Indexed in Scopus Compendex and Geobase Elsevier, Chemical Abstract Services-USA, Geo-Ref Information Services-USA www.cafetinnova.

org ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 05, No. 01 February 2012, P.P. 154-159

Performance Evaluation of Rebar in Accelerated Corrosion by Gravimetric Loss Method

AKSHATHA SHETTY1, KATTA VENKATARAMANA1 and INDRANI GOGOI2
Department of civil Engineering, NITK, Surathkal.Srinivasnagar-575025, India 2 Assam Engineering Institute Chandmari, Guwahati-781003 Email: akshathashetty16@gmail.com, ven.nitk@gmail.com, gogoi.indrani@gmail.com Abstract: Corrosion of concrete occurs due to chloride ingress into concrete and is a major cause of steel corrosion. Rebar corrosion in concrete is one of the major problems in the durability criteria. This paper explains, experimental investigations carried out on smaller specimens for evaluating the performance of two types of cement with three types of rebar by gravimetric method. From the results of gravimetric loss obtained by different types of steel with different types of concrete, it is concluded that blended cement, i.e. PPC performs better compared to OPC against accelerated rebar corrosion in concrete. Amongst steel types, CTD steel resulted in higher gravimetric loss compared to MS followed by TMT steel. Keywords: Gravimetric Loss, Reinforcement Corrosion, Accelerated corrosion. Introduction: Reinforcement corrosion is the most important cause of deterioration of reinforced concrete (RC) structures. Rebar corrosion in concrete is a major problem faced by civil engineers. The breakdown of the passive film and consequently corrosion initiation takes place most frequently in the presence of chloride ions at the rebar level (Pradhan and Bhattacharjee, 2009). The rust produced as a result of corrosion has volume 2 to 6 times than that of steel; it causes volume expansion developing tensile stresses in concrete (Bhaskar et.al.,2010). The undesired effect of corrosion include cracking and spalling of the concrete cover, reduction, and eventually loss of bond between concrete and corroding reinforcement, and reduction of crosssectional area of reinforcing steel. Consequently the load carrying capacity of the structure is reduced and brittle failure of structure may occur without prior warning. Hence these effects of corrosion need to be studied for improving the performance of structures. The magnitude of reinforcement corrosion has a significant effect on flexural strength, deformational behavior, ductility, bond strength and mode of failure of reinforced Concrete structures. Corrosion of steel embedded in concrete is an electrochemical process. With the attention of researchers focusing towards the prediction of the residual life of RC structures affected by the reinforcement corrosion, the use of electrochemical techniques for the determination of relevant parameters in this regard becomes a major area of durability study. Therefore nowadays the electrochemical techniques are widely used for the study of rebar corrosion in laboratories together with their application to real life structures (Andrade and Alonso 1996, Pradhan and Bhattacharjee, 2009). Previous Experimental Investigations Regarding Gravimetric Loss: Pradhan and Bhattachajee (2009): Researchers carried out their investigation on large number of specimens for evaluating the performance of different types of rebar in chloride contaminated concrete made with different types of cement through different corrosion rates technique. Steel bars of 12mm diameters were used. Three types of steel reinforcement used were cold twisted deformed (CTD) bars, Tempcore TMT bars and Thermax TMT bars. Types of cement used were OPC, PPC and PSC. The slab Specimens of size (300mmx300mmx52mm) were prepared with a centrally embedded steel specimen. Water cement ratio of 0.45, 0.5, and 0.55 were used; cement content was kept constant at 210kg/m3. Chloride was admixed in to concrete as NaCl of analytical reagent grade. Concentrations of sodium chloride used were 0%, 1.5%, 3% and 4.5% by mass of cement and the corresponding chloride concentration were 0%, 0.91%, 1.82% and 2.73% respectively. Linear polarization Resistance test and AC Impedance spectroscopy test were performed. It was concluded that blended cement, i.e. PPC and PSC performed better as compared to OPC against chloride induced rebar corrosion in concrete whereas, amongst steel type
1

#02050121 Copyright 2012 CAFET-INNOVA TECHNICAL SOCIETY. All rights reserved.

AKSHATHA SHETTY, KATTA VENKATARAMANA and INDRANI GOGOI

155

Tempcore steel resulted in lower corrosion rate as compared to Thermax steel followed by CTD steel. Amleh (2000): Cylinder specimens of height 305mm, embedment length of 279.6mm and 20mm diameter rebar was used for the study. Specimens were prepared for a normal concrete mix with water cement ratio of 0.32. During corrosion process specimens were immersed in an electrolyte solution, which contained 5% NaCl by weight of water. Impressed current technique method was adopted. It was observed that the available bond strength decreases almost linearly with increase in the mass loss. Fang et al. (2006): Totally, 24 specimens were tested, for both confined and un-confined conditions. Corrosion percent was varied from 0 to 6%. Deformed steel bars of 20mm diameter and 420mm in length were used. For those specimens with stirrups supplying lateral confinement, round steel of 6mm diameter with a c/c spacing of 40mm was used. Concrete compressive strength of 56.2 MPa was achieved. Direct electric current technique was impressed on the main steel bars. Specimens were immersed in 5% NaCl solution. Actual corrosion level was determined. It is observed that the increase in corrosion level will cause significant reduction in bond capacity under cyclic loading. Apostolopoulos and Michalopous (2006): In this study, BSt 500s tempcore steel of 12mm diameter was used. These ribbed rebars were artificially corroded in a specially designed salt spray corrosion chamber, according to the ASTM B 117-94 standard, for 10, 20, and 30, 45, 60 and 90 days. To accelerate the corrosion, specimens were sprayed with 5% sodium chloride and 95% distilled water solution with pH range of 6.5 to 7.2 and spray chamber temperature was maintained around 35 (1.1 to 1.7) C for different corrosion levels. It was concluded that a considerable reduction in fatigue limit took place due to a reduction of the exterior hard layer of martensite (%) and a drastic drop in energy density on the corroded specimens. Almusallam (2001): In this study reinforced steel bars were embedded in the concrete specimens prepared with ASTM C 150 Type V cement. A coarse to fine aggregate ratio of 1.68 and a water cement ratio of 0.45 were kept invariant in all the concrete mixtures. Two groups of concrete specimens were prepared. First groups of specimens were prepared with 6mm diameter and the other groups were prepared with 12 mm diameter steel bars. Corrosion of reinforcing steel was accelerated by impressed current technique. The specimens were partially immersed in a

5% NaCl solution. After desired level of reinforcement corrosion was obtained, concrete specimens were split along the line of steel bars. The gravimetric loss in weight is determined. The tensile test were conducted on both clean and corroded reinforcing steel bars so that the influence of degree of reinforcement corrosion on the tensile properties of reinforcing steel bars could be assessed. Results indicated that level of reinforcement corrosion does not influence the tensile strength of the steel bars, calculated on the actual area of cross section. However when nominal diameter is utilized in the calculation, tensile strength is less than the ASTM A 615 requirement of 600 MPa. The degree of corrosion obtained was 11 and 24% for 6 and 12 mm diameter steel bars respectively. Furthermore reinforcing steel bars with more than 12% corrosion indicates a brittle failure. Based on review of past literature, following topics are considered for this study. 1. Determine mass loss rate for different types of rebar's embedded in concrete. 2. Corrosion Performance Appraisal for concrete with OPC and PPC. 3. Develop an empirical relation to determine the applied current required for a specific corrosion percentage. Preparation of Test Specimens: Smaller sizes of (7.09cm7.09cm7.09cm) cube specimens are used for the present study. M20 grade of concrete is used. Mix proportion of 1:1.871:3.291 is used for both OPC. Cement used is conforming to BS12-1978 & ASTM C-150 Type 1 and PPC with water cement ratio of 0.496. The length of 8.5cm rod was centrally embedded in concrete. Initial weight of the steel bar is noted for different types of steel rebars such as Cold Twisted Deformed bars, Thermo Mechanically Treated (TMT) and Mild Steel (MS) bars; chemical composition is according to IS1786. Diameter of 16mm is used for CTD bars, and 20mm used for MS and TMT rebars. The Slump test is conducted to ascertain the workability of the mix; slump obtained is between 55 to 60 mm. After 24 hours concrete cubes are demoulded and the specimens were kept for 28 days curing in water. For each level of corrosion 3 samples are tested and average value is noted. The test set up used for the experiment is shown in Fig.1. After the curing, specimens are kept for accelerated corrosion (Fig.2) by direct impressed technique method. Exposed part of the top rod is covered with M-seal (Fig.3), which prevents the corrosion at that location. Specimens are partially immersed in 3.5% concentrated NaCl solution in corrosion tank for a duration of 5 days, during which known amount of current is applied (Iapp). The amount of current applied for TMT and Mild Steel rebars is 0.125A, 0.251A, 0.377A, 0.5A, and for CTD bars

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 05, No. 01, February 2012, pp. 154-159

156

Performance Evaluation of Rebar in Accelerated Corrosion by Gravimetric Loss Method

0.08A, 0.16A, 0.24A, 0.32A for the different levels of excepted corrosion rates of 2.5%, 5%, 7.5% and 10% respectively. After completion of corrosion process, the specimens are broken (Fig. 4). Rebars are cleaned properly to remove rust and the final weight is noted. From results of initial and final weight, gravimetric loss is evaluated. For the occurrence of corrosion, oxygen and moisture are the essential factors. In the case of controlled specimens, the condition immediately after curing will be considered as the condition of nocorrosion or 0% corrosion. Calculation of Degree of Induced Corrosion and Mass Loss: The impressed current technique, also called as galvanostatic method, consists of applying a constant current from a DC source to the steel embedded in concrete to induce significant corrosion in a short period of time. After applying the current for a given duration, the degree of induced corrosion can be determined theoretically using Faradays law, or the percentage of actual amount of steel lost in corrosion can be calculated with the help of a gravimetric test conducted on the extracted bars after subjecting them to accelerated corrosion. The mass of rust produced per unit surface area of the bar due to applied current over a given time can be determined theoretically using the following expression based on the Faradays law (Ijsseling 1986)

Compressive Strength Test: The objective of the present study being the determination of mass loss rate for different types of rebar's embedded in concrete, the compressive strength of the companion cubes are given in Table 1. Gravimetric Test Results: To achieve different percentage corrosion, the number of days is kept constant and the current applied, Iapp, is varied. Iapp is obtained by equating Eqs. 1 and 2.The specimen identification name with the time in days, and average current applied (Iapp), rate of corrosion of Gravimetric loss (%) for both OPC and PPC concrete are presented in Table 2. Here all the rebar samples are of size 8.5cm and CTD, MS and TMT rebar of diameter 16, 20, 20mm respectively are embedded in the cubes. Table 2 represents the Deviation (%) wrt corrosion (%) required for rebars embedded in OPC and PPC concrete. Variation of Iapp (A) against Gravimetric Loss (%) for MS, TMT, CTD bars in OPC and PPC Concrete are shown in Fig.5. These figures show the effect of corrosion on gravimetric loss of (MS, TMT and CTD) rebars. A linear regression analysis is carried out to give an expression to predict Iapp for required gravimetric loss. The expressions obtained for OPC and PPC are as follows: y=19.349x-0.227, R2=0.996 (MS-OPC) (4) y=19.349x-0.227, R2=0.996 (TMT-OPC) (5) y=30.463x-0.108, R2=0.999 (CTD-OPC) (6) y=17.608x-0.071, R2=0.996 (MS-PPC) (7) y=17.054x-0.104, R2=0.998 (TMT-PPC) (8) y=27.625x+0.086, R2=0.996(CTD-PPC) (9) Where y=gravimetric loss (%); x=applied current. From Fig 5, it is observed that experimental results vary linearly. As Iapp varies with the gravimetric loss MS,TMT, CTD bars in OPC concrete resulted in higher gravimetric loss as compared to the PPC concrete for the respective steel bars. This is because in Blended concrete there will be reduction in permeability due to pore refinement. Conclusions: 1. A linear regression analysis is carried out to obtain expressions to predict Iapp for required gravimetric loss. These expressions can be used for prediction of values within the range of experimental data. 2. Gravimetric loss in CTD bar embedded in OPC is higher than MS and TMT bars. It can be further concluded that there is higher deviation in gravimetric loss of TMT bars. 3. It is observed that as the Iapp varies with the gravimetric loss MS, TMT and CTD bars in OPC

W . I app .T F

(1)

Where Mth=theoretical mass of rust per unit surface area of the bar (g/cm2); W=equivalent weight of steel which is taken as the ratio of atomic weight of iron to the valency of iron (27.925g); Iapp=applied current density (Amp/cm2); T=duration of induced corrosion (sec); and F=Faradays constant (96487Amp-sec). The actual mass loss of rust per unit surface area may be determined as

M ac =

(w

wf )

DL

(2)

Where Mac =actual mass of rust per unit area of the bar (g/cm2); Wi =initial weight of the bar before corrosion (g) Wf = weight after corrosion (g) for a given duration of induced corrosion (T); D = diameter of the rebar (cm); and L=Length of the rebar sample (cm). The degree of induced corrosion also expressed in terms of the percentage weight loss ( is calculated as (Ahamad, 2009). (3)

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 05, No. 01, February 2012, pp. 154-159

AKSHATHA SHETTY, KATTA VENKATARAMANA and INDRANI GOGOI

157

concrete resulted in higher gravimetric loss as compared to the PPC (blended) concrete. 4. Experimental results vary linearly. The obtained equations can be used for the prediction of values within the range of graph values. 5. From Gravimetric loss results obtained, it is concluded that the blended cement, i.e. PPC is better as compared to OPC against accelerated rebar corrosion in concrete whereas, amongst steel type CTD (16mm diameter) steel more susceptible to corrosion than MS (20mm diameter) followed by TMT steel. This may be because TMT bar is more ductile material than MS and CTD bars. References: [1] Ahamad, S.,(2009). Techniques for inducing accelerated corrosion of steel in concrete. The Arabian Journal of science and Engineering,( 34),Number 2C. [2] Ahmad, S., (2003), Reinforcement Corrosion in Concrete Structures, Its Monitoring and Service Life PredictionA Review, Cement & Concrete Composites, 25, 459471. [3] Almusallam, A.A., (2001). Effect of degree of corrosion on the properties of reinforcing steel bars. Journal of Construction Building Materials, 21(15), 361-368. [4] Amleh, L., (2000), "Bond Deterioration of concrete, Departmental Report, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

[5] Andrade, C. and Alonso, C., (1996). Corrosion rate monitoring in the laboratory and on site. Journal of Construction building materials.10, 315328. [6] Apostolopoulos, Ch, Alk and Michalopoulos, D., (2006). Effect of corrosion on mass loss, and high and low cycle fatigue of reinforcing steel. Journal of materials Engineering and Performance. 15(6), 742-749. [7] Bhaskar, s., Bharatkumar, B.H., Ravindra, Gettu and Neelamegam. M. (2010). Effect of corrosion on the bond behavior of OPC and PPC concrete. Journal of structural Engineering 37(1), 37-42. [8] Pradhan, B. and Bhattacharjee, (2009). Performance evaluation of rebar in chloride contaminated concrete by corrosion rate. Journal of Construction and materials, 23, 2346-2356 [9] Fang, C., Lundgren, K., Plos, M., Gylltott, K., (2006). Effect of corrosion on bond in reinforced concrete. Journal of Cement and Concrete Research. 36, 548-555. [10] Ijsseling, F.P., (1986). Application of Electrochemical Methods of corrosion Rate Determination to System Involving Corrosion Product Layers. Journal of British corrosion, 21(2), 95-101 Acknowledgements: The Partial financial support from BRNS is gratefully acknowledged.

Figure 1: Schematic Representation of the Test Set Up Used For the Experiments

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 05, No. 01, February 2012, pp. 154-159

158

Performance Evaluation of Rebar in Accelerated Corrosion by Gravimetric Loss Method

Figure 2: Accelerated Corrosion Process

Figure 4: Destructive Testing Table 1: Compressive Strength of OPC and PPC Concrete SI NO 1 2 Figure 3: Exposed Surface Covered with M-Seal 1. 2 Curing duration 7 days 28days 7 days 28days Compressive strength (N/mm2) OPC 18.2 32.2 PPC 15.52 27.33

Figure 5: Effect of Applied Current on Gravimetric Loss of MS, TMT and CTD Bars in both OPC and PPC Concrete International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 05, No. 01, February 2012, pp. 154-159

AKSHATHA SHETTY, KATTA VENKATARAMANA and INDRANI GOGOI

159

Table 2: Deviation (%) with Respect to Corrosion (%) Required for Rebars Embedded in OPC and PPC Type of Steel and Concrete Expected Corrosion Rate (%) (C) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10 Gravimetric loss (%) (G) 0.00 2.21 4.49 7.02 9.84 0.00 2.1 4.39 6.91 9.71 0.00 2.34 4.58 7.11 9.80 0.00 2.00 4.23 6.92 8.56 0.00 1.98 3.92 6.57 8.38 0.00 2.3 4.49 7.08 8.66 Deviation (%) S= 0.00 11.6 10.2 6.4 1.6 0.00 16 12.2 7.87 2.90 0.00 6.4 8.40 5.2 2.00 0.00 20.00 15.40 7.73 14.40 0.00 20.8 21.6 12.40 16.20 0.00 8 10.2 5.6 13.4

MS-OPC

TMT-OPC

CTD-OPC

MS-PPC

TMT-PPC

CTD-PPC

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 05, No. 01, February 2012, pp. 154-159