The International Journal of Cement Composites and Lightweight Concrete, Volume 6, Number 2 May 1984

Experimental SYNOPSIS
In a severely corrosive environment such as a marine
splash zone it is necessary for thickness of cover to be

studies on made fairly large in order to protect steel in concrete

from corrosion. It is also necessary for crack width to be
limited to a fairly small size. However, in addition to
epoxy coated adequate cover, the most practical corrosion protection
method is considered to be that of covering the reinforc-
ing bar itself by a material of corrosion-inhibiting nature.
reinforcing This paper presents the results of tests on epoxy coated
reinforcing steel with comparative data on untreated

steel for and galvanised steel.

The results show that for a coating thickness of
about 200 p,m, satisfactory results are obtained regard-

corrosion ing bendability of reinforcing steel, structural behaviour

in reinforced concrete members, and corrosion protec-
tion properties. In a marine splash zone epoxy coated
protection reinforcing steel demonstrates far superior corrosion
protection effects compared with galvanized reinforcing
steel. However, surface defects of reinforcing steel
itself such as rolling flaws form weak points of coatings.
K. Kobayashi* and K. Takewaka*
KEYWORDS
Concrete structures, durability, corrosion prevention,
reinforcement (structures), corrosion resistance, epoxy
coatings, corrosion tests, galvanized steel, mechanical
properties, bond strength, static tests, fatigue tests,
reinforced concrete, corrosion resistant steels.

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the deterioration of reinforced concrete
and prestressed concrete structures due to corrosion of
steel has posed a serious problem. In Japan, pre-
stressed and reinforced concrete bridges constructed
near the seashore have often shown rapid deterioration
due to corrosion of tendons and reinforcing steel in only
about 10 years after construction.
Steel is known to be inherently immune to corro-
sion in the strongly alkaline environment of concrete,
but when chlorides exist, even when the concrete is not
carbonated, corrosion of reinforcing steel proceeds
rapidly.
As a means of protecting steel in concrete from
corrosion due to chlorides, increasing the thickness of
cover may be first considered. However, when the
thickness of cover is limited for reasons of design and it
is unavoidable to allow cracks of a certain size to occur,
it is necessary to adopt a positive corrosion protection.
This may take the form of providing a barrier layer at the
surface of concrete (lining corrosion protection), or
lowering the permeability of concrete by using polymer
or other admixtures, or covering the reinforcing bar
itself with a corrosion protection material (galvanised
reinforcing steel and epoxy coated reinforcing steel).
The study reported here deals with the epoxy coated
reinforcing steel.
* Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo, Japan Epoxy coated reinforcing steel was first used by the
US Federal Highway Administration about the mid
(~) Construction Press 1970s and at present about 10 000 tons are being used
annually.
0262-5075/84/06250099'$02.00 Results of a systematic study on resin coated

99
Experimental studies on epoxy coated reinforcing steel for corrosion protection
reinforcing bars were reported by the Federal Highway
Administration in 1974 [1l). As a result of examining
coated reinforcing bars, manufactured using as many as
47 kinds of coating materials and coating methods
including metal plating, from the aspects of corrosion-
resistant performance, bending, impact resistance and
bond, it was found that bars coated using four varieties
of epoxy powder gave the best results. The authors
have reported the results of studies on the corrosion
protection characteristics and mechanical character-
istics of coated reinforcing bars using various coating
materials [2-4]. Results of experiments on accelerated
corrosion and marine exposure have also been reported
from Japan [6-8[.
The authors in their tests used reinforcing bars
coated with a powder epoxy coating which had been
further improved, and have carried out tests on bending,
impact resistance, bond, static and dynamic flexural
loading tests, and corrosion protection properties by
exposure tests at marine splash zones. This paper
presents the results of these studies carried out over a
period of four years and discusses the application of
expoxy coated reinforcing steel to severely corrosive
environments.
C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF E P O X Y C O A T E D
REINFORCING STEEL
In the tests reported here, two varieties of powder
epoxy coatings for electrostatic spraying, Types A and
B, and three coating thicknesses were used. The epoxy
coating Type A had a rust-inhibiting pigment added to it
whilst the Type B coating had a flexibility-imparting
agent incorporated in it. The base materials for both
coatings were epoxy resin of bisphenol A/epichlorohy-
drin type with acid anhydride type curing agents. The
compositions of the epoxies used are shown in Table 1.
Table I Compositions of epoxy coatings
Component Type A
Epoxy resin 1 62.4%
Curing agent A 2 --
Curing agent B3 11.7
PigmentA 4 --
Pigment B5 15.6
Rust inhibiting pigment s 9.3
Additive 7 1.0
Total 100.0%
1 Epoxy equivalent 800-1000
2 Acid anhydride adduct
3 Acid anhydride
4 Iron oxide base
5 Titanium oxide base
8 Zinc base
7 Ester acrylate oligomer
The following procedure was adopted to produce
the coating:
I00
Kobayashi and Takewaka
1. Pretreatment by shotblasting (#70).
2. Preheating (surface temperature 120°-130°C).
3. Electrostatic spraying.
4. Curing (20 minutes at surface temperature of
200°C).
The target coating film thicknesses were 100 l~m,
200 ~m and 300 l~m. The reinforcing bars used were
deformed bars of 16 mm and 10 mm nominal diameter
(SD-35, lateral-lug type, electric furnace product). Bars
of 10 mm diameter were subjected to tests to investi-
gate the corrosion protection properties of the coating.
Results of c o a t i n g film thickness and pinhole
measurements Measurements of coating film thick-
ness and pinholes were made to ascertain the condition
of coating films on the reinforcing bars. The coating
thicknesses were measured using an electro-magnetic
film thickness meter at three locations, i.e. lug, rib, and
between adjacent lugs for a total of about 72 points on
each specimen. For measurements of pinholes in the
coating film, a pinhole detector was used at a discharge
voltage of 1 kV.
Table 2 shows the results of the measurements of
coating thickness in relation to the bar surface con-
figuration and the target thickness Although the
average film thickness corresponds to the target thick
ness quite closely, differences in coating film thickness
exist depending on the surface configuration of the
reinforcing bars: the films are thus considerably thicker
than the target values at the ribs, while at corners of ribs
or lugs the trend is for the films to be thin. This trend
becomes increasingly significant as the target coating
film thickness becomes greater These results indicate
the need to improve the method of application to obtain
a more uniform coating.
The results of measurements of pinholes in the
coating films are given in Table 3. It is seen that
numerous pinholes are formed when the coating thick-
ness is relatively thin at about 100 ~m, but the number
Type B is greatly reduced when the film thickness is increased
to 200 i~m, and at thickness of 300 p.m practically no
64.7% pinholes are formed.
9.4 When shotblasting of reinforcing steel was carried
-- out to remove mill scale, flaws, which were clearly seen
24.9 to have been produced during rolling, were exposed
-- Such flaws cause weak points to be formed in coating
-- films, and in particular, when the bar is bent these weak
1.0 points often trigger the failure of the coating This
indicates that to produce epoxy coatings capable of
100.0% withstanding practical usage, it is also necessary to give
consideration to the quality of the base reinforcing steel
Mechanical p r o p e r t i e s of e p o x y coated reinforcing
steel
Bending tests In using bar reinforcement, they have
often to be bent. To examine the effectweness of the
coating during the bending operahon, particularly in
relation to cracking and peeling, tests were carried out
to investigate the bendability of epoxy coated reinforc
ing steel In these tests discs having diameters cortes
ponding to 5, 8, 10 and 11 times the nominal diameter
Experimental studies on epoxy coated reinforcing steel for corrosion protection Kobayashi and Takewaka

Table 2 Coating film thickness in relation to bar surface configuration (unit: ~m)

Measurement Target coating film thickness

location
100 200 300

Coating Measurement (~) (~ (~ (~ (~ (~) (~) (Z) (~

Maximum 187 137 211 289 218 300 362 319 480
Minimum 47 48 81 137 141 149 224 212 302
Average 94 84 126 194 164 247 288 260 362
Type A
Standard deviation 30 23 28 25 21 28 29 22 35
Av. film thickness 98 196 296
Standard deviation 27 24 20
Maximum 160 122 230 287 225 330 435 380 500
Minimum 50 50 70 136 125 189 272 213 328
Average 98 86 138 219 160 254 235 275 407
Type B
Standard deviation 19 12 19 19 17 19 34 31 39
Av. film thickness 104 209 330
Standard deviation 16 18 34

(~) Between lugs (~) Directly on lug (~) Directly on rib

Number of measurements: (~) = 27, (~) = 27, (~) = 18

of the reinforcing bars w e r e used. The bars were first

Table 3 Coating film thickness and pinholes
bent through an angle of 90 ° (the direction of bending
Film thickness (l~m) being along a line connecting ribs as the axis); they
Number of were then checked for cracking of the coating and other
Bar
Specimen Target Measured pinholes defects at the outer and inner sides of the bent section,
dia.
Coating no. value value (per meter) and if no abnormality was found, the sample was
(mm)
further bent to 120 ° , and then 180 ° .
1 80-120 Numerous Table 4 shows the test results, and a general trend
100 is seen for the epoxy coating to be impaired during
2 70-110 Numerous
1 150-200 6 bending as the coating thickness is increased. With
Type A 200 Type B coating incorporating a flexibility agent no im-
2 170-220 0
1 220-280 2 provement in the bendability of the bar was observed
300 but this is thought to be due to inadequate bonding of
2 270-320 0
16
1 75-150 Numerous Table 4 Bending fabrication test results
100
2 60-120 Numerous
1 140-230 1 Film thickness (~m) Bending diameter
Type B 200
2 130-280 6
1 220-330 0 Target Measured
3OO
2 230-460 0 Coating value value 5D 8D 10D 11D

100 62-130 A @ @ @
1 70-100 Numerous Type A 200 142-232 A O @ @
100
2 70-190 Numerous 300 216-319 x A O O
Type A
1 120-170 4 100 64-123 A O @ @
200 Type B 200 166-275 x A O O
2 120-190 3
10 300 309-394 x a O O
1 60-100 Numerous
100 @: No cracking at bending angle 180°
2 70-130 Numerous
Type B O: Cracking at bending angle 180°
1 160-210 1
200 A : Cracking at bending angle 120°
2 170-200 4
x : Cracking at bending angle 90°

I01
Experimental studies on epoxy coated reinforcing steel for corrosion protection Kobayashi and Takewaka

the coating with the bar base material. It is however,

thought that the results shown in Table 4 can be
considerably improved if bars with fewer flaws are used
as base reinforcing steel.
2- epoxy
Figure 1 shows the influence of temperature on
bending tests. These data show that bending impairs Z
the coating at lower temperatures. This indicates the
need for development of a coating material of superior
bending fabricability at low temperatures.
09
Impact resistance Since reinforcing bars are liable to
¢)
be subjected to local impacts during transportation and
reinforcement fabrication, the resistance of the coating
Type B epoxy
film to impact was examined. Since no standard test cd
method exists to evaluate this property, the drop weight
impact test method (Du Pont Method) for lining
materials of steel pipes was used here.
The drop weight used in the test weighs 500 g with 0 I I I
hemispherical end of 5 mm diameter. The resistance of 0 100 200 300
the coating film to impact is expressed by the impact Coating film thickness (/am)
energy value when the coating film is broken for the
first time on gradually increasing the drop height. Figure 2 Relationship between coating thickness and
Figure 2 shows the relationship between impact impact resistance
resistance value and the coating film thickness. Thermo-
setting epoxy resins are generally very hard and when
the coating film is comparatively thin, the film gets bedment length of the bar was 100 mm with the bond
dented and broken. On the other hand, when the film removed over a length of 30 mm from the loaded end of
thickness becomes too large, cracking occurs and the the specimen. The concrete portion was strengthened
impact resistance becomes low. In these tests the with spiral reinforcement. The water-cement ratio was
maximum impact resistance occurred at a coating thick- selected to obtain compressive strength of concrete of
ness of about 200 ~m. 300 kg/cm 2 at 28 days. A dial gauge was attached to the
free end of the reinforcing bar for measurement of
Characteristics of bond to concrete The bond charac- slippage of the bar in relation to concrete.
teristics to concrete of epoxy coated reinforcing steel The average bond stress-slip relationship of the
were examined according to the pull-out test method of plain and epoxy coated bars are shown in Figure 3. The
the Japanese Industrial Standards. results show that the bond strength is reduced by
The specimens used were 150 mm cubes with the application of the epoxy resin coating. Figure 4 shows
reinforcing bars centrally located in the cube. The em- the average bond stress of the epoxy coated bar relative

Figure 1
Influence of temperature on
(Bending diameter " 5 D ) ( Bending diameter ' 8D) bending tests of
epoxy-coated reinforcing bar
Temp. 10°C
o..--- --o Temp. IO°C
20 2O
cO O= Temp. 20°C ¢p

¢J ¢.)

C G
10 i0
cD
Temp. 20°C
E
z Z .---0

I I I
100 200 300 100 200 300
Coating film thickness (/lm) Coating film thickness (,.m)

102
Experimental studies on epoxy coated reinforcing steel for corrosion protection Kobayashi and Takewaka

With the resin coating, the surfaces of the reinforc-

14 ing bars become smooth, and the lug shapes become
rounded to make surface irregularities smaller; further,
with resins of low elastic modulus interposed at the
12 concrete-bar interface, an apparent slippage deforma-
tion also occurs in the bar. These factors are considered
to be responsible for the reduction in bond stress.
E
However, reduction in bond strength may be expec-
E I0 ted to vary with the diameter of the bar, and since lug
Z height is increased as the diameter becomes larger, the
influence of resin coating on bond strength may be
09
r~
expected to become smaller. In the tests reported here,
® 8 the specimens with epoxy coated bars failed with
longitudinal cracks formed after yielding of reinforce-
ment. With an untreated reinforcing bar shear failures
occur in the matrix between lugs resulting in a pull-out
o 6 failure, whereas with a coated reinforcing bar, the

i
matrix is not sheared because the coating acts as a
N? buffer and a pull-out failure is produced by elasto-plastic
o O "Untreated deformation of the matrix.
l
<> 4
z~-.--,5 Type A epoxy, 2 0 0 p m
El------El Type B epoxy, 2 0 0 p m Corrosion protection characteristics of epoxy coated
reinforcing steel In this study, the effectiveness of
2 the epoxy coating to resist corrosion was examined by
measuring the electrical resistance of reinforcing bars in
1: a corrosive solution. The corrosive solution used for the
experiment was saturated calcium hydroxide solution to
0 I I I which 3 2 7 % salt in terms of NaCI was added as a
10 30 50 measure of salt concentration in seawater. For electrical
Slippage ( 1/1 000 mm ) resistance a platinum electrode was used as the oppo-
site pole and measurements were made by vector
Figure 3 Average bond stress-slip curve impedance meter at a frequency of 10 kHz.
The epoxy coated reinforcing bars studied were
deformed bars of 10 mm diameter coated with either
to the untreated bar at a slippage of 0.032 ram, (i.e. Type A or Type B epoxy resin; two coating thicknesses
0.02 x the bar diameter). It is seen that the bond of 100 I~m and 200 l~m, were examined.
strength tends to decrease as the film thickness in- Figure 5 shows the time-dependent changes in
creases, and becomes, on average, about 80% of the electrical resistances for the various reinforcing bars. It
value for bars without coating. may be seen from the results that the electrical resist-
ance of bars coated with epoxy resin is extremely high
tO0 compared with that of the untreated bars, and that
these values depend greatly on the composition of the
epoxy and the thickness of the coating. Thus Type A
epoxy showed greater electrical insulation properties
compared with Type B, while with Type B, a relatively
~'~ 90 large decline in electrical resistance was recognized
0 0
from the initial stage. It is thought that this reduction in
~'~ resistance indicates that infiltration of corrosion factors
Type B epoxy had occurred through the coating film.
--0 Further, both Types A and B distinctly showed that
electrical resistance is increased with increasing film
$2 "- " - - o thickness. With increased film thickness, pinholes in the
Type A epoxy films were also sharply reduced (Table 3) and this would
also have contributed to increased resistance.
~ ~
c~ c 70 Even then spots of rust were noticed locally and
T 1 I I I these are considered to be due to pinholes in the
0 1O0 200 300 400 coating.
Coating film thickness (,urn) Figure 6 shows the amount of corrosion of the
epoxy coated reinforcing bar substrate expressed in
Figure 4 Average bond stress and coating thickness terms of corroded area ratio; the influence of composi-
at 0.032 mm slip tion of the epoxy resin and of the coating thickness on

103
Experimental studies on epoxy coated reinforcing stee/ for corrosion protectio, ~, f<c/~a~'as,"?,"ar:d Tskewa/ce

BEHAVIOUR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS

WITH EPOXY COATED REINFORCING STEEL
10"~[
t /Type A, 2001zm Since the bond strength of epoxy coated bars with
concrete is somewhat reduced, concrete members
• . . . . •- - -0 -- -~-- -"0 ...... 0-----0-0---0 reinforced with such bars may behave differently from
ordinary reinforced concrete beams. Static flexural load
l()~ - ~ . ~ ~ tests and bending fatigue tests of reinforced concrete
beams were therefore performed to clarify these
aspects.
¢-
Materials used and methods of testing The bars
.~ & ..Type B, 200/~m used in the tests were coated with the same Type A
and Type B epoxy resins as described earlier, and
electrostatic spraying was done to obtain coating thick-
5 , nesses of 100 ixm and 200 ixm.
Deformed bars of nominal diameter 16 mm were
used as main reinforcement, while round bars of 6 mm
b2 diameter were used for stirrups. The bars were coated
10 2 Deformed bar with mill scale with epoxy resin after preparing the bases by shot-
blasting.
Ordinary portland cement was used, while fine
I aggregate was river sand and coarse aggregate was
crushed stone of 20 mm maximum size. In mix propor-
tioning of concrete, the target value of slump was 10 +_
10 ~ I I I
10 100 1 000 1 cm, while w a t e r - c e m e n t ratios were set for target
values of compressive strength 350 kgf/cm 2 at 28 days
Time (hr) for static loading tests and 450 kgf/cm 2 at 91 days for
Figure 5 Time-dependent change in electrical resistance fatigue tests.
of epoxy coating Further, tests were also made on beams with
untreated reinforcing bars for comparison purposes.
reinforcing bar corrosion showed good correspondence
with the results of measurements of electrical resistance. M e t h o d s of testing
Uncoated bars showed large corrosion areas in- Static flexural loading tests These tests were carried
dicating considerable weight losses, whereas with out on rectangular beams, 150 x 200 × 1800 mm and
epoxy coated reinforcing bars, the corroded areas were loaded with two concentrated loads over an effective
limited to small areas around pinholes. span of 1 6 0 0 m m (Figure 7). Measurements of steel
strains, concrete.strains, deflection, and crack width in
the region of constant bending moment were taken
• Type B epoxy
o~ (Figure 7).

o 1.5 Bending fahgue tests The test specimens and

measurements were similar for the fatigue tests as for
the static loading tests. The fatigue testing machine
t3) used was an Amsler type of 50 tons capacity The
repeated loads at 6.7 Hz consisted of an upper limit of
1.0 3 . 9 t at which the calculated reinforcing bar stress

~
would be 2,000 kgf/cm 2 and a lower limit of 1.6 t, and
o
xy loading was repeated up to 2 million cycles. The test
o
was stopped at 50 000, 0.5 x 106,
1 x 10 ~, and 2 x 106
¢)
I
cycles, and the beam loaded up to the upper limit load,
® 0.5 and all measurements taken.
bid

Q) Static flexural loading test results Table 5 shows

>
< the values ({~..T~) of ~'einforcing bar stress at design load
(i.e. load at which the calculated stress of reinforcing bar
t i
~r~c = 2 000 kgf/cm 2) calculated by the allowable stress
100 200
design method (i.e. m = Es/Ec = 15) determined from
Coating film thickness ( p m ) the results of strain measurements, and ~r~,,,/~r,,:
Based on these results, with Type B epoxy resin at
Figure 6 Corrosion of epoxy-coated reinforcing bar a film thickness of 100 i~m, the bar stresses were about
base produced in immersion test 10% greater than the calculated value, whilst with the

104
Experimental studies on epoxy coated reinforcing steel for corrosion protection Kobayashi and Takewaka

1 600 Table 5 Measured stress of main reinforcing bars at load

550 L 500 _a 550 '. for calculated stress of 2000 kgf/cm 2

/D6 1 F a
Type of Measured value
Ratio to
calculated
coating film ~sm (kg/cm2) e'sm/~sc
LJ
1800 D161-~, A' 150 Untreated 1952 0.98
A-A'
TypeA 100 I~m 1915 0.96
50O 200 I~m 1989 0.99
100 I~m 2220 1.11
Type B
200 I~m 1943 0.97
I I
1 60O obviously due to the slight reduction in the bonding
characteristics of the epoxy coated reinforcing steel and
Figure 7 Configuration and dimensions of beam
concrete.
specimen (Unit: mm)
Figure 9 shows the relationship between the deflec-
tion at mid span and load; the results show a slightly
increased deflection of about 10% for the beams with
other epoxy coated bars, the stresses were all of the epoxy coated steel compared with that of a beam
same order as with untreated bars. These results indi- having untreated steel.
cate that at design loads, the epoxy coating has little These results indicate that epoxy coating of rein-
effect on the stress condition of the reinforcement. This forcing steel produces a slightly adverse effect on
was confirmed by the strain distribution over the depth cracking and deflection of reinforced concrete beams,
of the beam. The neutral axis depth also agreed well but bearing in mind that the steel itself is provided with
with the calculated value (at 55.1 mm from the com- complete corrosion protection the increase in crack
pression fibre of the concrete) determined from the width or deflection is unlikely to be a hindrance to
measured values (m = 6.54). satisfactory performance of the beams.
Table 6 summarizes the principal results obtained Further, in all cases, the tension steel yielded re-
from the tests. These data show the first crack load is gardless of whether or not there was coating, with
lowered by about 20% by the presence of the epoxy concrete crushing in the compression zone. The ulti-
coating and that the maximum crack width is increased mate strength moments were nearly the same for all
by about 10% at design loads (Figure 8). These are the beams (Table 6). It is worth emphasising that neither

Table 6 Static flexural loading test results

Bending properties at design load Ultimate moment

Maximum c r a c k Maximum crack Deflection at

spacing width mid-span Ratio to
First calculated
Type of crack Measured Ratioto Measured Ratioto Measured Ratioto Measured value
coating film load (t) (cm) untreated (mm) untreated (mm) untreated (t-m) M,m/Muc*

Untreated 0.9 12.1 1.00 0.178 1.00 2.53 1.00 2.82 1.23
100 t~m 0.7 16.3 1.34 0.200 1.12 2.53 1.00 2.86 1.25
Type A
200 I~m 0.6 16.0 1.31 0.195 1.10 2.71 1.08 2.84 1.23
100 #m 0.7 16.3 1.34 0.198 1.08 2.73 1.08 2.80 1.22
Type B
200 i~m 0.7 13.7 1.12 0.183 1.03 2.70 1.07 2.83 1.23

1 0.85~c.
* Obtained basedon Muc = p(1 - ~2- P~sv b.d2~sv

where, p: reinforcement ratio

esy: yield stressof reinforcing bar
~cu: compressivestrength of concrete
b: width of specimen
d: effective depth of beam

105
Experimental studies on epoxy coated reinforcing stee,; for ccrros~on protection Kc,bsves/~,, 8,~d ~ k e w e k 8

O O Uut reated //A

0.4 ~ - - - - ~ Type A, 10()/,m z/~ o.2~ /,,...~
• . . . . • Type A, ~t)()/zm / .I~---- =_.-_--z~-'~" ~"
c EI-------Q Type B, 10(I/1m ,//'~ / .~__'c- -~- .......
m-----n Type B, 200/lm rv/;*,~ ' ~.-~- ..~._____ ._____ ~,yr
0.3

E
XY A~

~ o.~ o
0.1
~j
O O Untreated
~----~x Type A, 100/zm
'" ~ 0.1 • .... • Type A, 200/zm
o--.---u Type B, 100/_zm
N
I - - - - - = Type B, 200/zm
0 L I I I
0 20 40 60 80
I 1 I I
Load (kN) 5 X 10 4 5X 10 a 10 6 2X 10 6
Figure 8 Relationship between maximum crack width Number of c y c l e s (cyl
and load (static loading test)
Figure 10 Relationship between maximum crack width
at upper limit load and number of cycles
of loading
Uutreated
zx Type A, 100/zm
Figure 10 shows the relationship between number
• Type A, 200/~m of cycles of loading and maximum crack width at the
100- [] Type B, 100/zm upper load limit. Figure 11 shows the rate of increase in
• Type B, 200/~m maximum crack width during these fatigue tests. These
results indicate that although crack widths are increased
80-
O O Uutreated
z 60- A----~ T y p e A, 100/~m
• ---• Type A, 200;zm
q~
1.3
© u-----~ Type B, 100/~m
~j 40 o
=--.--i Type B, 2 0 0 / 1 m /

E 1.2 - /
20
E
N

I l I
0 2 4 6 = 1.1

Deflection (ram)
L,~5~ - "--o-.---El
Figure 9 Relationship between mid-span deflection 1.0
G)
and load (static loading test) r-

the type of resin nor the coating thickness had any

distinctive effect on flexural behaviour. o3
c~
Bending fatigue test results In the fatigue tests 1, 1 .L__ I
1 5X10 4 5 × 1 0 5 10 6 2 X 1 0 6
reported here, there was no case of fatigue failure
occurring after the 2 million cycles of loading. The Number of cycles ( e y )
beams were, therefore, subsequently tested to failure Figure 11 Rate of increase in maximum crack width
under static loading. during fatigue test

106
Experimental studies on epoxy coated reinforcing steel for corrosion protection Kobayashi and Takewaka

.I I I
Untreated
4!,00 ,'; ' " v,~,oo ,~oooo~1 ~o ~ I
zoo
~,oo .i ', ~] kt,~. J
: I ~ I °~, ;"r" :~,'o4,4 l~
,i

oo.4 I l
Type A epoxy, ,'o,oo !, <,oo, 't, ~ ,oo
100/z m /5 ./ ~10. ~, ', I . ~ I i

~2oo ~o' 7 12~ ~ o o ~" " I

1 ,'oof I2oc~I ,oo

Type A epoxy, I , F lo,o l
200/zm ~o
rs s/,..sl, .: ~_oo,," ', ,,:.,t5
,
,Y~ / ,~o',,~5 ,,, :;x," s 2SV ~'0'o'°°'°-°,~j
Jb< t ~1~,oo
- - - C r a c k produced at initial loading
Crack produced upon repetitive loading
Numbers in figure indicate cycles (Xl04)

Figure 12 State of cracking immediately after 2 million cycles of loading

in all of the beams with increase in number of cycles, o o Uutreated

the rate of increase in crack width in beams with epoxy
1.3 z~----~ Type A, 100 ~ m
coated bars is lower, indicating that they are less prone
to being affected by repetitive loading, o~ i---i Type A, 200,um
In Figure 12, examples of the state of crack forma- c~--.---~ Type B, 100,urn
tion immediately after 2 million cycles of loading are m-----" Type B, 200/zm
shown, and in the case of every beam, growth of "-d 1.2
diagonal cracks due to shear during cyclic loading is
prominent, but no distinct differences were found be- "
tween beams with and without epoxy coating. 09

Figures 13 and 14 show the relationship between

deflection and load, and the effect of repetitive load on r~
deflection. The data show distinct trends in relation to -
© 1 . ( ~ f"
G~
4-J

c~
80

_j _ I _. J I
6(: 1 5 X 104 5 0 X 104 200X 104
Number of cycles (cy)
v
O---.O Uutreated
4O Figure 14 Rate of increase in deflection during fatigue test
A Type 13, 100,um
-1
• Type A, 200,urn
[] Type 13, 100,um crack widths, and it is seen confirmed that the epoxy
2O • Type B, 200pm coating does not adversely affect the deflection proper-
ties of beams in fatigue loading.
The ultimate moments of the beams under static
i I t I loading tests after the fatigue tests are shown in Table 7.
2 4 6 8
It is clear that as in static loading tests, the epoxy
I)eflccti~m (ram) coating has no influence on the ultimate moment capa-
Figure 13 Relationship between deflection and load city. Figure 15 shows the epoxy coated bars in a beam
(fatigue test) after the static failure test.

107
Experimental studies on epoxy coated reinforcing steel for corrosion protection Kobayashi and Takewaka

Table 7 Ultimate moment obtained by static loading after , 300 ,

fatigue test . . . . . . . . -
i=
_ _ _ - _ _ - _
~q
. . . . . . . . ,

Failure Ratio to
Type of moment calculated
coating film Mum (t-m) value Mum/Muc

Untreated 2.73 1.19

100 i~m 2.73 1.19
Type A
200 i~m 2.76 1.21
100 i~m 2.68 1.17
Type B
200 ~m 2.75 1.20
Figure 15 Appearance of epoxy coated reinforcing steel
after static loading test on completion of
2-million cycle fatigue test
E X P O S U R E T E S T S IN M A R I N E E N V I R O N M E N T
Exposure tests were carried out using small reinforced
concrete specimens to investigate the corrosion protec-
tion performance of epoxy coated reinforcing steel in a
natural corrosive environment. The exposure site was a
rocky spot at the east coast of Izu Peninsula in Shizuoka
Prefecture where the climate is comparatively warm;
the specimens were set on a platform about 50 cm
above the high water mark. This environment is subject
to salt water spray at all times and may be considered
as a splash zone which is extremely severe with respect
to corrosion of reinforcing steel.
Exposure was started at concrete ages of 30 to 50
days and continued for a maximum of 3 years.
Outline of exposure tests
Exposure specimens and matenals used The speci-
mens used in the exposure tests were rectangular, 100
x 100 x 1100mm as shown in Figure 16 with two
deformed bars ()f 10 mm nominal diameter embedded
inside. Two thicknesses of concrete cover, of 20 mm
and 30 mm were provided. In carrying out the exposure
tests, sets of two specimens were bolted together at
Figure 16 Configuration and dimensions of exposure
specimen (Unit: mm)
the ends to maintain the specimens in a four-point
flexural loading condition; the loads were then applied
until cracking occurred at mid-span and the maximum
crack width was about 0.2 to 0.3 mm at the tension
fibre.
Only one type of epoxy resin, Type A, with coating
thicknesses of 100 ~m and 200 p.m were used. The
concrete mixes were designed for target slumps of 100
+ 10 mm and water-cement ratio of 0.60; with the
coating thickness of 200 i~m, specimens were also
made with water-cement ratios of 0.50 and 0.70. For
comparison purposes, specimens using hot-dipped
galvanized reinforcing bars (target plating thickness:
150 ~m) along with untreated deformed bars with mill
scale were also subjected to exposure.
To investigate changes in concrete quality during
exposure periods, cylinder specimens (100 x 200 mm)
made with concretes of the same batches as those
used for the reinforced concrete specimens were ex-
posed at the same place, and also cured in fresh water
at 20°C in the laboratory.
Ordinary portland cement was used in the beams:
the coarse aggregate was crushed stone (fineness
modulus: 6.45, specific gravity: 270, absorption:
0.63%) with maximum size 13 mm, and fine aggregate,
river sand (fineness modulus: 3.00, specific gravity:
2.61, absorption: 2.10%).
Test details during exposure periods During the ex-
posure period, specimens were inspected for appear-
ance every 6 months and the state of concrete cracking
and crack widths were investigated.
In addition at the age of 6 months, 1 year and 3
years measurements of compressive strength, depth of
carbonation, and chloride content of concrete were
taken, while the corrosion conditions of reinforcing bars
were investigated by chipping away concrete and
measuring corroded areas and weight losses due to
corrosion.
Further on the 3 year old specimens, flexure tests
were performed by third-point loading over a span of
900 mm before chipping out reinforcing bars, and the
loading capacities investigated.
Exposure test results
Change of concrete quality
Compressive strength and modulus of elasticity Table
8 shows the compressive strength of concretes sublec-

108
Experimentalstudiesonepoxycoatedreinforcingsteelforcorrosionprotection KobayashiandTakewaka

Table 8 Compressive strength test results of concrete 3.0--

(kg/cm 2)
0
I
In constant In 20°C Exposure at Marine exposure I
temperature water inland site I
W/C water, 28d 3yr 3yr 0.5yr 1 yr 3yr I
/
E
I
0.50 476 . . . . 658 I
0.60 384 511 400 464 479 540 = 2.0- I
© /
0.70 288 . . . . 435 . ,-..~
I
I
©
III /
¢B
ted to the exposure test compared with those cured in ¢D
fresh water at 20°C in the laboratory. The compressive
strength of concrete exposed to the marine environ- ©

ment increased with the period of exposure, and after 3 ,.-= 1 . 0 - .4" / I .e~
years of exposure, strengths for all w a t e r - c e m e n t ratios
had reached about 1.5 times the 28 day compressive /{
strength of concrete cured in fresh water. Moreover,
the compressive strength after 3 years of marine ex-
posure indicated slightly higher values than concrete
cured in fresh water for 3 years. Table 9 shows the
influence of marine exposure on static modulus and
Poisson's ratio at the age of 3 years for concrete of C I I I
water cement ratio 0.60. 50 60 70
Water- cement ratio

Table 9 Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio of concrete Figure 17 Relationship between carbonation and
(age: 3 yr, W/C: 0.60) water-cement ratio of concrete

Exposure
at Inland In water Marine •
Exposure period
¢)

site at 2 0 ° C exposure o - - - - O Total cMorine lyr

e - - - - e W a t e r - s o l u b l e chlorine
Static modulus of 05 05 © o
elasticity(kg/cm2 ) 2.83 x 1 3.47 x 1 3.27 x 105 o 1.0 o o Total chlorine } 3yr 1.0 o
©
4~ Wat,er- soluble chlorine o
Poisson's ratio 0.22 0.24 0.24
-~ 0.8 0.8
;
These results of strength and elastic modulus show >. 0.6 0.6 >~
,xD
that concrete at the marine splash zone had maintained, © .0
at 3 years, the same quality as concrete continuously 0.4 ~0.4
moist-cured in fresh w a t e r
.~ 0.2 0.2
Depth of carbonisation Figure 17 shows the depth of
carbonation of concrete obtained by spraying of
Q¢ 0 J , { l I A t t A 0 O'
phenolphthalein solution, after 3 years of marine ex- 0 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20 10 0
posure. Although depth of carbonation increases with ~_) Depth from specimen ,surface (mm)
water cement ratio, even with the highest water
cement ratio, it was less than 2 mm average and about Figure 18 Distribution of Cl in specimen
3 m m maximum. It is also seen that with all w a t e r -
cement ratios, carbonation of concrete had not reached
to a depth to directly influence corrosion of reinforcing infiltrating concrete at a marine splash zone. It is seen
steel that the quantity of chloride accumulated in the concrete
rapidly decreases with distance from the surface toward
Chloride content of concrete Figure 18 gives the the interior, but even then, the chloride quantity (about
results of measurements of chlorine ions contained in 0.15% in terms of NaCI) accumulated at around 5 m m
the reinforced concrete specimens exposed to the from the surface, for example, is already sufficient to
marine environment for 1 year and 3 years. These cause corrosion of reinforcing steel one year after start
results clearly show the large quantity of chlorides of exposure Even in situations (described earlier) where

109
Experimental studies on epoxy coated reinforcing steel for corrosion protection Kobayashi and Takewaka

deterioration is not especially conspicuous regarding
strength, elastic modulus and carbonation of concrete,
it can be confirmed from the results of these measure-
ments of chloride contained in concrete that there is a
need for corrosion protection of reinforcing steel.
Besides the total chlorine ion quantity contained in
concrete, Figure 18 also shows the results of measure-
ments of water-soluble chloride which is thought to
have an even greater effect on reinforcing steel corrosion.
These results imply that a part of the chlorine ions
becomes fixed in the hardened cement. However,
according to these measurements, the quantity of
chlorine ions thought to be fixed in hardened cement
was approximately 0.05% by weight of concrete at 1
year of exposure, and approximately 0.08% at 3 years.
Although there was a slight increase in this as the
period of exposure became longer, only a given amount
of chloride is fixed regardless of the chloride content of
the concrete and thus the effect on corrosion protection
of the reinforcing steel became smaller as the quantity
of chloride increased.
crete or thickness of cover, rust stains were seen
along bending cracks 6 months after exposure, and it
may be surmised that corrosion of reinforcing steel had
already occurred at this time.
Further, as shown in Figure 20, with specimens of
w a t e r - c e m e n t ratio 0.70 and cover of 20 mm, longitudi-
nal cracks in the axial direction of reinforcement due to
corrosion expansion were observed at 6 months of
exposure, and in investigations at 3 years these longi-
tudinal cracks had grown to a maximum width of about
2 mm. In the case of w a t e r - c e m e n t ratios of 0.50 and
0.60, these longitudinal cracks were distinctly recog
nized at 1 year of exposure, while at 3 years, the
maximum crack width was approximately 0.45 mm for
w a t e r - c e m e n t ratio of 0.50 and approximately 1 mm for
w a t e r - c e m e n t ratio of 0.60.
With specimens of w a t e F c e m e n t ratio 0.60 and
cover of 30 mm, the longitudinal cracks were formed
when about a year and a half had elapsed, while the
maximum crack width at 3 years of exposure was about
0.1 mm and relatively small.

Corrosion quantity of reinforcing steel Table 10 shows

Corroded condition of reinforcing steel without
corrosion protection
Cracking of exposed specimens Figure 19 shows the
the results of measurements on the amount of corro-
sion of untreated bars.
On looking at the state of corrosion of reinforcing
steel at 6 months and one year of exposure, corrosion of
reinforcing steel had occurred in almost all cases,
centred locally at the flexural cracks. It was clear from
these results that cracking of concrete had a great
influence on the occurrence of corrosion Figure 21
shows the relationship between amounts of corrosion
at locally corroded parts of reinforcing bars and crack

Table 10 Corrosion quantities of untreated bars

Thickness Corroded Corrosion Average

of cover Exposure area loss corroded
(cm) W/C period (cm 2) (g) depth (mm)
Figure 19 Longitudinal crack in specimen (using
untreated bar) exposed 3 years at marine splash 0.60 6 months 29.9 2.30 0.10
zone (W/C = 0.70, cover: 2 cm) 2 0.60 1 yr 36.0 2.62 0.10
0.60 3 yrs 169.0 22.99 0.18
0.60 1 yr 23.0 2.75 0.10
appearance of a reinforced concrete specimen with 3
0.60 3 yrs 59.4 7.58 0.17
untreated bars. As can be seen in this photograph,
2 0.50 3 yrs 69.2 8.13 0.15
when reinforcing steel was not provided with corrosion
2 0.70 3 yrs 287.6 42.45 0.19
protection, regardless of w a t e r - c e m e n t ratio of con-

Figure 20
Example of vertical crack
Before exposure
) /\ trial7/, f t< Y ( development in beam using
untreated reinforcing bar
(W/C = 0.7O)
Exposure period, 2yr

Exposure period, 3yr

II0
Experimental studies on epoxy coated reinforcing steel for corrosion protection Kobayashi and Takewaka

Exposure Cover
2 000 period 2.0 2.0
E
I [] 6 m• 20mm E
o 1 yr 20mm ,_c:

1500~- • 1 yr 20mm 1.5 0 ~- 1.5

g / o
0
• o
0
n

0
n
0
•

1
°

1 o00 n 1.0 13 [3
0 •
¢.9
l °B • D • •
On • 0 []
n
0 E
~ • o • ~ D O
500oI_ • O ~ n • 0.5 o• • [3 0.5
! rl 8
InoO ° • 0
_ 0 0 • 0

I I I I
0 0.1 012 0.3 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Cradk width (rn~n) Crack width (rnm) Crack w'idth (mm)

Figure 21 Relationship between corrosion quantities of untreated reinforcing bar and crack width (W/C = 0.60)

widths at the tension fibre of concrete for beams with

water-cement ratio of 0.60 and exposure periods of rl
W/ C = 0 . 5 0 W/ C =0.60 []
specimens up to 1 year. Although the results have a g °f
large scatter, and show no well defined relationship, the []/~.I
tendency for increase in the amount of corrosion with W/ C =0. 70
increase in crack width is clearly recognized. b0 // /// // / [] J 13. J " J E1[]
In contrast, with reinforcing steel after 3 years of
exposure, as could be expected from the fact that fairly
u3
large longitudinal cracks were produced in the cover
concrete, corrosion had expanded over a fairly wide
range along these cracks. As shown in Table 10, the o~
corrosion quantity after 3 years was greatly increased 0 []
compared with the quantity after 1 year, and it can be
surmised that increase in corrosion of reinforcing steel 0 ' i i i i
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
and expansion of longitudinal cracks, after occurrence
Vertical crack width (rnrn)
of the longitudinal cracks, cause deterioration to pro-
gress synergistically affecting each other. Figure 22 Relationship between vertical crack width and
Although it is difficult to directly deduce the effect reinforcing bar corrosion quantity
of water-cement ratio of concrete on corrosion of
reinforcing steel from the results of 3 years of exposure,
in the case of water-cement ratio of 0.70 at which there reinforcing steel is reduced by about one third, and this
was prominent expansion of longitudinal cracks, values is considered to be due to
of corroded area or corrosion loss of four to five times
1. occurrence and growth of Iogitudinal cracks being
that in the case of water-cement ratio of 0.50 were
suppressed, and
indicated. And, as shown in Figure 22, comparatively
2. the quantity of chloride around the reinforcing steel
good correlations are seen for all water cement ratios
being sharply reduced by the increase in the thick-
between longitudinal crack width and corrosion loss of
ness of cover.
reinforcement per unit area, but even though the cor-
roded amounts of reinforcing bars are the same, longi- It is thus shown that increasing the thickness of cover
tudinal crack width increases as water-cement ratio will be extremely effective in corrosion protection of
increases. This is thought to be due to expansion of reinforcing steel.
longitudinal cracks being affected by concrete strength, However, according to these results, changing
and indicates at least in this respect that reduction in water-cement ratio and thickness of cover alone could
water-cement ratio is effective in corrosion protection not sufficiently inhibit corrosion of reinforcing steel, and
of reinforcing steel. although there were differences in the degree of corro-
Further, by increasing thickness of concrete cover sion, occurrence of longitudinal cracks in concrete cover
by 1 0 m m , the corroded area or corrosion loss of could not be avoided. When the amount of corrosion of

111
Experimental studies on epoxy coated reinforcing steel for corrosion protection
reinforcing steel was evaluated by corroded depth, it
was clear that it could not be considered that reduction
in w a t e r - c e m e n t ratio or increase in thickness of cover
were very effective (Figure 21 or Table 10), and in all
cases there were large losses locally of cross-sectional
areas as seen in Figure 23. In effect, the results
described here serve to confirm the necessity for a
method of corrosion protection of reinforcing steel, not
relying on the corrosion protection performance of
concrete itself, to be provided at a splash zone.
Corrosion protection effect of epoxy coated reinforcing
steel
State of crack formation in exposed specimen With
specimens using epoxy coated reinforcing bars, rust
stains and longitudinal cracks as seen in the case of
untreated bars were not seen at all up to a year and a
half of exposure. However, with specimens having bars
with coating thickness of 100#.m and thickness of
cover of 20 mm, formation of longitudinal cracks along
bar axes was confirmed from around 2 years of ex-
posure. Widths of these longitudinal cracks were en-
larged to a maximum of about 0.175 mm after 3 years,
but when the coating thickness was made 200 #.m, or
even with coating film thickness of 1001~m, if the
thickness of cover was made to 30 ram, no change was
seen in specimens even after 3 years of exposure.
Condition of coated reinforcing steel in exposed speci
mens Reinforcing bars in specimens exposed for 1
year were chipped out from concrete, and with epoxy
coated bars of coating thickness of 100 l~m, the bars
were not completely protected against corrosion with
both 2 0 m m and 3 0 m m cover; further there were
several locations where the reinforcing steel bases had
been corroded. These corroded spots were all formed
where bending cracks had been introduced in the
concrete, and the corrosion appeared in the form of rust
spots in all cases At these corroded locations the
coating films, had separated although slightly, due to
corrosnon of the substrate reinforcing steel, and parts
had started to peel off Further, the corrosion area had
extended to about 150 mm and to locations where no
change of the coating film had occurred
With coating thickness of 2001~m after 1 year of
exposure, although rust spots could be seen on some of
112
Kobayashi and Takewaka
Figure 23
Corroded conditions of
reinforcing bars taken out
from specimen in Figure 19
the reinforcing bars in specimens of concrete cover of
20 ram, the corroded areas of the substrate reinforcing
bars were limited to about 10 to 20ram, and good
corrosion protection performance had been maintained.
In contrast, in specimens exposed for 3 years, and
coating thickness of 100 t~m, the films had completely
peeled off from considerable areas on all of the reinforc-
ing bars (Figure 24a) and prominent corrosion of the
steel substrate was seen However, with coating thick
ness of 2001~m, of eight reinforcing bars of cover
thickness 20 mm and 30 mm, no abnormality could be
seen on three and these were in a sound state (Figure
24b) On the remaining bars there were corroded Ioca
tions at the surfaces of coating films in the form of rust
spots, and although peeling of film was seen tn part,
corrosion had not progressed over wide areas.
Figure 25 shows the results of measurements on
corrosion quantities at epoxy coated reinforcing bar
substrates after 3 years of exposure it is seen that with
coating thickness of 100 i~m corrosion of the substrate
reinforcing steel, covered a fairly large area However,
even in such a case, the corrosion losses and corrosion
depths of reinforcing bars were substantially reduced,
and it can be surmised that corrosion had not pro-
gressed so much in the cross sectional direction
With coatqng thickness of 2 0 0 F m , the corroded
areas and corrosion losses were small and of such
degree that they could be ignored compared with
untreated bars
In Figure 26, the conditions of the epoxy coated
reinforcing bar substrates after 3 years of exposure on
removal of corrosion products are s h o w n In the case of
coating thickness of 100 ~m (Figure 26a), corrosion has
progressed to roughly the same depth over the entire
corroded area, but large local losses of cross section as
with untreated bars (Figure 23) cannot be seen, while
with a coating thickness of 200 #.m, the condition ~s
more or less sound (Figure 26b)
Comparison of corrosion protection effects w:th galv,~n
ised reinforcing bars With specimens uspng galvanlsed
reinforcing bars, similar to epoxy coated bars, no
change was noticed in the concrete at a year and a half
of exposure, and with specnmens of thickness of cover
30 ram, no abnormality could be seen even after 3 years
of exposure However, with specnrnensof thickness of
Experimental studies on epoxy coated reinforcing steel for corrosion protection Kobayashi and Takewaka

Figure 24a
Appearance of epoxy coated
reinforcing steel (Type A,
coating film thickness:
100 i~m)in specimen exposed
3 years at marine splash zone
(W/C = 0.60, cover: 2 cm)

Figure 24b
Appearance of epoxy coated
reinforcing steel (Type A,
coating film thickness:
200 i~m) in specimen exposed
3 years at marine splash
zone (W/C = 0.60, cover: 2 cm)

cover 20 mm, longitudinal cracks were formed in the

cover concrete at around 2 years of exposure, and
I O , • Area 1 widths of these cracks had grown to a maximum of
zx , • Weight loss about 0.4 mm after 3 years.
[] , • Depth The results of measurements of corrosion quanti-
ties on galvanised reinforcing bars are summarised in
Table 11. These results show that the zinc corrosion
protection layer is reduced considerably by chloride
corrosion. Specimens with concrete cover of 20 mm
(). l~i 3O ().015 after one year of exposure showed white zinc hydroxide
precipitate (Zn(OH)2) covering roughly the entire surface
of the reinforcing bar; further, the substrate steel was
corroded at the cracks in concrete, and there were
2J scattered locations of red rust seen. It appears that the
"r,
zinc coating continues to decrease roughly in proportion
().Ill '.0 - ~ o.{)l()
to the exposure period.
Figure 27 shows the distribution in the axial direc-
,L tion of reinforcing bars of the amounts of zinc adhering
to the bars after 3 years of exposure for specimens with
concrete cover of 20 ram. It is clearly seen that where
¢).(~(),5 crack widths are largest, practically all of the zinc
coatings has disappeared due to corrosion This indi-
cates that with galvanised reinforcing bars, unlike epoxy
coated bars, reduction of zinc coating occurs in a
chloride environment and corrosion protection effect
(1 ()1 can be maintained only for a certain limited length of
() [()() 200 time.
(.'~atin~ fi]m lhic],:m'ss {/tin) The corroded conditions of the steel substrates of
galvanised reinforcing bars are shown in Figure 28; at
Figure 25 Relationship between target coating film places where the zrnc coating has been almost com-
thickness of epoxy-coated reinforcing bar pletely lost, local corrosion occurs, this condition being
and corrosion quantity of reinforcing bar close to that of untreated bars at an early stage

113
Experimental studies on epoxy coated reinforcing steel for corrosion protection Kobayashl and Takewaka

Figure 26a
Conditions on removal of
coating film and corrosion
products from epoxy coated
reinforcing bars according
to Figure 24a

Figure 26b
Conditions on removal of
coating film from epoxy
coated reinforcing bars
according to Figure 24b

Table 11 Corrosion quantities of galvanised reinforcing bars

Thickness Corrosion Corroded (Zorros~on Avemq~7

of cover Exposure loss of area of loss el (:r)rrod{~(]
(cm) period zinc (g) bar (cm"l bar I~l) doptt/ Imr~]}

2 1 yr 4.5 10 0
3yrs 11.3 43 1 1 76
3 3 yrs 6.3 1.0 0

• • J~et'o['O (!Xt)~sLI['~.' Results of loading capacity tests of exposed specimens

o oRehd'-rcinK bar X-.! With specimens subjected to marine exposure for 3
c----o }'b.finf. rcing h a t .X~i. 2. years, static loading tests were performed pnor to
z~ ~ b[einf-rchlg bar X~).:'~ chipping out reinforcing bars
a----~ l{ehff-rcin~, bar N.. J, Figure 29 shows Ioad deflection curves of the
5()
? various specimens obtained from these experiments,
while m a x i m u m loads are shown in Table 12
From these results, it ~s seen that at low loads the
deflection is slightly increased by the application of
epoxy coating to the reinforcing steel. However, the
failure loads of beams with epoxy coated bars were
about 10% higher. For beams with galvanised bars,
%%% \ /
21t
flexural properties at least equal to epoxy coated renn-
forcing bars w e r e shown, probably due to increased
g. bond strength as corrosion was progressing
: 111

(.:{qlt~'r" {~f sp~,uim*'rl

()
CONCLUSIONS
I d I L I
H.2 U.:I ILl; H.~ 11) The results of these studies on epoxy coated reinforcing
steel may be summarised as follows:

I ,
,I 1. The mechanical properties and corrosion protection
performance of epoxy coated reinforcing steel is
Figure 27 Distribution of adhered quantity of zinc on governed mainly by the thickness of the coating f i l m
galvanised reinforcing bar. (Exposure period: With a suitable resin coating, a film thickness of 200 #.m
3 yr, cover thickness: 2 cm) satisfied both the above properties

114
Experimental studies on epoxy coated reinforcing steel for corrosion protection Kobayashi and Takewaka

Figure 28
Condition on removal of zinc
coating from galvanised
reinforcing bars in specimen
exposed 3 years at marine
splash zone (W/C =
0.60, cover: 2 cm)

Table 12 Maximum loading capacities of exposed

specimens
a) Thickness of cover 2 cm

Ratio to case
2~) Type of corrosion Maximum of W/C = 0.60,
protection cover W/C load (t) untreated
/JJ 0.50 2.94 1.14
Untreated 0.60 2.54 1.00
lu 0.70 2.47 0.96
f *,~ ~ I~)-xy, l()()/l m
Galvanised 0.60 3.00 1.17
Epoxy 100 t~m 0.60 2.90 1.13
resin 200 #.m 0.60 2.86 1.11
I I l
2.() 4.1} 6.0
b) Thickness of cover 3 cm
I),,fh'('t i,,. (ram'
Figure 29 Load-deflection curve of exposed specimen Type of corrosion Maximum Ratio to case
protection cover W,C load (t) of untreated

Untreated 0.60 2.30 1.00

2. Flaws existing on the substrate reinforcing bar be- Galvanised 0.60 2.80 1.22
came sources of macroscopic defects in epoxy coating
films. Epoxy 100 p.m 0.60 2.54 1.11
resin 200 iu.m 0.60 2.41 1.05
3. The bond strength of epoxy coated reinforcing bars
was about 20% lower than for reinforcing bars with mill
scale and no coating; under flexural loading, the maxi-
mum crack width was increased by about 10%. AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors sincerely thank Ciba-Geigy (Japan) Limited
4. Under fatigue loading at a steel stress (maximum) of and Toa Paint Co., Ltd. for their cooperation regarding
2000 kg/cm 2, the effects of epoxy coating on cracking powder epoxy resin coating and electrostatic spraying
and deflection were relatively small up to 2 million of bars in connection with the study.
cycles of loading, while damage to the coating films
was not observed. REFERENCES
5. Where cracked sections were exposed to marine 1. Clifton, J. R., Beeghly, H. F. and Mathey, R. G.,
splash zone, large longitudinal cracks occurred in beams Final Report, 'Nonmetalic coatings for concrete re-
with untreated bars, with epoxy coated reinforcing bars inforcing bars', FHWA-RD-74-18, 1974.
with coating thickness of 200 p.m, there was practically . Kobayashi, K., Ito, T. and Tanaka, K., 'Experimental
no corrosion. study on the epoxy coatings for concrete reinforcing
bars', Seisan Kenkyu, Vol. 29, No. 10, October
6. With an epoxy coating thickness of 100 p.m, practi- 1977, pp. 41-44 (in Japanese)
cally no corrosion protection effect of the coating film . Katawaki, K, Moriya, S. and Fukada, I., 'Evaluation
could be seen; ~t was clear that at least about 200 ~m of epoxy coated reinforcing bars for corrosion pro-
coating thickness would be necessary for complete tection', Japan Concrete Institute, 1st Conference,
corrosion protection 1979, p p 49-52 (in Japanese)

115
Experimental studies on epoxy coated re/nforc/ng stee/ for corrosion protect/on
4. Kobayashi, S., Kalawaki, K andMorihama, K,'Tests
on mechanical properhes of epoxy comxt do
formed steel bar', Japan (:oncr(;te Institute, 4th
Conference, 1982, pp 8b 8(in Japanesel
5 Shirakawa. K and Mikami, N, 'Corrosion test of
epoxy coated reinforcing bars ~n concrete', Japan
Concrete Institute, 2ndConference, 198{},pi) 2{) 8
(in Japanese)
6 Nishijima, T, Mori, Y, Kobayashi, S. and Koga, Y,
'Marine exposure tests of epoxy coated reH)forcmfl
steel in concrete', Japan Concrete Institute, 1981,
116
/{obavash~ and Takewaka
pp t77 80 (in Japanesc!
7 Takcwaka, K, Ito, T and Kot>,wasl~,, k 'Fl~<ur{4i
behaviour of reinforced concrete with el)oxv ¢oat(~d
reinforcing steel', Japan Concrete Inslqute, 2nd
Conference, 1980, pp. 29 32 (in Japar~osel
8 Satake, J, Kamakura, M., Shirakaw#~, K , Mikaml, N
and Swamy, R N, 'hem] tern~ {;()rroslOl] re:4tst~rxse
of epoxy coated reinforcinc~ bars'. Corrosion ()f Roll7
forcement in Concrete Construction, Edited by Alan
P Crane, Ellis Horwood L H, Chichester, 198:~,,
pp 359 377