Proc. lnstn Ciu. Engrs, Part 1,1989,86, Apr.

, 305-331
9366 STRUCTURAL
GROUPENGINEERING

Durability of corrosion resisting

steels in concrete

K. W. J. TREADAWAY*
R. N. COX*

B. L. BROWN*

A ten-year exposure study has examined the performance of reinforcing steels with higher
than normal corrosion resistance embedded in concrete. The steels included in the prog-
ramme were a weathering steel, galvanized steel, types 405 and 430 ferritic and types 302,315
and 316 austenitic stainless steels. The performance was compared with that of grit-blast
cleaned and pre-rusted high-yield steel. The concretes examined ( 1 : 6 and 1 : 8 cement:
aggregate mixes) contained a range of added chloride to enhance corrosion activity. The
results have illustrated the excellent resistance of the austenitic stainless steels in comparison
with all the other steels when embedded in concrete containing the highest concentrations of
chloride. They have alsoindicated the corrosive nature of the chlorideion and underline the
need to control chloride concentrations to the limits now set inBS 8110.

Introduction
Recently in the UK it has become apparent that reinforcement corrosion is a
major factor contributing to concrete deterioration in general building
construction' and in bridge decks both in the UK and the USA.Z4 Corrosion of
reinforcement has also led to significant concrete deterioration problems in the
Middle East over the past ten years.' This deterioration is associated with the
presence of chloride in quantities large enough to initiate and propagatecorrosion,
to loss of alkalinity by carbonation to the full depth of cover, and combinations of
both these effects.6 Corrosion inducing conditions have been attributed to the
injudicious useof chloride-bearing set accelerators, chloride contamination of
some mix materials, the ingress of chloride from the external environment and/or
neutralization of the passivating alkalinity at the steel surface. Although these
causes can be, and often are, attributed to lack of control and poor workmanship,
there are occasions where exposure to a chloride-bearing environment (or inher-
ently chloride-contaminated concrete) or the demand of low cover arising from the
design of lighter thin-section components are inevitable and place the reinforcing
steel at a higher than normal level of corrosion risk. It was in anticipation of these
requirements that anextensive study of the performance of corrosion resisting and
corrosion protected reinforcing steels was developed and undertaken in the early
1970s at the Building Research Establishment (BRE).

0Crown copyright, 1988.

Ordinary meeting 5.30 p.m., 23 May 1989. Written discussion closes 16 June 1989.
* Building Research Establishment, Garston.
305

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 T R E A D A W A Y , COX A N D B R O W N
2. Previous work on the performance of corrosion resisting steels for reinforce-
ment had been limited to laboratory tests. Peguin et al.' conducted an electro-
chemical study of the performance of ferritic and austenitic stainless steels in
calcium hydroxide solution to which chloride was added, and in further work
extended these studies to solutions simulating the composition of the pore liquid
in set concrete." They indicated the superior corrosion resistance of austenitic
stainless steels in comparison with conventional steel reinforcement. Chevalier and
Peguin also examined the performance of a copper-bearing, slow-rusting steel
(Corten) in solutions simulating that in the pores in concrete and concluded that
this steel hada marginally improved resistance to corrosion compared with
carbon steel. However Peguin and his co-workers did not report any extension of
their work to the examination of corrosion resisting steels embedded in concrete
on test exposure. Although many papers have been published on the examination
of corrosion risks to ordinary steel embedded in concrete no reference to studies of
stainless steels have been encountered. Accordingly, the objective of the work at
BRE was to examine the performance of corrosion resisting reinforcing by expo-
sure study.
3. Many purpose-made concrete prisms and beams reinforced with a range of
corrosion resisting or protected steels were exposed. Exposure testing was adopted
as the most practical simulation of possible performance, because one objective of
the study was to provide data onthe durability of corrosion resisting alloys which
could be ultimately introduced into appropriate codes of practice. Such tests are
by their nature long-term. Therefore simultaneous laboratory electrochemical
tests were made in an attempt to predict service behaviour. These predictions of
performance from laboratory studies have not always proved completely reliable.g
However, the variability encountered has led to a better understanding of the
mechanisms of chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion6 andas a consequence it
is considered that relevant practical data are represented by the results presented
here.

Experimental
Design
4. To gain information on the benefits(in terms of improved durability) of
using metal-coated or high-alloy steels for reinforcing concrete, the exposure pro-
gramme compared the durability of these reinforcements in concrete prisms (Fig.
1) with control prisms reinforced withhigh-yield steel. A controlled factorial
experiment with replication examined
(a) corrosion resistant reinforcement steels
(b) concrete mix design
(c) depth ofcover
(d)extent of contamination of the concrete by chloride (introduced as
calcium chloride dissolved in the original mix water)
(e) period of exposure.
5. The durability of the reinforcement was estimated by measurement of
weight loss (overall corrosion) and extent of pitting and was related to the condi-
tions provided by the embedding concrete, particularly mix composition, level of
chloride contamination and extent of carbonation.
6. The steels examined in this programme are listed in Table 1 together with
306

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 D U R A B I L I T Y O F S T E E LI NC O N C R E T E
r Supportframe

Test bar260mm -,
1
(high cover)

C
Sleeving to insulate
test bar from
\
crosswire \
\ t

Fig. I . Arrangement of steel on support frame forprisms

their nominal composition. High-yieldsteel cleaned by grit-blasting wasused

throughout the programme asthe control and itsperformance has been compared
with all the other steels (including pre-rusted high-yield steel). Weathering steel
was included because of its claimed higher atmospheric corrosion resistance com-
pared with high-yield material. The ferritic stainless steels, although of dubious
pitting resistance, were considered to offer a significant increase in corrosion resist-
ance over high-yieldsteel. The austenitic steelswere expected to provide the
greatest degree of corrosion resistance (especially where molybdenum was incor-
porated to impart increased resistance to pitting). Galvanized steel was also in-
cluded in the programmeas a subsidiary control, offering the alternative approach
of limiting corrosion activity by the sacrificial loss of a protective zinc coating.
7. Careful consideration was given to the concrete mix design before the start
of the casting programme. The Greater London Council's Scientific Branch had
undertaken a major study of the composition of ready-mixed concrete delivered to
site which indicated departures from a nominal 1 : 6 mix ranging between 1 : 3 and
1 : 11 cement: aggregate ratios." Accordingly two mixes, 1 : 6 and 1 : 8, were
selected as representative of deliveries of structural concrete to site. The details of
mix composition, etc. are given in Table 2.
307

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 . .

VI
t - W O O V I
O“op”.?
oomqz

*VIVI-
* mVImmr-
88888
8 8 2 0 0 0 0 0

*VI *
VI VI
m m - 0 0
--mmm
0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* * z V8I8r - 8w w8- 8
2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

308

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 DURABILITY OF STEEL IN CONCRETE
Table 2. M i x design

I
Property Lean, high Rich, low
permeability permeability
Cement/aggregate ratio 0.125 0.183
Approximate cement content: 220 290
kdm3
Water/cement ratio 0.75 0.60
Fine aggregates 40 40
(main river 5 mm down): %
Coarse aggregates 60 60
(main river 5 mm): %

8. When this programme began C P 114: 1969was in use and required a

minimum cover of 15 mm. Accordingly the exposure prisms were designed with
10 mm and 20 mm cover representing the maximum and minimum depths of
cover likely to be commonly encountered. Currently BS 8110: Part 1: 1985 allows
a minimum depth of cover of 15 mm provided that the maximum aggregate size
does not exceed 15 mm.
9. At the design and during the early stages of this programme the addition of
anhydrous calcium chloride to ordinary reinforced concrete was allowed in both
CP 114 and 116 to a maximum of 1.5% of the weight of the cement, so that
additions of 1.5% calcium chloride were tested in the trials (equivalent to 0.96%
chloride ion content). It was also believed that an overdose of calcium chloride
occurred and this provided more corrosive conditions than found at the code level,
so, bearing in mind the study objectives, additions of 3.0 and 5.0% calcium chlo-
ride (equivalent to 1.92 and 3.2% chloride ion, respectively) were tested. Similarly,
additions of 0.5% calcium chloride (equivalent to 0.32% chloride) were made to
simulate the effect of chloride arising from unwashed marine-dredged aggregate.
10. The procedure adopted was to expose the reinforced concrete specimens,
monitor their condition by visual, non-destructive, examination and after the
planned period of exposure had elapsed, to remove the concrete cover to expose,
recover and examine the embedded steel. A test period of 10 years was chosen
(although in fact the planned ten year exposure was shortened to 9f years) and it
was decided to conduct intermediate examinations of specimens at 1, 2, 3 and 5
years. In addition throughout thetests, specimens would be examined periodically
for cracking, rust staining or spalling of the concrete. All the prism specimens
forming this programme were exposed at Beckton, East London.
Practice
11. A total of 550 prisms were manufactured to the design illustrated in Fig. 1
and the schedule given in Table 3. Each group of ten represented one casting batch
(for which100mm cubes were also cast to provide measurement of 28 day
strength). Steels incorporated into the test prisms were carefully prepared before
embedment. The high-yield, weathering, ferritic and austenitic steels were cut to
lengths (260 mm and 280 mm as appropriate) and drilled for fixing on the support
frame; all but the high-yield steels were degreased before weighing. After machin-
ing, the high-yield steel was split into two batches; onebatch was grit-blast
cleaned, degreased and then weighed whereas the other batch was weathered on
open exposure to remove the mill-scale and produce a uniform rusty condition
309

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 TREADAWAY, COX AND BROWN
Table 3. Casting schedule
~~

Chloride addition Number of prisms cast

(as CaCI, by weight

1 i 1 !i 1 !!1 1% 1 :!1 /;1 /;

of cement used):% Lean, high permeability Rich, low permeability
0 3.2 0.32
1.9 0.96 0 0.32 0.96 1.9 3.2
High yield steel 10
Galvanized
steel 10
Corten - - - - - 10
Type 405/430 steel 10
Type 302/315 steel
1010*10*10 10 10 10 10
Type 316 steel 1010 10 101010 10
- 10
* Cast withouthigh cover type 302 bar, becauseof insufficient steel.

before weighing.The zinc-coated bars were hot-dip galvanized in long lengths, cut
to final length, drilled, degreased, the cut ends protected with a zinc-rich paint and
then weighed. In all prisms the weighed bars were fixed to the supporting frame
using insulating sleeves betweenframe and barto prevent bimetallic contact.
12. The concrete was manufactured from accurately gauged constituents in an
85 1 capacity pan mixer. Calcium chloride was introduced (dissolved in the mix
water) in the appropriate concentration according to the mix being prepared. The
concrete was cast into a pair of gang moulds which allowedthe manufacture of up
to ten prisms simultaneously. The required cover was achieved by locating the
steel assembly within the mould, the frame spine was keyed into a socket in the
foot of the mould and aligned with a removable spacer at the top.The prisms were
cured in the moulds under damp hessian for 24 hours (at 20"C), demoulded, then
subsequently cured (at 20°C) under damp hessian for a further 27 days. They were
stored indoorsbefore placing on exposure.
13. Throughout the exposure, specimens were inspected regularly for cracking,
rust-staining and spalling and, at the end of the allottedexposure period, replicate
pairs were removed for destructive examination. During this examination further
checks for signs of deterioration were made and then the test bars were released by
breaking open the concrete. Depth of carbonation of the concrete was determined
using phenolphthalein indicator. The bars were detached from the frame and
cleaned manually to remove, as far as possible, any adherent concrete. The
remaining concrete and any corrosion product was removed using the pickling
solutionappropriate to the steel being examined (Table 4). The cleaned and
washed bars were then dried and reweighed. Subsequently they were examined for
type of corrosion (i.e. pitting or general attack) and the degree of deterioration
assessed subjectively (Fig. 2). When the examination had been completed the test
bars were stored for future reference.
Analysis ofweight loss data
14. The weight losses found were converted to corrosion rates measured over
time spans of between one and 93 years so that ten discrete estimates of corrosion
rate could be made for each test category. This gave the opportunity to present
means and standard deviations and hence confidence intervals for the corrosion
rates in a wide variety of conditions that match most practical concreting situ-
ations.
310

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 D U R A B I L I T Y OF S T E E L I N C O N C R E T E
Table 4. Pickling solutionsfor steels in M54 programme

100 parts hydrochloric acid

2 parts antimonious oxide
5 parts stannous chloride
Year 3 onwards
0.1% hexamine by weight in 6M HCI
Galvanized Saturated
ammonium
acetate solution.
Removes zinc corrosion products--oxide and
carbonate-without attacking underlying
zinc.

Stainless I 30% citric acid at room temperature

Results
15. The performance of both the concrete and the reinforcement were assessed
in the exposure study. Concrete performance is measured by development of cube
strength, carbonation and cracking. Reinforcement performance is measured in
terms of weight loss and thickness loss after corrosion and form and severity of
corrosive attack on the test bar.

Cube strength
16. The mean 28-day cube strength results are given in Table 5. The 1 : 8 mix
achieved a compressive strength of 29.4 N/mm2 (on pooled values) whereas the
1 : 6 mix achieved 41.7 N/mm2; the strengths achieved for both mixes represented

Table 5. 28 day compressive strengths and water saturated weights of 1016 mm

concrete test cubes

Chloride addition
by weight
cement: %
1 : 8 mix
strength:
Mean
MN/m2 I deviation
Standard
Mean
weight :
kg
Standard
deviation
Number
of cubes
tested

0 31.4 1.70 2.341 0.0252 15

0.32 30.6 1.36 2.323 0.0162 15
0.96 30.0 2.74 2.323 0.0259 15
1.9 27.7 2.65 2.324 0.0266 15
3.2 27.3 1.53 2.320 0.0271 15
Pooled (all Cl-) 29.40 1.63 2.326 0.0076 l5
1 : 6 mix
0 43.0 144 2.384 0.0126 18
0.32 42-5 1.43 2.377 0.0189 18
0.92 42.5 1.05 2.376 0.0174 18
1.9 41.5 1.90 2.373 0.0149 18
3.2 39.4 2.83 2.364 0.0189 21
Pooled (all Cl-) 4 1.70 1.34 2.375 0.0067 93

311
Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 T R E A D A W A Y , COX A N D B R O W N

312

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 D U R A B I L I T Y O F S T E E LI NC O N C R E T E

Mean --c 1 95% confidence interval

?
fl:Gmix '?

I I I
0 3 5 9.5
Exposure:year

Fig. 3. Comparison of carbonation depthsin I :8 and I :6 concretes

adequate strength for reinforced concrete. It is interesting, however, to note that

increasing the level of calcium chloride added to the mix led to a reduction in 28
day compressive strength.

Carbonation
17. The depth of carbonation of the concrete was measured at each destructive
examination throughout the programme. The combined results are given in Fig. 3.
The values show, for both mixes, progressively increasing carbonation over the
first five years of exposure, but little further development of carbonation over the
succeeding five year period with the penetration of carbonation considerably less
in the 1 : 6 mix (low water/cement ratio). The 95% confidence interval is closer for
the 1 : 6 mix indicating that there is less variability of carbonation in the better
concrete. The maximum depth of carbonation was less than 10 mm, so that only a
few bars displaced from their design cover at casting were exposed in carbonated
concrete.

Development of cracking
18. The timescale for the development of corrosion-induced cracking in prisms
is given in Table 6. The results relate the chloride content of the concrete to the
times to first cracking and the incidence of development of 100% cracking (i.e. all
related test bars on exposure have corroded sufficiently to promote cracking of
their adjacent cover). It should be noted that no cracking which could be associ-
ated with the corrosion of austenitic stainless steel occurred in prisms reinforced
with this material.
19. Inspection of the time to cracking data reveals a very strong tendency to
increased cracking as the chloride level in the concrete is raised. For example none
of the chloride-free prisms showed 100% cracking whereas the majority of prisms
made with concrete containing 3.2% chloride ion showed 100% cracking
(excepting those prisms reinforced with austenitic stainless steel). A notable
increase in cracking occurred with the increase in chloride level of the concrete
from 0.96 to 1.9%. There was also a marked decrease in the time to cracking as
chloride concentrations increased from 0.32 to 0.96%.
20. In most cases the first crack is seen within a year of exposure although the
period to first crack lengthens with diminishing chloride level. At 3.2% chloride in
313

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 3

qo " 0
0 v w

-????"\D'?-??
000000000
g g 2 - oo???oo--?-?
000000000000

P?f"?foP""qo?" "???PI?? ??TT??

0 0 0 0 0 0
0000000006030 0-00000

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 D U R A B I L I T Y OF S T E E LI NC O N C R E T E
the concrete, only one of the 28 occurrences of first cracking took longer than a
year to develop, whereas in the chloride-free concrete four of the sevencases
occurred within the first yearand two cases took four years to develop.
21. It should be noted, especiallywhen considering the very short periods
before cracking observed in highly chloride contaminated concrete, that the times
to cracking were measured from the date of placing the specimen on open expo-
sure. Some sets of prisms, particularly those containing the highest levels of chlo-
ride and reinforced with high-yield steel were stored indoors in dry conditions at
the BRE for up to six months after casting before being placed on site. It seems,
contrary to the belief at that time, that even though the specimens were kept dry,
corrosion of the reinforcement was proceeding. Accordingly some of the earliest
data on cracking could be misleading because they measure the sum of corrosive
effects including those during pre-exposure storage. However, the evidence avail-
able from this study does suggest that corrosion-induced cracking of heavily
chloride-contaminated concrete will develop early, within six to twelve months of
casting.

Percentage weight loss

22. Figure 4 presents the annual percentage weightlosses accumulated over
the exposure period for the high-yield bar embedded in concrete to which 0.96%
chloride has been added. These data have been included to illustrate the increasing
weight loss with time which was characteristic of all the reinforcing steels which
corroded in the prisms. Additionally these data wereselected because of the
marked differences of the performance of the reinforcement in the two mixes. The
steel from the lean mix shows a substantial increase in weight loss (and hence
corrosion) over the steel in the richer mix, especially in the pre-rusted bars. The
demarcation of performance between the 1 : 6 and the 1 : 8 mixes is clearer at the
0.96% chloride level thanat other chloride concentrations. This isdiscussed
further later.

AnnJal weight and thickness loss

23. The annual weight losses for some of the steels under test are presented in
Figs 5-9. Results were calculated from the raw weight-loss data by including

0 1.6m1x20mmSB A 1.6m1xlOmm
1.8 mlx 10 mm SB A 1:6 mlx 20 mm rusty
0 16m1xlOmmrusty Q 1-8m1x20mmrusty
1.8mlxlOmmrusty l.8m1x20mmSB

2 6-
n
I 5-
0
I
-
E
g
4-
'
3-
.
0

E 2-

1-
D
0
.*
0
.
0

P
0

c.
0

w,f' ;%
0-
1 3 5 9.5
Exposure'year

Fig. 4. Weight loss of high-yield steel with time

315

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 T R E A D A W A Y , COX A N D B R O W N

i0
2
l?
!

0.61

0.4 - 1 :8concrete
I P x mm of cover
!
f X1 :6mm
concrete
of cover
0.2 I

01
0 0.32 0.96 1.9 3.2
of cement used:%
Chloride added weight

Fig. 5. Weight loss of pre-rusted high-yield steel with respect to chloride content of
concrete

estimates of processing losses, etc., itemized in Appendices l and 2. The graphical

presentation of weight loss shows clearly the differences in performance between
the control steel and the other steels under test, especially the highly corrosion-
resistant austenitic stainless steels. The differences in performance between the
grit-blast cleaned and the pre-rusted high yield steels are also apparent with the
pre-rusted steels showing greater annual corrosion losses. The influence of chlo-
ride in inducing corrosion is also clear in that, except for the austenitic stainless
steels, as chloride contents are increased, especially above 0.96%,corrosion losses
also rise substantially. At 0.96%chloride the demarcation in performance, which
316

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 D U R A B I L I T Y O F S T E E LI NC O N C R E T E
10
1 10
1 :E concrete 0
9, X mm of cover

i ::GmcTZer

01
0 0.32 0.96 1.9 3.2
Chloride addedby weight of cement used:%

Fig. 6. Weight loss ofshot-blasted high-yield steel with respect to chloride content of
concrete

has already been identified in 0 22 between the 1 : 6 and 1 : 8 mixes, becomes

apparent.
24. The further conversion of weight loss data to thickness loss is described in
Appendix 3 and the calculated thickness loss for galvanized, and types 405, 302
and 315 steels is presented in Tables 7-12. Both the galvanized and the type 405
steels show an increasing corrosion thickness loss as the chloride levelin the
concrete increases. This trend is, however, absent with both the type 302 and 315
steels where in all conditions thickness loss is minimal.

Corrosive attack on the bar

25. Although thickness loss (on the assumption of generalized corrosion) on
the bar has been used as the main measure of corrosive attack, interpretation of
the data is complicated by the presence of deep localized corrosion (pitting attack)
on many corroded bars. Thus themean annual thickness loss has the disadvantage
of underestimating corrosion damage at pitting sites. Accordingly visual exami-
nation has been used to augment the calculated figures for overall thickness loss.
The extent of pitting damage could not be quantified so an arbitrary scale of
deterioration was used in the visual assessment. The results of visual assessment
for a number of the steels embedded in the 1 : 8 mix and some from the 1 : 6 mix
are presented in Fig. 2.
26. It can be seen from Fig. 2 that no general deterioration was seen on the
austenitic stainless steels. However, one type 302 bar showed some minor and
317
Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 T R E A D A W A Y , COX A N D B R O W N
t

318
Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 D U R A B I L I T Y O F S T E E LI NC O N C R E T E

20

0
ri"
10

i 1 :6concrete
X mm cover

0 1.9 0.32 0.96 3.2

of cement used:%
Chloride added by weight

Fig. 7. Weight loss of weathering steel with respect to

chloride content of concrete

Chloride added by weight of cement used: %

Fig. 8. Weight loss of type 316 austenitic steel with respect to chloride content of
concrete

X
r 1 :8concrete
ae 9, x mm cover
1 :6concrete 10
m mm cover
f 0.2
X
T

of cement used:%
Chloride added by weight

Fig. 9. Weight loss of type 430 ferritic steel with respect to chloridecontent of
concrete
319

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 TREADAWAY,COXANDBROWN
Table 8. M54 mean annual thickness losses for galvanized high yieldsteel (as
received) : pmlyear

Chloride
addition
by weight
1 : 6 mix
T
High cover
1 : 8 mix

High cover Low cover Low cover

of cement : ?6 (20 mm) (10 mm) (20 mm) (10 mm)
0 Mean rate 1.54 2.10 1.06 0.68
Standard deviation 1.95 3.35 0.99 0.61
95% C1 (n = 10) 0.14-2.93 0-4.50 0.35-1.77 0.24-1.12
0.32 Mean rate 0.88 1.10 0.89 0.38
Standard deviation 0.72 0.87 0.99 0.35
95% C1 (n = 10) 0.26-1.50 0.58-1.62 0.18-1.60 0.25-0.51
' 0.96 Mean rate 0.66 1.71 0.96 1.12
Standard deviation 0.66 1.83 0.64 0.78
95% C1 (n = 10) 019-1.13 04@3.02 0.50-1.42 0.561.68
1.9 Mean rate 14.14 15.33 14.85 14.90
Standard deviation 10.54 8.80 6.44 7.08
95% C1 (n = 10) 6.621.7 9G21.6 10.2-19'5 9.8-20.0
3.2 Mean rate 35.39 27.99 43.0 37.11
Standard deviation 39.70 25.65 35.0 31.47
95% c 1 In = 10) 7G63.8 96-46.3 1843-68.0 146-59.6

Table 9. M54 mean annual thickness losses for type 302 austenitic steel:p l y e a r

Chloride 1 : 6 mix 1 : 8 mix

addition
by weight High cover Low cover High cover Low cover
of cement : % (20 mm) (10 mm) (20 mm) (10 mm)
0 Mean rate 0.0173 0.0227 0.0223 0.0325
Standard deviation 0.0135 0.0254 0.027 1 0.0270
95% c1 0.0076 0.0045- 0.0029- 0.0132-
(n = 10) 0.0270 0,0409 0,0417 0.05 18
0.32 Mean rate 0.0183 0.0190 0.0366 0.0282
Standard deviation 0.0173 0.0168 0.03 17 0.0260
95% c 1 0.0059- 04070- 0.01 39- 0.0096-
(n = 10) 0.0307 0.0310 0.0593 04468
0.96 Mean rate 0.0152 0.0191 0.0223 0.0334
Standard deviation 0.0153 0.0203 0.0230 0.0306
95% c 1 0.0043- 0.0046- 0.0058- 0.01 15-
(n = 10) 0.0261 0.0336 0.0388 0.0553
1.9 Mean rate 0.0263 0.0126 0.0150 0.0187
Standard deviation 0.0308 0.0146 0.0126 0.018 1
95% c 1 0.0043- 0.0022- 04060- 0.0158-
(n = 10) 0.0483 0.0230 0.0240 0.0316
3.2 Mean rate 0,0267 0.0401 Not tested 0.04 13
Standard deviation 0.02 16 0.0390 0.0359
95% c 1 0.0112- 0.0122- 0.0156-
(n = 10) 0.0422 0.0680 0.0670

320

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 DURABILITY OF S T E E L I N C O N C R E T E
Table 10. M54 mean annual thickness 1osses.for chromated galvanized high yield
steel: pmlyear

Chloride
addition
1 : 6 mix
T 1 : 8 mix

by weight High cover Low cover High cover Low cover

of cement: % (20 mm) (10 mm) (20 mm) (10 mm)
~

0 Mean rate 1.80 2.54 1.30 0.57

Standard deviation 1.99 3.86 0.9 5 0.43
95% c1 ( n = 10) 0'38-2.85 C5.30 0'62-1.98 0.26-0.88
0.32 Mean rate 0.98 1.47 0.88 0.39
Standard deviation 0.69 1.34 0.12 0-35
95% C1 (n = 10) 0.49-1.47 0.51-2.43 0.36-140 0.14-0.64
0.96 Mean rate 0.90 1.17 0,910 0.83
Standard deviation 1.29 1.39 0.84 0.9 1
95% CI (n = 10) Cb1.82 0'18-2.16 0'31-1.51 0.18-1.48
1.9 Mean rate 5.54 10.43 6.88 8.57
Standard deviation 5.64 9.97 2.32 2.095
95% c1( n = 10) 1.5-9.6 3.3-17.6 5'2-8.5 7'1-10.1
3.2 Mean rate 21.41 19.91 38.09 31.28
Standard deviation 28.63 12.5 1 29.59 30.30
95% c 1 ( n = 10) 7.0-47.9 11.C28.9 16'9-59.3 96-53.0

isolated pitting corrosion, adjacent to a plastic insulating sleeve whenembedded in

concrete containing 3.2% added chloride. Deterioration of the ferritic stainless
steels follows closely the trend of increasing corrosion with increasing levelof
chloride contamination. Little difference can be seen between the types 405 and
430 steels although overall slightlyless attack was observed on the high-
chromium, type 430 steel.
27. Athigh (3.2%)chloride levels rapid development of severe deterioration
occurred on the galvanized, weathering and high-yield bars. At lower chloride
levels (0.96%)the corrosion was lessbut after 10 years exposure corrosion-induced
damage was substantial. Some minor corrosion was seen on bars embedded in
concrete made without deliberate chloride addition, possibly as a result of expo-
sure in carbonated concrete due to the misplacement of bars leading to low
concrete cover.

Extent of corrosion required to promotecracking

28. Prism recoverywas to a predetermined schedule and consequently the
requirement of initial cracking corresponding to recovery time was realized in only
a limited number of cases. It was only possible to extract usable results from 84 bar
examinations out of the 2200 bars exposed in the programme. This very limited
number of results has led to considerable variability in the degree of corrosion
leading to cracking, but the results presented in Tables 7-12 show mean thickness
losses of steel from which the corrosion product was formed ranging from 4.35 to
13.21 pm associated with cracking of the cover.

Discussion of results
29. The main objective of the work described here was to compare the corro-
sion performance of a number of corrosion resisting reinforcing steels with that of
321
Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 T R E A D A W A Y , COX A N D B R O W N

322

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 DURABILITY OF STEEL I N CONCRETE
Table 12. Amount of corrosion,expressedas thickness loss at
recovery to just
cause crackingof the concrete cover

Mix I 1:6 I 1:8

Cover: mm
13.21
deviation Standard 11.18
Number of bars
95% c1

a control, high-yield steel, to assess the benefits, if any, of the additional corrosion
resistance imparted to those steels. Accordinglythe performance of high-yield steel
will be considered, and then compared with the other steels in increasing order of
their corrosion resistance.

High-yield steel
30. High-yield steel was examined in two forms, grit-blast and degreased, and
pre-rusted. The grit-blast surface represents the more consistent surface condition
and could therefore be considered as the prime control. Additionally, it corre-
sponds more closely than does the pre-rusted surface with the condition of steel
surfaces used in laboratory electrochemical examinations of corrosion risk of steel
in concrete.
31. The examination of the performance of grit-blast steel in concrete has
shown a clear link between corrosion risk and amount of chloride in the concrete.
Little corrosion has occurred in concretes (either the 1 : 6 or 1 : 8 mixes) contain-
ing up to 0.96% chloride except where bar displacement has led to a lowering of
cover allowing carbonation to the full depth of the reduced cover, destroying
inertness and often leading to cracking of the cover. In the absence of carbonation,
the presence of chloride up tothe addition of 0.96%does not appear to have been
sufficient to lead to general activation of the steel surface. However, when chloride
is introduced, in the range 1.96-3.2%, corrosion increases substantially and in
these circumstances it is apparent that theunreactive effect of the alkalis liberated
during cement hydration is no longer able to overcome the corrosive effect of these
high chloride concentrations.
32. The form of corrosion at these highlevels is interesting. Visualexami-
nation of the corroded surfaces clearly reveals that pitting corrosion has domi-
nated, the metal surface being pock-marked. However, the attack has been so
severe that it is probable that many of these pits have coalesced leading to the
observed general reduction in cross-section.
33. The performance of the pre-rusted steel is broadly similar to that of the
grit-blast control in that the extent of corrosion is related to concentration of
chloride. However, in comparison with the grit-blast surface, the presence of rust-
scale significantly increases the amount of corrosion. This is particularly so at
higher levels of chloride. The effect of rust-scale on increasing corrosion becomes
apparent when the concrete is contaminated with 0.96% chloride. Although little
extra corrosion is measured on steel embedded in the 1 : 6 mix, corrosion on steel
in the 1 : 8 mix increased substantially. At the higher levels of chloride, substantial
increases in corrosion occurred on pre-rusted bars embedded in either mix
323
Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 T R E A D A W A Y , COX A N D B R O W N
although the greatest effect was always recorded in the leaner of the two mixes. It
appears therefore that the balance between passivation and protection is modified
by the presence of a rust film. At 0.96% chloride the balance is modified from
protection to corrosion by reducing cement content from 1 : 6 to 1 : 8. Above
0.96% chloride, the rust scale discourages development of passivity to a greater
extent in both mixes. Page" has suggested that the deposition of a calcium
hydroxide-rich layer (the so-called lime-layer) on the steel surfaces provides the
primary corrosion protection to steel in concrete. Evidence from the present work
is consistent with this for non-marine conditions. The presence of a rust film on the
steel surface would act as abarrier to the deposition of the lime-layer on the metal
surface. Reducing the reactivity of the surface would, therefore, have to be
achieved through the rust film and could not be expected to be as efficient as
would be the case in its absence. In the absence of chloride this difference maynot
be significant but the increase in surface reactivity could be significant when
chloride was present. The current work suggests that increase in surface reactivity
becomes significant when the chloride concentration is around 1% by weight of
cement in the mix, and when the cement content of the mixis reduced from
approximately 300 kg/m3 (1 : 6 mix) to approximately 230 kg/m3 (1 : 8 mix). This
observation has important practical and experimental consequences.
34. In practice, and unless otherwise specified, most steel used in reinforced
concrete construction will have a rusted surface when embedded in concrete. In
such circumstances reducing cement content inmixes could reduce corrosion
protection if concretes contained about 1.0%chloride by weight of cement. There-
fore this level of chloride even though it does not appear to significantly increase
corrosion risk in good quality concrete, must be seen as theabsolute maximum. In
practice no safety-margin for durability would be provided by accepting this level
of chloride and therefore for practical concreting a lower working maximum
should be specified.Examination of structures" coupled with the results from this
study supports the present code maximum of 04%.
35. An important element in the prediction of service life of reinforced concrete
is a knowledge of the extent of corrosion required to promote cracking in the
cover. Interest in this topic developed markedly through the period of the pro-
gramme and as a consequence efforts were made to use the time-to-cracking and
weight loss data to estimate the extent of corrosion required to induce cracking.
Ideally, for an accurate estimate, time to identification of first crack and recovery
at the end of the exposure period should correspond closely and such timing is
difficult to achieve. However, the results do show that small amounts of steel
converted to corrosion product can lead to cracking of the concrete cover. One
point which emerges from this examination is that weaker concretes appear to
accommodate more corrosion before they crack. This may wellbe because the
more porous structureof the weaker concrete was able to accommodate corrosion
products to a greater extent than the less porous stronger mix (with lower water/
cement ratio) before tensile forces sufficient to crack the cover developed.
36. Laboratory electrochemical experiments evaluating corrosion of steelin
concrete often use polished or otherwise carefully cleaned steel surfaces to rep-
resent the surface of the reinforcement. Even though such surfaces may well
provide useful data on mechanistic aspects of corrosion of steel in concrete, the
present work indicates that corrosion risk can be substantially modified by surface
condition of the barand therefore careful interpretation of laboratory experiments
in relation to practice is required.
324

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 D U R A B I L I T Y O F S T E E LI NC O N C R E T E
Weathering steel
37. When embedded in concrete, conventional steels gain their corrosion pro-
tection from the reactivity reducing effects of high levels of alkalinity. Weathering
steels gain their improved atmospheric corrosionresistance from the development
of an adherent and dense oxide film.I3 However, when exposed to damp saline
conditions the long-term reduction in corrosion ratemay not be marked.14 Thus
embedment of these steels in concrete, particularly that contaminated with chlo-
ride, isof interest. The results of the present work indicate that in chloride-free
concrete, and that contaminated with chloride up to a level of 0.96%, little differ-
ence in performance is seen between high-yield and weathering steels. Increasing
the chloride content above 0.96% does, however, create conditions sufficient to
promote corrosionof the weathering steels. The corrosiontakes the form of pitting
which has occurred more deeply than on the high-yield steels, but overall weight
loss on the weathering steels is less than their high-yield counterparts indicating
reduced general attack. Pitting was, however, sufticiently severe to indicate that
the weathering steel tested would be unsuitable for use as a corrosion resistant
alloy in heavily chloride-contaminated concrete. In the absence of chloride con-
tamination, high-yield steel performs as well as weathering steel; hence the addi-
tional costs can not be justified in terms of improved durability.

Galvanized steel
38. A detailed report of the results of the performance of the test prisms
reinforced with galvanized steel has already been p ~ b l i s h e dThe
. ~ results after ten
years’ exposure confirm the five-year results in that serious damage, both to the
concrete and to the test bars, has been seen after ten years’ exposure in concretes
containing high levels of chloride (1.90/, and over). However, at chloride contents
up to 0.96% a delay in time to cracking is seen incomparison with both high-yield
and weathering steels in comparable concretes. This delay does, however, appear
to be finite and dependent on the aggressivity of the concrete. In uncarbonated
chloride-free concrete it is difticult to detect a performance difference between
galvanized and high-yield steel in relation to time to cracking of prisms (Table 6)
or the visual assessmentof the conditionof test bars (Fig. 2).
39. The benefits, in terms of a reduction in corrosion on galvanized bars, of a
chromate pre-treatment before embedment have been observed in the long-term
exposure especially at high levels of added chloride where comparison of the data
shows reduced weight losses on the chromated bars. However, corrosion is still
severe on the pre-treated galvanized surfacealthough adelay in time to cracking is
seen when compared with shot-blast cleaned high-yield steel. Recent laboratory
studies” of the electrochemistry of galvanized steel have also shown the positive
benefits of chromate pre-treatment andhave indicated a reducing corrosion resist-
ance as thechloride content of the concrete increases and onchanging from a pure
zinc to iron-zinc alloysurface.
40. Thus both the surface composition and the chemistry of the cement
have an important influence on the durability of galvanized steel inconcrete.
Neither of these effects were studied in detail in the present work and it would be
advisable to do so in future exposurestudies of galvanized steel in concrete.

Ferritic stainless steel

41. Results of exposure of both the types 405 and 403 steels have shown an
improvement intime to cracking and weight loss on bars compared with the
325
Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 T R E A D A W A Y , COX A N D B R O W N
grit-blast high-yield steel. However, at high chloride levels both steels have suf-
fered severe pitting attack. The attack, unlike that in high-yield steel has been
concentrated on one or two points on the bars but has been sufficient to cause
cracking of the cover (Table 7) and serious local corrosion on the bars (Fig. 2).
Such deterioration would suggest that ferritic stainless steels d o not have sufficient
corrosion resistance to reduce pitting in concretes containing high chloride levels.
42. In the absence of chloride, however, there appears to be a marked
improvement in time to cracking and also in bar condition after exposure when
ferritics are compared with high-yield steel. Indeed no cases of cracking nor even
slight attack on either of the ferritic steels were noted in concretes free of chloride
and only one crack was observed in concretes containing 0.32% chloride. It
appears, therefore, that the additional corrosion resistance of both types 405 and
430 steels is of advantage in comparison with high-yield steel when embedded in
concretes containing low chloride levels.
43. The similarities of performance of the types 405 and 430 steels noted at low
levelsof chloride are not as pronounced at the high levels also tested. At high
chloride levels the type 430 steel showed an improvement in both pitting suscepti-
bility and in time to cracking over the type 405 material. This improvement, which
is associated with the increase in chromium content from 13 to 17%, reduced both
incidence of cracking and degree of corrosive attack on the bars; however, even
with the higher chromium content alloy, cracking of the cover and pitting ofthe
bars are well established at the highest chloride levels tested.

Austenitic stainless steels

44. None of thethree austenitic alloys (types 302, 315 and 316) corroded
sufficiently to cause cover cracking or visible deterioration of the bars. Indeed
apart from some microscopic attack detected on one type 302 bar embedded in
concrete to which 3.2% chloride had been added, no corrosion was detected on
any of the austenitic bars. The weight losses which were measured after exposure
all fell within the limits associated with bar processing and cleaning.
45. Austenitic stainless steels are known to be susceptible to crevice corrosion
and pitting attack in chloride-contaminated conditions, particularly in
environments of low pH anddepletion of oxygen within the crevice." The hydra-
tion of cement generates hydroxide ions which raise the environmental pH to
values in the range 126-13.6.6 Even in carbonated concrete it is unlikely that the
pH will fall to neutral values and so, in the majority of circumstances, it is prob-
able that reinforcement embedded in concrete will be exposed to alkaline condi-
tions (albeit marginal alkalinity, insufficient to passivate conventional reinforcing
sfeels, where carbonation has extended to the full depth of cover). The absence of
significant pitting, even after 10 years' exposure, indicates that the inherent pass-
ivity of the austentitic stainless steels is sufficient to inhibit the corrosive effect of
very high concentrations of chloride in theconcrete, whereas in similar conditions
severe and rapid corrosion of high-yield steel has been observed. Additionally the
low depths of cover used in the present tests did not limit oxygen supply to the
steel surface sufficiently to trigger crevice corrosion at vulnerable points such as
aggregate/steel interfaces, or at the junction of the plastic insulators and the test
bars. However, it must be noted that carbonation had not generally reached the
full depth of the 10 mm cover bars and so the confined effects of carbonation and
high chloride concentrations on corrosion of austenitic steels have not been fully
assessed in thisseries of tests.
326

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 DURABILITY O F S T E E L I N C O N C R E T E
Implications to practice
46. The results of the present programme have indicated yet again the corrosi-
vity of concrete contaminated withhighlevels of chloride to conventional
reinforcement. The work has shown similar corrosive effects on some corrosion
protected steels; specifically weathering steel, galvanized steel, and 13 and 17%
chromium ferritic stainless steels. It is apparent, therefore, that for ordinarily
reinforced concrete the presence of high levels of chloride (2% and over) introduce
an unacceptable corrosion risk which can only be eliminated by the use of austen-
itic stainless steels.
47. The risk of corrosion isless clear when the results of exposure of the
reinforced test prisms containing 0.96% added chloride are considered. After ten
years’ exposure, corrosion of grit-blast bars in the 1 : 6 concrete is less substantial
than that which has occurred on pre-rusted bars in the 1 : 8 concrete. It seems that
this range represents the break-even point between differing degrees of corrosion
activity. As much structural concrete is still manufactured with cement contents
corresponding to a 1 : 6 mix, and with rusted bars, it must be concluded that the
presence of the equivalent of 0.96% chloride is sufficient to increase corrosion risk
significantly and therefore it is not acceptable in practice. Earlier work was under-
taken using bright mild steel bars.” Here the reduction in surface reactivity
between the steel and the concrete is likely to have been more efficient than in the
present series of tests which used rusted reinforcement to simulate working prac-
tice.
48. Further reduction of the chloride content to 0.32% greatly reduces corro-
sion risk in both 1 : 6 and 1 : 8 mixes. At this chloride level, little difference is seen
between the mixes and it must be assumed that the reduction in surface reactivity
provided by release of alkalis from the hydrating cements overcomes the activa-
tion associated with the presence of chloride. The results of these tests therefore
supports the contention that the presence of these low-levels of chloride does not
significantly enhance corrosion risk and can be tolerated provided that require-
ments of good concreting practice, quality and depth of cover are met.
49. The contradiction in relating corrosion risk solely to chloride content of
concrete is exemplified by concretes to which 0.96% chloride has been added. The
greatest corrosion was measured in the 1 : 8 mix. However, the total chloride
content of this concrete is less than in the 1 : 6 mix and so estimates of corrosion
risk based on the total chloride in the concrete would be misleading. It is therefore
important to relate chloride to cement content in concrete and not to the mass of
concrete examined.
50. Corrosion rates measured on the austenitic stainless steels indicated that
they have all performed very well, even in the most chloride-contaminated con-
cretes tested. Simple examination of the results would, therefore, suggest that any
of the alloys would be suitable for reinforcing such concretes. The observation of
some micropitting on a type 302 bar embedded in the most chloride-contaminated
concrete, however, suggests that there is a slight corrosion risk in these conditions
and until practical experience develops it would be prudent to limit the use of this
steel to concretes containing medium chloride levels. The benefit of high corrosion
resistance of the type 302 alloy could be utilized in conditions of low cover where
carbonation could lead to corrosion of conventional high-yieldsteel. Ideally,
molybdenum-bearing alloys should be used in chloride-contaminated conditions
to minimize both the risks of crevice and pitting corrosion and especially with the
combination of high chloride contents and carbonation to the full depth of cover.
327
Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 TREADAWAY, COX ANDBROWN
Conclusions
51. High-yield steel, in grit-blast cleaned and pre-rusted surface condition, has
been shown to undergo severe corrosion in concretes containing high chloride
levels (2-3 wt.% chloride of cement) leading to general loss of cross-section and
localized pitting attack. However, high-yield steelhas been shown to be durable in
uncarbonated concrete containing up to 0.32 wt.%chloride of cement.
52. At a chloride level of 0.96 wt.% of cement in concrete a marked difference
has been detected between the extent of corrosion of pre-rusted steel embedded in
1 : 6 and 1 : 8 cement aggregate mixes, substantially more corrosion being
observed in the 1 : 8 mix. This effect was not marked on the grit-blast cleaned
steels in the same concretes and suggested corrosion resistance can be reduced by
the presence of a rust layer in concrete with only marginal ability to protect the
reinforcement.
53. Weathering steel has been shown to corrode in similar concrete
environments to those causing corrosion of high-yield steel. Although the total
amount of corrosion wasless than would occur on high-yield material under
similar conditions, deep localized pitting occurred which could be more structur-
ally weakening.
54. Like weathering steel, galvanized steel was shown to corrode in heavily
chloride-contaminated concretes, and although in comparison to high-yield steela
delay in time to cracking was observed, the delay was only marginally beneficial.
Galvanized steel showed greatest benefit when exposed in concrete contaminated
with low levelsof chloride, or which was chloride-free but carbonated. The results
confirmed earlier observations of the increased durability of chromate-treated
surfaces.
55. Substantial pitting occurred on types 405 and 430 ferritic stainless steels
when embedded in concretes containing high (1.92% and above) chloride levels.
At lower chloride levels, some benefit was observed in delayed time-to-cracking
compared with high-yield steels. The greatest benefit was derived with type 430
steel, although with both types 405 and 430, even at the lower chloride levels, the
benefit was offset byobservations of irregular pitting corrosion.
56. All the austenitic stainless steels showed very high corrosion resistance in
all the environments tested. No serious corrosion was encountered on any of the
austenitic test bars although slight pitting occurred on the type 302 steel when
embedded in concrete contaminated with the highest level of chloride which sug-
gests care should be exercised when using this alloy in conditions of severe chlo-
ride contamination until a full evaluation of crevice corrosion susceptibility is
available.
57. The results of the present study confirm the need to control chloride levels
to limit corrosion risk within concrete reinforced with conventional reinforcement,
and indicate that the present limit in BS 8110 (0.4 wt.% chloride of cement) will
provide a margin adequate to ensure that the risk of chloride-induced reinforce-
ment corrosion (in the absence of carbonation) is minimized.

Acknowledgements
58. The early part of this work was undertaken in collaboration with the
British Steel Corporation and George Clarke Limited, who gave financial support
and supplied materials for the study. This work has formed part of the research
programme of the Building Research Establishment and is contributed by court-
328

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 D U R A B I L I T Y OF S T E E L IN C O N C R E T E
esy of theDirector,BuildingResearchEstablishment,andreproduced byper-
mission of the Controller,HMSO.

Appendix 1. Correctionsand errors

59. The corrosion rates have been corrected for processing losses,i.e.weight loss not
caused by corrosion and occurring merely as the consequence of removing rebar from
concrete and its preparation for reweighing by a number of staff who contributed to the
study. Processing losses have been assumed to be small and constant for all categories, they
have been estimated from losses incurred by rebar exposed in concrete without added
chloride (Table 13). These trials have been conducted for over a decade, and, as a conse-
quence of the staff turnover, recovery examinations have been made by four different oper-
ators. Even though each operator used the same nominal method of removing mortar and
corrosion product from the reinforcement, it is inevitable that an operator-effect influences
results especially where the corrosion loss is of the same order as thetypical processing loss.

Appendix 2. Weight loss of pre-rusted high-yieldsteel

60. Half the control steel was tested in a pre-rusted condition, where the initial weight of
steel before rusting is unknown. In this case it is not possible to directly establish the weight
loss of rusty steel on exposure; the combination of initial rust and corrosion product gener-
ated during the test was measured. However, if all pre-rusted bars are assumed to carry a
uniform rust deposit, the initial weight of steel can be estimated and mean annual corrosion
rates (thickness of metal lost per year) of rusty steel calculated for comparison with values for
grit-blasted steel.

Estimate of initial pre-ruston rusty steel

61. Values of weight loss are compared for rusty and grit-blasted steel. In the early stages
of the trials (years 1-3) it is assumed that, in concrete without added chloride, negligible
corrosion occurs on both grit-blasted and pre-rusted steel, so that the measured weight losses
on grit-blasted bars estimateprocessing loss and the losses on rusty steel estimate processing
loss plus loss of pre-rust.
62. A preliminary mean estimate of pre-rust was made by difference and the mean value
calculated after the elimination of outliers, i.e. values greater than one standard deviation
above the preliminary mean. Correction factors of 0.9948 for 260 mm and 0.9946 for
280 mm bars were produced and were used to estimate the pre-exposure steel weight of a
rusty bar. In the course ofderivingthese correction factors it was noted that
(a) grit-blasting of rebar bearing millscale to provide an acceptable surface finish was
responsible for a weight loss of about 3.6%
(b) a tolerance of about 0.5 mm on nominal 10 mm dia. deformed rebar is not unusual.

Table 13. Processing losses

- ~~~
Reinforcement
~~
1 Typical processing losses: p m
High-yield steel grit blasted 2.4
High-yield steel rusty 3.6
Type 316 0.1151
Type 3 15 0.0340
Type 302 0.0267
Type 430 0.466
Type 405 0.519
Corten 3.2
Galvanized high-yield steel 0.3.
* Zinc loss; when thecoating is spent high-yield steel value
becomes relevant.
329

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 TREADAWAY,COXANDBROWN
Table 14. Densities and surface areas of reinforcing bars

Reinforcement Relative density: Estimated surface area: cmz

&m3
260mm bars 1 280mm bars
HYS* grit blasted 7.776 91.5416 98.6948
HYS rusty 7.776 90.5021 97.8597
Type 316 7.935 90.843 1 96.6938
Type 315 7.91 1 92.4538 99.7375
Type 302 7.868 89.4660 96.7445
Type 430 7.678 915416 98.3404
Type 405 7.682 90.5521 97.4857
Corten 7.814 91,4446 98.5280
Galvanized HYS 7.14 91.5416 ’ 98.6948
(zinc)
* High-yield steel.

Appendix 3. Annual corrosion rates

63. The raw data from weight loss measurements consist of a sequence of weight changes
found to occur during the exposure trials. Such measurements are excellent for comparing
reproducibility and the relative importance of particular test factors introduced into the
trials but are in a form unsuitable to estimate the weakening of reinforcement or compare
losses from metals such as zinc and steel that are of different densities.
64. The difficulty is eliminated by standardizing the weight losses. These are converted to
mean annual corrosion rates, i.e. thickness of metal lost per year. Weight change on exposure
is converted into thickness lost using the relative density of the reinforcement and the
estimated surface area of the deformed test rebar (Table14).
mass loss on exposure (g) X 104 mean thickness (pm)
loss = (1)
relative density X surface area of test rebar (cm’)
This procedure was used to calculate ten annual corrosion rates for each test category, and
assuming normal sample distributions themean rate and95% confidence intervals were also
calculated. This procedure gives equal weighting to the individual measurements, and the
time base ranges between one and94 years.
65. Corrosion rates of this form should be interpreted with circumspection as they imply
are based on the assumptionthat
(a) corrosion occurs uniformly across the rebar surface. In these trials chloride-induced
corrosion hasbeen studied and the typical pitting attack is localized.
(b) the corrosion rateis linear throughout the exposure tests. This is not necessarily the
case, the rate may follow a parabolic form or corrosion may have been preceded
by an inactive initiation period.
However, in spite of these limitations, the results of these trials do atleast provide values that
are practical rate estimates measured in reinforced concrete under field conditions and as
such establish a benchmark for electrochemical estimates.

References
1. MIDGLEY H. G. et al. Durability of concrete in the UK. Concrete, 1973,7, No. 1,24-26.
2. CAVALIER P. G. and VASE P. R. Investigation and repair of reinforcement corrosion in a
bridge deck. Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs,Part 1,1981,70, Aug., 461-480.
3.VASIE P. R. Reinforcement corrosion and the durability of concrete bridges. Proc. lnstn
Cio. Engrs, Part 1, 1984,76, Aug., 713-723.
330

Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 D U R A B I L I T Y O F S T E E L IN C O N C R E T E
4. S u m J. E. Corrosion of metals in association with concrete. Am. Soc. Test. Mater.
Spec. Techn.Publ., 1983, No.818.
5. TREADAWAY K. W. J. et al. The influence of concrete quality on carbonation in middle
eastern conditions-a preliminary study. Corrosion of reinforcement in concrete con-
struction (edited by A. P. Crane). Ellis Horwood, Chichester, 1983,57-78.
6. PAGE C. L. and TREADAWAY K. W. J. Aspects of the electrochemistry of steel in concrete.
Nature, 1982,297,No. 5882,109-1 15.
7. CHEVALIER J. L. and PECUIN P. etude de la corrosion de metaux et alliages dans un
milieu de type Mton pollue par des ionschlorure. Cah. Cent.Scient. Tech. Biitim., 1970,
113, No.990.
8. PEGUIN P. et al. L'etude de la corrosion des aciers et metaux. Cah. Cent. Scient. Tech.
Biitim., 1972,130, No. 1109.
9. BROWNB. L. et al. Corrosion testing of steels for reinforced concrete. Building Research
Establishment, Garston, 1978, current paper 45/78.
10. GREATER LONDON COUNCIL. Quality control offresh concrete.GLC, 1968, scientific bulle-
tin 17, item 7.
11. PAGE C. L. Mechanism of corrosion protection in reinforced concrete marine structures.
Nature, 1975,258, No.5535,514515.
12. EVERETT L. H. and TREADAWAY K. W. J. Deterioration due to corrosioninreinforced
concrete. Building Research Establishment, Garston, 1980, information paper 12/80,
13. CHANDLER K. A. and KILCULLEN M. B. Corrosion resistant low alloy steels: a review
with particular reference atmospheric conditions in the United Kingdom. Er. Corros.
J., 1970,5, No. 2432.
14. MCKENZIEM. Corrosion testing and monitoring for highway bridge steel work. Corro-
sion testing and monitoring.Institution of Corrosion Science and Technology, London,
1977.
15. MAAHN E. and SORENSON B. The influence of microstructure on the corrosion properties
of hot-dip galvanised reinforcement in concrete. Corrosion, 1980,42,No. 4,187-196.
16. MARCIAS A. and ANDRADE C. Corrosion rate of galvanised steel immersed in saturated
solutions of Ca(OH), in the pH range 12-13.8. Br. Corros. J., 1983,18, No. 2,8247.
17. SERGIG. et al. Corrosion of galvanised and galvannealed steel in solutions of pH 9.0 to
14.0. Corrosion, 1985,41, No. 11,618-624.
18. OLDFIELD J. W. and SUTTON W. H. Crevice corrosion of stainless steels. Br. Corros. J.,
1978,13, NO.1,13-22.
19. BLENCKINSOP J. C. The effect on normal {'' reinforcement of adding calcium chloride to
dense and porous concretes. Mug. Concr. Res., 1963,15, No. 43,33-38.

33 1
Downloaded by [] on [03/04/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.