See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279569968

Corrosion-induced cracking: Experimental data and predictive models

Article  in  Aci Structural Journal · September 2005

CITATIONS READS

131 916

3 authors, including:

Mark G. Stewart
University of Newcastle
260 PUBLICATIONS   4,871 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Climate change effects and adaptation of civil infrastructure and buildings View project

CIViC- Critical Infrastructure Vulnerability to Climate Change View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mark G. Stewart on 27 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 102-S73

Corrosion-Induced Cracking: Experimental Data and

Predictive Models
by Kim Vu, Mark G. Stewart, and John Mullard

The present study describes an accelerated corrosion testing

program comprising eight reinforced concrete (RC) specimens to
simulate reinforcement corrosion of a section of a typical RC
bridge deck. A constant corrosion rate of approximately 100 µA/cm2
was applied to accelerate the corrosion process in chloride
contaminated concrete. Experimental results are compared with
existing crack initiation and propagation models. A new empirical
model to predict the time to excessive cracking for RC structures
subjected to corrosion is proposed for cracks up to 1 mm in width
by considering concrete quality and cover as influencing variables.
The model is also able to account for time-variant corrosion rates
and the effect of a high rate of loading often associated with
extrapolating accelerated corrosion test results to real RC structures.
It was observed that the accuracy of the predictive model for crack
initiation will not significantly influence the time to excessive
cracking. The time to excessive cracking is most influenced by the
correction factor for rate of loading.

Keywords: concrete; corrosion; cracking.

INTRODUCTION
The structural collapse of reinforced concrete (RC) struc-
tures due to corrosion is rare, however, the observation of
cracking, rust staining, and spalling of the concrete cover
usually appears well before an RC structure is close to
collapse. This is not surprising because there is evidence to
suggest that at the time of excessive cracking the corrosion-
induced loss of reinforcing steel is no more than 0.5 mm and
reduction of bond is relatively small, resulting in a decrease of
structural capacity of no more than 10 to 20%.1,2 Field studies
also suggest that cracking and spalling are of most concern to
asset owners.3 If not repaired, corrosion will eventually lead to
structural distress over time. Further, it needs to be recognized
that many RC elements are nonstructural (for example,
building façades and in-fill panels) in which loss of strength
will rarely be of concern. It is for these reasons that severe
cracking and delamination are increasingly being considered
as influential modes of failure for the estimation of life-cycle
costs and optimization of repair and maintenance strategies for
RC structures in chloride environments.1,4
Andrade, Alonso, and Molina5 suggests that a limit crack
width between 0.3 to 0.4 mm is appropriate for a durability
limit state. On the other hand, Sakai, Shimomura, and
Sugiyama6 stated that a limit crack width of 0.8 mm is
recommended for serviceability (aesthetic) requirements.
This is broadly consistent with the general observation that
the service life of a structure is reduced considerably only if
crack widths exceeding 0.3 to 0.5 mm are not repaired.5 The
definition of how excessive the crack width is depends on
individual conditions and asset owner policies. In the context
of this paper, however, a model capable of predicting crack
widths to a limit crack width of 1.0 mm is desirable.
Fig. 1—Crack initiation and propagation.
The various stages of crack growth can be represented in
Fig. 1 where time to excessive cracking can be described in
two stages: 1) crack initiation t1st—time to first cracking
(hairline crack of 0.05 mm width); and 2) crack propagation
tser—time for crack to develop from first cracking to a limit
crack width.
There have been a significant number of experimental
tests studying the cracking of concrete due to reinforcement
corrosion.5,7,8 Most studies, however, used concrete prism
and cylinder specimens, which may not fully represent the
boundary conditions associated with real structures. Concrete
slab specimens are better at providing a more realistic repre-
sentation of how cracks initiate and propagate. Although
there are some experimental tests with concrete slab specimens,
they tend to be long-term field tests with few specimens
actually cracking or recording small crack widths.7,9 There-
fore, the present study describes an accelerated corrosion testing
program comprising eight 700 x 1000 mm concrete specimens
to simulate reinforcement corrosion of a section of a typical
RC bridge deck. The tests investigated the effect of
concrete cover and water-cement ratio (w/c) on corrosion-
induced cracking. A constant corrosion rate of approximately
icorr = 100 µA/cm2 was applied to accelerate the corrosion
process. This high current allowed for a short period of
testing (2 to 9 months). Experimental results are compared
ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 5, September-October 2005.
MS No. 04-188 received June 10, 2004, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright © 2005, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion
including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the July-August 2006 ACI
Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2006.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005 719


Kim Vu is a lecturer in the Structural Division of the Civil Engineering Department
at the Hanoi Architectural University, Hanoi, Vietnam. She received a BE from The
Hanoi Architectural University, an ME from the Hanoi Civil Engineering University,
and a PhD from the University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia, in 2004. Her
research interests include serviceability and time-dependent spatial variability analysis
of reinforced concrete structures in corrosive environments.
Mark G. Stewart is an associate professor in the Center for Infrastructure Performance
and Reliability, School of Engineering, the University of Newcastle. He received his
PhD in 1988 from the University of Newcastle. His research interests include stochastic
deterioration modeling, structural and serviceability reliability, probabilistic risk
assessment, and life-cycle cost and decision analysis.
improved corrosion-induced crack initiation and propagation
models. The present paper investigates this by conducting
accelerated corrosion tests of RC slabs and provides new
data on crack initiation and propagation. Comparisons are
made with available models, and a new empirical model for
crack propagation is proposed. Extrapolating accelerated
corrosion test results to real structures may lead to significant
error; and so for the first time, the paper develops a correction
factor for rate of loading.

John Mullard is a PhD student in the Center for Infrastructure Performance and EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR
Reliability, School of Engineering, the University of Newcastle. He received a BEng ACCELERATED CORROSION TESTING
from the University of Newcastle in 2004. His research interests include corrosion-
induced cracking of concrete structures, spatial time-dependent reliability analysis and RC slab specimens
life-cycle cost optimization of maintenance, and repair of reinforced concrete structures. All specimens were RC 700 x 1000-mm rectangular slabs
with a thickness of 250 mm. The top mat of the slab
Table 1—Test variables for each specimen contained four steel reinforcing bars, which had a 1000 mm
exposed length to the concrete matrix (refer to Fig. 2). One
Concrete Mean fc, Mean splitting reinforcing bar with a shorter exposure length was placed in
Series Specimen cover, mm w/c MPa tensile strength
the middle of each specimen to study the cracking mecha-
I_1 25 0.5 20.0 3.06 nism of concrete cover over a smaller length. The middle bar
I_2 50 0.5 20.0 3.06 was covered with electroplating tape to give an exposed
I
I_3 25 0.5 43.0 4.16 (bare steel) length of 100 mm.
I_4 50 0.5 43.0 4.16 The purpose of the accelerated corrosion testing is to study
II_1 50 0.58 42.3 3.76 the relative influence of concrete cover and w/c on the time
II_2 25 0.58 42.3 3.76 to crack initiation and crack propagation. Hence, the variables
II
II_3 50 0.45 52.7 4.55 of interest were selected as follows:
II_4 25 0.45 52.7 4.55 • concrete cover (25 and 50 mm)
• w/c (0.45, 0.5, and 0.58)
Two series of four RC specimens were prepared. Refer to
Table 1 for a description of the test variables for all specimens.
In the first series (Series I), an oversight during fabrication
resulted in the mixtures being different resulting in different
concrete material properties for the same w/c. The specimens
were moist-cured for 28 days before testing. Standard test
cylinders were tested at 28 days to determine concrete
compressive and tensile (splitting) strengths (refer to Table 1).
The cement used for all specimens was ordinary portland
cement. The coarse and fine aggregates (20 and 10 mm,
respectively) were kept the same for all mixtures. The steel
reinforcing bars used for this study were round mild steel bars.
Three percent of calcium chloride (CaCl2) by weight of cement
Fig. 2—Specimen for accelerated corrosion testing. was added to the concrete mixture to induce corrosion along
the exposed length of reinforcing bars. This admixture had a
with existing crack initiation and propagation models. A new negligible effect on concrete strength properties.
empirical model is proposed to predict corrosion-induced
cracks up to 1 mm in width by considering w/c and cover as Accelerated corrosion test
influencing variables. A correction factor to account for To generate crack widths of up to 1.6 mm within a reasonable
change of cracking phenomena associated with high rates of time period, an accelerated corrosion rate of 100 µA/cm2
loading is developed to enable more accurate extrapolation was used in this study. The accelerated corrosion equipment
of accelerated results to practice. The effects of time- is shown in Fig. 3. The soffit of the specimen was immersed
invariant and time-variant corrosion rates are also included. in a 5% NaCl solution. The accelerated corrosion process
These models will provide essential information when was achieved by applying a constant electrical current to the
predicting time-dependent structural performance and reli- bars by a power supply via a current regulator. The current
ability of RC structures subjected to chloride-induced regulator kept the current constant over time. The steel bar
corrosion, such as the use of a random field (stochastic) acts as an anode, the stainless steel plate submerged in the
analysis to predict the likelihood and extent of cracking10,11 NaCl solution acts as the cathode, and the pore fluid in the
and selecting maintenance and repair strategies based on concrete is the electrolyte. The accelerated corrosion test is
optimizing life-cycle costs.12 considered to end when cracks propagate to crack widths of
1.0 to 1.5 mm.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
An accurate prediction of times to maintenance and repair Measurement of crack initiation and
of RC structures requires information on when severe crack propagation
corrosion-induced cracking occurs. In addition to robust The first appearance of cracking (crack initiation) on
corrosion initiation and propagation models, a need exists for concrete surfaces was verified by frequent daily visual

720 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005

Table 2—Measured corrosion rates and
experimental data for time to crack initiation t1st
Mean Observed Corrected
measured time to time to
f c, i
ft , Cover, corr(exp) , crack crack
Specimen w/c MPa MPa mm µA/cm2 initiation, h initiation, h
SII_4 25 112.7 198.0 223.1
0.45 52.7 4.55
SII_3 50 123.6 397.0 490.7
SI_1 25 140.3 95.5 134.0
0.5 20 3.06
SI_2 50 128.1 152.0 194.7
SI_3 25 93.2 124.5 116.0
0.5 43 4.16
SI_4 50 106.3 146.5 155.7 Fig. 3—Experimental setup of accelerated corrosion test.
SII_2 25 140.3 97.0 136.1
0.58 42.25 3.94
SII_1 50 86.8 464.0 402.8

observations using a magnifying glass with an accuracy of

0.05 mm. Immediately after crack initiation, 10 mm linear
potentiometer displacement transducers (POTs) were glued
on both sides of the crack to monitor crack propagation. Each
side of the POT was placed directly over the crack to
measure the exact perpendicular opening of the crack. Data
from POTs were recorded by a data logger every 30 min.
For the Series I tests, only one POT per bar was used to
measure crack development. The number of POTs was
increased to three for each crack for the second series of tests
to obtain a more accurate measurement of crack propagation.
For all specimens a “dummy” POT was used to correct POT
measurement errors arising from temperature changes and
long-term drift in the electrical circuit due to temperature
and electrical noise rejection.
RESULTS FROM ACCELERATED
CORROSION TESTING
Observations about crack initiation
and propagation
It was observed that “first visible cracking,” which can
only be seen through a magnifying glass, was a hairline crack
with a width of approximately 0.05 mm. These cracks
randomly appeared on the concrete surface above and
parallel to the reinforcing bars with lengths varying between
30 to 200 mm.
After crack initiation, cracks then propagate with their
width and length increasing in a nonhomogeneous manner,
which then extend and join together to create continuous
longitudinal cracking when the crack width is approximately
0.25 to 0.4 mm. In addition to the main cracks that propa-
gated vertically above the reinforcing bars, there were two
other radial cracks having lengths between 80 and 150 mm.
These cracks were inclined either 45 or 90 degrees to the
main crack (refer to Fig. 4). As expected, crack propagation
above the middle bars (only 100 mm exposed) developed
more slowly than the adjacent fully exposed reinforcing
bars. For example, by the time the longitudinal crack width
was approximately 0.6 to 1.0 mm, the crack width for the
middle bars was less than 0.2 mm.
Measured corrosion rates
At the completion of the tests, reinforcing bars were
removed, cleaned, and the weight loss of bars was measured
according to the gravimetric weight loss method as specified
in ASTM G 1-90.13 Corrosion rates obtained from gravimetric
weight loss measurements are shown in Table 2. It is
observed that the measured corrosion rates are generally
Fig. 4—Typical cracking pattern at end of specimen.
higher than the applied value (100 µA/cm2) except for
Specimen SI_3 and SII_1. The higher measured corrosion
rates are expected because: a) the acidification developed by
the progressive corrosion induces simultaneous additional
corrosion; and b) there are parts of the metal that spall out of
the metal surface when the surrounding material is oxidizing,
and so these parts do not dissolve electrochemically.8 The
lower measured corrosion rates for SI_3 and SII_1 could be
due to faulty electrical connections during the long period of
the tests (approximately 9 months).
General and pitting corrosion
Signs of pitting corrosion (localized corrosion) were
observed on the bar surfaces even though the test set-up was
designed to simulate general corrosion. The depths of pits
varied from 1.4 to 5 mm. The appearance of pitting corrosion
could be attributed to the discontinuity properties of the
concrete as well as of the steel reinforcing bar, which results
in the discontinuity of the oxide film on the bar surfaces and
the formation of pits.
The appearance of localized (nonuniform) corrosion along
the length of the reinforcing bars did not prevent crack
initiation from occurring nearly simultaneously along the
length and parallel to the reinforcing bars. This suggests that
localized (pitting) corrosion or general corrosion, both
occurring over a reasonable length of reinforcing steel bar,
produces similar longitudinal crack patterns. Therefore,
corrosion-induced cracking models based on the test setup for
general corrosion can also be applied to real structures
subjected to chloride environments where localized corrosion
is expected to occur.
Correcting experimental data to constant
corrosion rate of 100 µA/cm2
Experimental results showed that the measured corrosion
rates based on weight loss data were not the same as the
nominal corrosion rate (refer to Table 2). Therefore, to give
a meaningful comparison between specimen results, times to
crack initiation and crack propagation were adjusted to a
nominal corrosion rate of 100 µA/cm2 by multiplying the
experimental times to cracking by the ratio icorr(exp) /100,

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005 721


Fig. 5—Crack propagation for all specimens (nominal
icorr = 100 µA/cm2).
where icorr(exp) is given in Table 2. The correction is applied
for both times to crack initiation and crack propagation (refer
to Table 2 and Fig. 5). Therefore, in the analysis to follow,
all data for time to crack initiation and crack propagation are
now equivalent to a nominal corrosion rate of 100 µA/cm2.
Types of corrosion products
Williamson and Clark14 observed that the morphology of
rust products seemed to change for very high corrosion rates
(approximately 2000 µA/cm2). Hence, after the tests were
concluded, concrete was removed and the rust was collected
to study the kind and type of corrosion products using x-ray
diffraction (XRD) analysis. This comprised a Rietveld analysis
of a sample of corrosion products that had been taken from a
corroded bar immediately after the concrete was removed.
The ratio between molecular weight of steel and molecular
weight of rust was then estimated as 0.335, and the volu-
metric expansion ratio of rust was estimated as 2.94. The
estimated volumetric expansion ratio of rust is reasonable
when compared with values often cited in other studies,
mainly in the range of 2 to 3.15-17 Further, the volume expan-
sion of rust is close to the range of 3.0 to 3.2, which was
obtained based on XRD analysis of corrosion products
collected from specimens exposed to a marine environment
during a period of five years.18 The similar morphology of rust
products provides further evidence that the accelerated corro-
sion tests do realistically simulate the corrosion process. Full
details of the experimental method and crack initiation and
propagation experimental data are given by Vu.10
MODELING BASED ON ACCELERATED
CORROSION TEST RESULTS
Some experimental studies have found a lack of correla-
tion between tensile strength of concrete and the pressure
build-up of corrosion required for crack initiation.19 In this
situation, a fracture mechanics criterion such as toughness
could be more appropriate than a yield criterion such as
strength. The fracture energy criterion has been used along
with the boundary element method to predict crack
growth.20,21 This approach, however, needs potential crack
paths to be identified.
Crack modeling may also be readily solved by finite
element analysis methods. Many finite element models,
however, comprise many thousands of nodes, resulting in
excessive computational times. Because the crack initiation
and propagation models to be developed herein are to be
722
Table 3—Comparison of times to crack initiation
w/c = 0.5 w/c = 0.5
Cover w/c = 0.45 ( fc′ = 20 MPa) ( fc′ = 43 MPa) w/c = 0.58
25 mm 223 134 116 136
50 mm 491 195 156 403
used in a random field (stochastic) analysis to predict the
likelihood and extent of cracking10,11 and life-cycle costs,12
then the computational effort in calculating crack initiation
and propagation should be minimized. This suggests that an
analytical solution is preferable.
There are a number of existing analytical models dealing with
the cracking of concrete cover due to corrosion.4,5,7,17,22-25
Unfortunately, some models fail to define the crack width that
the model is predicting, which makes direct comparisons
between models difficult. Many of these models are developed
for maximum crack widths of only 0.3 mm, which in many
situations may not be deemed to be severe cracking. A full
review of these models is described elsewhere.10
Crack initiation
As expected, Table 3 shows that the time to crack initiation is
longer for specimens with higher concrete cover. The time to
crack initiation, however, does not show any consistent
trends with w/c.
Vu10 concluded that the Liu and Weyers7 model seemed
the most realistic because it included: a) the amount of corro-
sion needed to fill the porous zone between the steel/concrete
interface (free expansion); and b) the reduction with time of
the rate of rust production when determining the critical
tensile stress needed to cause cover cracking. The Liu and
Weyers model gave good predictions to their experimental
results from ten specimens with high chloride contents
exposed to an outdoor environment for 5 years.
Full details of the models are given by Liu and Weyers,7
who use the following as input parameters: density of
corrosion products, density of steel, thickness of corrosion
products needed to generate tensile stresses, thickness of the
pore band around the steel/concrete interface, diameter of
steel reinforcement, ratio between molecular weight of steel
and molecular weight of corrosion products, Poisson’s ratio,
concrete elastic modulus, creep coefficient, concrete cover,
splitting tensile strength of concrete, rate of rust production,
and corrosion rate.
It is noted, however, that in the Liu and Weyers model,
the effect of concrete tensile strength cancels out if the
concrete elastic modulus and the concrete splitting tensile
strength are both proportional to concrete compressive
strength. For example, it is recommended in ACI 318-0226
and Australian standards that Ec = 4600√fc′ and ft = 0.53√fc′ .
Therefore, in such cases, the Liu and Weyers7 model does
not account for the effect of concrete strength when
predicting the time to crack initiation.
Table 4 shows a comparison of time to crack initiation
observed from accelerated corrosion tests and predicted
values based on several available models for each test
specimen. All parameter values are obtained from the accel-
erated corrosion tests. The Andrade, Alonso, and Molina5
model is not influenced by cover or w/c. It is observed that
no models predict times to crack initiation similar to the
experimental data. Although the Liu and Weyers7 model
seems closest to the experimental results, this closeness can
differ by up to 71%. It might be expected that the thickness of
the pore band around the steel/concrete interface d0 should
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005
 Table 4—Comparison of experimental results with
crack initiation prediction models
Time to crack initiation, h
Andrade, Alonso,
Specimen Test result Liu and Weyers7 and Molina5
SI_1 134.0 123.0 (–8.0%) 325.0
SI_2 194.7 247.0 (32.0%) 325.0
SI_3 116.0 83.0 (–28.0%) 325.0
SI_4 155.7 154.0 (–1.0%) 325.0
SII_1 402.8 146.0 (–64.0%) 325.0
SII_2 136.1 81.0 (–40.0%) 325.0
SII_3 490.7 143.0 (–70.9%) 325.0
SII_4 223.1 79.0 (–65.0%) 325.0
Note: (%) denotes percentage difference to experimental data.
Fig. 6—Crack propagation as function of concrete quality.
Table 5—Parameters for Eq. (1) and correlation
depend on w/c, however, an analysis of optimal d0 values coefficient R
(varying d0 between the range 10 to 20 µm until the predicted Limit crack width A B R
result is closest to experimental data) did not show any trend
wlim = 0.3 mm 65 0.45 0.89
of increasing d0 as the w/c increases. Nevertheless, the crack
initiation time is quite short compared with the time to wlim = 0.5 mm 225 0.29 0.60
excessive cracking (refer to Fig. 5) thus the accuracy of the wlim = 1.0 mm 700 0.23 0.45
predictive model for crack initiation will not significantly
influence the time to excessive cracking. Given that the Liu
and Weyers model seems to include important physical reinforcing bars. The w/c may be correlated from concrete
characteristics this model is used herein to predict the time to compressive strength fc′ by the use of Bolomey’s formula.
crack initiation t1st. The accuracy of Eq. (1) decreases as crack width increases;
namely, worst absolute accuracies of 13, 21, and 25% for
Crack propagation limit crack widths of 0.3, 0.5, and 1.0 mm, respectively.27
As expected, Fig. 5 shows that it took longer for cracks to
propagate to the same level of crack width for specimens CORRECTION FACTOR FOR RATE OF LOADING
having a higher concrete cover. The influence of cover, Applying a high current to accelerate corrosion propagation
however, was not observed for the group of specimens with in the laboratory allows for a shorter period of testing,
w/c = 0.58. Specimens with a higher w/c tend to have higher although some accelerated corrosion tests conducted herein
rates of crack propagation, although the opposite trend is took up to 9 months. It might be expected that crack initiation
observed for specimens having 25 mm cover and a high w/c. and propagation are directly proportional (linear function)
Nevertheless, it can be concluded that concrete cover and w/c with corrosion products (that is, as measured by corrosion
influence crack propagation. Unfortunately, the experimental rate). A high corrosion rate, however, might affect the
results presented herein failed to show consistent trends for corrosion-induced cracking phenomena in two ways: 1) A
the separate effects of cover and w/c. The general trends higher rate of loading causes a higher rate of concrete strain
observed, however, are that lower cover and higher w/c and so may induce lower deformations. For example,
appears to cause higher rates of crack propagation. For a experimental results from Alonso et al.8 reveal that crack
more detailed review of the experimental observations refer propagation increases at a faster rate with a smaller applied
to Stewart, Vu, and Mullard.27 corrosion rate. In other words, cracks may propagate slower
If the ratio between cover and w/c (C/wc) is defined as as the corrosion rate increases. The maximum corrosion rate
“concrete quality,” then Fig. 6 shows that crack propagation used by Alonso et al.8 was 115 µA/cm2. Saifullah and
decreases as the concrete quality increases (that is, cover Clark28 also observed that cracks propagate slower as the
increases or w/c decreases), for limit crack widths wlim of corrosion rate increases for corrosion rates of up to 150 to
0.3, 0.5, and 1.0 mm. Crack propagation for Specimen SII_1 200 µA/cm2; and 2) A higher rate of loading may induce
provides a trend contrary to what might be expected, so this higher deformations. For example, an experimental study by
outlier is omitted in the regression analysis to follow. El Maaddawy and Soudki29 showed that for corrosion rates
It is therefore possible to infer from Fig. 6 that there is a of 200 to 500 µA/cm2 there is less time for corrosion products
nonlinear line of best fit between the time to reach a limit crack to dissipate into the pore structure of the concrete, thereby
width and C/wc, and this equation is derived empirically as increasing the radial pressure exerted at the steel/concrete
interface. This will result in faster crack propagation as
tser = A(C/wc)B (1) corrosion rate increases. Mangat and Elgarf30 have made a
similar observation, as did Saifullah and Clark28 for corrosion
where tser is the time for cracks to propagate to a limit crack rates in the range 150 to 4000 µA/cm2.
width because crack initiation (hours) and A and B are Clearly, these two observed phenomena are related to the
constants. Values of the constants A and B and the correlation applied corrosion rate, with the threshold for different
coefficient R are given in Table 5 and the line of best fit is phenomena being a corrosion rate of approximately 200 µA/
shown in Fig. 6. The model is valid for 16 mm diameter cm2. These phenomena also suggest that the direct extrapo-

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005 723


Fig. 7—Rate of loading correction factor kR and Ricorr .
lation of accelerated test results to realistic (field) conditions
should be treated with caution.
To minimize the error in predicting the time to cracking
when extrapolating accelerated corrosion test results to the
behavior of real RC structures (with low corrosion rates), a
rate of loading correction factor is proposed. Hence, the time
to crack initiation and crack propagation for real RC structures
tcr(real) with any value of corrosion rate icorr(real) is
i corr ( exp )
tcr(real) = k R × -------------------
-t (2)
i corr ( real ) cr ( exp )
where kR is the rate of loading correction factor; icorr(exp) is the
accelerated corrosion rate; and tcr(exp) is the observed time to
cracking obtained from accelerated corrosion tests. If the rate
of loading does not affect crack initiation and propagation,
then kR = 1 (that is, linear function of corrosion products).
Available data are used to calculate kR as a function of the
ratio of the experimental corrosion rate and the real corrosion
rate (Ricorr = icorr(exp)/icorr(real)) (refer to Fig. 7). The data in
Fig. 7 is divided into two categories: a) icorr(real) and
icorr(exp), both less than or equal to 200 µA/cm2; and b) icorr(real)
≤ 200 µA/cm2 and icorr(exp) > 200 µA/cm2. The former
covers the situation studied herein where icorr(exp) is approx-
imately 100 µA/cm2 and icorr(real) will be much lower, typi-
cally less than 5 µA/cm2. The later case considers the
situation where crack models may be developed from accel-
erated corrosion rates in excess of 200 µA/cm2. The data is
sourced from different specimen configurations and
measured crack widths, which may have some influence on kR.
It is observed from Fig. 7 that as expected, kR < 1 if
icorr(exp) ≤ 200 µA/cm2, because in this case, Alonso et al.8
and others suggest that cracks may propagate slower as the
corrosion rate increases due to the higher rate of concrete
strain. This means that cracks propagate faster as the
corrosion rate decreases, resulting in shorter times to reach
limit crack widths (that is, kR < 1). It is well known that rate
of loading (strain rate) affects concrete material properties,
for example, that tensile strength increases as strain rate
increases, thus leading to delayed cracking. The rate of
concrete strain near a reinforcing bar caused by an accelerated
corrosion rate is not known, but is not unexpected that strain
rate-dependent concrete material properties will influence
cracking phenomena.
724
On the other hand, Fig. 7 shows that kR > 1 if icorr(exp) >
200 µA/cm2, because for lower corrosion rates, there is more
time for corrosion products to dissipate into the pore struc-
ture of the concrete, reducing radial stresses and increasing
the time to reach a limit crack width when compared with
crack widths predicted from accelerated corrosion rates in
excess of 200 µA/cm2. Concrete creep may also help dissi-
pate radial stresses.
If Ricorr is close to unity, then the trends are not so
apparent, but in all cases kR is close to unity. Hence, there is
no need to further correct the experimental crack initiation
and propagation data shown in Table 2 and Fig. 5 because
Ricorr varies from only 0.87 to 1.40.
If the Alonso et al.8 data is representative of the accelerated
corrosion tests described herein, then a rate of loading
correction factor may be determined empirically from Fig. 7 as
0.3i corr ( exp ) i corr ( exp )
k R ≈ 0.95 exp  – --------------------------
- – -------------------------------
- + 0.3 (3)
 i corr ( real )  2500i corr ( real )
This proposed model is also shown in Fig. 7. The data used
to develop this empirical model is based primarily on one
source8 where Ricorr > 4 with an upper limit of 34. In practice,
icorr(real) could be as low as 0.1 µA/cm2, which means that
for the cracking model developed from an experimental
program with icorr(exp) = 100 µA/cm2, then Ricorr could well
exceed 1000. Extrapolating Eq. (3) beyond the data range in
Fig. 7 to such high Ricorr values is dubious. To be sure, more
work is needed to better characterize the rate of loading
correction factor for a larger range of Ricorr values. Work is
continuing at The University of Newcastle.
It is interesting to note that Fig. 6 indicates that changes in
concrete quality may influence crack propagation by 20 to
30%, whereas Fig. 7 shows that Ricorr may influence kR by
80% or more. Based on these observed sensitivities, the
accuracy of a predictive model for crack propagation derived
from accelerated corrosion test data may be governed more
by a rate of loading correction factor than concrete quality.
MODELING TIME TO EXCESSIVE CRACKING FOR
REALISTIC RC STRUCTURES
Time-invariant corrosion rate
The previous models have been developed on the
assumption of time-invariant corrosion rates; namely, that
corrosion rates remain constant with time. To develop a
general predictive model for time to excessive cracking,
there is a need to relate crack width to function of icorr(real)
given that Eq. (1) is developed for a time-invariant corrosion
rate of icorr(exp) = 100 µA/cm2. Therefore, the time for a
crack to propagate to a limit crack width in real RC structures
(in years) can be predicted as
B
t sp ≈ t 1st + k R × 0.0114i corr ( real ) [ A ( C ⁄ wc ) ] (years) (4)
A rate of loading correction factor is not applied to t1st
because the Liu and Weyers model was not developed from
accelerated corrosion test data.
Time-variant corrosion rate
In general, a corrosion rate may be expressed as a time-
dependent variable such that
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005

Fig. 8—Results from crack initiation and propagation
predictive models.
icorr(tp) = icorr(1) × αtβp tp ≥ 1 year
where tp is the time since corrosion initiation, and α and β are
constants. If the corrosion rate is time-invariant, then α = 1
and β = 0. On the other hand, if the corrosion rate is expected
to increase or decrease with time, then this is a time-variant
corrosion rate. For example, Vu and Stewart31 suggest that
the formation of rust products on the steel surface will reduce
the diffusion of the iron ions away from the steel surface
resulting in reduced corrosion rates with time and have
proposed that α = 0.85 and β = –0.3.
The time to excessive cracking can be estimated based on
the reasonable assumption that the amount of rust to produce
the same crack width is the same for both time-variant and
time-invariant corrosion rates. Hence, the time to excessive
cracking can be inferred as
1 -
-----------
β+1
T sp = β
----------- α -
+ 1- ×  t – 1 + -----------
α  sp β + 1
(tsp > 1 year and wlim ≤ 1.0 mm)
where tsp is the time to excessive cracking for a time-
invariant corrosion rate (years) and α and β are corrosion
rate constants.
Predicted crack initiation and propagation
The models proposed in the present paper are used to
predict crack initiation and propagation for 25 and 50 mm
covers with w/c = 0.50. Figure 8 shows these times for cracks
to initiate and propagate for time-variant and time-invariant
corrosion rates of 1 µA/cm2 assuming time-variant corrosion
rate parameters31 α = 0.85 and β = –0.3, and also assuming
that kR = 1. Clearly, if corrosion rates are time-variant, the
time to reach an limit crack width is extended. Moreover, Fig.
8 shows that the time to crack initiation is relatively short when
compared with the time to reach crack widths in excess of 0.3
mm. If a rate of loading correction factor is deemed appro-
priate, then Eq. (3) would suggest that for icorr(real)= 1 µA/cm2,
and icorr(exp) = 100 µA/cm2, then kR ≈ 0.25. Such a low
correction factor would reduce the time to reach a 1 mm limit
crack width from 21.3 years to 6.3 years for 25 mm cover and
a time-invariant corrosion rate. Evidently, more experi-
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005
mental and theoretical work is needed before accelerated
corrosion test results can be interpreted and corrected with
any degree of confidence.
The time to corrosion initiation for real RC structures is
often at least 30 to 50 years.10 Thus, at least for time-
invariant corrosion rates, the time to excessive cracking will
be governed mainly by the accuracy of predictive models of
corrosion initiation rather than the accuracy of crack initia-
tion and propagation models.
The models proposed herein are preliminary only. Work is
continuing to develop physically-based predictive models (as
opposed to the empirical or best-fit model shown herein) suit-
able for predicting crack propagation up to any crack size (not
limited to 1.0 mm) for any reinforcing bar diameter. The defi-
nition of what constitutes a limit crack width in the context of
service life prediction is also required. Further details of the
analysis of experimental data and development of predictive
models are given by Stewart, Vu, and Mullard.27
(5) CONCLUSIONS
Accelerated corrosion tests on eight RC slabs have been used
to measure corrosion-induced crack initiation and propagation
for crack widths of up to 1.0 mm. Experimental data showed
that concrete cover and w/c are both important in representing
the capacity of chloride contaminated concrete to resist
cracking. An existing model for crack initiation was used. An
empirical model was developed that established a relationship
between crack propagation and concrete quality defined as the
ratio between cover and w/c for 16 mm-diameter reinforcing
bars. Generally, the rate of crack propagation decreases as
concrete quality increases. It was observed that the crack
initiation time is quite short compared with the time to exces-
sive cracking and so the accuracy of the predictive model for
crack initiation will not significantly influence the time to
excessive cracking. A rate of loading correction factor was
developed to account for changes in cracking phenomena for
accelerated corrosion rates to enable a more accurate extrap-
olation of accelerated results to practice. Nonetheless, the
(6) direct extrapolation of accelerated test results to realistic
(field) conditions should be treated with caution.
REFERENCES
1. Stewart, M. G., and Val, D. V., “Multiple Limit States and Expected
Failure Costs for Deteriorating RC Bridges,” Journal of Bridge Engineering,
ASCE, V. 8, No. 6, 2003, pp. 405-415.
2. fib, “Bond of Reinforcement in Concrete: State-of-the-Art Report”
Task Group on Bond Models, Lausanne, 2000.
3. Hartt, W. L.; Lee, S. K.; and Costa, E., “Condition Assessment and
Deterioration Rate for Chloride Contaminated Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tures,” Proceedings of the International Seminar on Repair and Rehabilitation
of RC Structures: the State of the Art, ASCE, 1998, pp. 82-104.
4. Sterritt, G.; Chryssanthopoulos, M. K; and Shetty, N. K., “Reliability-
Based Inspection Planning for RC Highway Bridges,” Proceedings of the
International Conference on Safety, Risk, and Reliability, IABSE, 2001,
pp. 1001-1007.
5. Andrade, C.; Alonso, C.; and Molina, F. J., “Cover Cracking as a
Function of Rebar Corrosion: Part 1—Experimental Test,” Material and
Structures, V. 26, 1993, pp. 453-464.
6. Sakai, K.; Shimomura, T.; and Sugiyama, T., “Design of Concrete
Structures in the 21st Century,” Concrete, Durability and Repair Technology,
R. K. Dhir and M. J. McCarthy, eds., Thomas Telford, UK, 1999, pp. 28-44.
7. Liu, Y., and Weyers, R. E., “Modeling the Time-to-Corrosion Cracking
in Chloride Contaminated Reinforced Concrete Structures,” ACI Materials
Journal, V. 95, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1998, pp. 675-680.
8. Alonso, C.; Andrade, C.; Rodriguez, J.; and Diez, J. M., “Factors
Controlling Cracking of Concrete Affected by Reinforcement Corrosion,”
Materials and Structures, V. 31, 1998, pp. 435-441.
9. Shayan, A., and Xu, A., “Progress of Corrosion and Time to Cracking
in Chloride-Contaminated Concrete,” Proceedings of Corrosion and
725
Prevention 02, Australasian Corrosion Association, Adelaide, Australia,
Nov. 2002. (CD-ROM)
10. Vu, K. A. T., “Corrosion-Induced Cracking and Spatial Time-Dependent
Reliability Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures,” PhD thesis,
University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia, 2003.
11. Stewart, M. G., and Vu, K. A. T., “Predicting the Proportion of a
Concrete Surface Subject to Corrosion-Induced Cracking and Damage,”
Second International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety, and
Management, Balkema, Rotterdam, 2004. (CD-ROM)
12. Stewart, M. G., “Spatial Variability of Corrosion-Induced Damage
and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of RC Bridge Decks,” Second International
Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety, and Management, Balkema,
Rotterdam, 2004. (CD-ROM)
13. ASTM G1-90, “Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning and Eval-
uating Corrosion Test Specimens,” ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, Pa., 1990, 8 pp.
14. Williamson, S. J., and Clark, L. A., “Effect of Corrosion and Load on
Reinforcement Bond Strength,” Structural Engineering International,
V. 12, No. 2, 2002, pp. 117-122.
15. Molina, F. J.; Alonso, C.; and Andrade, C., “Cover Cracking as a
Function of Rebar Corrosion: Part 2—Numerical Model,” Materials and
Structures, V. 26, 1993, pp. 532-548.
16. Ovstaas, G., and Morgan, D. R., “Investigation of Concrete Jetties at
CFB Esquimalt and Prediction of Future Life,” Durability of Building
Materials and Components 8: Service Life and Asset Management, M. A.
Lacasse and D. J. Vanier, eds., V. 1, 1999, pp. 46-55.
17. Rodriguez, J.; Ortega, L. M.; Casal, J.; and Diez, J. M., “Corrosion
of Reinforcement and Service Life of Concrete Structures,” Proceedings of
the 7th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and
Components, C. Sjostrom, ed., E&FN Spon, 1996, pp. 117-126.
18. Suda, K.; Misra, S.; and Motohashi, K., “Corrosion Products of
Reinforcing Bars Embedded in Concrete,” Corrosion Science, V. 35, No. 5
through 8, 1993, pp. 1543-1549.
19. Williamson, S. J., and Clark, L. A., “Pressure Required to Cause
Cover Cracking of Concrete Due to Reinforcement Corrosion,” Magazine
of Concrete Research, V. 52, No. 6, 2000, pp. 455-467.
20. Ohtsu, M., and Yosimura, S., “Analysis of Crack Propagation and
Crack Initiation Due to Corrosion of Reinforcement,” Construction and
Building Materials, V. 11, No. 7 and 8, 1997, pp. 437-442.
21. Hansen, E. J., and Saouma, V. E., “Numerical Simulation of Reinforced
726
View publication stats
Concrete Deterioration: Part IIC Steel Corrosion and Concrete Cracking,”
ACI Materials Journal, V. 96, No. 3, May-June 1999, pp. 331-338.
22. Maruyama, K.; Takaoka, Y.; and Shimizu, K., “Cracking Behaviour
of Concrete Due to Corrosion of Reinforcing Bars,” Transactions of the
Japan Concrete Institute, V. 11, 1989, pp. 163-170.
23. Rasheeduzzafar; Al-Saadoun, S. S.; and Al-Gahtani, A. S., “Corrosion
Cracking in Relation to Bar Diameter, Cover, and Concrete Quality,”
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 4, No. 4, 1992,
pp. 327-342.
24. Bazant, Z. P., “Physical Model for Steel Corrosion in Sea Structures—
Theory,” Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, V. 105, No. ST6, 1979,
pp. 1137-1153.
25. Bazant, Z. P., “Physical Model for Steel Corrosion in Sea Structures—
Applications,” Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, V. 105, No. ST6,
1979, pp. 1155-1166.
26. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318M-02) and Commentary (318RM-02),” American Con-
crete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002, 443 pp.
27. Stewart, M. G.; Vu, K. A. T.; and Mullard, J., “Corrosion-Induced
Crack Initiation and Propagation for Reinforced Concrete Structures:
Experimental Data and Predictive Models,” Research Report No. 247.06.2004,
Centre of Infrastructure Performance and Reliability, School of Engineering,
The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia, 2004.
28. Saifullah, M., and Clark, L. A., “Effects of Corrosion Rate on the
Bond Strength of Corroded Reinforcement,” Corrosion and Corrosion
Protection of Steel in Concrete, Proceedings of International Conference
held at the University of Sheffield, R. N. Swamy, ed., Sheffield Academic
Press, 1994, pp. 591-602.
29. El Maaddawy, T. A., and Soudki, K. A., “Effectiveness of Impressed
Current Technique to Simulate Corrosion of Steel Reinforcement in Concrete,”
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, V. 15, No. 1, 2003, pp. 41-47.
30. Mangat, P., and Elgarf, M., “Flexural Strength of Concrete Beams
with Corroding Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 1, Jan.-
Feb. 1999, pp. 149-158.
31. Vu, K. A. T., and Stewart, M. G., “Structural Reliability of Concrete
Bridges Including Improved Chloride-Induced Corrosion Models,”
Structural Safety, V. 22, No. 4, 2000, pp. 313-333.
32. Aligizaki, K. K., “Modeling of Concrete Cracking due to Corrosion of
Embedded Reinforcement,” PhD thesis, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, Pa., 1999.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005