COATINGS & LININGS
Concrete Coatings for
Mitigation of Embedded
Rebar Corrosion
Raghava Kumar Vanama and
Balaji Ramakrishnan, Department of
Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai,
Maharashtra, India
2 MARCH 2021
Chloride-induced corrosion is the
prime reason for degradation of
embedded rebar in marine structures.
The present study experimentally
investigates the effectiveness of two-
component epoxy (EPX) and single-
component moisture-cure (MC) poly-
urethane concrete coatings in reducing
the rate of chloride ingress and thus
mitigating rebar corrosion. The non-
steady-state migration coefficients of
the concrete cured for 28 days and
coated with MC and EPX coatings
were 22% and 11%, respectively, of that
of the concrete with supplementary
cementitious material cured for 84
days. MC coatings mitigated the cor-
rosion rate of embedded rebar by 7.6
times compared to uncoated speci-
mens, whereas EPX coatings mitigated
C
the rate by 23 times.
Corrosion of embedded rebar in the
marine environment is mainly due to chlo-
ride attack. In addition, reinforced con-
crete members present in the intertidal
zone are exposed to alternate wetting and
drying cycles because of continuous waves
and tides. The expansive corrosion product
from embedded rebar causes cracks that
accelerate chloride penetration, eventually
spalling the concrete, degrading the
mechanical properties of rebar and its
bond with concrete, and thereby reducing
the overall strength and service life of the
structure. 1 As discussed in a study by
Vanama, et al.,2 the use of dense concrete
and coatings have been widely adopted in
minimizing the chloride penetration of the
concrete. Moisture-cure (MC) polyure-
thane (PUR) coatings possess certain
advantages over the conventional two-
component epoxy coatings, particularly in
the marine environment.2 Please note that
additional details on the work described in
this article are contained in Reference 2.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge,
no information is available in the literature
comparing the use of single-component
MC PUR concrete coatings and supplemen-
tary cementitious materials (SCMs) with
the traditional two-component coating sys-
tems in improving chloride penetration
resistance of the concrete. The present
study is extended to investigate the corro-
sion mitigation and chloride resistivity of
coated concrete in comparison with con-
crete with and without SCM, like fly ash
and ground granulated blast furnace slag
(GGBFS), through chloride migration and
corrosion acceleration tests.
Experimental Investigation
The concrete ingredients used in the
study, namely, ordinary Portland cement,
coarse aggregate (CA), fine aggregate (FA),
water, superplasticizer (SP), fly ash, and
GGBFS have been characterized by appro-
priate test methods and the related proper-
ties are described in detail in the Vanama,
et al., 2 study. Based on the obtained test
results, concrete mixtures were designed
WWW.MATERIALSPERFORMANCE.COM
 TABLE 1. DETAILS OF CONCRETE
MIXTURE PROPORTION USED IN
THE STUDY
Ingredient Mixture 1 Mixture 2
Cement (kg/m3) 430.00 301.00
Fly ash (kg/m )
3
0.00 64.50
GGBFS (kg/m ) 3
0.00 64.50
CA (10 mm) 926.96 911.86
(kg/m3)
FA (kg/m3) 1,027.36 1,010.63
Free water/ 0.30 0.30
binder
SP (% of binder) 1.20 1.34
with and without mineral admixtures, as
given in Table 1, conforming to the specifi-
cations set by Indian standards 3-4 for the
“extreme” exposure condition. Adopted
concrete mixtures produced a slump of
nearly 55 mm (2.16 in) with a cube com-
pressive strength of 46.82 MPa (6,790.6 psi)
for Mixture 1 (without additives) at 28 days;
46.23 MPa (6,705.1 psi) for Mixture 2 (with
pozzolans) at 28 days; and 58.83 MPa
(8,532.6 psi) for Mixture 2 at 84 days of
immerse curing.
Further, concrete coatings used in the
study are comprehensively characterized to
understand their composition, crystalline
nature, morphology, wettability, adhesion
(with the concrete surface), and water
uptake properties. Epoxy coatings used in
the study have carbon as a significant com-
ponent, and the system does not possess a
definite morphology. However, MC single-
component PUR coatings (MC-M and
MC-T) used in this study contain elements
that are crystalline with the presence of
micaceous iron oxide (MIO) plates <10 nm
thick, fused over each other. MC coatings
are found to be relatively more hydropho-
bic than two-component epoxy (EPX) coat-
ings. However, all the coatings are found to
be hydrophilic. To understand the water
absorption behavior of hardened coatings
by the gravimetric method, water uptake
tests were conducted in accordance with
ASTM C1794. 5 The MC-T coat possesses
relatively higher water absorption capacity,
followed by MC-M and EPX coatings. Pull-
MATERIALS PERFORMANCE: VOL. 60, NO. 3
off adhesion tests were carried out in
accordance with ASTM D72346 to quantify
the strength of the bond between the con-
crete substrate and coatings. The MC-M
system is found to have the greatest adhe-
sive strength with concrete, followed by
EPX, whereas in the MCT topcoat, cohesive
failure is observed within the coating
system.
Rapid chloride migration tests (RCMTs)
were conducted in accordance with NT
BUILD 4927 on concrete with and without
coatings to understand their effect on chlo-
ride migration and estimate the diffusion
coefficients. Test specimens were cut, pre-
conditioned, coated with EPX and MC
coatings, and supplied with the appropri-
ate voltage according to the test standard7
as described in Vanama, et al.2 A multiutil-
ity device 8 was adopted to monitor the
resistance offered by the test specimens
during RCMTs.
To understand the influence of con-
crete coatings in mitigating the embedded
rebar corrosion, accelerated corrosion
tests were performed on pull-out speci-
mens by an impressed current technique
using a two-chambered setup.9 A constant
voltage of 25.0 V was supplied to specimens
until the first crack appeared on the
uncoated concrete specimen. Nine total
reinforced concrete cubes of 150 mm (5.90
in) in size with a concentric thermo-
mechanically treated (TMT) rebar were
cast with concrete Mixture 1. The chemical
composition and the mechanical charac-
teristics of the uncorroded TMT rebars
used for specimen preparation were as
described in Vanama, et al.10 After 28 days
of curing, three specimens were coated
with EPX (two coats), three with MC-M and
MC-T, and the other three without any coat
on the concrete surface. During accelera-
tion, corrosion-associated parameters
were monitored by a data logger8 and half-
cell potential measurements at regular
intervals. At the end of corrosion accelera-
tion, the rebars were retrieved from the
pull-out specimen for gravimetric analysis.
Rebars were cleaned in accordance with
ASTM-G111 and weighed. The actual mass
loss of rebar was estimated by comparing
with their pristine condition.
Results and Discussion
The electrical resistivity offered by a
specimen against the chloride migration
was estimated from the data logged during
RCMTs, and the typical pattern is given in
Figure 1. At the start of the test, MC-coated
specimens offered nearly 102 times greater
resistance compared to control specimens
(Mixture 1 at 28 days) and continued to
offer the highest resistivity than any other
system used in the study for the first 24 h of
the migration tests. Scanning electron
microscopy indicated that MC coatings are
reinforced with MIO plates, which cause a
labyrinth effect12-13 that makes the migra-
tion path of corrosive media in the coating
more tortuous, thereby increasing the time
when corrosive media reach the metal sub-
strate. However, resistance offered by MC
coatings decreased over the next 24 h,
unlike EPX coatings, which might be
because the MC coatings used in this study
are hydrophilic and possess high water
absorption coefficients compared to the
EPX coatings.
For the MC coating systems, the water
uptake coefficient was higher for MC-T
than MC-M, which can be the reason
behind the sudden decrease in the resistiv-
ity offered by MC coatings against chloride
migration in the first 3 h of the migration
test. The adhesion test indicated that MC-T
coatings had the least adhesive strength
within the coating systems, which might be
the reason for the sudden decrease in resis-
tance offered by the MC specimen against
chloride ion penetration. The EPX had the
least water absorption coefficients among
the tested coatings systems and offered
higher resistance to chloride penetration
throughout the migration test period. Both
EPX and MC coating systems were more
effective in terms of resistance to chloride-
ion penetration than the concrete with
SCMs (Mixture 2) cured for 28 and 84 days
as well.
Based on the chloride migration depth
and the environmental conditions main-
tained during the test, the apparent chlo-
ride diffusion coefficient (D app) and non-
steady-state migration coefficient (Dnssm)
are estimated in accordance with the Fib
Bulletin 34 14 and NT BUILD 492, 7 respec-
MARCH 2021 3
COATINGS & LININGS
0.499% ±0.096% for “Mix1+MC” specimens,
and 0.165% ±0.162% for “Mix1+EPX” speci-
mens. It is implicit that both concrete sur-
face coatings are highly effective in mitigat-
ing the corrosion of embedded rebar and
MC coatings reduced the mass loss due to
corrosion by 7.6 times compared to
uncoated specimens, whereas EPX coatings
reduced the mass loss by 23 times.

FIGURE 1 Electrical resistance offered against chloride migration.
FIGURE 2 Chloride ingression coefficients for concrete with coatings.
tively, and presented in Figure 2. Concrete
with coatings performed better compared
to uncoated concrete with additives, even
at 84 days of curing. MC and EPX-coated
concrete specimens offered nearly 4.55 and
9.51 times better resistance, respectively, to
chloride migration when compared to 84
days cured concrete specimens with SCMs.
During the corrosion acceleration test
period, associated corrosion parameters
were recorded at a 5-min interval using a
data logger8 and they are presented in Fig-
ure 3. For the supplied voltage, cumulative
current flow readings are observed to be
higher for concrete specimens coated with
MC compared to that of the EPX system.
follows:
Thereby, the overall chloride penetration
resistance offered by MC-coated concrete
specimens was less than that of the EPX-
coated specimen. Dense concrete cover of
nearly 67 mm (2.64 in) and the concrete
surface coated with EPX and MC coatings
made the specimens highly resistive to ion
migration. It demonstrated the limitations
of the half-cell measurements for monitor-
ing the corrosion of rebar embedded in EPX
or MC-coated concrete, where the RCMT is
used for accelerating the rebar corrosion.
The actual mass loss of rebar was esti-
mated by comparing with their pristine
condition, which is estimated to be 3.793%
±0.266% for “Mix1” concrete specimens,
Conclusions
Major conclusions from the study are as
• At the start of the rapid chloride migra-
tion test, MC-coated specimens
offered nearly 102 times greater resis-
tance to chloride migration compared
to the concrete without mineral
admixtures. This might be because MC
coatings used in the study are rein-
forced with MIO, which makes the
migration path of corrosive media in
the coating more tortuous.
• Even though concrete with and with-
out additives have shown nearly the
same strength at 28 days, concrete
with additives has a 25.6% lower non-
steady-state migration coefficient
than concrete without any pozzolanic
material. The value reaches 45.5%
after 84 days of curing.
• The non-steady-state migration coef-
ficients of the concrete cured for 28
days and coated with MC and EPX
coatings were nearly 22% and 11% of
that of concrete with SCM cured for 84
days, respectively.
• The performance of the selected coat-
ing products with respect to chloride
ion penetration resistance observed
during the rapid migration tests can
be expressed in the following order
from best to worst ranking: {(Concrete
without SCM)28d + EPX} > {(Concrete
without SCM) 28d + MC} > (Concrete
with SCM)84d > (Concrete with SCM)28d
> (Concrete without SCM)28d.
• The present study demonstrates the
limitations of the half-cell measure-
ments for monitoring the corrosion of
rebar embedded in coated concrete,
where an impressed current method is
used for accelerating the corrosion of
rebar.
• MC coatings reduced the mass loss
due to corrosion of embedded rebar by
7.6 times compared to uncoated

4 MARCH 2021 WWW.MATERIALSPERFORMANCE.COM

 Concrete Coatings for Mitigation of Embedded Rebar Corrosion
s­ pecimens, whereas EPX coatings
reduced the mass loss by 23 times.
Without any exposure of EPX coat-
ings to UV radiation and temperature
changes, the system offered better
resistance to chloride penetration.
Both MC and EPX coatings are found to
be highly effective in terms of electric resis-
tivity offered against chloride migration
and mitigating the corrosion of embedded
rebar. However, in terms of mixing, recoat
time, and time required for curing, single-
component MC PUR coatings are more use-
ful in the marine environment compared to
epoxy coatings.
NOTE: Readers who wish more detail can
download that manuscript from the AMPP
web site and refer to the Vanama, et al., 2
study.
Acknowledgments
Authors acknowledge the Department
of Civil Engineering and Industrial
Research and Consultancy Centre—IIT
Bombay for financially supporting the
research work. The authors would like to
thank Harinee Addepalli for assisting in
characterizing the coatings.
References
1 R.K. Vanama, et al., “Conditional Assessment
System for Reinforced Concrete Marine
Structures—A Case Study,” Intl. J. of Maritime
Engineering: Transactions of the Royal
­Institution of Naval Architects 162, Part A4
(2020).
2 R.K. Vanama, B. Ramakrishnan, “Effective-
ness of Epoxy and Moisture-Cure Polyure-
thane Coatings in Corrosion Mitigation of
Embedded Rebar—An Experimental Study,”
C2020, paper no. 14405 (Houston, TX: NACE
International, 2020).
3 IS 456 (latest version), “Plain and Reinforced
Concrete—Code of Practice” (New Delhi,
India: Bureau of Indian Standards).
4 IS 10262 (latest version), “Concrete Mix Pro-
portioning-Guidelines” (New Delhi, India:
Bureau of Indian Standards).
5 ASTM C1794 (latest version), “Standard Test
Methods for Determination of the Water Ab-
sorption Coefficient by Partial Immersion”
(West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM Interna-
tional).
6 ASTM D7234 (latest version), “Standard Test
Method for Pull-Off Adhesion Strength of
Coatings on Concrete Using Portable Pull-
Off Adhesion Testers” (West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM).
MATERIALS PERFORMANCE: VOL. 60, NO. 3
FIGURE 3 Variation in cumulative current flow, supply voltage, temperature, and relative humidity
during the acceleration test.
7 NT Build 492 (latest version), “Concrete,
Mortar and Cement-Based Repair Materials:
Chloride Migration Coefficient from Non-
Steady-State Migration Experiments” (Espoo
Finland: Nordtest).
8 R.K. Vanama, B. Ramakrishnan, “An Interface
Circuit for an Accelerated Corrosion Test Ap-
paratus,” Indian Patent 201921020474, 2019.
9 R.K. Vanama, B. Ramakrishnan, “System and
Method for Corrosion Acceleration of Rebar
in Reinforced Concrete Pull-Out Specimen,”
Indian Patent 201921034527, 2019.
10 R.K. Vanama, B. Ramakrishnan, “Improved
Degradation Relations for the Tensile Prop-
erties of Naturally and Artificially Corroded
Steel Rebars,” Construction and Building
­Materials 249 (2020).
11 ASTM G1 (latest version), “Standard Practice
for Preparing, Cleaning and Evaluating
­C orrosion Test Specimens” (West Consho­
hocken, PA: ASTM).
12 R.K. Vanama, B. Ramakrishnan, “Effective-
ness of Moisture-Cure Micaceous Iron Oxide
Polyurethane Coatings in Reducing the
­C hloride Migration into Concrete—An
­E xperimental Study,” CORCON 2019, paper
no. YSF-22 (Mumbai, India: NACE Interna-
tional Gateway India Section [NIGIS], 2019).
13 X. Zhao, et al., “Electrochemical Impedance
Spectroscopy Investigation on the Corrosive
Behaviour of Waterborne Silicate Micaceous
Iron Oxide Coatings in Seawater,” Coatings 9,
7 (2019): p. 415.
14 Fib Bulletin 34 (latest version), “Model Code
for Service Life Design” (Lausanne, Switzer-
land: FIB International).
RAGHAVA KUMAR VANAMA is a Ph.D.
student in the Department of Civil Engi-
neering, Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra,
India, email: vanama.raghavakumar@
gmail.com. He is currently engaged in doc-
toral research on monitoring and mitiga-
tion of embedded rebar corrosion. Vanama
worked as a project scientist at the Nation
Institute of Ocean Technology, Chennai on
analysis, design, and implementation of
various offshore and onshore marine struc-
tures. He is a member of AMPP (formerly
NACE International).
BALAJI RAMAKRISHNAN is an associate
professor at the Department of Civil Engi-
neering, Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay, email: rbalaji@iitb.ac.in. He has
been engaged in teaching, research, and
consultancy for more than 10 years in the
field of civil engineering. Ramakrishnan
has organized several technical work-
shops/seminars/conferences/short-term
courses for knowledge sharing and dis-
semination in the field of ocean engineer-
ing. He guided several research scholars,
some of whom are working on marine cor-
rosion, repair, and mitigation measures.
Ramakrishnan was awarded the “Best
Graduate Student Paper award,” ASME,
OOAE Division; the “Maritime Award,”
Ministry of Shipping, Government of India;
and “R.J. Garde Research Award,” Indian
Society for Hydraulics.
MARCH 2021 5