EFFECT OF ACCELERATED CORROSION ON THE BOND STRENGTH OF

CORROSION RESISTANT REINFORCING BARS EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE

A Thesis

Presented to

The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the

Degree Master of Science

Sourav Khatua

December 2017
 EFFECT OF ACCELERATED CORROSION ON THE BOND STRENGTH OF

CORROSION RESISTANT REINFORCING BARS EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE

Sourav Khatua

Master’s Thesis

Approved by: Accepted:

Advisor Department Chair

Dr. Anil Patnaik Dr. Wieslaw K. Binienda

Committee Member Dean, College of Engineering

Dr. T.S.Srivatsan Dr. Donald J. Visco

Committee Member Executive Dean, Graduate School

Dr. Ping Yi Dr. Chand Midha

Date

ii
 ABSTRACT

Corrosion of steel reinforcing bars embedded in concrete applications is a major

problem all over the world. Effect of corrosion causes metal loss at sections, cracks in the

concrete surrounding the reinforcing steel, spalling of cover concrete also leads to de-

bonding of reinforcing bar from the concrete. Corrosion cracks in the surrounding concrete

leads to loss in bond strength and finally reduce the structural strength and service life of

the structure. This problem is consistently observed in structural slab bridges that are

exposed to deicing salts during the winters. In the era of 1980’s, black convention steel was

replaced with epoxy-coated bars as a solution to prevent corrosion in bridge decks.

However the advantage of using epoxy coated bars is still uncertain as the bond strength

of these type of bars is a concern. Several researchers in the past have highlighted

deleterious effect of corrosion on epoxy-coated bars that are damaged during handling.

It is necessary to study the use of alternative reinforcing bars as means of corrosion

protection in bridge deck applications. There are several corrosion resistant bars that are

readily available in the market, but performance of these bars under accelerated corrosion

conditions is still unclear. Six different types of bars which include, conventional black

bars, epoxy-coated bars, hot dipped galvanizing bars, continuously galvanized bars,

stainless steel bars and MMFX bars were studied in this thesis.

The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of accelerated corrosion on

bond strength of concrete. The bond between concrete and reinforcement bars play a

major role in transfer of stresses from concrete to steel. However, corrosion weakens this

iii
bond, resulting in weakening of the Reinforced Concrete member. So, it was necessary to

investigate the performance of CRR (Corrosion Resistant Bars) embedded in concrete

and subjected to accelerated corrosion. The effect of addition of polypropylene fibers on

the bond strength was studied.

A total of 48 prism specimens were cast with CRR bars including the ones with

fibers, of which 24 specimens were subjected to accelerated corrosion. The prisms were 6-

inch cube with a reinforcing bar at the centre of each specimen. The embedment length of

the bar was 2.5 inches at the mid-height of the section. An electrochemical cell was adopted

by placing the specimens in a tank containing 5% salt solution with stainless steel cathode

surrounding the specimen. The circuit was completed by connecting the cathode and the

reinforcing bar to an external power supply. The specimens were subjected to accelerated

corrosion for total of 21 days which includes a two-day wetting and one day drying cycle.

Impressed current of 0.02A, calculated using Faraday’s law to achieve 5% corrosion

damage was supplied during the wetting cycle using external power source.

The corroded specimens were then tested to investigate the loss of bond strength

due to corrosion and capture any improvement in bond strength using polypropylene fibers.

It was observed that, corrosion of bars showed serious bond loss leading to reduced pull-

out strength with larger slip of the bars relative to the embedded concrete prisms. Addition

of polypropylene fibers showed an improvement in the overall performance of the corroded

specimens by increasing the load capacity, reducing slip and improving failure mode from

brittle to more ductile mode, compared to un-corroded specimens.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is with immense gratitude that I acknowledge the support and help of my advisor, Dr.

Anil Patnaik for his guidance throughout my graduate studies. He has been inspirational to

me as an individual and student, and his direction, assistance, and patience during my

research process has been invaluable.

This work is associated with Ohio Department of Transportation and NCER

CAMP and I acknowledge the financial support from sponsoring agencies.

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

possible for me to complete my graduate research:

 Srikanth Marchetty for his help and guidance throughout my thesis. He was always there

for me in the lab and helped me in casting, corroding and testing the specimens.

 David McVaney, for helping me with materials and testing

 UA Graduate Students: Umang Pawar, Abdullah Alzlfawi, Nebras, Mohammed Essili

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

studies

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………….xiv

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………xi

CHAPTER

I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background of the study ........................................................................................... 1

1.2 Research significance ................................................................................................ 2

1.3 Research Objectives .................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Research Methodology.............................................................................................. 3

1.5 Thesis Outline ........................................................................................................... 3

II. Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Experimental Investigation of Bond Strength ........................................................... 6

2.1.1 Bond Mechanism .................................................................................................6

2.1.2 Bond Strength Equations .....................................................................................9

2.1.3 Modes of Bond Failure ......................................................................................11

2.1.4 Tests to Investigate Bond ..................................................................................11

2.2 Pullout Test Studies................................................................................................. 12

2.2.1 Study on the reinforcement bond behavior under different corrosion conditions

................................................................................................................................... 12

2.2.2 Bond of high strength concrete with high strength Steel...................................17

2.2.3 Pullout test on Bond splitting property of corroded reinforced concrete .........22

2.2.4 Bond between Reinforcement and Concrete – Influence of steel corrosion .....26

vi
 2.2.5 An experimental study on effects of steel corrosion in bond-slip performance of

reinforced concrete. ............................................................................................ 30

2.2.6 Use of Fibers in Pullout Specimens.................................................................. 35

2.3 Methods of Testing Bond Strength ......................................................................... 36

2.4 Effects of Corrosion on Bond ................................................................................. 38

2.5 Introduction to corrosion process ............................................................................ 40

2.5.1 Mechanism of Corrosion Damage .................................................................... 41

2.5.2 Mechanical Properties of Corroded Reinforcement Bars ................................. 42

2.5.3 Corroded reinforcement and concrete bond ..................................................... 43

2.5.4 Mechanical behavior of corroded Reinforced Concrete structures .................. 45

2.6 Accelerated Corrosion ............................................................................................. 46

2.7 Corrosion control measures ..................................................................................... 48

2.8 Properties of Reinforcement bars used.................................................................... 52

2.8.1 MMFX Reinforcement Bar .............................................................................. 52

2.8.2 Stainless Steel Bars .......................................................................................... 55

2.8.3 Hot-dip Galvanized Steel ................................................................................. 56

2.8.4 Continuous Galvanized Reinforcing bar (CGR) .............................................. 60

2.8.5 Epoxy Coated Reinforcing Steel ...................................................................... 62

2.8.6 Competitive Materials Comparison.................................................................. 63

2.8.7 Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Concrete ....................................................... 66

III. Experimental Procedure .............................................................................................. 77

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 77

3.2 Types of Reinforcing Bars ...................................................................................... 78

3.3 Test Matrix .............................................................................................................. 79

vii
 3.4 Preparation of reinforcing bars ................................................................................ 80

3.5 Preparation of formwork ......................................................................................... 81

3.6 Materials for Casting of specimens ......................................................................... 81

3.6.1 Cementitious materials ..................................................................................... 82

3.6.2 Aggregates Used............................................................................................... 82

3.6.3 Concrete Admixtures ........................................................................................ 83

3.6.4 Polypropylene Fibers ........................................................................................ 84

3.7 Preparation of Specimens ........................................................................................ 85

3.7.1 Slump Test ........................................................................................................ 86

3.7.2 Air Content Test ............................................................................................... 87

3.7.3 Placing of Concrete .......................................................................................... 88

3.7.4 Curing of Specimens ........................................................................................ 89

3.7.5 Compressive Strength Test ............................................................................... 90

3.8 Accelerated Corrosion Test on Pull-Out Specimens ............................................... 91

3.9 Testing of Non-Corroded and Corroded Pull-Out Specimens ................................ 93

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 97

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 105

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 106

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 115

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 2.1 Reinforcing bar Showing Concrete Key (Bajaj,2012) ....................................... 7

Figure 2.2 Forces Acting on the Rib of Reinforcing Bar (Bajaj, 2012) .............................. 7

Figure 2.3 Cracking and Damage Mechanisms in Bond .................................................... 8

Figure 2.4 Bond Stress-Slip Curve (Eligehausen 1983) ..................................................... 9

Figure 2.3 Specimen description....................................................................................... 13

Figure 2.4 Load displacement graph (Mansoor, 2013) ..................................................... 15

Figure: 2.5 Day 4 of corrosion(Mansoor, 2013) ............................................................... 16

Figure2.6 Day 6 corrosion(Mansoor, 2013)...................................................................... 16

Figure 2.7 Day 8 corrosion(Mansoor, 2013)..................................................................... 16

Figure 2.8 Specimen Dimensions D= 240mm & 300mm ................................................. 18

Figure 2.9 Testing of Specimens....................................................................................... 18

Figure 2.10 Test Setup ...................................................................................................... 19

Figure 2.11 Bond Strength Comparison for 240mm Diameter Specimens(Hadi-2008)... 21

Figure 2.12 Bond Strength Comparison for 300mm Diameter Specimens(Hadi-2008)... 22

Figure 2.13 Details of the Specimens (Michiakioyado, Kanakabo) ................................. 23

Figure 2.14 Loading and Measurement Process (Michiakioyado, Kanakabo) ................. 24

Figure 2.15 Graph Showing Average Bond Stress vs Modified Slippage ........................ 25

Figure 2.19 Effect of Cover Depth and Different Corrosion Level on Bond Strength

(Belarbi and Wang 2004) .................................................................................................. 29

ix
Figure 2.20 Effect of Bar Diameter and Corrosion Severity on Bond Strength (Belarbi

and Wang 2004) ................................................................................................................ 29

Figure 2.23 Insulated End of Steel Reinforcing bar.......................................................... 32

Figure 2.27 Sequences and Consequences of Corrosion on Reinforcements (Cairns et al.

1999) ................................................................................................................................. 42

Figure 2.28 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracks Caused by Bond Stresses (Magnusson -

2000 Vanderwalle -1992) ................................................................................................. 44

Figure: 2.29 Effects of Corrosion (Tahershami, 2016) ..................................................... 46

Figure: 2.30 Damage Accumulation Projection for Black steel vs MMFX Steel

Reinforcements (www.mmfx.com) .................................................................................. 54

Figure: 2.31 Yield Strength of MMFX or ChromX Reinforcing Bars (www.mmfx.com)

........................................................................................................................................... 55

Figure: 2.32 Galvanic Series of Metals (www.galvanizeit.org) ....................................... 57

Figure: 2.33 Bond Strength Comparison between Black and Galvanized

Bar(www.galvanizeit.org)................................................................................................. 59

Figure:2.34 Service Life Model of Uncoated vs. Galvanized Reinforcing bar

(www.galvanizeit.org) ...................................................................................................... 60

Figure: 2.35 Comparison between CGR and HDG Coatings (www.zinc.org/crg/) .......... 61

Figure: 2.36 Relative Corrosion of Black, Galvanized and Epoxy Bars (McDonald 1998)

........................................................................................................................................... 63

Figure: 2.37 Chloride Threshold (McDonald 1998) ......................................................... 63

Figure: 2.38 Chloride Threshold Comparison (www.google.com) .................................. 64

Figure: 2.39- 7, 21 and 28 days Compressive Strength Comparison (Kalyani Kothule) . 68

x
Figure: 2.40- 7, 21 and 28 days Split Tensile Strength Comparison (Kalyani Kothule).. 68

Figure: 2.41- 7, 21 and 28 days Flexural Strength Comparison (Kalyani Kothule) ......... 69

Figure: 2.42 Corrosion of Reinforcing Steel in Reinforced Concrete Beam .................... 70

Figure: 2.43 Beam Reinforcement Details ........................................................................ 73

Figure: 2.44 Test Specimen Dimensions .......................................................................... 74

Figure 3.1 Types of Reinforcing Bars ............................................................................... 78

Figure 3.2 Axial Tension Testing of Reinforcing Bar with Extensometer Attached ........ 78

Figure 3.3 Stress vs. Strain Curves for #5 Bars ................................................................ 79

Figure: 3.4 Reinforcing Bars Showing PVC Pipes as Bond Breaker ............................... 80

Figure: 3.5 Specimen Dimension ...................................................................................... 80

Figure: 3.6 Preparation of Formwork ............................................................................... 81

Figure: 3.7 TUF STRAND SF Polypropylene Fiber ........................................................ 85

Figure: 3.8 Slump Test Apparatus .................................................................................... 87

Figure: 3.9 Air Content Test Apparatus ............................................................................ 88

Figure 3.10 Pouring of Concrete ....................................................................................... 88

Figure: 3.11 Completion of Concreting ............................................................................ 89

Figure: 3.12 Curing of Concrete ....................................................................................... 89

Figure 3.13 Compressive Strength Testing Machine ........................................................ 90

Figure: 3.14 Capping of Extended Reinforcement Bar..................................................... 91

Figure: 3.15 Electro-Chemical Test Setup ........................................................................ 92

Figure: 3.16 Corrosion Testing ......................................................................................... 92

Figure: 3.17 Damage of Specimen on Day 2 (left) and Day 10 (Right) ........................... 93

Figure: 3.18 Pull-Out Test Setup ...................................................................................... 94

xi
Figure: 3.19 Dial Gauge Setup.......................................................................................... 94

Figure: 3.20 Slippage of Non-Corroded Specimens with Fiber after Testing .................. 95

Figure: 3.21 Corroded Specimens without Fiber after Testing ......................................... 95

Figure: 3.22 Slippage of Reinforcing bar after Testing .................................................... 96

Figure 4.1 Load vs Slip Curves of Non-Corroded Specimens without Fibers ................. 98

Figure 4.2 Load vs Slip Curves of Non-Corroded Specimens with Fibers....................... 99

Figure 4.3 Load vs Slip Curves of Corroded Specimens without Fibers ........................ 100

Figure 4.4 Load vs Slip Curves of Corroded Specimens with Fibers ............................. 101

Figure 4.5 Peak Load Comparison of Specimen with and without Fibers (Non-Corroded)

......................................................................................................................................... 102

Figure 4.6 Peak Load Comparison of Specimen with and without Fibers (Corroded) ... 103

Figure 4.7 Peak load comparison of Specimen without Fibers (Non-Corroded and

Corroded) ........................................................................................................................ 104

Figure 4.8 Peak Load Comparison of Specimen with Fibers (Non-Corroded and

Corroded) ........................................................................................................................ 104

Figure: A.1 Load vs Slip Graph- Black Non Corroded .................................................. 116

Figure: A.2 Load vs Slip Graph- Black Corroded .......................................................... 116

Figure: A.3 Load vs Slip Graph- Epoxy Non Corroded ................................................. 117

Figure: A.4 Load vs Slip Graph- Epoxy Corroded ......................................................... 117

Figure: A.5 Load vs Slip Graph- HDG Non Corroded ................................................... 118

Figure: A.6 Load vs Slip Graph- HDG Corroded ........................................................... 118

Figure: A.7 Load vs Slip Graph- Stainless Steel Non Corroded .................................... 119

Figure: A.8 Load vs Slip Graph- Stainless Steel Corroded ............................................ 119

xii
Figure: A.9 Load vs Slip Graph- MMFX Non Corroded ............................................... 120

Figure: A.10 Load vs Slip Graph- MMFX Corroded ..................................................... 120

Figure: A.11 Load vs Slip Graph- CGR Non Corroded ................................................. 121

Figure: A.12 Load vs Slip Graph - CGR Corroded ........................................................ 121

xiii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page

Table 2.1: Corrosion Percentage vs Maximum Displacement (Mansoor, 2013) .............. 15

Table 2.2 Bond Strength Test Results............................................................................... 20

Table 2.3 Properties of Test Specimens (Michiakioyado, Kanakabo) .............................. 23

Table: 2.4 Pullout Test Results (Michiakioyado, Kanakabo) ........................................... 25

Table 2.5 Designed and Measured Corrosion Percentage ................................................ 32

Table 2.6 Merits and Demerits of Different Bond Tests (Stanish -1999) ......................... 37

Table: 2.7 Total expenditures over 75 year life of decks at Virginia bridge deck percentile

corrosion tolerance of 10%. Source: VTRC 06-R29 ........................................................ 53

Table: 2.8 Life Cycle Cost Analysis (www.mmfx.com) .................................................. 54

Table 2.9 Mechanical Properties of Corrosion Resistant Steel (Chungwook -2014) ....... 64

Table: 2.10 Comparison between Corrosion Resistant Reinforcement Bars

(www.google.com) ........................................................................................................... 65

Table: 2.11 Cost Comparison of Available Corrosion Resistant Bars

........................................................................................................................................... 66

Table 2.12 Flexural Ultimate Moment for both Cases...................................................... 73

Table: 3.1 Test Matrix....................................................................................................... 79

Table: 3.2 Properties of Portland cement .......................................................................... 82

Table: 3.3 Coarse Aggregate Gradations (LS 8) ............................................................... 83

Table: 3.4 Fine aggregate gradation .................................................................................. 83

Table 3.5 Mix Design ....................................................................................................... 86

Table 3.6 Compressive Strength ....................................................................................... 90

xiv
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Corrosion of reinforcing steel is a major problem in infrastructure industry as it

accounts for the loss of billions of dollars in maintenance annually. As concrete is weak

in tension, the reinforcing bar has a key role in reinforced concrete sections to carry load.

The proper function of reinforced concrete is only achieved when bond between the

reinforcing bar and concrete exists. In most cases, reinforced concrete is used in building

structures as it is the most viable and inexpensive way of construction material. Concrete

structures are usually durable and strong in performance throughout their entire service

life. However, in some cases, members do not perform as needed due to improper design,

construction or lack of quality control of construction material and process, or severe

environment conditions.

One major environmental factor which leads to deterioration of RC structures is

reinforcement corrosion. (Torres-Acosta, A. A., Navarro-Gutierrez – 2007). Corrosion of

reinforcement is the main challenge that civil engineers are facing in the construction

industry today. In Ohio, structural slab bridges are the widely constructed bridges in

counties over the streams and rivers or highways with two to four lane roadways.

Prevention of corrosion of reinforcement in the bridge decks directly impacts the service

life of the bridge. Bridge decks that are exposed to deicing salts during winters are prone

to concrete deterioration. Some of the factors that cause corrosion include:

15
  Chemical Attack

 Carbonation or chlorine ingress

 Physical damage due to freeze and thaw

 Salt scaling

 Abrasion etc.

Reinforced concrete fully functions only if the concrete cracks, i.e. the tensile

stresses are mainly carried by the reinforcing steel as the concrete is weak in tension. These

cracks allow the de-icing salts and other chemicals during winters initiating the corrosion

of reinforcement leading to deterioration and premature failure of RC structures.

1.2 Research significance

Reinforced concrete structures can fail due to effect of corrosion in the United

States and all around the world. In 1997 it was estimated that, United States alone had a

loss of approximately $150 billion per annum due to corrosion of bridges (Yoon, S., Wang,

K., Weiss -2000). Similar figures are also noted for Europe, Asia and Australia. (El- Reedy,

M.A. -2008). It was seen that structural damages and financial losses due to corrosion of

RC structures is matter of concern for many researchers and engineers. There is a need for

engineers to gather enough knowledge and information about the process of corrosion, its

causes and effects, its impact on structural integrity, spalling of concrete bond of

reinforcement to concrete.

1.3 Research Objectives

The main objective of this research is to evaluate performance of corrosion resistant

reinforcing bars embedded in concrete that are subjected to accelerated corrosion process.

16
This study provides a better understanding of corrosion process and its effect on bond

strength between reinforcement and concrete. Reduction in bond strength may lead to

slippage of the reinforcement bar inside concrete which will reduce the load carrying

capacity of the RC structure thereby resulting into failure of the structure. This study will

help to understand and evaluate the reduction in pullout strength of the bar. It was also

important to study the influence of fiber reinforced concrete on the corrosion and pullout

strength.

1.4 Research Methodology

The effect on bond strength of CRR bars subjected to accelerated corrosion was

determined in this study. Literature review was done to understand the process of corrosion,

corrosion rate, distribution of corrosion products at the steel-concrete interface, and the

development of crack at steel-concrete interface and concrete surface to understand the

basics of corrosion. Pullout testing was used for the determination of bond strength

between reinforcement and concrete. The use of polypropylene fibers was also studied to

improve the performance of corroded reinforced concrete members.

1.5 Thesis Outline

This thesis is divided into six chapters.

 Chapter I describes introduction, research significance and the objectives of this study.

 Chapter II explains the corrosion process, causes of corrosion and types of corrosion in

reinforced concrete.

 Chapter III includes literature study on different pullout tests, failure modes, effect of

addition of fibers to concrete pullout strength, etc.

 Chapter IV describes experimental procedures, test setup and testing methodology.

17
 Chapter V summarizes the results and recommendations based on this study.

18
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

In reinforced concrete structures, since concrete is weak in tension, steel

reinforcement is used to resist the tensile forces and the concrete itself resists the

compressive forces. For the reinforcing bar and concrete to work as a composite material

the bond between them should be very strong. There should be little or no slip of re-bars

with respect to the surrounding concrete (Musa, 2013. Bajaj, 2012)

Bond resistance comprises of:

1. Chemical Adhesion

2. Friction

3. Mechanical interlock between reinforcing bars and concrete

4. Gripping effect

5. Anchoring effects of reinforcing bars

6. Diameter, shape, surface and spacing of reinforcing bars

Bond strength loss between reinforcing bar and concrete leads to failure of structures.

Based on the type and size of reinforcing bars and property of concrete mix design, the

components of bond resistance act differently (Musa, 2013)

19
2.1 Experimental Investigation of Bond Strength

Theoretical development of the effects of corrosion on reinforced concrete is

complicated. Therefore, experimentation is needed to study the mechanism of bond

response and all other parameters that define this response. According to past research

microscopic, dragging behavior of the material around the concrete-steel interface is

defined by complex stress, strain and damage fields and that variation in these fields is a

function of highly localized system parameters (e.g Gergely and Lutz 1967). In order to

simplify testing of bond strength, the experimental procedures use specimens with a single

reinforcing bar embedded with a short development length in a concrete block which has

transverse reinforcing details.

2.1.1 Bond Mechanism

The reinforcing bar in reinforced concrete member tends to slide or slip when

reinforcing bar in pulled or load is applied. This movement or slip faces resistance due

mechanical interlock and chemical adhesion between reinforcing bar and concrete. Beyond

a certain load the chemical adhesion breaks, and the movement of reinforcing bar is then

resisted by bearing of ribs against concrete key. Concrete key is defined as the concrete

between the ribs of a reinforcing bar is shown in Figure.2.1.

20
 Figure 2.1 Reinforcing bar Showing Concrete Key (Bajaj,2012)

The concrete cover splits as a result of the bearing force applied by the ribs on the

concrete cover when the embedded bar slips. The frictional force between the reinforcing

bar and the concrete counter the sliding of the ribs and the concrete key. Hence the bearing

action is reduced by the frictional forces which leads to the reduction of resultant tensile

force on concrete (Treece and Jirsa,1989). The forces acting on the bar during a pullout test

along with the direction of these forces are shown in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 Forces Acting on the Rib of Reinforcing Bar (Bajaj, 2012)

21
 When a deformed bar moves with respect to the surrounding concrete, surface

adhesion is lost, while bearing forces on the ribs and friction forces on the ribs and barrel

of the bar are mobilized. The compressive bearing forces on the ribs increase the value of

the friction forces. With the increase in slip, there is a reduction in the friction on the barrel

of reinforcing bars, leaving the forces at the contact faces between the ribs and surrounding

concrete as the principal mechanism of force transfer. The forces on the reinforcing bar

surface are balanced by compressive and shear stresses on the concrete contact surfaces,

which are resolved into tensile stresses that can result in cracking in planes that are both

parallel and perpendicular to the reinforcement as shown in Figure 2.3. The figure on the

left is a side view of a deformed bar with deformation face angle (α) showing formation of

cracks (Goto 1971). And the figure on the right is the end view showing formation of

splitting cracks parallel to the reinforcing bar.

Figure 2.3 Cracking and Damage Mechanisms in Bond

The graph in Figure 2.4 shows a bond stress-slip curve for bar loaded monotonically and

failing by pullout (Eligehausen 1983).

22
 Figure 2.4 Bond Stress-Slip Curve (Eligehausen 1983)
2.1.2 Bond Strength Equations

In our project bond length is known and bond stress is uniformly distributed for a

short embedment length. The bond strength between reinforcing bar and concrete depends

on:

 Reinforcement Type: Size and spacing of ribs, plain bars, pre-stressing strands

 Quality and stress state of concrete:

1. Compressive and tensile strength

2. Position of reinforcing bar in casting

 Active and passive confinement:

1. Active confinement from support and continuity

2. Passive confinement from transverse reinforcement and concrete tensile

rings are only mobilized in conjunction with concrete during cracking and

thus is a function of bond stress

3. Poisson’s effect in strands

 Other factors:

1. Size and numbers of reinforcing bar, spacing of layers

23
 2. Corrosion, rusting, temperature extremes etc.

3. Coated (galvanized, epoxy-coated etc.) or uncoated bar.

To measure bond strength for small embedment length we mostly use equations

devised by Esfahani , Orangun and Zuo and Darwin. (Zuo, J., and Darwin, D. (2000)

According to studies done by Esfahani and Rangan (Esfahani, M.R., and Rangan, B.V. -

1998) in 1998 the bond strength between concrete and reinforcement is calculated by the

following equation. All dimensions are in SI units.

= ( 1+1⁄ ) (0.88+0.12 )
1.85+0.24√

+0.5
= 2.7 ( ) √ ′ , For normal strength concrete
+3.6

= cosh(0.0022 √3 , )

The ratio is also mentioned in ACI 318-08 for calculation of development length and is

referred to as the confinement term.

In 1977 Orangun mentioned that μ varies linearly with db/lb and developed the following

equation after regression analysis on the results. This relation was also verified by Mathey

and Watstein.

= √′ (1.2 + 3 + 50 )

The following bond strength equation was developed was Zao and Darwin (Darwin, D.,

Zuo, J., Tholen, M.L., and Idun, E.K. 1996). They found that the 1 power of compressive
4

strength gives a better bond strength concrete and reinforcement.

1
′
=( )4[59.8 ( + 0.5 ) + 2350 ](0.1 + 0.9)

24
In all the above equations:

μ = bond strength

T = the force at failure

db = reinforcing bar diameter

C = concrete cover

Ld = embedment length

Ab = Area of reinforcing bar

f’c =compressive strength of concrete

2.1.3 Modes of Bond Failure

 Splitting failure: A splitting failure occurs when the transverse splitting cracks can

extend to a free surface and thereby eliminate the development of confinement

 Pullout failure: It occurs in more heavily confined concrete. Force transfer

mechanism can change from rib bearing to friction after shear resistance of concrete

between adjacent ribs is exceeded

 Complex modes of failure: At failure, the conditions along the length of a

reinforcing bar can vary, and consist of pullout with no visible concrete splitting,

pullout induced by partial or thorough splitting, and splitting induced by concrete

spalling.

2.1.4 Tests to Investigate Bond

Many factors affect bond resistance and numerous models have been developed to

describe the influence of various factors:

 Tests for bond of deformed reinforcing bar with short embedment length

 Tests for evaluating the effects of confinement

25
  Tests for investigating long anchorage zones

 Long beam tests

 Tension pullout tests

2.2 Pullout Test Studies

A pullout test is a method for measuring the bond strength between the reinforcing

steel and concrete. In a pullout test, a reinforcing bar is embedded in a block of concrete.

The load at which the reinforcing bar pulls out is taken as the bond strength. The pullout

test is commonly used to test the reinforcement concrete bond and bond-slip. (Mansoor,

2013)

2.2.1 Study on the reinforcement bond behavior under different corrosion conditions

The main idea of this study was to evaluate the bond strength for reinforced

concrete with corrosion. Pullout tests were conducted to evaluate the effects of corrosion

on bond and a series of specimens with varying reinforcement corrosion level were tested.

The accelerated corrosion was 4, 6 and 8 days of corrosion. The aim of choosing 4, 6 and

8 days was to reflect the acclerated condition on test. The test was designed to provide the

data required to assess the bond properties with different variables, the reinforcement bond

strength behavior under different corrosion condition diameter and concrete strength. The

test specimen was designed to get best significant result by providing anchored length an

avoid yield failure. The test results showed relation between the bond strength and

corrosion. (Mansoor, 2013)

Experimental Methods

The purpose of the test was pullout, which is used to get the bond strength and slip for three

different durations of corrosion. The specimens were submerged in a 5% NACL solution

26
after 28 days of curing. The 4-day corrosion is considered as light corrosion, 6 day is

considered as medium and 8 day is considered and heavy.

Test Specimens

The dimensions of the specimens were 150 x 150 x 150 mm with 10 mm diameter

bar as shown in Figure 2.3. The embedment length chosen was 4 times the reinforcing bar

diameter to avoid yielding of the steel bar under pullout load. Few specimens had stirrups

of diameter 8mm surrounding the bar. To avoid corrosion of stirrups they were isolated

from the main reinforcing bar. For corroded specimen a 5% NaCl of cement weight was

added to concrete for accelerated corrosion.

Figure 2.3 Specimen description

Test results

To evaluate the bond properties between corroded steel and concrete the test results

analyzed the following items:

1. Comparison of bond strength between corroded and control specimen

2. Load-displacement behavior at failure for different levels of corrosion

3. Effects of corrosion level on the bond strength

27
The bond strength was calculated corresponding to load and embedded length as following

(China standard 2002c)

Where,

T: Bond strength

P: Maximum load (n)

A: Steel bar circumference (mm)

L: Embedded bar length (mm)

Three failure types were observed in the experimental procedure:

1. A pullout failure occurs when the test reinforcing bar reaches a peak load and the

proceeds to pull out from the block without splitting any face of the concrete

2. A splitting failure is occurring when the bar reaches a maximum load and the crack

opens parallel to the applied force on the front face of the block as the reinforcing bar pulls

out. The splitting failure can be sudden or gradual.

3. Bar yielding failure occurs when the reinforcing bar reaches a load higher than the

load required to cause yielding. Technically a yielding bar is not a failing specimen, in

most cases if a reinforcing bar was visibly yielding the test would cut off to prevent damage

to the system that was possible with bar failure.

From Table 2.1, the result indicates that the corrosion rate reduced the bond strength for

steel bar with concrete. The 4-day corrosion recorded less reduction in bond strength from

the other corrosion durations.

28
 Table 2.1: Corrosion Percentage vs Maximum Displacement (Mansoor, 2013)

4 days Corrosion 6 days Corrosion 8days Corrosion

Avg. Avg. Avg.
Sam corros Max corros Max corros Max
ple ion Max Bond ion Max Bond ion Max Bond
rate Displacemen Stren rate Displacemen Stren rate Displacemen Stren
(%) t(mm) gth (%) t(mm) gth (%) t(mm) gth
C30- 10.03 3.377 8.888
10 2.147 0.512 1 2.773 0.52 9.52 8 0.53 1
C30-
14 1.931 0.419 8.923 2.041 0.541 8.38 2.643 0.541 7.94
C25- 12.00 11.77 4.356
10 2.213 0.521 1 3.321 0.551 8 7 0.571 8.18
C25- 10.16 2.622
14 1.023 0.533 10.32 1.98 0.561 9 7 0.581 7.42

The Figure 2.4 shows a typical load- displacement behavior for 4, 6 and 8 days of

corrosion. The result show the steel bar diameter have liner impact on the load

displacement behavior with different corrosion duration and the corrosion rate has a

different effect on strength of concrete.

Figure 2.4 Load displacement graph (Mansoor, 2013)

All the corroded specimens’ results shown in Figure 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 reveal that as the

corrosion level increased bond strength of reinforcing bar specimens decreased.

29
Figure: 2.5 Day 4 of corrosion(Mansoor, 2013)

Figure2.6 Day 6 corrosion(Mansoor, 2013)

Figure 2.7 Day 8 corrosion(Mansoor, 2013)

30
 When a pullout load is applied to the specimen, the bearing action of the ribs of the

bar against the concrete caused horizontal bearing stresses as well as hoop stresses. Due to

corrosion cracks, the tension in the specimen is reduced and hence the confinement is

reduced, thereby increasing the slip which finally resulted in bond failure of the specimen.

For the corrosion levels of this range, bond failure usually was the result of splitting of the

specimen along the corrosion cracks. In this type of failure, the corrosion induced cracks

had already weakened the concrete.

At higher level of corrosion, residual bond strength was observed for deformed

reinforcing bar specimens with stirrups. For the control specimen with no corrosion and

with deformed bar, the load-slip curve usually had a sharp decrease. For specimens with

higher corrosion levels this decrease was more gradual. A possible explanation is that

corrosion induced cracks on the specimen had already released some energy before

loading. For deformed bar specimens, slip at ultimate bond load tends to decrease as the

corrosion level increases.

2.2.2 Bond of high strength concrete with high strength Steel

In this study (Hadi-2008) pullout tests were conducted in order to investigate the

bond strength of high strength steel bars with high strength concrete. The tests were

conducted on 14 specimens with concrete compressive strength of 70Mpa while the tensile

steel was greater than 500Mpa (72.5 ksi).

Specimen Details

In order to test the bond strength between high strength steel and high strength

concrete 14 pullout specimens were casted. The reinforcing bar used were 500 grade steel

with nominal diameters of 12, 16, 20, 25, 28, 32, 36 mm. Each reinforcing bar size were

31
cast in two different concrete sizes (240mm, 300mm diameter). Figure 2.8 shows the

specimen dimension.

Figure 2.8 Specimen Dimensions D= 240mm & 300mm

Figure: 2.9 and Figure:2.10 shows the procedure for pullout test and the test setup
respectively.

Figure 2.9 Testing of Specimens

32
 Figure 2.10 Test Setup

Results
Fourteen pullout specimen were categorized according to the concrete cover of the

respective pullout specimens. The two concrete covers were used, 120mm cover with

specimen diameter 240mm (7 specimens) and 150mm cover with specimen diameter

300mm (7 specimens). Embedded length of the reinforcing bar was 150mm from the top

of the specimen. The bond strength was calculated by the following equation:

= (Hadi, 2008)

The equations of Darwin, Orangun, The Australian Standard 3600 and Esfahani and

Rangan were also used to determine the bond strength. The bond results from that study

are tabulated in Table 2.2.

33
 Table 2.2 Bond Strength Test Results

Cylinder Calculated Bond Strength Mpa

Bar Measure
Dia./Len Failur Pma
Spe Core d Bond
. e x Propose
c. Dia.(m Stress Esfaha
(mm/m Mode KN Orangu Darwi AS360 d
m) Mpa ni and
m) n n 0 Formul
Rangan
a
12A 11 240/300 CS 50 9.6 25.2 20 24.3 27.3 12.5
12B 11.1 300/300 P 60 11.5 30.7 23.9 30.2 24.1 12.1
16A 15.7 240/300 S 90 12.2 19.5 16.8 17.1 22.2 12.1
10
16B 15.7 300/300 CS 0 13.5 23.5 19.7 21.3 19.7 11.8
11
20A 19.5 240/300 S 0 12 17.2 15.9 13.7 18.6 11.6
12
20B 19.1 300/300 S 0 13.3 20.7 18.3 17.5 17.3 11.5
11
25A 24.5 240/300 S 5 10 15.8 15.8 10.9 16.1 10.9
15
25B 26.6 300/300 S 0 12.9 18.3 17.6 13.6 29.1 10.7
12
28A 27.4 240/300 S 0 9.3 15.4 16.1 9.8 26.1 10.5
15
28B 27.5 300/300 S 5 12 17.6 17.7 12.2 24.3 10.3
13
32A 31.3 240/300 S 0 8.8 15.1 16.6 8.6 21.9 9.9
15
2B 31.5 300/300 S 0 10.1 17.1 18.1 10.6 20.8 9.7
11
36A 35.3 240/300 S 5 6.9 15.1 17.4 7.6 19.4 9.2
*CS= steel rapture failure, P= pullout failure, S= splitting failure

In this experiment the test specimens failed by the following ways:

1. Pullout Failure

2. Splitting Failure

3. Steel Rapture Failure

Pullout failure took place when the concrete cover was adequate to prevent splitting of

concrete to cause splitting failure of the pullout specimens. Pullout failure mainly occurred

in 300mm specimens which has 12mm bar and was denoted by crack formation of the top

surface.

34
The predominant type of failure in majority of test specimens was splitting failure. It was

denoted by splitting of the concrete specimen with both lateral and longitudinal cracks.

Conclusions from this experimental study

After studying the test results of fourteen specimens it is observed that pullout

specimens with smaller bar diameter has more bond strength as compared to specimens

with larger bar diameter. It can also be concluded that bond strength is directly proportional

to the amount of concrete surrounding the reinforcing bar. Out of the fourteen specimens,

eleven specimens failed due to splitting of concrete. Pullout failure occurred only in one

specimen. And for the remaining two specimens, the failure mode was by steel rupture.

Figure: 2.11 and Figure: 2.12 gives the bond strength comparison using different bond

strength calculation equations for 240mm dia and 300mm dia specimens respectively.

Figure 2.11 Bond Strength Comparison for 240mm Diameter Specimens(Hadi-2008)

35
 Figure 2.12 Bond Strength Comparison for 300mm Diameter Specimens(Hadi-2008)

2.2.3 Pullout test on Bond splitting property of corroded reinforced concrete member

(Michiakioyado, Kanakabo)

In this study the focus was on the relatively long bond region without confinement.

Specimens were concrete slab having one reinforcing bar, were subjected to the pullout-

loading test in order to determine the global bond performance between reinforcing bar and

concrete.

Test Specimens

In this study the test specimens were concrete slabs each of which has a deformed

bar at the center. The bond length (480mm) is thirty times the diameter of the reinforcing

bar (16mm). Plastic tubes are used at two ends of the reinforcing bar, both at the free and

loading ends as a de-bonding mechanism. High strength deformed steel bars of 15mm

diameter (D16) were used in the specimens. The properties of the test specimens like cover

thickness, relative mass loss and accumulated corrosion current are tabulated in Table 2.3.

36
 Table 2.3 Properties of Test Specimens (Michiakioyado, Kanakabo)

Thickness of cover Relative Accumulated corrosion

Specimen
C (mm) mass loss current(A.hr)

D16CF15-0 0 0
D16CF15-A(A2) 24 0.132 73.3
D16CF15-B(B2) 0.249 146.6
D16CF25-0 0 0
D16CF25-A(A2) 40 0.144 73.3
D16CF25-B(B2) 0.19 146.6
D16CF35-0 0 0
D16CF35-A(A2) 56 0.009 73.3
D16CF35-B(B2) 0.157 146.6

Details of the test specimens are given in Figure 2.13 and Figure: 2.14 depicts the loading
and measurement process.

Figure 2.13 Details of the Specimens (Michiakioyado, Kanakabo)

37
 Figure 2.14 Loading and Measurement Process (Michiakioyado, Kanakabo)

Test Results

The specimens of this experiment failed by bond splitting between reinforcing bar

and concrete. The failure of the specimens took place in two patterns. In the first pattern

failure was caused due to newly generated splitting cracks. In the second pattern failure

took place when the existing longitudinal cracks started widening. In both the patterns

cracks started forming from loading end to the free end. Test results are shown in Table

2.3.

Average bond stress is defined as fraction of maximum pullout load to the perimeter length

and embedded length of reinforcing bar. The graph for average bond stress and modified

slippage at loading end is shown is Table 2.4.

38
 Table: 2.4 Pullout Test Results (Michiakioyado, Kanakabo)

At the time of maximum load

Specimen Bond Slippage at loading Relative
Load(kN)
Stress end (mm) mass loss

D16CF15-0 50.66 2.1 . .

D16CF15-A 38.18 1.58 0.65 0.132
D16CF15-B 31.83 1.32 0.99 0.249
D16CF25-0 89.27 3.7 . .
D16CF25-A 63.8 2.64 0.88 0.144
D16CF25-B 49.94 2.07 0.97 0.19
D16CF35-0 123.29 5.11 . .
D16CF35-A 79.9 3.31 0.99 0.099
D16CF35-B 58.9 2.44 0.89 0.157
“.” Not measured
Figure 2.15 Exhibit of the Relationship Between Average Bond Stress and Modified

Slippage.

Figure 2.15 Graph Showing Average Bond Stress vs Modified Slippage

The modified slippage is defined as the measured slippage minus elongation of the

reinforcing bar at a region other than bond region. The average bond stress is inversely

proportional to relative mass loss and directly proportional to the thickness of the cover.

39
Conclusion

In this experiment the bond strength was affected due to corrosion of concrete and

it was confirmed by investigating the concrete damage after the pullout tests. According to

the results bond stress is reduced with the progress in corrosion, and this reduction rate is

large when the concrete cover is large.

Corrosion causes internal cracks in concrete which reduces the bond strength in case of

splitting failure.

2.2.4 Bond between Reinforcement and Concrete – Influence of steel corrosion (Belarbi

and Wang, 2004)

In this study investigation was done to study the deterioration of the bond between

concrete and reinforcement was carried out using a series of beam-type pullout specimens.

Test Specimens

This experiment was conducted to study the decrease in bond between concrete and

reinforcement using pullout specimens. Two different bar diameters (12mm and 20mm)

and cover depths (20mm and 50mm) were used for comparison of the specimens.

Factors that would cause reduction in bond strength are:

1. Decrease in cover depth

2. Larger bar diameter

All specimens were subjected to accelerated corrosion. The corrosion setup was

made up such that the reinforcement bar acts as anode, which was connected to a nearby

cathode. The circuit setup has been shown in Figure 2.16.

40
 Figure 2.16 Circuit Setup for Accelerated Corrosion (Belarbi and Wang, 2004)

The electrolyte was sodium chloride solution (NaCl) which was added in the

mixing stage. The specimens were initially corroded at one volt for three weeks and then

at three volts for four weeks to achieve medium corrosion. Eight other specimens were

subjected to current of eight volts for four weeks to achieve severe corrosion.

The number of specimens were eight with dimension of 300mm x 200mm x

300mm. There were 6 holes in each mold (3 at the top and 3 at the bottom) to insert the

reinforcing bars. Four out of the eight specimens had 12 mm bar diameter and another four

had 20mm bar diameter. Out of these four specimens two had 20mm cover depth and the

other two had 50mm cover depth. The specimen diagram has been shown in Fig 2.17 and

the test setup is shown in Figure: 2.18. Deformed reinforcing bars with nominal diameter

15mm and nominal yield strength 400Mpa were used for these pullout tests.

41
 Figure 2.17 Specimen Details (Belarbi and Wang, 2004)

Figure 2.18 Test Setup (Belarbi and Wang, 2004)

Test Results

Results on the effect of cover depth and corrosion severity on bond strength are

shown in Figure 2.19.

42
 Figure 2.19 Effect of Cover Depth and Different Corrosion Level on Bond Strength
(Belarbi and Wang 2004)
As observed from the graph above, when the cover depth is increased from 20mm

to 50mm there is an increase in bond strength at all corrosion levels. 50mm cover depth

increased the bond strength by 30% for no corrosion, 66% for moderate or medium

corrosion and 25% for severe corrosion. All specimens failed because of splitting failure

due to the longitudinal cracks developed during corrosion.

Figure 2.20 Effect of Bar Diameter and Corrosion Severity on Bond Strength (Belarbi
and Wang 2004)

43
 From the graph in Figure 2.20, increase in corrosion level leads to decrease in bond

strength. It is also observed that increased in bar diameter reduced the bond strength

significantly. In case of non-corroded specimens, bond strength for 12mm bars were 45%

more as compared to 20mm bars.

Conclusion

1. Increase in corrosion level reduces bond strength of reinforcing bars

2. Increase in concrete cover from 20mm to 50mm increases bond strength

3. Increase in reinforcing bar diameter from 12mm to 20mm reduced bond strength

significantly

2.2.5 An experimental study on effects of steel corrosion in bond-slip performance of

reinforced concrete. (Zhang, Liang, 2016)

In this study, tests were carried out to evaluate the degradation of bond between

reinforcing steel and concrete for different corrosion levels of reinforcing steel.

Test setup and procedure

In this experiment a total of 20 specimens with different concrete strength and steel

corrosion levels were manufactured. The dimensions of the specimens were 200mm x

200mm x 200mm and a steel reinforcing bar was placed centrally inside the cube with two

stirrups at the ends for confinement. The steel reinforcing bar was corroded using

accelerated corrosion process. Two PVC pipes were used at two ends of the reinforcing bar

to limit the embedded length to 80mm. Total twenty specimens were casted with 10

specimens having concrete strength 20 MPa and the other 10 having 40 Mpa. Figure 2.21

shows the specimen geometry.

44
 Figure 2.21 Specimen Geometry (Zhang, Liang, 2016)

Accelerated Corrosion

The specimens were corroded using electrochemical corrosion process in which

direct current was conducted through the specimens to accelerate the oxidation process.

The specimens were submerged in 5% NaCl solution which served as electrolyte. The

representation of the corrosion system is shown in Figure 2.22.

Figure 2.22 Corrosion System (Zhang, Liang, 2016)

In order to ensure that only the bonded zone is corroded, one end of the reinforcing

bar was insulated and the lower end of the reinforcing bar was coated with paraffin and

wrapped with insulated plastic membrane as shown in Figure 2.23.

45
 Figure 2.23 Insulated End of Steel Reinforcing bar
The representation for designed and measured corrosion percentage is shown in

Table 2.5.

Table 2.5 Designed and Measured Corrosion Percentage

Specimen number Designed Corrosion (%) Measured Corrosion (%)

1 0 0.27
2 0 0.33
3 5 3.95
4 5 3.76
5 10 7.17
6 10 7.45
7 15 10.78
8 15 10.45
9 20 13.18
10 20 13.56
11 0 0.03
12 0 0.18
13 5 3.78
14 5 4.13
15 10 7.74
16 10 7.32
17 15 11.52
18 15 11.87
19 20 14.81
20 20 14.66

46
Pullout Loading

In this experiment the specimens were loaded with a speed of 0.4 mm/min. load

force was measured using load cell and the slip was measured using an extensometer.

Figure 2.24 (a) and 2.24(b) shows the schematic diagram and load device diagram

respectively.

Figure 2.24(a) Schematic Diagram(Zhang, Liang, 2016)

Figure 2.24(b) Loading Device (Zhang, Liang, 2016)

47
Test Results and Conclusions

Figure 2.25 represents the bond stress and slip curves for 20 MPa specimens. These

specimens had 5 different reinforcement corrosion rates as shown the figure below.

Figure 2.26 represents the bonds stress and slip curves for 40 MPa specimens. These

specimens also had variable reinforcement corrosion rates.

Bond stress was derived from the following formula:

Where l is the bond length, d is reinforcing bar diameter and P is load.

Figure 2.25 Bond Stress and Slip Curves for 20 MPa Specimens (Zhang, Liang, 2016)

48
 Figure 2.26 Bond Stress and Slip Curves for 40 MPa Specimens (Zhang, Liang, 2016)

The test results show that the bond strength decreases with increase in corrosion

level in both strength type specimens. The exception was only when the corrosion level

was very low and bond strength increased with corrosion level up to a critical point and

decreases again.

2.2.6 Use of Fibers in Pullout Specimens

Fibers are added to concrete mix design in order to provide resistance to plastic and

drying shrinkage. In addition to this, it also improves the resistance to crack growth, fatigue

and impact loading and freeze-thaw durability. (Bajaj, 2012)

Addition of fibers have notable benefits to concrete structures under service conditions

Effect of Adding Polypropylene fibers

1. The bond strength slightly increases with the addition of polypropylene fibers.

2. Addition of polypropylene fibers changes the failure mode in most specimens from

concrete splitting to pullout failure.

49
 3. The fibers provided better ductile bond behavior.

Effect of adding Steel fibers

1. Addition of steel fibers strengthens the bond between reinforcing bars and concrete

2. Bond strength between concrete and reinforcing bars increases with the increase in

volume in steel fibers

3. Compressive strength of concrete increases by adding steel fibers

2.3 Methods of Testing Bond Strength

The method used to monitor bond strength is based on several earlier studies, and

each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. There are multiples methods

available, but the selection of a specific method depends on its accuracy, outcome,

feasibility and cost effectiveness.

Table 2.6 lists the various bond tests and demonstrates the advantages and disadvantages

for each of them.

50
 Table 2.6 Merits and Demerits of Different Bond Tests (Stanish -1999)
Methods Advantages
1) Simple to perform
2) It is used to compare the
bond strengths of different
types of concrete
ASTM C234 (Concentric
Pullout Test)
1) Compression of concrete 1) Introduced problem with
in the specimen is
Tension Pullout Test eliminated
1) Used on beam
specimens larger in size
compared to pullout test
Bond Beam Test specimen 2) It represents
the bond stresses
conditions encountered in
the actual flexural member
1) To overcome
Bureau of Standards Beam disadvantage of bond beam
Test - The University of test i.e., reaction restraints
Texas Beam Test
51
Disadvantages
1) The specimens in this
test are not subjected to
bending, an external shear
presents in the actual
structures
2) The concrete in the test
is in compression whereas
concrete in real structure
surround the steel is in
tensile, thus this test shows
higher bond strength
splice spacing and the
crack pattern was
influenced by this
interaction
1) Reaction restraints
increase the splitting
resistance because of the
confining of the concrete
over the bar at the supports
1) Difficult to Handle
2) Expensive
2.4 Effects of Corrosion on Bond

The effects of corrosion on bond have not been studied extensively. Some of the

research studies investigate the effect of using corroded steel as reinforcement. There have

also been some studies on the effects of corrosion after steel inclusion.

If the steel is corroded before it is placed, then there is little or no decrease in the bond

strength at low corrosion levels up to 1.0%. There may even be an increase in bond

strength. It was felt that this is due to the fact that corrosion products at this level adhere to

the reinforcement bar. This leads to increase in surface roughness.

If the steel corrodes in the concrete, there is a different situation. The expansion of

the steel leads to cracking of concrete which effects the bond strength directly. Al-

Sulaimani (Sulaimani and Kaleemullah, 1990) conducted a series of tests on pullout

specimens in which they measured load versus slip for different bar size at different levels

of corrosion. It was observed that before the appearance of visible cracks, corrosion

increased the bond strength. When visible cracks begin to appear on the surface, then bond

strength dropped down to slightly below the original level. Once extensive cracking

occurred at about 7-8% of mass loss then the bond strength decreased to about one third to

one fourth of its original level. The slip at ultimate corrosion strength was found to be

approximately the same. In their conclusion they attributed this trend to the effect of

increased surface roughness at low corrosion levels and the deterioration of the reinforcing

bar lugs at higher corrosion levels.

Another series of experiments were done by Almusallam (Almusallam, Ahmad -

1996). They electrochemically corroded a series of slab –shaped bending specimens to a

variety of corrosion levels. It was observed that the mode of failure changed at different

52
levels of corrosion. At no or low corrosion, the slabs failed in flexure, as they were designed

to do. At higher levels of corrosion (10%- 20%) the slabs not only became weaker but had

bond failure and shear cracking. This result is important because brittle failure modes were

observed which is dangerous.

Rodriguez (Rodriguez, Ortega -1996) tested some cubes with and without stirrups,

with four reinforcement bars at the corners to simulate the real conditions during service.

It was determined that the quality of concrete and the concrete cover to reinforcing bar

diameter ratio were not significant in case of wider cracks. A relationship between residual

bond strength and depth of crack penetration. The experimentation values of crack

penetration ranged between 0.04 mm to 0.5mm. But the researchers extrapolated the

penetration up to 1.0 mm.

Following relationships were developed:

u = 5.28 -2.71 x (with stirrups)

Or u = 3.00 – 4.76 x (without stirrups)

Where: u= the bond strength in MPa

x = crack penetration (mm) (0.05 < x < 1.00)

The stirrups were not corroded in this research and an expression was also

developed for the intermediate case when there was fewer stirrups than required by the

Eurocode. The study also discussed the effect of confinement on the bond strength of

corroded reinforcement bar. It was observed that increasing confinement increases the

bond strength, as determined in case of un-corroded bar.

Hence it can be concluded that corrosion will significantly affect bond strength in

reinforced concrete members.

53
2.5 Introduction to corrosion process

In this section, the process of reinforcement bar corrosion in reinforced bar

corrosion and the factors that influence the corrosion process. The mechanisms of

carbonation, chloride attacks is also discussed along with the methods for corrosion

prevention and protection.

To protect and prevent reinforcement bars from corrosion we need to thoroughly

understand how it occurs. When we expose a steel bar to atmospheric air or we immerse in

in water, natural corrosion takes place at a very slow rate. Whereas, when the same steel

bar corrodes faster when put through wetting and drying cycles. From this we can conclude

that steel corrodes faster when exposed to both air and water. But steel reinforcement still

doesn’t get corroded inside concrete even though concrete possesses moisture because of

its porous nature. The reason behind this is the fact that concrete is alkaline is nature. Steel

corrosion is promoted in acidic medium and not in alkaline medium. Alkalinity protects

steel from getting corroded. Concrete is alkaline because it has high percentage of oxides

of calcium, magnesium and sodium which produces hydroxides in presence of water in the

pore of concrete. The pH range of concrete varies from 12.5 – 13.5 [Broomfield, J.P.

(2007), ACI Committee 222 (2001), Ahmad, (2003)]

pH is defined as the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ions concentration in the

solution. pH results are used to measure the acidity or alkalinity of a solution. The value of

pH ranges from 1-14. Solutions with pH value 7 are considered to be neutral, below 7 is

considered to be acidic and more than 7 is basic or alkaline solution. (Schweitzer, P.A. -

2010)

54
 A passive layer is formed on the surface of the steel bar because of the alkaline

nature of the concrete, which protects the steel from corrosion. But eventually this passive

layer is damaged because of carbonation of concrete (Hussain, and Ishida, -2009) and/or

chloride attack (Abosrra, Ashour, and Youseffi, 2011) which leads to corrosion of steel

reinforcement bars inside concrete. [ACI Committee 222, (2001), Liu, Y., and Weyers,

(1998), Ahmad, (2003)]

2.5.1 Mechanism of Corrosion Damage

Several environmental factors influence the durability of reinforced concrete

structures. Corrosive agents like seawater salts or de-icing salts are the most common

causes of corrosion in reinforced concrete structures. Corrosion damages both the steel

reinforcement and the surrounding concrete. When corrosion occurs reinforcement bars

lose their original shape (Du, Y.G, Clark -2005a, 2005b) and the ribs of deformed bars

gradually diminishes (CEB-fib- 2000). The physiochemical reaction of corrosion leads to

major changes in reinforced concrete members. Corrosion of steel bars produces rust

materials which occupy a larger volume than the original reinforcement bar. This

expansion in volume eventually creates splitting stresses acting on the concrete which

finally leads to concrete cracking. These cracks consequently leads to spalling of concrete

cover. These damages intensify the rate of reinforcing bar corrosion. The reduction in

cross-sectional area of the reinforcement bar also reduces its mechanical properties. The

cover cracking and spalling of concrete affects the bond mechanism. (Lundgren, 2005).

The corrosion mechanism and its consequences have been studied by Cairns (Cairns

1999) as demonstrated in Figure 2.27. Load carrying capacity, ductility in the ultimate

state, as well as stiffness distribution and deflection in the service state may be influenced

55
by the effects of corrosion on bond mechanism. (Coronelli – 2004, Zandi Hanjari (2011),

Val -2009).

The mechanical properties of corroded bars and the corrosion effects on the bond

mechanism are discussed in the following sections.

Figure 2.27 Sequences and Consequences of Corrosion on Reinforcements (Cairns et al.

1999)
2.5.2 Mechanical Properties of Corroded Reinforcement Bars

The effects of corrosion on the mechanical properties of reinforcement have been

studied my many researchers. According to CEB –fib (2000) corrosion of reinforcement

bars is categorized into general corrosion and local corrosion.

General corrosion takes place when the reinforcement bar in uniformly corroded

throughout it entire length. Whereas localized corrosion forms local pits along the

reinforcement bar, referred to as pitting corrosion.

Generalized corrosion is usually caused by carbonation, whereas localized or pitting

corrosion is associated with chloride contamination (CEB- fib -2000). Both generalized

and localized corrosion have severe affects on the degradation of the mechanical properties

56
of the reinforcement bars. (Apostolopoulos, 2008) In pitting corrosion, the ultimate strain

of reinforcing bar is severely reduced.

Only 10 % of non-uniform corrosion is sufficient to reduce the ductility of

reinforcement bars embedded in the concrete to below the required minimum as specified

in design codes for use in high ductility conditions. (Du, Y. G., Clark, L. A 2005a).

Furthermore, it was also concluded that the stress-strain characteristics of corroded

reinforcements decreases in the ductility with an increase in the corrosion level.

(Almusallam, 2001). Other steel parameters like yield strength and ultimate stresses, are

reduced significantly by corrosion (Apostolopoulos -2006; Du - 2005a, 2005b; Fernandez

-2015).

Different effects may occur due to the formation of pitting corrosion on a

reinforcement bar subjected to tension; local bending on the pitted cross-section occurs due

to a displacement of the center of gravity. The stress localization on the tip of the pit leads

to the drop in the main mechanical properties of the reinforcement bar (Fernandez 2016).

The formation of large localized strains due to this phenomena is an important

consequence, since the length of corrosion pit is short. The average strain in the entire bar

becomes lower than the strain at a local pit (Stewart 2008), causing the corroded bars to

fail at deformations significantly lesser than that original reinforcement bar. Hence it was

concluded that corrosion makes the reinforcement brittle (Coronelli 2004; Du 2005a).

2.5.3 Corroded reinforcement and concrete bond

The bond between concrete and reinforcement bar is the most important factor

providing the composite action in reinforced concrete members. Load transfer occurs by

transferring bond stresses in the interaction zone. Studies of the bonding forces of

57
reinforcement bars indicates that bonding mechanism is made up of the following three

components:

1. Chemical adhesion

2. Friction

3. Mechanical interaction between concrete and steel (Lutz-1967, Tepfers -1979)

Thus, bond strength initially originates from weak chemical bonds between

reinforcement bars and hardened concrete. This resistance is generally broken at low stress

levels. The loss of chemical bond leads to propagation of radial micro cracks in the

surrounding concrete as showed in Figure 2.28.

Figure 2.28 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracks Caused by Bond Stresses (Magnusson -
2000 Vanderwalle -1992)
In case of slipping, the bond resistance acts in the form of friction in case of plain

reinforcement bars. In case of ribbed bars, bond strength initially propagates from friction

and there after mechanical interlocking between the ribs of the bars and concrete.

58
2.5.4 Mechanical behavior of corroded Reinforced Concrete structures

The mechanical behavior of reinforced concrete structures like load carrying

capacity, stiffness and force distribution is affected by reinforcement corrosion as we see

in Figure 3.36. The reduction of the cross-sectional area of the reinforcement bars leads to

shear and moment capacities, as well as decreased stiffness in the structure.

A change in reinforcing bar ductility limits the load carrying capacity of a statically

indeterminate structure and significantly reduces the capacity of a structure under seismic

loads. Corrosion also causes volume expansion of reinforced bars which causes the

surrounding concrete to crack and spall off. The detached parts decrease the concrete cross-

section and concrete cover (Mohammad Tahershamsi 2016).

On the compressive side of a concrete element, spalling of concrete decreases the

internal lever arm, which leads to decrease in the bending capacity. Also, reduction in

confinement influences the interaction between the reinforcement and the concrete

affecting the anchorage capacity. Cracked concrete not only affects actual shear and

anchorage capacities but also reduces the load carrying capacity of a structure over longer

duration by giving less protection to reinforcement and by exposing the reinforcement

directly to the aggressive environment. The force distribution in the structure is also altered

depending on the direction of crack propagation.

Effects of corrosion on load-carrying capacity, stiffness and force redistribution of

a concrete element is depicted in Figure: 2.29.

59
 Figure: 2.29 Effects of Corrosion (Tahershami, 2016)
2.6 Accelerated Corrosion

Initiation and propagation of corrosion in reinforced concrete members depends on

several factors as discussed earlier. These factors include:

1) Permeability of concrete

2) Confinement of specimens

3) Amount of electric current applied

4) Duration of application of electric current

5) Density of electrolyte solution

6) Surrounding temperature

60
 In this research accelerated corrosion technique using Faraday’s law was used to

achieve the desired corrosion percentage. In Faraday’s law the percentage of corrosion is

dependent on the amount of current and time elapsed. (Auyeung, Y., Balaguru, - 2000, Al-

Sulaimani -1990, Chung, L., Kim,-2008). In the following section we would derive the

degree of accelerated corrosion based on Faraday’s law.

∆ = (1)

Where,

 ∆ = metal weight loss due to corrosion

 = Atomic weight of iron (56g)

 = Corrosion Current (Amp)

 = times elapsed (sec)

 = Valency of reacting electrode (2 for iron)

 = Faraday’s constant (96500 amp sec)

The weight of metal loss because of corrosion is calculated using the following expression:

∆ = (2)

Where,

 a = reinforcing bar surface area before corrosion (cm2)

 = material loss (cm)

 = density of material (7.86g/cm3)

The corrosion current is expressed as:

= (3)

Where i = corrosion current density (amp/cm2)

Substituting equations (2) and (3) in equation (1) we obtain the following expression:

61
 = (4)

If we consider R = material loss per annum ( = ), then the value can be determined by

substituting t =1 in equation (4).

R = 1164i (5)

Percentage of corrosion C0, is expressed as:

0
=2 (6)

Where,

 T = time in years

 D = diameter of the bar (mm)

Substituting value of R in the above equation, we obtain the following expression,

(%) = 2∗1164∗∗ ∗ (7)

2.7 Corrosion control measures

Corrosion induced deterioration of reinforced concrete structures occur when the

environmental loading on the structure is greater than the ability of the structure to resist

the environment loading. One can either reduce the loading or increase the resistance or do

a combination of both. The most significant mechanism – chloride induced corrosion of

reinforcement bar, focus on the reinforcement protection.

Corrosion can also take place as a result of other deterioration processes such as:

 Freeze thaw cycles

 Expansive reactions

 Excessive deflections

 Fatigue etc.

62
 These factors leads to cracking of concrete which eventually allows water and

chlorides to easily penetrate the steel reinforcing bars and concrete.

The factors that influence the corrosion of reinforcement bars embedded in concrete are:

 The amount of chloride ions at steel level

 The resistivity of the concrete

 Temperature

 Relative humidity (internal and external)

 Concrete microstructure

By controlling these factors to an acceptable level, the corrosion of steel

reinforcement bars and resulting concrete deterioration can be minimized significantly.

This is the first major step in most corrosion control strategies in addition to other suitable

methods. Corrosion control methods or processes are classified as mechanical or

electrochemical.

Mechanical methods are generally considered as physical barriers that slow down

the ingress of chlorides, oxygen and moisture through the concrete cover to the

reinforcement bars. These physical barriers include:

 Admixtures

 Sealers and membrane

 Overlays

 Coatings on reinforcement bars

Sealers and membranes made with materials such as resins, epoxies emulsions etc.

are used to reduce the advancement of harmful species. (US DOT, R&D 2000)

Some of the commonly used overlays are:

63
  Portland cement concrete

 Low- slump dense concrete

 Latex modified concrete

 Silica fume-modified concrete

 Polymer concrete

Coatings used on steel reinforcement bars are of two variety:

 Organic

 Metallic

Organic coatings include non-metallic fusion bonded epoxy coatings. Metallic

coatings include material like nickel, stainless, zinc etc. The nickel and stainless steel

coatings protect steel by being a barrier system and more noble, which means it has a lower

potential than iron to corrode. The zinc coating protects steel by being sacrificial or more

active, which means it has a greater potential than iron to corrode. Corrosion resistant

materials include:

 Austenitic stainless steels

 Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcing bars. (US DOT, R&D 2000)

In electrochemical methods the steel reinforcement bars are forced to be cathodic.

This method include the following processes:

 Chloride Extraction

 Cathodic protection

These methods are mainly used in reinforced concrete structures subjected to

rehabilitation and as corrosion protection method in modern structures.

64
The variables influencing the corrosion process and the extent of corrosion induced

deterioration are:

 Material

 Design

 Environmental variables

Material variables include:

 Cement type

 Admixtures

 Aggregate type and gradation

 Water cement ratio

Design variables include:

 Depth of concrete cover

 Physical properties of hardened concrete

 Size and spacing of steel reinforcement bars

 Efficiency of drainage from the structure

Environmental variables include:

 Source of chloride ions

 Temperature extremes

 Wet-dry cycles

 Relative humidity

 Applied live load

65
 Even though the environmental variables cannot be altered significantly, the

material and design variables can be adjusted in a way that it can resist corrosion induced

deterioration.

2.8 Properties of Reinforcement bars used

In this section, some of the physical, chemical and economical aspects of MMFX

bars, Epoxy coated bars, Stainless-steel bars, Hot Dip Galvanized bars and Continuously

Galvanized bars are discussed.

2.8.1 MMFX Reinforcement Bar

Typical carbon steels form a matrix of chemically dissimilar materials – carbide

and ferrite. These carbides are strong but brittle. In a moist environment, a battery-like

effect occurs between the carbides and the ferrites which destroys the steel from the inside

out. This effect (a microgalvanic cell) is the primary corrosion initiator with conventional

steel bar.

Steel made from MMFX nanotechnology does not form these microgalvanic cells.

ChromX 9100, formerly MMFX2 steel products have a completely different structure at

the nano or atomic scale (a lath structure resembling “plywood”). This “plywood” effect

lends amazing strength, ductility, toughness and corrosion resistance.

Advantages of using MMFX bar

Independent tests shows that MMFX bars provide twice the strength of

conventional steel. It also provides five times more corrosion resistance that conventional

steel and is superior to products such as epoxy-coated reinforcing bar (ECR) and

galvanized reinforcing bar. These advantages result in structures with more than a century

of service, as verified by a number of scientific, third party studies on life cycle costs.

66
Stainless steel reinforcement bar provides favorable corrosion resistance properties to, but

upfront costs of stainless steel are two to three times higher than MMFX Steel, when

considering 75 year service life and in comparing life cycle costs, as show in Table: 2.7

Table: 2.7 Total expenditures over 75 year life of decks at Virginia bridge deck percentile
corrosion tolerance of 10%. Source: VTRC 06-R29

Epoxy
MMFX Reinforcing Black Reinforcing Stainles
Coate
bar bar s Steel
Reinforcement type d
Strength Grade 100-120 40-75 40-75 40-75
Life cycle costs
($/ft2) 13.3 83.9 92.5 22

MMFX bars are five times more resistant to the most common problems that cause

corrosion:

 Use of de-icing salts and chemicals on bridge decks

 High chloride content in marine environments

 Soil composition

 Severe daily temperature changes

Figure: 2.30 depicts the damage accumulation projection for black steel vs MMFX

(Chromx9100) steel reinforcement bars. It shows that in case of black steel the corrosion

initiation starts as early as 18-20 years, whereas in case of MMFX it initiates between 90-

95 years approximately.

67
 Figure: 2.30 Damage Accumulation Projection for Black steel vs MMFX Steel
Reinforcements (www.mmfx.com)

A life cycle cost analysis for MMFX bar, Black bar, Epoxy coated bar, Galvanized

bar and Stainless steel bar based on 100 year service life is shown in Table 2.8

Table: 2.8 Life Cycle Cost Analysis (www.mmfx.com)

MMFX Reinforcing Black Epoxy

Reinforcement bar Galvanize
Reinforcin Coate
type d Stainles
g bar d
Gr.60 Gr.75 Gr.100 s steel
Life Cycle
Cost(NPV$/ft2 14.4 11.28 8.64 20.14 17.79 14.86 30.36
)

In Figure: 2.31 the graph depicts the yield strength of MMFX or ChromX bars,

which varies between 100-120 ksi.

68
 Figure: 2.31 Yield Strength of MMFX or ChromX Reinforcing Bars (www.mmfx.com)
2.8.2 Stainless Steel Bars

There are a significant number of cost savings opportunities attributable to the use

of stainless steel reinforcing bar. Civil engineers have always used an increase in concrete

cover in order to prevent black steel from rusting. Since stainless steel self protects itself

from corrosion, a substantial amount of cost savings can be made by reducing excess

concrete cover intended to protect black steel. The Michigan DOT and the New York DOT

both have policies of reducing cover with stainless steel.

In section 5.1.1 of the New York State DOT bridge design manual, reduction of concrete

cover and slab thickness for bridge decks is only permitted when using stainless steel

reinforcing bar. While designing new structures, smaller concrete cover helps in reducing

the total dead load , thereby lightening the design load, hence saving cost of concrete.

69
Advantages of using Stainless Steel

The yield strength of stainless steel reinforcing bar is 75-80 ksi. This helps in

reducing the amount of steel reinforcing bar used. Also there are no repair costs associated

with damaged coatings. The chemical properties of stainless steel is designed such that it

is resistant to chlorides, which makes it corrosion resistant.

Corroding steel reinforcement bars is one of the major reasons of infrastructure

deterioration. Rusting of reinforcing bar causes spalling of concrete. Stainless steel

reinforcing bar ensures extended concrete durability because it will not rust easily. The

unique ability of stainless steel to effectively resist chloride induced corrosion significantly

extends the durability of the concrete.

2.8.3 Hot-dip Galvanized Steel

Large construction projects generally target a 75-100 year of service life, which

needs a durable, long lasting and corrosion resistant reinforcement bar. Hot-dip galvanizing

(HDG) reinforcing bars provide superior corrosion resistance to reinforcing steel through:

 Barrier protection

 Cathodic protection

 High chloride threshold

Barrier protection

In barrier protection, hot-dip galvanized coating provides physical protection to the

steel by isolating it from atmospheric electrolytes. Two important properties of barrier

protection are adhesion to the base metal and abrasion resistance. The tightly bonded,

impervious nature of zinc metal makes it a very good protective coating. Zinc corrodes

70
approximately 1/10 to 1/40 the rate of steel depending on the surrounding factors, making

corrosion rate of thin zinc coating similar to a much thicker steel piece.

Cathodic Protection

Hot-dip galvanizing process protects steel cathodically, which means zinc will

preferentially corrode to protect the underlying base steel. The Galvanic series of metals is

a list of metals arranged in order of electrochemical activity in seawater (electrolyte). This

arrangement of metals determine which metal will be the anode and which metal will be

the cathode when the two are put in an electrolytic cell. Metals higher in the list are anodic

to the metals below them, which means they will provide cathodic or sacrificial protection

when the two are connected. Hence Zinc protects steel. This cathodic protection ensures

that even if the HDG coating is damaged to the point that the inner steel is exposed, no

corrosion will begin until all the surrounding zinc coating is consumed. Figure: 2.32 shows

the galvanic series of metals.

Figure: 2.32 Galvanic Series of Metals (www.galvanizeit.org)

71
High Chloride Initiation Threshold

Steel embedded in concrete is exposed to a highly alkaline environment. Black steel

is passive in alkaline concrete until the chloride level exceeds approximately 1lb/yd 3, when

steel becomes de-passivated and starts to corrode. Zinc on the other hand can withstand

chloride concentration up to 2-3 times higher than regular black steel, and couples with its

impervious barrier protection, delays the chloride corrosion on the reinforcing bar.

While black steel in concrete de-passivates below a pH of 11.5, galvanized reinforcement

remains passivated at a lower pH, hence offering significant protection against effects of

concrete carbonation.

Bond Strength of HDG reinforcing bars

Good bonding between reinforcing steel and concrete is essential for reliable

performance of reinforced structures. When protective coatings on steel are used, it is also

essential to ensure that they do not reduce bond strength. Studies on the bonding of

galvanized and black steel bars to Portland cement have been compared. The results of

these studies indicate:

 Development of the bond between black or galvanized steel and concrete depends

upon cure time and environmental factors

 In few cases, the full bond for galvanized reinforcing bar takes longer duration to

form than for uncoated steel, depending on the zincate/cement reaction

 As reported by Stephen Yeomans in Galvanized Steel Reinforcement in Concrete,

a number of studies concluded that the fully developed bond strength of galvanized

reinforcing bar has no significant difference when compared to black bar bond strength

72
  A study by C. Andrade in Spain monitored bond strength of galvanized reinforcing

bar samples over 10 years immersed in seawater and no deleterious effects were found over

that time

Figure: 2.33 depicts bond strength comparison between black and galvanized bars

from a research done at University of California. From the graph it is clearly visible that

the bond strength of Galvanized bars is significantly higher after one, three and twelve

months of curing.

Figure: 2.33 Bond Strength Comparison between Black and Galvanized

Bar(www.galvanizeit.org)

Figure: 2.34 exhibits the service life model for uncoated or conventional black bars

versus galvanized bars. It is clearly visible from the graph that the uncoated bar starts to

corrode at much lower level of chlorine concentration, whereas the galvanized bars remains

un-corroded even at higher levels of chlorine concentration.

73
 Figure:2.34 Service Life Model of Uncoated vs. Galvanized Reinforcing bar
(www.galvanizeit.org)

Bending of HDG bars

While bending HDG bars after galvanizing, cracking and flaking of the galvanized

coating may occur at the bends. The coating integrity is affected by the speed of bending.

Lower the speed of bending, lesser are its effects. According to ASTM A767, cracking and

flaking of the coating to a certain limit is not considered as a cause of rejection, and it can

also be repaired as mentioned in ASTM A780.

2.8.4 Continuous Galvanized Reinforcing bar (CGR)

The galvanized reinforcing bar produced through CGR process has a coating of

zinc and a small amount of aluminum. Along with the well-known corrosion protection of

zinc, the CGR coated reinforcing bars also has exceptional formability. The CGR coating

passives faster and corrode at a slower rate than conventional hot-dip galvanized coatings.

74
The CGR coating has a standard specification of only 50 μm, hence reduced coating mass

lead to reduced production costs for CGR.

The CGR process results in a flexible and adherent galvanized coating with no thick

zinc iron alloy layers. The coated bar can be bent, stretched, twisted or otherwise fabricated

after the galvanizing process is complete without cracking or flaking the coating, regardless

the total coating mass. From Figure: 2.35 it is clear that cracking and flaking of coating

after bending of reinforcing bar is much lesser in case of CGR bars as compared to HDG

bars.

Figure: 2.35 Comparison between CGR and HDG Coatings (www.zinc.org/crg/)

CGR has superior corrosion resistance in concrete. The zinc passivation stage

during concrete curing normally consumes about 1 micron of zinc, but with CGR coatings

there is always pure zinc under the passivation layer, hence all the pure zinc is not

consumed during the passivation stage, thereby increasing its corrosion resistance.

75
When we consider the economical aspect of CGR, it is approximately 20% cheaper than

traditional black reinforcing bar.

2.8.5 Epoxy Coated Reinforcing Steel

Epoxy coated reinforcement bars are still used massively all over the United States

as a standard practice to protect structural steel from chloride induced corrosion. It has been

in use for approximately four decades, since it was first used in the state of Pennsylvania,

to construct a bridge deck in Philadelphia. Epoxy coated reinforcement bars provide

protection against corrosion, since the non-metallic coating is not consumed easily.

Extensive research has been conducted to study epoxy coated reinforcing bar

performance. Early studies by Federal Highway Administration suggested that coated bars

provided corrosion resistance even when the coating was badly damaged and had large

number of defects. (Gustafson). But recent research show that epoxy coated reinforcing

bar performance is related to coating quality. The more damage the coating has, the less

effective it is against corrosion. Because epoxy coated bars have less bond strength than

uncoated bars, tension lap splice lengths has to be longer than those for uncoated bars.

Fig 2.36 Shows how epoxy coated reinforcing bar performs better in terms of black bar

and galvanized bar in terms of corrosion resistance.

76
Figure: 2.36 Relative Corrosion of Black, Galvanized and Epoxy Bars (McDonald 1998)
Figure 2.37 shows the chloride threshold properties of Black, Galvanized and

Epoxy Coated reinforcing bars.

Figure: 2.37 Chloride Threshold (McDonald 1998)

2.8.6 Competitive Materials Comparison

Figure 2.38 shows the Chloride Threshold Comparison of five different types of

corrosion resistant reinforcement bars.

77
 Figure: 2.38 Chloride Threshold Comparison (www.google.com)
Different bar types has different mechanical properties, which makes them unique.

Table 2.9 shows the mechanical properties of different reinforcing bar types.

Table 2.9 Mechanical Properties of Corrosion Resistant Steel (Chungwook -2014)

Modulu Tensil
Yield
Bar s of e Ultima Raptur Rib Rib Coatin
Bar Strengt
Siz Elastici Strengt te e Heig Spacin g
Type h fy
e ty h Strain Strain ht g (mils)
(ksi) fμ(ksi)
E(ksi)
#4 28200 60 106 0.101 0.124 . . .
Black #5 28310 78 96 0.09 0.099 0.046 0.3928 .
#8 28720 76 96 0.114 0.178 0.065 0.6063 .
#4 27080 86 101 0.07 0.089 . . .
Epoxy #5 28220 87 105 0.082 0.105 0.051 0.3947 12.3
#8 27950 76 96 0.114 0.178 0.061 0.6155 11.7

Hot- #4 27840 67 104 0.104 0.132 . . .

Dip
#5 29230 67 104 0.113 0.166 0.037 0.4048 4.6
Galv.
#8 29340 71 106 0.108 0.162 0.057 0.6708 3.8
#4 28580 85 105 0.084 0.11 . . .
Zbar #5 27870 79 100 0.089 0.104 0.051 0.3992 10.7
#8 28230 76 96 0.095 0.115 0.065 0.6281 11.6

78
 #4 30410 121 153 0.042 0.065 . . .
MMF
#5 29650 115 156 0.044 0.06 0.04 0.4238 .
X
#8 29500 123 161 0.051 0.107 0.063 0.6461 .

Table 2.10 shows a comparison of physical properties of most common types of

reinforcement bars

Table: 2.10 Comparison between Corrosion Resistant Reinforcement Bars

(www.google.com)

Times more
Types of corrosion
Chloride Price
reinforcing resistant than Scratch resistance
threshold ranking
bar black reinforcing
bar

Tough enough, No.1

Black X Very high
difficult to damage lowest

Same as black
Epoxy Tough enough,
65X TO 176X reinforcing bars, No.2
coated difficult to damage
very high
4 to 10 times
Hot dip Tough enough,
38X higher than black No.3
galvanized difficult to damage
reinforcing bars

15 to 24 times
Stainless Tough enough, No.4
800X TO 1500X than black
Steel difficult to damage highest
reinforcing bars

79
 Table 2.11 gives a cost comparison of most used corrosion resistant reinforcing

bars. The numbers are based on presentations made by FHWA during 2012 to numerous

DOTs. The cost includes the cost of coating and black steel.

Table: 2.11 Cost Comparison of Available Corrosion Resistant Bars (www.google.com)

Materials Cost per lb.($)

Fabricated Black(#4) 0.48

Fabricated epoxy (#4) 0.07

Hot-dip Galvanized 0.68-0.73

MMFX 0.94

Stainless Steel 3.44

2.8.7 Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Concrete

Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Concrete is an embryonic construction material

which has high mechanical strength, stiffness and durability. By using polypropylene fibers

in concrete optimum utilization of materials is achieved and cost is also reduced.

Concrete is resistant to compression while steel is good is tension. Conventional concrete

has limited ductility, low impact, abrasion resistance and little resistance to cracking. A

good concrete must have low permeability and high strength. Adding short discontinuous

and discrete fibers, improve the post cracking behavior of concrete.

Addition of fibers to plain concrete improves:

 Pre-crack tensile strength

 Ductility performance of concrete

 Fracture strength, toughness, impact resistance

80
  Flexural and fatigue strength resistance etc.

The ability of fibers in bridge to reduce the cracks in concrete at high levels of strain

increases the ductility of fiber reinforced concrete.

Polypropylene fibers are Non-Magnetic, rust free, alkali resistant, safe and easy to

use. It is also compatible with all concrete chemical admixtures and can be handled easily.

Polypropylene fibers are chemically inert, hence any chemical will not have a severe effect

on the fiber.

Concrete develops micro cracks with curing and these cracks propagate rapidly

under applied stress resulting in low tensile strength of concrete. Addition of fibers

improves the strength of concrete and these problems can be overcome by use of

polypropylene fibers. The primary role of fibers in a cementitious composite is to control

cracks, increase the tensile strength, toughness and to improve the deformation

characteristics of the composite. Inclusion of polypropylene fibers:

 Increases the flexural strength due to its high modulus of elasticity

 Reduce the water permeability

In the post cracking stage, as the fibers are pulled out, energy is absorbed, and it

reduces further cracking. With addition of fibers the entrapped air voids increases, thereby

increasing the air content, which reduces the workability causing some difficulty in

compaction of mixtures. Fibers may also interfere and cause finishing problems in

concrete. Workability of concrete decreases with increase in polypropylene fiber volume

fraction.

81
The following figures, Figure: 2.39, Figure: 2.40 and Figure: 2.41 show a comparison of

compressive strength, split tensile strength and flexural strength respectively by adding

different quantities of polypropylene fibers for 7, 21 and 28 days.

Figure: 2.39- 7, 21 and 28 days Compressive Strength Comparison (Kalyani Kothule)

Figure: 2.40- 7, 21 and 28 days Split Tensile Strength Comparison (Kalyani Kothule)

82
 Figure: 2.41- 7, 21 and 28 days Flexural Strength Comparison (Kalyani Kothule)
From the above graphs, a maximum increase in compressive strength was 34% and

that in split tensile strength was 20% compared to concrete mix without polypropylene

fibers.

Effect of Corrosion on Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam

Corrosion of reinforcement steel is one of the significant factors in reduction of

flexural capacity in reinforced concrete (RC) beams. Corrosion of steel reduces the cross

sectional area, as well as the continuity of contact with the surface of steel. The reduction

in flexural capacity occurs due to the decrease in tensile strength of steel and decrease in

the bond strength due to the slip between the reinforcement bar and surrounding concrete,

thereby reducing the member strength. The tensile capacity of the reinforcement bar is

directly proportional to the loss of the steel area. It contributes to the loss of ductility and

stiffness of the beam, thereby reducing the ultimate strength of the beam. Corrosion level

83
up to 1.5% does not affect the ultimate capacity, while 4.5% of corrosion could reduce the

ultimate load up to 12% (Al-Sulaimani et al., 1990).The corrosion of reinforcing bar in

reinforced concrete member shown in Figure: 2.42, deteriorates the strength of RC

structures.

Figure: 2.42 Corrosion of Reinforcing Steel in Reinforced Concrete Beam

Reduction of Cross Sectional Area of Steel Reinforcement

Reduction of steel area is proportional to the degree of corrosion, as evaluated from the

equation below.

= (1 − )

Where,

Ac : cross- sectional area of corroded steel

A : cross-sectional area of virgin steel

84
 XP : corrosion level

Reduction of Bond Strength

The concrete cracks developed due to corrosion around the corroded steel and the

loss of cross-sectional area of reinforcement steel, reduces the bond strength of reinforced

concrete members. The maximum bond stress consists of the bond strength of concrete,

τconc, and stirrups, τst (Kemp and Wilhelm, 1979). The maximum bond stress of non-

corroded reinforced concrete beam from the following equations,

= (0.55 + 0.24 )√ ′

= 0.191( )

max = +

Where,

τ max v : maximum bond stress for normal beam

Cc : concrete covering

db : diameter of tensile steel

At : cross-sectional area of stirrup

fyt : yield strength of stirrup

Ss : spacing of stirrup

85
 The maximum bond stress for corroded reinforced concrete beams is obtained by

applying reduction factor (R) to the bond strength contributed by concrete, τ conc. The value

of “R” is co-related to the corrosion level, Xp, as shown in the following equation.

= 1.34 −0.198

Where, R : normalized bond strength

Xp : corrosion level

This equation was empirically proposed by Bhargava- - 2007, from an extensive

study on corrosion-induced bond strength degradation in reinforced concrete. The equation

is valid when corrosion level Xp is greater than 1.5% and the reduced factor becomes unity

when corrosion level less than 1.5%.

In this study, the two main cases are reinforced concrete beam with corrosion in the

middle portion and corrosion for the whole length of reinforcement. The corrosion levels

induced were 0%, 8.9%, 14.2% and 22.2%. The beam dimensions are shown in Figure:

2.43. Each beam was 1100mm long with a cross section of 150 x 150 mm.

86
 Figure: 2.43 Beam Reinforcement Details
Table 2.12 shows that, as the level of corrosion increases from 0% to 8.9% the

ultimate reduction in moment was 9.17%. A maximum of 22.65% loss in flexural

moment was observed when corrosion level was increased to 22.2%.

Table 2.12 Flexural Ultimate Moment for both Cases

Case I Case II

Reduction in Moment Corrosion Level Reduction in Moment

Corrosion Level %
% % %

0 . 0 .
8.9 9.17 8.8 24.45
14.2 14.1 14 37.88
22.2 22.65
It was observed that the percentage of corrosion level is almost similar to

percentage reduction in moment carrying capacity for corrosion of reinforcement in the

87
middle of the beam and for the whole length corrosion of RC beam, percentage reduction

in moment carrying capacity is greater than corrosion level percentage.

Residual Strength of Corrosion Damaged Reinforced Concrete Beams

Experiments were performed by Abul L. Azadto predict the residual moment

capacity of reinforced concrete beam after corrosion. The dimensions of the beam

specimens were 150mm * 150mm * 1100 mm (6 * 6 * 43 in). Details of the test specimens

and loading are given in Figure: 2.44

Figure: 2.44 Test Specimen Dimensions

Strength prediction model

The residual moment capacity due to corrosion is predicted using the following equation:

= ℎ,

At first the moment capacity Mth,c , is calculated using reduced cross sectional area of

tension reinforcement ′ , from the following equation:

′ = (1 − )2

88
As is the original cross-sectional area of the bar and =2 / , which is a metal loss

factor.

Where,

= =

Now, = , Where,

′
= ℎ , = , =

, = ,

Then the computed value of ℎ, is multiplied with a correction factor β to obtain the

predicted residual strength of the beam. The value of β represent a cumulative effect of

bond loss and the factors responsible for loss of flexural strength, other than metal area

reduction. Value of β depends mainly on two variables which are and . The final

empirical form of β is taken as :

= =< 1
( )

Where A is a dimensional constant and m and n are also constants. D is the diameter of the

reinforcing bar in mm, Icorr is the corrosion density in mA/cm2 and T is the time duration

of corrosion in days. The value of the constants A, m and n are obtained through a multi-

level regression analysis of test data for C f.

89
Where =
ℎ

Hence β is predicted on the basis of Cf.

It was determined that these formulas cannot be applied to the specimens exposed to short

time corrosion, less than six months.

90
 CHAPTER III

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

3.1 Introduction

This chapter mainly discusses the preparation, testing and experimentation of prism

specimens. Reinforced concrete structures that are exposed to saline conditions,

underground structures, and marine structures are usually subjected to deterioration due to

corrosion of reinforcing bar. This lead to loss of section of steel bars leading to premature

failure of the structure. Spalling on columns and the underside of the bridge beams that

are exposed to deicing salts is common. Corrosion cracks and spalling lead to bond strength

reduction leading to reduction in service life of the structure. Black conventional

reinforcing bars were replaced by epoxy-coated reinforcing bars to prevent corrosion of

RC structures. It was observed that the loss in coating of the epoxy coated bars during site

handling lead to localized corrosion of steel, causing de-bonding of steel with concrete.

Several corrosion resistant reinforcing bars that are currently available were

evaluated to be used as alternative to current options. Six types of reinforcing bars were

used in this study are black bars, epoxy coated bars, hot dipped galvanizing bars (HDG),

continuously galvanized bars (CGR), stainless steel bars and, MMFX bars. The objective

of experimentation is to evaluate the pull-out strength of these CRR bars are being

subjected to accelerated corrosion. The effect of addition of polypropylene fibers on the

pullout strength was also determined.

91
3.2 Types of Reinforcing Bars

Six distinct types of reinforcing bars considered in this study are shown in Figure

3.1. The reinforcing bars were initially tested in direct tension to determine the yield and

ultimate strength.

Figure 3.1 Types of Reinforcing Bars

Axial tension testing was conducted using an Instron axial-tension testing machine.

The specimens were machined at the middle region to accommodate the extensometer to

measure strains. The end portions of each reinforcing bar specimen were clamped between

the jaws of the machine. Displacement at a strain rate of 0.005 in./in./min was applied until

failure. Figure 3.2 shows the setup for the tensile testing of reinforcing bars.

Figure 3.2 Axial Tension Testing of Reinforcing Bar with Extensometer Attached

92
 Stress–strain curves for all the bars were developed and are plotted in Figure 3.3.

The results showed linear stress-strain profile until 70 ksi.

Stress vs Strain
180
160
140
120
100
Stress, ksi

80
60
40
20
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Strain, in./in.
Black Bar Epoxy Coated Bar
Hot Dipped Galvanizing Bar Zinc Galvanized Bar (CGR-UAE)
Stainless Steel Bar MMFX Bar

Figure 3.3 Stress vs. Strain Curves for #5 Bars

3.3 Test Matrix

The test matrix was developed to cast a total of 48 specimens of which 24

specimens were cast with fiber and the other 24 specimens were cast without fiber. From

each set of 24 specimens, 12 specimen were subjected to accelerated corrosion and the

other 12 served as pristine specimens as listed in Table 3.1.

Table: 3.1 Test Matrix

Non-corroded specimens Corroded specimens

Types of Reinforcing bar With fiber Without fiber With fiber Without
fiber
Black bar 2 2 2 2
Epoxy coated bar 2 2 2 2
MMFX bar 2 2 2 2
Stainless steel bar 2 2 2 2
Hot dipped galvanizing bar 2 2 2 2
CGR bar 2 2 2 2
Total 12 12 12 12

93
3.4 Preparation of reinforcing bars

The specimens were designed to have an embedment length of 2.5 inches. PVC

pipe of 1.75 inch pieces were used as bond breaker at the top and bottom portion within

the specimen. PVC pipes were initially fixed at respective positions on the reinforcing bar

leaving 0.5 inches at one end that extrudes out of the specimen as shown in Figure 3.4. The

total length of each bar was 30 inches.

Figure: 3.4 Reinforcing Bars Showing PVC Pipes as Bond Breaker

The specimens were designed in such a way that splitting failure was avoided and it

only fails due to slippage of the bar. 6-inch cubes as shown in Figure 3.5 was embedded

with #5 bar placed in the center of the cross section.

Figure: 3.5 Specimen Dimension

94
3.5 Preparation of formwork

Formwork for casting the prism specimens was made using 0.5-inch thick plywood

sheets. Cubes of internal dimension 6-inch x 6-inch x 6-inch were made with a 0.75-inch

diameter hole on the sidewalls. The holes were machined accurately at the center of the

cross section to avoid skew of the reinforcing bar as shown in Figure 3.6. PVC pipes were

pushed to flush with the sidewalls leaving 2.5 inches of embedment length on the

reinforcing bar. The bars that were projected from the other end were balanced using wood

pieces to keep it level to avoid skew.

Figure: 3.6 Preparation of Formwork

The formwork was sprayed with a releasing agent before placing the steel bars as

to avoid oils on the reinforcing bar which would influence the bond strength. After the

arrangement of reinforcing bars the formwork was ready for the concrete pour.

3.6 Materials for Casting of specimens

The specimens were cast in two batches of 24 specimens on each batch. The first

batch was cast with standard concrete mix and the second batch was cast with fiber

reinforced concrete.

95
3.6.1 Cementitious materials

Two types of cementitious materials that are commonly used in ODOT projects

include:

 Type I Portland cement provided by Cemex, Fairlawn, Ohio

 Grade 100 slag provided by Lafarge, Cleveland, Ohio (Specific gravity 2.89)

The properties of Type I Portland cement are mentioned in Table 3.2.

Table: 3.2 Properties of Portland cement

Type I Portland Cement Composition

SiO2, % 1.5
Al2O3, % 0.9
Fe2O3, % 0.3
CaO, % 53.1
MgO, % 0.8
SO3, % 0.1
Specific Gravity 3.15
Loss of Ignition 2.6
Limestone 3

3.6.2 Aggregates Used

Aggregates for the project was provided by W L Tucker Supply situated in Akron,

Ohio. Two types of aggregates LS 57 and LD 8 coarse aggregates were used in this

research. Gradations of coarse aggregates is provided in Table 3.3.

96
 Table: 3.3 Coarse Aggregate Gradations (LS 8)

Sieve Cumulative % Passing

½” 100
3/8” 98.5
¼” 67.8
#4 37.7
#8 3
#16 0.4

Fine aggregates used in this study were river sand which meets ODOT Sand

requirements. The specific gravity of fine aggregate was 2.65. Detailed gradation of fine

aggregates is given in Table 3.4.

Table: 3.4 Fine aggregate gradation

Sieve Cumulative % Retained Cumulative % Passing

3/8” 0 100
¼” 0.5 99.5
#4 1.8 97.7
#8 13.4 84.3
#16 23.3 61
#30 18.8 42.2
#50 24.5 17.7
#100 13.6 4.1
#200 1.9 2.2

3.6.3 Concrete Admixtures

Three different types of chemical admixtures were used in this mix design as

recommended in one of ODOT standard mixes

 Air entraining admixture (EUCON Air Mix 200): supplied by Euclid chemicals and

was used to ensure the air content in the mix was 6% to 8%. It is basically a

concentrated aqueous solution of modified resins used for proper air control under

97
 a wide range of temperatures. The adding amount is fixed by following the

recommendations provided by the company and adjusted according to practice.

 Type A water reducer (EUCON WR 91): was supplied by Euclid chemicals and

was used to achieve a slump of 4 to 5 inches by reducing the amount of water

content in the concrete mix. It acts as a water reducer and plasticizing agent to

concrete mix.

 Superplasticizer- High range water reducing admixture (EUCON 1037 Type F):

was added to the concrete mix to achieve adequate workability in the fiber

reinforced concrete mixes, and also to reduce the water content. It is a

polycarboxylate based admixture specifically designed for concrete industry and is

formulated without adding chlorides, in order to prevent corrosion of reinforced

concrete. It also provides excellent slump and lowers the water cement ratio in

concrete.

3.6.4 Polypropylene Fibers

TUF –STRAND SF polypropylene fibers as shown in figure 3.7 were used for this

study, provided by Euclid Chemicals. It is a polypropylene/ polyethylene synthetic macro

fiber used in a wide variety of applications. The fiber complies with ASTM C1116 standard

specifications for fiber reinforced concrete and shotcrete, and are specifically designed to

provide equivalent tensile and bending resistance to conventional reinforcement

requirements. It provides enhanced flexural toughness, impact and abrasion resistance. The

fiber has a specific gravity of 0.92, length of 2 inches, tensile strength between 87 ksi – 94

ksi, modulus of elasticity 1380 ksi. The dosage rate depends on reinforcing requirements

and adjusted according to practice.

98
 Figure: 3.7 TUF STRAND SF Polypropylene Fiber
3.7 Preparation of Specimens

The concrete mix design used was similar to one of the mixes used in an ODOT

bridge deck project and the mix design is shown Table 3.5. Mixing was done in 5.0 ft 3

capacity mixer that was available in the laboratory. Cement, slag, coarse aggregates, fine

aggregates, chemical admixtures were added to the standard mix and additionally 10 lb.

/ft3 of polypropylene fibers were added to the fiber reinforced concrete mix. Butter mix

with 5% of sand, cement and coarse aggregates was made to initially mix in the container

so as to avoid sticking of concrete to the internal surface of the mixer. The coarse, fine

aggregates and two thirds of water were added and mixed for one minute. Type I cement

and grade 100 slag was then added to the mixture along with the remaining one third of

water. All chemical admixtures were added in the water before adding to the mix. For fiber

reinforced mixes, 10 lb. /ft3 of polypropylene fiber was added to the mix two minutes

before the final stage, and then mixed for one minute and rested for one minute. The mix

was of flowing consistency, so as to avoid improper placement of concrete in the molds.

Vibration was done to ensure proper setting of the concrete. The designed compressive

strength of concrete at 28 days was 4500 psi.

99
 Table 3.5 Mix Design

Material Quantity (per cu ft)

LS 57 44.8 lb
Coarse Sand 44.8 lb
LS 8 24.05 lb
Cement 17.45 lb
Slag 4.33 lb
Water cement ratio 0.5
WR 91 0.18 oz
Superplasticizer 1.66 oz
Air content 0.18 oz
In fiber reinforced concrete mixes, the fiber was mixed very well and there was no

segregation or balling of the fibers. High range water reducer and super plasticizer were

added to the mix to make sure slump was within the allowable limits. Not much reduction

in slump was noticed due to addition of polypropylene fibers, mainly due to the use of

Type-F HRWR.

3.7.1 Slump Test

Slump was tested for every mix following ASTM C143 standard test method for

slump of hydraulic-cement concrete. Slump testing procedure is mentioned as follows:

1. Mold was dampened and placed on the plate

2. The mold was filled with three layers of concrete

3. Each layer of concrete was stroked 25 times using the tamping rod

4. Slump was immediately measured by obtaining the vertical difference in the height

of the mold and the average of the displaced top surface of the concrete at three

locations as shown in Figure 3.8

10
0
 Figure: 3.8 Slump Test Apparatus
3.7.2 Air Content Test

The mixes were also tested for air content as per ASTM C231 standard test method.

Air content test procedures is described as follows:

1. The interior of the measuring bowl was damped and placed on an even surface

2. The mold was filled with two layers of concrete

3. Each layer of concrete was stroked 25 times with the tamping rod

4. The top concrete surface was leveled and the lid was closed by clamps

5. Water was then added through the nozzles as per the standard

6. The volume of air displaced and air content was measured according to the

standards as shown in Figure 3.9

10
1
 Figure: 3.9 Air Content Test Apparatus
3.7.3 Placing of Concrete

The concrete was then filled in the forms with the help of shovels uniformly in all

the prism molds as shown in Figure 3.10. Vibration was then applied to make sure concrete

was placed evenly throughout the mold. Once the formwork was filled with concrete, the

surface was flattened and levelled using a leveler and the completed placement is shown

in Figure 3.11.

Figure 3.10 Pouring of Concrete

10
2
 Figure: 3.11 Completion of Concreting
3.7.4 Curing of Specimens

After the casting procedure, the specimens were left undisturbed for 24 hours until

they were hardened. The specimens were then removed carefully from the formwork and

were covered with wet burlap and watered regularly for a minimum of 28 days until a

minimum compressive strength of 4,500 psi was achieved. The burlap was then covered

with plastic sheet to keep the moisture content in the specimens as shown in figure 3.12.

Figure: 3.12 Curing of Concrete

10
3
3.7.5 Compressive Strength Test

Standard cylinders of 4-inch diameter and 8-inches height were cast on the day of

concreting and were placed in the curing room. Compressive strength tests on these

cylinders were conducted at regular intervals, to evaluate the strength of concrete. The

compressive strength each time of testing was determined based on the average of 2

cylinder tests. Typical testing of cylinder is shown in Figure 3.13 and the compressive

strength test results at regular intervals are shown in Table 3.6.

Figure 3.13 Compressive Strength Testing Machine

Table 3.6 Compressive Strength

Days Compressive Strength(psi)

3 1687
7 2700
14 3937
28 4300
35 4545

10
4
3.8 Accelerated Corrosion Test on Pull-Out Specimens

A total of 24 specimens with 4 specimens of each bar type (2 with fiber and 2

without fiber) were subjected to accelerated corrosion. 12 specimens without fibers (2 of

each reinforcement type) were corroded in the first phase. To avoid the corrosion on the

extended bar, the reinforcing bar was covered with a plastic cap using silicon sealant as

shown in the figures 3.14. The specimens were left for drying for a period of 24 hours.

Figure: 3.14 Capping of Extended Reinforcement Bar

To achieve the desired corrosion level, the specimens were submerged in a plastic

container filled with 5% NaCl solution. The specimens were placed centrally within the

stainless steel mold of 7-inch x 7-inch which acts as cathode. Impressed current value of

0.02A was calculated using Faradays law to achieve 5% corrosion level. The current was

supplied using external power supply during the wetting cycle. A total of 15 days was

estimated which include a two-day wetting and one-day drying cycle. An electrochemical

cell was created with the reinforcement bar as anode, stainless steel mold as cathode and

the NaCl solution as electrolyte. A typical electro chemical test setup and the complete test

phase for one set is shown in Figures 3.15 and 3.16 respectively.

10
5
 Figure: 3.15 Electro-Chemical Test Setup

Figure: 3.16 Corrosion Testing

The corrosion process was monitored regularly and the progress of damage was

recorded. Typical damages on day 2 and day10 are shown in Figure 3.17.

10
6
 Figure: 3.17 Damage of Specimen on Day 2 (left) and Day 10 (Right)

5% NaCl solution was removed after 48 hours period and the specimens were left

for drying for a period of 24 hours. This cycle was repeated five times to achieve the desired

corrosion level. After the corrosion process, the specimens were removed from the test

setup and were cleaned to remove the corrosion on the surface of the concrete and left for

drying. The specimens were then ready for pull-out testing. The similar procedure was

repeated for the second set of specimens with polypropylene fibers.

3.9 Testing of Non-Corroded and Corroded Pull-Out Specimens

UTM (Universal Testing Machine) of 300 kip capacity was used to test the non-

corroded and corroded pullout specimens. The typical test setup is shown in the figure 3.18.

10
7
 Figure: 3.18 Pull-Out Test Setup

In order to measure the slippage of the reinforcing bar inside the concrete, a

protruding end of the bar was connected to a dial gauge. The dial gauge setup is shown in

the Figure 3.19.

Figure: 3.19 Dial Gauge Setup

10
8
 The specimen was securely placed in the UTM and dial gauge was fixed on the

underside to measure the slippage of the bar. Thin plate with a hole in the center was placed

over the specimen to load uniformly on the concrete surface. The specimens were loaded

at a rate of 30-35 lbs /sec until it reached a peak value and a sudden drop in load occured.

Slippage of the bar was recorded manually at a load interval of every 200 pounds. The

slippage of bars in the tested specimens with and without fibers is shown in Figures 3.20

and 3.21.

Figure: 3.20 Slippage of Non-Corroded Specimens with Fiber after Testing

Figure: 3.21 Corroded Specimens without Fiber after Testing

In Figure 3.22, slippage of an Epoxy coated reinforcing bar after pullout test is shown.

10
9
Figure: 3.22 Slippage of Reinforcing bar after Testing

11
0
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 48 specimens were tested to determine the pullout strength and to

evaluate the peak load carrying capacity along with slip of the bar. The relative slip of the

reinforcing bar with respect to the concrete prism of each test specimen for the entire range

of loading was recorded manually. The loading curve increased to a peak value until a

small slip was developed. Once the slippage of the bar started, the loading curve dropped

rapidly causing larger slip at smaller loads.

Load versus slip curves were generated for all the specimens to compare the bond

loss due to corrosion. The specimen with fibers showed higher bond strength than that of

specimens without fibers. Fibers not only increased the load carrying capacity of the

specimens, also reduced slippage of bars at similar loads. Typical load versus slip curves

of all the specimens with and without fibers are shown in Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.1

respectively.

The nomenclature of the specimen is described as Bar type, Corroded or non-corroded and

with or without fibers as follows:

11
1
 Non-Corroded Specimens without Fibers
12000

10000

8000
Load (lbs)

6000

4000

2000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Bar Slip (in.)
BL-NC-W/O F EPX-NC-W/O F HDG-NC-W/O F
SS-NC-W/O F MMFX-NC-W/O F CGR-NC-W/O F

Figure 4.1 Load vs Slip Curves of Non-Corroded Specimens without Fibers

From the above plot it was observed that, the load carrying capacity of continuously

galvanized bars (CGR) in pull-out was higher than all the bar types. It was also observed

that specimens with epoxy coated bars showed lowest peak load with larger slip of the bar.

This indicates the poor bond of epoxy coated bar with the surrounding concrete.

11
2
 Figure 4.2 shows the load versus bar slip curves for the non-corroded specimens

with fibers. It was observed that, specimens with continuous galvanized and MMFX bars

showed higher peak loads with a very similar trend as that of non-fiber specimens. It was

also observed that, the peak loads of these specimens increased by 39% approximately.

Non-Corroded Specimens with Fibers

12000

10000

8000
Load (lbs)

6000

4000

2000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Bar Sip (in.)
BL-NC-W/ F EPX-NC-W/F HDG-NC-W/F
SS-NC-W/F MMFX-NC-W/F CGR-NC-W/F

Figure 4.2 Load vs Slip Curves of Non-Corroded Specimens with Fibers

11
3
 Figure 4.3 shows the load versus bar slip curves for the corroded specimens without

fibers. It was observed that, specimens with continuous galvanized and MMFX bars

showed higher peak loads with a very similar trend as that of non-corroded specimens but

the peak loads of these specimens reduced by 11% approximately.

Corroded Specimens without Fibers

12000

10000

8000
Load (lbs)

6000

4000

2000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Bar Slip (in.)
BL-C-W/O F EPX-C-W/O F HDG-C-W/O F
SS-C-W/O F MMFX-C-W/O F CGR-C-W/O F

Figure 4.3 Load vs Slip Curves of Corroded Specimens without Fibers

100
 From Figure 4.4 it was observed that, the peak values of the all the specimens

reduced when compared to non-corroded specimens. This reduction was due to corrosion

that caused bond loss of reinforcing bar with the surrounding concrete. It was observed that

the fibers improved the load carrying capacity by almost 50%.

Corroded Specimens with Fibers

12000

10000

8000

6000
Load (lbs)

4000

2000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Bar Slip (in.)

BL-C-W/F EPX-C-W/F HDG-C-W/F
SS-C-W/F MMFX-C-W/F CGR-C-W/F

Figure 4.4 Load vs Slip Curves of Corroded Specimens with Fibers

101
 The peak loads of the specimens with and without fibers were also compared to

understand the bond characteristics of CRR bars embedded in concrete. Figures 4.5 to 4.8

show the plots of peak load comparisons.

Peak Load Comparsion (Non-Corroded Specimens)

12000

10000

8000
Load (lbs)

6000

4000

2000

0
Black Bar Epoxy Bar Hot Dip MMFX Stainless CGR-
Galvanized Bar Steel Bar UAE Bar
Bar
Reinforcement Type
Withour Fiber With Fiber

Figure 4.5 Peak Load Comparison of Specimen with and without Fibers (Non-Corroded)

It was observed that, CGR, MMFX and Stainless-steel bars showed higher peak

loads than other bar types. Epoxy coated bars showed the least value among the group.

Addition of fibers showed improved load carrying capacity of the specimens.

102
 Peak Load Comparison (Corroded-Specimens)
12000

10000

8000
Load (lbs)

6000

4000

2000

0
Black Bar Epoxy Bar Hot Dip MMFX Bar Stainless CGR- UAE
Galvanized Steel Bar Bar
Bar
Reinforcement Type
Without Fiber With Fiber

Figure 4.6 Peak Load Comparison of Specimen with and without Fibers (Corroded)

Similar trend as stated in case of non-corroded specimens was also observed in

corroded specimens. Addition of polypropylene fibers showed improved performance in

load capacity of the specimens.

103
 Peak Load Comparison of Specimens without Fiber
9000
8000
7000
6000
Load (lbs)

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Black Bar Epoxy Bar Hot Dipped MMFX Bar Stainless CGR- UAE
Galvanized Steel Bar Bar
Bar
ReinforcementType
Non Corroded Without Fiber Corroded Without Fiber

Figure 4.7 Peak load comparison of Specimen without Fibers (Non-Corroded and
Corroded)

Peak Load Comparison of Specimens with Fiber

12000

10000

8000

6000
Load (lbs)

4000

2000

0
Black Bar Epoxy Bar Hot Dipped MMFX Bar Stainless CGR- UAE
Galvanized Steel Bar Bar
Bar
Reinforcement Type
Non Corroded With Fiber Corroded With Fiber

Figure 4.8 Peak Load Comparison of Specimen with Fibers (Non-Corroded and
Corroded)

104
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the detailed experimental investigations and literature review, the

following conclusions are drawn.

All corrosion resistant re-bars evaluated in the study do not provide 100%

protection against corrosion. Beyond a critical point all re-bars corrode to a significant

extent. Corrosion of reinforcing bar reduces the bond strength and subsequently the load

carrying capacity of a structure.

From the peak load graphs, it is clearly visible that MMFX, Stainless Steel and

CGR bars have a comparable peak load which is significantly higher than Black,

Galvanized and Epoxy coated bars.

Among MMFX, SS bars and CGR bars, CGR performs better in terms of bond

strength which implies it has maximum corrosion resistance.

In case of non-corroded specimens, adding polypropylene fibers increased the bond

strength by 32%

Corrosion reduced the bond strength of specimens with fiber by 5.8% and

specimens without fiber by 11%. Hence it can be inferred that addition of fibers reduced

the bond strength loss by about 50%

105
 REFERENCES

Abdeldjelil Belarbi and Huanzi Wang, Department of Civil Architectural and

Environmental Engineering, University of Missouri,Rolla. “Bond Slip Response of FRP
reinforcing bars in Fiber Reinforced Concrete under Direct Pullout.

Abdul K. Azad, Shamsad Ahmad, and Syed A.Azher. “Residual Strength of Corrosion-
Damaged Reinforced Concrete Beams

Abdullah A. Almusallam, Ahmad S. Al-Gahtani, Abdur Rauf Aziz, Fahd H. Dakhil and
Rasheeduzzafar, "Effect of Reinforcement Corrosion on Flexural Behaviour of Concrete
Slabs", Journal of Muterials in Civil Engineering, v. 8 n. 3, August 1996, pg. 123-7

Abosrra, L., Ashour, A. F., and Youseffi, M. (2011). “Corrosion of steel reinforcement in
concrete of different compressive strengths.” Construction and Building Materials, 25 (10),
3915-3925.

ACI Committee 222, (2001). “Protection of metals in concrete against corrosion.” ACI
222R-01, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, American Concrete Institute.

ACI committee 408(1996), Bond stress- The state of the Art, ACI -63(II),1161-1190

ACI committee 408, Bond and development of straight reinforcing bars in tension

Adhikari, S., and Patnaik, A.K., Potential Applications of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete
to Improve Seismic Response of Frame Structures, Journal of Research, Thematic Issue on
Earthquakes 2012, NEDU, Oct. 2012, pp. 113-128.

Adhikari, S., and Patnaik, A.K., Potential Applications of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete
to Improve Seismic Response of Frame Structures, Journal of Research, Thematic Issue on
Earthquakes 2012, NEDU, Oct. 2012, pp. 113-128.

Ahmad, S. (2003). “Reinforcement corrosion in concrete structures, its monitoring and

service life prediction – a review.” Cement and Concrete Composites, 25(5), 459-471.

Al-Sulaimani, G. J., Kaleemullah, M., Basunbul, I. A., and Rasheeduzzafar, (1990).

“Influence of corrosion and cracking on bond behavior and strength of reinforced concrete
members.” ACI Structural Journal, 87(2), 220–231.

Amleh, L., and Mirza, S. (1999). “Corrosion influence on bond between steel and
concrete.” ACI Structural Journal, 96(3), 415–423.

Anwar A Alnaki, Falah M. Wegian, Magdy A.Abdalghaffar, Fahad A. Alotaibi, Abdul-

Salam A.Al Temeemi and Mohammad T.Alkhamis (2013) “Bond Behaviour of High-
Performance Pull-out Bond Strength of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Structures.”

106
Apostolopoulos, C. A., and Papadakis, V. G. (2008): “Consequences of Steel Corrosion on
the Ductility Properties of Reinforcement Bar.” Construction and Building Materials, Vol.
22(12): pp. 2316–2324.

Auyeung, Y., Balaguru, P., and Chung, L. (2000). “Bond behavior of corroded
reinforcement bars.” ACI Material Journal, 97(2), 214–22

Bajaj, S., Patnaik, A., Payer, J., Liang, R.Y., Manigandan, K., and Srivatsan, T.S., Extrinsic
Influence of Environment on Corrosion Behavior of Enamel Coated Dowel Bars, Emerging
Materials Research, DOI: 10.1680/emr.14.00007, Volume 3, Issue 4, June 2014, pp. 158
–168.

Bhargava, K., Ghosh, A. K., Mori, Y., and Ramanujam, S. (2007) “Corrosioninduced bond
strength degradation in reinforced concrete—Analytical and empirical models.” Nuclear
Engineering and Design, 237(11), 1140-1157.

Bohni, H. (2005). Corrosion in Reinforced Concrete Structures. Boca Raton, FL:

Woodhead Publishing Ltd.

Broomfield, J. P. (2007). Corrosion of Steel in Concrete – Understanding, investigation

and repair. 2 Edition. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis

Broomfield, J. P. (2007). Corrosion of Steel in Concrete – Understanding, investigation

and repair. 2 Edition. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

CEB-fib. (2000): Bond of Reinforcement in Concrete. State-of-Art Report, Federation

Internationale du béton, Bulletin 10, prepared by Task Group Bond Models, Lausanne,
Swetzerland

Chung, L., Kim, J. J., and Yi, S. (2008). “Bond strength prediction for reinforced concrete
members with highly corroded reinforcing bars.” Cement and Concrete Research, 30(7),
603–611.

Coronelli, D, and Gambarova P. (2004): “Structural Assessment of Corroded

CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering 35 Reinforced Concrete Beams:
Modeling Guidelines.” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 130(8), pp. 1214–1224.

Cutright, T., Mahoney, M., Franey, K., and Patnaik, A., Carbon Footprint Assessment of
Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Concrete Floors, Int. Journal of the Constructed
Environment, Volume 3, Issue 1, 2013, pp. 73-84

Darwin, D., Zuo, J., Tholen, M.L., and Idun, E.K. (1996). “Development Length Criteria
for Conventional and High Relative Rib Area Reinforcing Bars”. ACI Structural Journal ,
98(3), 347-359

David P. Gustafson and Theodore L. Neff, Epoxy coated reinforcing bar: Handle with care

107
Dr.T.Ch.Madhavi1 , L.Swamy Raju2 , Deepak Mathur, Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced
Concrete- A Review, International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced
Engineering, 2014

Du, Y. G., Clark, L. A., and Chan, A. H. C. (2005a): “Effect of Corrosion on Ductility of
Reinforcing Bars.” Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 57(7), pp. 407–419.

Du, Y. G., Clark, L. A., and Chan, A. H. C. (2005b): “Residual Capacity of Corroded
Reinforcing Bars.” Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 57(3), pp. 135–147.

Eligehausen, R.; Popov, E. P.; and Bertero, V. V., 1983, “Local Bond Stress-Slip
Relationships of Deformed Bars under Generalized Excitations,” Report No. UCB/EERC-
82/ 23, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley,
Calif., 169 pp

El-Reedy, M. A. (2008). Steel – Reinforced Concrete Structures – Assessment and repair

of corrosion. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis.

Esfahani, M.R., and Rangan, B.V. (1998). “Bond between Normal Strength and High-
Strength Concrete (HSC) and Reinforcing Bars in Splices in Beams” ACI Structural
Journal, 95(3),272-279

Fernandez, I., Bairán J. M., and Marí A. R. (2015): “Corrosion Effects on the Mechanical
Properties of Reinforcing Steel Bars. Fatigue and σ–ε Behavior.” Construction and
Building Materials, Vol. 101(2015), pp. 772–783.

Fernandez, I., Herrador, M. F., Marí A. R., and Bairán J. M. (2016): “Structural Effects of
Steel Reinforcement Corrosion on Statically Indeterminate Reinforced Concrete
Members.” Materials and Structures, Published online.

G.J. Al-Sulaimani, M. Kaleemullah, 1. A. Basunbul, and Rasheeduzzafar, "Influence of

Corrosion and Cracking on Bond Behaviour and Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Members", ACIStructural Journal, v. 87 n. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1990, pg. 220-3 1

Gao, X., Liang, R.Y., and Patnaik, A., Effects of sustained loading and pre-existing cracks
on corrosion behavior of reinforced concrete slabs, Construction and Building Materials,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.010, Volume 124, 15 October 2016,
Pages 776-785.
Gao, X., Liang, R.Y., and Patnaik, A., Experimental Study of Relation Between Corrosion
Crack Width and Metal Loss for Reinforced Concrete Slabs, Materials and Structures, in
review Feb. 2017.

Gao, X., Liang, R.Y., and Patnaik, A., Improved corrosion behavior of concrete slabs
reinforced with epoxy-coated steel bars with surface damage, finalized, to be submitted.

108
Gao, X., Liang, R.Y., and Patnaik, A., Predicting the time for through-cracking in concrete
cover considering uniform and non-uniform corrosion conditions, in final stages of
submission.
Gao, X., Liang, R.Y., and Patnaik, A., Probabilistic lifetime performance and structural
capacity analysis of continuous reinforced concrete slab bridges, Int J Adv Struct Eng,
DOI: 10.1007/s40091-017-0160-2, May 2017, 15 pages.
Gao, X., Liang, R.Y., and Patnaik, A., The ultimate capacity loss prediction of corroded
reinforced concrete slabs with and without polypropylene fibers, in final stages of
preparation.

Gao, X., Liang, R.Y., and Patnaik, A., VIKOR Method for Ranking Concrete Bridge
Repair Projects with Target-Based Criteria, in final stages of preparation.
Gao, Z., Liang, R., and Patnaik, A., “Corrosion Performance of Steel Reinforced Concrete
Slabs under Sustained Loading”, Accepted, 2017 DoD - Allied Nations Technical
Corrosion Conference, August 7 - 10, 2017, Birmingham, Alabama.
Gao, Z., Liang, R., and Patnaik, A., “Effects of Scratch Defects in Epoxy Coating of Steel
Reinforcing Bars Embedded in Structural Concrete”, SSPC 2016, Jan. 18-21, 2016, San
Antonio, TX.
Gao, Z., Liang, R., and Patnaik, A., “Influence of Precracking and Sustained Loading on
Corrosion Performance of Steel Reinforced Concrete Slabs”, 2015 DoD Allied Nations
Conference – Technical Corrosion Conference, November 15-19, 2015, Pittsburgh, PA.
Gao, Z., Liang, R., and Patnaik, A., “VIKOR Method for Ranking Concrete Bridge Repair
Projects with Target-Based Criteria”, NACE Corrosion Risk Management Conference,
NACE International, Houston, TX, May 23-25, 2016, 12 pages.
Gao, Z., Liang, R., Payer, J., and Patnaik, A., “Mass Loss and Capacity Loss of Reinforced
Concrete Slabs with and without Polypropylene Fibers Corroded with Pre-existing Cracks
and Sustained Loading”, NACE Corrosion Risk Management Conference,
NACE International, Houston, TX, May 23-25, 2016, 10 pages.
Glisic, B., and Inaudi, D. (2005). “Long-term monitoring of high-rise buildings using
Long-gage fiber optic sensors.” 7th International Conference on Multipurpose High-rise
Towers and Tall Buildings, Dubai, UAM, December 10-11, 2005.

Goto, Y., 1971, “Cracks Formed in Concrete Around Deformed Tension Bars,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 68, No. 4, Apr., pp. 244-251

Gowda, S., Hotz, S., Srivatsan, T.S., and Patnaik, A., “Effects of Corrosion on the
Mechanical Properties of ASTM A572 Structural Grade Steel”, 2015 DoD Allied Nations
Conference – Technical Corrosion Conference, November 15-19, 2015, Pittsburgh, PA.
Hester, C. J., Salamizavaregh, S., Darwin, D. and McCabe, S. L. (1993). “Bond of Epoxy-
Coated Reinforcement: Splices.” ACI Structural Journal, 90(1), 89-102.

109
Hotz, S., Gowda, S., Payer, J., and Patnaik, A., “Residual Moment Strength of Built-up
Steel Beams Exposed to Uniform Corrosion”, 2015 DoD Allied Nations Conference –
Technical Corrosion Conference, November 15-19, 2015, Pittsburgh, PA.
Hussain, R. R., and Ishida, T. (2009). “Critical Carbonation Depth for Initiation of Steel
corrosion in Fully Carbonated Concrete and Development of Electrochemical Carbonation
Induced Corrosion Model.” International of Electrochemical Science, 4, 1178 - 1195.

Ismaeel H.Musa Albarwary (Duhok Polytechnic University,Iraq) James H. Haida (School

of Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Applied Sciences, University of Duhok, Iraq).
“Bond strength of concrete with the reinforcement bars polluted with oil.”

J. Rodriguez, L. M. Ortega, J. Casa1 and J. M. Diez, "Assessing Structural Conditions of

Concrete Structures with Corroded Reinforcement" Concrete in the Service of Mankind:
Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and Protection, First Ed. E & FN Spon London, 1996

Kalyani Kothule, “Use of Polypropylene Fibers in Structural Concrete”

Khayat, K.H (1998) “Use of Viscosity-Modified Admixtures to Reduce Top-Bar Effect of

Anchored Bars with Fluid Concrete” ACI Structural Journal, 95(2), 158-167

Kitjapat Phuvoravan, “Effect of Steel Corrosion Level on Flexural Behaviour of

Reinforced Concrete Beam.

Larsen, K.R. and Patnaik, A.K., New Materials Minimize Effects of Steel Corrosion in
Reinforced Concrete, Materials Performance, Vol. 52, No. 12, Dec. 2013, pp. 21-24.

Larsen, K.R. and Patnaik, A.K., New Materials Minimize Effects of Steel Corrosion in
Reinforced Concrete, Materials Performance, Vol. 52, No. 12, Dec. 2013, pp. 21-24.
Liang, R., Payer, J., and Patnaik, A., “Development of a Management System for
Corrosion-Damaged Reinforced Concrete Bridge Superstructure Elements”, First
International Conference on Risk Management of Corrodible Systems,
NACE International, Washington, DC, June 2013.
Liu, Y., and Weyers, R.E. (1998). “Modeling the Time-to-Corrosion Cracking in Chloride
Contaminated Reinforced Concrete Structures.” Materials Journal, 95(6), 675 - 680.

Loov, R.E. and Patnaik, A.K., Horizontal Shear Strength of Composite Concrete beams,
The PCI Journal, Chicago IL, Jan-Feb. 1994, pp. 48-69: This paper received the Martin P.
Korn award of the PCI.
Lundgren, K. (2005a): “Bond between Ribbed Bars and Concrete. Part 1: Modified
Model.” Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 57(7), pp. 371–382.

Lundgren, K. (2005b): “Bond between Ribbed Bars and Concrete. Part 2: The Effect of
Corrosion.” Magazine of Concrete Research 57(7), pp. 383–395.

110
Lutz, L. A., and Gergely P. (1967): “Mechanics of Bond and Slip of Deformed Bars in
Concrete.” In ACI Journal Proceedings, Vol. 64(11).

Magnusson, J. (2000): “Bond and Anchorage of Ribbed Bars in High-Strength Concrete.”

Ph.D. Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.

McDonald, D. B., D. W. Pfeifer and M. R. Sherman (1998). Corrosion Evaluation of

Epoxy-coated, Metallic-Clad and Solid Metallic Reinforcing Bars in Concrete.

McLean VA, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-RD-98-176: 137 p

Michiakioyado, Toshiyuki Kanakabo, Akira Yasgima, Yuji Nakayama “ Pullout Test on

Bond Splitting property of Corroded Reinforced Concrete Member.

Mohamed Essili, (2017: “Control of Early Age Shrinkage Cracking in Reinforced Concrete
Decks”

Mohammad Tahershamsi, Structural Effects of Reinforcement Corrosion in Concrete

Structures,2016

Muhammad N.S. Hadi, University of Wollongong (2008) “Bond Strength of high strength
concrete with high strength reinforcing steel.

Nik Farhanim Binti Imran (2011). “Tensile Force and Bond Stress of Longitudinal
Reinforcement in Heavily Reinforced Concrete Beam.

Nilson, A. H., Darwin, D., and Dolan, C.W. (2009). Design of Concrete Structures. 14
Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Orangun, C.O., Jirsa, J. O., and Breen, J.E. (1975), “Strength of anchored bars: A re-
evaluation of test data on development length and splices.” Center of Highway Research,
University of Texas at Austin, Research report 154-3F.

Orangun, C.O., Jirsa, J.O., and Breen, J.E. (1997). “A Re-evaluation of the test Data on
Developmental Length and Splices” American Concrete Institute, 74(3),114-122

Patnaik, A., Adhikari, S., Bani-Bayat, P., and Robinson, P., Flexural Performance of
Concrete Beams Reinforced with Basalt FRP Bars, 3rd fib International Congress,
Washington, D.C., May 2010, pp. 3821–3833.
Patnaik, A., Baah, P., Ricciardi, P., and Khalifa, W., Reduction of Crack Widths in
Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks with Fiber Addition, ACI Special Publication SP # 319
“Reduction of Crack Widths with Fiber” (ISBN-13: 978-1-945487-68-2), Editors: Aldea,
C.M., and Ekenel, M., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, June 2017, No.
319-1, pp. 1-20.

111
Patnaik, A., Bajaj, S., Fox, E., and Payer, J., “Evaluation of Residual Strength of Corroded
Structural Steel Stiffened Panels”, NACE Corrosion Risk Management Conference,
NACE International, Houston, TX, May 23-25, 2016, 11 pages.
Patnaik, A., Bajaj, S., Fox, E., and Payer, J., “Residual Strength of Stiffened Structural
Steel Panels Subjected to Corrosion Damage”, Accepted, 2017 DoD - Allied Nations
Technical Corrosion Conference, August 7 - 10, 2017, Birmingham, Alabama.
Patnaik, A., Bajaj, S., Lewis, J., Payer, J., and Liang, R., “Improving Corrosion Resistance
of Steel Reinforced Concrete Through Fiber Addition”, NACE Concrete Service Life
Extension Conference, June 29-July 1, 2015, Philadelphia, PA, 15 pages.
Patnaik, A., Bajaj, S., Lewis, J., Payer, J., and Liang, R., “Improving Corrosion Resistance
of Steel Reinforced Concrete Through Fiber Addition”, NACE Concrete Service Life
Extension Conference, June 29-July 1, 2015, Philadelphia, PA, 15 pages.
Patnaik, A., Bajaj, S., Lewis, J., Payer, J., and Liang, R., “Retardation of Strength
Degradation of Reinforced Concrete due to Steel Bar Corrosion with Fiber Additions”,
DoD Corrosion Conference 2013, NACE International, Sept. 16-17, 2013, 14 pages.
Patnaik, A., Gao, Z., Liang, R., and Payer, J., “Corrosion Performance of Steel Reinforced
Concrete Slabs under Sustained Loading”, Corrosion 2017 NACE Conference, New
Orleans, LA, March 26-30, 2017.
Patnaik, A., Musa, A., Marchetty, S., and Liang, R., Full-Scale Testing and Performance
Evaluation of Rockfall Concrete Barriers, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 2522-03, 2015, DOI 10.3141/2522-03, pp. 27-36.
Patnaik, A.K. and Jain, S.K., Ductility Requirements in Indian Codes for Aseismic Design
of R.C.Frame Structures, Bulletin of the Indian Society of Earthquake Technology (The
Journal of ISET) Paper No. 272, Volume 26, No. 2, June 1989, pp 11-40. This paper was
given the Best Paper Award of the journal for 1989.
Patnaik, A.K., Behavior of Composite Concrete Beams with a Smooth Interface, Journal
of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, April 2001, Vol. 127 No.
4, pp. 359-366.
Patnaik, A.K., Bolton, D. and Jones, G., Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Penetration:
An overview, in Modern Materials in Maintenance, the Proceedings of a Seminar of the
Institute of Materials Engineering Australasia, October 1998: Published by IMEA, pp. 207-
221.
Patnaik, A.K., Discussion for Horizontal Shear Strength of Indirectly Loaded Composite
Concrete Beams, Paper by K.H. Tan, L.W. Guan, X. Lu, and T.Y. Lim, ACI Structural
Journal, American Concrete Institute, May-June 2000, 97(3):529.
Patnaik, A.K., Ganapuram, S., and Adams, M., “Quantification of Cracks in Concrete
Bridge Decks in Ohio District 3”, Final Report, FHWA/OH-2012/3, Ohio Department of
Transportation, Feb. 2012, 108 pages.

112
Patnaik, A.K., Longitudinal Shear Strength of Composite Concrete Beams with a Rough
Interface and no ties, Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, IEAust, 1999 V1(3):
pp. 157-166.
Patnaikuni, I., Thirugnanasundralingam, K., Vivekanandam, K., and Patnaik, A. K.,
Microcracking and Durability of High Performance Concrete, in Proceedings of
International Conference on Maintenance & Durability of Concrete Structures, March
1997, (Editors: P. Dayaratnam and N.V. Ramana Rao), Universities Press, India, pp. 13-
16.
Ramakrishnan, V., Zellar, R., and Patnaik, A.K., Plastic Shrinkage Reduction Potential of
a new High Tenacity Monofilament Polypropylene Fiber, in American Concrete Institute
ACI/CANMET Special Publication SP243 on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology -
Editor: V.M. Malhotra, May 2007, pp. 49-62.
Rangan, B. V. and Patnaik, A. K. (Editors), High Performance High Strength Concrete, the
Proceedings of the International Conference, Perth, Australia, August, 1998, ISBN: 1 863
42 2846, 739 pages.
Schweitzer, P. A. (2010). Fundamentals of Corrosion – Mechanisms, causes and preventive
methods. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis.

Srikanth Bajaj,University Of Akron, Akron, (2012), “Effect of corrosion on physical and

mechanical properties of reinforced concrete.”

Stanish, K., Hooton, R. D., and Pantazopoulou, S. J. (1999). “Corrosion effects on bond
strength in reinforced concrete.” ACI Structural Journal, 96(6), 915–921.

Stewart, M. G., and Al-Harthy A. (2008): “Pitting Corrosion and Structural Reliability of
Corroding RC Structures: Experimental Data and Probabilistic Analysis.” Reliability
Engineering & System Safety, Vo. 93(3), pp. 373–382.

Suo, Q., and Stewart, M. G. (2009). “Corrosion cracking prediction updating of

deteriorating RC structures using inspection information.” Reliability Engineering and
System Safety, 94(8), 1340–1348.

Tepfers, R. (1979): “Cracking of Concrete Cover along Anchored Deformed Reinforcing

Bars.” Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 31(106), pp. 3–12.

Torres-Acosta, A. A., Navarro-Gutierrez, S., and Terán-Guillén, J. (2007). “Residual

flexure capacity of corroded reinforced concrete beams.” Engineering Structures, 29(6),
1145–1152.

Treece R.A and Jirsa, J.O (1989), ACI materials Journal, 86(2)-167-174, “Bond strength
of epoxy coated reinforcing bars.”

US DOT, Materials and methods of corrosion control of reinforced and pre-stressed

concrete structures in new construction, 2000

113
Val, D. V., Chernin, L., and Stewart, M. G. (2009): “Experimental and Numerical
Investigation of Corrosion-Induced Cover Cracking in Reinforced Concrete Structures.”
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 135(4), pp. 376–385.

Vanderwalle, L. (1992): “Theoretical Prediction of the Ultimate Bond Strength between a

Reinforcement Bar and Concrete.” In International Conference: Bond in Concrete: from
Research to Practice, Proceedings Vol. 1,Vol. 1, 15-17 Oct., Riga, Latvia, pp. 1–8.

Wang, C. K., Salmon, C. G., and Pincheira, J. A. (2006). Reinforced Concrete Design. 7
Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Xia, N., Liang, R., Payer, J., and Patnaik, A., A Study of Concrete Behavior Due to Non-
Uniform Corrosion of Reinforcing Bars, 2011 DoD Corrosion Conference, NACE
International, Palm Springs, CA July-Aug. 2011, 12 pages.
Xia, N., Qingwen R., Liang, R.Y., Payer, J., Patnaik, A., Non-Uniform Corrosion Induced
Stresses in Steel Reinforced Concrete, ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 138,
No. 4, April 2012, pp. 338-346.

Xia, N., Qingwen R., Liang, R.Y., Payer, J., Patnaik, A., Non-Uniform Corrosion Induced
Stresses in Steel Reinforced Concrete, ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 138,
No. 4, April 2012, pp. 338-346.

Xiaolin Zhang, Xuebing Liang, Zeqiang Wang, Hancheng Huang, and Haijun Zhou
Department of civil Engineering, Shenzhen University, (2016). An Experimental Study on
Effect of Steel Corrosion on the Bond–Slip Performance of Reinforced Concrete
Yoon, S., Wang, K., Weiss, W. J., and Shah, S. P. (2000). “Interaction between loading,
corrosion and serviceability of reinforced concrete.” ACI Materials Journal, 97(6), 637-
644.

Yousif A Mansoor and Zhi Qiang Zhang,(2013) Department of Bridge and Tunnel
Engineering, Univeristy of Southwest Jiaotong, China. “ The Reinforcement Bond
Strength Behaviour under different corrosion condition”. ISSN 2040-7459, Eissn- 2040-
7467

Zandi Hanjari, K., (2010): “Structural Behaviour of Deteriorated Concrete Structures.”

Ph.D. Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Zandi Hanjari, K., Coronelli D., and Lundgren K. (2011): “Bond Capacity of Severely
Corroded Bars with Corroded Stirrups.” Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 63(12), pp.
953–968.

Zuo, J., and Darwin, D. (2000). “ Splice Strength of Conventional and High Relative Rib
Area Bars in Normal and High Strength Concrete.” ACI Structural Journal, 97(4),630-641

114
APPENDIX A

115
 Figure: A.1 shows load vs bar slip graph for non-corroded specimens, with and

without fibers, reinforced with black bars. For specimens with fiber, the peak load is

approximately 28% higher than specimens without fiber.

Black Non-Corroded
12000
10000
8000
Load (lbs)

6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Bar Slip (Inch)
Without fiber With fiber

Figure: A.1 Load vs Slip Graph- Black Non Corroded

The load vs slip graph for black corroded specimens, with and without fiber is

shown in Figure: A.2. The load carrying capacity increased by almost 35% in case of

specimens with fiber.

Black Corroded
12000
10000
8000
Load (lbs)

6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Bar Slip (Inches)
Without fiber With fiber

Figure: A.2 Load vs Slip Graph- Black Corroded

116
 Figure: A.3 demonstrates the load vs slip curve for non-corroded specimens, with

and without fiber, embedded with epoxy coated reinforcement bars. Use of polypropylene

fibers increased the peak load for specimens with fiber by 27%.

Epoxy coated Non-Corroded

12000

10000

8000
Load (lbs)

6000

4000

2000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Bar Slip (Inch)
Without fiber With fiber

Figure: A.3 Load vs Slip Graph- Epoxy Non Corroded

Figure: A.4 Gives load vs bar slip graph for corroded specimens, with and without

fibers, reinforced with epoxy coated bars. For specimens with fiber, the peak load is

approximately 37 % higher than specimens without fiber.

Epoxy Coated Corroded

12000
10000

8000
Load (lbs)

6000

4000

2000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Bar Slip (Inch)
Without fiber With fiber

Figure: A.4 Load vs Slip Graph- Epoxy Corroded

117
 Figure: A.5 demonstrates the load vs slip curve for non-corroded specimens, with

and without fiber, embedded with HDG reinforcement bars. Up to 35% increase in load

carrying capacity was observed with the use of polypropylene fibers.

HDG Non-Corroded
12000
10000
8000
Load (lbs)

6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Bar Slip (Inch)
Withour fiber With fiber

Figure: A.5 Load vs Slip Graph- HDG Non Corroded

Figure: A.6 Gives load vs bar slip graph for corroded specimens, with and without

fibers, reinforced with HDG bars. For specimens with fiber, the peak load increased by

42%.

HDG Corroded
12000
10000
8000
Load (lbs)

6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Bar Slip (Inch)
Without fiber With fiber

Figure: A.6 Load vs Slip Graph- HDG Corroded

118
 The load vs slip graph for non-corroded specimens embedded with stainless steel,

with and without fiber is shown in Figure: A.7. The peak load increased by almost 31% in

case of specimens with fiber.

Stainless Steel Non-Corroded

12000
10000
8000
Load (lbs)

6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Bar Slip (Inch)
Withour fiber With fiber

Figure: A.7 Load vs Slip Graph- Stainless Steel Non Corroded

The load vs slip graph for corroded specimens embedded with stainless steel

reinforcing bars, with and without fiber is shown in Figure: A.8. The peak load for

specimens with fiber increased by 37.5%.

12000
Stainless Steel Corroded
10000

8000
Load (lbs)

6000

4000

2000

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Bar Slip (Inch)
Without fiber With fiber

Figure: A.8 Load vs Slip Graph- Stainless Steel Corroded

Figure: A.9 Gives load vs bar slip graph for non-corroded specimens, with and without

119
fibers, reinforced with MMFX bars. For specimens with fiber, the peak load is

approximately 34 % higher than specimens without fiber.

MMFX Non-Corroded
12000

10000

8000
Load (lbs)

6000

4000

2000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Bar Slip (Inch)
Without fiber With fiber

Figure: A.9 Load vs Slip Graph- MMFX Non Corroded

Figure: A.10 Gives load vs bar slip graph for corroded specimens, with and without fibers,

reinforced with MMFX bars. For specimens with fiber, 40% rise in peak load was

observed.

MMFX Corroded
12000
10000
8000
Load(lbs)

6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Bar Slip (Inch)
Without fiber With Fiber

Figure: A.10 Load vs Slip Graph- MMFX Corroded

The load vs slip graph for corroded specimens embedded with CGR reinforcing bars, with

120
and without fiber is shown in Figure: A.11. The peak load for specimens with fiber

increased by 37%.

CGR Non Corroded

12000

10000

8000
Load (lbs)

6000

4000

2000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Bar Slip (Inch)
Without fiber With fiber

Figure: A.11 Load vs Slip Graph- CGR Non Corroded

Figure: A.12 gives load vs bar slip graph for corroded specimens, with and without

fibers, reinforced with HDG bars. For specimens with fiber, the peak load increased by

43%.

CGR Corroded
12000

10000

8000
Load(lbs)

6000

4000

2000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Bar Slip (Inch)
Without fiber With fiber

Figure: A.12 Load vs Slip Graph - CGR Corroded

121
122