.

© All Rights Reserved

3 views

.

© All Rights Reserved

- Assessment Existing Concrete Structures
- ACI 562
- SAES-Q-001
- 10J01762-CIV-CA-000-001-D0
- Estimate the Reinforcement in Shallow Foundation
- Placing and Tying Reinforcing Steel
- 2012-05-31FIS-EM-en
- HILTI RE500 น้ำยาเคมีเสียบเหล็ก
- LC 208 Corbel
- Puertos Seminario 6 Design for Durability of New Construction
- Design of Bolt Anchorage
- Rebar Specifiers Brochure En
- The Repair of Reinforced Concrete - John Broomfield
- Raj Seminar
- Sika Galvashield Xp Xpt Xp2 Xp4 Pds
- Anchor
- Rebar Ec2 All
- Reinforcing Steel 1
- HBT16-US
- Case Study

You are on page 1of 10

6, June, 405–414

doi: 10.1680/macr.2010.62.6.405

concrete beams

A. K. Azad, S. Ahmad and B. H. A. Al-Gohi

The analytical prediction of residual flexural strength of corroded beams has been revisited in the context of

relatively larger size beams reinforced with larger diameter tension bars to exclude the size-effect of beams in the

proposed modelling and to improve further the accuracy of the analytical method. Most of the past research,

including that conducted by the authors, has used smaller size beam specimens to generate test data for modelling.

A new experimental programme was undertaken using 48 beams of width 200 mm and depth varying from 215 to

315 mm, reinforced with tension bars of 16 and 18 mm in diameter. The beams were subjected to a varying degree

of corrosion damage using accelerated corrosion and then they were tested in a four-point bending test to determine

their residual flexure capacity. When the two-step analytical procedure, proposed by the authors in an earlier work

to determine the residual flexural strength of corroded beams, was applied to the test beams used in this new

experimental work, it was found that the theoretical predictions were consistently lower than the actual flexural

strength of the beams. The search for a more compliant prediction method has been accomplished by proposing a

new correction factor that replaces the previous one by correctly taking into account the size-effect of the tension

bars. In order to show the accuracy of the proposed method, the test data published by other researchers have been

compared with the values predicted by the proposed method. The comparisons clearly show that the proposed

method yields values which are in good agreement with the test data from this and other experiments, lending

confidence to the proposed method to serve as a reliable analytical tool to predict the flexural capacity of a

corroded concrete beam.

Introduction

crete elements (Cabrera, 1996). A considerable amount

Reinforcement corrosion has been widely reported to of research related to reinforcement corrosion has been

be the main cause of deterioration of many reinforced carried out in the past, addressing various issues related

concrete structures, leading to premature failures before to corrosion process, its initiation and damaging effects.

the attainment of their design life. Research work con- Several models have been proposed for prediction of

ducted in the Arabian Gulf has revealed that the corro- time-to-corrosion cracking. Works of the researchers

sion-free service life of buildings in this region may be (Bazant, 1979; Dagher and Kulendran, 1992; Morinaga,

expected to be between 10 and 15 years and sometimes 1990; Wang and Zhao, 1993) can be cited as represen-

only 5 years (Middle East Construction, 1987). tative samples. However, the cracking of concrete cover

The effects of reinforcement corrosion include loss owing to reinforcement corrosion does not represent

of cross-section of rebars and loss of bond between the loss of structural strength to the point where a

steel and concrete owing to cracking of concrete caused member becomes unsafe.

by rust products. The weakening of the bond and The moment-carrying capacity of a reinforced con-

anchorage between concrete and reinforcement together crete beam depends to a large extent on the strength of

with the reduced cross-sectional area of rebars directly the reinforcing steel. The effect of loss of the reinfor-

cing steel area on the flexural strength has been studied

by various researchers (Cabrera, 1996; Huang and

Civil Engineering Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum Yang, 1997; Rodriguez et al., 1997; Ting and Nowak,

and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

1991; Uomoto and Misra, 1988; Yoon et al., 2000).

(MACR 900037) Paper received 24 February 2009; revised 12 July The effect of corrosion on the bond between steel and

2009; accepted 5 August 2009 concrete has been reported by many researchers

405

Downloaded by [ University of Bristol] on [30/03/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

Azad et al

(Al-Sulaimani et al., 1990; Almusallam et al., 1996; and therefore, from a reliability viewpoint, is appeal-

Amleh and Mirza, 1999; Auyeung et al., 2000; Berra et ing.

al., 2003; Coronelli 2002; Fu and Chung, 1997; Stanish

et al., 1999; Wang and Liu, 2006). The researchers

have correlated the degree of reinforcement corrosion

with the extent of the loss of bond between steel and

Additional experimental work

concrete. Samples of research work pertaining to the The thrust of the new experiment (Al-Gohi, 2008)

prediction of residual flexural strength of corroding was the engagement of relatively larger size reinforced

concrete beams include several studies (Aziz, 1994; concrete test beams to exclude the possible size effects

Cabrera and Ghoddoussi, 1992; Castel et al., 2000a, b; of test specimens in corrosion data. The test pro-

Jin and Zhao, 2001; Mangat and Elgarf, 1999; Nokhas- gramme of Azad et al. (2007) was duplicated using

okhasteh et al., 1992; Ravindrarajah and Ong, 1987; larger size beams with bigger diameter tension bars.

Tachibana et al., 1990; Uomoto and Misra, 1988; Xi et The experimental work consisted of

al., 1997; Zhang et al., 1995). More recently, the

authors (Azad et al., 2007) have proposed a two-step (a) casting a series of reinforced concrete beams of

procedure to predict the residual strength of corroding different cross-sections and reinforcements

beams on the basis of an experimental study in which (b) subjecting them to an accelerated corrosion

48 reinforced beams of 150 mm 3 150 mm cross-sec- through impressed current

tion, reinforced with 10 mm and 12 mm steel bars were (c) testing the corroded beams under four-point bend-

subjected to accelerated corrosion. ing tests to find the residual strength.

A review of the past work including that of the The design variables used in this experiment include

authors (Azad et al., 2007) highlights two common

intrinsic factors. First, virtually all experimental work (a) three different beam depths: 215 mm, 265 mm and

conducted by the researchers has utilised the technique 315 mm

of accelerated corrosion by impressed currents. There (b) two different diameters of tension bars (16 mm and

has been a debate on the applicability of a mathemati- 18 mm)

cal model, formulated from the data gathered from an (c) different durations of corrosion induced by apply-

accelerated corrosion, to the actual in situ corroding ing direct current at an average constant rate of

beams undergoing natural corrosion, as the two corro- 1.78 mA/cm2 .

sion processes are distinctly different. Despite this,

most researchers have opted for the accelerated corro- Test specimens and preparation

sion because it requires far less time and effort to A total of 48 reinforced concrete beams were cast to

gather the much needed test data. Second, the beam include all design variables. All tests were repeated

sizes used in the experimental work were small, varying twice, including the test of the control beams, which

from 100 3 150 mm to 150 3 200, owing to handling were not subjected to corrosion. The 48 beams were

and test constraints. Even if the technique of acceler- divided into six groups, B1 to B6, each group with

ated corrosion is deemed acceptable, the use of small- eight beams, as shown in Table 1. Out of the eight

sized beams raises concern about the possible size beams in a group, six were used in accelerated corro-

effect, if any, in the development of a strength predic- sion and the other two were used as ‘control beams’,

tion model. which were not subjected to corrosion. The control

The aim of this paper is two-fold: first, to verify if beams are designated as B1-C to B6-C.

the method of Azad et al. (2007) is capable of predict- The details of the beams are shown in Figure 1. All

ing the residual strength of corroded larger-sized beams beams had a length of 1100 mm, width of 200 mm and

and, if not, propose the necessary modification; second, a bottom clear cover of 40 mm. Three values of depth

to compare the modified strength prediction model with were used: 215 mm, 265 mm and 315 mm. For each

the available test data from other researches in order to

confirm its acceptability as a reliable method. It was Table 1. Beam groups

therefore necessary to revisit the experimental needs

and to undertake a new set of experiments on relatively Beam groups Beam dimensions Diameter of

larger size beams using accelerated corrosion. The tension

choice of accelerated corrosion stemmed from the fact

Width: mm Depth: mm Steel: mm

that most of the available corrosion data were generated

from the use of such test methods. The proposed meth- B1 200 215 2–16

od, similar to that of Azad et al. (2007) with the B2 200 265 2–16

exception of a new correction factor, Cf , appears to B3 200 315 2–16

predict results which agree well with the experimental B4 200 215 2–18

B5 200 265 2–18

data published by several researchers (Azad et al., B6 200 315 2–18

2007; Rodriguez et al., 1997; Tachibana et al., 1990)

406 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2010, 62, No. 6

Downloaded by [ University of Bristol] on [30/03/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

Flexural strength of corroded reinforced concrete beams

2-#8 Lead wire extended

#8 @ 80 c/c (epoxy coated) At least 1 m outside

40 40

1100

200

200

200

315

285

215

Group B1 Group B2 Group B3

200

200

200

315

285

215

Group B4 Group B5 Group B6

• Clear concrete cover at bottom and two sides is 40 mm and at top is 25 mm

depth, one set of beams was reinforced with 2–16 mm retained) – 1/2 in., 35%; 3/8 in., 35%; 3/16 in., 20%;

diameter tension bars and the other set was reinforced 3/32 in., 10%; (c) coarse/fine aggregate ratio ¼ 1.65

with 2–18 mm diameter bars as shown in Figure 1. All (by mass). Mix design parameters of concrete were

beams had shear reinforcements in the form of double- kept unchanged for all of the specimens.

legged 8 mm diameter stirrups spaced uniformly at

80 mm centres throughout the length of the beams. The Test set-up

stirrups provided sufficient shear reinforcement to pre- Six beam specimens from each group were subjected

vent premature shear failure prior to the attainment of to accelerated corrosion by applying anodic current at

the ultimate flexural load. The top two holding bars for an average rate of 1.78 mA/cm2 for different durations.

stirrups were epoxy-coated to prevent corrosion. The This value of applied current density was close to the

clear concrete cover to reinforcements at the bottom maximum possible current density that could be ap-

and the sides was 40 mm and that at the top was plied to the large-sized beam specimens through the

25 mm. A lead wire was connected to the bottom set-up used. This was achieved through a DC power

tension bars in each beam for electrical connection to supply with a built-in ammeter to monitor the current

supply current. and a potentiometer to control the current intensity.

The following mix proportions were used: (a) water/ The concrete specimens were partially immersed up to

cement ratio ¼ 0.45 (by mass); (b) cement content a depth of about 120 mm in 5% sodium chloride solu-

(ASTM C150 type I Portland cement) ¼ 350 kg/m3 ; tion in a tank. The direction of the current was adjusted

particle size distribution of coarse aggregate (% weight so that the reinforcing steel became an anode and a

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2010, 62, No. 6 407

Downloaded by [ University of Bristol] on [30/03/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

Azad et al

stainless steel plate placed on the concrete specimen Table 2. Values of experimental moment capacity of corroded

served as a cathode. The stainless steel plate was beams and R

placed in the tank in such a manner that it covered both

Beam Mexc : kN m Mexu : kN m M exc

the sides of the specimen throughout the length. This R ¼ 3 100

M exu

arrangement ensured a uniform distribution of the cor-

rosion current along the whole length of the bar. All B1-1 31.50 32.20 97.8

beams, corroded and the control beams, were tested in B1-2 28.18 87.5

a four-point bend to find their load-carrying capacity B1-3 18.38 57.1

using a simple span of 900 mm and a spacing of B1-4 22.40 69.6

B1-5 30.98 96.2

200 mm between the two central loads. B1-6 17.33 53.8

B2-1 36.58 42.26 86.6

B2-2 40.95 96.9

Gravimetric testing of corroded rebars

B2-3 24.33 57.6

After conducting a flexure test of corroded beams, B2-4 26.95 63.8

the tension bars were extracted from the beams by B2-5 26.60 62.9

breaking the concrete for measurement of the average B2-6 20.48 48.5

B3-1 37.63 58.10 64.8

loss of steel owing to induced corrosion, using the B3-2 36.05 62.0

gravimetric test. The bars were cleaned to remove all B3-3 52.50 90.4

rust products using Clarke’s solution and then they were B3-4 55.30 95.2

weighed to find the net weight of steel. Preparation, B3-5 35.70 61.4

cleaning and evaluation of corrosion test specimens B3-6 57.58 99.1

B4-1 33.60 41.12 81.7

were carried out in accordance with ASTM G-1-90 B4-2 22.23 54.1

(ASTM, 1990). B4-3 22.75 55.3

B4-4 23.10 56.2

B4-5 18.73 45.5

B4-6 16.10 39.2

B5-1 31.15 50.84 61.3

Test results B5-2 38.15 75.0

Experimental flexural capacity of beams B5-3 29.75 58.5

B5-4 40.95 80.5

Experimental values of ultimate moment capacity, B5-5 25.55 50.3

Mexu for each control beam (B1-C to B6-C) and Mexc B5-6 25.20 49.6

for corroded beams were calculated as 350P kN mm, B6-1 58.98 67.21 87.8

B6-2 65.98 98.2

where P is the load applied to the beam at failure in

B6-3 57.40 85.4

kN and 350 mm is the distance between the centre of B6-4 36.93 54.9

support and the load P. The experimentally determined B6-5 48.48 72.1

values of flexural strength of the control and corroded B6-6 35.00 52.1

beams, Mexu and Mexc , are shown collectively for all

beams in Table 2. The ratio of Mexc /Mexu multiplied by

100, designated as R, is indicative of the percentage Theoretical flexural capacity of control beams

residual strength, after loss due to reinforcement corro-

sion. The values of R for all corroded beams are also For calculation of flexure strengths of beams, the

shown in Table 2. average value of the 28-day cylinder strength of con-

crete, f c9 , was taken as 28 MPa. The values of yield

strength, fy , for 16 mm and 18 mm bars were measured

Weight loss of bars and equivalent corrosion current as 593 MPa and 575 MPa respectively.

density The theoretical values of ultimate moment capacity

The measured weight loss values were used to calcu- of the control beams, Mthu , were calculated using con-

late the instantaneous corrosion rate, Jr, using the pro- ventional flexural formulae for doubly reinforced rec-

cedure described by Azad et al. (2007). The calculated tangular beams considering the measured values of f c9

values of equivalent Icorr are shown collectively for all and f y (Wang et al., 2007). Table 4 lists the values of

corroded beams in Table 3. It is observed that the Mthu as calculated together with the experimentally

equivalent Icorr values established from gravimetric determined moment capacities, Mexu for the six control

analysis are not exactly equal to the applied corrosion beams and the ratio of Mexu /Mthu , designated as Cc .

current density, Iapp , but are reasonably close. The dif- The results show that the accuracy of the theoretical

ference between Icorr and Iapp is attributed primarily to prediction of the flexural capacity of the beams was in

the resistivity of concrete provided by the concrete the range 10%. In view of this, for all comparison

cover around the bars, the quality of concrete and to purposes, the experimentally obtained moment capacity

the size of rebars relative to concrete cover (Auyeung was taken as the actual strength of an uncorroded

et al., 2000). beam.

408 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2010, 62, No. 6

Downloaded by [ University of Bristol] on [30/03/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

Flexural strength of corroded reinforced concrete beams

Table 3. Gravimetric test results and conversion of weight loss into Icorr

g/cm2 /year

D: mm Iapp : T: d Av. length of Av. wt loss: g r: % wt loss

mA/cm2 sample: cm

B1-2 16 10 156.41 143.88 6.00 6.68 0.73

B1-3 16 4 154.75 98.04 4.13 11.50 1.26

B1-4 16 14 156.30 379.60 15.85 12.59 1.38

B1-5 16 10 156.46 70.85 2.95 3.29 0.36

B1-6 16 14 156.25 379.13 15.83 12.58 1.38

B2-1 16 1.78 10 189.08 342.47 11.82 13.15 1.44

B2-2 16 8 190.12 287.21 9.86 13.71 1.50

B2-3 16 15 188.70 541.95 18.74 13.90 1.52

B2-4 16 15 190.54 511.95 17.53 13.00 1.42

B2-5 16 20 189.69 742.32 25.53 14.20 1.56

B2-6 16 20 189.85 750.97 25.81 14.36 1.57

B3-1 16 1.86 10 189.85 388.27 13.34 14.84 1.63

B3-2 16 15 189.7 518.88 17.85 13.24 1.45

B3-3 16 5 183.93 169.65 6.02 13.39 1.47

B3-4 16 4 185.41 166.03 5.84 16.25 1.78

B3-5 16 20 188.45 759.32 26.29 14.62 1.60

B3-6 16 3 184.36 130.94 4.63 17.18 1.88

B4-1 18 1.74 6 158.02 161.27 5.28 10.97 1.20

B4-2 18 10 158.15 287.58 9.40 11.73 1.29

B4-3 18 12 158.50 345.45 11.27 11.72 1.28

B4-4 18 13 188.65 447.42 12.26 11.77 1.29

B4-5 18 20 189.62 736.88 20.09 12.54 1.37

B4-6 18 20 190.25 774.77 21.06 13.14 1.44

B5-1 18 1.75 10 189.54 333.53 9.10 11.35 1.24

B5-2 18 10 188.97 348.11 9.53 11.89 1.30

B5-3 18 15 184.29 339.60 9.53 7.93 0.87

B5-4 18 10 184.77 205.79 5.76 7.19 0.79

B5-5 18 20 183.93 504.44 14.18 8.85 0.97

B5-6 18 20 185.20 637.60 17.80 11.11 1.22

B6-1 18 1.82 6 183.55 201.39 5.67 11.80 1.29

B6-2 18 2 183.55 49.29 1.39 8.66 0.95

B6-3 18 5 183.90 166.76 4.69 11.70 1.28

B6-4 18 15 187.40 365.15 10.08 8.38 0.92

B6-5 18 4 183.80 119.63 3.37 10.50 1.15

B6-6 18 20 189.35 733.16 20.02 12.49 1.37

(a) the loss of metal owing to corrosion, which results

in reduced moment capacity of a beam

Beam Mthu : kN m Mexu : kN m M exu (b) degradation of bond between reinforcement and

Cc ¼

M thu concrete due to corrosion, which also impairs the

moment capacity of a corroded beam.

B1-C 31.93 32.20 1.01

B2-C 43.85 42.26 0.96

B3-C 55.78 58.10 1.04 The two-step procedure described by Azad et al.

B4-C 37.24 41.12 1.10 (2007) is used to calculate the residual flexural capacity

B5-C 51.88 50.84 0.98 of corroded beams. First, the flexural capacity of a

B6-C 66.53 67.21 1.01

corroded beam is calculated using the reduced diameter

of tension bars, D9, which is calculated from the well-

known formula for metal loss rate or corrosion penetra-

tion rate, Pr , given as (Ijsseling, 1986)

Theoretical prediction of the flexural strength of the

W Jr

corroded beams Pr ¼ I corr ¼

Fªst ªst

The factors affecting the flexural strength of a cor-

roded beam at a given value of Icorr T can be broadly where W is the equivalent weight of the steel (27.9 g),

captured by two phenomena F represents Faraday’s constant (96 487 A-s) and ªst is

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2010, 62, No. 6 409

Downloaded by [ University of Bristol] on [30/03/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

Azad et al

the density of steel, which is 7.85 g/cm3 . The reduction moment capacities of corroded beams, Mexc /Mthc . The

in bar diameter in active corrosion with steady-state values of Cf and Icorr T in Table 5 indicate that Cf is

corrosion current density Icorr for corrosion period T is close to 1.0 for smaller values of Icorr T. Thus, it can be

2Pr T and the percentage reduction in diameter of bar is stated that the moment capacity of a corroded beam

(2Pr T/D) 3 100. The reduced net diameter of a cor- can be calculated simply on the basis of A9s alone at a

roded bar, D9, is then written as lower corrosion activity index, Icorr T, at which bond

strength is not appreciably degraded. However, the

2Pr T

D9 ¼ D 1 same is not true for beams having higher values of

D Icorr T, as Cf values decline progressively at higher va-

lues of Icorr T. This observation implies that a provision

In terms of cross-sectional areas, the equation for D9

must be made to account for bond degradation and

can be recast for calculating the reduced cross-sectional

other application factors for corrosion damage. It is

area A9s as

therefore necessary to develop a mathematical expres-

A9s ¼ (1 Æ)2 As (1) sion for Cf , which can be used to predict residual

flexural strength.

where As is the original cross-sectional area of the bar

and Æ ¼ 2Pr T/D, which has been termed as the ‘metal

loss factor’ (Azad et al., 2007). Comparison of the experimental values of residual

Using A9s in place of As the theoretical values of flexural capacity of corroded beams with the values

moment capacity, Mthc , for all corroded beams were predicted by the previous model

calculated as shown in Table 5 along with the values of The previous model presented in Azad et al. (2007)

Cf , which is the ratio of the experimental to theoretical proposes the following value of Cf , which can be used

Beam Icorr T: mA-d/cm2 As : mm2 A9s : mm2 Mthc : kNm Mexc : kN m M exc

Cf ¼

M thc

B1-2 7.32 402.1 379.01 30.49 28.18 0.92

B1-3 5.04 402.1 386.12 30.94 29.40 0.95

B1-4 19.32 402.1 342.64 28.10 22.40 0.80

B1-5 3.60 402.1 390.64 31.23 30.98 0.99

B1-6 19.30 402.1 342.68 28.10 17.33 0.62

B2-1 14.41 402.1 357.29 39.67 36.58 0.92

B2-2 12.02 402.1 364.54 40.36 40.95 1.01

B2-3 22.85 402.1 332.28 37.25 24.33 0.65

B2-4 21.37 402.1 336.60 37.67 26.95 0.72

B2-5 31.13 402.1 308.63 34.92 26.60 0.76

B2-6 31.47 402.1 307.65 34.82 20.48 0.59

B3-1 16.27 402.1 351.72 49.57 37.63 0.76

B3-2 21.76 402.1 335.44 47.51 37.05 0.78

B3-3 7.34 402.1 378.95 52.96 52.50 0.99

B3-4 7.12 402.1 379.62 53.04 55.30 1.04

B3-5 32.05 402.1 306.06 43.74 35.7 0.82

B3-6 5.65 402.1 384.22 53.61 57.58 1.07

B4-1 7.22 508.9 483.25 35.88 33.60 0.94

B4-2 12.86 508.9 463.66 34.79 22.23 0.64

B4-3 15.41 508.9 454.90 34.29 22.75 0.66

B4-4 16.77 508.9 450.30 34.03 23.10 0.68

B4-5 27.48 508.9 414.73 31.94 18.73 0.59

B4-6 28.80 508.9 410.46 31.68 16.10 0.51

B5-1 12.44 508.9 465.09 48.25 31.15 0.65

B5-2 13.03 508.9 463.05 48.08 38.15 0.79

B5-3 13.03 508.9 463.03 48.08 29.75 0.62

B5-4 7.88 508.9 480.92 49.59 40.95 0.83

B5-5 19.39 508.9 441.44 46.22 25.55 0.55

B5-6 24.35 508.9 424.98 44.78 25.20 0.56

B6-1 7.76 508.9 481.34 63.48 58.98 0.93

B6-2 1.90 508.9 502.09 65.80 65.98 1.00

B6-3 6.41 508.9 486.07 64.01 57.40 0.90

B6-4 13.78 508.9 460.50 61.11 36.93 0.60

B6-5 4.60 508.9 492.46 64.73 48.48 0.75

B6-6 27.38 508.9 415.08 55.85 35.00 0.63

Downloaded by [ University of Bristol] on [30/03/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

Flexural strength of corroded reinforced concrete beams

to calculate the residual flexural capacity from the Table 6. Mexc and Mres (predicted using previous model (Azad

theoretical flexural strength determined on the basis of et al., 2007) for corroded beams

a reduced cross-sectional area, A9s as

Beam Mexc : kN m Mres (predicted using the % deviation

14:7 : previous model): kN m

Cf ¼ : < 10 (2)

Dð I corr T Þ0 15

B1-1 31.50 22.98 27

B1-2 28.18 20.78 26

where D is diameter of rebar in mm, Icorr represents B1-3 18.38 22.30 21

B1-4 22.40 16.56 26

corrosion current density in mA/cm2 and T is duration

B1-5 30.98 23.67 24

of corrosion in days. The predicted values of residual B1-6 17.33 16.56 4

flexural capacity of corroded beams, Mres , were calcu- B2-1 36.58 24.43 33

lated as B2-2 40.95 25.54 38

B2-3 24.33 21.41 12

M res ¼ Cf M thc (3) B2-4 26.95 21.86 19

B2-5 26.60 19.15 28

where Mthc is theoretical values of the flexural capacity B2-6 20.48 19.07 7

of corroded beam, calculated using the reduced cross- B3-1 37.63 29.97 20

sectional area of tension reinforcement, A9s . B3-2 36.05 27.50 24

B3-3 52.50 36.08 31

The two sets of values, Mexc , which is the experi-

B3-4 55.30 36.30 34

mental value of the flexural capacity of corroded beam, B3-5 35.70 23.89 33

and Mres , which is the predicted value of the flexural B3-6 57.58 37.99 34

capacity of corroded beam (obtained from Equation 3), B4-1 33.60 21.79 35

are presented in Table 6 along with the percentage B4-2 22.23 19.37 13

B4-3 22.75 18.58 18

deviations of the predicted values from the experimen-

B4-4 23.10 18.21 21

tal values of the flexural strength of all 36 corroded B4-5 18.73 15.87 15

beams. It appears that the predicted strength values are B4-6 16.10 15.63 3

consistently lower than the actual bending strength, B5-1 31.15 27.00 13

affirming that the previously suggested method is safe B5-2 38.15 26.72 30

B5-3 29.75 26.72 10

and conservative. However, the predicted values for

B5-4 40.95 29.72 27

some beams appear to be unacceptably too low, the B5-5 25.55 24.19 5

maximum difference from the experimental value being B5-6 25.20 22.65 10

of the order of 38%. It seems that the equation of Cf B6-1 58.98 38.12 35

(Equation 2), which proved to be sufficiently accurate B6-2 65.98 48.81 26

B6-3 57.40 39.56 31

for smaller-sized test beams, fails correctly to capture

B6-4 36.93 33.67 9

the effect of the two key variables D and Icorr T for B6-5 48.48 42.04 13

larger size beams, tacitly implying that the size-effect B6-6 35.00 27.76 21

of beams has to be addressed. It was necessary to

revisit the formulation of Cf to propose a new value

which would yield satisfactory results for large-sized the experimental values by more than 10% of the

rectangular beams. experimental values.

Proposed new model the predicted values by ensuring that a majority of data

The proposed new model adopts the same two-step (over 80%) will show values higher than the predicted

approach but proposes a new correction factor Cf . It values. For those few cases, where the experimental

has been noted that the size of the corroding bars has values exceed the predicted values, the difference is

an influence on the residual strength as the larger limited to less than or equal to 10% of the experimental

diameter bars would have smaller value of Cf than bars values by imposing the second condition. It should be

with smaller diameter at the same value of Icorr T. Like- noted that the first condition does not explicitly limit

wise, corrosion activity index, Icorr T, also affects Cf . the amount of conservativeness associated with the pre-

diction but the regression-based equation of Cf seeks

New correction factor, Cf closer fit with the data.

In seeking a formulation of Cf , the following two Using a multilevel regression of the data presented

conditions were imposed. in Table 5, a new formulation of the correction factor,

Cf , is proposed as (Al-Gohi, 2008)

(a) The predicted values will be less than the actual

5: 0

values for over 80% of the data. Cf ¼ : : < 1:0 (4)

(b) The predicted values in any case should not exceed D ð I corr T Þ0 19

0 54

Downloaded by [ University of Bristol] on [30/03/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

Azad et al

1·6

where D is diameter of rebar in mm, Icorr is corrosion

current density in mA/cm2 and T is duration of corro- 1·4

a rectangular beam is determined by using Equation 3 1·0

Mres /Mexc

with the value of Cf calculated from Equation 4.

0·8

0·6

0·4

Comparison of predicted values with 0·2

experimental data 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Data from this work

IcorrT: mA-d/cm2

The comparison of the experimental residual flexur-

al strength, Mexc , and the predicted residual flexural Figure 2. Comparison of measured Mexc and the predicted

strength, Mres , computed as M res ¼ Cf M thc , using Cf Mres

values from Equation 4 are shown in Figure 2 for all

test beams. As seen from Figure 2, almost 75% of the Test data from Azad et al. (2007)

data points for the ratios Mres /Mexc are less than 1.0, In order to verify the accuracy of the predicted resi-

and 75% of these points are between 0.8 to 1.0. Only dual flexural strength values of the test beams used in

ten beams showed values of Mres /Mexc falling below earlier work (Azad et al., 2007), Table 7 is presented

80%, the lowest value being 0.68 for the beam B2-2. listing the values of Mres and Mexc . Figure 3 shows the

Eight beams have values greater than 1.0. However, plot of the ratios of Mres /Mexc , when Mres values were

the difference in the values of Mres and Mexc is less calculated using new proposed model for Cf (Equation

than 10% of Mexc values. While Figure 2 shows the 4) and Mexc are the experimental data of the past re-

scatter of data around the desired line of Mres / search by the investigators (Azad et al., 2007). As seen,

Mexc ¼ 1.0, such variability is not uncommon for such most of the predicted values are less than the experi-

tests. It should be noted that while uniform corrosion mental values. The revised model for Cf (Equation 4)

of a rebar along its length is assumed in theoretical appears to predict the residual flexural strength in a

calculation, in reality non-uniform or pitting corrosion better way. This is an encouraging finding that lends

exists. This is one of the several other factors that confidence to the proposed two-step theoretical ap-

contribute to variability. proach using the new correction factor Cf (Equation 4).

Table 7. Mexc and Mres values of test beams used in earlier work (Azad et al., 2007)

mA-d/cm2 (Equation 3) (M exc M res )

M exc

BT1-3-4 10.88 10 0.92 8.95 10.15 8.20 19.2%

BT1-2-6 11.82 10 0.90 9.40 10.46 8.46 19.1%

BT1-3-6 16.44 10 0.85 9.00 9.15 7.62 16.7%

BT1-2-8 17.44 10 0.84 8.17 7.82 6.84 12.5%

BT1-3-8 23.92 10 0.79 8.35 6.48 6.59 1.7%

BT2-2-4 5.00 12 0.96 13.65 12.76 13.14 3.0%

BT2-3-4 7.84 12 0.88 13.04 11.97 11.52 3.7%

BT2-2-6 17.94 12 0.76 12.40 10.43 9.36 10.3%

BT2-3-6 12.54 12 0.81 13.02 10.55 10.52 0.3%

BT2-2-8 20.64 12 0.74 12.13 8.88 8.92 0.4%

BT2-3-8 20.96 12 0.73 11.69 8.49 8.57 0.9%

BT3-2-4 6.08 10 1.02 9.32 10.92 9.54 12.6%

BT3-3-4 6.92 10 1.00 8.83 10.19 8.81 13.5%

BT3-2-6 7.68 10 0.98 8.54 9.88 8.36 15.3%

BT3-3-6 13.26 10 0.88 8.96 9.28 7.91 14.8%

BT3-2-8 16.16 10 0.85 8.04 9.12 6.83 25.1%

BT3-3-8 25.04 10 0.78 7.55 6.60 5.90 10.5%

BT4-2-4 6.96 12 0.90 11.92 12.03 10.78 10.4%

BT4-3-4 9.96 12 0.84 12.54 10.93 10.59 3.1%

BT4-2-6 12.18 12 0.81 12.33 10.02 10.02 0.0%

BT4-3-6 16.80 12 0.76 11.46 8.98 8.76 2.4%

BT4-2-8 16.64 12 0.77 11.48 9.00 8.79 2.3%

BT4-3-8 18.96 12 0.75 10.98 7.57 8.20 8.4%

Downloaded by [ University of Bristol] on [30/03/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

Flexural strength of corroded reinforced concrete beams

1·2

ally with two 16 mm diameter bottom bars. All speci-

1·0 mens, except the control ones, were corroded by

applying an anodic current density of 0.5 mA/cm2 for

0·8 3, 6, 10 and 15 days while being fully immersed in a

3.3% sodium chloride solution. The beams were tested

Mres /Mexc

0·6

in a four-point bend test using a span of 1.5 m and a

0·4

spacing of 150 mm between the two central loads. The

type of failure observed included flexure, shear-

0·2 compression and bond-shear. The available four data

points corresponding to 3, 6, 10 and 15 days of corro-

0 sion are shown in Figure 5, which shows again that the

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

proposed method predicts residual capacity with an

IcorrT: mA-d/cm2

acceptable degree of accuracy.

Figure 3. Comparison of measured Mexc and the predicted

Mres (Azad et al., 2007)

1·4 Conclusions

1·2 Based on this study, several conclusions can be

1·0 made.

Mres /Mexc

large diameter bar compared with that for smaller

0·6

diameter bar at a constant Icorr T.

0·4 (b) The study reaffirms that, a lower value of Icorr T,

0·2

the residual flexural strength of a corroded beam

can be predicted with a reasonable accuracy by

0 considering only the reduced cross-sectional area

0 5 10 15 20

of tension reinforcement A9s . However, at a higher

IcorrT: mA-d/cm2

value of Icorr T, the increasing adverse effect of

Figure 4. Comparison of measured Mexc and the predicted bond cannot be ignored in determining the residual

Mres (Rodriguez et al., 1997) flexural capacity.

(c) This study affirms that the model for prediction of

Test data from Rodriguez et al. (1997) residual strength of corroded beams proposed by

Azad et al. (2007) is a safe model, which yields a

Rodriguez et al. (1997) carried out experiments on

lower-bound solution. However, the model appears

six different types of reinforced concrete beams of

to be undesirably conservative in its prediction in

150 3 200 3 2300 mm. A constant anodic current of

some cases.

0.1 mA/cm2 was applied for a period of time ranging

(d) For prediction of residual flexural strength of cor-

between 100 and 200 days. After the corrosion-

roded beams, the previous two-step analytical pro-

acceleration stage, the beams were tested under a four-

cedure is proposed with a new correction factor Cf

point bend test using 400 mm spacing between the

(Equation 4), which better reflects the size-effect

loads.

of the corroding tension bars in terms of the dia-

For a comparison of the residual flexural strength of

the corroded beams Mexc obtained experimentally by

1·2

Rodriguez et al. (1997) with the residual flexural

strength Mres of the same beams predicted by the 1·0

authors’ proposed model, the plot of Icorr T against Mres /

Mexc ratio is shown in Figure 4. It is noted that all the 0·8

Mres /Mexc

points except five are close to the value of 1.0 and only

0·6

two points have ratios exceeding 1.2. All the points

under the line of 1.0 are between 1.0 and 0.8. From an 0·4

overall assessment, it can be stated that the proposed

strength prediction method yields satisfactory correla- 0·2

tion with the test data.

0

0 5 10 15

Test data from Tachibana et al. (1990)

IcorrT: mA-d/cm2

Tachibana et al. (1990) carried out tests with cor-

roded beams of 150 3 200 3 2000 mm. The beams had Figure 5. Comparison of measured Mexc and the predicted

no shear reinforcement and were reinforced longitudin- Mres . (Tachibana et al., 1990)

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2010, 62, No. 6 413

Azad et al

meter. The proposed model for Cf yields predicted damage in concrete structures. ACI Structural Journal 89(6): 699–

results that agree well with the experimental data 708.

Fu X and Chung DDL (1997) Effect of corrosion on the bond be-

published by other researchers, lending confidence

tween concrete and steel rebar. Cement and Concrete Research

to the proposed analytical method. 27(12): 1811–1815.

Huang R and Yang CC (1997) Condition assessment of reinforced

concrete beams relative to reinforcement corrosion. Cement and

Concrete Composites 19(2): 131–137.

Acknowledgements Ijsseling FP (1986) Application of electrochemical methods of corro-

sion rate determination to system involving corrosion product

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial layers. British Corrosion Journal 21(2): 95–101.

support received to carry out this work under the re- Jin WL and Zhao YX (2001) Effect of corrosion on bond behavior

search grant SABIC-2005/03. The support of the De- and bending strength of reinforced concrete beams. Journal of

partment of Civil Engineering is also acknowledged. Zhejiang University (Science) 2(3): 298–308.

Mangat PS and Elgarf MS (1999) Flexural strength of concrete beams

with corroding reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal 96(1): 149–

References 158.

Middle East Construction (1987) As Solid as Concrete. MEC, Ara-

Al-Gohi BHA (2008) Time-dependent modeling of loss of flexural bian Gulf, pp. 20–21.

strength of corroding RC beams. MS thesis, King Fahd University Morinaga S (1990) Prediction of service lives of reinforced concrete

of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. buildings based on the corrosion rate of reinforcing steel. Proceed-

Almusallam AA, AL-Gahtani AS, Aziz AR and Rasheeduzzafar ings of Building Materials and Components, Brighton, UK, pp.

(1996) Effect of reinforcement corrosion on bond strength. Con- 5–16.

struction and Building Materials 10(2): 123–129. Nokhasteh MA, Eyre JR and McLeish A (1992) The effect of rein-

Al-Sulaimani GJ, Kaleemullah M, Basunbul IA and Rasheeduzzafar forcement corrosion on the strength of reinforced concrete mem-

(1990) Influence of corrosion and cracking on bond behaviour and bers. In Structural Integrity Assessment (Stanley P (ed.). Elsevier

strength of reinforced concrete members. ACI Structural Journal, Applied Science, pp. 314–325.

March–April, 220–231. Ravindrarajah R and Ong K (1987) Corrosion of steel in concrete in

Amleh L and Mirza S (1999) Corrosion influence on bond between relation to bar diameter and cover thickness. ACI Special Publica-

steel and concrete. ACI Structural Journal 96(3): 415–423. tion 100(4): 1667–1678.

ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) (1990) ASTM Rodriguez J, Ortega LM and Casal J (1997) Load carrying capacity

G-1:01.05: standard practice for preparing, cleaning and evaluating of concrete structures with corroded reinforcement. Construction

corrosion test specimens. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA. and Building Materials 11(4): 239–248.

Auyeung Y, Balaguru P and Chung L (2000) Bond behavior of Stanish K, Hooton RD and Pantazopoulou SJ (1999) Corrosion

corroded reinforcement bars. ACI Materials Journal 97(2): 214– effects on bond strength in reinforced concrete. ACI Structural

220. Journal 96(6): 915–921.

Azad AK, Ahmad S and Azher S (2007) Residual strength of corro- Tachibana Y, Maeda K-I, Kajikawa Y and Kawamura M (1990) Mech-

sion-damaged reinforced concrete beams. ACI Materials Journal anical behaviour of RC beams damaged by corrosion of reinforce-

104(1): 40–47. ment. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on

Aziz AR (1994) Reduction in Bond and the Strength of Slabs Due to Corrosion of Reinforcement in Concrete Construction, Wishaw,

Corrosion of Reinforcement. MS thesis, King Fahd University of 178–187.

Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Ting SC and Nowak AS (1991) Effect of reinforcing steel area loss

Bazant ZP (1979) Physical model for steel corrosion in concrete sea on flexural behavior of reinforced concrete beams. ACI Structural

structures-application. ASCE Journal of Structural Division 105(6): Journal 88(3): 309–314.

1155–1166. Uomoto T and Misra S (1988) Behavior of concrete beams and

Berra M, Castellani A, Coronelli D, Zanni S and Zhang G (2003) columns in marine environment when corrosion of reinforcing bars

Steel–concrete bond deterioration due to corrosion: finite-element takes place. ACI Special Publication SP–109: 27–145.

analysis for different confinement levels. Magazine of Concrete Wang C, Salmon CG and Pincheira JA (2007) Reinforced Concrete

Research 55(3): 237–247. Design, 7th edn. Wiley, Chichester.

Cabrera JG (1996) Deterioration of concrete due to reinforcement Wang X and Liu X (2006) Bond strength modeling for corroded reinfor-

steel corrosion. Cement and Concrete Composites 18(1): 47–59. cements. Construction and Building Materials 20(3): 177–186.

Cabrera JG and Ghoddoussi P (1992) The effect of reinforcement Wang XM and Zhao HY (1993) The residual service life prediction

corrosion on the strength of the steel/concrete bond. International of R.C. structures. In Durability of Building Materials and Compo-

Conference on Bond in Concrete, CEB, Riga, Latvia pp. 10/11– nents 6 (Nagataki S, Nireki T and Tomusawa F (eds)). E & FN

10/24. Spon, London, pp. 1107–1114.

Castel A, François R and Arliguie G (2000a) Mechanical behavior of Xi WL, Li R, Lin ZS et al. (1997) Experimental studies on the

corroded reinforced concrete beams – part 1: bond and notch property before and after reinforcement corrosions in basic con-

effects. Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions crete members. Industrial Construction 27(6): 14–18.

33(233): 539–544. Yoon S, Wang K, Weiss WJ and Shah SP (2000) Interaction between

Castel A, François R and Arliguie G (2000b) Mechanical behavior of loading, corrosion, and serviceability of reinforced concrete. ACI

corroded reinforced concrete beams – part 2: bond and notch Materials Journal 97(6): 637–644.

effects. Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions Zhang PS, Lu M and Li XY (1995) Mechanical property of rustiness

33(233): 545–551. in reinforcement steel. Industrial Construction 25(9): 41–44.

Coronelli D (2002) Corrosion cracking and bond strength modeling

for corroded bars in reinforced concrete. ACI Structural Journal

99(3): 267–275. Discussion contributions on this paper should reach the editor by

Dagher HJ and Kulendran S (1992) Finite element model of corrosion 1 December 2010

Downloaded by [ University of Bristol] on [30/03/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

- Assessment Existing Concrete StructuresUploaded byec02160
- ACI 562Uploaded byJohn Pink
- SAES-Q-001Uploaded byUsman Khan
- 10J01762-CIV-CA-000-001-D0Uploaded byToy Games
- Estimate the Reinforcement in Shallow FoundationUploaded byEmdad Yusuf
- Placing and Tying Reinforcing SteelUploaded byx620
- 2012-05-31FIS-EM-enUploaded bykkttt
- HILTI RE500 น้ำยาเคมีเสียบเหล็กUploaded bymon012
- LC 208 CorbelUploaded byFakhruddin Dhilawala
- Puertos Seminario 6 Design for Durability of New ConstructionUploaded byJesiik Rodriiguez Noriega
- Design of Bolt AnchorageUploaded byAlan C. Aban
- Rebar Specifiers Brochure EnUploaded byliandu
- The Repair of Reinforced Concrete - John BroomfieldUploaded byJad Louis
- Raj SeminarUploaded byLokesh Meena
- Sika Galvashield Xp Xpt Xp2 Xp4 PdsUploaded byBenjamin Chavez
- AnchorUploaded byHenj Mirasol
- Rebar Ec2 AllUploaded byAsuno Epahut
- Reinforcing Steel 1Uploaded byNathanniel Pogado Gonzales
- HBT16-USUploaded byVincent_rko1
- Case StudyUploaded byAref Abadel
- SPCR TemplatesUploaded byIan Dalisay
- KTPL DBR 4Uploaded bymathu
- rc15Uploaded byVicces P. Estrada
- Early Thermal Cracking Check (T=600mm, C30.37)Uploaded bystavros_sterg
- EC2 Lap Length of ReinforcementsUploaded byselina
- Ground Anchoring ManualUploaded byNil D.G.
- ETA 07 0260 HIT-RE 500-SD Injection Mortar for Anchoring Application ETAG 001-05 Option 1 Approval Document ASSET DOC APPROVAL 0152Uploaded byMarcelo San Martin
- Working With RebarUploaded byrewmarine
- errata 7Uploaded byFrancis Kiko Cayanan

- Chapter 3cUploaded byMehdi Kashani
- Homework+Ch+1.pdfUploaded byMehdi Kashani
- Chapter_1.pdfUploaded byMehdi Kashani
- 26 Year Old SpecimenUploaded bydebabrata dutta
- Corrosion of Steel in ConcreteUploaded byMehdi Kashani
- Is536 Types and Causes of Concrete DeteriorationUploaded byAnonymous 5VwQ0KC3
- PEER CorrodedBridgeCols Ostertag Web20170905Uploaded byMehdi Kashani
- Ductility of Plain and Confined Concrete Under Different Strain RatesUploaded byMehdi Kashani
- Jalayer Et Al-2009-Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics-2Uploaded byMehdi Kashani
- OpenSees IntroductionUploaded byMehdi Kashani
- Chloride-induced corrosion of steel.pdfUploaded byeid elsayed
- 13th World Conference on EArthquake Engineering-Full PapersUploaded byMehdi Kashani
- Perry Robertson FormulaeUploaded byMehdi Kashani
- ElechElechtrochemistry of Corrosiontrochemistry of CorrosionUploaded byMehdi Kashani
- Cell PotCell PotentialsentialsUploaded byMehdi Kashani
- PredictionPrediction of Reinforcement Tension Produced by Arch Action in RC Beams of Reinforcement Tension Produced by Arch Action in RC BeamsUploaded byMehdi Kashani
- Behavior of Corroded Bar AnchoragesUploaded byhkdkdiklk
- A Multi-fiber Approach for Modeling Corroded Reinforced Concrete StructuresUploaded byMehdi Kashani
- A New Object-Oriented Finite Element Analysis Program ArchitectureUploaded byMehdi Kashani
- Virtual Earthquake Engineering Laboratory Capturing Nonlinear Shear, Localized Damage and Progressive Buckling of BarUploaded byMehdi Kashani
- Closure to “Nonlinear Uniaxial Material Model for Reinforcing Steel Bars” by Sashi K. Kunnath, YeongAe Heo, and Jon F. MohleUploaded byMehdi Kashani
- A model for prediction of time from corrosion initiation to corrosion crackingUploaded byMehdi Kashani
- Nonlinear Equations MatlabUploaded byRamakrishna_Ch_7716
- flexural strength of concrete beams with corroding reinforcementUploaded byMehdi Kashani

- Zanussi_ZWF_2105_W.pdfUploaded byZigund
- Chapter 9 - Cellular RespirationUploaded byjlin77
- Pioneer Pdp-508xg 508xda 508xc SmUploaded bydrone001
- Dynamic Time WarpingUploaded byHasim Benzini
- WCE2013_pp1889-1892Uploaded byparagbansal1995
- Outline - DaviesUploaded byRebeca Silva Santana
- Pig Production QuestionsUploaded byMrGilmartin
- As NZS 1301.203s-2007 Methods of Test for Pulp and Paper Forming Handsheets for Physical Testing of PulpUploaded bySAI Global - APAC
- 07884956Uploaded byJoginder Yadav
- GE6351 Question Bank With Answers Unit-4 and Unit-5Uploaded byculverts
- nava riscUploaded byNavathej Bangari
- Python Advanced_ Pipes in PythonUploaded byPedro Elias Romero Nieto
- Performance Evaluation of Thermoacoustic Engines Using Different GasesUploaded byMahmoud Shaaban
- NBC PPT -RamlakhanUploaded byram
- EET107 Tutorial 3Uploaded byzul
- Nonprogressive VerbsUploaded byzamalek
- W1 ManualUploaded byakestecz
- tugas mendeley tabelUploaded byapi-355769262
- Question and Answer of Research MethodologyUploaded bySohil Dhruv
- IodineUploaded byMaria Shipka
- soil stabilization using plastic wasteUploaded byAbdul Hoda
- Shopee Mall Manual Return Label (Id)-3Uploaded byKelik Wagiyanto
- DD_CEN_TS_1992-4-2-2009Uploaded bybruno_oliveira_emilio
- Promulgated Training Regulations as of March 2016Uploaded byBasal Jonathan
- Texes Ppr Study GuideUploaded bykemo_750252831
- A Math PrimerUploaded byHelen
- Fed Civ Pro-OutlineUploaded byClaudia Galan
- BackgroundUploaded byNeeraj
- Eric Beckwith BrokercheckUploaded byZerohedge
- Key 2 Unit 1 3 Star GrammarUploaded bymaria estevez

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.