Structures and Buildings Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Volume 166 Issue SB5 Structures and Buildings 166 May 2013 Issue SB5
Pages 235–246 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/stbu.11.00048
Mechanical performance of corroded steel Paper 1100048
bars in concrete Received 13/06/2011 Accepted 10/02/2012
Published online 20/02/2013
Xia, Jin, Zhao and Li Keywords: buildings, structures & design/codes of practice & standards/
corrosion
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Mechanical performance of
corroded steel bars in concrete
j
1 Jin Xia BEng, MSc, PhD j
3 Yu-xi Zhao BEng, MSc, PhD
Research Fellow, Institute of Structural Engineering, Zhejiang Professor, Institute of Structural Engineering, Zhejiang University,
University, Hangzhou, PR China; Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Hangzhou, PR China
School of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, j
4 Long-yuan Li BEng, MSc, PhD, CENg, FIStructE
UK Professor, School of Marine Science and Engineering, Plymouth
j
2 Wei-liang Jin BEng, MSc, PhD, FICE University, Plymouth, UK
Professor, Institute of Structural Engineering, Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou, PR China

j
1 j
2 j
3 j
4

This paper presents an experimental investigation into the corrosion of reinforcing steel bars corroded in two
different environments. Reinforcing steel bars of different diameters in four different grades were corroded using
two accelerated corrosion methods; one was to simulate the corrosion induced by carbonation and the other was to
simulate chloride aggression. The corrosion patterns and rust characteristics of the corroded steel bars were examined
and compared with those observed in real reinforced concrete structures. Tensile tests were also carried out on the
corroded reinforcing steel bars. The mechanical performance characteristics (yield strength, ultimate strength, yield
ratio, elongation, etc.) were examined. Based on the experimental results, a time-dependent assessment method for
the mechanical behaviour of corroded reinforcing steel bars in multi-environments is proposed.

1. Introduction The aggressiveness of the environment is a very important factor

Reinforcing steel corrosion is one of the most serious deteriora-
tion mechanisms in reinforced concrete (RC) structures and is
also an important issue that needs be considered when evaluating
and rehabilitating RC structures. Fortunately, there are two self-
defence mechanisms that can be employed to protect reinforcing
steel against corrosion (Almusallam, 2001)
j physical protection provided by the dense and relatively
impermeable structure of concrete
j chemical protection provided by the high alkalinity of the
pore solution.
The first involves cover concrete of sufficient depth and good
impermeable quality. The second is the thin oxide film that forms
around reinforcing steel bars due to the high alkalinity of pore
solutions, which contain high concentrations of soluble calcium,
sodium and potassium oxides, in freshly mixed concrete. How-
ever, the random distribution of pore spaces suggests that
aggressive substances such as chloride, carbon dioxide, oxygen,
moisture, etc. may penetrate through weak points in the concrete
cover (Allamt et al., 1994), trigger the corrosion of reinforcing
steel bars in concrete (Richardson, 2002) and finally induce
cracking of the concrete (Williamson and Clark, 2000).
to consider when examining concrete that shows signs of possible
distress (Pullar-Strecker, 1987). Generally, corrosion attack is
initiated either due to the carbonation of the concrete or due to
diffusion of the chloride ions to the reinforcing steel bar surface
(Glass and Buenfeld, 2000) or both. On account of different
aggressive mechanisms, the corrosion due to concrete carbonation
is much more uniform than that caused by chloride attack and,
hence, it is much less susceptible to local attack (Cairns et al.,
2005; Du et al., 2005). On the other hand, corrosion of
reinforcing steel and the consequent cracking of concrete due to
the ingress of chloride ions to the reinforcing steel bar surface is
more predominant than that due to carbonation of concrete
(Almusallam, 2001). Not only may corrosion affect the load-
carrying capacity of the reinforcing steel bar, but it may also
impair its ductility, which presents a serious problem for the
safety of old and monumental constructions in seismically active
areas. A considerable amount of research has been devoted to the
corrosion of reinforcement in RC, dealing with various issues
related to the configuration of corroded reinforcing steel bars, the
load–displacement relationship, residual strength, ductility, etc.
In investigating the configuration of corroded reinforcing steel
bars, many researchers considered that the stress level has no

235
Structures and Buildings
Volume 166 Issue SB5
effect on pit development (Carrion-Viramontes et al., 1999;
Darmawan and Stewart, 2007; Evans, 1957) and suggested that a
low degree of plastic deformation does not influence the corro-
sion rate (Apostolopoulos and Papadakis, 2007). However, Trejo
et al. (2009) recently found that the in-service stress level had a
statistically significant influence on the corrosion activity and
tension capacity of post-tensioning strands. These contradictory
results may be due to the different stress levels and types of steel
bars used in the experiments. Allamt et al. (1994) found that the
decrease in weight of a reinforcing steel bar with time of
exposure in an atmospheric environment follows approximately a
linear relationship, and pointed out that the corrosion products
are non-protective. However, Apostolopoulos et al. (2006) found
that the residual mass of a reinforcing steel bar with duration of
exposure in a salt spray environment follows a Weibull function.
These different views tend to be attributed to the different
corrosive environments employed in the experiments.
In studies on the influence of corrosion on the load–displacement
relationship of a reinforcing steel bar, Andrade et al. (1991) and
Palsson and Mirza (2002) showed that corrosion rarely alters the
shape of the load–displacement curves of corroded reinforcing
steel bars. However, Zhang et al. (1995) reported that corrosion
could shorten and even cause the disappearance of the yield
plateaux of the load–displacement curves of corroded reinforcing
steel bars. The different gauge lengths used for the test of
elongation in their experiments may contribute to these different
findings.
The effect of reinforcement corrosion on the residual strength of
reinforcing steel bars has been of great interest, and this has
resulted in the proposition of two perspectives. One group holds
that corrosion has a marginal effect (Allamt et al., 1994;
Almusallam, 2001; Du et al., 2005; Maslehuddin et al., 1990;
Palsson and Mirza, 2002) or a relatively modest effect (Cairns et
al., 2005) on both the yield and ultimate strengths of reinforcing
steel bars. Some have even suggested a slight increase in
strength with a minor increase in corrosion (Allamt et al., 1994;
Palsson and Mirza, 2002). Other researchers, however, support
the view that corrosion decreases bar strength significantly
(Andrade et al., 1991; Lee et al., 1996; Morinaga, 1996;
Saifullah, 1994; Zhang et al., 1995). These diverse results may
be caused by the different areas utilised in calculating the stress
of the corroded reinforcing steel bar. The former group used
actual cross-sectional area, whereas the latter used an average
cross-sectional area determined by the measured weight loss.
After investigating corroded reinforcing steel bars with different
diameters, Du et al. (2005) found that the capacity of small-
diameter steel bars decreased much more than that of those with
large diameters. Similar findings were also reported by Apostolo-
poulos and Papadakis (2007). The reason for this could be that a
small-diameter rebar has a larger surface-to-volume ratio than a
large-diameter rebar.
With regard to the effect of corrosion on the ductility of corroded
236
Mechanical performance of corroded steel
bars in concrete
Xia, Jin, Zhao and Li
reinforcing steel bars, some researchers found that ductility
decreased dramatically as a result of corrosion (Apostolopoulos
and Papadakis, 2007; Apostolopoulos and Papadopoulos, 2007;
Cairns et al., 2005; Palsson and Mirza, 2002) and a transition
from ductile mode behaviour to a less ductile mode has been
noted (Almusallam, 2001; Darmawan and Stewart, 2007). How-
ever, others have reported that atmospheric corrosion did not
influence the ductility of steel (Allamt et al., 1994). These
contradictory findings may be ascribed to different corrosion
patterns or different gauge lengths used for measuring elongation
in the experiments.
Overall, there are still some contradictions in the existing re-
search results due to the complexity of different experimental
parameters such as the properties of the raw materials of the
reinforcing steel bars, bar diameters and lengths, concrete
qualities, corrosive environments, measurement and represent-
ation methods of corrosion loss, gauge lengths used for the test
of elongation, etc. Because the corrosion of reinforcing steel bars
in concrete usually requires a long duration, especially for the
natural exposure test, most of the tests mentioned use salt spray
or a constant-current method to accelerate corrosion. As a
consequence, the steel bars corrode over the whole surface and
present a more uniform section loss (Cairns et al., 2005; Yuan
and Ji, 2010; Yuan et al., 2007). In reality, however, corrosion of
a steel bar mainly occurs on one side of its surface (facing the
concrete cover) and this usually accompanies localised corrosion
(Yuan and Ji, 2009). Currently, there is no direct correlation
between accelerated corrosion tests and the natural corrosion of
reinforcing steels (Apostolopoulos and Pasialis, 2010; Apostolo-
poulos et al., 2006). In order to accurately predict the effects of
corrosion on a reinforcing steel bar, it is necessary to simulate
the corrosion distribution according to the corrosion pattern that
occurs in a natural environment. This paper describes an experi-
mental programme carried out to investigate the effects of differ-
ent parameters (reinforcing steel bar type, grade, diameter and
corrosive environment) on the mechanical behaviour of corroded
reinforcing steel bars.
2. Experimental programme
2.1 Materials
Four types of hot-rolled steel bars manufactured according to ISO
standards (ISO, 1991a, 1991b) were used in the experiments. The
dimensions and material properties of the reinforcing steel bars
are given in Table 1. In the specimen designation used in Table 1
and the rest of the paper, the symbol corresponds to the steel bar
grade – smooth HPB235 bars ( ) and deformed bars (HRB335
( ), HRB400 ( ), HRB500 ( )). The number following the
symbol indicates the bar diameter (in mm). Thus, 16 means that
the bar belongs to group HRB335 with a diameter of 16 mm.
Note that the diameters shown in Table 1 are the nominal
diameters of the bar provided by the manufacturer, whereas the
cross-sectional areas are actual areas calculated from the
weighted mass divided by the steel density and the measured
Structures and Buildings Mechanical performance of corroded steel
Volume 166 Issue SB5 bars in concrete
Xia, Jin, Zhao and Li

Designation Nominal diameter: Actual cross- Yield strength: Ultimate strength: Elasticity Elongation
mm sectional N/mm2 N/mm2 modulus: ratio
area: mm2 N/mm2

6 6 33.6 321.8 441.1 1.96 3 105 0.34

8 8 46.0 463.9 515.7 1.98 3 105 0.25
8 10 90.0 319.6 461.9 2.07 3 105 0.32

12 12 93.3 431.0 611.7 1.89 3 105 0.31

16 16 171.7 425.5 653.0 1.99 3 105 0.24
20 20 291.8 380.1 582.1 1.86 3 105 0.32

14 14 142.6 543.2 718.0 1.86 3 105 0.23

16 16 184.2 519.8 683.7 1.92 3 105 0.23
20 20 296.5 455.7 685.4 1.93 3 105 0.27

12 12 116.3 583.3 708.4 1.95 3 105 0.29

16 16 195.7 574.6 756.0 2.07 3 105 0.25
20 20 306.8 570.8 715.9 2.03 3 105 0.24

Table 1. Mechanical properties of uncorroded steel bars

length. The yield strength, ultimate strength and modulus of
elasticity of the bars were obtained by standard tensile tests on
three uncorroded reinforcing steel bars. The elongation is the
tensile extension of the bar in a gauge length of five times its
diameter near the rupture area.
2.2 Preparation of samples
The tested samples totalled 120 reinforcing steel bars corroded in
simulated solutions and 212 reinforcing steel bars corroded in
concrete. Tables 2 and 3 give details of the tested samples; the
letters O and I added to the sample designation represent samples
corroded in simulated solutions and in concrete, respectively. To
distinguish the influences of bar grade and diameter, the samples
corroded in simulated solutions were divided into 12 groups, each
of which had ten reinforcing steel bars with different corrosion
levels. The steel bars were placed in a plastic container in groups
and laid on a sponge above a stainless steel net (see Figure 1). In
order to simulate one-sided accelerated corrosion (Yuan and Ji,
2009), a 5% NaCl solution was poured into the container as an
electrolyte to be soaked up by the sponge. A constant current was

Designation Bar grade Bar diameter: Sample length: Numbers used

mm mm

O 6 HPB235 6 400 10
O 8 HPB235 8 400 10
O 10 HPB235 10 400 10

O 12 HRB335 12 400 10
O 16 HRB335 16 400 10
O 20 HRB335 20 400 10

O 14 HRB400 14 400 10
O 16 HRB400 16 400 10
O 20 HRB400 20 400 10

O 12 HRB500 12 400 10
O 16 HRB500 16 400 10
O 20 HRB500 20 400 10

Table 2. Samples corroded in simulated solutions

237
Structures and Buildings Mechanical performance of corroded steel
Volume 166 Issue SB5 bars in concrete
Xia, Jin, Zhao and Li

Designation Bar grade Bar diameter: Sample length: Numbers used

mm mm

I 16 HRB335 16 400 36
I 20 HRB335 20 400 100

I 16 HRB500 16 400 36
I 20 HRB500 20 400 40

Table 3. Samples corroded in concrete

DC power source

Join stainless steel net

bars
Join re

Plastic container

Epoxy coat

5% NaCl solution

Sponge

Stainless steel net

Figure 1. Schematic illustration of accelerated corrosion system

for corrosion of reinforcing steel bars in simulated solution

applied between the reinforcing steel bars (acting as the anode)
and the stainless steel net (acting as the cathode) controlled by a
DC power source. The total galvanising time was determined
using the linear Faraday’s law (ASTM, 1999), which is more
suitable than a non-linear expression for evaluating the generation
of corrosion products (Lu et al., 2011). The total galvanising time
t is given by
ªs Z Fe F˜d s
t¼
1: M Fe i
where ªs ¼ 7850 kg/m3 is the density of the steel material,
ZFe ¼ 2 is the valence of the iron element, F ¼ 96480 J/(V mol)
is the Faraday constant, ˜ds is the target corrosion depth
(calculated based on the target average cross-section loss),
MFe ¼ 0.056 kg is the atomic weight of the iron element and
i ¼ 2 A/m2 is the current density applied to the bars. More
corrosion will be expected in the reinforcing steel bars for longer
durations, so different corrosion damage levels can be achieved
using different galvanising times.
The reinforcing steel bars to be corroded in concrete were taken
from a series of concrete elements. The details regarding these
corrosion procedures have already been reported (Xia et al.,
2011, 2012) but, for the sake of consistency, a concise description
is given here.
The accelerated corrosion procedure can be divided into two
phases – the electro-migration phase and the wetting–drying
cycle phase (see Figure 2). In the electro-migration phase,
chloride ions were migrated into the concrete cover based on the
principle of mass transfer of ions in electrolyte solutions under
the influence of an electrical field (see Figure 3). To simulate
realistic chloride ingress into the concrete, 2 mol/l concentration
NaCl solution was first poured on the sponge to make the
concrete moist. The direction of the current flow was then
adjusted so that the outside stainless steel net attached to the
sponge acted as a cathode and the stainless steel sheet embedded
inside the concrete element served as an anode. A constant
voltage was subsequently applied between the outside stainless
steel net and the embedded stainless steel sheet, controlled by a
DC power source, until the chloride content near the steel bar
surface reached the threshold of corrosion. In the wetting–drying

238
Structures and Buildings
Volume 166 Issue SB5
Join reinforcing bars
Join stainless steel sheet
Target corrosion area
Figure 2. Schematic representation of accelerated corrosion
system for corrosion of reinforcing steel bars in concrete
DC power source
Cl⫺
Cl⫺
Cl⫺
Cl⫺
Cl⫺
Anode
Concrete Cathode
Figure 3. Migration of chloride ions in concrete under the
influence of an externally applied electric field
cycle phase, the drying process was achieved by removing the
plastic sheet in order to dry the sponge; in the wetting process,
the plastic sheet was again placed over the concrete element and
5% NaCl solution was poured onto the sponge to make the
concrete moist. Simultaneously, a controlled constant current of
density 2 A/m2 was introduced to speed up the corrosion of the
reinforcing steel bars. The duration of the cycle was controlled by
the total galvanising time in the wetting cycle, calculated using
Equation 1, according to the target corrosion level of the steel
bar. Although this procedure is not exactly the same as occurs in
RC structures in the field, it is believed to be much more
representative than other laboratory procedures. After the acceler-
ated corrosion tests, the reinforcing steel bars were removed from
the concrete elements and cut into specimens for further tensile
Mechanical performance of corroded steel
bars in concrete
Xia, Jin, Zhao and Li
DC power source
Join stainless steel net
Sponge
Stainless steel net
Plastic sheet
tests. For the identification phase of deposits, X-ray diffraction
and thermal analyses were carried out to characterise the corro-
sion products (Zhao et al., 2011). All tested bars were then
cleaned, measured and weighed according to the method given in
ASTM G1-03 (ASTM, 2003).
2.3 Tensile testing
Tensile tests on reinforcing steel bars (about 300 mm long) were
carried out using a servo-hydraulic universal testing machine (see
Figure 4). An electronic extensometer with a gauge length of
50 mm was used to measure the linear elongation of the bar to
determine its elasticity prior to yielding. In addition, marks with
an initial distance of five times the bar diameter were made on
the bar surface. After the tensile test, the extension between two
marks nearest to the fracture area was measured and taken as the
bar’s elongation.
3. Results and discussion
3.1 Corroded reinforcing steel bar configuration
Figures 5 and 6 show typical corrosion patterns of the reinforcing
steel bars corroded in simulated solutions and concrete, respec-
tively. It is clear that the corrosion in both cases not only reduced
the cross-section of the steel bar irregularly, but also altered the
rib shape on a ribbed bar surface. The steel bar presented more
serious corrosion on the surface near the simulated solution or
facing the concrete cover than the surface away from the
simulated solution or away from the concrete cover, which is very
similar to real long-term concrete corrosion (Trejo et al., 2009;
Yuan and Ji, 2009). The figures also show that the corrosion of
the bar corroded in a simulated solution was very uniform and
had no obviously abrupt changes in geometry along the length of
the bar. By contrast, the corrosion of the bar corroded in concrete
was pitted, with somewhat abrupt changes in bar geometry and a
great variation in cross-sectional area. The former is similar to
the corrosion pattern induced by carbonation, whereas the latter
239
Structures and Buildings Mechanical performance of corroded steel
Volume 166 Issue SB5 bars in concrete
Xia, Jin, Zhao and Li

Surface away from the simulated solution

Surface facing the simulated solution

(a)

Surface away from the simulated solution

Surface facing the simulated solution

(b)

Figure 5. Corrosion patterns for plain (a) plain and ribbed

(b) reinforcing steel bars corroded in simulated solutions

Figure 4. Tensile testing apparatus Surface away from the concrete cover

is much more like the corrosion pattern induced by chloride

Surface facing the concrete cover
aggression.
(a)
X-ray diffraction and thermal analysis results for the character-
istics of corrosion products have been presented in another paper
(Zhao et al., 2011). This work showed that, by using the above
corrosion methodology in concrete, both the composition and
Surface away from the concrete cover
expansion rate of corrosion rust was very similar to the corrosion
rust from a steel bar corroded in a natural chloride aggressive
environment.

The percentage reduction in cross-section of the corroded steel

Surface facing the concrete cover
bars can be calculated from
(b)

Figure 6. Corrosion patterns for (a) plain and (b) ribbed

(m0 =l0 )  (mc =lc )
av ¼ 3 100 reinforcing steel bars corroded in concrete
2: m0 =l0

where av is the average cross-section loss of the reinforcing steel 3.2 Load–displacement curve
bar, m0 and mc are the masses of the uncorroded and corroded The load–displacement relationships were utilised to determine
specimens and l0 and lc are the lengths of the uncorroded and the yield and tensile strengths of the reinforcing steel bars. For
corroded specimens, respectively. example, Figure 7(a) shows the typical tensile curves of the rebar

240
Structures and Buildings Mechanical performance of corroded steel
Volume 166 Issue SB5 bars in concrete
Xia, Jin, Zhao and Li

220
values. The apparent stress is load capacity divided by the
200
cross-sectional area of an uncorroded steel bar, and the effective
180 stress is load capacity divided by the true minimum cross-
160 4 1 sectional area of the corroded steel bar. Since the true minimum
3 2 0
140 5 cross-section of the corroded bar is not normally identified and
Load: kN

7 6
120 8 9 has to be measured before fracture loading tests, the effective
100 10
stress is difficult to obtain. By contrast, the cross-sectional area
80 of an uncorroded steel bar is easy to obtain and, therefore, the
60 apparent stress can be calculated without much difficulty. How-
40 ever, it should be noted that the apparent stress has combined
20 influences (bar cross-section loss, material degradation, notch
effect, etc.) on a corroded bar (Apostolopoulos et al., 2006).
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Therefore, it should not be used as a ‘black-box solution’, but
Displacement: mm needs to consider these effects separately, if necessary. The
(a) apparent yield and ultimate strengths of the corroded bars were
used in this work. Let kr,y and kr,u be the relative apparent
yield and ultimate strengths of a corroded reinforcing steel bar.
These terms are defined as the ratio of the apparent yield and
ultimate strengths of a corroded bar to those of an uncorroded
bar as follows
I
II f y,c
kr,y ¼
Load

III f y,0
f u,c
kr,u ¼
IV 3: f u,0

0 and corroded reinforcing steel bars and fu,0 and fu,c are the
Displacement
(b)
Figure 7. Load–displacement curves of corroded reinforcing steel
bars. (a) Tensile curves of reinforcing steel bars in group O 20.
(b) Four typical representative tensile curves
in group O 20, which can be taken as representative of most of
the other groups. The numbers below the curves in Figure 7(a)
represent the corrosion level of the reinforcing steel bar: 0
represents an uncorroded bar and 1 to 9 indicate the corrosion
level from light to serious. It can be seen from the figure that, as
the corrosion becomes more serious, the yield plateaux on the
tensile curves of the corroded bars firstly becomes shortened, then
becomes irregular and finally disappears. This feature is similar
to that reported by Zhang et al. (1995). Based on these features,
the tensile curves of the corroded reinforcing steel bars can be
categorised into four groups, as shown in Figure 7(b): I represents
uncorroded steel bars, II is for steel bars with mild corrosion, III
medium corrosion and IV severe corrosion.
3.3 Yield and ultimate strength
For the yield and ultimate strengths of the corroded steel bar,
there are usually two definitions – apparent and effective
where fy,0 and fy,c are the apparent yield strengths of uncorroded
apparent ultimate strengths of uncorroded and corroded reinfor-
cing steel bars, respectively.
The test data were split into two groups, one for the steel bars
corroded in simulated solutions and another for those corroded in
concrete. The relationships between av and kr,y and kr,u for the
two groups are shown in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. The steel
bars corroded in concrete (Figures 8(b) and 9(b)) showed a larger
discreteness than those corroded in simulated solutions (Figures
8(a) and 9(a)), but both showed an approximate linear relation-
ship between kr,y (or kr,u ) and av : It can be seen that kr,u has a
better correlation with av than does kr,y : This might be due to
individual errors in determining the yield strength due to the
irregular yield plateaux on the tensile curves of corroded steel
bars. Figures 8 and 9 show that the relationships between kr,y (or
kr,u ) and av can be approximately represented by a linear line
with a slope of about 1.2 for steel bars corroded in simulated
solutions and 2.1 for corrosion in concrete. The slope difference
is likely to be caused by the different corrosion patterns: the steel
bars corroded in concrete suffered a more severe non-uniform
corrosion than those corroded in simulated solutions. Therefore,
the average cross-section loss of corroded steel bars may under-
estimate the reduction of some cross-sections. It may thus be
unsafe to evaluate the residual capacity of a corroded steel bar
only by considering a reduction in its average cross-section

241
Structures and Buildings Mechanical performance of corroded steel
Volume 166 Issue SB5 bars in concrete
Xia, Jin, Zhao and Li

1·2 1·2
6 6
1·0 8 8
1·0
10 10
12 12
0·8 16 0·8 16
20 20

κ r,u
κ r,y

0·6 14 0·6 14
16 16
20 20
0·4 0·4
12 12
16 16
0·2 20 0·2 20

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
ηav: % ηav: %
(a) (a)
1·2 1·2
16 16
1·1 20 1·1 20
16 16
1·0 20 1·0 20

0·9 0·9
κ r,y

κ r,u

0·8 0·8

0·7 0·7

0·6 0·6

0·5 0·5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
ηav: % ηav: %
(b) (b)

Figure 8. Relationship between relative yield strength and average Figure 9. Relationship between ultimate strength and average
cross-sectional loss for reinforcing steel bars corroded in (a) cross-sectional loss for reinforcing steel bars corroded in
simulated solution and (b) concrete (a) simulated solution and (b) concrete

(Du et al., 2005). It can also be deduced that the steel bar
diameters and grades have insignificant effects on kr,y (or kr,u ) of
the corroded reinforcing steel bars, as reported previously (Du et
al., 2005).
3.4 Ductility
The ductility of reinforcing steel is normally represented by two
parameters, the ratio between yield and ultimate strengths and the
elongation ratio. The yield-to-ultimate strength ratio fy /fu reflects
the deformation capacity of the steel bar and is the most desirable
warning prior to failure of a reinforcing steel bar. Usually, as fy /fu
increases, the deformation capacity of a corroded steel bar
reduces. Figure 10, which plots the relationship between fy /fu and
av , shows that a small increase in fy /fu results in an increase in
av , which means that the deformation capacity of the corroded
steel bar decreases as corrosion increases. However, even though
fy /fu increases with av , this increase is not significant and can
generally be neglected.
The elongation ratio is defined as the average strain of a
corroded steel bar in its gauge length. The elongation ratio
associated with a shorter gauge length is much greater than that
of a greater gauge length (Palsson and Mirza, 2002), and the
gauge length was taken as five times the initial diameter of the
steel bar in this experimental programme. Figure 11 shows that
the elongation ratio decreases with increased corrosion level,
although the rates of decrease are different for steel bars
corroded in simulated solutions and those corroded in concrete.
For the steel bars corroded in simulated solutions (Figure 11(a)),
the decrease rate is about 0.2, which represents a moderate loss
of ductility as corrosion increases; for the steel bars corroded in
concrete (Figure 11(b)), the decrease rate is about 0.8, which
represents a drastic loss in ductility as corrosion increases. This
can be explained by the fact that the contribution of the highly
localised peak strain does not provide a correspondingly large
contribution to overall elongation (Cairns et al., 2005); there-
fore, the steel bars corroded in concrete present a lower
elongation ratio than those corroded in simulated solutions for

242
Structures and Buildings Mechanical performance of corroded steel
Volume 166 Issue SB5 bars in concrete
Xia, Jin, Zhao and Li

1·2 0·40
6 6
8 0·35 8
1·0
10 10
0·30
12 12

Elongation ratio
0·8 16 16
0·25
20 20
fy /fu

0·6 14 0·20 14
16 16
20 0·15 20
0·4
12 12
16 0·10 16
0·2 20 20
0·5
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
ηav: % ηav: %
(a) (a)
1·2 0·40
16 16
20 0·35 20
1·0
16 16
0·30
20 20
0·8
Elongation ratio

0·25
fy /fu

0·6 0·20

0·15
0·4
0·10
0·2
0·5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
ηav: % ηav: %
(b) (b)

Figure 10. Ratio of yield strength to ultimate strength versus Figure 11. Relationship between elongation ratio and average
average cross-sectional loss for reinforcing steel bars corroded in cross-sectional loss for reinforcing steel bars corroded in
(a) simulated solution and (b) concrete (a) simulated solution and (b) concrete

the same cross-sectional loss. It can be deduced that reinforcing

steel bars subjected to local or pitting attack may suffer a
significant loss of ductility.

As far as the fracture pattern is concerned, fracture of the

reinforcing steel bar usually occurred at pitted sections (see Figure 12. Typical tensile fracture observed in corroded
Figure 12) and usually happened with a less ductile fracture when reinforcing steel bar
the notch was wide and deep.

3.5 Time-dependent assessment of mechanical

behaviour of corroded steel bars in multi-
environments
For a real RC structure, the corrosion rate ireal and the
exposure time treal are usually known; values of ireal of
1–3 A/cm2 are frequent in active corrosion and values of the
order of 10 A/cm2 or greater are seldom determined (An-
drade et al., 1990). In the assessment of a real structure, it is
not feasible to routinely measure precise variations in cross-
section along the length of a corroded steel bar. Therefore,
alternative approaches for practical application are outlined,
based on the experiments using conservative empirical coeffi-
cients.
The relationship between the accelerated corrosion test and the
long-term corrosion behaviour of a real RC structure (with a low

243
Structures and Buildings
Volume 166 Issue SB5
corrosion rate) can be related by the rate of loading correction
factor kR (Vu et al., 2005)
ireal treal
kR ¼
4: i exp t exp
where iexp is the current density used in the accelerated corrosion
test and texp is the time needed to achieve a diameter loss of ˜ds
in an accelerated corrosion test. By transformation of Equation 1,
the diameter loss of a corroded steel bar in the experiment can be
expressed as
M Fe
˜d s ¼ i exp t exp
5: ªs Z Fe F
It should be recognised that inaccuracies may exist between the
experimentally obtained result and that predicted using Equation
5. Substituting Equation 1 into Equation 5 yields
M Fe
˜d s ¼ ireal treal
6: k R ªs Z Fe F
Thus, by utilising Equation 6, one can obtain the corrosion depth
in a real RC structure by knowing the corrosion rate, ireal , and
exposure time, treal : Note that the diameter loss and the average
cross-sectional loss are related by
˜d s (2d 0  ˜d s )
av ¼
7: d 20
where d0 is the diameter of the uncorroded steel bar. The
mechanical performance of the corroded steel bar can be
evaluated from
8: c ¼ (1  Æ av )0
where 0 and c represent the mechanical performance
(which could be yield strength, ultimate strength, extension
ratio, etc.) for uncorroded and corroded steel bars, respectively,
and Æ is the environmental compensation factor, which
reflects an environmental influence on the non-uniform corro-
sion development of the corroded reinforcing steel bar. Some
suggested values for Æ in certain environments have been
given by Cairns et al. (2005). Based on the present experi-
mental results, it is suggested that Æ can take the conserva-
tive values of 1.2 and 2.1 for the relative yield/ultimate
strength of steel bars corroded by carbonation (or in solutions)
and chloride aggression (or in the present concrete case),
respectively. Furthermore, Æ can take values of 0.2 and 0.8
244
Mechanical performance of corroded steel
bars in concrete
Xia, Jin, Zhao and Li
for the elongation ratio of steel bars corroded by carbonation
and chloride aggression, respectively.
4. Conclusion
The following conclusions can be drawn from the experimental
results obtained in this investigation.
(a) With the experimental methodology introduced in this paper,
the reinforcing steel bars corroded in simulated solutions
presented uniform corrosion, which is customarily induced by
carbonation in reality. The reinforcing steel bars corroded in
concrete presented a non-uniform corrosion, customarily
induced by chloride aggression. The corrosion patterns and
corrosion rust were similar to the corresponding cases in real
RC structures.
(b) As corrosion became more serious, the yield plateaux on the
load–displacement curves of the corroded reinforcing steel
bars firstly shortened, then became irregular and finally
disappeared.
(c) Both the relative apparent yield and ultimate strengths of the
corroded reinforcing steel bars decreased with an increase in
average cross-section loss of the reinforcing steel bar.
However, the relative apparent ultimate strength had a better
correlation with the average cross-section loss of the
reinforcing steel bar than did the relative apparent yield
strength. The relationship between relative apparent yield (or
ultimate) strength and average cross-section loss of the
corroded reinforcing steel bars can be approximately
represented by a linear function with a slope of about 1.2 for
reinforcing steel bars corroded in simulated solutions and 2.1
for those corroded in concrete.
(d ) It seems that there is no strong correlation between the yield-
to-ultimate strength ratio and the average cross-section loss of
reinforcing steel bars. Elongation ratio decreases with
increased corrosion; the decrease rate is about 0.2 for
reinforcing steel bars corroded in simulated solutions and 0.8
for those corroded in concrete.
(e) The method present in this paper can be used to evaluate the
mechanical behaviour of corroded reinforcing steel bars in
multi-environments. However, the environmental
compensation factor should be considered seriously for
different corrosive environments in real RC structures. A
conservative environmental compensation factor has been
recommended according to the present experimental results.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge financial support from the UK
Royal Society through an international joint project (JP0867232)
and the National Natural Science Foundation of China through an
international key project (50920105806).
REFERENCES
Allamt IM, Maslehuddin M, Sariciment H and Al Mana A (1994)
Influence of atmospheric corrosion on the mechanical
Structures and Buildings
Volume 166 Issue SB5
properties of reinforcing steel. Construction and Building
Materials 8(1): 35–41.
Almusallam AA (2001) Effect of degree of corrosion on the
properties of reinforcing steel bars. Construction and
Building Materials 15(8): 361–368.
Andrade C, Alonso MC and Gonzalez JA (1990) An initial effort
to use the corrosion rate measurements for estimating rebar
durability. In Corrosion Rates of Steel in Concrete (Berke
NS, Chaker V and Whiting D (eds)). American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, USA, STP 1065,
pp. 29–37.
Andrade C, Alonso C, Garcia D and Rodriguez J (1991)
Remaining lifetime of reinforced concrete structures: Effect
of corrosion on the mechanical properties of the steel.
Proceedings of the 3rd IRMC Symposium on Life Prediction
of Corrodible Structures, September 1991, Cambridge, UK
and November 1991, Kauai, HI, USA, vol. 1, pp. 546–557.
Apostolopoulos CA and Papadakis VG (2007) Mechanical
behavior of reinforcement stirrups bst 500(s) at corrosive
environment. Journal of Materials Engineering and
Performance 16(2): 236–241.
Apostolopoulos CA and Papadopoulos MP (2007) Tensile and
low cycle fatigue behavior of corroded reinforcing steel bars
s400. Construction and Building Materials 21(4): 855–864.
Apostolopoulos CA and Pasialis VP (2010) Effects of corrosion
and ribs on low cycle fatigue behavior of reinforcing steel
bars s400. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
19(3): 385–394.
Apostolopoulos CA, Papadopoulos MP and Pantelakis SG (2006)
Tensile behavior of corroded reinforcing steel bars bst 500s.
Construction and Building Materials 20(9): 782–789.
ASTM (1999) Standard G102-89: Practice for calculation of
corrosion rates and related information from electrochemical
measurements. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM (2003) Standard G1-03: Standard practice for preparing,
cleaning, and evaluating corrosion test specimens. ASTM,
West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Cairns J, Plizzari GA, Du YG, Law DW and Franzoni C (2005)
Mechanical properties of corrosion-damaged reinforcement.
ACI Materials Journal 102(4): 256–264.
Carrion-Viramontes FJ, Hernandez-Rivera J, Martinez-Madrid M
et al. (1999) Corrosion behaviour of prestressed steel-
reinforced structures. Corrosion Reviews 17(2): 119–129.
Darmawan MS and Stewart MG (2007) Effect of pitting
corrosion on capacity of prestressing wires. Magazine of
Concrete Research 59(2): 131–139.
Du YG, Clark LA and Chan A (2005) Residual capacity of
corroded reinforcing bars. Magazine of Concrete Research
57(3): 135–147.
Evans RH (1957) Use of calcium chloride in prestressed concrete.
Proceedings of World Conference on Prestressed Concrete,
San Francisco, CA, USA. University of California/Prestressed
Concrete Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. A31-1–
A31-8.
Glass GK and Buenfeld NR (2000) Chloride-induced corrosion of
Mechanical performance of corroded steel
bars in concrete
Xia, Jin, Zhao and Li
steel in concrete. Progress in Structural Engineering and
Materials 2(4): 448–458.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (1991a)
ISO 6935-1: Steel for the reinforcement of concrete. Part 1:
Plain bars, NEQ. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO (1991b) ISO 6935-2: Steel for the reinforcement of concrete.
Part 2: Ribbed bars, NEQ. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland
Lee HS, Tomosawa F and Noguchi T (1996) Effects of rebar
corrosion on the structural performance of singly reinforced
beams. Proceedings of 7th International Conference on
Durability of Building Materials and Components, 7DBMC,
Stockholm, Sweden. E & FN Spon, London, UK, pp. 571–
571.
Lu C, Jin W and Liu R (2011) Reinforcement corrosion-induced
cover cracking and its time prediction for reinforced concrete
structures. Corrosion Science 53(4): 1337–1347.
Maslehuddin M, Allam IM, Alsulaimani GJ, Almana AI and
Abduljauwad SN (1990) Effect of rusting of reinforcing steel
on its mechanical-properties and bond with concrete. ACI
Materials Journal 87(5): 496–502.
Morinaga S (1996) Remaining life of reinforced concrete
structures after corrosion cracking. In Durability of Building
Materials and Components (Sjostrom C (ed.)). E & FN Spon,
London, UK, pp. 127–137.
Palsson R and Mirza MS (2002) Mechanical response of corroded
steel reinforcement of abandoned concrete bridge. ACI
Structural Journal 99(2): 157–162.
Pullar-Strecker P (1987) Corrosion Damaged Concrete:
Assessment and Repair. Construction Industry Research and
Information Association, London, UK.
Richardson MG (2002) Fundamentals of Durable Reinforced
Concrete. Taylor & Francis, London, UK.
Saifullah M (1994) Effect of Reinforcement Corrosion on Bond
Strength in Reinforced Concrete. Thesis, University of
Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Trejo D, Pillai RG, Hueste M, Reinschmidt KF and Gardoni P
(2009) Parameters influencing corrosion and tension capacity
of post-tensioning strands. ACI Materials Journal 106(2):
144–153.
Vu K, Stewart MG and Mullard J (2005) Corrosion-induced
cracking: experimental data and predictive models. ACI
Structural Journal 102(5): 719–726.
Williamson SJ and Clark LA (2000) Pressure required to cause
cover cracking of concrete due to reinforcement corrosion.
Magazine of Concrete Research 52(6): 455–467.
Xia J, Jin WL and Li LY (2011) Shear performance of reinforced
concrete beams with corroded stirrups in chloride
environment. Corrosion Science 53(5): 1794–1805.
Xia J, Jin WL and Li LY (2012) Effect of chloride-induced
reinforcing steel corrosion on the flexural strength of
reinforced concrete beams. Magazine of Concrete Research
64(6): 471–485.
Yuan YS and Ji YS (2009) Modeling corroded section
configuration of steel bar in concrete structure. Construction
and Building Materials 23(6): 2461–2466.
245
Structures and Buildings
Volume 166 Issue SB5
Yuan YS and Ji YS (2010) Development of corrosion layer of steel
bar in concrete and its mechanical and electrochemical
effects. International Journal of Structural Engineering 1(2):
199–206.
Yuan YS, Ji YS and Shah SP (2007) Comparison of two
accelerated corrosion techniques for concrete structures. ACI
Structural Journal 104(3): 344–347.
246
Mechanical performance of corroded steel
bars in concrete
Xia, Jin, Zhao and Li
Zhang PS, Lu M and Li XY (1995) Mechanical property of
rustiness reinforcement steel. Journal of Industrial Buildings
25(9): 41–44.
Zhao YX, Ren HY, Dai H and Jin WL (2011) Composition and
expansion coefficient of rust based on X-ray diffraction
and thermal analysis. Corrosion Science 53(5): 1646–
1658.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students.
Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing papers
should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate illustra-
tions and references. You can submit your paper online via
www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you
will also find detailed author guidelines.
Copyright of Structures & Buildings is the property of Thomas Telford Ltd and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.