors

Qcorr, %

Exposure

Palsson and Mirza

Concrete
7

Castel, Francois, and Airliguie

Du8
9

Maslehuddin et al.
10

Service, chlorides
2

Concrete

Chlorides, 0.0 mA/cm

Bare

Accelerated, 0.5 to 2.0 mA/cm 2

Concrete

Accelerated, 1.0 mA/cm

Bare

Service, marine

0 to 80

0.0

0.0

NS

0 to 20

0.0

NS

0.035

0 to 25

0.014

0.014 0.029

0 to 18

0.015

0.015 0.039

0 to 1

Bare

Service Arabian coast

0 to 1

Morinaga11

Concrete

Service, chlorides

0 to 25

0.017

0.018

0.06

Zhang, Lu, and Li12

Concrete

Service, carbonation

0 to 67

0.01

0.01

Andrade et al.13

Bare

Accelerated, 1.0 mA/cm 2

0 to 11

0.015

0.013 0.017

Clark and Saifullah14

Concrete

Accelerated, 0.5 mA/cm 2

0 to 28

0.013, 0.017,
0.012 0.014

Lee, Tomosawa, and Noguchi15 Concrete

Accelerated, 13.0 mA/cm 2

0 to 25

0.012

NS

NS

0 to 3

0.012

0.011

0.03

Allam et al.

Present study

Concrete Accelerated, 0.01 to 0.05 mA/cm 2

NS

*
Based on minimum, not average, residual section.
Note: NS = not supplied.

ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2005

263

clearly defined yield plateau and with a high ratio of ultimate

tensile strength to yield strength are less vulnerable to corrosion.
Guidance on assessment is provided for carbonation and
chloride-induced attack. The nature of corrosion attack in
structures in service will depend on conditions of environmental exposure, however, and the simulated damage and
laboratory-induced corrosion in test bars herein may not be
representative of field conditions. Application of the numerical
model to field exposure conditions using corrosion topography
measured under field exposures is recommended.
It is not feasible to routinely measure the precise variations
in cross section along the length of a corroded bar required
for the numerical model in an assessment of a real structure.
Alternative approaches for practical application are therefore
outlined, based either (conservatively) on the minimum bar
cross section at any point or on mean section loss together
with empirical coefficients.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was partly funded by British Energy Generation (UK) Ltd. and
BNFL plc through the Industry Management Committee Programme in association with the UK Health & Safety Executive. The views expressed herein are
those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of British Energy,
BNFL, or the HSE. Reinforcement bars with a special heat treatment were
provided by Ferriera Valsabbia (Odolo, BS, Italy) to the University of Brescia.

REFERENCES
1. Younovich, M., and Thompson, N. G., Corrosion of Highway Bridges:
Economic Impact and Control Methodologies, Concrete International,
V. 25, No. 1, Jan. 2003. pp. 52-57.
2. CONTECVET, A Validated Users Manual for Assessing the Residual
Service Life of Concrete Structures, Geocisa, Madrid. 2001. Available on
CD-ROM from British Cement Association, Crowthorne, Berkshire, UK.
3. Cairns, J.; Du, Y.; and Law, D., Structural Assessment of Corrosion
Damaged Bridges, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on

264

Structural Faults and Repair, Engineering Technics Press, Edinburgh,

2003, 15 pp.
4. Palsson, R., and Mirza, M. S., Mechanical Response of Corroded
Steel Reinforcement of Abandoned Concrete Bridge, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 99, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2002, pp. 157-162.
5. dd ENV 10080:1996, Steel for the Reinforcement of Concrete. Weldable Ribbed Reinforcing Steel B500. Technical Delivery Conditions for
Bars, Coils and Welded Fabric, British Standards Institution, London, 1996.
6. BS4449:1997, Specification for Carbon Steel Bars for the Reinforcement
of Concrete, British Standards Institution, London, 1997, 13 pp.
7. Castel, A.; Francois, R.; and Airliguie, G., Mechanical Behaviour of
Corroded Reinforced Concrete BeamsPart 1: Experimental Study of
Corroded Beams, Materials and Structures, V. 33, Nov. 2000, pp. 539-544.
8. Du, Y., Effect of Reinforcement Corrosion on Structural Concrete
Ductility, PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK, Mar. 2001, 320 pp.
9. Maslehuddin, M.; Allam, I. M.; Al-Sulaimani, G. J.; Al-Mana, A. I.;
and Abduijauwad, S. N., Effect of Rusting of Reinforcing Steel on Its
Mechanical Properties and Bond with Concrete, ACI Materials Journal,
V. 87, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1990, pp. 496-502.
10. Allam, I. M.; Maslehuddin, M.; Saricimen, H.; and Al-Mana, A. I.,
Influence of Atmospheric Corrosion on the Mechanical Properties of
Reinforcing Steel, Construction & Building Materials, V. 8, No. 1, 1994,
pp. 35-41.
11. Morinaga, S., Remaining Life of Reinforced Concrete Structures
after Corrosion Cracking, Durability of Building Materials and Components,
C. Sjostrom, ed., E&FN Spon, London, 1996, pp. 127-137.
12. Zhang, P. S.; Lu, M.; and Li, X. Y., The Mechanical Behaviour of
Corroded Bar, Journal of Industrial Buildings, V. 25, No. 257, 1995, pp. 41-44.
13. Andrade, C.; Alonso, C.; Garcia, D.; and Rodriguez, J., Remaining
Lifetime of Reinforced Concrete Structures: Effect of Corrosion in the
Mechanical Properties of the Steel, Life Prediction of Corrodible Structures,
NACE, Cambridge, UK, Sept. 1991, pp. 12/1-12/11.
14. Clark, L. A., and Saifullah, M., Effect of Corrosion Rate on the
Bond Strength of Corroded Reinforcement, Corrosion and Corrosion
Protection of Steel in Concrete, R. N. Swamy, ed., Sheffield Academic
Press, Sheffield, 1994, pp. 591-602.
15. Lee, H. S.; Tomosawa, F.; and Noguchi, T., Effect of Rebar Corrosion
on the Structural Performance of Singly Reinforced Beams, Durability of
Building Materials and Components, V. 7., C. Sjostrom, ed., E&FN Spon,
London, 1996, pp. 571-580.

ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2005