Corrosion in TMT Rebar

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/344672254
TMT REBARS AND THEIR CORROSION IN RCC STRUCTURES
Preprint · October 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16322.81607
CITATIONS READS
0 8
1 author:
Rajbanul Akhond
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
13 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Low cost spray pyrolysis system View project
Al and Al alloys: casting, applications View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Rajbanul Akhond on 15 October 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

TMT REBARS AND THEIR
CORROSION IN RCC
STRUCTURES
A report on corrosion process in RCC structures, effect of thermomechanical
treatment on rebar corrosion, case studies and many more
October 3, 2020
Rajbanul Akhond
1511050
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Why reinforcement?.................................................................................................................... 1
Prestressed concrete .................................................................................................................... 3
Effect of Reinforcement Corrosion ............................................................................................. 4
Corrosion in Rebar: Causes & Effects ............................................................................................ 5
Factors ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Main Causes ................................................................................................................................ 9
Chloride Ions ........................................................................................................................... 9
Carbonation ........................................................................................................................... 11
Corrosion in TMT rebar ................................................................................................................ 12
What is TMT rebar? .................................................................................................................. 13
Corrosion process...................................................................................................................... 14
Comparison ............................................................................................................................... 15
Effect of non-conformity .......................................................................................................... 16
Poor quality rebar .................................................................................................................. 16
Coupling effect...................................................................................................................... 18
Case Studies .................................................................................................................................. 20
Case study 1: I-395 HOV over Potomac River ......................................................................... 20
Case study 2: Salt silo ............................................................................................................... 23
Remedies ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Prevention ................................................................................................................................. 28
Protection .................................................................................................................................. 30
Inspection .................................................................................................................................. 31
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 32
References ..................................................................................................................................... 33
TMT Rebars and their corrosion in RCC structures |1
Introduction
Nearly everyone involved in construction knows that reinforcement is often used in concrete.
However, why it is used and how it is used are not always well understood. This report provides
some of the information important to understanding why reinforcement is placed in concrete. Most
concrete used for construction is a combination of concrete and reinforcement that is called
reinforced concrete. Steel is the most common material used as reinforcement, but other materials
such as fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) are also used. The reinforcement must be of the right kind,
of the right amount, and in the right place for the concrete structure to meet its requirements for
strength and serviceability. And knowledge about their corrosion behavior and effect of different
treatment (e.g. thermomechanical) on it is also necessary for a long-lasting structure.
Why reinforcement?
Plain concrete (Fig. 1) has compressive strength—the ability to resist crushing loads; however, its
tensile strength is only about 10% of its compressive strength. Its tensile strength is so low that it
is nearly disregarded in design of most concrete structures. Reinforced concrete is a combination
of adequate reinforcement (usually steel bars with raised lugs called deformations) and concrete
designed to work together to resist applied loads (Fig. 1). Properly placed reinforcement in
concrete improves its compressive and tensile strength.
Fig. 1—Examples of plain and reinforced concrete: plain curb and gutter (left) and reinforced
concrete T-beam (right) [1].
Many structural members are required to carry loads that cause bending stresses. An example is a
simply supported beam, in which the top of the member is subjected to compression lengthwise
while the bottom is subjected to tension lengthwise (Fig. 2(a)). This is referred to as beam action
and can be illustrated by supporting a board at each end and breaking it by applying a heavy load
to the center. If the board is loaded at each end and supported in the middle, as in a cantilevered
beam, the top of the board over the support is in tension and the bottom is in compression (Fig.
2(b)). Unreinforced concrete structural members have little capacity for beam action because
concrete’s low tensile strength provides little resistance to the tensile stress in the tension side of
the member. This is one of the most important functions of reinforcement in concrete members—
to resist the tension in these members due to beam action (Fig. 3(a)).
a) b)
Fig. 2—(a) A simple beam loaded in the middle and supported at the ends will tend to deflect or
bend down in the middle, causing tensile stress in the bottom of the beam and tending to pull it
apart. (b) If the beam is supported in the middle and the ends are loaded (as in a cantilever beam,
such as a balcony), the top of the beam over the support is in tension and will pull apart or crack
if there is no reinforcing steel near the top of the beam [1].
Steel is remarkably well- suited for concrete reinforcement because it has high tensile strength,
and therefore relatively small amounts are required. Also, concrete bonds to steel, and both expand
and contract to about the same degree with temperature changes. The good bond between concrete
and steel allows an effective transfer of stress or load between the steel and concrete so both
materials act together in resisting beam action. For these reasons, steel is the most common
material used to reinforce concrete. However, other materials such as Fiber-reinforced concrete
(FRC) are also used for reinforcement. Though, they perform two different types of action,
Steel Rebar: to support overall tensile load.
FRC: to support local tensile load.
a) b)
Fig. 3—(a) Properly placed reinforcement in this cantilever beam will resist tension and control
cracking. (b) Incorrectly placed or missing reinforcement is not effective in resisting tension and
will allow uncontrolled cracking in the beam [1].
Many structural members must perform like a beam to fulfill their function in the structure. Among
such concrete structural members are beams, girders, joists, structural slabs of all kinds, some
columns, walls that must resist lateral loads, and more complex members such as folded plates,
arches, barrels, and domes. In addition to unintentional omission of part or all the reinforcement,
improper placement of the reinforcement designed to resist tension is one of the most common
causes of structural concrete failures (Fig. 3(b)). If the tensile steel is not properly placed in the
tension zone of a structural member, it will not be effective in resisting tension, and failure may
occur [1].
Prestressed concrete
Prestressed concrete is structural concrete in which internal stresses have been introduced to reduce
potential tensile stresses in the concrete resulting from loads. This introduction of internal stresses
is called prestressing and is usually accomplished using tendons that are tensioned or pulled tight
prior to being anchored to the concrete. Tendons can consist of strands, wires, cables, bars, rods,
or bundles of such elements.
Fig. 4—In a prestressed simple beam, the prestressing steel is placed near the bottom of the beam,
just like regular reinforcing steel. But in the prestressed beam, the prestressing causes the unloaded
beam to bend upward in the middle, opposite to the downward bending caused by the applied load.
The combined effect is a beam that bends less, and therefore cracks less, under load [1].
As with reinforced concrete members, the most common type of prestressed members is bending
members or beams. The tendons in prestressed concrete beams, like the non-prestressed
reinforcement in reinforced concrete beams, are placed near the top or bottom of the beam where
the applied loads will cause tension. For example, in a beam spanning between two supports
carrying a load in the middle, the load would cause tension at the bottom of the beam, so the
tendons would be placed near the bottom of the beam to resist this tension (Fig. 4). Similarly, in a
beam supported at the center and loaded at the ends, the loads would cause tension on the top part
of the beam, so the tendons would be placed near the top of the beam to resist this tension. The
difference between the reinforced concrete beams and the prestressed concrete beams in these
examples is that, in the non-prestressed beams, the reinforcement is not subjected to tension until
the beam is loaded, whereas in the prestressed beam, the tendons are tensioned before the beam is
loaded. By tensioning the tendons before loading the beam, the concrete on the side of the beam
with the tendons is squeezed or compressed. When the beam is loaded, the tension in the concrete
caused by the load is offset by the compression caused by the prestress [1].
Effect of Reinforcement Corrosion

Bridges and highways are a core component of any country’s or region’s transportation system. In
the United States, they comprise the largest public infrastructure system, consisting of
approximately 583,000 bridges and 6.3 million kilometers (3.9 million miles) of public roads.
Approximately 200,000 of those bridges are constructed of steel, 235,000 of conventionally
reinforced concrete, 108,000 of prestressed concrete, and the balance constructed with other
materials. These roads and highways range from quite primitive pavements with earth, gravel, or
stone covered by a thin bituminous surface course to a continually reinforced portland cement
concrete (PCC) roadway with or without a bituminous wear course.
Bridges and reinforced PCC roadways suffer from corrosion, and the cost of that corrosion is
staggering. In the United States alone, a 2002 study reported annual direct corrosion costs of $8.3
billion. Those costs included $3.8 billion for bridge replacement, $2 billion for bridge decks, $2
billion to repair concrete substructures, and $0.5 billion for maintenance coating of steel elements.
Estimates of indirect costs to the bridge user, from traffic delay, detours, and lost productivity,
were ten times the direct costs [2].
Corrosion in Rebar: Causes & Effects

Corrosion is an oxidation and reduction reactions comparable to a battery cell. There are four
prerequisite components for corrosion to happen, they are:
1) Anode: it corrodes
2) Cathode
3) Electrolyte
4) Electrical path
Presence of all these four elements causes the corrosion of a component and to prevent corrosion
we have remove any one of the elements from above.
The corrosion rate of mild and low-alloy steels typically employed as reinforcement in concrete is
very low at high pH, because the metals form stable oxide layers and exhibit behavior like that of
stainless steels. This behavior is known as passivation. If the normal high pH of the concrete is
lost, then corrosion can occur. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can do this through a process
known as carbonation. Certain ions, such as chloride, are aggressive toward steel. If the
concentration of an aggressive ion at the surface of the steel reaches a threshold level, corrosion
will commence. The exact threshold level concentration is a function of the ion concentrations,
pH, and oxygen availability. A typical corroding area on a reinforcing bar is shown in Fig. 5(a).
Corrosion occurs at the anode. The metal does not corrode at cathodic areas. A cross section of
Fig. 5(a) is shown in Fig. 5(b). Note that corrosion is typically observed in the 10 to 2 o’clock
position relative to the surface, with the rebar areas at greater depth continuing to manifest passive
behavior. An electrical circuit analog of this corroding area is shown in Fig. 5(c).
Fig. 5—Corrosion in rebar. (a) Flow of corrosion current in the reinforcement rod. (b) Cross
section of corroding rebar. (c) Electrical circuit analog of corroding rebar [2].
When aggressive ions reach the surface of the reinforcement, or if pH is reduced, the steel loses
its passive protection and corrodes. The resulting corrosion product occupies greater volume than
the parent metal, with variations due to oxidation state and amount of water included in the final
product. The corrosion in concrete generally follows a two-step process, shown in Eq. 1 and 2:
Fe0→Fe2++2e- (ferrous) … .. .. (Eq. 1)
Fe2+→Fe3++1e- (ferric) … .. .. (Eq. 2)
In oxygenated concrete, the insoluble corrosion products collect at the reinforcement concrete
surface. Hydration also often occurs. As Fig. 6 shows, these hydrated corrosion products occupy
significantly more volume than the parent metal.
Fig. 6—Comparison of the unit volumes of steel and its corrosion products [2].
This increase in volume, which is restrained by the presence of the rebar, leads to the development
of tensile hoop stresses in the surrounding concrete (Fig. 7a). Concrete is quite strong in
compression but has tensile strength that typically runs only 10 to 15% of its compressive strength.
Because of this limited tensile strength, the concrete cracks to relieve the tensile hoop stresses
generated by the expansive corrosion products. The failure mode depends on the strength of the
concrete, the depth of concrete cover over the reinforcement, and the spacing between the bars. If
there is shallow concrete cover and/or wide spacing of the reinforcement, then vertical cracks form
to relieve the corrosion-initiated stress (Fig. 7b).
Fig. 7—Expansive corrosion products from rebar generate stress in concrete. (a) Tensile hoop
stresses develop adjacent to the corroded steel. (b) Wide bar spacing and/or shallow cover favor
formation of vertical cracks to relieve the stress created by the expansive corrosion products. (c)
Close bar spacing and/or deep cover favor formation of a delamination plane to relieve the stress
created by expansive corrosion products [2].
When the reinforcement is more closely spaced or is overlain with a greater depth of concrete
cover, the stress relieving cracks will run through the concrete from bar to bar, forming what is
known as a delamination plane (Fig. 7c).
Continued general corrosion of the reinforcement, or mechanical action such as from traffic, can
dislodge some or all the delaminated concrete, creating a spall or pothole. Often, section loss of
the steel reinforcement is quite modest until the loss of concrete bond and/or cover. Therefore, the
initial problems associated with general corrosion of steel embedded in concrete derive from
damage of the concrete rather than a reduction of reinforcement cross section. Some corrosion-
related problems, such as cracking, rust staining, or spalls, are visually obvious. Delamination,
which may not be visually apparent, are typically identified through traditional sounding
techniques.
From the above discussion two important components of RCC rebar corrosion prevention can be
identified and they are, concrete cover and reinforcement passivation. For completeness, these two
important topics are discussed briefly.
Concrete Covers. One of the principal methods of preventing corrosion related problems has been
to place cover concrete of sufficient quality and thickness over the steel to dramatically reduce any
infiltration of chloride or CO2 to the steel surface. Because of the diffusion-controlled nature of
this infiltration, the depth and permeability of the material have a significant effect on the time at
which sufficient chloride or CO2 reaches the steel surface to allow corrosion to initiate and
propagate. The first step in preventing reinforcing steel corrosion is to ensure adequate concrete
depth (typically 50 mm, or 2 in.) over the steel and to use as low a water-to-cement ratio as feasible
to promote impermeability within the concrete.
Reinforcement Passivation. The environment provided by good-quality concrete to steel
reinforcement is one of high alkalinity due to the presence of the hydroxides of sodium, potassium,
and calcium produced during the hydration reactions. Sound concrete gives a pH value higher than
13.0. In such an environment, steel is protected by passive oxide films.
The standard ASTM C 876-91 gives electrochemical means of predicting corrosion of reinforcing
steel in concrete [3]. The criteria for corrosion are given as follows when the electrode potential
of the reinforcing steel (E) is measured in volts referenced to the copper/copper sulfate electrode
(VCSE):
Table 1—Interpretation of corrosion potential data [2]
It should be noted that the protection is achieved only when the electrode potential is higher than
a critical value, which contrasts the case of protection of steel in seawater or soil where protection
is attained at potentials below a critical value. This reflects the passive nature of the uncorroded
steel surface in concrete. Corrosion starts on the reinforcement if the passive film is removed or
depassivated by the reduced alkalinity of its surroundings or by the attack of chloride ions. The
former is caused by the neutralization action of mortar by carbon dioxide in air, by which calcium
hydroxide in concrete is transformed into calcium carbonate. The depth of carbonation in a
structure can be established using a phenolphthalein indicator on the freshly exposed material [2].
Factors
Reinforced concrete is a heterogeneous composite material. Concrete affords corrosion protection
for reinforcing steels by providing a physical barrier to the surrounding environment. In acting as
a barrier coating, concrete provides shielding from aggressive ions such as chlorides. Concrete
also acts as a barrier to oxygen, reducing its availability at the surface of the metal. However, the
cement paste that binds concrete is a porous barrier. Actions taken that impede the ability of a
concrete to transport ions will improve the ability of the concrete to protect embedded
reinforcement.
Although ubiquitous, concrete is a complex
mixture of solid materials and voids whose
chemistry and geometry greatly influence the
corrosion behavior of embedded metals. It is
comprised of sand and gravel bound in a
cementitious matrix. The sand and gravel
contained in concrete are known respectively
as fine and coarse aggregate. The cement
binder can be portland cement, activated blast
furnace slag cement, or blends of portland
cement and slag cements. Mineral admixtures
may also be added to the cementitious matrix
to improve corrosion resistance and as
sustainable engineering practice.
In concrete, transport mechanisms frequently
dominate the corrosion behavior of embedded
metals. The observed corrosion rate is often
under cathodic control governed by oxygen
migration from the concrete surface to the
surface of the embedded reinforcement. Fig. 8—Factors involved in corrosion of
metals embedded in concrete [2].
Figure 8 shows key factors that impact the corrosion of metals embedded in concrete. Only the
microclimate is included in this graphic; for large structures, macroclimate effects impact the entire
structure, not just different structural elements, or elements with isolated conditions. The observed
corrosion of steel in concrete often derives from the influence of multiple factors, as shown in Fig.
8, with different processes dominating at different scales. Transport in concrete principally occurs
in pores and voids contained within the concrete. The scale of these voids runs from a few
nanometers for interparticle spacing to a few millimeters for entrapped air voids. That is a range
of almost 7 orders of magnitude and is comparable in range to comparing an object the size of a
basketball to another the size of the moon. That range of scales impacts reactant transport and
hence corrosion. To properly resolve corrosion issues of reinforcement requires learning why
concrete is more than an inert sponge that simply surrounds the metal [2].
Main Causes
Several aggressive ions are involved in reinforcement corrosion. Most significant in terms of
widely observed damage are chlorides, carbon dioxide, and sulfates. These ions can directly
destabilize the protective passive oxide layer on the surface of the steel, or indirectly destabilize
that layer by reducing the pore water pH or by attacking the protective concrete and thereby
exposing the embedded reinforcement to a more corrosive environment.
Chloride Ions
The passive layer that protects steel in concrete can be destabilized by chloride ions. The threshold
at which normal low-alloy steel reinforcement, such as ASTM A706, will lose passivity depends
on pH. Once passivity is lost, the observed corrosion rate is typically most influenced by the
permeability of the surrounding concrete to oxygen, the moisture content of the concrete
(resistivity), and the ambient temperature. Because of variations in cements, concretes, and local
conditions, it is difficult to provide a single, specific chloride ion concentration at the rebar surface
that is the global corrosion threshold.
Chloride ion contamination of concrete characteristically follows one or more of four paths. First
is contamination from saltwater for reinforced concrete structures exposed to or submerged in
marine environments. Second is contamination from chloride ions present in the soils or fill
surrounding buried or partially buried structures. Third is from deicers used on highways and
bridges. The fourth is from the initial concrete mix, where chloride-bearing accelerators and
chloride-contaminated aggregate and/or mix water is used. For the first three paths, chloride ions
enter the concrete at an exposed surface. Depending on the exposure, the chloride ion transport
may occur through capillary action, diffusion, or hydraulic effects. For atmospherically exposed
concrete, the pores of concrete within 12 to 25 mm (0.5 to 1.0 in.) of the surface may not be
saturated with water. It is common for this area to be exposed to alternating periods of wetting and
drying. Capillary action is often the dominant transport mechanism in this near-surface area.
Deeper into the concrete, the moisture content is generally not as dynamic, so diffusion is normally
the dominant transport mechanism. Figure 9 shows a typical profile of chloride ion concentration
as a function of depth into atmospherically exposed concrete. Note how capillary action dominates
near the surface and, as shown, how washing by the rain can sometimes lead to the highest chloride
T M T R e b a r s a n d t h e i r c o r r o s i o n i n R C C s t r u c t u r e s | 10
concentration being a short distance into the concrete rather than at the surface (closest to the
chloride ion source). At depth, diffusion is shown to dominate in Fig. 9. Binding between the
chloride ions and cement hydration products can affect the rate of chloride ion transport. That said,
observations by numerous works show that after the first 12 to 25 mm (0.5 to 1.0 in.), the chloride
profiles fit well with diffusion models.
Fig. 9—Chloride profile showing capillary effects near the surface and diffusion at depth [2].
In case of localized corrosion Cl ions play an important role. At extreme high tides or during
storms, the structure containing cracks would be wetted with saltwater splash. The narrow crack
wicked chlorides rapidly to the level of the reinforcement. This fact kept the chloride ions available
for corrosion activation, iron transport, and hydrolysis. Consequently, soluble corrosion ferrous
ions (Eq. 1) were transported from the steel surface. A schematic of the corrosion process is shown
in Fig. 10(a). Here, iron from the steel reinforcement goes into solution as Fe2+. The ferrous ion
can move away from the surface of the parent steel as a soluble hydroxide or as a chloride complex.
a) b)
Fig. 10—(a) Schematic of localized corrosion with adjacent cathode. (b) Localized full-section
corrosion failure with remote cathode [2].
Completion of the oxidation process, and formation of voluminous red rust corrosion products
(Eq. 2), occurs either at the concrete surface (the crack opening) or in concrete pores (Fe2+→Fe3+).
The differential in chloride concentrations allows steel exposed to the crack to be the anode and
metal exposed to the adjacent chloride-free concrete to be the cathode. Being able to transport
reduced iron, or its chloride complexes, from the corroding surface allows entrained air and voids
in the concrete to provide locations that can accommodate the formation of relatively large red rust
hydrated corrosion product. This dispersal of the corrosion products avoids developing tensile
hoop stresses at the reinforcement surface and subsequent cracking, spalling, and delamination of
the concrete.
A situation like the bridge cap beam can occur on retaining walls and tunnels. Figure 10(b) shows
a localized corrosion failure that occurred at a cold joint in a retaining wall with a double mat of
reinforcement. One face of the retaining wall was exposed to chloride-contaminated fill, while the
other face was exposed to the atmosphere. Chloride ions migrated along the cold joint to the layer
of reinforcement closest to the fill and became the anode in the distinct macrocell. The cathode
was the mat of reinforcing steel that was closest to the atmospherically exposed surface and had a
higher oxygen concentration [2].
Carbonation
Carbon dioxide is a normal constituent of the air surrounding reinforced concrete structures. It
readily dissolves in water to produce carbonic acid. Rainwater typically contains sufficient carbon
dioxide to reduce its pH to approximately 5.6. In some areas, industrial sources or burning of
vegetation or agriculture can introduce pollutants such as SO2 and NOx, which can reduce the pH
even further [2]. Figure 1 depicts the effects of carbonation on the life of a reinforced concrete
structural element. In a first stage, the steel reinforcement is passive, and no corrosion takes place.
However, carbonation penetrates the concrete cover, beginning from the concrete surface.
Corrosion then initiates when the carbonation front reaches the steel reinforcement, even though
it does not in itself affect the serviceability or the stability of the structure.
Fig. 11—Evolution in time of the degradation due to carbonation-induced corrosion [4].

Carbonation can influence corrosion of steel reinforcement in several ways. First, carbon dioxide
will react with lime, forming insoluble calcium carbonate. This reaction lowers the pore water pH,
and that reduction can destabilize passivation. Precipitation of calcium carbonate can self-limit
carbonation by effectively blocking pores in the cement. Corrosion initiation is a critical time in
the life of the structure. In fact, the depassivated steel becomes susceptible to corrosion with a rate
that depends on environmental factors. In time, corrosion products will cause cracking, spalling
and delamination of the concrete cover, which may compromise the serviceability and the stability
of the structure. Recently it has been proposed to consider these phenomena, as well as corrosion
initiation, as time-dependent limit states in the structural design [4].
Corrosion in TMT rebar

Enhancement of rebar strength is generally achieved by three processes:
(i) Cold working (CTD),
(ii) Thermo mechanical treatment (TMT), and
(iii) Micro alloying.
The first process may be viewed as post rolling process while the second one is a part of rolling
process and the third one is associated with the billet production process. Typical cross sections of
Mild steel (MS), CTD and TMT rebars are shown in Fig 1. For engineering a sound and durable
concrete structure, it is essential to use reinforcement of appropriate characteristics and quality.
Fig. 12—Typical cross sections of MS, CTD and TMT rebars [5].
The technology of producing CTD bars had been introduced in mechanized cooling bed across the
country for a long time. Proper equipment, manpower and overall good quality of raw material are
necessary for achieving appropriate quality of CTD bars. The effects of process parameters are
established. For example, tensile strength can be controlled by pitch of the twist. The limitation of
the process is that it cannot produce bars below 8 mm diameter.
For the TMT process, rolling mill with automatic cooling bed is essential. Proper control during
cooling of the rebars is essential to ensure the quality of the finished products. Good quality of raw
material (billet) and skilled manpower are of course the prerequisites for producing TMT bars of
desired quality. The effect of process parameters on its characteristics are yet to be established.
Corrosion resistance of TMT bars is claimed to be better than that of the CTD. TMT rebars are
more ductile and have better capability to withstand dynamic loading as their elongation is
expected to be better at higher strengths. However, their fire resistance property is still in
experimental stage.
In micro alloying process, strengthening micro alloys like Niobium (Nb), Vanadium (V), Boron
(B) and Titanium (Ti) are added during the production of billet. When individual ingredient or
combination does not exceed 0.3 percent, the strength of rebars is increased. Other properties
depend on other ingredients as usual [5].
What is TMT rebar?
Fig. 13—Cross sectional images of the TMT reinforcing bar: a) whole cross-sectional view; b)
microstructure of the core of the bar; c) microstructure of the transition region; d) microstructure
of the outer region of the bar [6].
In Fig. 13, optical microscopy images corresponding to etched cross-sections of the TMT bars can
be observed. In Fig. 13a, the outer case -with a clearly darker microstructure after the attack- can
be easily distinguished from the inner region of the corrugated bar. In Fig. 13b, obtained at higher
magnifications, it can be checked that the inner core of the bar is formed by ferrite and perlite, and
which has been cooled from the austenitic state at a slow enough cooling rate. Fig. 13c shows the
transition region between the core and the outer case. The thickness of the transition interlayer
seems to be much reduced, which suggests that the quenching procedure to form the outer layer
has been carried out adequately. The presence of bainite in this interlayer has been often mentioned
in previous literature, but other authors have neither found noticeable bainite in the microstructure
of the bars nor have predicted its presence by the modeling of the TMT process. The microstructure
observed in the transition zone is compatible with ferritic and pearlitic phases, which close to the
martensite case would become finer -with a smaller grain size- than in the bulk of the bar (Fig.
3b). In Fig. 3d, the typical microstructure of martensite, obtained by the quenching and tempering
of the surface during bar manufacture, can be observed [6].
Corrosion process
The microstructure characteristic of TMT affects the development of the pits in concrete or
simulated pore solutions with chlorides. The galvanic coupling between the martensite and the
ferrite-pearlite in solution tests proves that the martensite tends to act as anode and the ferrite-
perlite as cathode. The anodic semi reaction of the martensite is more hindered than the cathodic
one in the testing solution, so a small increase in the cathodic surface that a pit reaching to the core
would imply, does not cause a meaningful increase in the corrosion rate of the outer case. The
charge transfer inside the pores is the most determining phenomenon for the corrosion rate, but
there exists a mixed control. The influence of the diffusion impedance through the oxide layer
should also be considered. Results obtained in concrete prove that the depth of the attack is
determined by the microstructure of the TMT bars. Once the corrosion has reached the ferritic-
pearlitic core, the attack tends to progress mainly by pit widening until the volume of the pit is
very large and/or the concrete cover cracks. The micrograph in Fig. 14, corresponding to one of
the pits, allow to verify that the attack tends to initially develop through the martensite, forming a
slightly jagged surface on this phase due to the attack. When the corrosion reaches the thin
interlayer formed between the martensite and the ferritic and pearlitic region, the deepening of the
attack seems restrained and the bottom of the pit becomes smother [6].
Fig. 14—Cross sectional views of pits generated in bars embedded in a chloride contaminated
concrete slab [6].
Comparison
The results of the three different types of corrosion tests unambiguously demonstrate the superior
corrosion characteristics of TMT rebars compared to CTD rebars. The corrosion rates of CTD
rebars were found to be 8.4 to 52% higher than TMT rebars, depending on the nature of the test
and the type of TMT rebar. Among the different varieties of TMT rebars tested, the
copper/chromium-beating bars exhibited superior corrosion resistance and the lowest corrosion
rates. The CTD rebars, despite their lower YS level (415 MPa), displayed corrosion rates
significantly higher than the higher YS grade (500 MPa) Cu-Cr TMT bars--to the extent of 37.5 to
52% in various tests. The Cu-TMT rebars exhibited slightly better corrosion resistance than the
PC-TMT rebars, but were inferior to the Cu-Cr-TMT rebars (Table 2).
In general, the corrosion rates experienced in the potentiodynamic test were higher than in the salt-
spray or immersion tests. In electrochemical tests involving potentiodynamic measurements,
accelerated corrosion is induced by making the rebar initially cathodic and then anodic by
imposing an external potential. For Cu-Cr-TMT rebars, the surface becomes covered with a
protective layer of chromium oxide film due to preferential oxidation of chromium by the nascent
oxygen evolved at the anode. In contrast, the CTD rebar surface does not become covered with a
protective film and therefore exhibits a higher corrosion rate. The Cu-TMT rebars perform better
than CTD rebars by virtue of the ability of copper to lower the activity of iron at the surface and
because the rust on copper-bearing steels is sufficiently compact to eventually retard the rate of
corrosion.
Table 2—Corrosion characteristics TMT and CTD rebars [7]
It is interesting to observe that lower YS grade CTD rebars exhibit higher corrosion rates than
untwisted TMT rebars of higher YS levels. Higher carbon and manganese contents in CTD rebars
induce greater heterogeneity in the microstructure; the resulting increased pearlite volume fraction
enhances the tendency for electrochemical cell formation. Further, the presence of surface
torsional stresses on CTD rebars induces a higher corrosion rate. Besides, low-alloy TMT rebars
containing either copper or copper, chromium, and nickel have better corrosion resistance by virtue
of their intrinsic nature.
Laboratory corrosion tests (salt spray, immersion, and potentiodynamic) clearly indicated that the
corrosion rates increase in this order: Cu-Cr~ Cu-TMT, PC-TMT, and CTD rebars. The low-alloy
TMT grades (copper-bearing and copper/chromium-bearing) were found to be 1.13 to 1.52 times
more corrosion resistant than CTD rebars, depending on the type of test, whereas the PC-TMT
rebars were 1.08 to 1.12 times more corrosion resistant than CTD rebars. The CTD rebar exhibited
the poorest corrosion behavior due to its higher carbon and manganese contents, as well as the
presence of surface torsional stresses. Among the TMT rebars, the Cu-Cr-TMT type had the best
corrosion characteristics in view of the roles of copper, chromium, and nickel in inhibiting
corrosion (Table 2) [7].
Effect of non-conformity
From the discussion of the previous sections it is obvious that TMT rebars show superior corrosion
resistant to other types of rebar, specially with added alloying elements. However, if the process
parameters of TMT rebar production are not controlled adequately and TMT rebars are not used
in RCC structures maintaining necessary safety standards they can perform rather poorly even in
comparison to other inferior rebars.
Poor quality rebar
Quenched and Self-Tempered (QST) steel reinforcing bar (rebar, herein) is widely used in the
reinforced concrete (RC) systems across the world. A typical QST steel rebar cross-section
consists of a ductile ‘ferrite-pearlite’ (FP) core and a hard ‘tempered-martensite’ (TM) periphery.
A good quality QST steel rebar is expected to have an FP core encircled by a uniformly thick,
continuous, and concentric TM ring/phase. This study [8] assessed the cross-sectional phase
distribution (CSPD) of QST steel rebars produced in various countries using macro-etching. These
countries include Australia, Bahrain, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Russia,
Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Switzerland. Unfortunately, many rebars with 8, 12, and 16 mm
diameter revealed inadequate CSPD with discontinuous and/or nonuniform TM phase. Also, the
adverse effects of this inadequate CSPD on the corrosion resistance were evaluated using Cyclic
Potentiodynamic Polarization (CPP) tests.
The defects in the peripheral TM-phase in a poor quality QST steel rebar can be broadly classified
into discontinuities (Fig. 15(a)) and eccentricities (Fig. 15(b)). In this context, a QST steel rebar
with a uniformly thick and continuous TM-ring (i.e., adequate CSPD) is considered as a ‘good’
quality rebar. In contrast, a rebar with a defective TM-ring (inadequate CSPD) is considered as a
‘poor’ quality rebar.
Fig. 15—Poor quality rebars exhibiting (a) discontinuous and (b) eccentric TM phase [8].
Fig. 16 gives the TM-FP phase distribution of the milled longitudinal section. The cross-section at
one end of the milled piece is also shown (top left of the figure). The top edge (one side of the
rebar in Fig. 13) seems to have a uniform thickness along the full length. However, the thickness
of TM phase is zero at discrete regions and vary along the length in the bottom edge (opposite
side), marked by the adjacent double-headed dashed lines. Hence, it can be concluded that it is not
necessary that a consistent cross-section (adequate/inadequate) is present along the full length of
a poor quality QST steel rebar – essentially due to improper quenching during the manufacturing.
This could result in exposed FP regions (red dashed region) which could potentially be a threat in
terms of the corrosion susceptibility.
Fig. 16—Variation of TM phase along the length of a 12 mm diameter and 150 mm long poor-
quality rebar [8].
The effect of poor-quality control on the corrosion resistance of TMT/QST steel rebars is shown
in this study. The macrostructural observations from market-available rebars and novel test
procedures to quantify the quality in terms of tempered martensitic area and chloride threshold has
been discussed. The primary conclusions of this study are as follows.
1) Discontinuities in TM phase could occur under improper quenching. The presence of defective
TM-phase was observed in many cases, predominantly in rebars of lower diameter. It was also
found that the CSPD could vary along the length of a poor quality QST steel rebar. The cross-
sectional image analysis of good quality QST steel rebars showed that TM constitutes a 35–45%
of the total area of cross-section.
2) The effect of these TM-phase defects on the potential localized corrosion was based on CPP
test results at incremental Cl- concentrations. It is concluded that ferrite-pearlite (FP) is more
susceptible to pitting corrosion than TM. FP is recorded to have a 11% and 16% lesser Cl- threshold
(Clth) values than TM, at Meta-Stable Pitting (MSP) and Stable Pitting (SP), respectively. Hence,
in the presence of a discontinuity, there could be a preferential pitting at a lower Cl- level (on FP)
when compared to the Clth in a case with continuous TM-phase. This shows a 20% reduction in
the service life between RC embedded with good quality and poor-quality steel.
3) The bent tests on poor quality QST steel rebars showed visible cracks, which could result in
crevice corrosion. The mechanism behind the crack formation in a poor quality QST steel rebar
under bending need to be studied for further information.
Hence, it is concluded that better quality control in the quenching of QST steel rebars is essential
to ensure corrosion resistance of steel in marine and Cl- rich environments. If poor quality QST
steel rebars are used, suitable consideration (differential chloride threshold reported under poor
quality control) should be given while estimating the service life to account for the early corrosion
initiation.
Coupling effect
This study [9] investigated the electrochemical behavior of two carbon steels with different
microstructures, i.e. thermomechanical treated (TMT) steel and conventional steel, and the
influence of galvanic coupling between them on their corrosion performance in simulated concrete
pore solution. The specimens were immersed in the chloride-free pore solution for 30 days and
then 3% by weight of NaCl was added to the solution. The specimens were then kept in the
chloride-contaminated solution for 50 days. The corrosion resistance of the specimens was
assessed by different electrochemical measurement techniques. An increase in the overall
corrosion was observed in the coupled specimens compared to the individual specimens.
Three cells with three bars in each one were used in this experiment. One cell contained three bar
of steel A, one cell contained three bars of steel B, and the last cell had tree coupled bars of A and
B. Fig. 17, schematically shows the measurement cells.
Fig. 17—Schematic illustration of the measurement cells with (a) three specimens made with TMT
(steel A) bars; (b) three specimens made with conventional (steel B) bars; and (c) coupled bars [9].
The galvanic connection between thermomechanical treated steel (steel A) and conventional steel
(steel B) in chloride contaminated concrete pore solution led to significant increase in the corrosion
activity of the steel specimens. Individual thermomechanical treated steel specimens showed
superior corrosion resistance compared to the conventional steel specimens.
When coupled, the conventional steel showed better passivation compared to the
thermomechanical treated steel in chloride free pore solution; In chloride-contaminated pore
solution, when thermomechanical treated steel was coupled with the conventional steel, they
became the anode and their corrosion activity increased compared to the conventional steel.
Morphology of corrosion products of both steels was similar. However, the corrosion products
formed on the thermomechanical treated steel was mostly fragmented (Fig. 18) while the
conventional steel showed relatively continuous corrosion products.
Fig. 18—Optical micrograph of corroded surfaces of one of the specimens of (a) steel A in the
individual cell, (b) steel A in the coupled cell, (c) SEM image of steel A in the individual, and (d)
SEM image from a pit on the surface of steel A in the coupled cell [9].
Case Studies
Two case studies, I-395 HOV bridge [10] and salt silo [11] respectively, are presented below to
better understand the corrosion process of rebars in RCC structures and how to inspect and
investigate corrosion related cases.
Case study 1: I-395 HOV over Potomac River
Fig. 19—I-395 HOV bridge over Potomac River at Washington DC [10].

The primary cause of reinforced concrete corrosion is due to the exposure of the imbedded steel
to chlorides or carbonation which breakdown the passive layer formed by the alkaline environment
of concrete. While chlorides and carbonation both can diffuse through sound concrete, the presence
of cracking can expedite this process. Cracking in the concrete cover provides a pathway for
chlorides and carbonation to travel directly to the reinforcement. The cracking in turn leads to
localized and aggressive corrosion activity which can reduce the cross-section of the steel in short
order.
Inspection: I-395 HOV bridge (Fig. 19) over the Potomac River is in Washington DC. It is a
reinforced concrete bridge deck steel girders and reinforced concrete piles with masonry clad as
part of a rehabilitation of this structure. The original deck was overlaid however there was a lot of
shrinkage cracking in the overlay which exposed the deck to high chloride concentrations as well.
Down the center of the structure there was a construction joint due to a closure pour and that
closure pour allowed for pathways for moisture and chlorides and though, expansion joint
necessarily isn't a crack but it's still a joint and a pathway for moisture and chloride.
Corrosion potential survey: In Fig. 20(a) closure exposure at expansion joints on the substructure
is shown. Corrosion potential survey of the deck identified that the closure pore was allowing for
an extremely aggressive environment at the construction joint, the reinforced concrete deck and
the closure pour section. So, there is a construction joint on either side from sampling of corrosion
survey (Fig. 20(b)), we can see exactly where that closure pour is. Active corrosion is significant
in that area and partly due because a construction joint is allowing moisture and chlorides to
penetrate that joint. There is also chloride active corrosion in other areas because of shrinkage
cracks allowing chlorides to enter the concrete.
a) b)
Fig. 20—(a) Closure exposure at expansion joints on the substructure. (b) Corrosion potential
survey of the deck [10].
Chloride concentration measurements: Chloride contents for sound concrete are shown in Fig.
21 (a) and we can see in the chloride profile about 350 ppm about the threshold for chloride
initiation corrosion initiation which is pretty standard chloride profiles with high surface
concentrations that diffused and flattened out and we can see the vertical green lines are where the
cover depth of the average reinforcement and we can see relatively low chloride concentrations
very typical in a good sound concrete deck. However, when we get to shrinkage cracks and joints
on the construction joints, we can see now that the chloride profiles (Fig. 21(b)) are fluctuating
widely and at the steel depth we have extremely high chloride concentrations. So, the chloride
diffusion crack versus sound is extremely different in these two situations.
a) b)
Fig. 21—Chloride concentration at deck with (a) sound concrete and (b) cracks or construction
joins [10].
At the construction joint allowing a lot of moisture to bring in chlorides but in the sound conditions
the steel is protected on the substructure. An expansion joint is a like crack in the deck and if the
substructure where there is no expansion joint above it, so this has a continuous deck over top
where the chlorides are pretty much flat.
So, anytime we are allowing exposure of chlorides and moisture we see we have a lot of staining
and the chloride contents are extremely high (Fig. 22 (b)). There are no vertical green lines for
cover depth on this because of the of these mass concrete elements the steel was much deeper, so
it had a lot of cover. Even though there is a significant amount of cover on these peer elements
because they are primarily compression elements, they still have so much chloride even at almost
5 inches of depth in the thousands of parts per million range. So, obviously we are getting a lot
severe exposure because of a joint compared to the structure with no joints (Fig. 22 (a)).
a) b)
Depth (in) Depth (in)
Fig. 22—Chloride concentration at substructure (a) with no construction joints and (b) with
construction joints [10].
Carbonation: Cracking in these elements with carbonation is another issue that we must deal
with. Not only chlorides can enter a crack, but air can also enter in the crack with which carbon
dioxide will permeate into the concrete and lower the pH. A core was cut in half as shown in Fig.
23 and we can see that phenolphthalein was sprayed and the pink is indicating a high pH as can be
seen at the surface. Wherever it is not pink, and the solution is clear that is where the carbonation
has penetrated.
Fig. 23—Carbonation at the cracks of the substructure [10].

So, in the sound area it has only been about a quarter or half inch but where the crack is that is
where it has penetrated significantly deeper into the core. So, carbonation at a crack will penetrate
in and lower the pH around the steel and this will be a synergistic effect with the chloride. So, we
do not need to get to the chloride threshold when you have a carbonation issue as well. At a crack
not only are we getting chlorides into that crack, but we are also getting carbonation which will
end up lowering the chloride threshold because it is lowering the alkalinity around the steel as
well. So, the synergistic effects of these two components will increase corrosion rate and if we are
just relying on chloride data, we may miss that.
Case study 2: Salt silo

The silos were constructed in the late 1950s and were designed to enable salt spreading lorries to
be loaded quickly. Their construction and manner of operation are shown schematically in Fig. 24.
Fig. 24—Construction of the silo and manner of operation [11].
Inspection: About fifteen years after construction longitudinal (vertical) cracks began to appear
on the faces of the columns adjacent to the discharge shutes (front). The cracks were more
pronounced towards the base of the columns. Some of the cover from between the cracks on the
latter structure had spalled and revealed corroded reinforcement (Fig. 25). Surprisingly, there was
no evidence of rust staining on the concrete, although it may have been washed away as the
columns were regularly hosed down.
Several tests were carried out on the silos to determine the extent of the damage and assess the risk
of further corrosion.
Fig. 25—Spalled concrete and corroded reinforcement-Salt silo [11].
Electrode potential and depth of cover surveys: Electrode potential and depth of cover
measurements were made over the bottom 2.1m of each column. The results were plotted as
contours of equipotential and constant depth of cover. Plots for the columns are shown in Figure
26.
Fig. 26—Electrode potential contours (mV) and depth of cover (mm) [11].
The electrode potential contours followed the same pattern on all four columns: the largest
negative potentials being at the base of the columns and at the center of the faces under the
discharge shutes. This indicated that the corrosion risk was greatest at these positions which was
not surprising since these were the areas most likely to be contaminated by salt scattered during
the loading of the salt-spreading lorries and by salt swept or washed against the base of the
columns.
The depth of cover contours showed that the cover over the steel was not constant around the
columns. It appeared that the reinforcing cages had been displaced such that the depth of cover on
the faces under the discharge shutes had been reduced (Figure 26). This could explain why damage
had been so severe.
Concrete quality: Ultrasonic pulse velocity and Schmidt hammer measurements were made on
the columns of the silos. Very little variation was found between columns. Three 68 mm diameter
cores were drilled from each column. The densities of the cores were measured on the TRRL core
scanner and the results are shown in Figure 27. A wide range of densities were recorded, 1.96
Mg/m3 to 2.46 Mg/m3. If it is assumed that the maximum density measured corresponds to the
fully compacted density and that a fully compacted concrete has a void content of 1–2%, then
densities of 2.37 Mg/m3, 2.25 Mg/m3 and 1.99 Mg/m3, correspond to void contents of 5%, 10%
and 20% respectively. Such void contents would lead to a considerable increase in permeability
and reduction in strength and indeed, equivalent cube strengths of only 7.5 N/mm2 to 16.3 N/mm2
were measured when the ends of some of the cores (below the depth of the steel) were cut off and
tested.
Fig. 27—Distribution of core densities (here we are concerned with the curve SSA) [11].
Depth of carbonation: The depth of carbonation was measured at the positions where
reinforcement was exposed and on pieces of concrete removed from the cores. Most of the
measurements were between 3 mm and 12 mm, although values as high as 18 mm were recorded.
These figures are unexpectedly high but are consistent with the results given above which indicate
that the concrete was of a rather poor quality.
Chloride ion concentration: The variation of chloride ion concentration over the surfaces of the
columns was measured. Ten sample locations were chosen on each column and at each location
samples were taken from depths of 0-25 mm, 25-50 mm, and 50-75 mm. In addition, several
samples were taken for cement content analysis. The distribution of the chloride ion concentration
over each column followed the same pattern as the electrode potentials. This is illustrated in Table
3 where the results for one of the columns are given.
Table 3—Chloride ion concentration over the surface of a column [11]
It is noticeable that in several cases the concentration at 25-50 mm was greater than at 0-25 mm.
Some variability is to be expected owing to the presence or absence of large aggregate particles on
the line of the drill. However, it is unlikely that this is the reason for the higher concentrations at
25-50 mm since the concentrations at 50-75 mm are consistently less. A more plausible
explanation is that salt near the surface was washed out both by rain and when the columns were
hosed down. As the samples were taken at the beginning of August the hoppers would not have
been used for several months; hence this salt would not have been replaced. In addition, the
moisture would have assisted those chloride ions that were left to migrate further into the columns.
To determine the distance the salt had penetrated the concrete, samples were taken from the cores.
The results were similar for all four columns, and those obtained from the cores drilled from one
of the columns are shown in Table 4.
The results showed that as the depth into the columns increased the general trend was towards a
minimum value of 0.10-0.15% chloride ion by weight of cement. Presumably, this amount of
chloride had been present since construction. On this assumption it was possible to estimate that
salt had penetrated 75 mm on the back faces to somewhere more than 200 mm on the front faces.
Table 4— Chloride ion concentration as a function of depth from the surface [11]
To put these measurements into perspective it is necessary to know the minimum concentration of
chloride required to initiate corrosion. It seems appropriate to take the limit set by the FHWA (0.2
per cent chloride ion by weight of cement) since they are concerned with bridge decks which have
corroded as a result of the application of de-icing salts. This level was exceeded at the depth of the
reinforcement on the front faces of all four columns.
Conditions of reinforcement: The cover over the reinforcement was removed at several positions
on each column. Steel on the front face of all four columns was found to be corroded.
Interpretation: The protection normally provided to steel embedded in concrete has been
destroyed over the front faces of the columns. This is because of:
(i) An abundance of salt,
(ii) Poor quality concrete which has
(a) enabled salt, oxygen, and moisture to penetrate to the steel and
(b) been unable to resist cracking.
Remedies
To remedy rebar corrosion in RCC structures we have to take actions throughout the lifetime of
the structure. Lifetime of a structure can be divided into three segments, before construction,
during construction and after construction. Before construction we have to choose materials and
design parameters in a such a way that the structure can serve for a long time before any repair is
needed. These actions for pre-construction stages can be termed as preventive measures. During
the construction phage we have to decide if we want to put any protective instrumentations and
where to put them. And lastly, we have to inspect the structure regularly for any kind of corrosion
damage so that the structure can be repaired as soon as possible and the life the structure can be
extended.
Prevention
Corrosion-resistant reinforcement (CRR) is employed in bridges and highways in efforts to help
reduce the staggering maintenance costs related to infrastructure corrosion. The CRR has taken
many forms, often novel, to extend the service life of reinforced-concrete highway structures that
range from simple reinforced concrete culverts to bridges soaring over wide rivers.
The CRR has taken some major paths to achieve its goal of reducing vulnerability to corrosion.
These include:
❑ Coated metal reinforcement
o Epoxy-coated Reinforcement
o Galvanized Reinforcement
❑ Use of corrosion-resistant alloys
o Stainless steels
o Micro-composite alloys
o Weathering steel
❑ Replacement of metal reinforcement with nonmetallic products
❑ Concrete sealers and inhibitors
Figure 28 compares relative costs for several types of reinforcing bar versus the age of the
structure. The microcomposite alloy is a proprietary steel, MMFX-II, that meets ASTM A 1035.
It is an alloy that is almost free of interlath carbides, with a microstructure that consists of
nanosheets of austenite between laths of dislocated martensite or ferrite. For this representation, it
is assumed that the structure is located in an aggressive environment with chloride ion exposure.
It is also assumed that the concrete cover will provide 25 years of protection before the chloride
ion concentration reaches the threshold necessary for corrosion of carbon steel. The onset of
corrosion for both epoxy-coated reinforcement (ECR) and carbon steel is shown to occur at the
same time, because the base metals are the same. A 5-year propagation period is assumed for
carbon steel, while a 10-year propagation period is assumed for ECR. The increase in total cost
during those two propagation periods is from either rehabilitation or replacement. It is assumed
that the chloride ion threshold for the microcomposite alloy is twice that of carbon steel. After
corrosion commences, it is assumed that the microcomposite will behave in a manner similar to
carbon steel and show a 5-year propagation period.
Fig. 28—Relative life costs of corrosion-resistant reinforcement [2].
The two cost lines for 304 and 316 stainless steel are not expected to increase during the 60+ years
shown in Fig. 25. It appears reasonable to assume that with improved concretes and increased
cover, today’s (2006) bridge in an aggressive environment can expect to provide 20 to 30 years’
service or more before uncoated ASTM A615 black steel reinforcement will start to show signs of
corrosion. Work performed by the Virginia Department of Transportation found that with newer
construction techniques, such as low w/c concrete and adequate concrete cover, less than 25% of
all Virginia bridge decks would require rehabilitation within 100 years. The studied Virginia
bridges include those exposed to marine environments, high deicing salt applications, and traffic,
and others, typically in rural areas, that see no marine exposure, less traffic, and hence less frequent
deicer applications [2].
Protection
Cathodic Protection: Cathodic protection has been used for over 100 years to provide corrosion
protection to metals exposed to waters and soils. The initial application of CP to steel embedded
in concrete dates to laboratory work performed by Richard Stratfull and the California Department
of Transportation in 1959. It was not until the mid-to-late 1970s that full-scale demonstration
projects were implemented, and not until the late 1980s that application of such systems became
routine.
Types of CP Systems: Cathodic protection systems derive the necessary electric potential from
an impressed-current source or from the galvanic action of sacrificial anodes.
Impressed-Current Systems: The driving voltage necessary to power CP systems can come from
external direct current (dc) power supplies. To provide external power, a transformer is coupled
with a rectifier to convert available alternating current (ac) to dc of an appropriate voltage range,
as shown in Fig. 29(a). This approach is known as impressed-current cathodic protection (ICCP).
Anodes employed in ICCP systems include inert metals such as titanium with metal oxide coatings,
carbon-loaded coatings and fillers, conductive ceramics, and soluble metallic anodes such as zinc.
The rectifier is placed in the metallic path, shown in Fig. 29(a), with its positive terminal connected
to the anode and its negative terminal to the reinforcement, the cathode.
Fig. 29—System components for cathodic protection. (a) Impressed current. (b) Sacrificial or
galvanic system [2].
With an ICCP system, the output voltage can be adjusted. With this feature, if the concrete
resistivity increases, for example, from drying during the summer, the output voltage can be
increased to overcome the increased circuit resistance. Conversely, if seasonal wetting reduces the
concrete resistivity, the rectifier can be adjusted to decrease the current output. Some commercially
available rectifiers have the capacity to automatically adjust the output to respond to preset voltage,
current, or reinforcement potential parameters.
Galvanic Anode Systems: Galvanic anodes used in sacrificial cathodic protection (SACP) provide
a potential that does not require dc or rectified ac power. The SACP employs a metal that is more
electrochemically active than the one to be protected. Active metals such as aluminum,
magnesium, zinc, and their alloys are typically used as galvanic anodes for mild steel. In SACP, a
direct electrical connection is made between the galvanic anode and the metal to be protected, as
shown in Fig. 29(b). This is a sacrificial process whereby the galvanic anode corrodes, thus
generating the electric current that cathodically protects the other metal.
The SACP provides a simple system that will not lead to conditions of overprotection. However,
the output of SACP systems cannot be easily adjusted. The inability to readily adjust the galvanic
output presents the designer with limitations on where SACP may be applied. It may be possible
to extend the range of SACP systems by augmenting the initial output through the temporary use
of rectifiers or zinc-air batteries [2].
Inspection
Corrosion condition surveys are a part of standard bridge and highway inspections (and some other
similar RCC structures) that should be conducted at regular intervals. Bridges are typically
inspected in 24-month intervals and underwater inspections in 60-month intervals. If premature
deterioration is suspected, then the time interval may be shortened as required. In some cases, it
may be necessary to employ sophisticated equipment and techniques to determine the extent of
damage. This discussion highlights corrosion issues that may be present in bridges being inspected.
It is important to recognize that proper bridge inspection should be performed by qualified
individuals with specific training and professional licensing. As required, corrosion specialists may
be involved to assist in defining corrosion conditions and to provide input on appropriate action to
resolve corrosion problems.
Metal elements can be painted, galvanized, thermal sprayed, or left bare, such as weathering steels.
Reinforced concrete can include reinforcement that is conventional or prestressed. The
reinforcement can be bare, galvanized, epoxy coated, cathodically protected, or fabricated from
corrosion-resistant materials.
Elements to consider in a corrosion inspection of reinforced-concrete highways and bridge
members include:
• Assessment of concrete strength and condition
• Cover thickness survey
• Visual inspection techniques for cracks and rust staining
• Delamination survey
• Corrosion potential measurements and mapping
• Concrete resistivity determination
• Chloride profile determination
• Carbonation testing
• Corrosion rate monitoring
• Other advanced techniques
Elements to consider in a corrosion inspection of the structural steel elements of a bridge include:
• Visual inspection techniques for rust staining
• Assessment of coating condition
• If present, identification of crevice corrosion on bolted joints or hinges
There is such a very wide range of bridge types, structures, and environments that it is not possible
to provide a single strategy. However, in all cases, it is important that individuals with extensive
experience in the area of highway related corrosion review the corrosion survey findings and that
they discuss the implications of the results with an appropriate structural engineer [2].
Recommendations
From the discussion of the previous sections such as, corrosion process of rebar in RCC structures
specially TMT rebar, experience from the case studies and knowledge of standard corrosion
mitigation techniques, some recommendations for TMT rebar in RCC structure are provided for
consideration:
1) Production of quality TMT rebar.

2) Add alloying elements specially Cr and Cu.
3) Avoid coupling with non-treated rebar.
4) Use good quality concrete.
5) Use concrete sealers and inhibitors.
6) Use cathodic protection if possible.
7) Inspect regularly.
8) Repair as early as possible.
References
[1] C. K. Nmai et al., “REINFORCEMENT FOR CONCRETE— MATERIALS AND

APPLICATIONS,” p. 16.
[2] ASM International, Ed., ASM handbook, Vol-13C 10th editon. Materials Park, Ohio: ASM
International, 1990.
[3] ASM International, Ed., ASM handbook, Vol-13B 10th editon. Materials Park, Ohio: ASM
International, 1990.
[4] L. Bertolini, “Steel corrosion and service life of reinforced concrete structures,” Struct.
Infrastruct. Eng., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 123–137, Apr. 2008, doi: 10.1080/15732470601155490.
[5] P. C. Basu, “Characterisation of steel reinforcement for RC structures: An overview and
related issues,” p. 12, 2004.
[6] A. Bautista, J. C. Pomares, M. N. González, and F. Velasco, “Influence of the
microstructure of TMT reinforcing bars on their corrosion behavior in concrete with chlorides,”
Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 229, p. 116899, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116899.
[7] A. Ray et al., “Microstructure and properties of thermomechanically strengthened
reinforcement bars: a comparative assessment of plain-carbon and low-alloy steel grades,” J.
Mater. Eng. Perform., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 335–343, Jun. 1997, doi: 10.1007/s11665-997-0098-9.
[8] S. A. O. Nair and R. G. Pillai, “Microstructural and corrosion characteristics of Quenched
and Self-Tempered (QST) steel reinforcing bars,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 231, p. 117109, Jan.
2020, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117109.
[9] H. Torbati-Sarraf and A. Poursaee, “Corrosion of coupled steels with different
microstructures in concrete environment,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 167, pp. 680–687, Apr.
2018, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.083.
[10] “Effect of Cracking on Reinforced Concrete Corrosion.”
https://www.concrete.org/education/freewebsessions/completelisting/coursepreviews.aspx?id=51
713407 (accessed Oct. 02, 2020).
[11] R. J. Woodward, “CASE STUDIES OF THE CORROSION OF REINFORCEMENT IN
CONCRETE STRUCTURES,” p. 34.
View publication stats

Corrosion in TMT Rebar - Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corrosion in TMT Rebar - Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

TMT REBARS AND THEIR CORROSION IN RCC STRUCTURES

Preprint · October 2020

Low cost spray pyrolysis system View project

Al and Al alloys: casting, applications View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Effect of Reinforcement Corrosion

Corrosion in Rebar: Causes & Effects

Fig. 11—Evolution in time of the degradation due to carbonation-induced corrosion [4].

What is TMT rebar?

Case study 1: I-395 HOV over Potomac River

Fig. 19—I-395 HOV bridge over Potomac River at Washington DC [10].

Depth (in) Depth (in)

Fig. 23—Carbonation at the cracks of the substructure [10].

Case study 2: Salt silo

Fig. 24—Construction of the silo and manner of operation [11].

Fig. 25—Spalled concrete and corroded reinforcement-Salt silo [11].

Table 3—Chloride ion concentration over the surface of a column [11]

Fig. 28—Relative life costs of corrosion-resistant reinforcement [2].

1) Production of quality TMT rebar.

[1] C. K. Nmai et al., “REINFORCEMENT FOR CONCRETE— MATERIALS AND

View publication stats

You might also like