Corrosion of embedded metal

(Types of reinforcement – coated and non-metallic rebars)

Prabha Mohandoss Ph.D.

CEPE12 – Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Structures
Department of Civil Engineering
National Institute of Technology Tiruchirappalli, Trichy 620015
Courtesy: Some images are sourced from the internet for demonstration purposes.
Outline of
Module on corrosion of embedded metal
 Significance
 Fundamentals of corrosion
 Carbonation-induced corrosion
 Chloride-induced corrosion
 Different types of steel reinforcement and
precautions to be taken
• Bare steel rebars
• Coated steel rebars
• Non-metallic rebars
 Corrosion in prestressed concrete
Types of Reinforcing Bars/strands
1. Plain and ribbed (hot rolled) mild steel bars

2. Cold twisted deformed (CTD) steel bars

3. Thermo-mechanically treated (TMT) or
Quenched and self-tempered (QST) steel bars

4. Corrosion-resistant steel (CRS) bars

5. Stainless steel bars

6. Prestressing steel strands

7. Galvanized steel bars

8. Fusion-bonded-epoxy coated (FBEC) steel bars

9. Cement-polymer-composite coated (CPCC) steel bars

10. Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars

Hot-dipped galvanized (HDG) steel
reinforcement - Manufacturing process
 ASTM A767 - Standard Specification for Zinc-Coated (Galvanized) Steel Bars for
Concrete Reinforcement
 IS 12594 - Hot-dip coatings on structural steel bars for concrete reinforcement
specifications

450 oC

https://www.galvanizedrebar.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/04/galv_coatPROCESS.gif
Four typical layers on the HDG steel
surface
 Zinc bath at 450 ºC
• Iron-zinc alloy layers
• More abrasion resistant than the non-metallic coatings
• No special handling is required

Different
Zn-Fe layers

www.galvanizedrebar.com
Corrosion of the Zn-Fe layers

Reduction in coating thickness due to corrosion: 180  160  110 mm approx.

Yeomans 2004
Uniformly thick coating can be achieved
even at corners/edges/ribs

Yeomans 2004
Resistance to damage and localized
corrosion
 Rough handling and bending are okay
 Galvanic protection of exposed steel by the adjacent
zinc coating

Yeomans 2004
Early corrosion and possible bond loss

 Zinc reacts with fresh

concrete (at pH > 13)
• Calcium hydroxyzincate
(CHZ) is formed
• Accompanied by hydrogen
evolution  possible bond
loss
• New technologies are
available to avoid such bond
loss

Wide pH passivation range

Yeomans 2004
Additives for minimizing the bond loss
 The addition of chromates in the
coating can prevent bond loss and
enhance the bond strength
 Chromates may restrict or completely
stop hydrogen evolution in the initial
stages of zinc corrosion and thus, not
adversely affect the porosity of the
cement paste at the interface.
 Literature also shows that bond loss is
not of a significant concern in the field
structures

P. Pokorny et al., Evaluation of the impact of corrosion of hot-dip galvanized reinforcement on bond strength with concrete – A
review, Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 271–289
Corrosion-induced cracking is minimal

 Zinc corrosion products are

loose, powdery, and less
voluminous than iron/steel
corrosion products
• Able to migrate away from the
galvanized rebar surface into
concrete, without exerting
pressure
 Corrosion of the zinc coating
causes very little physical
disruption or cracks to the
surrounding concrete.

Yeomans 2018; www.galvanizedrebar.com

Corrosion parameters and service life of
HDG steel rebars
 Chloride threshold for zinc is about 2
to 4 times more than that of
uncoated steel
 Zinc has much wider pH passivation
range than steel
• Enhanced resistance against
carbonation-induced corrosion
 Corrosion rate of zinc is less than
that of uncoated steel
 Longer service life
• High chloride threshold
• Wide pH passivation range
• Low corrosion rate

www.galvanizedrebar.com; Yeomans 2004

Examples of applications of HDG steel
rebars
 Fusion bonded epoxy (FBE) coated bars
 Protection mechanisms are:
• Elimination of direct physical contact between the metal and
electrolyte
• Reduction in the driving potential by the protection film around
the steel surface
• Reduction in the oxygen supply

Steel
Coating
Concrete

Ababneh et al. (2012); Kessler et al. (2015)

FBE coating process

1. Blasting, cleaning, & heating 2. Epoxy resin powder is ionized and

(220oC; electrical induction or attracted to the steel surface by
gas-fired heater ) electrostatic forces

3. Water quenching results in 4. Inspection for holidays/damage

a thermosetting polymer
McDonald (2016); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rp_hpforbI
Holidays/pinholes and inspection

 Wet sponge

 Wire brush

Deepak and Pillai (unpublished work); https://www.corrosionpedia.com/coating-holidays-pinholes-chinks-in-the-armor/2/5245

Chronology of changes in ASTM A775
(2017) 
Year Changes made
1981 First version approved
1989 Permissible damage level was reduced to 1 % of the steel surface area
1989 Introduction of anchor profile of 1.5 – 4 mil (38 – 100 µm)
1990 All the damages should be repaired
1993 Limit on coating thickness was introduced (177 - 300 µm)
1994 Flexibility test - bend angle was increased to 180° from 120°
1995 Limit on number of holidays - one holiday per foot length is allowed
1995 Coating should be done within 3 hours after cleaning of steel surface
Coating disbondment test was introduced to check the adhesion between concrete and
1997
steel
2004 Coating thickness limit was increased (177 - 400 µm) for larger diameter rebars
Limits on individual measurements were introduced (should not be less than 80 % and
2004
should not ne more than 120 % of the allowable limits)
2007 Requirements for patching materials is added to the standard
http://www.epoxyinterestgroup.org/index.cfm/_api/render/file/?method=inline&fileID=9CF988F2-A756-4516-5FA16A419128D013
ASTM 775 (2017) & IS 13620 (2004)
ASTM 775 (2017) IS 13620 (2004)
Time to coating
application after
3 hours 8 hours
cleaning
Coating thickness 177 - 400 µm for larger diameter rebars 100 to 300 µm; this does not apply to
(No. 19 - 57); 177 - 300 µm (for others) patch area
Individual measurements should be within 90% of measurements should be within
80 to 120 % of allowable limits limits
Coating continuity < 3 holidays per meter length < 6 holidays per meter length
Adhesion No visible cracks or debonding after 180o No visible cracks or debonding after
bending 120o bending
Permissible coating All damage should be repaired; Allowed Coating damage < 40 mm2 need not
damage damage level < 1 % be repaired;
Allowed damage level < 2 %
Coating (patch) Guidelines for coating material No guideline
material

IS 13620:1993 – reaffirmed in 2004

Need to be relooked for the long-term corrosion resistance
Additional epoxy is simply applied at site
 Mostly, rebars are cut “at site”
 At the cut surfaces/ends, an
additional coating (brighter green
color) is applied using a simple
paint brush “at site” at ambient
temperature conditions
• Fusion bonding will not occur at
ambient temperature conditions

FBEC rebars must not be cut and bent at site and must be
handled delicately to avoid surface damage
http://www.epoxyinterestgroup.org/index.cfm/epoxy/field
http://www.concreteconstruction.net/Images/Choices%20in%20Corrosion-Resistant%20Rebar_tcm45-347334.pdf
FBE coated steel bars are being bent at
site – NOT a good practice
• Hard tools damage the epoxy surface

Bending of FBE Coated bars at site must be banned.

As it is practiced abroad, steel bars must be bent prior to the coating.  
Additional epoxy is simply applied at site
 Due to inadequate ductility, the
epoxy coating can crack during
the bending “at site”
 An additional coating (see
brighter green color on photo ) is
applied “at site” at ambient
temperature conditions 
• Fusion bonding will not occur at
ambient temperature conditions
• Additional layer is not repairing the
damage and is not in contact with
the exposed steel

Additional epoxy coating using simple paint brush and at ambient

temperature does not lead to fusion bonding and should be avoided
With scratched/damaged coating, crevice
corrosion can happen even without chlorides
Scratched damage without corrosion
Chloride concentration at rebar
level was ≈ 0.2 %bwoc, which is
less than typical chloride
threshold of the bare steel
Scratched damage with Corrosion
Current lines

In presence of damage, moisture-induced corrosion can take place

This can happen even without the presence of chlorides – hence,
more important to reject the damaged FBEC steel bars

Kamde and Pillai (2017)

FBEC steel rebars gets exposed to UV
during storage and delays in construction
Exposed rebars

Exposure to UV can degrade the coating quality and result in

premature corrosion initiation
Poor quality FBE coated steel rebars are
being used in many projects…

Mechanical damage and UV attack

(degradation) can happen to coating and
can result in premature corrosion initiation
Epoxy coating can crack if exposed to
sunlight (UV radiation)
Crack width

all at 2000 ×
magnification

Day 15 Day 17 Day 24

Day 34 Day 40 Day 47 Day 54

Cracks started to appear after 12 days of laboratory UV exposure, which is

equivalent to about 1.5 months of natural exposure to sunlight
Kamde (2020)
Epoxy coating can crack if exposed to UV
radiation
Before UV exposure Significant cracking after 2 months of UV exposure

Day 0 Day 10

10 μm 10 μm

10 μm

Chlorides/moisture can penetrate

Concrete
through these cracks &
initiate corrosion at an early stage Epoxy coating

C A C A C A C A C A C
Steel
Kamde (2020)
Proposed corrosion mechanisms for FBE
coated steel after exposure to UV rays
Ionic transfer
Concrete

Epoxy coating

e-
Anode Cathode
Steel

Proposed mechanism 1
Concrete

Epoxy coating
Coating peeling off &
Coating peeling off & Oxygen depletion
Oxygen depletion

e- e- Anode
Anode Cathode

Steel

Kamde (2020)
Proposed mechanism 2
 Exposure to UV can result in premature
and under-film corrosion
2 x 10
-5
100+ days
1 x 10
-5 FBEC
Corrosion rate

0
-5
-1 x 10
0 50 100 150
-5
2 x 10

-5
1 x 10

0
0 50 100 150

-5
50+ days
2 x 10
FBEC - UV
-5
1 x 10

0
0 50 100 150

Exposure time (days)

Exposure to UV can degrade the FBE coating and result in

premature corrosion initiation and accelerated corrosion propagation

Kamde (2020)
Proposed corrosion mechanisms for
scratched and UV exposed FBE coated steel
Ionic transfer
Concrete

No corrosion No corrosion
Epoxy coating

e-
Anode Cathode
Steel
Corrosion

Initiation of corrosion
Current lines Concrete

Epoxy coating
Coating peeling off &
Cathode Anode Cathode Coating peeling off & Oxygen depletion
Oxygen depletion

e- e- Anode
Anode Cathode

Scratched damaged FBE coated steel Steel

Propagation of corrosion

UV exposed FBE coated steel

Kamde (2020)
Service life with FBE coated steel rebars
1.2
Uncoated
1 FBEC-ND
FBEC-UV
FBEC-SD
0.8
3 UREDELOLW
\

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
$ JHRIW
KHVW
UXFW
XUHV\ HDUV

RC structures with FBE coated steel rebars (with UV exposure or

damaged coating) can experience initiation of corrosion even before
RC structures with uncoated steel rebars
Premature corrosion can happen due to
moisture attack (without even chlorides !)

It is more dangerous to use damaged epoxy-coated steel

than conventional uncoated steel

Courtesy: M. Thomas
Bending/cutting should be done before the
fusion-bonded epoxy coating (FBEC) process
 In abroad, bending/cutting are done prior to epoxy coating
and is done in factory

http://www.zetaendustri.com/urunler/rebar http://www.pcwirestrand.com/pcwirestrand/epoxy-coated-steel-bar.html

Bending/cutting must be done in factory

prior to FBEC process
Material used for tie is also very important
 Uncoated steel tie wires can
damage the epoxy coating

Crack-resistant, coated tie wires

must be used to avoid damage
to the epoxy coating

http://www.barties.net/pvc-coated-bar-tie-wire.html
Damage due to needle vibrators,
hammers, and other construction tools
 Use needle vibrators with
soft rubber or plastic heads

 Avoid using FBEC along

with couplers

http://uk.phaidon.com/store/architecture/concrete-9780714863542/
http://www.oztec.com/rubberhead.htm
http://www.epoxyinterestgroup.org/index.cfm/epoxy/field
http://builtconstructions.in/OnlineMagazine/Builtconstructions/Pages/Mechanical-Splicing-0346.aspx
Cement-Polymer-Composite (CPC)
coating – Manufacturing process
1. Rust free, sand-blasted steel surface
• Provides large surface area to bond
• Chemo-mechanical bonding between steel and coating
2. CPC primer coat
• Acrylic polymers with cement as additives
• Cementitious content helps to form a passive film on steel surface
• Adheres well with steel surface
3. CPC Seal coat
• Acrylic polymers with cement as additives
• Available in different colors 3
― Grey, Green, etc.

2 3. CPC seal coat

2. CPC primer coat

1
1. Clean, rust free, uncoated steel surface
Mechanism of corrosion prevention of
CPC coated steel rebars
 Provides alkaline environment to the steel; hence,
helps in formation of passive film
 Elimination of direct physical contact between the
metal and electrolyte
 Reduction in the oxygen supply

2 3. CPC seal coat

2. CPC primer coat

1
1. Clean, rust free, uncoated steel surface
Inadequate CPC coating on rebars

CPC coating with discontinuities & non-uniform thickness applied

on corroded rebars - for coastal bridge columns
Some observations from the corrosion
tests performed at IIT Madras
15% NaCl solution
Epoxy coating

1RW
H$O
OGLP HQVLRQVDUHLQP P

Test variables and number of specimens

Surface condition Coated / Uncoated #
With coating (wC) 5
As-received (AR)
Without coating (woC) 5
With coating (wC) 5
Sand-blasted (SB)
Without coating (woC) 5

Kamde and Pillai (2019), under review

Corroded surfaces at the end of the test

AR AR SB

SB AR SB

Shaded
regions
indicate a) AR-woC b) SB-woC

peeled-off
and
corroded
regions c) AR-wC d) SB-wC
Corroded region Deb onded coating

If surface preparation is not done adequately, then the

coatings will not be effective.
Kamde and Pillai (2017); Kamde and Pillai (2019), under review
Corrosion mechanisms in CPC coated
steel
Mortar Mortar

Well adhered CPC Coating

CPC Coating

^ƚĞĞů Steel
Micro crack

(a) AR-wC (b) SB-wC

Poorly adhered CPC coating on Well-adhered CPC coating on

As-Received steel surface Sand-Blasted steel surface

If coating is applied on rusted steel surface - corrosion can

initiate and propagate in the microcrack at the interface.
Kamde and Pillai (2019), under review
 Inadequate CPC coating can result in very minimal
enhancement of chloride threshold and service life
1.2 1
Chloride threshold (% bwoc)

μ = 0.4 0.51 0.60 0.88

1 CoV = 0.03 0.07 0.12 0.08 AR-woC
0.8 AR-wC
SB-woC
0.8 SB-wC

Probability
0.6
0.6

0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2
0

0
0 50 100 150 200
woC wC woC wC
Corrosion initiation time

As-received (AR) Sand-blasted (SB)

• Sandblasting  CPC coating  Increase in chloride threshold

 Increase in service life
• However, this may be practically difficult in some cases.

Kamde (2020)
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) rebars
 Glass and Basalt fibers are in use

 GFRP rebar is ¼ the weight of steel

 Can be manufactured in custom lengths,
bends, and shapes

Abdusalam 2014
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) rebars

 Non-conductive to electricity and heat

• Power generation plants and other specialized
installations
 Brittle
 Non-metallic
• No ‘metallic’ corrosion
 Chemical attack
• Long-term performance of GFRP in highly alkaline
environment is not well known
• Alkali resistant fibers must be used
Quality of matrix

 Inadequate manufacturing process  Flowing of

uncured epoxy resin (before adequate setting)

A layer of resin that protects the fibers is present on most of the surface of the
bars and is more prevalent on one side. This occurs because the uncured resin
made by pultrusion flows downward due to gravity before entering the heated die
and setting. As such, portions of the bar where the glass fibers are exposed can be
found.

FHWA/TX-5/9-1520-3
Micrographs of FRP surfaces & cross
sections

• Thickness of the resin around the circumference was non-uniform

• Uniform resin matrix cover over the glass fibers is essential

FHWA/TX-5/9-1520-3
Failure modes

Debonding and shear rupture of the matrix and the glass fibers

Shear failure and fiber rupture

FHWA/TX-5/9-1520-3
Effect of pH on shear modulus of elasticity

Exposure to pH of 12  about 15% reduction in shear modulus of elasticity

FRP rebars can be used only if they are sufficiently resistant against
the highly alkaline environments in concrete systems

FHWA/TX-5/9-1520-3
Cost comparison (approx.) of various
rebars
Steel Rebar Type Cost Ratio
Conventional uncoated TMT/QST steel 1
Corrosion Resistant Steel (CRS) 1.06
Cement Polymer Composite Coated steel 1.2
Fusion-Bonded Epoxy-coated steel 1.4
Galvanized steel 2
Fiber Reinforced Polymer bars 3
Solid Stainless steel 6 to 7

In addition to the capital cost, the durability and life cycle cost must
also be considered while making material choices
https://www.engineeringcivil.com/comparison-of-epoxy-coated-rebar-vs-cpcc-rebar-vs-crs-rebar.html; Burgoyne and Balafas 2007;
http://www-civ.eng.cam.ac.uk/cjb/papers/cp74.pdf
Summary

 Galvanized steel rebars

• Can exhibit higher chloride threshold and lower corrosion rate
 FBE coated rebars
• In presence of damages, can exhibit moisture-induced corrosion (without
high concentration of chlorides)
• Exposure to UV can cracks the FBE coating  Initiation of corrosion 
High, localized corrosion propagation rate
 CPC coated rebars
• If coating is applied on rusted steel surface  Microcrack at the interface
 corrosion can initiate and propagate
• Surface preparation is very important to exploit the full potential of CPC
coated steel rebar
 FRP rebars
• Non-uniform resin matrix cover over the glass fibers
• Failure modes
References

 ASTM A775/A775M - 17, Standard Specification for Epoxy-Coated Steel Reinforcing Bars 1, (2017). doi:10.1520/A0775..​
 A. Byrne, N. Holmes, B. Norton, State-of-the-art review of cathodic protection for reinforced concrete structures, Magazine of Concrete
Research. 68 (2016) 664–677. doi:10.1680/jmacr.15.00083​
 A. Griffith, H.M. Laylor, Epoxy coated Final Report, Security. (1999).​
 A.N. Ababneh, M.A. Sheban, M.A. Abu-Dalo, Effectiveness of Benzotriazole as Corrosion Protection Material for Steel Reinforcement in
Concrete, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 24 (2012) 141–151. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000374.​
 B. Abdusalam 2014, Behaviour of Shear critical FRP Reinforced concrete one-way slabs, PhD Thesis, University of Sherbrooke, Canada
 B. Bíaz, X.R. Nóvoa, C. Pérez, A. Pintos, EIS study of epoxy resin applied on carbon steel using double-cylinder electrolyte cell, Progress in
Organic Coatings. 124 (2018) 275–285. doi:10.1016/j.porgcoat.2018.02.002.​
 B. Biegafiska, M. Zubielewicz, E. Qmiesze, Influence of barrier pigments on the performance, Progress in Organic Coatings. 16 (1988) 219–229.​
 C.G. Munger, Associate Author Louis D. Vincent, (2014). “Corrosion Prevention by Protective Coatings”, Third Edition, NACE International​
 E. V. Cortés, Corrosion Performance of Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement in Aggressive Environments, The University of Texas at Austin, 1998.​
 F. Tang, G. Chen, J.S. Volz, R.K. Brow, M.L. Koenigstein, Cement-modified enamel coating for enhanced corrosion resistance of steel reinforcing
bars, Cement and Concrete Composites. 35 (2013) 171–180. doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.08.009.​
 F. Fanous, H. Wu, Performance of Coated Reinforcing Bars in Cracked Bridge Decks, Journal of Bridge Engineering. 10 (2005) pp 255-261.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2005)10:3(255).
 G. Koch, J. Varney, N. Thompson, O. Moghissi, M. Gould, J. Payer, International Measures of Prevention, Application, and Economics of
Corrosion Technologies Study, NACE International (2016) 1–30. http://impact.nace.org/documents/Nace-International-Report.pdf​
 Indian Standard 13620: 2015 “Fusion-Bonded-Epoxy Coated reinforcing bars- specification.” Bureau of Indian Standards​
 Kamde, D. K., and Pillai, R. G. (2017). “Comparison of Corrosion of Damaged Fusion-Bonded-Epoxy- Coated (FBEC) and Uncoated Steel
Rebars.” ICACMS, RILEM, Chennai, India.​
 J. Zemajtis, R.E. Weyers, M.M. Sprinkel, An Evaluation of the Performance of Epoxy-Coated Reinforcing Steel in Concrete Exposure Specimens,
Final Contract Rep. by Virginia Transportation ResearchCouncil (1998) 147 p.​
 J.E.O. Mayne, The mechanism of the protection of iron and steel by paint, Anti Corrosion (1973) 3–8.​
 J. Marsh, J.D. Scantlebury, S.B. Lyon, The effect of surface / primer treatments on the performance of alkyd coated steel, Corrosion Science 43
(2001) 829–852. doi:10.1016/S0010-938X(00)00070-6.​
References
 L. Ding, H. Torbati-sarraf, A. Poursaee, Surface & Coatings Technology The influence of the sandblasting as a surface mechanical attrition treatment on the
electrochemical behavior of carbon steel in di ff erent pH solutions, Surface and Coating Technology. 352 (2018) 112–119. doi:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2018.08.013.​
 L. Ding, A. Poursaee, The impact of sandblasting as a surface modification method on the corrosion behavior of steels in simulated concrete pore solution,
Construction and Building Materials. 157 (2017) 591–599. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.140​
 McDonald, D. (2009). “Epoxy-Coated Reinforcing Steel Bars in Northern America.” (November).​
 P. Venkatesan, N. Palaniswamy, K. Rajagopal, Corrosion performance of coated reinforcing bars embedded in concrete and exposed to natural marine
environment, Progress in Organic Coatings 56 (2006) 8–12. doi:10.1016/j.porgcoat.2006.01.011.​
 ​ feifer, D. W., J. R. Langren, and A. Zoob. (1987). "Protective Systems for New Prestressed and Substructure Concrete." Report No. FHWA/RD-86/193,
P
Washington, DC, Federal Highway Administration.​
 Pyc, W. A. (1998). “Field performance of epoxy-coated reinforcing steel in virginia bridge decks.” Ph. D. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.​
 S. Kessler, M. Zintel, C. Gehlen, Defects in epoxy-coated reinforcement and their impact on the service life of a concrete structure A study of critical chloride
content and macro-cell corrosion, Structural Concrete (2015) 398–405. doi:10.1002/suco.201400085.​
 R.E. Weyers, M. Ryan, D.W. Mokarem, Jerzy Zemajtis, Michael M. Sprinkel, John G. Dillard, Field performance of epoxy-coated reinforcing steel in Virginia
bridge decks, Environmental Engineering.Blacksburg, Virginia (1998).​
 S.B. Lyon, R. Bingham, D.J. Mills, Progress in Organic Coatings Advances in corrosion protection by organic coatings: What we know and what we would like to
know, Progress in Organic Coatings. 102 (2017) 2–7. doi:10.1016/j.porgcoat.2016.04.030.​
 S. Shah, (1994) “Surface and Interface Characterization in Corrosion”, NACE International, 1877914614​
 R. Selvaraj, M. Selvaraj, S.V.K. Iyer, Studies on the evaluation of the performance of organic coatings used for the prevention of corrosion of steel rebars in
concrete structures, Prog. Org. Coatings. 64 (2009) 454–459. doi:10.1016/j.porgcoat.2008.08.005.​
 S. R. Yeomans, Galvanized Steel Reinforcement in Concrete, 2004, Publisher Elsevier 320pp ISBN: 0-08-044511-X
 S. R. Yeomans, Galvanized Reinforcement: Recent Developments and New Opportunities, Proceedings of 5th International fib Congress, International Federation
for Structural Concrete, Melbourne , Australia, October 2018, Paper 38.