Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155

https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-021-01688-9 (0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A simplified approach for prediction of concrete resistivity:

experimental study and mathematic model
Qiang Zhang . Pei-Yuan Lun . Xiao Li

Received: 8 July 2020 / Accepted: 21 March 2021 / Published online: 9 July 2021
Ó RILEM 2021

Abstract Corrosion of reinforcing rebar is one of the mathematical model for predicting concrete resistivity
major causes to the premature deterioration of RC from major corrosion parameters was developed, such
structures. However, there are many factors affecting as cement type, cement content, W/C ratio, corrosion
corrosion of reinforcing rebar. In terms of the nature of temperature, relative humidity, chloride content, and
reinforcing bar corrosion, concrete resistivity is a corrosion time. The uncertainty and probability char-
durability parameter affecting corrosion of reinforcing acteristics of this models are also investigated.
bar. This study was carried out to conduct further
experimental verification and investigation of corro- Keywords Corrosion  Concrete resistivity 
sion risk of reinforcing rebar in concrete based on Prediction model  Corrosion parameters
concrete resistivity. First, the influences of major
factors including W/C ratio, chloride content, ambient
Abbreviations
temperature, and relative humidity on concrete resis-
qcon Concrete resistivity, kX  cm
tivity were investigated. Second, a total of 290
qo The initial concrete resistivity, kX  cm
experimental data on concrete resistivity from previ-
T Ambient temperature, K
ous literature were collected. Some of the empirical
RH Relative humidity, –
models for predicting concrete resistivity were
Cl Chloride content, %
reviewed and compared. Finally, a simplified
C Content of binder, kg/m3
W/C The water cement ratio, –
t Testing time, days
Q. Zhang  P.-Y. Lun (&) CE The cement content, kg/m3
School of Civil Engineering, Hunan University of Science FA The fly ash, % by cement mass
and Technology, Xiangtan 411201, People’s Republic of FS The blast furnace slag, % by cement mass
China
e-mail: peiyuanlun@tom.com SF The silica fume, % by cement mass
e Porosity, % volume
P.-Y. Lun Volpaste The volume of paste, m3
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Durability for Volconcrete The volume of concrete, m3
Marine Civil Engineering, Shenzhen University,
Shenzhen 518060, China m Concrete resistivity of the aqueous phase,
–
P.-Y. Lun  X. Li S Concrete pore water saturation, –
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University,
Changsha 410000, China
155 Page 2 of 22
DUD The activation energy of the arrhenius
relationship, kJ/mole
R The universal gas constant, J/(mole  K)
Sr The degree of concrete saturation, %
t0 Standard curing time, days
th The hydration time, year
icorr Corrosion rate, lA/cm2
1 Introduction
The corrosion of the reinforcing bar embedded in
concrete has been recognized as one of the major
problems that have caused several structural failures
during the past centuries [1]. It is, therefore, of great
interest to evaluate corrosion process thoroughly not
only for existing structures but also for the design of
new structures. The corrosion of the reinforcing bar
embedded in concrete can normally be considered to
be an electrochemical process [2, 3]. Therefore, the
electrochemical properties of concrete, such as the
concrete resistivity, provide information about this
degradation process. Thus, the concrete resistivity has
also been used as one of the most important indexes
that can help to evaluate the durability of reinforced
concrete (RC) structures [4–6]. Besides, long-term
data validation is also necessary for corrosion risk of
steel reinforcement. The relationship between corro-
sion rate and resistivity (referred to as the ‘‘C–R
relationship’’) is need to be investigated further.
Electrical resistivity is fundamentally related to the
permeability of fluids and diffusivity of ions through
porous materials such as concrete. It is the product of
the ratio of the applied voltage to the resulting current,
and a cell constant; it is thus a geometry independent
property [7]. Therefore, the electrical resistivity also
can be used as an indirect measure of the ability of
concrete to prevent the penetration of chloride salt
solutions that may cause corrosion of the reinforcing
bar. For concrete, the range of concrete resistivity
varies between 105 kX  cm for oven-dried samples to
1kX  cm for saturated concrete [8]. The electrical
resistivity in concrete is ascribed to the microstructure
properties such as the porosity and pore structure and
pore solution characteristics, which are greatly
affected by factors such as the degree of saturation
Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155
of the temperature, relative humidity, and cement type
[9, 10].
Over the past several decades, concrete resistivity
has been widely investigated, and various prediction
models, including theoretical models, empirical mod-
els, and probabilistic models, have proposed in
previous literature [3, 5, 11–18]. This study focuses
on the empirical models of concrete resistivity devel-
oped from field data and experimental results, which
are generally based on the assumed direct relation-
ships between the concrete resistivity and basic
material parameters (e.g., W/C ratio, cement type,
and cement content) and environmental parameters
(e.g., temperature, relative humidity, and chloride
content). Currently, there are several empirical pre-
diction models for predicting the concrete resistivity
[3, 5, 11–13, 15–18], and these models show good
agreements with some experimental results, especially
with the test results used for their model develop-
ments. However, there are still some uncertainties
about whether they can enable accurate predictions in
other different situations.
It is widely accepted that the concrete resistivity
can be more easily measured, especially in the actual
field, than other parameters in corrosion science, such
as the corrosion rate [19], which was widely recog-
nized as a durability parameter for concrete cover
cracking. Therefore, the determination of the relation-
ship between the concrete resistivity and corrosion
rate would allow the assessment of the corrosion stage
in an efficient and economical manner. Over the last
decades, researchers have focused on the C–R rela-
tionship as the main topic for intensive research
[20–26]. Based on these observations, the versatility of
these resistivity models requires further verification by
comparison of the models results with the experimen-
tal data. The establishment of a more suitable concrete
resistivity model is also necessary. Further, the
relationship between concrete resistivity and corrosion
rate needs further research.
To provide further experimental validation and
enhance the understanding of the electrical resistivity
of concrete, electrical resistivity test campaigns were
conducted in this study. Then a large number of test
data on concrete resistivity were collected. The
existing calculation models were reviewed and com-
pared. A simplified model to predicting the concrete
resistivity is proposed. The uncertainty and probability
characteristics of this models are also considered. To
Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155 Page 3 of 22 155

verify the accuracy and reliability of the developed
simplified model, these collected test data are
employed as an exact criterion for comparison.
2 Experimental program
2.1 Materials
Several types of concrete with different W/C ratio,
chloride content, and cover depth were designed to
cover a broad range of real-world conditions. The
proportions of concrete mixes are shown in Table 1.
The compressive strength results for each batch at
28 days are also summarized. Different mixture
proportions of concrete were used, including two
water/cement ratios (W/C = 0.45, 0.55), three chlo-
ride content (1% by cement in concrete, 10% and 15%
by solution) and two concrete cover thickness (e.g.,
C = 30 mm and 50 mm). No chemical additives were
used on the concrete samples in order to not affect the
electrical resistivity of the specimens. All concrete
specimens were selected as a prism with dimensions of
250 mm 9 250 mm 9 200 mm. The selection of the
specimen’s size was based on the Gowers and Millard
[27] recommendations, which take into account the
minimum required dimensions for the lines of the
current inside the concrete to close themselves,
therefore not causing changes on the resistivity values.
A total of 40 samples which were divided into 10
groups with different mix proportions were prepared.
They were unmolded after 48 h of being cast and
cured at underwater conditions for 28 days. After the
curing period, concrete specimens were kept at an
uncontrolled temperature and relative humidity in
outdoor environment. The temperature ranged
between 273 and 310 K. The relative humidity ranged
between 45 and 95%. Three identical specimens of
each concrete mix batch were prepared and their
electrical resistivity was tested. Averaging results
from three electrical resistivity test was obtained.
2.2 Measurement method
Concrete resistivity tests were carried out based on
UNE 83988-2 code [28]. The four-point method
(Wenner’s method or WM) is applied to test the
electrical resistivity of concrete laboratory and on the

Table 1 Concrete mixture properties

Composition 100% PC

Material W/C ratio (kg/m3) 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.55 0.55
number PC PC PC PC PC II-3 PC II-4 PC III-1 PC III-2 PC PC
I-1 I-2 II-1 II-2 III-3 III-4
Portland cement (32.5) 360 360 360 360 360 360 420 420 420 420
Fine aggregate 588 588 588 588 588 588 539 539 539 539
Coarse aggregate 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1220 1220 1220 1220
Water 162 162 162 162 162 162 231 231 231 231
Air content, % 3.5 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Chloride (% by cement) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NaCl content (solution)/% 10 15 10 10 15 15 10 10 15 15
Slump, mm 120 120 110 110 110 110 100 100 100 100
Cover depth, mm 30 30 30 50 30 50 30 50 30 50
Str. @28d, Mean value/MPa 31.8 32.1 35.8 35.6 34.2 34.4 30.2 30.4 31.4 31.4
Standard deviation 0.698 0.432 0.748 0.732 0.374 0.381 0.535 0.527 0.432 0.427
The properties of cement
Lime Silica C3A MgO Iron Calcium Sulfur Alkaline Fly Slag
oxide sulfate trioxide ash
Cement/% 60 17 5 1 0.8 0.25 2.2 0.8 12.45 0.5
In Portland cement (32.5), the number ‘‘32.5’’ represents the strength grade of cement
155 Page 4 of 22
field. This technique consists of using equipment that
has 4 electrodes spaced by equal distance (= 5 cm)
and the equipment calibration was always checked
before tests. As shown in Fig. 1, the concrete
resistivity is measured using four electrodes. The
two external electrodes are employed to apply an AC
current, while the inner electrodes are used to measure
the electrical potential. In each specimen, two resis-
tivity measurements were made, rotated by 90° angles
on the same plane. This means that for each condition,
a total of 6 measurements were taken. The size of the
specimens used is large enough to be considered as a
semi-infinite medium, homogeneous and isotropic, as
well as that electrodes have zero surface contact area.
Thus, it was observed that there no need to apply a
shape factor for the size of the specimens used, and the
concrete resistivity (q) can be computed as:
V of concrete resistivity of the ordinary Portland cement
q ¼ 2pa ¼ 2paR
I
where q is concrete resistivity tested by the WM (X 
cm); a is distance between electrodes (cm); V is the
applied voltage between two potential measurement
electrodes (V); I is the electrical current (A); R is the
measured resistance (X). The WM resistivity testing
(SR-4000 Concrete Resistivity Tester) was performed
at 28, 150, 415, 757 days. In order to ensure good
contact between the electrode and concrete surface,
concrete surfaces were polished using a grinding
machine before electrodes were instrumented. The
compressive strength test was executed based on GB/T
50081-2019 [29] at 28 days, in the same test speci-
mens of concrete resistivity. The compressive strength
Fig. 1 Illustration of the four-point electrode technique
Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155
tests were carried out on a universal testing machine
which has 1000 KN load capacity.
3 Existing model
Nine existing empirical models [3, 5, 11–13, 15–18]
for predicting concrete resistivity were chosen to
check the accuracy and reliability because these
models clearly define the relationship between con-
crete resistivity and the input parameters. For the
comparison between them, a brief review of these
empirical models is presented as follows.
3.1 The DuraCrete model [15]
The DuraCrete [15] proposed an empirical expression
ð1Þ concrete with the consideration of influencing factors
of the test method, curing method, temperature,
relative humidity and chloride content by fitting the
experimental data as follows:
 gr
th
qcon ¼ q0  Kt  Kc  KT  KRH  KCl ð2Þ
t0
where q0 is resistivity of concrete made with Ordinary
Portland Cement under the standard conditions (e.g.,
W/C ratio = 0.5, t0 = 28d); th is the hydration time,
th = 1 year; gr is the age factor, for the Ordinary
Portland cement gr = 0.23; Kt, Kc, KT, KRH, and KCl
are influencing factors of the test method, curing
method, temperature, relative humidity and chloride
content respectively. The influence of relative humid-
ity on concrete resistivity can be expressed by:
1
KRH ¼ ð3Þ
1:3059  RH 2 þ 3:6050  RH  1:3270
where RH is relative humidity (50–100%).
This model is considered as the first empirical
model for predicting concrete resistivity, which pro-
vides ideas for other researchers to establish the
empirical models through different empirical param-
eters. However, the influence of admixture and W/C
ratio on concrete resistivity is not considered, and the
value of Kt, Kc is also difficult to be determined.
Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155
3.2 Gong’s et al. model [16]
Based on the experimental data provided by Gong
et al. [16]. The prediction model of concrete resistiv-
ity, considering the parameters of water cement ratio,
chloride content and relative humidity in the model, is
expressed as
qcon ¼ kðCl  1:8Þ þ 100ðRH  1Þ þ40 2
ð4Þ
where Cl is chloride content (% by cement); RH is
relative humidity (40% * 100%); k is fitting coeffi-
cient, and is expressed as
 cement type) and external factors (temperature, rela-
11:1; W=C ¼ 0:3  0:4
k¼ ð5Þ
5:6; W=C ¼ 0:5  0:6
Some key factors (e.g., W/C, Cl and RH) are
considered in this model, which shows good agree-
ments with experimental results provided by Ref.
[16, 17]. However, the influence of admixture and
temperature on concrete resistivity is not considered,
and the versatility of the model needs to be further
verified.
3.3 Geng’s et al. model [17]
Based on Gong et al. model [16], the influence of
temperature on concrete resistivity is considered in the
model, and the revised prediction model of concrete
resistivity developed by Geng [17] is expressed as
h i
qcon ¼ kðCt  1:8Þ þ 100ðRH  1Þ2 þ40
   ð6Þ
1 1
 exp 3000 
T 298
where T is ambient temperature (K).
This model is considered more comprehensively on
the basis of Gong et al. model (2005), which improves
the prediction accuracy of the model to a certain
extent. However, the versatility of the model also
needs to be further verified.
3.4 Yang’s et al. model [11]
Based on the experimental data, Yang et al. [11]
proposed a nonlinear regression model, in which
concrete resistivity varies with cement content,
cement type, ambient temperature, chloride content,
Page 5 of 22 155
relative humidity and environmental coefficient. The
prediction model of concrete resistivity is expressed as
 
qcon ¼ 2:22  104 C2  0:18848C þ 48:3516  fq;e
 fMa  fW=C  fCl  fT
ð7Þ
where C is content of binder (kg/m3); fq;e , fMa, fw/c, fCl,
fT are influencing factors of environmental condition,
mineral admixtures, water-to-cement ratio, chloride
content and temperature respectively, and the value of
every factors is determined in references [11].
Both the internal factors (W/C, cement content,
tive humidity, chloride content) are taken into in this
model, which is the most considered parameters
among the nine models, and improves the application
scope of the model in engineering. However, solving
coefficients in the model is more complicated, and the
setting range of the parameter is limited.
3.5 Pour-Ghaz’s et al. model [18]
Based on the available experimental data [29] and
aasumed equilibrium conditions, Pour-Ghaz et al. [18]
considers the relationship between the degree of
saturation and relative humidity using the adsorption
isotherm, the concrete resistivity under a certain
ambient temperature (T) is calculated by
DUq
R
1 1
T T 0
qcon ¼ q0 e ð8Þ
in which
26:753349
DUq ¼ ð9Þ
1  4:3362256  expð5:2488Sr Þ
where R is around 8.314 J/(mole  K) is the universal
gas constant; q0 is the resistivity at the reference
temperature, T0 = 293 K is the reference temperature;
and DUD (kJ/mole) is the activation energy of the
arrhenius relationship; Sr is the degree of concrete
saturation. Base on the experimental data obtained by
Gjørv et al. [29], the relationship between concrete
resistivity at temperature of 293 K and W/C ratio,
concrete saturation is calculated as shown in Table 2.
This practical model was established based on
semi-empirical and semi-theory, which have certain
theoretical significance and engineering application.
155 Page 6 of 22 Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155

Table 2 Concrete resistivity as a function of W/C ratio at different degree of saturation

Saturation (Sr) W/C from 0.4 to 0.48

40% q¼  1:366  107 ðw=cÞ3 þ2:419  107 ðw=cÞ2 1:415  107 ðw=cÞ þ 2:737  106
60% q ¼  2:197  105 ðw=cÞ3 þ3:936  105 ðw=cÞ2 2:335  105 ðw=cÞ þ 4:612  104
80% q ¼  1:728  104 ðw=cÞ3 þ3:078  104 ðw=cÞ2 1:819  104 ðw=cÞ þ 3:640  103
100% q ¼  3:145  103 ðw=cÞ3 þ5:643  103 ðw=cÞ2 3:382  103 ðw=cÞ þ 7:110  102
Saturation (Sr) W/C from 0.48 to 0.7
40% q ¼  16500 þ 112500ðw=cÞ  125000ðw=cÞ2
60% q ¼ 1837:72  4197:72ðw=cÞþ2613:63ðw=cÞ2
80% q ¼ 156:55  149:55ðw=cÞþ22:73ðw=cÞ2
100% q ¼ 77:10  99:10ðw=cÞþ45:45ðw=cÞ2

However, the adaptability of the model needs to be
verified in this section.
3.6 Jiang’s et al. model [12]
Based on the experimental data, Jiang et al. [12]
proposed an empirical model, in which concrete
resistivity varies with W/C ratio, chloride content,
ambient temperature and concrete saturation, and the
model is given as:
qcon ¼ ð750605  W=C  106228Þ
  
1 1
 exp 0:4417Cl  7:7213Sr þ 2889  Yu et al. [3] is expressed as
T 303
where W/C is water cement ratio (0.3–0.6); Cl is
chloride content (% by cement); Sr is the degree of
saturation, which is given by
The effect of W/C ratio and high chloride content
on the concrete resistivity under different concrete
saturations is mainly considered, which provides
experimental data for studying the influence of high
chloride content on concrete resistivity. However, the
influence of admixture on concrete resistivity is also
not considered.
3.7 Yu’s et al. model [3]
Based on the DuraCrete model [15], and the revised
prediction model of concrete resistivity developed by
ð10Þ
 gr
th
qcon ¼ q0 Kt  Kc  KT  KRH  KCt  KW=C
t0
ð13Þ

k1  RH where Kt, Kc, KT, KRH, and KCl are determined in

Sr ¼ ð11Þ reference [15]; KW/C is W/C ratio influence coefficient,
ð1  k2  RH Þð1 þ k3  RH Þ
which can be expressed by
The relevant formula is given as
1
k1 ¼ ð2:9142W=C  2:5849Þ  103 ðT  273Þ KW=C ¼ ð14Þ
0:0450 þ 1:8041  W=C
 0:1994W=C þ 0:1647
 This model considers the influence of W/C ratio on
k2 ¼ 2:907W=C  1:1446  103 ðT  273Þ concrete resistivity on the basis of other models, which
þ1:5594  105 ðT  273Þ3 þ 4:4465  103 effectively improves the prediction accuracy of the
model. However, the influence of admixture on
k3 ¼ ð2:158W=C  3:2774Þ  103 ðT  273Þ concrete resistivity is also not considered, and the
 0:3272W=C þ 0:3154 value of Kt, Kc is also difficult to be determined.
ð12Þ
where T is ambient temperature (K).
Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155
3.8 Yu’s et al. model [5]
Based on the experimental data reported by reference
[11, 30, 31], Yu et al. [5] analyzed the influence of the
four major influential factors of W/C ratio, tempera-
ture, relative humidity and chloride content on con-
crete resistivity, and proposed the non-linear
regression expression of concrete resistivity by using
the Taylor series expansion method.
qcon ¼ v1  f1 þ v2  f1  Cl þ v3  f1  Cl2 þ v4  f2
þ v5  f2  Cl þ v6  f2  Cl2
ð15Þ
where Cl is chloride content (% by concrete);
v1 ; v2 ; v3 ; v4 ; v5 ; v6 is model parameters of con-
crete resistivity, which are determined in Table 3; f1, f2
is a combined coefficient related to temperature,
relative humidity and W/C ratio, which can be
expressed by
f1 ¼ W=C  expððT  273Þ=25Þ  expðRH=75Þ
f2 ¼ expððT  273Þ=25Þ  expðRH=75Þ
ð16Þ
where W/C is water cement ratio; T is ambient
temperature (K); RH is relative humidity (%).
The mathematical model of concrete resistivity is
established based on the Taylor series expansion,
which provides new ideas for the establishment of the
concrete resistivity model. Both material parameters
(e.g., W/C ratio and chloride content) and environ-
mental conditions (e.g., ambient temperature and
relative humidity) is considered in this model. How-
ever, the influence of admixture on concrete resistivity
is also not considered.
3.9 Mendes’s et al. model [13]
Based on Archie and Power’s laws [32], Mendes et al.
[13] establishes a model for estimating the concrete
resistivity, considering the influence of concrete
Table 3 Model parameters
Parameter v1 v2
Value - 4393.78 44389.12
Page 7 of 22 155
porosity and tortuosity of concrete pores, which can
be expressed as
qcon ¼ qo  em ð17Þ
where qcon is concrete resistivity (kX  cm); qo ¼ 0:05
(kX  cm) is concrete resistivity of the aqueous phase
[33, 34]; m is parameter related to tortuosity of
concrete pores (between 1 and 2, according to [35]); e
is porosity (% volume), which is given by
100ððw=cÞ  0:36aÞ Volpaste
e ¼ ep  c ¼  ð18Þ
ðw=cÞ þ 0:32 Volconctrete
1:031ðw=cÞ
a¼  1:0 ð19Þ
ðw=cÞ þ 0:194
where Volpaste is the volume of paste; Volconcrete is the
volume of concrete.
This practical model is established based on pore
theory, which truly reflects the influence of the size of
the pores in the concrete on the concrete resistivity,
having great theoretical significance. However, the
parameter of a can be affected by time, w/c ratio,
fineness of cement and temperature. This model
focused mainly on the effect of w/c ratio and ignored
the influence of time, fineness and curing temperature.
In engineering practice, the concrete mixing param-
eters (e.g., w/c ratio, admixture) are difficult to
accurately define according to the predetermined
design. The value of Volpaste/Volconcrete may not be
as accurate as expected.
Through the analysis of the above models, each has
its own scope and shortcoming. For example, admix-
tures and time have a relatively large impact on
concrete resistivity. In order to improve the applica-
bility of the model, it needs to be considered simul-
taneously. Moreover, it should be noted that there are
several units for calculating concrete resistivity,
including X  m, kX  cm, X  cm. To compare the
different analysis results, the data of the different
concrete resistivity models were normalized, such as
the concrete resistivity, kX  cm, time, and so on.
v3 v4 v5 v6
- 108,362.76 3225.46 3225.46 - 25543.62
155 Page 8 of 22
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Concrete resistivity
The results of concrete resistivity of outdoor concrete
specimens at 28, 150, 415 and 757 days, respectively,
as shown in Fig. 2. The result shows that concrete
resistivity of these specimens is the smallest at 28 days
by comparing different days, due to high water content
inside concrete and relative humidity during curing.
Concrete resistivity gradually increases with the
increase of time, the growth rate of concrete resistivity
varies between 65.79% and 120.99%, 102.10% and
163.04%, 7.66% and 48.41% from 28 to 150 days,
150 days to 415 days, 415 days to 757 days, respec-
tively. This is because the cement hydration and
pozzolanic activity promotes an increase of concrete
resistivity and reduce the conductivity of the concrete.
As expected, during the curing of concrete specimens,
the increase of cement content and W/C ratio leads to a
decrease of concrete resistivity. Simultaneously,
because of the steel rebar will disturb the electrical
current flow and a great decrease in the recorded
apparent resistivity is observed.
4.2 Relationship between compressive strength
and concrete resistivity
The compressive strength of concrete at 28 days and
150 days of age, for different concrete specimens, is
tested in this study. The relationship between W/C
ratio and compressive strength at 28 days of curing
Fig. 2 Concrete resistivity at different times
Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155
time is presented in Fig. 3a–b. Besides, the relation-
ship between the compressive strength and concrete
resistivity at 28 days and 150 days of curing time is
presented in Fig. 3c.
Concrete strength for chloride-induced PC I spec-
imen with 0.45 W/C ratio was expectedly lower than
for concrete specimens without chloride content (e.g.,
PC II). The statistical analysis shows that the average
concrete strength for the specimen with 0.55 W/C
ratio was also lower than for basic specimen with a
0.45 W/C ratio. The result show that the W/C ratio
will affects concrete strength—with decreasing W/C
leading to increased concrete strength but to an extent
dependent on combined effect of chloride content,
concrete cover and resistivity. For concrete resistivity,
the resistivity depends on the pore volumes, which
changes with W/C ratio. According to Fig. 3b–c, the
reduction in W/C ratio leads to an improvement of
microstructure in concrete, which can cause an
increase in compressive strength, and an increase in
the resistivity of the concrete. The same behaviour was
also found by other researchers [13]. This is because
the improvement of the strength and microstructure of
the concrete resulting from the hydration activity.
4.3 The previous experimental data
A total of 290 experimental tests of concrete resistivity
published in the literature are collected in this study.
Table 4 illustrates the specimen types, dimensions,
cement types, cement content, W/C ratio, chloride
content (% by concrete), specimen numbers and test
Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155 Page 9 of 22 155

(a) (b)

(c)
Fig. 3 Influence of concrete parameters on concrete resistivity

approach (Two-electrode method and Wenner’s
method) provided by these reference
[10–13, 30, 31, 36–39], which can be used to provide
more effective data for model comparison. Moreover,
Hope et al. [10], Polder [36], Yoon and Nam [31],
Medeiros-Junior and Lima [38] consider the influence
of time on concrete resistivity in data analysis, the
ambient temperature and relative humidity are also
mentioned in these reference.
Due to differences in test principles, different test
approaches (TEM, WM) have slightly different con-
crete resistivities even if the material parameters and
environmental conditions are the same [28]. In order
to provide a comprehensive comparison, the value of
concrete resistivity tested by TEM or WM can be
converted as
qTEM ¼ 0:68qWM  1:20 ð20Þ
4.4 Comparison of different concrete resistivity
models
The ratio (qexp/qcal) of the experimental results and the
calculated results of the different models for 330
experimental tests are depicted in Fig. 4. The mean
(M), standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation
(CV), maximum, minimum, and the difference
155 Page 10 of 22 Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155

Table 4 Experimental information

Nos. Specimen Cement Mineral admixture/ W/C ratio Number Chloride Test References
% content approach
Type Size (mm) Type %

1 Prism 100 9 100 9 150 OPC – 0.37–0.57 16 0 TEM [10]

2 Prism 100 9 100 9 50 OPC (SF, SF-5%; FA-10% 0.43 16 0–0.05 TEM [36]
FA)
3 Prism 100 9 100 9 200 OPC – 0.45–0.55 45 0–0.34 WM [31]
4 Prism 300 9 250 9 250 OPC (SF, SF-5%, 8%, 10%; 0.30–0.50 36 0 WM [11]
FA, GS) FA-30%, 40%,
50%; GS-50%,
70%
5 Prism 300 9 250 9 250 OPC (SF, SF-5%, 10%; FA- 0.30–0.50 60 0.11–0.23 WM [30]
FA, GS) 10%, 30%, 50%;
GS-30%, 50%
6 Prism 40 9 40 9 160 OPC – 0.48–0.62 27 0.67–1.33 TEM [12]
7 Cube 250 9 250 9 250 OPC (GS) GS-60% 0.40–0.60 27 0 WM [38]
8 Prism 120 9 130 9 OPC FA-30%; GS-50% 0.40, 0.55 20 0.25–0.4 WM [37]
375 (FA,GS)
9 Cylinder u150 9 300 OPC – 0.40 10 0 TEM [39]
10 Cylinder u100 9 200 OPC SF-10%; FA-14%, 0.32–0.72 33 0 WM [13]
(SF,FA) 50%

between maximum and minimum of the ratios for the
different models are listed in Table 5.
It can be seen from Fig. 4 and Table 5 that for the
empirical models that include the same parameters,
such as the models proposed by Gong et al. and Geng,
Jiang and Yu et al. (2014), the predicted concrete
resistivity values are almost the same between 1 and
290. Moreover, all the predictions models have large
differences between the calculated results and the
experimental results. The mean ratio ranged from
0.351 (Jiang) to 1.231 (Mendes et al.), the standard
deviation of the ratio ranged from 0.309 (Jiang) to
0.665 (Pour-Ghaz et al.) and the coefficient of
variation of the ratio ranged from 0.349 (Mendes
et al.) to 1.206 Gong et al.), which shows that the Gong
et al. model has a large deviation in predicting the
concrete resistivity. The predicted results are much
higher than the test results, except for the models of
Yang, Pour-Ghaz et al., Yu et al. (2017), and Mendes
et al., which shows different comparison results. This
is because there are many factors that affect the
concrete resistivity, including the test instrument,
curing time, chloride content, W/C ratio, cement type,
ambient temperature, and relative humidity. Since the
range of concrete resistivity is very large, the
sensitivity of concrete resistivity is very strong. Each
empirical model is combined with several critical
parameters. The relative humidity is a critical param-
eter on concrete resistivity, and the concrete resistivity
predicted by the above model range from 105kX  cm
for oven-dried samples to 1kX  cm for saturated
concrete. It is very important to establish the relation-
ship between concrete resistivity and relativity humid-
ity. The quality of concrete has a significant influence
on the concrete resistivity for all test results. If the
concrete quality is poor, the experimental results
exhibit great variability and fluctuation.
Moreover, Gong et al. proposed a nonlinear
regression model in which the concrete resistivity
varies with W/C ratio, chloride content and relative
humidity, this model gives calculated results that are
higher than the experimental results with a mean of the
ratios of 0.355 and coefficient of variation of the ratio
of 1.206. As a revised model based on the model of
Gong et al., the model proposed by Geng provides
similar results of the mean ratio of 0.36 and coefficient
of variation of the ratio of 1.194, which shows that the
structure of the revised model is not substantially
different. Similarly, Yu et al. (2014) proposed a
revised model based on the model of DuraCrete, and
Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155 Page 11 of 22 155

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
 155 Page 12 of 22 Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155

b Fig. 4 Comparison of experimental results with results 5 Newly model

predicted by the existing models and the new proposal
the results of the modified model show trend similar to
those of the results of the original model.
In addition, Jiang proposed a nonlinear regression
model that predicts results higher than the experimen-
tal results, with a mean and coefficient of variation of
the ratio of 0.351 and 0.881, respectively. This is
mainly because the parameter formula is similar to
those of the other models. Pour-Ghaz et al. considered
the adsorption isotherm and gave better results with a
mean ratio of 1.172 but with a lower coefficient of
variation of the ratio of 0.665; in addition, half of the
predicted results are much lower than the test data.
The above-mentioned details, show that some
models generally show good agreements with the
experimental data, such as the model of Mendes et al.
and Yu et al. (2017); some models generally show
good agreement with the experimental results pro-
vided by Yoon et al. [31] and Yang et al. [11], but
cannot predict precise results for the other test
specimen. In general, the results of all the above
models are unlikely to show good agreements with all
experimental results. Thus, the comparison of the
previous predicting models, indicates that it is neces-
sary to develop an accurate and effective analytical
concrete-resistivity-prediction model, which consid-
ers the influence of not only relative humidity but also
admixtures.
Although several existing methods (e.g., WM and
TEM) can be applied to test the concrete resistivity,
field measurements of concrete resistivity are usually
affected by many factors such as surface contact,
concrete non-homogeneity, presence of rebar and
ambient conditions [41–43]. These factors may cause
significant deviation from the experimental data under
the real conditions. Hence, it is necessary to develop a
simplified model for concrete resistivity based on the
experimental data.
5.1 Prediction model of concrete resistivity
The above comparison results show that existing
models do not properly predict concrete resistivity
from 29 to 840 days, and a model that better predicts
concrete resistivity is needed. This new model should
use readily available information to estimate time-
variant activity. Because concrete resistivity is
strongly affected by the concrete characteristics and
the environmental conditions, these should be
included. An accurate and effective theoretical model
should be a function of the material characteristics and
the service condition in which the concrete is placed.
A general expression can be given as
qðtÞ ¼ fce  fW=C  fCl  fAm  fT  fRH  ft ð21Þ

Table 5 Comparisons of the concrete resistivity obtained from experiments and the predictions of existing predicting models and the
new proposal
References The ratios of test results to the predictions of existing models and the new proposal
M SD CV Max Min Max–Min

DuraCrete [15] 0.637 0.472 0.741 2.951 0.077 2.874

Gong et al. [16] 0.355 0.428 1.206 3.272 0.004 3.268
Geng [17] 0.360 0.430 1.194 2.661 0.004 2.657
Yang [11] 0.924 0.614 0.664 3.584 0.029 3.555
Pour-Ghaz et al. [18] 1.172 0.665 0.568 2.883 0.140 2.744
Jiang [12] 0.351 0.309 0.881 1.712 0.006 1.706
Yu et al. [3] 0.572 0.419 0.731 2.423 0.086 2.336
Yu et al. [5] 1.150 0.557 0.484 3.578 0.186 3.392
Mendes et al. [13] 1.231 0.430 0.349 2.776 0.379 2.397
This model 0.957 0.330 0.346 2.265 0.330 1.936
Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155
(g)
(i)
Fig. 4 continued
where fce, fw/c, fCl, fAm, fRH, fT, and ft = factors that
consider the influence of cement content, W/C ratio,
chloride content, cement type, relative humidity,
temperature, the hydration time, respectively.
Cement content and W/C ratio are one of the most
important material parameters, which can affect the
porosity and water content inside the concrete. Base
on the experimental data reported by reference
[11, 13, 37], the relationship between concrete resis-
tivity and the combination of cement content and W/C
Page 13 of 22 155
(h)
ratio at a temperature of 298 K and a relative humidity
of 95% can be expressed by
fce  fW=C ¼ 1:65
þ 115 exp½0:259ðCE=100 þ 18:4W=CÞ
ð22Þ
where CE is cement content (267–656 kg/m3); the
applicable range of W/C ratio is 0.30–0.72.
Ambient temperature (T) is one important environ-
mental parameter that can affect the moving speed of
ions and water content in concrete, which will affect
155 Page 14 of 22
concrete resistivity. With a certain range (e.g., 288–
313 K), the higher the temperature, the lower concrete
resistivity. Based on the research results reported by
reference [10, 44], the relationship between concrete
resistivity and T can be expressed by
  
1 1
fT ¼ exp 3000  ð23Þ
T 298
Relative humidity (RH) is another important envi-
ronmental parameter that effects concrete resistivity.
Water saturation of concrete increases with the
increment of RH, which strengthen the ion channel
and as a result decrease the concrete resistivity. Based
on the experimental data reported by reference [9, 12].
The relationship between concrete resistivity and RH
can be written as
fRH ¼ k1  RH 3:68
where RH is relative humidity (0.5–1); k1 is the
adjustment.
Chloride content (Cl) is another important material
parameter that affects the concrete resistivity. On the
one hand, concrete resistivity will decrease with the
increase of Cl when concrete chloride content is with a
certain range. On the other hand, concrete chloride
content has little effect on concrete resistivity when
concrete chloride content exceeds a certain range.
Based on the experimental data reported by reference
[11, 31], the relationship between concrete resistivity
and Cl can be expressed by
fCl ¼ k2  expð1:36ClÞ
where Cl is chloride content (0–0.5% by concrete),
when concrete chloride content is greater than 0.5%,
fCl is equal to 1.
It can be seen from the relevant literature that
different admixtures in cement will also affect
concrete resistivity [8, 11, 36–38]. Based on the
experimental data reported by reference [11], a
simplified model is proposed, not considering the
influence of concrete chloride content on the admix-
ture. The relationship between concrete resistivity and
the different admixtures can be defined as
8 experimental results and the calculated results of the
>
> 1 for Portland Cement
< new model are depicted in Fig. 6, and the mean value,
1:21  FA þ 1:25 for Fly ash
fAm ¼
> 1:3FS2 þ 2:45FS þ 1
> for Blast furnace slag
:
27:1SF þ 1 for Silica fume
Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155
where FA, FS, SF is Fly ash (% by cement mass,
10–50%), Blast furnace slag (% by cement mass,
30–70%), Silica fume (% by cement mass, 5–10%),
respectively.
Due to cement hydration in concrete and the
changed temperature, relative humidity with time,
concrete resistivity will increase rapidly after curing
and gradually stabilize. Based on the experimental
data reported by reference [36, 38], the relationship
between concrete resistivity and time can be estimated
as
ft ¼ ðt=28Þ0:3 ð27Þ
where t is time (days).
Comparison between calculated and tested value is
given in Fig. 5. The 45° line can be assumed as the
ð24Þ exact value. As shown in Fig. 6, almost calculated data
are situated within in the part between ? 20%—line
and - 20%—line, which represents that the accuracy
of the calculation models provided by Eqs. (21) to (24)
is acceptable.
Substituting Eqs. (22)–(27) into Eq. (21) can then
be used to estimate concrete resistivity as follows:
qðtÞ ¼ k1 k2 fAm f1:65 þ 115 exp½0:259ðCE=100
þ18:4W=CÞgRH3:68 ðt=28Þ0:3
exp½1:36Cl þ 3000ð1=T  1=298Þ
ð28Þ
Based on the previous 330 experimental tests, concrete
ð25Þ resistivity finally can be obtained as by a regression
analysis.
qðtÞ ¼ RH 3:68 ðt=28Þ0:3 fAm f1:65 þ 115
exp½0:259ðCE=100 þ 18:4W=CÞg ð29Þ
exp½1:36Cl þ 3000ð1=T  1=298Þ
5.2 Verification of new empirical models
Further, to further verify the versatility of the new
model, based on the experimental data provided in
Sect. 4 and existed data, the ratio (qexp/qcal) of the
standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and max-
imum and minimum of the ratios are listed in Table 5.
ð26Þ From Table 5, it can be observed that the new model
Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155 Page 15 of 22 155

36
11

(a) (b)

30
12 11
38 31

(c) (d)

Fig. 5 Error quantification for predictive model

gives the excellent results with a mean ratio of 0.957
and a coefficient of variation of the ratio of 0.346. The
mean ratio ranges from 0.331 to 2.265, which has
relatively small fluctuations compared with the fluc-
tuations in most other models. Thus, the results of the
new model are in fairly good agreement with the
experimental results in terms of the concrete
resistivity.
A sensitivity analysis is performed to investigate
the parameters considered in the new model that
influence concrete resistivity. Figure 7 illustrates the
results of the sensitivity analysis of concrete resistiv-
ity. It should be noted that the concrete resistivity
predicted by the developed model is most sensitive to
ambient temperature, followed by relative humidity
and W/C ratio, and the model is least sensitive to time.
5.3 Modelling error of the empirical models
In order to further investigate the uncertainties of the
empirical models above mentioned and the new
155 Page 16 of 22
Fig. 6 Comparison of experimental results with results
predicted by the new proposal
Fig. 7 Sensitivity of concrete resistivity to variables
proposed model, a model error (ME) variable is
introduced:
qexp
ME ¼
qcal
To further study the uncertainties of above-men-
tioned theoretical models and the proposed new
model, the model error method proposed by Elling-
wood and Galambos is adopted [40]. The statistics
moments and the histograms of the modelling uncer-
tainty parameter of the 10 models are given in Fig. 8.
Four probability distributions are applied to fit the
statistical data. The probability density functions
(PDFs) of these distributions for each simulation
model are presented in Fig. 8. It is found that the
Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155
Lognormal and Weibull distribution fit the histogram
better than the Normal and Gumbel distributions.
Results of Chi-square analysis considering the devel-
oped model are given in Table 6, in which the
goodness-of-fitting tests were simulated by following
formula [45]
Pk
ð O i  Ei Þ 2
Tg ¼ i¼1 ð31Þ
Ei
where Oi is the observed frequencies; Ei is the
theoretical frequencies; k is the number of intervals
used; and Tg is the respective goodness-of-fit.
The lower the value of the goodness of fit statistic is
better. It is found in Table 6, the result shows that the
Gumbel distribution has the best fitting with Tg of
12.41 among these four distributions for the new
proposal. Besides, the Chi-square test results for the
existing model are given in Table 7. Modeling
uncertainty parameters like mean, standard deviation,
and probability distribution of these ten empirical
models are summarized and compared in Table 8.
The goodness-of-fitting results of DuraCrete, Jiang,
Yu et al. (2014) and Mendes et al. demonstrate that the
lognormal distribution has the best fitting with Tg of
14.20, 9.96, 31.20 and 5.23, respectively. The good-
ness-of-fitting results of Gong et al., Geng, Pour-Ghaz
et al. and Yu et al. (2017) show that the Weibull
distribution has the best fitting with 8.29, 20.91, 15.14,
8.77, respectively. Moreover, the goodness-of-fitting
tests of Yang exhibit that the Gumbel distribution has
the best fitting with 27.11.
5.4 Relationship between concrete resistivity
and corrosion rate
In the past few decades, a lot of experimental tests
were conducted to investigate the relations between
ð30Þ concrete resistivity and corrosion rate of steel bars
embedded in concrete structure, which had been
summarized by several scholars, e.g., Rodriguez
[24], and Feliú [46]. Based on the experimental data
provided by the author and the previous researchers, a
simplified model for predicting the corrosion rate of
steel reinforcement is developed. The correspondence
relationship between concrete resistivity and corrosion
rate of steel rebar is shown in Fig. 9. Regression
analysis gives a simple equation for corrosion rate
icorr.
Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155 Page 17 of 22 155

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
 155 Page 18 of 22 Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155

b Fig. 8 Histogram and statistical moments of model error

variables and fitting results where k is fitted parameter to describe the the
relationship between concrete resistivity and corrosion
rate of reinforcing bar, which can be determined by the
regression analysis of the experimental data (e.g.
It can be seen from Fig. 9 that the corrosion rate is k = 9.92 lA/cm2 kX  cm). Andrade and Arteaga [47]
inversely proportional to the concrete resistivity and established a similar relationship between concrete
their relationship can be written as resistivity and corrosion rate of reinforcing bar, and
k k is equal to 10.53 lA/cm2 kX  cm. Comparing the
icorr ¼ ð32Þ
q value of k, it is clear that the predicted results of the
above two models agree well with each other.

(g) (h)

(i) (j)

Fig. 8 continued
Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155 Page 19 of 22 155

Table 6 Chi-square test results for qexp qcal

Intervals Frequency Predicted frequency Goodness of fit

Normal Lognormal Gumbel Weibull Normal Lognormal Gumbel Weibull

\ 0.4 6 15.25 2.51 3.11 14.30 14.26 2.03 1.39 11.49

0.4–0.6 35 31.08 34.14 32.61 34.56 0.44 0.02 0.16 0.01
0.6–0.8 75 58.49 81.34 82.06 59.70 3.63 0.54 0.66 3.12
0.8–1.0 78 77.23 85.77 87.54 74.55 0.55 3.07 3.85 0.18
1.0–1.2 69 71.57 60.20 59.94 68.92 5.72 0.71 0.65 4.12
1.2–1.4 35 46.54 34.08 33.23 46.56 21.18 4.24 3.55 21.21
1.4–1.6 18 21.24 17.16 16.68 22.32 7.11 2.22 1.83 8.87
1.6–1.8 8 6.80 8.10 8.00 7.30 0.01 0.17 0.14 0.01
[ 1.8 6 1.79 6.70 6.99 1.79 2.95 0.08 0.16 2.96
SUM 330 330 330 330 330 55.84 13.07 12.41 51.97

Table 7 Chi-square test results for qexp qcal (the existing empirical models)

Model Sum Predicted frequency Goodness of fit

Normal Lognormal Gumbel Weibull Normal Lognormal Gumbel Weibull

DuraCrete 325 325 325 325 325 97.08 14.20 52.95 48.05
Gong et al 330 330 330 330 330 110.60 23.84 40.85 8.29
Geng 330 330 330 330 330 124.91 57.91 59.08 20.91
Yang 330 330 330 330 330 57.68 46.30 27.11 30.09
Pour-Ghaz et al 304 304 304 304 304 38.44 50.00 24.30 15.14
Jiang 330 330 330 330 330 110.98 9.96 42.30 24.44
Yu et al. (2014) 325 325 325 325 325 75.79 31.20 43.60 34.61
Yu et al. (2017) 227 227 227 227 227 9.13 30.25 15.66 8.77
Mendes et al 290 290 290 290 290 26.22 5.23 6.62 26.42

Table 8 Probability Model uncertainty parameters Distribution Mean Standard deviation

characteristics of modelling
uncertainty parameters DuraCrete Lognormal 0.637 0.472
Gong et al Weibull 0.355 0.428
Geng Weibull 0.360 0.430
Yang Gumbel 0.924 0.614
Pour-Ghaz et al Weibull 1.172 0.665
Jiang Lognormal 0.351 0.309
Yu et al. (2014) Lognormal 0.572 0.419
Yu et al. (2017) Weibull 1.150 0.557
Mendes et al Lognormal 1.231 0.430
New proposed Gumbel 0.957 0.330
155 Page 20 of 22
Reference [46]
Reference [24]
Fig. 9 The relationship between concrete resistivity and
corrosion rate
6 Conclusions
In this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. From the experimental results, concrete resistivity
decreases with increase of W/C ratio, cement
content and concrete chloride content; concrete
resistivity increases rapidly within a year, then the
trend tend to be flat one year later. This is because
the concrete quality can be improved by a
reduction in W/C ratio and proper curing time.
The test also confirms that higher quality concrete
improves the resistance on the concrete resistivity.
2. Comparing the calculation results of the previous
model with the experimental data, a new empirical
model for concrete resistivity is proposed with the
consideration of parameters including cement
content, cement type, ambient temperature, rela-
tive humidity, time, W/C ratio and concrete
chloride content; the new empirical model gives
a better prediction than the other previous models,
and the versatility of the new has also been
verified. Experimental data calculated by the
developed model with a difference smaller than
20%. These results predicted by the previous
model with a difference greater than 30%.
3. The probability distribution of the modelling error
of the new model and Yang can be described by
Gumbel random variables, while DuraCrete,
Jiang, Yu et al. (2014) and Mendes et al. can be
assumed as lognormal random variables, Gong
et al., Geng, Pour-Ghaz et al. and Yu et al. (2017)
Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155
and Mendes et al. can be assumed as Weibull
random variables. The uncertainty model can
evaluate the risk of rebar corrosion, which could
avoid the misjudgement of the corrosion stage of
steel rebar under different risk levels.
4. Based on the experimental data, the relationship
between concrete resistivity and corrosion rate is
proposed, which provided theoretical support to
evaluate corrosion risk of reinforcing bar in RC
structures.
Funding The study is supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51878413, 51908009)
and the Science and Technology Plan Project of Shenzhen
(Grant No. JCYJ20190808112019066).
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no
conflict of interest.
References
1. Bertolini L, Elsener B, Pedeferri P, Polder R (2004) Cor-
rosion of steel in concrete. Wiley-VCH
2. Sagoe-Crentsil KK, Glasser FP (1989) Steel in concrete:
part I—a review of the electrochemical and thermodynamic
aspects. Mag Concrete Res 41(149):205–212
3. Yu B, Yang LF, Wu M et al (2014) Practical model for
predicting corrosion rate of steel reinforcement in concrete
structures. Constr Build Mater 54:315–328
4. Wei X, Xiao L (2014) Kinetics parameters of cement
hydration by electrical resistivity measurement and
calorimetry. Adv Cem Res 26:187–193
5. Yu B, Liu JB, Chen Z (2017) Probabilistic evaluation
method for corrosion risk of steel reinforcement based on
concrete resistivity. Constr Build Mater 138:101–113
6. de Medeiros-Junior RA, de Lima MG, de Medeiros MHF
(2015) Service life of concrete structures considering the
effects of temperature and relative humidity on chloride
transport. Environ Dev Sustain 17:1103–1119
7. Polder R, Andrade C, Elsener B, Vennesland Ø, Gulikers J,
Weidert R et al (2000) Rilem TC 154-EMC: electrochem-
ical techniques for measuring metallic corrosion-test
methods for onsite measurement of resistivity of concrete.
Mater Struct 33(234):603–611
8. Elkey W, Sellevold EJ (1995) Electrical resistivity of con-
crete. Publication No. 80. Norwegian Road Research Lab-
oratory, Oslo
9. Whiting DA, Nagi MA (2003) Electrical resistivity of
concrete—a literature review. Skokie, Illinois, Portland
Cemente Association
10. Hope BB, Ip AK (1985) DG Manning. Corrosion and
electrical impedance in concrete. Cem Concr Res
15(3):525–534
Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155
11. Yang YT (2009) Research on concrete resistivity and rein-
forced concrete steel corrsoion rate. Dalian University of
Technology, Dalian, China (in Chinese)
12. Jiang JH (2011) Quantitative model of climate load and its
application in life predictions of concrete structures. China
University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, China (in
Chinese)
13. Mendes SES, Oliveira RLN, Cremonez C et al (2018)
Electrical resistivity as a durability parameter for concrete
design: experimental data versus estimation by mathemat-
ical model. Constr Build Mater 192:610–620
14. Sun M, Li Z (1998) Study on the hole conduction phe-
nomenon in carbon fiber reinforced concrete. Cem Concr
Res 28(4):549–555
15. DuraCrete (2000) Statistical Quantification of the variables
in the limit state functions. The Netherlands
16. Gong GJ, Song XB, Kong QM (2016) The resistivity of
concrete contamated by chloride. Ind Constr 35(12):5–7
17. Geng O (2008) Prediction models of steel bar corrosion rate
in concrete menber. China University of Mining and
Technology, Xuzhou, China (in Chinese)
18. Pour-Ghaz M, Isgor OB, Ghods P (2009) The effect of
temperature on the corrosion of steel in concrete. Part 2:
Model verification and parametric study. Corros Sci
51(2):426–433
19. Millard SG, Harrison JA, Edwards AJ (1989) Measurement
of the electrical-resistivity of reinforced-concrete structures
for the assessment of corrosion risk. Br J Nondestruct Test
31(11):617–621
20. Hormbostel K, Larsen CK, Geiker MR (2013) Relationship
between concrete resistivity and corrosion rate—a literature
review. Cem Concr Compos 39:60–72
21. Feliu S, González JA, Feliu SJ, Andrade C (1989) Rela-
tionship between conductivity of concrete and corrosion of
reinforcing bars. Br Corros J 24(3):195–198
22. Morris W, Vico A, Vazquez M, de Sanchez SR (2002)
Corrosion of reinforcing steel evaluated by means of con-
crete resistivity measurements. Corros Sci 44(1):81–99
23. Gonzalez JA, Miranda JM, Feliu S (2004) Considerations on
reproducibility of potential and corrosion rate measure-
ments in reinforced concrete. Corros Sci 46(10):2467–2485
24. Rodriguez J, Ortega LM, Garcia AM, Johansson L, Petter-
son K (1994) On site corrosion rate measurements in con-
crete structures using a device developed under the Eureka
project EU-401. In: International conference on concrete
across borders Odense, Denmark
25. López W, González JA (1993) Influence of the degree of
pore saturation on the resistivity of concrete and the cor-
rosion rate of steel reinforcement. Cem Concr Res
23:368–376
26. Bertolini L, Polder RB (1997) TNO report–concrete resis-
tivity and reinforcement corrosion rate as a function of
temperature and humidity of the environment. TNO
Building and Construction Research
27. Gowers KR, Millard SG (1999) Measurement of concrete
resistivity for assessment of corrosion severity of steel using
Wenner technique. ACI Mater J 96:536–541
Page 21 of 22 155
28. Silva PC, Ferreira RM, Figueiras H (2011) Electrical
resistivity as a means of quality control of concrete–influ-
ence of test procedure. In: International conference on
durability of building materials and components, Porto
Portugal
29. GjØv OE, Vennesland Ø, El-Busiady AHS (1977) In: Pro-
ceedings of the ninth annual Offshore Technology confer-
ence, Houston, Texas, pp 581–588
30. Zhao HB (2008) Research on concrete resistivity and the
damage pattern of corroded reinforced concrete. Dalian
University of Technology, Dalian, China ((in Chinese))
31. Yoon IS, Nam JM (2014) Influence of chloride content of on
electrical resistivity in concrete. J Kor Inst Struct Maint Insp
18(6):90–96
32. Archie GE (1942) The electrical resistivity log as an aid in
determining some reservoir characteristics. Trans Am Inst
Min Metall Eng 146:54–62
33. Buenfeld NR, Newman JB, Page CL (1986) The resistivity
of mortar immersed in sea-water. Cem Concr Res
16:511–524
34. Goñi S, Andrade C (1990) Synthetic concrete pore solution
chemistry and rebar corrosion rate in the presence of chlo-
rides. Cem Concr Res 20:525–539
35. Wong P, Koplik J, Tomanic JP (1984) Conductivity and
permeability of rocks. Phys Rev B 30:6606
36. Polder RB (1996) The influence of blast furnace slag, fly ash
and silica fume on corrosion of reinforced concrete in
marine environment. Heron 41(4):287–300
37. Michel A, Otieno M, Stang H et al (2016) Propagation of
steel corrosion in concrete: experimental and numerical
investigations. Cem Concr Compos 70:171–182
38. Medeiros-Junior RA, Lima MG (2016) Electrical resistivity
of unsaturated concrete using different types of cement.
Constr Build Mater 107:11–16
39. Hou TC, Nguyen VK, Su YM et al (2017) Effects of coarse
aggregates on the electrical resistivity of Portland cement
concrete. Constr Build Mater 133:397–408
40. Ellingwood BR, Galambos TV (1982) Probability-based
criteria for structural design. Struct Saf 1(1):15–26
41. Salehi M, Ghods P, Isgor OB (2016) Numerical investiga-
tion of the role of embedded reinforcement mesh on elec-
trical resistivity measurements of concrete using the
Wenner probe technique. Mater Struct 49(1–2):301–316
42. Angst UM, Elsener B (2014) On the applicability of the
Wenner method for resistivity measurements of concrete.
ACI Mater J 111(6):661–672
43. Morris W, Moreno EI, Sagüés AA (1996) Practical evalu-
ation of resistivity of concrete in test cylinders using a
Wenner array probe. Cem Concr Res 26(12):1779–1787
44. Liu ZY, Zhan ZF (2006) Research on electrical resistivity of
concrete and its applition in durabilty. Concrete 10:13–16
45. Ang AHS, Tang WH (2006) Probability concepts in engi-
neering: emphasis on Applications to Civil & Environ-
mental Engineering, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
46. Feliú S, González JA, Andrade C (1996) Electrochemical
methods for on-site determinations of corrosion rates of
rebars. In: Berke NS, Escalante E, Nmai CK, Whiting D
(eds.), Techniques to assess the corrosion activity of steel
155 Page 22 of 22
reinforced concrete structures, ASTM STP 1276,
pp 107–118
47. Andrade C, Arteaga A (1998) Statistical quantification of
the propagation period. Internal Report of Brite/Euram
projekt BE95–1347 Duracrete
Materials and Structures (2021) 54:155
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.