CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

Influence of Corrosion on the Structural Stiffness

of Reinforced Concrete Beams
A.A. Torres-Acosta,,*,** M.J. Fabela-Gallegos,* A. Muoz-Noval,** D. Vzquez-Vega,* J.R. Hernandez-Jimenez,*
and M. Martnez-Madrid***

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

This work presents an experimental investigation that correlates the stiffness changes of reinforced concrete beams with
the amount of steel cross section loss and concrete covercracking morphology due to localized corrosion of the embedded steel. Ten concrete beams (100 by 150 by 1,500 mm) with
the central portion contaminated by chlorides placed during
mixing of the concrete were used in this investigation. In addition, two beams without chloride contamination were used as
controls. Corrosion was further accelerated in the chloridecontaminated beams by impressing an anodic current to the
single no. 3 steel reinforcement bar (10 mm diameter). During
corrosion acceleration, the beams were tested under flexure
by a cyclic loading-unloading procedure. The changes on the
stiffness (slope of the force-displacement diagram) and crack
morphology of the concrete cover were recorded periodically
while the specimens were corroded. The results obtained
showed a decrease in the flexure stiffness as much as 32%
for a 14% reduction in the rebar radius.

Concrete cover protects reinforcing steel bars (also

known as rebars) in concrete. A sound concrete
cover physically provides a direct barrier preventing
chemicals (chloride ions, carbon dioxide, etc.) from
approaching the surface of the steel bar. In addition,
high alkalinity in concrete chemically protects the
embedded bar against corrosion. In a marine environment, however, chloride ions from seawater accumulate on the surface of the concrete and slowly
migrate through the concrete cover to the underlying
bar. When the chloride ion concentration at the bar
depth exceeds a critical threshold value, the protective passive layer on the bar surface breaks down and
active steel corrosion begins. Although there are still
discrepancies on the corrosion product types formed
at the steel/concrete interface, it is well established
that these corrosion products have smaller mass densities than steel, resulting in volume expansion and
concrete cover cracking. Thus, steel corrosion may
cause damage in steel, concrete, and the bond between them.
The effect of corrosion on concrete structures has
been studied during the past three decades by professionals in the chemical engineering and electrochemistry areas. These studies are focused mainly on the
kinetics of corrosion and try to solve questions as to
when, why, and how long those corrosion processes
in concrete take place. On the other hand, monitoring
techniques, rehabilitation, and protection methods for
corroding concrete structures has been studied main-

KEY WORDS: accelerated corrosion, concrete, crack morphology,

cracking, flexure stiffness, localized attack, steel-reinforced
concrete
Submitted for publication April 2003; in revised form, January
2004. Presented as paper no. 03282 at CORROSION/2003, March
2003, San Diego, CA.

Corresponding author. E-mail: atorres@imt.mx.

* Instituto Mexicano del Transporte, Km. 12 Carretera Quertaro,
Galindo, 76700 Sanfandila, Quertaro, Mxico.
** Universidad Marista de Quertaro, Marte no. 2, Centro Histrico,
76000 Quertaro, Quertaro, Mxico.
*** Permanent address: Fsica Aplicada y Tecnologa Avanzada,
UNAM, Juriquilla, Quertaro, Mxico. Instituto Mexicano del
Transporte, Km. 12 Carretera Quertaro, Galindo, 76700 Sanfandila, Quertaro, Mxico.

862

0010-9312/04/000149/$5.00+$0.50/0
2004, NACE International

CORROSIONSEPTEMBER 2004

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

TABLE 1
Experimental Parameters and Results from Previous Investigations 2-10
Exposure
Time

Corroded
Area
(cm2)

% Cross
Section
Loss

Crack
Width
(mm)

3, 20, 100
A/cm2

70 to 120 days

70 to 190

0.8 to 1.2

0.05 to 2.0

Reported 3 V
Reported 3 V

1 to 28 days
28 days

170 to 280
390

3.6 to 19.2
0.8 to 9.2

0.06 to 0.46
Not reported

Almusallam, et al.
(Slabs), (Pullout)4

3 mA/cm2

1 to 2.5 days

670

1 to 75

Not reported

Huang and Yang

(Beams)5

5 A/mm2

126 h

408

<1

Not reported

1 to 4 mA/cm2
3 mA/cm2

15 to 18 days
16 to 64 h

540 to 2,300
540

2.5 to 10
1.25 to 5

Not reported
Not reported

100 A/cm2
100 A/cm2

100 to 200 days

106 to 204 days

4,100 to 7,700
4,700 to 8,200

10.1 to 26.3
9.1 to 17.8

0.2 to 0.6
0.8 to 4.0

0.5 mA/cm2

3 to 15 days

2,010

2.5 to 12

0.1 to 0.75

Natural
corrosion

12 to 60 months

33.0 to 47.7

2.3 to 15.8

0.08 to 1.25

Author
Andrade, et al.
(Prisms)2
Cabrera
(Pullout)3
(Beams)3

Mangat and Elgarf

(Beams)6
Rodrguez, et al.
(Beams)7
(Columns)8
Tachibana, et al.
(Beams)9
Torres-Acosta, et al.
(Cylinders)10

Accelerated
Corrosion
Procedure

ly by civil engineers, and quite a few investigations at

the moment are dealing with the concept of residual
structural capacity and stiffness loss of concrete elements due to corrosion of the embedded steel.
An updated review of the experimental results
published in the area of structural degradation due
to corrosion is presented in a previous investigation.1
Ten investigations conducted between 1990 and 1999
were discussed previously.1-10 All studied the effect
when corrosion was generalized (all the reinforcing steel was corroding uniformly). Table 1 shows
the most important corrosion parameters used and
obtained from such investigations.2-10 Nine were performed using an accelerated corrosion technique.
The anodic current densities applied ranged between
0.3 mA/cm2 and 3 mA/cm2. These currents shortened
the experimental time as much as 100 times the regular time observed in natural corrosion rates (3 A/cm2)
at marine environments. Some exceptions also were
observed (constant overpotentials instead of constant
current densities). Only one study presented the results from specimens exposed to a real tropical marine environment.10 The time of exposure also varied
from a few hours to hundreds of days for accelerated
corrosion and several months for real marine exposure, which gave wide differences in the measured
percentage cross-sectional loss (from 0.1% to 75%)
and the area attacked by corrosion.
The previously presented investigations experimentally determined the structural capacity for differ-

CORROSIONVol. 60, No. 9

ent loading cases (flexure, axial compression, bond)

and different degrees of corrosion degradation.2-10
Some simplifications were presented to establish
possible trends between metal loss, the load capacity
(or strength) loss, and the maximum crack width, WC
(measured at the concrete surface), due to corrosion
of the embedded steel.1 Estimations of radius loss on
the order of 10% could produce loss in strength of
50% to the reinforced concrete element.1
As a first part of this investigation, the results
of an experimental program to determine the flexure
load capacity changes of localized corroded concrete
simple-supported beams were presented.11 The results
obtained showed a marginal decrease (10% in the
flexure load capacity) for a 14% rebar radius loss due
to localized corrosion, as compared to 40% decrease of
flexure load capacity for generalized corrosion specimens,7 with similar radius loss. The findings obtained
previously would indicate some mitigating effect in
corrosion-induced strength loss when corrosion is
localized,11 in that more concentrated corrosion would
be needed to cause a decrease in strength than if the
corrosion were uniform.
All previous studies focused on strength loss
due to corrosion of the reinforcing steel and did not
include any discussion on how the stiffness of such
elements was affected. This paper presents results
of direct evaluations carried out to identify changes
in the stiffness of concrete simply-supported beams
when generalized and localized corrosion is present
863

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

FIGURE 1. Beam dimensions.

and to find possible empirical relationships between

flexure stiffness and corrosion degradation. This
investigation is part of the Mexican National Plan
of Bridge Infrastructure Evaluation of the Mexican
Transport Research Institute (Instituto Mexicano del
Transporte [IMT]).12

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Specimen Fabrication
In the present study, twelve 100 by 150 by
1,500-mm concrete beams reinforced longitudinally
with one no. 3 reinforcing bar (rebar) were made. To
eliminate the need to use wet/dry cycles using salt
water, chlorides were introduced in ten beams at the
location where the damage was intended. Three different chloride-contaminated length sections located
at the middle of the beam (LC in Figure 1) were used:
25 mm (in V07 and V08), 250 mm (in V04, V05, V06,
V10, V11, and V12), and 1,000 mm (in V03 and V09).
The chloride ion contamination of 3 wt% of cement
(~12 kg/m3) was obtained by adding NaCl (table
salt) during concrete mixing, as used in earlier studies.2,7-8,11,13-14 Beams with LC values of 1,000, 250, and
25 mm were defined as specimens with generalized
corrosion (GC), localized corrosion (LC), and highly
localized corrosion (HLC), respectively. Two control
beams (V01 and V02) were included in which there
was no chloride-added zone, and no accelerated corrosion technique was performed on them both.
The beams were cast in wood molds at a concrete
factory. The fabrication of all the test beams required
two separate pours. First, a free-chloride concrete

864

was prepared and poured into two of the molds (for

beam controls) and at both ends of 10 beams (using
special barriers that maintain the central part of the
beam free of concrete). The concrete then was vibrated
manually using a rubber hammer. After the first pour
had been placed and consolidated, the galvanized
steel sheets forming the barriers between the chloridecontaminated region and the rest of the beam were
removed using pliers. Then, the chloride-contaminated concrete was poured after no more than 1 h of the
first concrete batch (without chlorides) into 10 molds.
This short time between pours allowed the concrete to
be hard enough to avoid segregation of the first batch
into the second, but did allow a good bonding between
the two concrete batches as observed in a previous
study.15 Both concretes, free-chloride and chloridecontaminated, were made with a water-to-cement
(w/c) ratio of 0.5; Type I Portland cement (389 kg/m3);
standard silica sand (685 kg/m3) 20 to 30 sieve size;
and crushed basaltic coarse aggregate (1,042 kg/m3)
with a maximum nominal size of 19 mm.
All specimens, beams, and six 76-mm by 305-mm
cylinders were kept in their molds for a 15-day period,
and then demolded and kept in the concrete factory
for another 15-day period. The average 28-day compressive strength was obtained by testing six 76-mm
by 305-mm cylinders. From those, three were made
with the chloride-contaminated concrete and three
with the chloride-free concrete. The average 28-day
compressive strengths for chloride-contaminated
and chloride-free concrete were 37 MPa and 34 MPa,
respectively, showing little effect on the mechanical
properties of concrete with chloride addition. Afterward, the beams were placed in an ambient laboratory
(60% to 75% RH, 21 2C) for 20 more days in a horizontally simply-supported position. The supports were
made out of a squared structural tube (38 mm by
38 mm, 125 mm long, and 3 mm thick). The corrosion
acceleration process then was initiated at approximately 50 days after casting.

Accelerated Corrosion Procedure

To accelerate corrosion, a nominal constant anodic current was impressed on the single no. 3 rebar.
A 6-mm-diameter steel rod worked as the internal
cathode. The internal cathode was placed on the top
surface (with 1 cm cover concrete) of the beam (Figure
1). This created a current delivery element on the
chloride-contaminated portion of each beam. The anodic current density of 200 A/cm2 (electrical current
divided by rebars geometric surface area at the chloride-contaminated zone) was applied for a period of
~40, ~80, or ~180 days according to the desired nominal corrosion damage (5, 10, or 20% rebar radius loss
[RRL], respectively). Most of the anodic current density used from previous accelerated corrosion investigations, and listed in Table 1, was in the order of
100 A/cm2. Mullins and Sen used a 100-A/cm2

CORROSIONSEPTEMBER 2004

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

current density with similar results as studies performed with half this current density.15 Therefore, the
chosen anodic current density used in this investigation was 200 A/cm2. A custom-made multi-channel
galvanostat provided a regulated current source
for each specimen. More details may be found elsewhere.14-15 When the targeted RRL was reached, the
applied current was stopped and each beam then was
disconnected from the galvanostat system and was
kept positioned in their respective metallic supports
for further evaluation.

similar to the one performed in previous studies.13-14

The rebars were retrieved from the concrete after the
testing program. Corrosion product removal from
each rebar was performed according to ASTM G-117
guidelines by repeatedly immersing in cleaning solution (93.5 wt% hydrochloric acid [HCl] + 0.7 wt%
antimony[III] oxide [Sb2O3] + 4.7 wt% stannous chloride [SnCl2]), wire brushing, and surface drying, until
an approximately constant weight was achieved indicating the final mass, mF. The average xAVER was obtained from the gravimetric mass loss (WG) using the
following formula:

Stiffness Monitoring (Loading-Unloading Testing)

To determine the effect of corrosion-induced stiffness deterioration, a loading-unloading technique was
used. This technique was based on applying gradually (in steps) a vertical force at the beam center and
measuring the corresponding displacement. The force
was applied by means of several 98-N weights placed
in pairs at each end of a steel rectangular section lever (38 mm by 7 mm cross section and 845 mm long).
The steel lever was supported at the middle of the
concrete beam. The displacement was measured by a
linear variable differential transducer ([LVDT] with a
10-mm operational limit), which then was connected
to an amplifying system. Three loading-unloading
cycles were performed on each beam at a time every
week during the entire acceleration corrosion process.
The loadings and their corresponding displacements
were directly registered using a spread sheet on a
laptop computer. From a well-known simple elastic
spring expression:16
F = K EQ

(1)

where F is force (kN), is displacement (mm), and KEQ

is equivalent stiffness (kN/mm). The slope obtained
from the load-displacement experimental results then
was defined as the beams equivalent stiffness, KEQ.

Crack Morphology Monitoring

Crack monitoring was performed once every other
week during the entire accelerated corrosion process.
Each of the beams four faces was inspected meticulously for surface crack appearances using a magnifying glass (20X magnification). To perform crack survey
at the bottom face, each beam was moved from its
original position by rotating it clockwise, such that
the bottom face was placed on the top. Crack widths
were measured along each crack using a crack width
matching reference card. After the crack survey, the
beam was rotated to their original position, and the
distance between the supports was carefully checked
using some marks placed on the beam ends.

Average Corrosion Penetration, xAVER

The procedure to estimate average corrosion penetration, xAVER, used in the present investigation was

CORROSIONVol. 60, No. 9

x AVER =

WG 103
Fe L C

(2)

where xAVER is given in mm, WG is the gravimetric

mass loss (m0 mF = initial mass final mass) in
grams, and LC are the nominal rebar diameter ( =
9.5 mm) and corroding zone length in mm, respectively, and Fe is the steel density (7.86 g/cm3).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Crack Morphology
This investigation did not cover an in-depth
analysis of the crack morphology comparison between
generalized and localized corrosion as presented earlier14 since it was not the main objective, but several
comments can be made regarding the present results. Crack widths and lengths were recorded for all
beams every other week. All beams, where accelerated
corrosion was induced, developed surface concrete
cracks. Figure 2 presents a typical crack pattern observed in all intentionally corroded specimens. The
cracks were parallel to the rebar. Most of the corroding beams (7 out of 10) presented only one crack
parallel to the rebar at the concrete surface closest
to the rebar (bottom surface). Nevertheless, the crack
observed presented a branched pattern at highly corroded specimens (specimens with 180 days of accelerated corrosion exposure) and those with GC (V03 and
V09). The maximum crack width, CWMAX, obtained
from the highly localized corrosion beams (V07 and
V08) supports the results obtained in previous investigations,13-14 where more corrosion is needed for a
localized corrosion process to generate similar crack
widths than for generalized corrosion ones. Table 2
lists the resulting CWMAX for each beam after reaching
the target RRL and just before opening the concrete to
retrieve the rebar.

Corrosion-Induced Flexure Stiffness Loss

The loading-unloading method used in this investigation was capable of detecting physically and
objectively the flexure stiffness changes of the studied
beams, observing that the equivalent stiffness (KEQ =
load-displacement slope) decreased when the radius
865

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

(a)

(b)

FIGURE 2. Typical crack pattern observed for (a) LC beam (V10) and (b) GC beam (V03) at Day 42 and Day 80 of the
corrosion stage. The photographs were taken from the bottom face, after rotating it, during crack survey.

866

CORROSIONSEPTEMBER 2004

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

TABLE 2
Experimental Results
Beam
(H)

V01
V02(H)
V03
V04
V05
V06
V07
V08
V09
V10
V11
V12
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)

LC(A)
(mm)

CWMAX(B)
(mm)

WG(C)
(gm)

100
25
25
25
2.5
2.5
100
25
25
25

7.0
4.0
4.0
8.0
0.3
0.4
11.0
8.0
2.0
0.8

85.1
19.9
21.0
40.1
3.2
2.7
83.3
37.1
12.9
12.6

WF(D)
(gm)

104.6
29.8
29.2
56.9
2.88
2.88
103.4
50.5
14.4
13.5

ACOREFF(E)
(%)

xAVER(F)
(mm)

xAVER/r0(G)

81.4
66.8
71.9
70.5
111.1
93.7
80.6
73.8
89.6
93.3

0.363
0.339
0.358
0.684
0.546
0.460
0.355
0.633
0.220
0.215

0.076
0.071
0.075
0.144
0.115
0.097
0.0747
0.133
0.046
0.045

LC = active corrosion length.

CWMAX = maximum crack width.
WG = gravimetric mass loss.
WF = theoretical (Faradaic) mass loss.
ACOREFF = apparent corrosion efficiency (Equation [5]).
xAVER = average corrosion penetration.
r0 = original radius dimension.
Control beam: beam in which there was no chloride added and no externally applied anodic current.

loss, and thus crack development, increased. Figure 3

shows the typical load-displacement experimental results for a control beam (V02), a GC beam (V03), and
a LC beam (V04), at 8, 29, 57, and 98 days of the corrosion acceleration stage (no corrosion was applied to
the control beam V02). From Figure 3 small changes
can be observed on the load-displacement behavior for
V02 beam (control), compared to that observed from
both GC and LC beams (V03 and V04, respectively),
which show a higher KEQ value before corrosion acceleration started, and a lower KEQ when the accelerated
corrosion ended. Table 3 lists the values of the K(t)EQ
during the entire corrosion acceleration stage for each
beam (including the controls).
Table 3 has a large degree of scatter. This apparent fluctuation apparently was caused by the procedure use during crack survey. Even though the beam
was carefully replaced, it may have shifted from the
original position in some cases, varying the resulting
measurement.
Nevertheless, the results in Table 3 show a
marked decrease in the flexure stiffness for all types
of corroding beams with GC, LC, and HLC. The
change in flexural stiffness from the initial value before accelerated corrosion took place is estimated with
the following equation:
SL ( t ) =

K (8)EQ K ( t )
K (8)EQ

100

(3)

where SL(t) is flexural stiffness loss at time, t, of the

accelerated corrosion process (in %), K(8)EQ is flexural stiffness loss just before corrosion acceleration
(kN/mm), and K(t)EQ is flexural stiffness loss at time, t
(kN/mm).

CORROSIONVol. 60, No. 9

Accelerated Corrosion Efficiency

A convenient method of accelerating corrosion
widely used by researchers is the impressed current
system.2-11,13-15 This system can be based on either
constant voltage (potentiostatic) or constant current
(galvanostatic). The constant voltage system is simpler
to implement, but it is more difficult to control corrosion rate due to changes in concrete resistance.15
The constant current system is more complex and
requires development of appropriate circuitry to automatically regulate the applied voltage proportional
to the varying concrete resistance. Both systems have
been used successfully, but in this study, a constant
current system was preferred because it provided better control of the corrosion rate and allowed for better
prediction of metal loss and, consequently, corrosion
degradation.15
The degradation, denoted as mass loss of the
steel reinforcement, can be determined using gravimetric methods that compare the mass of the
corroded rebar to the initial mass of the same rebar.
The method entails extracting the steel from the
concrete, removing the oxidation, and weighing the
remaining steel. Because of the effort required in determining actual losses using the gravimetric method,
most researchers rely on the application of Faradays
Law given in Equation (4). This relates the predicted
metal loss (WF [in grams]) to its atomic mass (AW
[55.85 g/mol]); valence, n (taken as 2, assuming
Fe Fe2+ transformation); the applied current, I (in
Amperes); the time, t, it was applied (in seconds); and
Faradays constant, F (94500 coulombs/mol).14-15
WF =

( I dt ) A W
nF

(4)

867

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

(a)

(b)

The use of Equation (4) to estimate the metal loss implies that the transformation of the impressed current
to metal loss is 100% efficient. Studies conducted by
previous investigations indicated that calculated losses could overestimate actual losses.2,7-8,13-15 Therefore,
a combination of predictive and gravimetric methods
was used, whereby initial estimates of mass loss and
RRL were calculated based on current measured and
elapsed time.
As mentioned before, a constant current (I) was
impressed through the system to accelerate the rebar
corrosion. The applied current was controlled automatically and monitored periodically (at least three
times per week) during the entire applied current
stage until reaching the target RRL. When reaching
the target RRL, the beam was disconnected and the
experiment ended. Figure 4 shows typical current
monitoring results (applied current in amp vs time in
days) for two beams (GC, V03 and V09). The theoretical (Faradaic) steel mass loss (WF) values were calculated from Equation (4). The results of WF for each
beam are presented in Table 2.
After reaching the target RRL, the rebar was retrieved from the concrete and the corrosion products
were cleaned using an inhibited HCl solution. The
mass loss of the steel rebar (WG) was estimated afterward by subtracting the post- from the pre-corrosion
masses. The results are also listed in Table 2.
The apparent corrosion efficiency, ACOREFF, of the
accelerated corrosion system is estimated by the following equation:
WG
ACOR EFF =
100
WF

(5)

The ACOREFF values obtained fluctuated between

66.8% and 111.1%, with 83.2% as the average (Table
2). This gives a general idea where the efficiency of
the accelerated corrosion system was adequate for the
present investigation.

Average Corrosion Penetration, xAVER,

and RRL, xAVER /r0, Ratio

(c)
FIGURE 3. Typical force-displacement diagrams for (a) a control
beam (V02), (b) a generalized corrosion beam (V03), and (c) a
localized corrosion (V04) at 8, 29, 57, and 98 days of the corrosion
acceleration stage (no corrosion was applied to the control beam
V02). Day 8 is the test performed at the 8th day.

868

The xAVER values for the rebar were estimated using Equation (2). The estimated values of WG, xAVER,
and xAVER/r0 are presented in Table 2 (r0 = original
rebar radius, mm). This calculation assumes that the
corrosion is uniform at the anodic region of the rebar.
In general, this is not essentially true. Steel corrodes
in concrete due to the presence of chlorides (marine
environment scenario) by forming localized anodic
regions called pits. In most of the cases, these pits
are formed uniformly on the surface of the bar (when
the chloride content is large and/or the concrete is
highly porous), giving some effect of uniform corrosion. In reality, if the bar surface is observed by using
a magnifying lens, many pits cover the surface. In
addition, the average corrosion penetration at time t,

CORROSIONSEPTEMBER 2004

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

TABLE 3
Experimental Values of K(t)EQ in KN/mm(A)
Time
(days)

V01(B)

V02(B)

V03

V04

V05

V06

V07

V08

V09

V10

V11

V12

4.57
4.19
4.45
4.52
4.56
4.56
4.30
3.99
4.03
4.23
4.30
4.15
4.01
4.52

7.04
5.94
7.05
7.16
6.73
6.27
5.88
6.27
6.30
6.56
6.46
6.46
6.38
6.46

5.96
5.58
5.71
5.81
5.88
5.35
4.73
5.24
5.21
4.75
4.87
4.76
4.91
4.36

5.97
4.97
5.78
5.01
5.23
5.39
4.51
4.96
4.90
4.38
4.20
3.91
4.36

5.98
5.22
5.46
5.39
5.24
5.41
4.81
5.33
5.22
5.36
5.06
5.43
4.65

6.94
6.46
6.76
5.85
6.22
6.06
6.91
5.83
5.79
5.88
5.96
5.48
5.17
4.65
4.87
4.47
4.47
1.41
4.24
3.82

7.29
6.80
6.75
6.52
7.25
7.54
5.85
5.74
5.83
5.56
5.86

6.91
6.64
6.59
6.07
6.01
6.40
5.65
6.22
6.10
5.95
5.56

6.03
5.54
6.18
5.59
5.27
5.39
4.72
5.21
5.20
5.85
6.20
5.26
4.74
4.40

4.89
5.14
5.80
4.74
4.77
5.13
4.99
4.89
4.85
4.95
4.94
4.52
4.49
4.43
4.40
4.24
4.15
3.99
3.99
3.99

5.72
5.55
5.53
5.41
5.53
5.23

5.71
5.56
5.74
5.39
5.39
5.21

SLEND(%)(C) 1.09

8.24

26.84

26.97

22.24

44.96

19.62

19.53

27.03

18.4

8.57

8.76

8
15
22
29
36
42
50
57
64
71
77
88
92
98
114
128
142
156
172
181

(A)
(B)
(C)

K(t)EQ = equivalent stiffness (slope obtained from the load-displacement experimental results) at time t.
Control beam: beam in which there was no chloride added and no externally applied anodic current.
SLEND = 100 [K(181)EQ K(8)EQ] / K(8)EQ.

xAVER(t), for the rebar was calculated using a simple

interpolation:
t
x AVER ( t ) =
x AVER
t FIN

(6)

where tFIN is the time (in days) of the accelerated corrosion application stage. A linear approximation of
xAVER(t) is considered in this investigation based on
the accelerated experimental procedure used. For the
natural corrosion procedure, this may vary based on
the corrosion rate fluctuations.

Corrosion-Induced Crack Propagation

(xAVER /r0 Ratio vs CWMAX)
The xAVER/r0 ratio is difficult to be determined in
the field, and there is still no method available at this
moment for an easy estimation. Thus, it is necessary
to obtain a possible correlation between these ratio
and easy-to-measure characteristics of the degradation process. One engineering tool used frequently to
estimate the degree of degradation in a typical concrete structure that shows surface cracks is the crack
width measurement. With the assumption that only
cracks (no delaminations) are present due to corrosion,
a possible correlation between the maximum crack
width, CWMAX, and the xAVER/r0 ratio might be found.
To determine the existence of such a relation between the xAVER/r0 ratio and CWMAX, Figure 5 shows
the experimental data obtained from previous investi-

CORROSIONVol. 60, No. 9

FIGURE 4. Typical anodic current monitoring (Type LC beams).

gations1-10 and results from this investigation, CWMAX,

obtained from the crack surveys performed during the
accelerated corrosion stage. The xAVER(t)/r0 estimations
correspond to Equation (6) approximation divided by
r0 (=4.75 mm).
Based on the results obtained with localized corrosion, Figure 5 shows a well-defined trend between
869

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

FIGURE 5. Maximum crack width, CWMAX, vs RRL, xAVER /r0, for data
from previous studies110 and this investigation.

xAVER(t)/r0 and CWMAXthe cracks for GC evolve more

rapidly than for HLC, supporting the findings on the
effect on concrete cracking development with localized
corrosion.13-14 It is also noticeable the differences between the data from previous investigations2-9 and the
present GC data. Previous results were gathered from
experiments with different specimen geometry (cylinders, prisms, beams, etc.), and all were corroded at
full length.1 Thus, the results should be in accordance
with the GC specimens (V03 and V09) data obtained
in this investigation, but the CWMAX values obtained
here are wider. A possible explanation of this phenomenon is that previous investigations used unstressed
(unloaded) specimens, where no loading-unloading
cycles were induced, compared with the procedure
followed in this investigation, where the beams were
constantly loaded each week and maybe causing
wider cracks.
This relation (CWMAX vs xAVER/r0 ratio) is obtained
from data based on small concrete specimens (longest
dimension: ~2 m). Results from real-life structures
are needed to verify this relation. This first approximation is presented so that the research community
will direct some of its interests to obtaining more
information regarding this complicated and not yet
well-studied phenomenon.

(a)

(b)

Flexure Stiffness Loss vs Corrosion

Figure 6 presents the change of flexure stiffness
induced by corrosion (Equation [3]) as a function of
the xAVER(t)/r0 ratio for GC, LC, and HLC. As observed
from the trend lines in Figure 6, the stiffness loss due
to corrosion is apparently independent on corrosion
localization, since the slopes of the trend lines are, on
average, almost the same: mGC = 2.37, mLC = 2.70, and
mHLC = 1.88. This needs to be evaluated further, since
the data obtained at the moment is limited and, in
some cases, it spread (Figure 6[b]).

870

(c)
FIGURE 6. Stiffness Loss, SL(t), vs RRL, xAVER(t)/r0, for: (a) GC,
(b) LC, and (c) HLC. The plots show regression lines for each beam
data, where y = SL(t) and x = xAVER(t)/r0.

CORROSIONSEPTEMBER 2004

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

The estimates of the flexure stiffness loss at the

end of the corrosion stage, SLEND, are presented in
Table 3. These values were obtained substituting the
first and last values of K(t)EQ (Table 2) into Equation
(3) for each beam in this study. With the SLEND calculations for each beam (bottom of Table 3), an average
flexure stiffness loss for each (RRL, corrosion type)
combination, was calculated. Figure 7 presents graphically the results of these calculations.
Although no corrosion degradation was induced
on V01 and V02 (control beams), an average flexure
stiffness loss value, SLAVER, of 4.7% was obtained. A
possible explanation of this flexure stiffness change
might be due to the continuous loading-unloading
tests performed each week (three cycles each week)
for the entire experimental stage. However, the stiffness changes observed on the controls were smaller
than the changes detected on all corroding beams.
The SLAVER results from the LC beams present a
clear tendency: the SLAVER value increases when the
RRL, due to corrosion, increases. With the results obtained for a RRL of 10%, an apparent trend between
SLAVER and the length of the corrosion zone (corrosion
type) is observed: the higher the localization of the
corrosion, the smaller is the decrease of the flexure
stiffness.
The results presented here are part of an ongoing
investigation. The first experimental program (discussed in the Introduction), using the beams of this
investigation, was performed to determine the remaining load capacity in flexure of corroding beams.11 This
included the testing in flexure (three-point bending)
of the beams after achieving the target nominal RRL
by using a servo-hydraulic testing machine. A continuation of this investigation, an alternative nondestructive method based on vibration monitoring to
detect stiffness changes due to corrosion, will be presented in the near future.

CONCLUSIONS
The effect of corrosion on flexure stiffness changes was investigated experimentally for reinforced
concrete beams with corroding steel zones of various
lengths. This work attempts also to obtain information
contributing to the development of an empirical relation to predict flexure stiffness loss based on the rebar
radius loss due to corrosion. Based on the experimental results obtained with this investigation, the following conclusions were drawn.
For a GC process, the cracks evolve more rapidly
than for LC and HLC, supporting the findings of previous investigations with localized corrosion effects on
concrete cracking development.
The efficiency of the accelerated corrosion system
was adequate, giving efficiency estimates between
66.8% and 111.1% (with 83.2% efficiency as the
average).

CORROSIONVol. 60, No. 9

FIGURE 7. Average stiffness loss (SLAVER) vs RRL group as a

function of the corrosion localization.

The loading-unloading method used was capable

of physically detecting the flexure stiffness changes
when the embedded rebar was corroding. The results
obtained showed decreases as high as 32% in the flexure stiffness when only 14% of rebar radius was lost
due to localized corrosion.
The results obtained showed that for similar rebar
radius loss due to corrosion (about 10%) the stiffness
decreased 19.6%, 24.6%, and 26.9%, for HLC, LC,
and GC, respectively. An apparent trend between flexure stiffness loss and the length of the corrosion zone
(corrosion type) was observed: the higher the localized
corrosion, the smaller the flexure stiffness decrease.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the Instituto Mexicano
del Transporte (Mexican Transport Research Institute)
Quertaro, Mxico, and APASCO SA de CV (Holcim
Group), Quertaros Concrete Factory for the support
of this investigation.
REFERENCES
1. A.A. Torres-Acosta, M. Martnez-Madrid, J. Mater. Civil Eng. 15,
4 (2003): p. 344-353.
2. C. Andrade, C. Alonso, F.J. Molina, Mater. Struct. 26 (1993): p.
453-464.
3. J.G. Cabrera, Cem. Concr. Compos. 18 (1996): p. 47-59.
4. A.A. Almusallam, A.S. Al-Gahtani, M. Maslehuddin, M.M. Khan,
A.R. Aziz, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Struct. Build. 122 (1997): p. 27-34.
5. R. Huang, C.C. Yang, Cem. Concr. Compos. 19 (1997): p. 131137.
6. P.S. Mangat, M.S. Elgarf, ACI Struct. J. 96, 1 (1999): p. 149-158.
7. J. Rodriguez, L.M. Ortega, J. Casal, Constr. Build. Mater. 11, 4
(1997): p. 239-248.
8. J. Rodriguez, L.M. Ortega, J. Casal, Load Bearing Capacity of
Concrete Columns with Corroded Reinforcement, Proc. 4th SCI
Int. Symp. on Corrosion of Reinforcement in Concrete Construction, eds. C.L. Page, P.B. Bamforth, J.W. Figg (Cambridge, U.K.:
E&FN Spon, 1996), p. 220-230.
9. Y. Tachibana, K. Maeda, Y. Kajikawa, M. Kawuamura, Mechanical Behaviour of RC Beams Damaged by Corrosion of Reinforcement, in Corrosion of Reinforcement in Concrete, eds. C.L. Page,

871

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

10.

11.

12.

13.

K.W.J. Treadaway, P.B. Bamforth (London, U.K.: Elsevier Applied

Science, 1990), p. 178-187.
A.A. Torres-Acosta, P. Castro, A.A. Sags, Effect of Corrosion
Rate in the Cracking Process of Concrete, Proc. XIV National
Congress of the Mexican Electrochemical Society, held August
24-28 (Merida, Yucatan, Mexico: CINVESTAV-Merida Unit, 1999)
(in Spanish).
A.A. Torres-Acosta, M. Martnez-Madrid, A. Muoz-Noval, Mater.
Constr. 53, 271-272 (July-September/October-December, 2003):
p. 125-133.
M. Martinez-Madrid, A.A. Torres-Acosta, Mexican National Plan
of Evaluation and Diagnosis of Bridge Corrosion-Induced DamagedPhase 1: Bridge Discrimination, Final report 029/2002,
Mexican Transport Research Institute (Sanfandila, Quertaro:
Instituto Mexicano del Transporte [IMT], 2002) (in Spanish).
A.A. Torres-Acosta, A.A. Sags, Concrete Cover Cracking with

872

14.

15.

16.
17.

Localized Corrosion of Reinforcing Steel, Proc. 5th CANMET/ACI

Int. Conf. Durability of Concrete, ed. V. Malhotra (Farmington
Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, 2000), p. 591.
A.A. Torres-Acosta, Cracking Induced by Localized Corrosion of
Reinforcement in Chloride-Contaminated Concrete (Ph.D. diss.,
University of South Florida, 1999).
G. Mullins, R. Sen, Lateral Capacity of Corroded Pile Bents,
Final report for the Department of Transportation, Contract no.
BC-353 (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Transportation
[FDOT] Research Center, 2001).
E.P. Popov, Mechanics of Solids, 2nd ed. (Mexico City, Mexico:
Pearson Education, 2000) (in Spanish).
ASTM G1-90, Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, and
Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens, in ASTM Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, vol. 03.02, Corrosion (West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International, 1990), p. 25-31.

CORROSIONSEPTEMBER 2004