Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 189Ð199

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l oc a t e / c o n b u i l d m a t

Effect of strain level on corrosion of stainless steel bar

⇑
Xun Wu a, Lulu Li a, Hui Li a, , Baolei Li b, Zhimin Ling a
a
Department of Bridge Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
b Bridge Design Institute of China Design Group Co., Ltd, Nanjing 210014, China

highlights

The degree of corrosion of stainless steel bar increased with increase of strain level.
The mechanical properties of stainless steel bar had an obvious degradation with increase of degree of corrosion.
The strain level ( 1.0 10 3) had no signiÞcant effect on mechanical properties of stainless steel bar within 15% corrosion degree.

article info abstract

Article history: This paper presents an experimental investigation into the corrosion of stainless steel bar in the stressed state. By performing
Received 13 April 2017 an electrochemical accelerated corrosion test on S11203 stainless steel bar under different strain levels and a tensile test on
Received in revised form 14 August 2017 corroded stainless steel bar, effect of strain level on corrosion of stainless steel bar was investigated. The experimental results
Accepted 18 November 2017 indicated that strain level affected the degree of corrosion of stainless steel bar. The higher the strain, the higher the degree of
3
corrosion. The degree of corrosion of stainless steel bar under a strain of 1.0 10 was 9 percent higher than that of under zero
strain. With increase of the degree of corrosion, the yield strength, ultimate strength and elon-gation of stainless steel bar
Keywords: gradually degenerated, and especially signiÞcant for the degradation of elon-gation. It was also found that the inßuence of
Corrosion of stainless steel bar
Strain level strain level ( 1.0 10 3) on corrosion morphology and mechanical properties of stainless steel bar within 15% corrosion degree
An electrochemical accelerated corrosion test was not signiÞcant.

Degree of corrosion 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Mechanical properties

1. Introduction bar with excellent corrosion resistance is suggested to be used in concrete to

The electrochemical corrosion of reinforcement caused by chlo-ride ion
erosion is the main reason for the decrease in durability of concrete structures
[1Ð4]. Concrete structures such as port struc-tures, marine structures, and
highway bridges using deicing salt are exposed in severe chloride
environment for long periods [5Ð7]. The invasion of chloride ion will make
the passive Þlm on the surface of reinforcement ruptured, causing
reinforcement cor-rosion. Corrosion can bring a degradation of tensile
strength of the reinforcement and a decrease of the cohesive force between the
concrete and reinforcement [8], resulting in the decrease of carry-ing capacity,
reliability and durability of the structure. For some important concrete
structures in severe chloride environment, some higher requirements on their
service life and durability may be put forward by the owner. Since the use of
ordinary rein-forcement is unable to meet these requirements, the stainless
steel
ensure the durability of structures [5,9Ð11]. It is gener-ally believed that the
use of stainless steel bar will increase the investment, and there is a risk of
corrosion due to the electric cou-pling between stainless steel bar and carbon
steel bar [5]. However, large quantities of engineering practices indicate that
the use of stainless steel bar may increase the early investment, but can effec-
tively reduce post-project maintenance and repair expense. Instead, life cycle
cost is lower [12Ð14]. Experimental studies also have shown that the
combined use of stainless steel bar and carbon steel bar in concrete doesnÕt
increase the risk of corrosion [15]. Therefore, instead of using carbon steel
bar, stainless steel bar is used in the surface or the weakest parts of concrete
structures [5]. In recent years, stainless steel bar has been applied to many
bridge projects of China, such as Hong Kong Stonecutters Island Bridge,
Shenzhen West Passage Bridge and HK-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge [16,17].

With the gradual application of stainless steel bar in the struc-tures, it is a

very signiÞcant topic to study the corrosion of stainless steel bar. It is well-
⇑ Corresponding author. known that the corrosion resistance of rein-forcement is mainly derived from
E-mail addresses: wuxuns@126.com (X. Wu), liluandzyr@126.com (L. Li), the passive Þlm on the surface
1310222@tongji.edu.cn (H. Li), 90lbl@tongji.edu.cn (B. Li), yjhdq@163.com (Z. Ling).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.102 0950-
0618/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
190 X. Wu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 189–199
of reinforcement. The stainless steel bar has more excellent corro-sion
resistance because much denser passive Þlms can be formed on its surface
[16]. The salt-spray corrosion comparative tests of 2205 and 2304 stainless
steel bar and ordinary reinforcement indi-cate that, the corrosion amount of
ordinary reinforcement is greater than stainless steel bar at the same corrosion
condition, corrosion leads to the degradation of strengths and ductility of
ordinary reinforcement but without affecting mechanical proper-ties of
stainless steel bar [18]. The study of Xu et al. [19] indicates that uniform
pitting corrosion is main corrosion morphology of stainless steel bar in the
coupling environment of chloride ion and current. In addition to the external
environmental factors, the composition, manufacturing processes and surface
appearance of stainless steel bar can also affect the corrosion behavior of
stain-less steel bar [20Ð23].
Most of these studies are based on the corrosion of stainless steel bar in
zero-stress state, but stainless steel bar in concrete structures under service
load is usually in a stressed state. The cor-rosion process of stainless steel bar
may be different under these two state. The impact of stress on corrosion has
been considered in the study of high strength stainless steel wire [24]. In
SanchezÕs work [24], the resistance to pitting corrosion of 304 high strength
stainless steel wire subjected to zero load and 70% of the tensile strength was
studied in the chloride ion environment. It was con-cluded that when the
chloride ion concentration reached 0.5 mol/L, pitting corrosion didnÕt appear
under zero load, but pitting corro-sion occurred under 70% of the tensile
strength. Besides, the effect of load on pitting corrosion increased with
chloride ion concentra-tion increasing. Although Sanchez has studied the
corrosion of stainless steel wire in a stressed state, there is only one non-zero
strain applied and the mechanical properties of corroded stainless steel wire
are not studied. Therefore, it is necessary to study the effect of different strain
levels on corrosion and mechanical prop-erties of stainless steel bar in the
chloride ion environment. Since the corrosion rate of stainless steel bar in
natural corrosion condi-tion is relatively slow [25], it is difÞcult to obtain the
expected cor-rosion degree in a short term. It is suggested that
electrochemical accelerated corrosion technique can be adopted to accelerate
the corrosion process of stainless steel bar in the experiment [25Ð 27],
achieving a signiÞcant amount of corrosion in a relatively short time for
analyzing the effect of corrosion on mechanical properties of corroded
stainless steel bar. The external current way is widely used in the
electrochemical accelerated corrosion test to simulate corrosion damage of
reinforcement at a certain time. In the electrochemical corrosion test, the
corrosion process of reinforcement is accelerated under the promotion of the
exter-nal power. It should be noted that there is no standard procedure for the
electrochemical corrosion test [28].
Table 1
The chemical components and mechanical properties for the stainless steel bar.
Chemical component(%)
C Si Mn P S Ni
0.03 1.00 1.00 0.040 0.030 0.60
Note: The elongation in the paper refers to the elongation at break.
150 200
non-corroded section
thread
Fig. 1. The structure and dimensions of the specimen (unit: mm).
The purpose of this paper is to study the effect of different strain levels on
corrosion of stainless steel bar. Test specimens were made of ferrite stainless
steel bar, which was due to the fact that the price of ferrite stainless steel bar
was much cheaper than other stainless steel bars, and the ferrite stainless steel
bar with high strength, low thermal expansion and high temperature resistance
was widely applied in concrete structures. In this paper, an electro-chemical
accelerated corrosion test under different strain levels and a uniaxial tensile
test of corroded stainless steel bar were designed to study the impact of strain
on corrosion and mechanical properties of stainless steel bar.
2. Experimental study
2.1. Materials and specimen preparation
The specimens were made of S11203 ferrite stainless steel bar. The
requirements of chemical component contents and mechanical properties of
S11203 ferrite stainless steel bar are listed in Table 1. Each specimen had a
nominal diameter of 16 mm and a length of 120 cm. The structure and
dimensions of the specimen are shown in Fig. 1.
Since stainless steel bar is often used as outer steel bar or stir-rup in
practical engineering, the stress of stainless steel bar is gen-erally less than
200 MPa. Besides, speciÞcation (YB/T 4362-2014, China) also speciÞes the
stress of stainless steel bar for fatigue per-formance test doesnÕt exceed 200
MPa. Therefore, it is reasonable to choose 200 MPa as the maximum initial
stress of the specimen, and the corresponding strain level is 1.0 10 3. This
strain value is far less than yield strain value of the specimen (0.2%), which
indi-cates that the specimen is in elastic deformation phase. Three strain
levels (0, 0.5 10 3 and 1.0 10 3) were chosen as constant strain of the
specimen to study the impact of strain on corrosion of stainless steel bar. The
electrochemical accelerated corrosion test was conducted by external current
way. The amount of corrosion can be calculated using Eq. (1) based on
FaradayÕs Law.
MIt
Dm ¼ ZF ð1Þ
where Dm is mass of steel bar consumed (g); M is atomic weight of iron (56
g/mol); I is the current (A); t is time (s); Z is ionic charge (assumed 2 for Fe !
Fe2þ þ 2e ); and F is FaradayÕs constant (96,320 A/s).
The theoretical corrosion degree of rebar can be expressed as
Eq. (2).
Dm MIt MIt
g ¼ m ¼mZF ¼ pr2qlZF ð2Þ
Mechanical performance
Cr Tension strength (MPa) Yield strength (MPa) Elongation at break (%)
12.25 875.8 800.2 22.0
500 200 150
corroded section non-corroded section
thread
 X. Wu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 189–199 191

where m is initial mass of corroded section; r is the radius of the rebar (0.8
cm); q is the density of iron (7.8 g/cm3); l is the length of corroded section
(50 cm).
If the current intensity and the energizing time are known, the theoretical
corrosion degree of the stainless steel bar can be calcu-lated according to
FaradayÕs law. Assuming that 5 days, 10 days and 15 days of energizing time
correspond to 5%, 10%, and 15% the-oretical corrosion degree, the current
intensity calculated by Fara-dayÕs law is 0.156 A. Under each speciÞc strain
and energizing time, the electrochemical accelerated corrosion test was
conducted on 5 specimens to ensure the accuracy and comparability of exper-
iment results. In addition, there are 5 non-corroded specimens as a
comparison group. The number and quantify of specimens are listed in Table
2.
deformed. The constant tensile strain was applied by tightening Nut B. The
target value of the strain was realized by the control of strain gauges and
pressure sensor.
2.3. Connections of circuit
3.5% NaCl solution was prepared in each tank of the concrete reaction
frame, as shown in Fig. 4. The closed circuit was formed by connecting
graphite rods to the negative pole of the power and rebars to the positive pole
of the power. The DC power in the corrosion test had constant current output,
and the energizing time was set to 10 days, 20 days and 30 days.
2.4. Measurement of corrosion degree

2.2. Applying tensile strain
In order to apply tensile strain to the stainless steel bar and carry out the
corrosion test, a concrete reaction frame with solu-tion tanks was designed, as
shown in Fig. 2.
A constant tensile strain was applied to the specimen by the tensioning
device shown in Fig. 3. The tensioning device was mainly composed of a
jack, a connecting sleeve, backing plates and nuts. Before applying strain, the
specimen was passed through the hole of concrete reaction frame, Þxed by the
backing plates and nuts. Strain gauges are pasted on the middle section of the
speci-men to gain the tensile strain of the specimen. When the jack was
tensioned, the screw arbor and the connecting sleeve moved outside, which
caused nut B to loosen and made the rebar
Table 2
Details of test specimens.
Before applying strain, the mass of the specimen was measured and
recorded as M0. After the corrosion test was completed, the specimen was
cleaned in 12% hydrochloric acid solution and then washed in lime water and
dried in the desicca-tor later. Meanwhile, the mass of the specimen was
weighed and recorded as M1.Finally, the specimen was cut into three sections
from the junction between non-corroded section and corroded section, as
shown in Fig. 1. Two sections at both ends of the spec-imen were weighed
and recorded as M2. The average corrosion degree in the corroded section of
the specimen, gs, can be determined by Eq. (3).
M0 M1 100% 3
gs ¼
M0 M2 ðÞ

Number Quantity Number Quantity Number Quantity

0 dÐ0.0 5 Ð Ð Ð Ð
10 dÐ0.0 5 20 dÐ0.0 5 30 dÐ0.0 5
10 dÐ0.5 5 20 dÐ0.5 5 30 dÐ0.5 5
10 dÐ1.0 5 20 dÐ1.0 5 30 dÐ1.0 5

Note: Xd-Y = corrosion time of X days under a tensile strain of Y 10 3. For example, 10d-0.5 = corrosion time of 10 days under a tensile strain of 0.5 10 3.

Fig. 2. Concrete reaction frame.

Fig. 3. The tensioning device.

192 X. Wu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 189–199

(a) The schematics of the circuit.

(b) The photos of the circuit.

Fig. 4. The connections of circuit.

gs can reßect the average loss of cross-sectional area of the corroded stainless steel
bar, but it canÕt directly reßect the inßuence of the local corrosion pits. If
signiÞcant corrosion pits on the surface of the stainless steel bar are found, the
maximum loss ratio of sectional area is suggested to be used, instead of the loss
ratio in weight, to express the mechanical properties of corroded stainless steel bar.
The determination of the maximum loss ratio of sectional area usually involves
measuring the size of the corrosion pits by using the microm-eter, but it is difÞcult
to accurately measure the size of the local corrosion pits in engineering practice.
The results of the paper show that corrosion morphology of the ferrite stainless
steel bar is relatively uniform and pitting corrosion isnÕt signif-icant. In view of
the above-mentioned facts, it is reasonable to use the mass loss rate to indicate the
corrosion degree of the specimen in the test.
2.5. Uniaxial tension test
The uniaxial tensile test was carried out according to the spec-iÞcation
(GB/T 228.1-2010, China). The test process involved plac-ing the corroded
section of the specimen in the testing machine, slowly extending it until it
fractured and observing the fracture pattern. During this process, the data
acquisition system automat-ically recorded the extensometer data and the
load- deformation curve.
3. Results
3.1. Corrosion morphology

The corrosion morphology of the specimen under different cor-rosion time

is shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen that sporadic pitting
 X. Wu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 189–199 193

Þrst occurred on the surface of the stainless steel bar. With increase of the
corrosion time from 10 days to 30 days, the depth of the corrosion pits
slightly increased, the areas of corrosion expanded little by little, and
transverse and longitudinal ribs grad-ually disappeared. Overall, the depth of
local corrosion pits was rel-atively shallow, and the corrosion morphology
was relatively uniform. The experimental results also indicated that there was
no obvious difference in the corrosion morphology of the specimen during the
same corrosion time under different strain levels.
3.2. Degree of corrosion
Corrosion degrees of specimens under each speciÞc strain and corrosion
period were obtained, and the mean values are shown in Table 3.
The experimental results of corrosion degrees under different strain levels
are shown in Fig. 6. It can be seen that corrosion degree increased as
corrosion time increased under the same strain level, but corrosion rate
gradually decreased with time. During the same corrosion period, corrosion
degree of the specimen increased
with increase of strain level, which indicated that strain level affected the
corrosion degree of stainless steel bar. The evaluation of the impact of strain
on corrosion degree of the stainless steel bar will be discussed more
speciÞcally in the section below.
3.3. Efficiency of current
In order to compare the deviance between experimental corro-sion degree
and theoretical corrosion degree calculated by Fara-dayÕs law, one
parameter, the efÞciency of current, can be deÞned by Eq. (4).
Efficiency ¼ WG 100% 4
WF ðÞ
where WG is the experimental mass loss of the specimen and WF is the
theoretical mass loss of the specimen.
The results of efÞciency of current are listed in Table 4.
It can be seen that the efÞciency of current varied from 86.8% to
98.4%. The results indicated the efÞciency of current lower than
100%, which was extremely normal. The phenomenon can be

(a) corrosion time of 10d.

(b) corrosion time of 20d.

(c) corrosion time of 30d.

Fig. 5. Corrosion morphology of the specimen under different corrosion time.
194 X. Wu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 189–199

Table 3
Corrosion degrees of specimens.

Strain level 10 d

0 10 3
0.5 10 3 4.52%

1.0 10 3 4.73%

(%) load
degr
eecorrosion
 4

time (d)

Fig. 6. Variation of corrosion degree with corrosion time.

test, that only a part of the external current oxidizes the anode

explained by this theory, in electrochemical accelerated corrosion

to form corrosion products while the remaining current is con-
sumed in competing reactions [28]. Although FaradayÕs law doesnÕt
accurately predict the mass

expected corrosion degree can be obtained.

3.4. Mechanical properties of corroded stainless steel bar corrosion degree ηs(%)
Fig. 8. Ultimate load of the specimen.
The mechanical properties of the corroded specimen, such as yield
strength, ultimate strength and elongation, were obtained by the uniaxial
tensile test. The experimental results of corroded specimens are shown in f Fuc au Fu0 ð1 bugsÞ Fu0 1 1:775gs f 6
Figs. 7Ð9.
The mathematical relationships between mechanical properties and ¼
uc Ac ¼ ð1 gsÞ A0 ¼ ð1 gsÞ A0 ¼ ð1 gsÞ u0 ðÞ
corrosion degree of stainless steel bar were established to determine the dc
impact of corrosion on mechanical properties of stainless steel bar. The
mathematical formulas (Eqs. (5)Ð(7)) were given by Þtting the test data.
ae ¼ d0 ¼ 1 begs ¼ 1 3:714gs ð7Þ
where f yc , f uc denote effective yield strength and effective ultimate strength
of corroded stainless steel bar, respectively; f y0, f u0 denote yield strength and
f Fyc ay Fy0 ð1 bygsÞ Fy0 1 1:625gs f 5 ultimate strength of non-corroded stainless steel bar, respectively; Fyc , Fuc
¼ and dc denote yield load, ultimate load and elongation of corroded stainless
yc Ac ¼ ð1 gsÞ A0 ¼ ð1 gsÞ A0 ¼ ð1 gsÞ y0 ð Þ steel bar, respectively; Fy0, Fu0 and

Table 4
The efÞciency of current.

Strain level Energizing time (days) Theoretical corrosion (%) Experimental corrosion (%) Current efÞciency (%)
0 10 5 4.34 86.8
20 10 9.13 91.3
30 15 13.10 87.3
0.5 10 3 10 5 4.52 90.4
20 10 9.45 94.5
30 15 13.67 91.1
1.0 10 3 10 5 4.73 94.6
20 10 9.84 98.4
30 15 14.42 96.1
 X. Wu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 189–199 195

24
elongation data
22 elongation line

20
(%)

18
on
ga
tio
el

12
n

16 elongation limit 15%

14 δc=22-81.7ηs
αe=1-3.714ηs

10
8
6 (a) ηs =8.58%.

0 2 4 6 8 8.6 10 12 14 16
corrosion degree ηs(%)

Fig. 9. Elongation of the specimen.

d0 denote yield load, ultimate load and elongation of non-corroded stainless

steel bar, respectively; ay, au and ae denote the ratio of yield load, ultimate
load and elongation of corroded stainless steel bar to those of non-corroded
stainless steel bar, respectively; A0, Ac denote real cross-sectional areas of
non-corroded and corroded stainless steel bar, respectively; by, bu and be
denote degradation coefÞcient of yield load, ultimate load and elongation,
respectively.
(b) ηs =12.54%.
According to Eqs. (5) and (6), it can be seen that the effective yield
strength and effective ultimate strength of the corroded stainless steel bar
were less than those of the non-corroded steel bar, which meant that the loss
of the load caused by the corrosion was greater than the loss of the cross-
sectional area. The coefÞcient be of 3.714 was higher than the coefÞcient by
of 1.625 and the coef-Þcient bu of 1.775, which indicated that the ductile
damage caused by the corrosion was more signiÞcant than the strengths
damage. The conclusion is consistent with the earlier research results on
corrosion of ordinary reinforcement [29,30].

Based on the fracture morphology of corroded specimens shown in Fig.

10, the necking phenomenon gradually weakened as corrosion degree
increased, which also implied that the ductility of the specimen reduced with
increase of corrosion degree. It is speciÞed in speciÞcation YB/T 4362-2014
(China) that, the elonga-tion of stainless steel bar with a tensile strength more
than 500 MPa should not be less than 15%. From Fig. 9 it can be seen that
when the corrosion degree reached 8.6%, the value of elongation at break
couldnÕt meet the minimum elongation speciÞed any more, which indicated
that a small corrosion degree might also have a signiÞcant impact on the
ductility of stainless steel bar.
(c) ηs =15.54%.
Fig. 10. The fracture morphology of the specimens.
According to Table 5 and Fig. 11, although the corrosion time were
different, the relationships between Kgs and strain level e were similar, and
the deviations between the curves were relatively small. Taking into account
experimental errors, calculation errors, random errors and other factors, it can
be considered that the rela-tionship between Kg and strain level e didnÕt
s

4. Discussion change with the cor-rosion time. Therefore, the mean of Kgs under different
corrosion time in Table 5 can be used for Þtting the relationship between Kg s
4.1. Effect of strain level on corrosion degree and strain level e, obtaining Eq. (9).

The strain inßuence coefÞcient of gs, Kgs, is deÞned by Eq. (8), which g
K s ¼ 1 þ 70e þ 2:0 104e2 ð9Þ
can be used for evaluating the extent of the impact on gs by the strain.
The value of Kgs calculated by Eq. (9) under a strain of 0.5 10 3 was 4
g percent higher than that of under zero strain, and the value of Kgs under a
sx
g
strain of 1 10 3 was 9 percent higher than that of under zero strain, which
g indicated that higher strain level can accelerate the corrosion of stainless steel
Ks ¼ s0 ð8Þ bar. The theory about rupture and repair of the passive Þlm can be used to
where gsx, gs0 denote the corrosion degree of the specimen under a nonzero explain the phenomenon. The tensile strain can cause the passive Þlm on the
strain and zero strain in the same period, respectively. metal surface to rupture at the weak site and then make the metal substrate
The values of Kg are listed in the Table 5. Fig. 11 shows the Þtted curves
s exposed. Since the potential of the metal substrate is lower than that of the
passive Þlm, a galvanic cell is formed
for describing the relationship between Kgs and strain level e.
196 X. Wu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 189–199

Table 5
g
Strain inßuence coefÞcient of corrosion degree K s .
Strain level 10 d 20 d 30 d Mean Variation coefÞcient
0 10 3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000
0.5 10 3 1.041 1.035 1.044 1.040 0.004
1.0 10 3 1.090 1.078 1.101 1.090 0.011

0.98
1.10 corrosion time of 10 days
corrosion time of 20 days 0.97
corrosion time of 30 days
1.08 averange level corrosion 0.96
corrosion time of 10 days
0.95
corrosion time of 20 days
1.06
corrosion time of 30 days
S
η

0.94

ys
K

1.04

K
0.93
KηS=1+74ε+1.6×103ε2
0.92
1.02 KηS=1+62ε+1.6×103ε2
KηS=1+75ε+2.6×103ε2 0.91
η 3 2
1.00 K S=1+70ε+2.0×10 ε 0.90

0.89
0.0 2.0x10-4 4.0x10-4 6.0x10-4 8.0x10-4 1.0x10-3
-4 -4 -4 -4 -3
ε 0.0 2.0x10 4.0x10 6.0x10 8.0x10 1.0x10
strain level ε
g
Fig. 11. The relationship between K s and e.
Fig. 12. Variation of Ksy .

between the metal substrate and the passive Þlm. The electro-chemical
reaction can accelerate the dissolution of the anode metal and make more
metal substrateÕs areas exposed, meanwhile, a new passive Þlm will be
formed on the surface of the exposed metal substrate in the corrosive solution
due to passivation actions. Newly formed passive Þlm is ruptured again under
0.96
tensile strain and the cycle continues, accelerating the corrosion process [31Ð
34]. corrosion time of 10 days
corrosion time of 20 days
0.94
corrosion time of 30 days
4.2. Effect of strain level on mechanics properties of corroded stainless steel
0.92
bar
s
Ku

The strain inßuence coefÞcients of mechanics properties, such as Ksy, Kus 0.90

and Kes, are deÞned by Eqs. (10)Ð(12), which can be used for evaluating the
extent of the impact on mechanics properties by the strain. 0.88

f
y yx
0.86
f 0.0 2.0x10-4 4.0x10-4 6.0x10-4 8.0x10-4 1.0x10-3
Ks ¼ y0 ð10Þ
f strain level ε
u ux

f
Ks ¼ u0 ð11Þ Fig. 13. Variation of Ksu .

Table 6
Strain inßuence coefÞcients of Ksy , Ksu and Kse :.

Mechanics properties Strain level 10d 20d 30d

Yield strength 0 10 3 0.967 0.935 0.915
0.5 10 3 0.962 0.936 0.893
1.0 10 3 0.976 0.922 0.907
Variation coefÞcient 0.007 0.008 0.012
Ultimate strength 0 10 3 0.963 0.925 0.882
0.5 10 3 0.958 0.927 0.863
1.0 10 3 0.964 0.906 0.887
Variation coefÞcient 0.003 0.013 0.014
Elongation 0 10 3 0.831 0.618 0.588
0.5 10 3 0.882 0.588 0.426
1.0 10 3 0.840 0.671 0.485
Variation coefÞcient 0.032 0.067 0.164
 X. Wu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 189–199 197

0.9 steel bar by the strain. It is generally considered that the degree of corrosion is
directly correlated to mechanical perfor-mances. In consideration of the above
mentioned factors, an indirect method to predict the effect of strain level on
0.8 the mechanical performances of stainless steel bar was proposed. When strain
corrosion time of 10 days
corrosion time of 20 days level was known, the real degree of corrosion can be obtained by Eq. (9), and
corrosion time of 30 days then the yield strength, ultimate strength and elongation can be assessed and
0.7
predicted based on the relationship between mechanical performances of
e

Ks
corroded stainless steel bar and degree of corrosion (Eqs. (5)-(7)).
0.6

0.5

5. Comparison of authors’ results with those of other

0.4
0.0 2.0x10-4 4.0x10-4 6.0x10-4 8.0x10-4 1.0x10-3
strain level ε
Fig. 14. Variation of Kse .
d It can be seen from Table 7, the degradation of elongation caused by the
e ex
K d
s ¼ e0
where Ksy, Kus, Kes denote inßuence coefÞcients of effective yield strength,
effective ultimate strength and elongation under a speciÞc strain, respectively;
f yx, f ux, dex denote effective yield strength, effec-tive ultimate strength and
elongation of the corroded specimen under a speciÞc strain, respectively; f y0,
f u0, de0 denote yield strength, ultimate strength and elongation of non-
corroded speci-men, respectively.
The values of Ksy, Kus and Kes are listed in the Table 6. Figs. 12Ð14 show
the variation of Ksy, Kus and Kes with strain level e, respectively.
According to Table 6, it can be seen that Ksy, Kus and Kes gradually
decreased with corrosion time increasing under the same strain level, which
was consistent with earlier research. As shown in Figs. 12Ð14, with increase
of strain level, Ksy, Kus and Kes had no clear and consistent variation trend
during the same corrosion time. Considering the fact that the varia-tion of
Ksy, Kus and Kes were discrete and irregular, and the variation coefÞcients of
Ksy, Kus and Kes were relatively small, it can be considered that Ksy, Kus and
Kes ßuctuated in a small range. It indicated that the strain level had no
signiÞcant effect on the strengths and elongation of corroded stainless steel
bar. Since the variation trend between Ksy, Kus, Kes and the strain level e
werenÕt clear, it was difÞcult to directly establish the mathematical formulas
that can assess the exact impact on the mechanical properties of corroded
stainless
researchers
A comparison of the authorsÕ results with those of other researchers is
shown in Table 7 and Fig. 15, in terms of the differ-ence between corroded
stainless steel bar and ordinary steel bar in the deterioration law of
mechanical properties.
corrosion was more notable than yield strength and ultimate strength, and the
conclusion was applicable to stainless steel bar and ordinary steel bar. As
ð12Þ shown in Fig. 15(a), the degradation coefÞcient of yield strength of stain-less
steel bar, by; was 1.625, which was bigger than that of ordinary steel bar.
Similarly, It can be seen from Fig. 15
(b) and (c), bu and be of stainless steel bar were also greater than ordinary
steel bar. It implied that the degradation rate of mechanical properties of
stainless steel bar were greater than those of ordinary steel bar. Earlier
research has shown that the variation of cross-sectional area can cause the
reduc-tion of nominal strength of corroded steel bar, and the stress
concentration at the corrosion pit can result in the degradation of ultimate
elongation [40]. In addition to all of the above mentioned factors, the content
of Cr、Ni and Mo element, microstructure and surface appearance of stainless
steel bar may change in the corrosion process, which can result in a higher
deterioration rate in mechanical properties of stainless steel bar [23,41Ð43]. It
should be noted that although the stainless steel bar had a bigger deterioration
rate in strengths, for a corrosion degree lower than 25%, its strength was
gener-ally higher than most ordinary steel bar, and this was because initial
strength of the stainless steel bar was relatively higher. Due to strong
corrosion resistance, it is difÞcult to reach a high corrosion degree for the
stainless steel bar in natural condition. Therefore, using stainless steel bar is a
good choice to improve the durability of concrete structures in engineering
practice.

Table 7
Comparison of authorsÕ results with those of other researchers.

Researcher Bar type Corrosion condition Number Diameter (mm) Yield strength Ultimate strength Elongation
ay ¼ 1 by gs au ¼ 1 bu gs ae ¼ 1 be gs
Authors Bare bars Accelerated D16-S 16 1.625 1.775 3.714
Zhang et al. [35] Bars in concrete Natural D6.5-A 6.5 1.12 1.36 Ð
Lee HS and Cho YS [36] Bars in concrete Accelerated D13-295 13 1.20 1.11 2.11
D13-345 13 1.28 1.03 1.76
AA Almusallam [37] Bars in concrete Accelerated D6 6 Ð 1.28 Ð
D12 12 Ð 1.08 Ð
Yuan et al. [38] Bare bars Accelerated D12-B 12 1.07 Ð Ð
AHC Chan et al. [39] Bare bars Accelerated R08 16 Ð Ð 3.40
R16 32 Ð Ð 2.40

Note: The strength in the Table 7 refers to nominal strength.

198 X. Wu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 189–199

900 1. The strain level affected the degree of corrosion of stainless steel bar. The
D16-S higher the strain, the higher the degree of corro-
800 D6.5-A sion. The degree of corrosion of the specimen under a strain of 1.0 10 3
D13-295
700 was 9 percent higher than that of under zero strain. The degree of
D13-345
strength(

αy=1-1.625ηs corrosion of the stainless steel bar under service load can be predicted and
MPa)

D12-B
600 αy=1-1.28ηs
modiÞed by Eq. (9).
2. The yield strength, ultimate strength and elongation of cor-roded stainless
500
steel bar had an obvious degradation with increase of degree of corrosion,
αy=1-1.20ηs
400 especially the degradation of the elongation. When the degree of corrosion
yield

reached 8.6%, the value of elongation at break of the specimen couldnÕt

300 αy=1-1.07ηs meet the requirement of the speciÞcation (YB/T 4362-2014, China) in
200
minimum elongation, which indicated that a small degree of corrosion
αy=1-1.12ηs might also cause signiÞcant ductile damage. There-fore, the possibility of
100 ductility deterioration of stainless steel bar should be considered in
practical engineering.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
corrosion degree ηs(%) 3. The strain level ( 1.0 10 3) had no signiÞcant effect on mechanical
(a) The degradation coefficient of yield strength. properties of stainless steel bar within 15% corro-sion degree. An indirect
method was proposed to predict the accurate effect of strain level on the
mechanical properties of stainless steel bar, based on Eqs. (5)-(7), (9).
900
D16-S
800 αu=1-1.775ηs D6.5-A
4. By comparison with the results of other researchers, it was found that the
degradation rate of nominal strength and elonga-tion of stainless steel bar
strength(MP

D13-295
700 αu=1-1.28ηs D13-345 were higher than those of ordinary steel bar. However, even if the degree
a)

400
D6 of corrosion reached 25%, nominal strength of stainless steel bar were
600
D12 generally higher than most ordinary steel bar.
500
ultimate

αu=1-1.08ηs

200 αu=1-1.11ηs Due to time and budget constraints, the corrosion test was only conducted
300 αu=1-1.03ηs on the S11203 stainless steel bar with a diameter of 16 mm, and the
deformations of the specimens in the test are all elas-tic deformations. In later
research, different types and sizes of stainless steel bars can be selected to
αu=1-1.36ηs
100 prove the suitability of the conclusion, and the impact of the plastic
deformation on corrosion of stainless steel bar should also be considered.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
corrosion degree ηs(%)
(b) The degradation coefficient of ultimate strength. Acknowledgments

The Þnancial support provided by National 973 Program (Grant No.

25
D16-S 2013CB036303) are greatly appreciated. The experiment was conducted in
D13-295 State Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering, Tongji University.
D13-345
20 R6
Elongation(

αe=1-2.11ηs R12
References
%)

15
[1] O.E. Gj¿rv, Durability of reinforced concrete wharves in Norwegian harbours, MatŽriaux
Et Constr. 2 (6) (1969) 467Ð476.
αe=1-3.714ηs [2] O.E. Gj¿rv, Mechanisms of corrosion of steel in concrete structures, in: Proceedings Vol.
10
αe=1-2.40ηs 2, International Conference on Materials Performance in Severe Environments:
EVALMET 89, The Iron and Steel Institute of Japan, Tokyo, 1989, pp. 565Ð578.

[3] O.E. Gj¿rv, Durability and service life of concrete structures, in: Proceedings, The First
5 αe=1-1.76ηs Þb Congress, Session 8, 6, Japan Prestressed Concrete Engineering Association, Tokyo,
αe=1-3.40ηs 2002, pp. 1Ð16.
[4] United States Accounting OfÞce. Solving Corrosion Problems of Bridge Surfaces Could
0 Save Billions, Comptroller General of the United States, 1979, US Accounting OfÞce
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 PSAD-79-10.
[5] O.E. Gj¿rv, Zhao Tiejun, Durability design of concrete structures in severe environments,
corrosion degree ηs(%) China Archit. Build. Press (2010) 1Ð101.
(c) The degradation coefficient of elongation. [6] Y.M. Wang, Application of stainless steel bars to concrete structures, J. Gansu Radio
Telev. Univ. 03 (2010) 54Ð56.
[7] J. Ozÿbolt, F. Oršanic«, G. Balabanic«, M. Kušter, Modeling damage in concrete caused
Fig. 15. The relationship between mechanical properties and gs . by corrosion of reinforcement: coupled 3d fe model, Int. J. Fract. 178 (1Ð2) (2012)
233Ð244.
[8] Z.H. Chen, D.Y. Tan, Y. Zeng, et al., Deterioration of reinforced-concrete bound strength
6. Conclusion due to corrosion, J. Chongqing Univ. 1 (2016) 79Ð87.
[9] A. Knudsen, F.M. Jensen, O. Klinghoffer, et al., Cost-effective Enhancement of
This paper presents the results of an experimental study on the corrosion Durability of Concrete Structures by Intelligent Use of Stainless Steel Reinforcement, in:
Proceedigs of the International Conference on Corrosion and Rehabilitation of Reinforced
of S11203 stainless steel bar under different strain levels. The main Concrete Structures Held 7-11 Decemb 1998, Orlando, Florida, USA, 1999.
conclusions of this study are:
 X. Wu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 189–199
[10] M.C. Garc’a-Alonso, M.L. Escudero, J.M. Miranda, et al., Corrosion behaviour of new
stainless steels reinforcing bars embedded in concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 37 (10) (2007)
1463Ð1471.
[11] J. Mietz, Stainless steel in concrete Ð state of the art report. Hrsg. von U. NŸrnberger,
European Federation of Corrosion Publications Number 18, 48 Seiten, The Institute of
Materials, London 1996, £ 10.00, ISBN 1-86125-008-8, Mater. Corros. 48 (5) (2015) 332.
[12] O. Klinghoffer, T. Frolung, B. Kofoed, A. Knudsen, F.M. Jensen, T. Skovsgaard, Practical
and economical aspects of application of austenitic stainless steel, AISI 316, as
reinforcement in concrete, in: J. Mietz, R. Polder, B. Elserner (Eds.), Corrosion of
Reinforcement in Concrete, European Federation of CorrosionIOM Communications,
London, 2000, pp. 121Ð133.
[13] S.D. Cramer, B.S.C. Jr, S.J. Bullard, et al., Corrosion prevention and remediation
strategies for reinforced concrete coastal bridges, Cem. Concr. Compos. 24 (1) (2002)
101Ð117.
[14] J. Ji, D. Darwin, J.P. Browning, Corrosion resistance of duplex stainless steels and mmfx
microcomposite steel for reinforced concrete bridge decks, 2005.
[15] L.B. Bertolini, P. Pediferri, R. Polder, Corrosion of Steel in Concrete, Wiley-VCH,
Weinheim, 2004.
[16] Z.W. Zeng, L. Chen, Y.B. Tang, et al., Study on passivation behavior of 304l stainless
steel reinforcements in simulated concrete pore solutions, Guangdong Chem. Indust. 40
(22) (2013) 39Ð40.
[17] L. Chen, Y. Qu, Y.B. Tang, et al., Critical chloride concentration of stainless steels in
simulated concrete pore solutions, Corros. Prot. 35 (05) (2014) 446Ð449.
[18] X.H. Zheng, C.C. Li, F. Yang, et al., Corrosion Resistant Performance of stainless steel
bar, J. Highway Transp. Res. Dev. 12 (2016) 6Ð14.
[19] G. Xu, H.F. Fei, Y.M. Wang, Q. Wang, Research on corrosion characteristics of stainless
steel bar in stray current and chloride ion coexisted environment, Adv. Mater. Res.
261Ð263 (2011) 56Ð60.
[20] H. Castro, C. Rodriguez, F.J. Belzunce, A.F. Canteli, Mechanical properties and corrosion
behaviour of stainless steel reinforcing bars, J. Mater. Process. Technol. s143Ð144 (1)
(2003) 134Ð137.
[21] R.D. Moser, P.M. Singh, L.F. Kahn, K.E. Kurtis, Chloride-induced corrosion resistance of
high-strength stainless steels in simulated alkaline and carbonated concrete pore solutions,
Corros. Sci. 57 (2) (2012) 241Ð253.
[22] E.C. Paredes, A. Bautista, S.M. Alvarez, F. Velasco, Inßuence of the forming process of
corrugated stainless steels on their corrosion behaviour in simulated pore solutions,
Corros. Sci. 58 (58) (2012) 52Ð61.
ÿ «
[23] M. Serdar, L.V. Zulj, D. Bjegovic, Long-term corrosion behaviour of stainless reinforcing
steel in mortar exposed to chloride environment, Corros. Sci. 69
(69) (2013) 149Ð157.
[24] M. Sanchez, M.C. Alonso, E. Mazario, F.J. Recio, H. Hingorani, High strength stainless
steel 14301 for prestressed concrete structures protection. International Conference on
Concrete under Severe Conditions, 2010.
[25] L.A. Clark, A.H.C. Chan, Y.G. Du, Residual capacity of corroded reinforcing bars, Mag.
Concr. Res. 57 (3) (2005) 135Ð147.
199
[26] G.J. Al-Sulaimani, M. Kaleemullah, I.A. Basunbul, Rasheeduzzafar, Inßuence of
corrosion and cracking on bond behavior and strength of reinforced concrete members,
ACI Struct. J. 87 (2) (1990) 220Ð231.
[27] T.E. Maaddawy, Long-term performance of corrosion-damaged reinforced concrete
beams, ACI Struct. J. 102 (5) (2005) 649Ð656.
[28] G. Nossoni, R.S. Harichandran, Electrochemistry of Accelerated Corrosion Testing Using
an Impressed Current[C]// Transportation Research Board 90th Annual Meeting, 2011.
[29] C.A. Apostolopoulos, V.G. Papadakis, Consequences of steel corrosion on the ductility
properties of reinforcement bar, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (12) (2008) 2316Ð2324.
[30] W.U. Xun, L.I. Hui, Effect Strain Level Corros. Prestres. Steel Strands 106 (11) (2016)
292Ð299.
[31] T.P. Hoar, J.C. Scully, Mechanochemical anodic dissolution of austenitic stainless steel in
hot chloride solution at controlled electrode potential, J. Electrochem. Soc. 111 (3) (1964)
348Ð352.
[32] H. Niwa, S. Asawa, S. Haruyama, T. Mori, Strain-induced anodic dissolution of cu single
crystals Ð effects of specimen geometry and slip morphology, Corros. Sci. 23 (9) (1983)
959Ð968.
[33] K. Sieradzki, R.C. Newman, Stress-corrosion cracking, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 48 (11)
(1987) 1101Ð1113.
[34] N.A. Vu, A. Castel, R. Fran•ois, Effect of stress corrosion cracking on stress Ð strain
response of steel wires used in prestressed concrete beams, Corros. Sci. 51 (6) (2009)
1453Ð1459.
[35] W. Zhang, X. Song, X. Gu, et al., Tensile and fatigue behavior of corroded rebars, Constr.
Build. Mater. 34 (5) (2012) 409Ð417.
[36] H.S. Lee, Y.S. Cho, Evaluation of the mechanical properties of steel reinforcement
embedded in concrete specimen as a function of the degree of reinforcement corrosion,
Int. J. Fract. 157 (1Ð2) (2009) 81Ð88.
[37] A.A. Almusallam, Effect of degree of corrosion on the properties of reinforcing steel bars,
Constr. Build. Mater. 15 (8) (2001) 361Ð368.
[38] Y.S. Yuan, J F.P., C Y., Deterioration of mechanical behavior of corroded steel bar.
Industrial, Construction 30 (1) (2000) 43Ð46.
[39] A.H.C. Chan, L.A. Clark, Y.G. Du, Effect of corrosion on ductility of reinforcing bars,
Mag. Concr. Res. 57 (7) (2005) 407Ð419.
[40] W.P. Zhang, H.C. Dai, X.L. Gu, et al., Effects of corrosion pits on mechanical properties
of corroded steel bars, Workshop Biennial Int. Conf. Eng. (2010) 3504Ð3511.
[41] H.D. Solomon, T.M. Devine, Inßuence of microstructure on the mechanical properties and
localized corrosion of a duplex stainless steel, Astm Special Technical Publication, 1979.
[42] M. Azzi, M. Benkahoul, J.E. Klemberg-Sapieha, et al., Corrosion and mechanical
properties of duplex-treated 301 stainless steel, Surf. Coat. Technol. 205 (5) (2010)
1557Ð1563.
[43] H. Nie, J. Xiong, C. Ge, et al., Effects of multi-scale microstructure on pitting corrosion
and mechanical properties of high-mn-n low-ni superduplex stainless steel, Rare Metal.
Mater. Eng. 41 (4) (2012) 575Ð580.