Prestress Loss Diagnostics in Pretensioned Concrete

Structures with Corrosive Cracking

Lizhao Dai 1; Hanbing Bian 2; Lei Wang, M.ASCE 3; Michel Potier-Ferry 4; and Jianren Zhang 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Changsha University of Science and Technology on 01/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Concrete cracking induced by strand corrosion can degrade bond strength and lead to prestress loss. A novel model is proposed to
predict corrosion-induced prestress loss in pretensioned concrete structures. The coupling effects of concrete cracking and bond degradation
are incorporated into the model. An experimental study is conducted to evaluate the effective prestress in eight corroded pretensioned concrete
beams under various stress levels. Experimental results are employed to validate the proposed model. Results demonstrate that the proposed
model can accurately predict prestress loss in corroded pretensioned concrete structures. Prestress loss depends on the corrosion degree.
Corrosion-induced concrete cracking may not degrade bond strength and effective prestress unless corrosion loss exceeds 6.6%. As corrosion
further progresses, bond strength and effective prestress decrease monotonically and then reduce to zero when corrosion loss reaches 34.0%.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002554. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Pretensioned concrete structures; Strand corrosion; Corrosive cracking; Bond degradation; Prestress loss.

Introduction
Prestressed concrete (PC) has been widely used in engineering
structures owing to its superior performance and high durability
(Han et al. 2015; Dang et al. 2016). Unfortunately, some recent fail-
ure cases have raised concerns over the safety of existing PC struc-
tures (Li et al. 2011; Lim et al. 2016). Strand corrosion is one of the
main causes of deterioration of PC structures (Pillai et al. 2014;
Zhang et al. 2017). Corrosion can reduce strand cross section, induce
concrete cracking, degrade bond strength, lead to prestress loss, and
eventually deteriorate the capacity of PC structures (Val et al. 2009;
Zhang and Yuan 2014; Biondini and Frangopol 2016). Effective pre-
stress in pretensioned concrete structures is more important than that
in other concrete members. Corrosion-induced cracking in existing
pretensioned concrete structures may lead to prestress loss. The
evaluation of prestress loss caused by corrosive cracking is necessary
for the serviceability and safety of existing concrete structures.
Several factors may lead to prestress losses, such as concrete creep
and shrinkage, stress relaxation of prestressing strand, and corrosion.
1 bond stress at the strand–concrete interface. Concrete cracking and
Lecturer, School of Civil Engineering, Changsha Univ. of Science and
Technology, No. 960 Wanjiali Rd., Changsha, Hunan 410114, China;
Doctoral Student, Laboratoire d’Etude des Microstructures et de Mécanique
des Matériaux, Univ. de Lorraine, Ile du Saulcy, Metz Cedex 01 57045,
France. Email: lizhaod@hotmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Laboratoire d’Etude des Microstructures et de
Mécanique des Matériaux, Univ. de Lorraine, Ile du Saulcy, Metz Cedex
01 57045, France. Email: hanbing.bian@univ-lorraine.fr
3
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Changsha Univ. of Science
and Technology, No. 960 Wanjiali Rd., Changsha, Hunan 410114, China
(corresponding author). Email: Leiwang@csust.edu.cn
4
Professor, Laboratoire d’Etude des Microstructures et de Mécanique
des Matériaux, Univ. de Lorraine, Ile du Saulcy, Metz Cedex 01 57045,
France. Email: michel.potier-ferry@univ-lorraine.fr
5
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Changsha Univ. of Science and
Technology, No. 960 Wanjiali Rd., Changsha, Hunan 410114, China.
Email: jianrenz@hotmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 28, 2018; approved on
August 13, 2019; published online on January 13, 2020. Discussion period
open until June 13, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
Numerous studies have been undertaken to assess the effects of con-
crete creep and shrinkage as well as the stress relaxation of prestressing
strands on long-term prestress losses (Osborn et al. 2012; Kottari and
Shing 2014; Ward et al. 2016). Some codes also propose methods for
evaluating the long-term prestress losses in PC structures (AASHTO
2010; CEB-FIP 2010; PCI 2010). Compared with studies on long-term
prestress losses, studies regarding corrosion-induced prestress loss
have received little attention. Cavell and Waldron (2001) used the
strain compatibility method to estimate the residual prestress in post-
tensioned concrete beams after tendon failure. Castel et al. (2011) in-
dicated that the prestressing force loss in posttensioned concrete beams
was proportional to the cross-section reduction of corroded strand.
The aforementioned studies focus on evaluating the effect
of strand cross-section reduction on prestress loss in corroded post-
tensioned concrete beams. The evaluation of corrosion-induced
prestress loss is a complicated task. Except for the cross-section
reduction of corroded strand, concrete cracking and bond degrada-
tion can also cause prestress loss. Additionally, posttensioned con-
crete members use anchorage systems to transmit prestress, whereas
prestress in pretensioned concrete structures is built through the
bond degradation may have a more significant impact on prestress
loss in pretensioned concrete structures than in posttensioned con-
crete members. Evaluation of prestress loss in pretensioned con-
crete structures caused by corrosive cracking requires further study.
The objective of this study is to propose an analytical model for
evaluating prestress loss in corroded pretensioned concrete struc-
tures, incorporating the coupling effects of concrete cracking and
bond degradation. The paper is organized as follows: First, an ana-
lytical model is proposed to estimate the corrosion-induced prestress
loss. Then, the effective prestress in eight corroded pretensioned con-
crete beams under various stress levels is explored by the four-point
flexural test. Subsequently, the proposed model is validated by the
experimental results. Finally, several conclusions are drawn.
Prestress Loss Model
Strand corrosion can induce concrete cracking and degrade bond
strength, which may further cause prestress loss. Considering

© ASCE 04020013-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04020013

 ρ ¼ 6ΔA=Ap ð1Þ

where ΔA = area loss of a single wire; ΔA ¼ 2=3πðR20 − R2ρ Þ;

Ro and Rρ = radiuses of wire before and after corrosion, respec-
tively; and Ap = cross-sectional area of uncorroded strand.
Corrosion products have larger volume than the consumed iron,
and may expand outward. Some corrosion products fill pores and
cracks, and others contribute to expansive pressure (Bhargava et al.
2006). By the volume equivalent principle, the volume reduction of
corroded strand per unit length ΔV w can be written as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Changsha University of Science and Technology on 01/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1
ΔV w ¼ ðΔV c þ ΔV e Þ ð2Þ
γ−1

where γ = rust expansion ratio; ΔV w ¼ 4πðR20 − R2ρ Þ; ΔV c = vol-

Fig. 1. Concrete cracking due to strand corrosion. ume of corrosion products per unit length that fill in cracks and
pores; and ΔV e = concrete volume change per unit length, with
ΔV e ¼ 4πðR2t − R20 Þ, in which Rt = radius of the wire with corro-
sion products.
The volume of corrosion products per unit length ΔV c that fill
the effects of concrete cracking and bond degradation is still
in cracks and pores (Bhargava et al. 2006) is as follows:
important in prestress loss evaluation. In this section, corrosion-
induced cracking is first estimated, considering the softening ΔV c ¼ 4πðRt − Ro ÞðRu − Rt Þ ð3Þ
behavior of cracked concrete. Then, the bond strength of corroded
strand is evaluated from the contributions of adhesion stress, con- where Ru = radius of the cracked region.
finement stress, and expansive pressure. Subsequently, a prediction The concrete displacement uc induced by expansive pressure is
model for prestress loss is proposed, incorporating the coupling given as
effects of concrete cracking and bond degradation.
ðγ − 1ÞAp ρ
u c ¼ R t − R0 ¼ ð4Þ
4πðRu þ R0 Þ
Concrete Cracking Induced by Strand Corrosion
The expansion of corrosion products can lead to cover cracking. Fig. 1 shows that before cover cracking, the concrete cover
Numerous studies indicate that the corrosion-induced cracking pro- consists of two regions: a cracked inner region and an uncracked
cess in reinforced concrete (RC) structures can be reasonably ex- outer region. The hoop stress σθ ðtÞ and the radial displacement uðtÞ
of uncracked concrete, respectively (Wang and Liu 2006), are as
plained by the thick-walled cylinder theory (Bhargava et al. 2006;
follows:
Li and Yang 2011). Additionally, this theory has been widely used
for estimating the transfer length in pretensioned concrete beams

R2 P R2
(Abdelatif et al. 2015; Ramirez-Garcia et al. 2017). Therefore, the σθ ðtÞ ¼ 2 u u 2 1 þ 2c ð5aÞ
ðRc − Ru Þ t
thick-walled cylinder theory was used in the present study to model
concrete cracking.  
Dai et al. (2016) experimentally investigated the corrosion- R2u Pu R2c
uðtÞ ¼ ð1 þ vc Þ þ ð1 − vc Þt ð5bÞ
induced cracking of PC beams, and found that slight corrosion Ec ðR2c − R2u Þ t
could induce cover cracking owing to the large diameter of strand.
Corrosion pits on the strand surface were scarce, and their depth where Pu = expansive pressure at the interface between cracked and
and width were small. Similar findings were observed in Mangual uncracked regions; t = radius of the concrete in the uncracked
et al. (2013) and the present study. In the proposed model, the region, Ru ≤ t ≤ Rc , where Rc ¼ R0 þ C, and C = concrete cover;
average mass loss of segmental strand in different positions, rather and Ec and vc = elastic modulus and Poisson ratio of concrete,
respectively.
than local corrosion loss, is employed to predict the local strand
With the stress distribution equivalence principle, the tensile
prestress variation. Thus, the limited number of corrosion pits
stress of concrete σθ ðRu Þ at Ru should be equal to the tensile
has little effect on prestress prediction. Additionally, some studies
strength of concrete ft , that is, σθ ðRu Þ ¼ f t . The expansive pres-
indicate that the assumption for uniform corrosive pressure at the
sure Pu can be obtained by Eq. (5a) as follows:
bond interface is reasonable for concrete cracking prediction
(Li and Yang 2011; Chen and Nepal 2016). Therefore, corrosion R2c − R2u
products are assumed to be distributed uniformly around strand Pu ¼ f t ð6Þ
R2c þ R2u
in the present model.
When the tensile stress in the circumferential direction induced Substituting Eq. (6) into Eq. (5b), the radial displacement uðtÞ of
by corrosion expansion exceeds the concrete tensile strength, con- uncracked concrete can be calculated. It is assumed that the radial
crete is assumed to crack. Fig. 1 shows concrete cracking due to displacement uðrÞ of cracked concrete still satisfies the linear dis-
strand corrosion. Seven-wire steel strand is generally used as pre- tribution principle, which can be expressed as
stressing steel in PC structures. The contact area between the outer  
wire and concrete is equal to two-thirds of the surface area of the f t R2u R2c
uðrÞ ¼ ð1 þ vc Þ þ ð1 − vc Þr ð7Þ
wire. The outer wires would be first corroded when the strand is Ec ðR2c þ R2u Þ r
under environmental erosion, as shown in Fig. 1. The strand
corrosion loss ρ can be expressed as where r = radius of the concrete in the cracked region, R0 ≤ r ≤ Ru .

© ASCE 04020013-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04020013

 deformed bar, is further developed to estimate the bond stress of
corroded strand. Considering the corrosion effects, the bond stress
of corroded strand τ η can be written as

τη ¼ τa þ τb þ τc ð11Þ

where τ a = adhesion stress at the bond interface; τ b = confinement

stress from the surrounding concrete; and τ c = bond stress induced
by expansive pressure.
Adhesion stress at the bond interface is related to interface co-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Changsha University of Science and Technology on 01/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

hesion. The profile shape of strand is similar to that of deformed bar

Fig. 2. Stress-strain curve of concrete in tension. (Wang et al. 2016). Based on the diameter equivalence principle,
the characteristics of deformed bar ribs are translated into prestress-
ing strand geometry to calculate the adhesion stress of strand in
Cracks can lead to the softening of concrete tensile strength. The the present study. The adhesion stress of corroded strand can be
bilinear softening curve proposed by Pantazopoulou and Papoulia expressed (Chen and Nepal 2016) as follows:
(2001) is employed to describe the stress–strain relationship
of cracked concrete, as shown in Fig. 2. The hoop stress σθ ðrÞ of kAr ½cot δ þ tanðδ þ θÞ
τa ¼ fcoh ð12Þ
cracked concrete can be written as πDsr
8
>
> Ec εθ ðrÞ; εθ ðrÞ ≤ εct where k = number of transverse ribs; D = strand diameter; Ar = rib
>
>  
>
> area in the plane at right angles to strand axis; δ = rib orientation;
< f 1 − 0.85 εθ ðrÞ − εct ; ε < ε ðrÞ ≤ ε
t ct θ 1 sr = rib spacing; θ = friction angle between strand and concrete;
σθ ðrÞ ¼ ε1 − εct ð8Þ
>
>   and fcoh = coefficient of adhesion stress.
>
> εu − εθ ðrÞ
>
> The confinement stress from the surrounding concrete can be
: 0.15f t ε − ε ; ε1 < εθ ðrÞ ≤ εu
u 1 given (Coronelli 2002) as follows:

where εθ ðrÞ = hoop strain of cracked concrete; εct and ε1 = strains
of concrete corresponding to tensile strength and 15% of tensile
strength, respectively; and εu = ultimate strain of concrete.
Before cover cracking, the expansive pressure would be bal-
anced by the residual tensile stress by cracked concrete and the
confining stress by uncracked concrete (Wang and Liu 2006;
Han et al. 2016). The expansive pressure Pc at the strand–concrete
interface can be expressed as
Z R
u
Pc R0 ¼ P u Ru þ σθ ðrÞdr ð9Þ
R0
After cover cracking, the expansive pressure would be resisted
by the residual tensile strength by cracked concrete. The expansive
pressure Pc can be rewritten as
Z R
c
Pc R0 ¼ σθ ðrÞdr ð10Þ
R0
The expansive pressure during concrete cracking relates to
the degree of strand corrosion, which can be calculated by
Eqs. (9) and (10).
Bond Degradation Due to Strand Corrosion
The bond between strand and concrete is attributed to adhesion,
friction, and mechanical interlock (Briere et al. 2013). The initial
bond stress is due to adhesion, which disappear once slip occurs
(Abdelatif et al. 2015; Ramirez-Garcia et al. 2017). After the strand
slips, strand twisting occurs together with longitudinal slip. The
strand’s bond mechanism is similar to that of a deformed bar based
on the experimental investigation by Wang et al. (2016). The differ-
ence is that the deformed bar has no twisting effects during the
slip process.
Corrosion can change the geometrical shape of strand.
Corrosion-induced cracking can reduce the confinement effects
of concrete. These factors would affect the bond behavior of cor-
roded strand. In the present study, a model proposed by Chen and
Nepal (2016), which is used to predict the bond stress of corroded
kCr tanðδ þ θÞ
τb ¼ px ð13Þ
π
where Cr = shape factor constant; and px = maximum pressure at
bond failure.
The bond stress induced by expansive pressure can be written as
τ c ¼ kc Pc ð14Þ
where kc = friction coefficient between corroded strand and cracked
concrete.
The bond strength of corroded strand depends on adhesion
stress, confinement stress, and expansive pressure, which can be
estimated by Eqs. (11)–(14). The bond mechanisms of corroded
strand described in this part will be used for the evaluation of
effective prestress in the transfer region.
Corrosion-Induced Prestress Loss
A model for corrosion-induced prestress loss can be proposed by
considering the combined effects of concrete cracking and bond
degradation. Corrosion-induced prestress loss in the present study
is defined as the difference between the effective prestress in un-
corroded strand and that in corroded strand. The effective prestress
in corroded strand could be evaluated with the strain compatibility
and force equilibrium equations in the beam section.
When the prestressing force in pretensioned concrete structures
is released, the strand prestress will transfer to the concrete through
the bond stress at the strand–concrete interface. One-half of the
beam is discretized into several segments to analyze the stress
variation in corroded strand, as shown in Fig. 3.
It can be seen that the segments of the half beam are numbered
from 1 to n. For an arbitrary segment i, the stress of corroded strand
fp;i can be written as
fp;i ¼ fp;iþ1 − Δf p;i ð15Þ
where Δfp;i = local stress variation in the corroded strand at
segment i, 1 ≤ i ≤ n.

© ASCE 04020013-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04020013

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Changsha University of Science and Technology on 01/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Stress variation in corroded strand.

The contact area between the outer wire and concrete can be
expressed as S ¼ 4=3πRρ;i li , where Rρ;i = residual radius of
corroded wire at segment i; and li = segment length. The local
stress variation in the corroded strand is given as
6S
Δf p;i ¼ τ ð16Þ
Ap;i ðηÞ η

where Ap;i ðηÞ = residual cross-sectional area of the corroded strand

at segment i.
For corroded pretensioned concrete structures, the strand pre-
stress at the beam end is zero, that is, fp;1 ¼ 0. The tension force Fig. 4. Strain distribution in the beam cross section.
of the corroded strand T p;i can be expressed as
T p;i ¼ f p;i Ap;i ðηÞ ð17Þ bottom of beam, respectively; and as0 = distance from the center
of gravity of compressive reinforcements to the top of beam.
After corrosion, the strand strain change Δεp;i at segment i can The stress–strain behavior of steel reinforcements can be de-
be written as scribed by an elastic-plastic constitutive model (El-Tawil et al.
2001) as follows:
T pi T p;i 
Δεp;i ¼ − ð18Þ Es ε s εs ≤ εsy
Ep Ap Ep Ap;i ðηÞ fs ¼ ð21Þ
f sy þ Esp ðεs − εsy Þ εs > εsy
where T pi = initial prestressing force of the uncorroded strand at
segment i; and Ep = elastic modulus of strand. where fs and fsy = stress and yield strength of steel reinforcements,
When the stress of the corroded strand reaches the effective pre- respectively; εs and εsy = strain and yield strain of steel reinforce-
stress, the concrete strain change Δεc;i at the strand position should ments, respectively; and Es and Esp = elastic and hardening modu-
be equal to the strand strain change Δεp;i so that strain compati- lus of steel reinforcements, respectively.
bility is maintained, that is, Δεc;i ¼ Δεp;i . After corrosion, the The forces of steel reinforcements in the tension and compres-
0
concrete strain εcp;i at segment i is given as sion zones, Fs;i and Fs;i , respectively, are


T pi 1 e2p Fs;i ¼ As fs ðεs;i Þ ð22aÞ
εcp;i ¼ þ − Δεc;i ð19Þ
Ec A I
0
Fs;i ¼ As0 fs ðεs;i
0
Þ ð22bÞ
where ep = eccentricity of the strand; A = cross-sectional area of
intact concrete; and I = inertia moment of the gross section of intact where As and fs ðεs;i Þ = section area and stress of steel reinforce-
concrete. ments in the tension zones, respectively; and As0 and fs ðεs;i 0 Þ =
This study primarily investigates the prestress loss caused by section area and stress of steel reinforcements in the compression
strand corrosion and does not consider corrosion in steel reinforce- zones, respectively.
ments. Fig. 4 shows the strain distribution in the beam cross The mechanical behavior of concrete in tension can be modeled by
section. Based on the plane section assumption for the beam, a linear elastic constitutive law suggested by Vu et al. (2010). The non-
the strains of steel reinforcements in the tension and compression linear constitutive law of concrete proposed by Collins and Mitchell
0 , respectively, are
zones, εs;i and εs;i (1991) is used to describe the mechanical behavior of concrete in
hx − as compression. The stress–strain curves of concrete are expressed as
εs;i ¼ ε ð20aÞ 

2 
hx − ap cp;i  ε ε
0
fc 2 c − c in compression
fc ¼ ε0 ε0 ð23Þ
0 h − hx − as0 E c εc in tension
εs;i ¼ ε ð20bÞ
hx − ap cp;i
where fc and εc = stress and strain of concrete, respectively; f c0 =
where h = height of beam; hx , ap , and as = distances from the cen- concrete compressive strength; and ε0 = concrete strain corresponding
ters of gravity of beam, strand and tensile reinforcements to the to the compressive strength, and is set to 0.002.

© ASCE 04020013-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04020013

 The total force of concrete Ci can be written as
Z and mechanical property of steel. The thickness of concrete cover,
Ci ¼ fc dAc ð24Þ
Ac
where Ac = cross-sectional area of damaged concrete.
For corroded pretensioned concrete structures, the forces of pre-
stressing strand, concrete, and steel reinforcements should satisfy
the following equilibrium equation:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Changsha University of Science and Technology on 01/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0
Ci þ Fs;i − T p;i − Fs;i ¼ 0 ð25Þ
As mentioned above, a novel model, incorporating the coupling
effects of concrete cracking and bond degradation, is proposed
to evaluate corrosion-induced prestress loss. The calculation
process of prestress loss can be performed as follows. First, the
corrosion-induced cracking and bond degradation are estimated
by Eqs. (1)–(14). Subsequently, the stress variation in corroded
strand at each segment is calculated by Eq. (16). Based on the
step-by-step accumulation, the strand stress increment is obtained
by Eq. (15). The accumulation process is terminated when the
stresses of prestressing strand, concrete, and steel reinforcements
in the beam section satisfy the strain compatibility and force equi-
librium equations. Then, the effective prestress in the corroded strand
is evaluated by Eq. (17). The effective prestress in uncorroded strand
can be obtained by setting the strand corrosion loss to zero in the
above procedure. The prestress loss is equal to the effective prestress
in uncorroded strand minus that in corroded strand. The calculation
flow chart of prestress loss is shown in Fig. 5.
For real-world prestress loss prediction, the following param-
eters should be input into the model: strand corrosion loss,
Fig. 5. Calculation flowchart of prestress loss.
© ASCE 04020013-5
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04020013
thickness of concrete cover, concrete strength, structural details,
concrete strength, structural details, and mechanical property of
steel can be obtained from the design drawing and by practical
engineering measurement.
The corrosion loss of strand can be measured with nondestruc-
tive testing techniques such as half-cell potential, linear polariza-
tion resistance, and acoustic emission methods (Mangual et al.
2013). Additionally, strand corrosion in different regions can be
evaluated by crack widths on the concrete surface. Some models
have been proposed to predict corrosion loss with crack width
(Li and Yang 2011; Khan et al. 2014; Wang et al. 2019). Once
the aforementioned parameters have been obtained, the proposed
model can be employed to predict the prestress loss in corroded
pretensioned concrete structures in practical engineering.
Evaluation of Effective Prestress
In this section, eight concrete beams under various stress levels
were designed to evaluate the effect of strand corrosion on the ef-
fective prestress. Electrochemically accelerated corrosion was used
to obtain the different corrosion levels of strand in pretensioned
concrete beams. The effective prestress in corroded pretensioned
concrete beams was evaluated by the four-point flexural test.
Specimen Details
Eight concrete beams were designed with a rectangular section
of 130 × 150 mm (5.12 × 5.91 in:) and a length of 2,000 mm
(78.74 in.). The beams were reinforced with a 15.2-mm (0.60 in.)
diameter seven-wire steel strand. Two 6-mm (0.24 in.) deformed
bars were arranged at the bottom of each beam, two 8-mm
(0.31 in.) deformed bars were employed at the top, and 6-mm
(0.24 in.) stirrups with 100-mm (3.94 in.) spacing were used in
the beams.
The mechanical properties of steel were measured by testing two
standard samples (General Administration of Quality Supervision,
Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China
2010). The length of the standard samples was 500 mm (19.69 in.).
The yield and ultimate strengths of the strand were 1,830 MPa
(265.35 Ksi) and 1,910 MPa (276.95 Ksi), respectively. The yield
and ultimate strengths of the deformed bars were 400 MPa
(58.00 Ksi) and 540 MPa (78.30 Ksi), respectively. The covers
of the deformed bars and the strand were 30 mm (1.18 in.) and
42.4 mm (1.67 in.), respectively. The specimen details are shown
in Fig. 6.
The testing parameters of the specimens are presented in Table 1.
According to corrosion time, the specimens were divided into two
groups: Group A and Group B, each containing four specimens.
The corrosion times in Group A and Group B were 15 and 20 days,
respectively. To investigate the prestress losses under various stress
levels, each group was designed with four stress levels: 0, 0.25f p ,
0.5fp , and 0.75fp , respectively, where f p was 1,860 MPa
(269.70 Ksi).
Type 32.5 portland cement was used in the concrete. The con-
crete mix contained 417 kg=m3 (702.88 lb=yd3 ) cement,
1,026 kg=m3 (1,729.38 lb=yd3 ) coarse aggregates, and 676 kg=m3
(1,139.44 lb=yd3 ) fine aggregates. The water–cement ratio of the
concrete was 0.44. Sodium chloride (NaCl) with a 5% mass fraction
of cement was used in the concrete to catalyze the corrosion
process.
The 28-day uniaxial compressive strength of the concrete was
obtained by testing three cubes measuring 150 × 150 × 150 mm
(5.91 × 5.91 × 5.91 in:) (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural
J. Struct. Eng.
 Fig. 6. Details of specimen (unit: millimeters; 1 mm ¼ 0.039 in:).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Changsha University of Science and Technology on 01/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Testing parameters the cathode. Direct current was impressed on the strand using a
Groups Beam number Prestress (MPa) Corrosion time (days) potentiostat. The corrosion current in the entire process was 0.1 A.
After the accelerated corrosion, the crack width in 10-cm
Group A PA0 0 15
(3.94 in.) intervals on the concrete surface was measured by a port-
PA1 0.25f p 15
PA2 0.5fp 15
able microscope with a resolution of 0.01 mm (0.0004 in.). The
PA3 0.75f p 15 average mass loss of the strand in the longitudinal direction was
Group B PB0 0 20 measured to reflect the corrosion level of strand in the global re-
PB1 0.25f p 20 gion. The average mass loss of strand in 10-cm (3.94 in.) intervals
PB2 0.5fp 20 was measured to reflect the variation of the corrosion degree in dif-
PB3 0.75f p 20 ferent regions.
Note: 1 MPa ¼ 0.145 Ksi. The measurement of mass loss of the strand was performed
after load testing, and the program was as follows. First, the con-
crete cover was removed by a destructive method, and the corroded
strand was taken out. Then, the corroded strand was cleaned with a
Development of the People’s Republic of China 2002). The con- 12% hydrochloric acid solution and neutralized with alkali (ASTM
crete compressive strength is given in Table 2. The average value 2011). Subsequently, the average mass loss of the entire strand was
and standard deviation of concrete compressive strength were measured, and is given in Table 3. Following this, the strand was
44.1 MPa (6.39 Ksi) and 1.68, respectively. The concrete tensile cut into segments with a length of 10 cm (3.94 in.), and the mass
strength ft can be related to the compressive strength of concrete loss of the segmental strand was measured.
pffiffiffiffiffi
f c as ft ¼ 0.56 f c based on ACI 318M (ACI 2011).
Crack Width and Corrosion Loss
Accelerated Corrosion and Data Measurement To reflect the corrosion degrees of the strand in the longitudinal
The differences between steel corrosion induced by the impressed direction, the corrosion morphology of the strand at 1=2 of PB3
current technique and natural environment have been investigated (the maximum corrosion loss of specimen in the experiment)
(El Maaddawy and Soudki 2003; Yuan et al. 2007). Accelerated was provided, as shown in Fig. 8.
corrosion, compared with natural corrosion, is more likely to cause Fig. 8 shows that there are few corrosion pits on the strand sur-
pitting corrosion in steel owing to the high current density (El face in the longitudinal direction. The depth and width of these
Maaddawy and Soudki 2003). Although the characteristics of ac- corrosion pits were small. The visual observation of the corroded
celerated corrosion are different from those of natural corrosion, the strand further indicates that using the uniform corrosion model to
accelerated corrosion is still widely used so that tests can be com- predict prestress loss is reasonable in the present study. Crack
pleted within a reasonable amount of time. widths and mass losses in 10-cm (3.94 in.) intervals are presented
In the present tests, the electrochemical method was employed to reflect the variation of the corrosion loss and crack width in the
to accelerate strand corrosion. To clarify the effect of strand corro- longitudinal direction, as shown in Fig. 9.
sion on prestress loss alone, the steel reinforcements were protected
with epoxy resin to prevent corrosion. Fig. 7 shows the accelerated
corrosion device. It consisted of a direct-current potentiostat and
a stainless steel plate. The strand was linked to the anode; the
'LUHFWFXUUHQW
stainless steel plate dipped in the 10% NaCl solution acted as

Table 2. Compressive strengths of concrete

Beam number (prestress) Compressive strength (MPa)
PA0 (0) 42.8
PA1 (0.25fp ) 43.5
PA2 (0.5fp ) 44.8
PA3 (0.75fp ) 43.9
PB0 (0) 41.6
PB1 (0.25f p ) 45.9
PB2 (0.5f p ) 43.4
PB3 (0.75f p ) 46.8
Fig. 7. Accelerated corrosion device.
Note: 1 MPa ¼ 0.145 Ksi.

© ASCE 04020013-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04020013

 Table 3. Summary of experimental results
Beam number (prestress) ρc (%) Fc (kN) Fu (kN) Fe;t (kN) fe;t (MPa) Normalized prestress loss (%)
PA0 (0) 7.05 5.0 38.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PA1 (0.25fp ) 7.47 8.5 42.0 52.6 409.0 12.0
PA2 (0.5fp ) 8.35 11.5 45.5 89.7 704.1 24.3
PA3 (0.75fp ) 9.41 14.0 48.0 120.7 958.5 31.3
PB0 (0) 10.45 4.5 28.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
PB1 (0.25f p ) 11.52 7.0 31.0 37.5 304.9 34.4
PB2 (0.5f p ) 12.48 9.5 33.5 56.4 463.6 50.2
PB3 (0.75f p ) 14.69 11.5 36.7 74.0 624.0 55.3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Changsha University of Science and Technology on 01/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note: ρc = mass loss; Fc = cracking load; Fu = ultimate load; Fe;t = prestressing force; f e;t = effective prestress; 1 kN ¼ 0.225 kip; and 1 MPa ¼ 0.145 Ksi.

Fig. 8. Corrosion morphology of strand (unit: centimeters; 1 cm ¼ 0.0039 in:).

It can be seen that crack width relates to the prestress and cor- By varying the stress level of the strand from 0 to 75%fp , the aver-
rosion degree. Crack propagates as corrosion loss increases, and age increase in the mass loss rate is 37.0%.
prestress can accelerate the corrosion-induced cracking process.
Some studies indicate that the mass loss of steel associates well
with corrosion-induced crack width on the concrete surface (Khan Effective Prestress Evaluation under Various Stress
et al. 2014). This implies that the mass loss of the strand can be Levels
evaluated with crack width. Several experimental techniques have been proposed to evaluate
Comparison of the experimental data in Table 3 shows that the effective prestress in PC structures (Caro et al. 2013): (1) meas-
prestress can accelerate the mass loss of the strand. The mass losses uring longitudinal concrete strains over time at the center of gravity
of PA0 and PA3 were 7.05% and 9.41%, respectively. The mass of prestressing strand; (2) determining the cracking load based on
losses of PB0 and PB3 were 10.45% and 14.69%, respectively. load testing; (3) monitoring strain variation in the strand by cutting

2.4 Corrosion loss 0.20 2.4 0.20 2.4 0.20 2.4 Corrosion loss 0.20
Corrosion loss Corrosion loss
Crack width Crack width
Crack width /mm

Crack width /mm

Crack width /mm

2 Crack width
Crack width /mm

2 0.16 2 Crack width 0.16 2 0.16

0.16

Corrosion loss
Corrosion loss
Corrosion loss
Corrosion loss

PA0, 0 PA1, 0.25fp PA2, 0.5fp PA3, 0.75fp

1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
0.04 0.4 0.04 0.4 0.04 0.04
0.4 0.4

0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

0 40 80 120 160 200 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 40 80 120 160 200
(a) Beam length /cm (b) Beam length /cm (c) Beam length /cm (d) Beam length /cm

2.4 0.20 2.4 Corrosion loss 0.20

2.4 0.20 2.4 Corrosion loss 0.20 Corrosion loss
Corrosion loss Crack width
2 2 Crack width
Crack width /mm

Crack width /mm

Crack width /mm

Crack width /mm

2 Crack width 2 Crack width 0.16 0.16

0.16 0.16
Corrosion loss

Corrosion loss
Corrosion loss

Corrosion loss

PB1, 0.25fp PB2, 0.5fp PB3, 0.75fp

1.6 PB0, 0 1.6 1.6 1.6
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
0.04 0.04 0.4 0.04 0.4 0.04
0.4 0.4
0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0 40 80 120 160 200 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 40 80 120 160 200
(e) Beam length /cm (f) Beam length/ cm (g) Beam length /cm (h) Beam length /cm

Fig. 9. Crack widths and corrosion losses: (a) PA0; (b) PA1; (c) PA2; (d) PA3; (e) PB0; (f) PB1; (g) PB2; and (h) PB3 (1 mm ¼ 0.039 in:).

© ASCE 04020013-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04020013

 Load cell

1 5
10 70 130 190

2 3 4

Fig. 10. Diagram of load testing (unit: centimeters; 1 cm ¼ 0.0039 in:).

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Changsha University of Science and Technology on 01/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

it into a representative exposed length; and (4) determining the side
pressure to close cracks in a small cylindrical hole. All these meth-
ods require a reverse process from the testing results to calculate
effective prestress using mechanical theory. Load testing is one of
the most commonly used techniques to evaluate effective prestress
in the present testing.
A four-point flexural test was performed to obtain the load-
deflection curves of corroded specimens, as shown in Fig. 10.
The specimens had a clear span of 1,800 mm (70.87 in.) and a
bending span of 600 mm (23.62 in.). Loads were applied mono-
tonically and measured by a load cell. The load was applied at
a rate of 2 kN (0.45 kip) per step until beam failure. Subsequently,
the beam unloaded at a rate of 5 kN (1.12 kip) per step. The vertical
deflections at the mid-span, supports, and loading points were mea-
sured using electronic digital dial gauges. The displacements at the
mid-span were used to reflect the load-deflection curves of the
specimens and are shown in Fig. 11. It can be seen that beam de-
flection increases as load increases to the maximum load. After
that, the concrete crushing in the compression zone results in a sud-
den decrease in the load, and leads to beam failure. The cracking
and ultimate loads are listed in Table 3.
During load testing, the tensile stress at the bottom of the beam
is affected by self-weight, effective prestress, and applied load.
Cracks may appear at the bottom of the beam once the tensile stress
exceeds the concrete tensile strength. The critical condition of con-
crete cracking can be expressed as


1 ep M M
ft ¼ f p;η Ap ðηÞ þ yb − s yb − c yb
Ac I c Ic Ic
where f p;η = effective prestress in the corroded strand; Ap ðηÞ =
residual cross-sectional area of the corroded strand; yb = distance
from the neutral axis to the bottom of the beam; Ms = moment due
to beam’s weight; M c = cracking moment; and I c = inertia moment
of the gross section of damaged concrete.
Based on cracking load and corrosion loss, the effective pre-
stress and prestress loss in corroded pretensioned concrete beams
can be evaluated, and are given in Table 3. The normalized prestress
loss is defined as the ratio of the prestress loss in the corroded
strand to the effective prestress in the uncorroded strand. By com-
paring the prestress loss presented in Table 3, it is found that the
high stress of strand can accelerate corrosion-induced prestress
loss. The normalized prestress losses of PA1 and PA3 are 12.0%
and 31.3%, respectively. The normalized prestress losses of PB1
and PB3 are 34.4% and 55.3%, respectively. By varying the strand
stress level from 25%f p to 75%f p , the corrosion-induced prestress
loss increases by 20.1%.
Model Validation
The experimental results are used to verify the proposed model in
this section. The relevant parameters are selected as follows. The
rust expansion ratio γ varies from 2 to 4 (Zhao and Jin 2006), and is
set to 3. The friction angle between corroded strand and concrete is
expressed as kc ¼ 0.37 − 0.26ðx − xc Þ (Coronelli 2002), where x =
corrosion depth of the strand and xc = critical corrosion depth of the
strand at cover cracking. The coefficient of adhesion stress is given
as fcoh ¼ 2 − 10ðx − xc Þ (Chen and Nepal 2016). The shape factor
constant Cr is set to 0.8 (Chen and Nepal 2016).
For evaluating corrosion-induced prestress loss, the bond
ð26Þ strength of corroded strand is a key factor and should be clarified
first. Bond strengths under different corrosion losses are presented
in Fig. 12. The normalized bond strength in Fig. 12 is defined as the
bond strength ratio of corroded strand to that of uncorroded strand.
As Fig. 12 shows, strand corrosion less than 6.6% can increase
bond strength, and further corrosion will lead to bond strength

50 50
PA3, 0.75fp PB3, 0.75fp
PA2, 0.5fp PB2, 0.5fp
PA1, 0.25fp PB1, 0.25fp
40 PA0, 0 40 PB0, 0

30
Load /kN

30
Load /kN

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(a) Deflection /mm (b) Deflection /mm

Fig. 11. Load-deflection curves: (a) Group A; and (b) Group B (1 kN ¼ 0.225 kip; 1 mm ¼ 0.039 in:).

© ASCE 04020013-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04020013

 1.6 1.2
Bond model proposed by the present study
1.4 Bond model proposed by Wang et al. (2016)

Normalized prestress loss

1
Normalized bond strength
1.2
0.8
1
0.2
0.6
0.8 0.15

0.6 0.4 0.1 6.0% 6.6%

0.4 0.05
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Changsha University of Science and Technology on 01/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.2
0
0.2 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0
0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 Corrosion loss
Corrosion loss
Fig. 14. Prestress loss and corrosion loss.
Fig. 12. Bond strengths under different corrosion losses.

degradation. For slight corrosion less than 6.6%, the accumulation
of corrosion products can increase the roughness of the strand sur-
face and improve the friction and gear forces at the strand–concrete
interface. Thus, slight strand corrosion can increase bond strength.
If corrosion loss exceeds 6.6%, severe concrete cracking can result,
and the confinement of surrounding concrete may be reduced, lead-
ing to bond strength degradation.
For the effective prestress prediction, the bond strength in the
present model is selected as follows. Slightly corroded strand (cor-
rosion loss less than 6.6%) is considered to have bond strength sim-
ilar to that of uncorroded strand for safety reserve reasons. When
corrosion loss exceeds 6.6%, the bond strength model proposed in
the present study is used to predict effective prestress. Fig. 13
shows the predicted effective prestress and experimental results.
The normalized prestress in Fig. 13 is defined as the ratio of the
effective prestress in corroded strand to 75%f p .
The average error and standard deviation of the prediction re-
sults are 4.8% and 0.02, respectively. The prediction error in the
jP −P j
present study is defined as t Pt p , where Pt and Pp are tested and
predicted effective prestress, respectively. The error may be as-
cribed to some simplifications of the analytical model; another rea-
son for the error is the measurement uncertainty of the experimental
data. Considering the complexity of the corrosion process, the pre-
diction error can be accepted. This indicates that the proposed
model can provide accurate prediction for the effective prestress in
corroded pretensioned concrete structures.
To further clarify the applicability of the proposed model,
the bond strength models proposed in the present study and in
Wang et al. (2016) are employed to predict corrosion-induced pre-
stress loss, as shown in Fig. 14. Wang et al. (2016) designed 10
pull-out beams with various corrosion levels to investigate the bond
degradation of corroded strand. Based on the experimental data, an
empirical model is proposed to predict bond strength as follows:

1.0; η ≤ 6.0%
Rη ¼ −11.8η
ð27Þ
2.03e ; η > 6.0%
where Rη = bond strength ratio of corroded strand to that of uncor-
roded strand.
As Fig. 14 shows, the prestress loss depends on the corrosion
degree. When corrosion loss is less than the critical value, strand
corrosion may lead to slight concrete cracking but may not degrade
bond strength and effective prestress. The critical corrosion loss
values for the present model and Wang et al. (2016) are 6.6%
and 6.0%, respectively. Exceeding the critical corrosion loss, strand
corrosion can induce severe concrete cracking, which may reduce
bond strength and effective prestress. The curve obtained from
the present model shows that the effective prestress would decrease
to zero when the corrosion loss is greater than 34.0%. The variation
tendencies of prestress loss in Fig. 14 are similar for both models.
This indicates that the proposed model can be employed to pre-
dict the corrosion-induced prestress loss in pretensioned concrete
structures.
The objective of the present study is to propose an analytical
model to predict corrosion-induced prestress loss. The variability
of material parameters has not been considered, which can be ad-
dressed by probabilistic analysis. Further studies on the variability

0.7 Prediction (PA3, 0.75fp) 0.7 Prediction (PB3, 0.75fp)

Prediction (PA2, 0.5fp) Prediction (PB2, 0.5fp)
0.6 0.6
Normalized prestress

Prediction (PA1, 0.25fp) Prediction (PB1, 0.25fp)

Normalized prestress

Testing (PA3, 0.75fp) Testing (PB3, 0.75fp)

0.5 0.5
Testing (PA2, 0.5fp) Testing (PB2, 0.5fp)
Testing (PA1, 0.25fp) 0.4 Testing (PB1, 0.25fp)
0.4
0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
(a) Beam length (cm) (b) Beam length (cm)

Fig. 13. Experimental and predicted prestress: (a) Group A; and (b) Group B (1 cm ¼ 0.0039 in:).

© ASCE 04020013-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04020013

 of prestress loss prediction are required; however, they are outside
the scope of the present study.
Conclusions
A novel model was proposed to predict the prestress loss in pre-
tensioned concrete structures caused by corrosive cracking. The
effective prestress in eight corroded pretensioned concrete beams
under various stress levels was explored by the four-point flexural
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Changsha University of Science and Technology on 01/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
test. The experimental results were used to validate the proposed
model. The following conclusions can be drawn:
• The proposed model can be used to accurately predict
corrosion-induced prestress loss. The superiority of the model
is that it can consider the coupling effects of concrete cracking
and bond degradation.
• Prestress loss depends on the corrosion degree. Theoretical
analysis indicates that corrosion-induced concrete cracking may
not degrade the bond strength and effective prestress unless the
corrosion loss exceeds 6.6%. As corrosion progresses, the bond
strength and effective prestress decrease monotonically and then
reduce to zero when the corrosion loss reaches 34.0%.
• High strand stress can accelerate corrosion-induced prestress
loss. By varying the strand stress level from 25% to 75%
of the strand tensile strength, corrosion-induced prestress loss
increases by 20.1%.
It should be mentioned that the specimens used in the present
study were subjected to electrochemically accelerated corrosion.
Additionally, the uniform corrosion model was used to describe
strand corrosion. Strand corrosion in practical engineering may
be more complex due to size effects and complex corrosion mecha-
nism. More studies on corrosion-induced prestress loss in the natu-
ral environment are required.
Acknowledgments
This work was conducted with financial support from the State
Key Development Program for Basic Research of China (Grant
No. 2015CB057705), and the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grant Nos. 51678069, 51708477). Their support is grate-
fully acknowledged.
References
AASHTO. 2010. AASHTO-LRFD bridge design specifications.
Washington, DC: AASHTO.
Abdelatif, A. O., J. S. Owen, and M. F. M. Hussein. 2015. “Modelling the
prestress transfer in pre-tensioned concrete elements.” Finite Elem.
Anal. Des. 94 (Feb): 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2014.09
.007.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2011. Building code requirements for
structural concrete and commentary. ACI 318M. Farmington Hills,
MI: ACI.
ASTM. 2011. Standard practice for preparing, cleaning, and evaluating
corrosion test specimens. ASTM G1-03. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM.
Bhargava, K., A. K. Ghosh, Y. Mori, and S. Ramanujam. 2006. “Model for
cover cracking due to rebar corrosion in RC structures.” Eng. Struct.
28 (8): 1093–1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.11.014.
Biondini, F., and D. M. Frangopol. 2016. “Life-cycle performance of
deteriorating structural systems under uncertainty: Review.” J. Struct.
Eng. 142 (9): F4016001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943
-541X.0001544.
Briere, V., K. A. Harries, J. Kasan, and C. Hager. 2013. “Dilation behavior
of seven-wire prestressing strand—The Hoyer effect.” Constr. Build.
© ASCE 04020013-10
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04020013
Mater. 40 (Mar): 650–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2012.11.064.
Caro, L. A., J. R. Martí-Vargas, and P. Serna. 2013. “Prestress losses evalu-
ation in prestressed concrete prismatic specimens.” Eng. Struct.
48 (Mar): 704–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.11.038.
Castel, A., D. Coronelli, N. A. Vu, and R. François. 2011. “Structural
response of corroded, unbonded posttensioned beams.” J. Struct.
Eng. 137 (7): 761–771. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943
-541X.0000315.
Cavell, D. G., and P. Waldron. 2001. “A residual strength model for deterio-
rating post-tensioned concrete bridges.” Comput. Struct. 79 (4):
361–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(00)00150-4.
CEB-FIP (Comité Euro-International du Béton-Fédération International de
la Précontrainte). 2010. “Model code 2010: Final draft.” In Model code
prepared by special activity group 5. Lausanne, Switzerland: CEB-FIP.
Chen, H. P., and J. Nepal. 2016. “Analytical model for residual bond
strength of corroded reinforcement in concrete structures.” J. Eng.
Mech. 142 (2): 04015079. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943
-7889.0000997.
Collins, M., and D. Mitchell. 1991. Prestressed concrete structure.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Coronelli, D. 2002. “Corrosion cracking and bond strength modeling for
corroded bars in reinforced concrete.” ACI Struct. J. 99 (3): 267–276.
Dai, L., L. Wang, J. Zhang, and X. Zhang. 2016. “A global model for
corrosion-induced cracking in prestressed concrete structures.” Eng.
Fail. Anal. 62 (Apr): 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal
.2016.01.013.
Dang, C. N., R. W. Floyd, G. S. Prinz, and W. M. Hale. 2016. “Determi-
nation of bond stress distribution coefficient by maximum likelihood
method.” J. Struct. Eng. 142 (5): 04016003. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001460.
EI Maaddawy, T., and K. Soudki. 2003. “Effectiveness of impressed current
technique to simulate corrosion of steel reinforcement in concrete.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 15 (1): 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899
-1561(2003)15:1(41).
El-Tawil, S., C. Ogunc, A. Okeil, and M. Shahawy. 2001. “Static and
fatigue analyses of RC beams strengthened with CFRP laminates.”
J. Compos. Constr. 5 (4): 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0268(2001)5:4(258).
General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine
of the People’s Republic of China. 2010. Metallic materials—Tensile
testing—Part 1: Method of test at room temperature. [In Chinese.]
GB/T 228.1. Beijing: Certified Information Systems Auditor.
Han, S. J., D. H. Lee, S. H. Cho, S. B. Ka, and K. S. Kim. 2016. “Esti-
mation of transfer lengths in precast pretensioned concrete members
based on a modified thick-walled cylinder model.” Struct. Concr.
17 (1): 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201500049.
Han, W., J. Wu, C. S. Cai, and S. Chen. 2015. “Characteristics and dynamic
impact of overloaded extra heavy trucks on typical highway bridges.”
J. Bridge Eng. 20 (2): 05014011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE
.1943-5592.0000666.
Khan, I., R. François, and A. Castel. 2014. “Prediction of reinforcement
corrosion using corrosion induced cracks width in corroded reinforced
concrete beams.” Cem. Concr. Res. 56 (Feb): 84–96. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.cemconres.2013.11.006.
Kottari, A. K., and P. B. Shing. 2014. “Estimation of long-term prestress
losses in post-tensioned girders.” ACI Struct. J. 111 (5): 1091–1100.
https://doi.org/10.14359/51686921.
Li, C. Q., and S. T. Yang. 2011. “Prediction of concrete crack width under
combined reinforcement corrosion and applied load.” J. Eng. Mech.
137 (11): 722–731. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889
.0000289.
Li, F., Y. Yuan, and C. Q. Li. 2011. “Corrosion propagation of prestressing
steel strands in concrete subject to chloride attack.” Constr. Build. Ma-
ter. 25 (10): 3878–3885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.04
.011.
Lim, S., M. Akiyama, and D. M. Frangopol. 2016. “Assessment of the
structural performance of corrosion-affected RC members based on ex-
perimental study and probabilistic modeling.” Eng. Struct. 127 (Nov):
189–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.08.040.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Mangual, J., M. ElBatanouny, P. Ziehl, and F. Matta. 2013. “Corrosion
damage quantification of prestressing strands using acoustic emission.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 25 (9): 1326–1334. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
MT.1943-5533.0000669.
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s
Republic of China. 2002. Standard for test method of performance
on ordinary fresh concrete. [In Chinese.] GB/T 50081-2002. Beijing:
Architecture and Building Press.
Osborn, G. P., P. J. Barr, D. A. Petty, M. W. Halling, and T. R. Brackus.
2012. “Residual prestress forces and shear capacity of salvaged pre-
stressed concrete bridge girders.” J. Bridge Eng. 17 (2): 302–309.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Changsha University of Science and Technology on 01/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000212.
Pantazopoulou, S. J., and K. D. Papoulia. 2001. “Modeling cover-cracking
due to reinforcement corrosion in RC structures.” J. Eng. Mech.
127 (4): 342–351. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2001)
127:4(342).
PCI (Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute) and Industry Handbook Com-
mittee. 2010. PCI design handbook—Precast/prestressed concrete.
7th ed. Chicago: Prestressed Concrete Institute.
Pillai, R. G., D. Trejo, P. Gardoni, M. B. D. Hueste, and K. Reinschmidt.
2014. “Time-variant flexural reliability of posttensioned, segmental con-
crete bridges exposed to corrosive environments.” J. Struct. Eng. 140 (8):
A4014018. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000991.
Ramirez-Garcia, A. T., C. N. Dang, W. M. Hale, and J. R. Martí-Vargas.
2017. “A higher-order equation for modeling strand bond in preten-
sioned concrete beams.” Eng. Struct. 131 (Jan): 345–361. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.10.050.
Val, D. V., L. Chernin, and M. G. Stewart. 2009. “Experimental and
numerical investigation of corrosion-induced cover cracking in rein-
forced concrete structures.” J. Struct. Eng. 135 (4): 376–385. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:4(376).
© ASCE 04020013-11
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04020013
Vu, N. A., A. Castel, and R. François. 2010. “Response of post-tensioned
concrete beams with unbonded tendons including serviceability and ul-
timate state.” Eng. Struct. 32 (2): 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2009.11.001.
Wang, L., L. Dai, H. Bian, Y. Ma, and J. Zhang. 2019. “Concrete cracking
prediction under combined prestress and strand corrosion.” Struct. In-
frastruct. Eng. 15 (3): 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479
.2018.1550519.
Wang, L., X. Zhang, J. Zhang, J. Yi, and Y. Liu. 2016. “Simplified model
for corrosion-induced bond degradation between steel strand and con-
crete.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29 (4): 04016257. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001784.
Wang, X., and X. Liu. 2006. “Bond strength modeling for corroded rein-
forcements.” Constr. Build. Mater. 20 (3): 177–186. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.01.015.
Ward, D. B., C. N. Dang, R. W. Floyd, and W. M. Hale. 2016. “Prestress
losses of double-tee girders cast with lightweight self-consolidating
concrete.” J. Build. Eng. 7 (Sep): 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jobe.2016.06.004.
Yuan, Y., Y. Ji, and S. P. Shah. 2007. “Comparison of two accelerated
corrosion techniques for concrete structures.” ACI Struct. J. 104 (3):
344–347. https://doi.org/10.14359/18624.
Zhang, W., Z. Ye, X. Gu, X. Liu, and S. Li. 2017. “Assessment of fatigue
life for corroded reinforced concrete beams under uniaxial bending.”
J. Struct. Eng. 143 (7): 04017048. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0001778.
Zhang, W., and H. Yuan. 2014. “Corrosion fatigue effects on life estimation
of deteriorated bridges under vehicle impacts.” Eng. Struct. 71 (Jul):
128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.04.004.
Zhao, Y., and W. Jin. 2006. “Modeling the amount of steel corrosion at the
cracking of concrete cover.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 9 (5): 687–696. https://
doi.org/10.1260/136943306778827556.
J. Struct. Eng.