CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION
Threshold Chloride Concentrations of Selected
Corrosion-Resistant Rebar Materials Compared
to Carbon Steel
M.F. Hurley* and J.R. Scully ‡,*
ABSTRACT
The threshold chloride concentration for solid Type 316LN
(UNS S31653) stainless steel, Type 316L (UNS S31603) stain-
less steel clad, 2101 (UNS S32101), Fe-9%Cr, and carbon
steel rebar (ordinary ASTM A 615M) was investigated using
potentiodynamic and potentiostatic current monitoring tech-
niques in saturated calcium hydroxide (Ca[OH]2) + sodium
chloride (NaCl) solutions. There is general consensus in this
study and the literature that the chloride threshold for carbon
steel is less than a chloride to hydroxl (Cl –/OH –) molar ratio of
1. Solid Type 316LN stainless steel rebar was found to have a
much higher chloride threshold (i.e., threshold Cl –/OH – ratio >
20) than carbon steel (0.25 < Cl –/OH –< 0.34). Type 316L stain-
less steel clad rebar possessed a chloride threshold expressed
as a Cl –/OH – ratio of 4.9 when cladding was intact. However,
surface preparation, test method, duration of period exposed
to a passivating condition prior to the introduction of chloride,
and the presence of cladding defects all affected the threshold
chloride concentration obtained. For instance, the presence
of mill scale on any of the more corrosion-resistant materials
reduced the chloride threshold to approximately that of carbon
steel. The chloride threshold for Type 316L clad rebar was
highly dependent on any defects that exposed the carbon steel
core. At best, it was similar to that of solid stainless steel.
However, when defective, it was equal to that of carbon steel
rebar in the potentiostatic method used here. A model was
implemented to predict the extension of the Cl – diffusion time
period until corrosion initiation would be expected using rebar
materials with a higher chloride threshold concentration than
Submitted for publication January 2005; in revised form, March
2006.
‡
Corresponding author. E-mail: jrs8d@virginia.edu.
* Center for Electrochemical Science and Engineering, Department
of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Virginia, 116
Engineers Way, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4745.
0010-9312/06/000165/$5.00+$0.50/0
892 © 2006, NACE International
carbon steel. Model results confirmed that corrosion-resistant
rebar materials in a pickled condition may increase time until
chloride-induced breakdown of passivity and onset of corro-
sion to 100 years or more.
KEY WORDS: ASTM G 109, chloride threshold, concrete,
duplex stainless steel, potentiostatic polarization, rebar,
reinforcing bar, stainless steel
INTRODUCTION
In many parts of the U.S. where deicing salts are used
in the winters, Cl–-induced corrosion of reinforcing
steel bars is the prevalent cause of the deterioration—
often prematurely—of concrete bridges. For analysis
of the life-cycle cost of any concrete bridge member
exposed to chloride intrusion, the service life is con-
sidered to be the sum of the corrosion initiation phase
and the propagation phase.1
The corrosion initiation phase is the time re-
quired, from the day the structure is put into service,
for chloride ions to permeate from its surface and ac-
cumulate in the concrete surrounding the reinforcing
bars, eventually to a chloride concentration sufficient
to initiate the breakdown of passivity and the onset
of corrosion. This critical chloride concentration is
known as the chloride threshold level. If no cracks are
present—especially those that are wider than 0.3 mm
(0.01 in)2-3—the length of this phase is a function of
the permeability of the concrete, the concrete cover,
and the intrinsic corrosion resistance of the reinforce-
ment bar material. However, when wide cracks are
present in the concrete deck, then intrinsic corrosion
resistance of the rebar becomes the only factor that
CORROSION—OCTOBER 2006

has any practical influence on the corrosion initiation
phase.
Prompted by rapidly rising highway construction
costs, bridge designers have proposed a design service
life goal for concrete structures of 75 to 100 years
when exposed to adverse environments.4 To meet this
goal, new reinforcing materials that are significantly
more corrosion resistant than carbon steel and, in
many aspects, more forgiving than the widely used
epoxy-coated carbon steel bars would be needed. One
measure of enhancement of corrosion resistance is
the chloride threshold. The greater this value, the
greater the time until the breakdown of passivity and
the initiation of active corrosion. One class of materi-
als meeting these objectives is stainless steel and/or
stainless steel cladding over A615M carbon steel (clad
thickness of 1 mm to 2 mm) given their improved re-
sistance to chloride-induced breakdown of passivity
compared to carbon steels.5 Other materials include
solid stainless steels of various compositions and an
Fe-9 wt% Cr bainitic steel. However, the chloride
threshold level of these new materials is unknown.
BACKGROUND
Chloride-Induced Corrosion
Plain carbon steel reinforcing bars embedded
in concrete undergo depassivation and subsequent
corrosion due to carbonation, chloride ingress, or a
combination of both. The time period until either of
the two mechanisms involved leads to depassivation is
considered the initiation stage and the ensuing active
corrosion period is known as the propagation stage.1
Carbonation is controlled by the diffusion of carbon
dioxide (CO2) through concrete. CO2 molecules react
with species present in the concrete such as solid
calcium hydroxide (Ca[OH]2), alkali, and calcium ions
to lower the pH of the pore solution, causing depas-
sivation. Corrosion initiation on plain carbon steel
by carbonation is considered to be only a function of
the concrete cover and quality. Carbonation-induced
breakdown of passivity on stainless steel in not an
issue, owing to the excellent passivity of Cr-contain-
ing steels in intermediate pH solutions. In comparison
to carbon steel, stainless steel rebar (containing 18%
Cr) is expected to be passive through a much broader
range of pH’s, due to thermodynamic and kinetic
considerations when Cr is added to Fe-based alloys.6
Hence, carbonation will not be discussed further.
The critical chloride content or chloride is the
concentration of chloride ions that is sufficient to
cause active corrosion or induce pitting. Also, stain-
less steel has much greater resistance to corrosion
compared to carbon steel, and would be expected to
have a much greater chloride threshold and therefore
(1)
UNS numbers are listed in Metals and Alloys in the Unified Num-
bering System, published by the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE International) and cosponsored by ASTM International.
CORROSION—Vol. 62, No. 10
CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION
a much longer initiation stage prior to depassivation.
However, the chloride threshold is unknown for vari-
ous stainless steel reinforcing bar candidates. More-
over, an all-encompassing definition for the active
corrosion condition for rebar in concrete and a univer-
sal expression for the chloride threshold content have
not been adopted.
Defining the Active Corrosion State and
Expressions for the Threshold Chloride Content
Chloride threshold tests conducted with embed-
ded plain carbon steel rebar in both concrete and
mortars have been considered up until this point.7
Synthetic pore solution tests have been used for sim-
ulating the concrete environment.7-8 Using synthetic
pore solution tests yield less spread in the chloride
threshold data for plain carbon steel bars, possibly
by the elimination of many variables associated with
the concrete matrix and the concrete/rebar interface.9
Greater control is gained over the Cl– to OH– ratio.
Moreover, it has been found that the chloride thresh-
olds from simulated pore solution tests are more
conservative than in concrete tests.10 A part of the dif-
ference between solution and concrete testing can be
attributed to the presence of Ca(OH)2 crystals at the
steel concrete interface. Ca(OH)2 crystals can restrain
a pH drop at the interface, and dissolution of Ca(OH)2
crystals during active corrosion has been observed.
The Ca(OH)2 crystals essentially provide an alkali res-
ervoir that can prolong a high pH, keeping the rebar
in the passive range. Testing in simulated pore solu-
tions may provide results that are more precise than
in concrete or mortars, and chloride thresholds are
more conservative.
The preexisting literature for plain carbon steel
generally agree that Cl–/OH– thresholds < 1 exist for
solution tests.7 However, some results in concrete
suggest Cl–/OH– < 4. Kurtis and Mehta argue that
mineral scales in concrete improve passivity and thus
raise the chloride threshold when tests are conducted
in concrete.11 A chloride threshold is found for plain
carbon steel in mortar and concrete, while, in con-
trast, stainless steel exposed in chloride-contaminated
concrete showed no signs of active corrosion through
current and potential monitoring and verified through
visual inspection after 22 years.12 Similarly, in previ-
ous experiments conducted concurrently with this
study, Type 316LN (UNS S31653)(1) stainless steel
rebar was exposed to concrete with chloride concen-
trations up to 14.2 times the chloride threshold of
carbon steel, with no signs of activation.13 The results
suggest a higher chloride threshold level in stainless
steel compared to carbon steel when tests are con-
ducted in both aqueous solutions and concrete.
Stainless steel also exhibited a higher chloride
threshold as the pH was raised.14 All stainless steels
remained passive for the duration of testing at a pH of
13.9 and the chloride threshold obtained at 12.6 was
893
CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

TABLE 1
Compositions in wt% and PREN of Candidate Rebar Materials
Rebar C P S Mn Si Cr Ni Mo Cu N PREN(A)
Carbon steel 0.440 0.010 0.029 1.260 0.230 0.150 0.097 0.018 0.280 0.012 0.563
Clad layer 0.044 0.031 0.001 1.330 0.390 16.710 10.160 2.700 0.360 0.038 26.760
Fe-9%Cr 0.074 0.007 0.011 0.460 0.230 9.310 0.089 0.023 0.100 0.013 9.782
2101 0.030 0.014 0.002 4.750 0.720 21.220 1.580 0.290 0.330 0.226 28.957
Type 316LN 0.030 0.019 0.015 1.550 0.420 17.790 11.590 2.780 0.240 0.213 33.339
(A)
PREN = %Cr + 3.3%Mo + 30%N.

vestigated. Moreover, the effect of intact and mechani-

cally defective cladding was explored.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Materials and Experimental Setup

FIGURE 1. Partial view of a cut end (cut transverse to the bar length)
of stainless steel clad rebar, showing the cladding thickness.
significantly higher than that at lower pH’s tested.14
This points to the importance of expressing the chlo-
ride threshold level as a Cl–/OH– ratio. However,
further research is required to address the chloride
threshold for clad stainless steel tested in a simulated
pore solution at pH of 12.6 or greater. Is the corro-
sion resistance equal to that of solid stainless steel?
Do defects matter? Chloride thresholds for alternative
candidate corrosion-resistant rebar materials such as
2101 (UNS S32101), Fe-9%Cr, and Type 316LN also
require investigation. Additionally, the effect of rebar
surface preparation on the chloride threshold (i.e.,
pickled vs. one with mill scale present) remains an
unexplored issue.
The objective of this study was to investigate the
threshold chloride concentrations that trigger active
corrosion of Type 316L (UNS S31603) clad and defec-
tive Type 316L clad compared to solid Type 316LN
stainless steel. Moreover, solid 2101 as well as Fe-
9%Cr steels were investigated. Results are compared
to carbon steel rebar. Resistance to initiation was
investigated through the determination of chloride
threshold levels associated with potentiostatic cur-
rent detection in a simulated synthetic pore solution.
Ca(OH)2 + NaCl solutions were used in the present
study. Both pickled and mill scale conditions were in-
Electrochemical tests were performed to deter-
mine chloride thresholds for candidate corrosion-re-
sistant rebar. Testing was performed on the following
types of rebar: carbon steel, Type 316LN stainless
steel, 2101 duplex stainless steel, Fe-9%Cr steel, and
Type 316L clad stainless steel. Rebar compositions
and PREN (pitting resistance equivalent number) are
presented in Table 1. All bars were size #5 (diameter:
≈16 mm) with the exception of Type 316L clad stain-
less steel bar, which was size #6 (diameter: ≈19 mm),
with a 1-mm to 3-mm-thick clad layer over a carbon
steel core (Figure 1). Electrochemical testing was per-
formed in two types of electrochemical cells.15 One
enabled standard mounting and testing of a flat, pol-
ished metallic surface. The other was a custom-built
electrochemical cell, which enabled testing of the orig-
inal surface of the rebar in a vertical orientation.
Specimen preparation is discussed below.
Experiments performed in the flat cell utilized a
standard three-electrode electrochemical configura-
tion. Rebar samples were cut to expose cross sections,
spot-welded with a nickel ribbon on the unexposed
face, and set in mounting epoxy. The rebar sample
(cross-sectional face) was wet-polished using 800-grit
silicon carbide (SiC) paper, degreased with acetone
(CH3COCH3), rinsed with deionized water, and air-
dried. Clad rebar cross sections were not tested in
this manner.
Vertical cell test samples were prepared from
≈70-mm and ≈35-mm sections of rebar. One end of
each test piece was drilled and tapped with a ≈40-mm
piece of 1040 threaded rod, shown in Figure 2. This
established electrical contact with the sample and
served as a sample holder when threaded with a
#3 rubber stopper. Copper paste was added at the
threaded interface between the threaded rod and the
rebar to enhance electrical contact. The threaded rod
was secured to the rebar with a stainless steel hex
nut, with all mounting attachments above the water
line. Additionally, the hex nut and the tapped end of
the sample were covered with an anti-crevice mask to

894 CORROSION—OCTOBER 2006

 CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

prevent electrolyte contact and unwanted secondary

electrochemical reactions (Figure 2). The vertical cell
enabled testing of the rebar surface that was exposed
during service as well as a cut cross section.

Surface Condition
The effect of rebar surface condition on corrosion
initiation was investigated by testing rebar materi-
als with and without mill scale.(2) The issue originates
from the treatment of the rebar after it has been
rolled, which determines the surface condition. The
bars develop a thick oxide (mill or furnace scale) fol-
lowing heat treating during processing. The oxide,
which forms at high temperature, depletes chromium
FIGURE 2. Cross-sectional schematic view of the top of a rebar
from the alloy and thus produces an outer layer with
sample designed for chloride threshold testing in a vertical test cell.
lower corrosion resistance than the parent metal.16
The passivity afforded by chromium on stainless steel
is lost in the outer layers of the rebar alloy. Moreover,
formation of a less adherent and possibly anion selec- final solution annealing. Likewise, pickling on 2101,
tive oxide layer exposes a chromium-depleted steel MMFX-2, and carbon steel was performed according
surface.17 Because of the loss of corrosion resistance to the ASTM standard A380-99e1, using an aqueous
on outer surface layers, most final stainless steel solution of nitric (HNO3) and hydrofluoric acid (HF) at
products used in other applications receive a pick- 60°C for approximately 5 min (MMFX-2 and carbon
ling or acid wash to remove the thermal oxide and steel) and 30 min (2101 duplex stainless steel), de-
facilitate formation of a stable chromium-containing pending on the intrinsic corrosion resistance of the
passive oxide layer to maximize corrosion resistance material. Intermittent wire brush scrubbing was per-
(ASTM A 380).(3) All rebars used in this study, with the formed to facilitate removal of the mill scale to passiv-
exception of solid Type 316LN stainless steel and Type ate the surface (Figure 3).
316L clad, were received with an existing mill scale. Prior to testing, each rebar specimen was washed,
The solid Types 316LN and 316L clad rebar received degreased, and ultrasonically cleaned in acetone,
a pickling treatment prior to being shipped from the rinsed with deionized water, dried at room tempera-
manufacturer. ture, and stored in a vacuum jar. Separate from the
Consequently, Type 316LN was tested in both the standard rebar geometries tested, a few Type 316L
pickled state and after heat treating at 1,050°C for stainless steel clad bars were bent in a “U”-shaped
1 h and air cooling, in order to produce a high-tem- bend configuration. In this configuration the clad re-
perature oxide similar to a mill scale formed during bar could be tested without exposing the carbon steel
(2)
Stainless steel manufacturers recommend mill-scale removal but
core or a cap at the cut end.
mill-scale non-removal remains a tempting economic consider-
ation. Results below are consistent with manufacturer recommen- Electrochemical Testing
dations for removal.
(3)
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, Potentiodynamic and potentiostatic polarization
PA 19428. were used to determine a threshold chloride content.

FIGURE 3. Photographs showing the surface appearance of 2101 duplex and Fe-9%Cr steels in the as-received condition
and with the mill scale removed by pickling in a hot HNO3 and HF bath.

CORROSION—Vol. 62, No. 10 895

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION
For potentiodynamic scans, the open-circuit potential
(OCP) was allowed to stabilize for 1 h prior to polariza-
tion, followed by anodic polarization with an upward
scan rate of 0.167 mV/s, starting at approximately
50 mV below the OCP. Individual tests were per-
formed at increasing chloride levels until a drop in
pitting potential well below the potential associated
with O2 evolution was observed, signifying that the
chloride threshold for active corrosion had been ex-
ceeded. The criterion for active corrosion used was
defined as the apparent Cl–/OH– ratio, which caused
the pitting potential to drop below 200 mV vs. satu-
rated calomel electrode (SCE).
The 200-mVSCE criterion was based on experimen-
tal data published in relevant literature of stainless
steel in concrete and is considered to represent an up-
per bound of the passive corrosion potential. Pastore,
et al., recorded free corrosion potentials of passive
stainless steel in chloride-contaminated concrete
exposed to atmosphere ranging from 150 mVSCE to
50 mVSCE.18 Additionally, Cox and Oldfield reported
OCP values between –27 mVSCE and 124 mVSCE from
passive stainless steel rebar exposed to a marine
splash zone environment for 22 years.12 In theory,
the passive OCP would increase with time as the
passive film thickened. Laboratory OCP monitoring
conducted on Type 316LN stainless steel in Ca(OH)2
in this project demonstrated a gradual rise in poten-
tial with time albeit at a decreasing rate. Potentials
approached 30 mVSCE over a relatively short time pe-
riod of approximately 1 year. Therefore, 200 mVSCE
was established as a conservative upper bound of the
OCP for passive stainless steel in service. Similarly,
Bertolini, et al., have previously published chloride
threshold data on alternative rebar materials con-
ducted at this potential.14 Choosing this parameter
allows for conservative results to be obtained from
chloride threshold tests, yet still to be based on realis-
tic in-service conditions.
Potentiostatic testing was also carried out at
200 mVSCE in saturated Ca(OH)2, with chloride levels
adjusted using NaCl. Two variations of potentiostatic
tests were performed: incremental chloride additions
and constant chloride concentrations. For the incre-
mental chloride addition tests, chloride additions were
made every 24 h following an initial 24-h period with-
out chloride, until the cut-off anodic current density
of 1 µA/cm2 to 2 µA/cm2 was exceeded, associated
with the onset of passivity breakdown and active cor-
rosion. Upon reaching the threshold current density,
the test was terminated. The threshold chloride con-
tent was noted as the cumulative amount of chloride
that had been added throughout the duration of the
test. Chloride additions were made every 24 h to give
the system sufficient time to stabilize at each concen-
tration. Constant chloride concentration tests were
also performed at 200 mVSCE for 24 h. These tests
were conducted using separate rebar samples and
896
sodium chloride (NaCl) + saturated Ca(OH)2 solutions
over a range of chloride concentrations. Active corro-
sion was detected by an increase in current density
above 1 µA/cm2 to 2 µA/cm2.
Constant chloride concentration experiments
were introduced to enable the control of testing dura-
tion. In contrast, the duration of incremental chloride
addition tests were governed by the chloride step size
chosen. The relatively large differences in corrosion
resistance of rebar materials with different composi-
tions made using a uniform chloride increment for all
tests difficult due to excessive test duration (with a
small uniform increment) or poor chloride threshold
resolution (with a large chloride increment). The issue
becomes more complicated if the chloride threshold
is dependent on test exposure duration. The constant
chloride concentration test is less realistic, since in
reality it takes many years for sufficient chlorides
to accumulate at the rebar interface. However, the
constant chloride method enables better resolution
of the chloride threshold for breakdown of passivity
for vastly different rebar materials at identical test
durations.
RESULTS
Chloride Threshold from Potentiodynamic Scans
Results from potentiodynamic tests conducted
at various chloride concentrations for freshly pol-
ished carbon steel, Fe-9%Cr, 2101, and Type 316LN
are presented in Figures 4 through 7. A decrease in
critical potential associated with the breakdown of
passivity for carbon steel is seen when the chloride
concentration exceeds a Cl–/OH– ratio of 0.287 (satu-
rated Ca[OH]2 + 0.01 M NaCl). Breakdown of passiv-
ity occurs at a Cl–/OH– ratio of 2.87 (0.1 M NaCl) for
Fe-9%Cr (Figures 4 and 5, respectively). 2101 and
Type 316LN do not display breakdown of passivity at
chloride concentrations up to a Cl–/OH– ratio of 57.7
(2.0 M NaCl) in the potentiodynamic test (Figures 6
and 7) with large current increases instead indicative
of O2 evolution. Therefore, a chloride threshold cannot
be determined in the case of highly corrosion-resis-
tant rebar materials using this method. Instead, an
abrupt increase in current density on 2101 and Type
316LN is seen near 0.6 VSCE, independent of chloride
concentration due to oxygen evolution. A plot of the
potentials associated with the breakdown of passivity
vs. the chloride concentration is shown in Figure 8.
A chloride threshold was established using a thresh-
old potential of 200 mVSCE. The chloride level that
produced a drop in the breakdown potential below
this threshold was taken as the threshold chloride
concentration. This provided for some consistency
for comparison with the potentiostatic testing. Using
this criterion, the chloride threshold for materials that
exhibited a drop in the potential associated with the
breakdown of passivity can be determined. The chlo-
CORROSION—OCTOBER 2006

FIGURE 4. Potentiodynamic scans performed on carbon steel rebar
in saturated Ca(OH)2 with various amounts of NaCl added. All scans
were conducted in the flat cell configuration with a polished working
electrode at a scan rate of 0.1667 mV/s.
FIGURE 6. Potentiodynamic scans performed on 2101 rebar in
saturated Ca(OH)2 with various amounts of NaCl added. All scans
were conducted in the flat cell configuration with a polished working
electrode at a scan rate of 0.1667 mV/s.
ride threshold for carbon steel was a Cl–/OH– ratio of
0.6. For Fe-9%Cr a threshold Cl–/OH– ratio of 3.7 was
found.
Chloride Threshold by Potentiostatic Holds
Potentiostatic experiments were also performed
at 200 mVSCE to determine the chloride threshold.
Significant changes in chloride threshold values were
seen as a result of differences in rebar material com-
position and test duration. A summary plot for poten-
tiostatic tests on pickled rebar materials compared to
carbon steel (as-received and pickled) is presented in
Figure 9. Results are grouped by material tested and
each circular symbol or data point on the X-axis rep-
resents a specific test for which results are displayed
in the Y direction. Results of both incremental chlo-
CORROSION—Vol. 62, No. 10
CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION
FIGURE 5. Potentiodynamic scans performed on Fe-9%Cr rebar in
saturated Ca(OH)2 with various amounts of NaCl added. All scans
were conducted in the flat cell configuration with a polished working
electrode at a scan rate of 0.1667 mV/s.
FIGURE 7. Potentiodynamic scans performed on Type 316LN rebar
in saturated Ca(OH)2 with various amounts of NaCl added. All scans
were conducted in the flat cell configuration with a polished working
electrode at a scan rate of 0.1667 mV/s.
ride addition and constant chloride testing are pre-
sented on the same plot. Data points connected with a
line represent chloride levels achieved during a single
incremental chloride addition test on a single speci-
men, while data points with no connecting line rep-
resent results from individual constant chloride tests
performed at the indicated chloride concentration.
Solid or filled data points, regardless of test method,
indicate that the test specimen remained passive dur-
ing the test duration. Chloride concentrations that
caused depassivation and sustained active corrosion
are represented with an open circular data point.
Effect of Material Composition — Figure 9 pres-
ents results on pickled specimens. It is seen that the
lowest threshold chloride concentration for pickled
Type 316LN recorded (Cl–/OH– = 20) is approximately
897
CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION
FIGURE 8. Summary of pitting potentials obtained from
potentiodynamic testing. The criterion used for determining
the chloride threshold was the interpolated pitting potential at
200 mV. The chloride threshold for 2101 and Type 316LN could not
be determined due to oxygen evolution prior to pitting at all chloride
concentrations.
FIGURE 10. Chloride threshold results obtained from pickled Type
316L clad and solid Type 316LN compared to carbon steel rebar
during incremental chloride addition testing. Experiments were
performed at 200 mVSCE in saturated Ca(OH)2 with various amounts
of NaCl added.
double that observed for pickled 2101 (high value,
Cl–/OH– = 9.7) and nearly two orders of magnitude
higher than that of as-received carbon steel (high
value, Cl–/OH– ≤ 0.342). The results obtained here for
stainless steel are consistent with those previously
published by Bertolini, et al. Under similar experi-
mental conditions the chloride threshold results for
Type 304 (UNS S30400), Type 304L (UNS S30403),
and Type 316L were between 4% and 6% Cl– (19.5 <
Cl–/OH– < 29.3).14 However, Type 316 (UNS S31600)
stainless steel was still passive at up to 10% Cl– (Cl–/
OH– = 48.9) when the test was terminated.14 Pickled
898
FIGURE 9. Chloride threshold results obtained from pickled alloyed
bars compared to pickled and unpickled carbon steel during
incremental chloride addition and constant chloride potentiostatic
testing. Experiments were performed at 200 mVSCE in saturated
Ca(OH)2 with various amounts of NaCl added.
Fe-9%Cr, exposed in constant chloride tests, produces
some improvement over carbon steel in this test. The
high-value chloride threshold from incremental tests
was near a Cl–/OH– ratio of 4.9. Regarding carbon
steel, the results obtained during incremental chlo-
ride addition testing (0.25 < Cl–/OH– < 0.34) agree
with previously published results of carbon steel in
simulated pore solution (0.25 < Cl–/OH– < 0.8).7-8,19-21
However, the result from the constant chloride experi-
ments at 200 mV was lower, with a Cl–/OH– ratio of
0.049. The comparison of pickled bars to as-received
carbon steel (Figure 9) is relevant, since carbon steel
is not pickled prior to placement in concrete while
stainless steel bars would likely be pickled by the
manufacturer.
Stainless Steel Cladding — Results from pickled
Type 316L stainless steel clad rebar in different ex-
perimental configurations are presented in Figure 10
in comparison to solid pickled Type 316LN and un-
pickled carbon steel. Any exposure of the carbon steel
core in the clad bar, such as with U-bends containing
a hole drilled through the clad layer and straight clad
bars with the cut cross section exposed, drastically
reduced the chloride threshold value to near that of
carbon steel in this test. Moreover, it was seen that
the U-bend with a drilled hole had a chloride thresh-
old (Cl–/OH– ratio) of 0.25. Clad bar with a cut end
exposed produced a chloride threshold Cl–/OH– ratio
of 0.73. Intact clad Type 316L U-bend specimens had
a higher chloride threshold (Cl–/OH– ratio of 4.9) com-
pared to carbon steel (0.25 < Cl–/OH– < 0.34) during
incremental chloride addition tests. Yet this value
(Cl–/OH– ratio of 4.9) was still much lower than solid
Type 316LN stainless steel rebar (Cl–/OH– ratio of 20).
Such a large difference in chloride threshold was sur-
prising even though the PREN for Type 316L (26.7) is
slightly lower than for Type 316LN (33.3). One expla-
CORROSION—OCTOBER 2006

FIGURE 11. Posttest photo from a potentiostatic incremental chloride addition test performed on Type 316L clad U-bend
rebar. Corrosion initiated preferentially along the cladding seam and had a chloride threshold much lower than solid Type
316LN rebar. A high-magnification view of the polished cross section of the seam is shown at right; the clad/core interface
has been enhanced with a black line.
nation was that corrosion was seen to preferentially
initiate along the seam of the cladding during the in-
tact U-bend tests, as shown in Figure 11.
Effect of Surface Condition — The presence of mill
scale had a great effect on the chloride threshold. All
materials tested with mill scale present exhibited a
chloride threshold relatively similar to that of carbon
steel, as shown in Figure 12. In other words, the pres-
ence of mill scale negated any benefit of alloying for
corrosion resistance in the test methods used here. A
large decrease in chloride threshold concentration
with surface condition was seen for both 2101 and
Type 316LN, as shown in Figures 13 and 14. For in-
stance, 2101 dropped from a Cl–/OH– ratio of 2.5
(pickled) to a Cl–/OH– ratio of 0.34 (mill scale) during
constant chloride concentration tests. Type 316LN
had a drop in chloride threshold with surface condi-
tion from a Cl–/OH– ratio of 24.5 (pickled) to a Cl–/OH–
ratio of 0.49 (mill scale) during constant chloride
addition tests (Figure 14). A slight improvement with
pickling was seen for Fe-9%Cr as one incremental
chloride addition test had a chloride threshold Cl–/OH–
ratio of 4.88 (Figure 9) compared to a Cl–/OH– ratio of
0.2 for Fe-9%Cr with mill scale. In all other potentio-
static tests conducted, Fe-9%Cr (pickled and with mill
scale) behaved similarly to carbon steel (Figures 9 and
12). The effect of mill scale on carbon steel, as shown
in Figure 9, is negligible when compared to the effect
seen for the rebar materials that have been alloyed to
improve the corrosion resistance. The effect of mill
scale on the chloride threshold for carbon steel has
also been investigated by other authors and little im-
CORROSION—Vol. 62, No. 10
CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION
provement has been reported with mill scale re-
moval.7-8,22 Alonso, et al., reported no significant
difference between the chloride thresholds for ribbed
and smoothed plain carbon steel rebars.7 A slight in-
crease was reported by Li and Sagüés for sandblasted
(Cl–/OH– = 0.6) compared to as-received (Cl–/OH– =
0.3) plain carbon bars in saturated Ca(OH)2, but these
results are comparable to the values presented in Fig-
ure 9.8 Conversely, Mammoliti, et al., reported a
slightly higher chloride threshold for deformed bars
(as-received) over smooth bars (mechanically removed
ribs and mill scale), although the values reported are
higher compared to values presented here, likely due
to the addition of a 0.1-wt% calcium nitrite (Ca[NO2])
inhibitor to saturated Ca(OH)2.22 For comparison in
this study the chloride threshold of Type 316LN is de-
creased by a factor of ≈100. It is reduced by a factor of
≈10 for 2101 when mill scale is present. In fact, the
higher the PREN number of the candidate rebar mate-
rial, the more severe the decrease in chloride thresh-
old concentration, as shown in Figure 15.
Effect of Test Duration Prior to the Introduction of
Chloride — Further examination of the data presented
in Figures 9 and 12 reveals that chloride threshold
concentrations obtained from incremental chloride
addition tests are generally greater than the results
obtained from constant chloride tests performed on
the same material (Figures 9 and 12). Incremental
chloride addition tests begin with a period of 24 h of
polarization to 200 mVSCE prior to chloride addition.
In comparison, constant chloride tests are exposed
to the prescribed chloride level the instant the test
899
CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION
FIGURE 12. Chloride threshold results obtained from rebars with
mill scale present during incremental chloride addition and constant
chloride potentiostatic testing. Experiments were performed at
200 mVSCE in saturated Ca(OH)2 with various amounts of NaCl
added.
FIGURE 14. Chloride threshold results obtained from Type 316LN
compared to carbon steel during incremental chloride addition and
constant chloride potentiostatic testing. Experiments were performed
at 200 mVSCE in saturated Ca(OH)2 with various amounts of NaCl
added.
FIGURE 15. Summary of chloride threshold results from potentiostatic
testing vs. PREN for candidate rebar types used in this study.
Experiments were performed at 200 mVSCE in saturated Ca(OH)2 with
various amounts of NaCl added.
900
FIGURE 13. Chloride threshold results obtained from 2101 compared
to carbon steel during incremental chloride addition and constant
chloride potentiostatic testing. Experiments were performed at
200 mVSCE in saturated Ca(OH)2 with various amounts of NaCl
added.
begins and polarization to 200 mVSCE commences. For
example, the chloride threshold obtained for carbon
steel during constant chloride testing was Cl–/OH– =
0.049, compared to a low value of Cl–/OH– = 0.245
obtained during incremental chloride testing. Further-
more, it was seen during incremental chloride addi-
tion testing on Type 316LN that tests conducted with
larger chloride increments and therefore shorter test
duration resulted in lowered chloride threshold val-
ues, as seen in Figure 9. These results indicate that
the duration of Ca(OH)2 exposure at 200 mVSCE prior
to the introduction of soluble chloride has an effect on
the chloride threshold value obtained.
DISCUSSION
Test Method for Chloride Threshold
Determination
Experimental Techniques for Active Corrosion De-
tection — The chloride threshold value for carbon steel
is independent of the method used to obtain it. Tech-
niques used in this paper and elsewhere to determine
chloride-induced active corrosion on rebar include:
corrosion rate determination via linear polarization re-
sistance (LPR), macrocell current measurement, OCP
monitoring, potentiodynamic critical potential deter-
mination, and potentiostatic testing for anodic current
rise. Chloride threshold results for carbon steel from
potentiodynamic tests (Cl–/OH– ratio of 0.6) and incre-
mental chloride addition potentiostatic experiments
(Cl–/OH– ratio between 0.25 and 0.34) were consistent
with previously published results in relevant literature
using other methods (0.25 < Cl–/OH– < 0.8).7-8,19-21 A
chloride threshold Cl–/OH– ratio of 3.7 was found for
MMFX-2, approximately 6.2 times the chloride thresh-
old of carbon steel, which is in agreement with testing
conducted in concrete.13
CORROSION—OCTOBER 2006

However, potentiodynamic scans conducted in
this study were found to be ineffective for determining
potentials associated with chloride-induced break-
down of passivity on Type 316LN and 2101 duplex
stainless steels in the Ca(OH)2 environment. One in-
terpretation is that the incubation time for passivity
breakdown via chloride penetration into the passive
film is not satisfied in the case of fast potentiody-
namic scans prior to attainment of high potentials
during upward scans. Oxygen evolution occurred on
highly corrosion-resistant stainless steels prior to
breakdown during upward potentiodynamic scans at
all chloride concentrations tested. Potentiostatic tech-
niques were found to be effective methods for charac-
terizing the chloride thresholds of corrosion-resistant
rebar materials during this study because the incuba-
tion time could be satisfied and the breakdown of pas-
sivity was easily detected by a current rise even if one
small site was responsible. The chloride threshold
obtained from potentiostatic tests represents the
condition when the applied potential (for this study
200 mVSCE) exceeds a chloride-dependent threshold
potential for chloride-induced corrosion. Previously
published chloride thresholds for carbon steel obtained
from potentiostatic tests show little effect of applied
potential when conducted above 200 mVSCE.23-24 How-
ever, the critical potential for chloride-induced pitting
or depassivation of stainless steel in solution is known
to be dependent on chloride concentration.5 Previous
results also indicated a potential dependency of Type
316LN in saturated Ca(OH)2.9,(4)
Unfortunately, conventional methods for deter-
mining the corrosion rate and, subsequently, the
chloride threshold for carbon steel rebar, such as LPR
and macrocell current monitoring,25 also may not be
effective for highly alloyed bars due to the difference
in the morphology of chloride-induced corrosive at-
tack. Stainless steels suffer from highly local pitting
and remain passive over large areas of the surface
while carbon steel undergoes global depassivation and
corrosion of large areas ultimately occurs. It has been
shown that LPR is limited in its ability to detect local-
ized corrosion when isolated corrosion occurs because
the active area emitting a high current (or, possessing
a small polarization resistance) is a small fraction of
the total area.26 Moreover, methods for detecting the
presence of localized corrosion through polarization
resistance measurements are highly dependent on the
experimental procedures and parameters chosen for
analysis.27 Mansfeld, et al., noted the presence of pits
(4)
A chloride threshold could not be determined for Type 316LN
stainless steel during testing conducted at 0 and –0.2 VSCE in
saturated Ca(OH)2, due to NaCl saturation of the solution prior to
corrosion initiation.
(5)
In the potentiostatic mode, cathodic current is supplied from the
CE to support anodic reactions at the counter electrode. In gal-
vanic coupling, the corresponding cathodic current is supplied
from a combination of the corrosion site itself, the rebar adjacent
to the corrosion site, and any other rebar electrically connected.
CORROSION—Vol. 62, No. 10
CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION
through visual and microscopic observation that went
undetected by the accompanying impedance spectra.27
This situation exists when a small fraction of the sur-
face area undergoes pitting and the remainder of the
surface remains passive, but the exact conditions for
detection depend on the polarization resistances of
the active and passive areas, the area fractions, and
the test frequency or scan rate. Similar arguments
apply to the macrocell method. Macrocell current
measurements, such as ASTM standard G 109, could
also, in theory, provide a diminished ability to detect
localized corrosion. Consider the fact that detection of
corrosion relies on galvanic current flow between a top
and bottom rebar in a concrete block. Widespread de-
passivation and anodic dissolution on a carbon steel
anode is likely supported by large cathodic reactions
on the rebar in the bottom mat. However, if the top
rebar in a concrete block develops small pit sites, then
the remainder of the top rebar may serve as a local
cathode and little galvanic current may be measured
with respect to the bottom rebar. The resulting macro-
cell current would indicate passivity, despite the pos-
sible presence of localized attack. When large anodes
are quickly developed on the top bar, the galvanic
current to the bottom (chloride free bar) is larger and
may be detected as soon as corrosion is initiated. The
latter is the conventional case with carbon steel rebar.
It should be noted that results published by Clemeña
and Virmani from testing conducted in chloride-con-
taminated concrete of Type 316L defective clad bars,
similar to those used in the present study, demon-
strated that macrocell current monitoring may detect
corrosion of the carbon steel core provided the defect
size is adequately large.13 However, LPR and macrocell
measurements may not be reliable techniques to mea-
sure meaningful corrosion rates or chloride thresh-
olds for corrosion initiation of highly alloyed stainless
steels if the percentage of the activated corrosion area
is small. Although LPR is an effective tool for carbon
steel, where a drop in polarization resistance signals
chloride-induced activation over large surface areas,
it seems at best a very insensitive test for the detec-
tion of chloride-induced corrosion on alloyed rebar
materials when large areas remain passive with a high
polarization resistance.
The potentiostatic methods presented in this
paper offer a technique to probe the onset of a high
corrosion rate at the weakest link present, regard-
less of size. There is likely no critical active corrosion
defect size that may escape detection, since small
increases in current at the counter electrode are de-
tectable.(5) For instance, results from Type 316L clad
rebar from this investigation have shown that any
exposure of the underlying carbon steel reduces the
chloride threshold to near that of carbon steel (Fig-
ure 10). Therefore, the experimental method used to
determine the true initiation threshold of chloride-
induced corrosion of alloyed and clad rebar materials
901
CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION
must enable adequate detection of localized corrosion.
Hence, the chloride threshold found from the poten-
tiostatic method using Ca(OH)2 solution may be more
conservative than that found using the ASTM G 109
method on the same materials.13 Several explanations
may shed light on this difference. First, the presence
of Ca(OH)2 crystals in the concrete pore solution of
actual concrete may provide extra buffering capacity
that resists acidification, as mentioned previously in
the background section of this paper. However, it is
difficult to argue that the large reservoir of the satu-
rated Ca(OH)2 solution does not provide more buffer-
ing capability than concrete. The second is that the
OCP of the steel in concrete has not reached 200 mV.
Hence, the potentiostatic is more severe. The third is
that the G 109 method may provide information on
the chloride threshold concentration for initiation and
some necessary degree of propagation (before corro-
sion is detected) while the lab test detects the chloride
threshold for actual initiation with very little propaga-
tion. Lastly, the concrete has a higher ionic resistivity
than the saturated Ca(OH)2 solution and may have a
pH greater than 12.6.10 The former is likely more im-
portant in the propagation stage while the later may
effectively lower the Cl–/OH– ratio at a given Cl– con-
centration.
A related critical issue is whether extremely local
active corrosion can damage concrete. In this regard,
corrosion at small defects may or may not damage
concrete. Accumulation of corrosion products of suf-
ficient volume over a large area of bar is required to
create stresses at the concrete/rebar interface that
leads to concrete cracking.28 Therefore, it must be
recognized that small pits or small holes in cladding,
while actively corroding when the chloride threshold is
exceeded, may not lead to concrete damage as readily
as global depassivation, as in the case of carbon steel.
This paper is limited to addressing only the corrosion
initiation behavior of selected rebar types. However,
both extent of lateral and radial propagation and the
nature of the corrosion products formed must be con-
sidered. Further investigation is required to determine
how propagation of localized corrosion sites on alloyed
rebar materials will damage concrete structures. From
this perspective, one argument is that the ASTM G
109 method detects the chloride threshold concentra-
tion for initiation and some necessary degree of propa-
gation. In this sense, it may provide a parameter that
is closer to a chloride threshold for damage, not just
initiation. However, such a correlation, while more
valuable to engineers, appears fortuitous at this time.
Influence of Material Composition — The potentio-
static test methods performed during this study pro-
vided conservative results but produced differences
in the chloride thresholds that depended not only
on material composition, but on surface condition
and the presence of any microstructural or physical
defect. In the case of stainless steel clad rebar, the
902
“physical” weakest link present in the system deter-
mined the chloride threshold despite the high PREN
number of Type 316L cladding (e.g., PREN = 26.8).
It was also observed that the PREN of all the materi-
als tested did not correlate linearly with the chloride
threshold obtained from potentiostatic tests (Figure
15). Prior results regarding the crevice corrosion and
pitting resistance of a variety of stainless steels, in-
cluding some duplex stainless steels such as 2205,
show a linear correlation between PREN and critical
pitting temperature (CPT) as well as critical crevice
temperature (CCT).5 The composition of each phase
in the duplex microstructure of many modern duplex
stainless steels is balanced such that resistance is
linearly proportional to a PREN calculated based on
overall composition. This would suggest that pickled
2101 (PREN = 29) should have a chloride threshold
similar to that obtained for Type 316LN (PREN =
33.3). However, the results obtained from incremen-
tal chloride testing showed the chloride threshold
for pickled 2101 was approximately half that of Type
316LN (Figure 9). One possible explanation for this
discrepancy is the accidental formation of detrimental
phases, including sigma phase, in the duplex micro-
structure due to inadvertent slow cooling through
the temperature range of 700°C to 900°C. The other
possibility is that the PREN number does not scale
linearly with local corrosion resistance in simulated
concrete even though it does in other environments.
It is worth noting that a separate heat of pickled 2201
duplex stainless steel tested independently in another
study also does not perform nearly as well as AISI 316
either.29 Metallographic characterization on the 2101
used in this study has substantiated the possibility of
sigma phase, although some uncertainty exists, since
the exact heat treatment history of this batch of the
alloy is not known. Additional testing for sigma phase
is underway to clarify this issue.
Influence of Surface Condition — The presence of
mill scale on the rebar surface had a profound det-
rimental effect on the chloride threshold of alloyed
rebar materials compared to a pickled surface. The
benefit of pickling increases with PREN as shown in
Figure 15, regardless of the potentiostatic method
used for chloride threshold determination. To reveal
this effect, it is clear that the surface condition of the
rebar must be considered, as opposed to simply test-
ing the polished surface of the base material. The
high-temperature oxide that develops is less adherent
and produces a chromium-depleted surface layer.17
The protective effects of the passive film associated
with a thin, compact chromium oxide layer are greatly
diminished with the presence of a mill scale on the
surface. Corrosion, which is initiated more easily on
the Cr-depleted mill scale surface, may lead to the for-
mation of an aggressive environment and subsequent
activation of the base material under conditions where
it would not normally occur. Therefore, pickling must
CORROSION—OCTOBER 2006
 CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

be strongly considered for alloyed rebar materials

to passivate the surface and increase the corrosion
resistance.

Influence of Chloride Threshold on Relative

Initiation Time in Actual Structures
Given the difference in chloride thresholds be-
tween plain carbon steel and alloyed rebar materials,
it is of interest to comment on the relative extension
of the time until initiation of corrosion when rebar
(a)
with a higher corrosion resistance than carbon steel is
implemented.
Given the increase in chloride threshold (ex-
pressed as Cl–/OH– molar ratio) from 0.8 for plain
carbon steel to 20 for solid stainless steel, the follow-
ing question can be asked: how long does it take for
the Cl–/OH– molar ratio in the concrete pore solution
adjacent to an embedded rebar to reach the chloride
thresholds described? Further, how much longer is
the time until initiation if a corrosion-resistant rebar
material is used? Various models based on Fick’s
second law of diffusion have been used to predict
chloride ingress in concrete.30-31 Such a calculation
was performed based on a finite difference solution to
(b)
Fick’s second law. The code was provided by the com-
puter integrated knowledge system (CIKS) developed FIGURE 16. (a) An example of the surface chloride concentration
by Bentz, et al.32 Modeling results have correlated well inputs used to model the time to corrosion initiation. The surface
chloride concentration is a square wave with high Cl – level repeated
with experimental data obtained from chloride analy-
over time t1. (b) Influence of t1 duration on the time to initiation for
sis of core samples in short-term experiments; how-
stainless steel and carbon steel. The chloride threshold for carbon
ever, experimental confirmation for long time periods steel was assumed to be Cl –/OH – = 0.8 and Cl –/OH – = 20 for stainless
(greater than 100 years) is not available. steel.
The initiation time was calculated for the case of
carbon steel compared to corrosion-resistant steel. No
chloride binding was assumed and the coefficient of reach the chloride threshold of carbon steel at a depth
diffusion was constant over time, 1 × 10–12 m2/s. The of 50 mm. Approximately 103 years would be required
thickness of the concrete structure was set at 0.5 m to reach a Cl–/OH– ratio of 20 at a depth of 50 mm—a
and rebar was considered to be 50 mm deep, accord- conservative value for the chloride threshold of Type
ing to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guide 316LN stainless steel. Figure 16(b) shows the effect
for durable concrete exposed to deicing salts.33 The of t1 on the time to initiation. It can be seen that the
surface chloride content was input as a time varying time to initiation for stainless steel increases rapidly
square wave function with a Cl–/OH– ratio of 100 to values much greater than 100 years as t1 drops be-
(C0,1 = 3.5 Mol.) for X days (t1), followed by a Cl–/OH– low 120 days, which corresponds to nearly 4 months
ratio of 0.29 (C0,2 = 0.01 Mol.) for 365-X days (t2) (Fig- at constant high surface chloride concentration. Al-
ure 16[a]). This condition simulated periodic seasonal though this model assumes uniform intrinsic concrete
application of deicing salts followed by low chloride properties and ignores Cl– egress phenomena over
exposure during the remainder of the year. Aggressive the time period of consideration, it is an encouraging
values for non-coastal concrete exposed to deicing salt prediction when considering the 75-year to 100-year
were chosen for the coefficient of diffusion and the lifetime design goal for new concrete structures.
surface concentration function to maintain a conser-
vative approach to estimating the time until corrosion CONCLUSIONS
initiation. Additionally, the chloride threshold used
for stainless steel was a lower bound (Cl–/OH– ratio of ❖ Potentiostatic polarization techniques were found
20) obtained from testing during this study, and the to be effective methods for determining the chloride
chloride threshold for carbon steel (taken as a Cl–/OH– threshold for corrosion initiation of corrosion-resis-
ratio of 0.8) was an upper bound of results from simu- tant rebar materials, based on the ability to detect the
lated pore solution testing obtained from previously presence of small amounts of localized corrosion.
published results.7-8,19-21 Under these conditions with a ❖ The chloride thresholds obtained from the poten-
t1 value of 120 days, 8 years was the time required to tiostatic method for carbon steel were consistent with

CORROSION—Vol. 62, No. 10 903

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION
relevant literature. A chloride threshold of 0.25 < Cl–/
OH– < 0.34 was obtained during incremental chloride
addition tests. A slightly lower result of a Cl–/OH– ra-
tio of 0.049 was found during constant chloride test-
ing using the potentiostatic method.
❖ A chloride threshold Cl–/OH– ratio of 20 was found
for pickled Type 316LN stainless steel during poten-
tiostatic incremental chloride-addition testing. In
contrast, pickled 2101 had a chloride threshold Cl–/
OH– ratio of 9.7 and pickled Fe-9%Cr had a chloride
threshold Cl–/OH– ratio of 4.9.
❖ Intact Type 316L clad rebar had a chloride thresh-
old of Cl–/OH– ratio of 4.9. Any defect in the cladding
that exposed the carbon steel core lowered the chlo-
ride threshold to approximately that of carbon steel in
the potentiostatic method.
❖ The chloride threshold concentrations of highly al-
loyed rebar materials with mill scale present, which
produces a Cr-depleted surface layer, was comparable
to carbon steel. Hence, mill scale removal is thus
highly recommended when considering stainless steel
rebar, since the presence of mill scale negates the
benefits of using stainless steel.
❖ Simulations of chloride penetration into concrete
predicted that the time until chloride-induced cor-
rosion initiation could be extended from 8 years (for
carbon steel) to 103 years (for Type 316LN stainless
steel) for concrete structures exposed to periodic dos-
ing with deicing salts.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project is sponsored by the VTRC (Virginia
Transportation Research Council). The support and
helpful discussions with G. Clemeña and S. Sharp
are gratefully acknowledged. The help and support of
Princeton Applied Research (PAR) and Scribner As-
sociates, Inc., with the experimental setup and instru-
mentation are also appreciated.
REFERENCES
1. K. Tuutti, “Corrosion of Steel in Concrete” (Stockholm, Sweden:
Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute, 1982), p. 18-
51.
2. J.T. Houston, E. Atimay, P.M. Ferguson, “Corrosion of Reinforc-
ing Steel Embedded in Structural Concrete,” Center for Highway
Research, no. CFHR-3-5-68-112-1F, University of Texas, 1972.
3. J. Ryell, B.S. Richardson, “Cracks in Concrete Bridge Decks and
Their Contribution to Corrosion of Reinforcing Steel and Pre-
stressed Cables,” Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Com-
mission, no. IR51, 1972.
4. D.B. McDonald, D.W. Pfeifer, M.R. Sherman, “Corrosion Evalua-
tion of Epoxy-Coated, Metallic-Clad and Solid Reinforcing Bars in
Concrete,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, no. FHWA-RD-98-153, 1998.
5. J.A. Sedriks, Corrosion of Stainless Steels (Princeton, NJ: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1996), p. 148-153.
904
6. M. Pourbaix, Atlas of Electrochemical Equilibria in Aqueous
Solutions (Houston, TX: NACE International, 1974), pp. 256-
271, 307-321.
7. C. Alonso, C. Andrade, M. Castello, P. Castro, Cem. Concr. Res.
30 (2000): p. 1,047-1,055.
8. L. Li, A.A. Sagüés, Corrosion 57 (2001): p. 19-28.
9. M.F. Hurley, J.R. Scully, “Chloride Threshold Levels in Clad 316L
and Solid 316LN Stainless Steel Rebar,” CORROSION/2002,
paper no. 02224 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2002).
10. T. Yonezawa, V. Ashworth, R.P.M. Procter, Corrosion 44 (1998):
p. 489-499.
11. K.E. Kurtis, K. Mehta, “A Critical Review of Deterioration of Con-
crete Due to Corrosion of Reinforcing Steel,” 4th CANMET/ACI
Int. Conf. on Durability of Concrete, paper no. SP170-27 (Farm-
ington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, 1997), p. 535-554.
12. R.N. Cox, J.W. Oldfield, “The Long-Term Performance of Austen-
itic Stainless Steel in Chloride Contaminated Concrete,” in Corro-
sion of Reinforcement in Concrete Construction, eds. C.L. Page,
P. Bamforth, J.W. Figg, Special Publication 183 (Cambridge,
U.K.: Society of Chemical Industry/Royal Society of Chemistry,
1996), p. 662-669.
13. G.C. Clemeña, Y.P. Virmani, Concr. Int. 26 (2004): p. 39-49.
14. L. Bertolini, F. Bolzoni, T. Pastore, P. Pedeferri, Br. Corros. J. 31
(1996): p. 218-222.
15. M.F. Hurley, J.R. Scully, G.C. Clemeña, “Selected Issues in the
Corrosion Resistance of Stainless Steel Clad Rebar,” CORRO-
SION/2001, paper no. 01646 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2001).
16. L.-F. Li, P. Caenen, M. Daerden, D. Vaes, G. Meers, C. Dhondt,
J.-P. Celis, Corros. Sci. 45, 5 (2005): p. 1,301-1,324.
17. F. Stott, F.I. Wei, Mater. Sci. Technol. 5 (1989): p. 1,140-1,147.
18. T. Pastore, P. Pedeferri, L. Bertolini, F. Bolsoni, A. Cigada, “Elec-
trochemical Study on the Use of Stainless Steel in Concrete,” in
Proc. Duplex Stainless Steel ‘91 conf., vol. 2 (Beaune, France:
1991), p. 905-913.
19. D.A. Hausmann, J. Mater. Prot. (1967): p. 19-23.
20. V.K. Gouda, W.Y. Halaka, Br. Corros. J. 5 (1970): p. 204-208.
21. S. Goni, C. Andrade, Cem. Concr. Res. 20 (1990): p. 525-539.
22. L.T. Mammoliti, L.C. Brown, C.M. Hansson, B.B. Hope, Cem.
Concr. Res. 26 (1996): p. 545-550.
23. C. Alonso, M. Castellote, C. Andrade, Electrochim. Acta 47
(2002): p. 3,469-3,481.
24. D. Izquierdo, C. Alonso, C. Andrade, M. Castellote, Electrochim.
Acta 49 (2004).
25. A. Bentour, S. Diamond, N.S. Berke, Steel Corrosion in Concrete
(London, U.K.: E&FN Spon, an imprint of Chapman & Hall,
London, U.K., 1997), p. 74-84.
26. J.R. Scully, “Characterization of the Corrosion of Aluminum Thin
Films Using Electrochemical Impedance Methods,” in Electro-
chemical Impedance Analysis and Interpretation, eds. J.R.
Scully, D.C. Silverman, M.W. Kendig, ASTM, STP 1188 (West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 1991), p. 276-296.
27. F. Mansfeld, Y. Wang, S.H. Lin, H. Xiao, H. Shih, “Detection and
Monitoring of Localized Corrosion by EIS,” in Electrochemical
Impedance Analysis and Interpretation, eds. J.R. Scully, D.C.
Silverman, M.W. Kendig, ASTM, STP 1188 (West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM International. 1991), p. 297-312.
28. A.A. Sagüés, “Modeling the Effects of Corrosion on the Lifetime of
Extended Reinforced Concrete Structures,” CORROSION/2003,
in Proc. Research Topical Symp. on Modeling and Prediction of
Lifetimes for Corrodible Structures (Houston, TX: NACE, 2003).
29. D.K. Lysogorski, P. Cros, W.H. Hartt, “Performance of Corrosion-
Resistant Reinforcement as Assessed by Accelerated Testing and
Long-Term Exposure in Chloride-Contaminated Concrete,”
CORROSION/2005, paper no. 05258 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2005).
30. 2nd Int. RILEM Workshop on Testing and Modeling the Chloride
Ingress into Concrete, eds. C. Andrade, J. Kropp (Paris, France:
RILEM, 2000).
31. L. Bertolini, B. Elsener, P. Pedeferri, R. Polder, Corrosion of Steel
in Concrete (Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH, 2004), p. 98-102.
32. D.P. Bentz, J.R. Clifton, K.A. Snyder, Concr. Int. 18 (1996): p.
42-47.
33. ACI Committee 201, “Guide to Durable Concrete,” Manual of
Concrete Practice, Part 1 (Farmington Hill, MI: American Con-
crete Institute, 1994).
CORROSION—OCTOBER 2006