A

PROJECT REPORT
ON
CORROSSION OF STEEL REINFORCEMENT
GUIDED BY
MS SMITA PATEL
SUBIMITTED
BY
Amin Jay B
(096480306201)
DIPLOMA (SEM-VI) CIVIL

SUBIMITTED BY
SIGMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
& ENGINEERING, (POLYTECHNIC)
AT WAGHODIYA ROAD
VADODARA

Certificate

This is to certify that Mr. Amin Jay B

having Enrolment No: 096480306201
have completed Part-I IDP Project work
having
title
corrosion
of
steel
reinforcement. He has undergone the
process of shodh yatra, literature
survey and problem Definition. He is
supposed to carry out the residue IDP
Part-II work on same Problem during
Semester-VI for the final fulfillment of
the IDP work which is Prerequisite to
complete Diploma Engineering.
GUIDED BY
Department
MS SMITA PATEL

Head of

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Reinforced concrete structures have the potential be very

durable and capable of withstanding a variety of adverse
environmental conditions However, failures in the structures do still
occure as a result of premature reinforcement corrosion. The
maintenance and repair of bidg for their safety requires effective
inspection and monitoring techniques for assessing the
reinforcement corrosion.
Engg need better techniques for assessing the condition of the
structure when the maintenance or repair is required. These method
need to be able identify any possible durability problems within
structure before they become serious.This paper review all the
electrochemical and non-destructors from the point of view of
corrosion assessment and their application to bridges, bldg. and
other civil Engg structures.
The authors to thank the Mexican CINVESTAV-IPN
Merida, project 1997, the Water National Commission (CNA)
for meteorological data and the de Ciencia y (CONACYT),
Contracts 0527-A9 109, 2187-PA and 2667-PA for financial
support in conducting various phases of this investigation..The
assistance of P. Quintana,andfrom CINVESTAV-IPN, Unidad
Merida in the work and theiruseful comments is sincerely
appreciated.

Abstract
Common types of corrosion occurring are Pitting,
Crevice and Intergrannular corrosion. The two most common
causes of reinforcement corrosion are chloride ions and
carbonation by atmospheric carbon dioxide. In wet and cold
climates, reinforced concrete for roads, bridges, parking
structures and other structures that may be exposed to deicing salt
may benefit from use of epoxy-coated, hot dip galvanized or
stainless steel rebar, although good design and a well-chosen
cement mix may provide sufficient protection for many
applications. Epoxy coated rebar can easily be identified by the
light green color of its epoxy coating. Hot dip galvanized rebar
may be bright or dull grey depending on length of exposure, and
stainless rebar exhibits a typical white metallic sheen that is
readily distinguishable from carbon steel reinforcing bar. More
techniques like Cathodic protection and ECE are also employed.
Use of Fly Ash too delays the effect of chlorides and carbon

dioxide.

INDEX
SR.N
O
1

CONTENT
INTRODUCTION

PAGE
NO
7

Admixtures In Concrete

Cathodic Protection

Steel Replacement

Concrete Mixes

10

The Prevention of Corrosion on Structural

Steel

11

Painting

13

Corrosion Protection Philosophy

14

Corrosion In-hibiting Admixtures

15

10

Cathodic Protection System

16

11

Prevention of Coating in Corrosion

17

12

Manufacture of Coating

18

13

Cathodic Protection as a Corrosion Control Alternative

19

14

Type of C.P Systems

22

15

Summery

25

16

A New Look at Repairing Corrosion Damaged

Concrete

26

17

Corrosion Protection System

27

18

Structural Reinforcement

29

19

Conclusion & References

32

GUJARAT
TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY
INDUSTRY DEFINED PROBLEM/PROJECT (IDP)
STATEMENT FORM

STUDENT PARTICULAR
FIRST NAME
: Jay
LAST NAME : Amin
MOB NO
: 8128132697
EMAIL
: jay.amin12@yahoo.com
COLLAGE NAME

SIGMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

& ENGINEERING, (POLYTECHNIC)

ADD

At.bakrol, ajwa nimeta road, Ta: Waghodia, Dist.: Vadodara, Gujarat, India

BRANCH
: CIVIL
SEMESTRE YEAR
: 6TH SEM
SIGNATURE OF :
STUDENT
INDUSTRY PARTICULAR
NAME
:
CONTECT ADD :
MOBILE NO
:
EMAIL
:
----------------INDUSTRY--------------------NAME
:
ADD
:

INTRODUCTION
Steel-reinforced concrete is widely used in construction. The corrosion of the steel
reinforcingbars(rebars) in concrete limits the life of concrete structures. It is one of the main causes for
thedeterioration of the civil infrastructure. Corrosion occurs in the steel regardless
oftheinherentcapacity of concrete to protect the steel fromcorrosion; accelerated corrosion results from
the loss of alkalinity in the concrete or the penetration of aggressive ions (such as chloride ions).
Methods of corrosion control of steel-reinforced concrete include cathodic pro- ection,
surfacetreatments of the rebars (epoxycoating, galvanizing, copper cladding, protective rustgrowth,
surface oxidation, and sandblasting).

STEEL SURFACE TREATMENT

Steel rebars are made of mild steel because of low cost. (Stainless steel is excellent in corrosion
resistance, but its high cost makes it impractical for use in concrete.) The coating of a steel rebar with
epoxy is commonly used to improve corrosionresistance, but it degrades the bond between rebar and
concrete, and the tendency of the epoxy coating to debond is a problem.Furthermore, the cut ends of
therebar and areas of the rebar where the epoxy coating is damaged are not protected from corrosion.
On the other hand, galvanized steel attains corrosion protection byits zinc coating,which acts as a
sacrificial anode. Galvanized steel bonds to concrete better than epoxy-coated steel,and the tendency of
the coating to debond is also less. Areas of the rebar where the zinc coating is damaged are still
protected; theexposed areas, such as the cut ends, are protected provided they are less than 8 mm from
the zinc coating.Steel surface treatments that improve both corrosion resis-tance and bond strength are
attractive. They include sandblasting and surface oxi- dation.
Sandblasting involves discharging ceramic particles (typically alumina particlesaround 250 m)
under pressure (about 80 psi or 0.6 MPa). It results in rougheningas well as cleaning the surface of the
steel rebar. Cleaning relates to the removal of rust and other contaminants on the surface, as a steel
rebar is usually covered byrust and other contaminants. Cleaning causes the surface of the rebar to be
more uniform in composition, which improves corrosion resistance. Roughening enhances the
mechanical interlocking between rebar and concrete, thus increasing bond strength. Water immersion

means total immersion of the rebar in water at room temper- ature for two days. It causes the formation
of a black oxide layer on the surface of the rebar, thus enhancing the composition uniformity of the
surface and improvincorrosionresistance.I addition, the oxide layer enhances the adhesion between
rebar and concrete, thereby increasing bond strength. Water immersion times that are less than or
greater than two days yield less desirable effects on both bond strength and corrosion resistance. Steel
rebars can also be coated with a corrosion-inhibiting cement slurry or a cement-polymer composite for
corrosion protection.Of all the methods described for treating the surface of steel rebar, the most widely

used are epoxy coating and galvanizing because of their long history of usage.

ADMIXTURES IN CONCRETE
The methods and materials for corrosion control of steel-reinforced concrete are reviewed. The
methods are steel surface treatment, the use of admixturesin concrete, surface coating on concrete, and
cathodic protection.Admixtures are solids or liquids that are added to a concrete mix to improve
theproperties of the resulting concrete. Admixtures that enhance the corrosion resistance of steel
reinforced concrete include those that are primarily for corrosion inhibition The latter are attractive
because of multifunctionality. The former are mostly inorganic chemicals (such as calcium
nitrite,copper oxide, zinc oxide, sodium thiocyanate, and alkaline earth silicate) that increase the
alkalinity of the concrete, although they can be organic chemicals such as banana juice. Admixtures
primarily for structural property improvement can be solid particles such as silica fume, yash and slag,
and solid particle dispersions such as latex. Silica fume as an admixture is particularly effective for
improving the corrosion resistance of steel-reinforced concrete due to the decrease in the water
absorptivity, and not so much because of the increase in electrical resistivity.Latex improves corrosion
resistance because it decreases water absorptivity and increases electrical resistivity. Methylcellulose
improves corrosion resistance only slightly.
Car-bon fibers decrease corrosion resistance due to a decrease in electrical resistivity.However,
the negative effect of the carbon fibers can be compensated by adding either silica fume or latex, which
reduce water absorptivity.The corrosion resis- tance of carbon fiber-reinforced concrete, which typically
contains silica fume forimproving fiber dispersion, is superior to that of plain concrete. shows the
effects of silica fume, latex, methylcellulose, and short carbon fibers as admixtures on the corrosion
potential (E, measured according toASTM C876 using a high-impedance voltmeter and a saturated
calomel electrode placed on the concrete surface; E that is more negative than 270 mV suggests 90%
probability of active corrosion) and the corrosion current density (I , deter- mined by measuring the
polarization resistance at a low scan rate of 0.167 mV/s) of steel-reinforced concrete in both saturated
Ca(OH) and 0.5 N NaCl solutions. The saturated Ca(OH) solution simulates the ordinary concrete
environment; the NaCl solution represents a high-chloride environment. Silica fume improves the
corrosion resistance of rebars in concrete in both saturated Ca(OH) and NaCl solutions more effectively
than any of the other admixtures, although latex is effec- tive. Methylcellulose slightly improves the
corrosion resistance of rebar in concrete in Ca(OH) solution. Carbon fibers decrease the corrosion
resistance of rebars in concrete, mainly because they decrease the electrical resistivity of concrete. The
negative effect of fibers can be compensated by either silica fume or latex. Instead of using a corrosioninhibiting admixture in the entire volume of con- crete, one may use the admixture to modify the
cement slurry that is used as a coating on the steel rebar. Compared to the use of rebars that have been
either epoxy coated or galvanized, this method suffers from its labor-intensive site-oriented process. On

the other hand, the use of a shop-coating based on a cement-polymer composite is an emerging
alternative.Of all the admixtures described for improving the corrosion resistance of steel-reinforced
concrete, the most widely used are calcium nitrite, silica fume, and latex.

CATHODIC PROTECTION
Cathodic protection is an effective method for corrosion control of steel-reinforced concrete. It
involves the application of a voltage to force electrons to go to the steel rebar, thereby making the steel
a cathode. As the voltage needs to be constantly applied, the electrical energy consumption is
substantial. This can be alleviated by the use of carbon fiber-reinforced concrete. As the steel rebar is
embedded in concrete, the electrons need to go through the concrete in order to reach the rebar.
However, concrete is not very conducting electrically. The use of carbon fiber-reinforced concrete for
embedding the rebar facilitates cathodic protection, as the short carbon fibers enhance the conductivity
of the concrete. For directing electrons to the steel-reinforced concrete, an electrical contact that is
connected to the voltage supply is needed on the concrete.
One choice of an electrical contact material is zinc, a coating deposited on the concrete by
thermal spraying. It has a very low volume resistivity (thus requiring no metal mesh embed- ment), but
it suffers from poor wear and corrosion resistance, the tendency to oxidize, high thermal expansion
coefficient, and high material and processing costs. Another choice is a conductor-filled polymer, that
can be applied as a coating without heating, but it suffers from poor wear resistance, higher thermal
expansion coeffi- cient, and high material cost. Yet another choice is a metal (e.g., titanium) strip or
wire embedded at one end in cement mortar that is in the form of a coating on the steel-reinforced
concrete. The use of carbon fiber-reinforced mortar for this coating facilitates cathodic protection, as it
is advantageous to enhance its conductivity.
Due to the decrease in volume electrical resistivity associated with carbon fiber addition (0.35
vol. %) to concrete, concrete containing carbon fibers and silica fume reduces the driving voltage
required for cathodic protection by 18% compared to plain concrete, and by 28% compared to concrete
with silica fume. Because of the decrease in resistivity associated with carbon fiber addition (1.1 vol.
%) to mortar, overlay (embedding titanium wires for electrical contacts to steel-reinforced con- crete) in
the form of mortar containing carbon fibers and latex reduces the driving voltage required for cathodic
protection by 10% compared to plain mortar overlay. In spite of the low resistivity of mortar overlay
with carbon fibers, cathodic protection requires multiple metal electrical contacts embedded in the
mortar at a spacing of 11 cm or less.

STEEL REPLACEMENT
The replacement of steel rebars by fiber-reinforced polymer rebars is an emerging technology that is
attractive because of the corrosion resistance of fiber-reinforced polymer. However, this technology
suffers from high cost, the poor bonding between concrete and the fiber-reinforced polymer rebar, and
the low ductility o the fiber-reinforced polymer.

Cement
We used the same brand Typ e I/II cement for Phase II as was used in Phase I. The chemical analysis of the
cement in Table 4.1 is for the Phase I cement and was provided by the supplier.
Ignition Loss 0.90%
Insoluble Residue 0.30%

Steel Reinforcement
Reinforcement was No. 4, Grade 60 rebar. Bars were purchased from the same manufactur er as for
the Phase I research. The bars for Phase II were all from the same production lot to maintain similar
material properties. The manufacturer providedmechanical and chemical analysis for the reinforcement for
the Phase I rebar but not for those of Phase II. Table 4.2 has d ata fo r the Phase I rebar. It was assumed that
the steel from Phases I and II did not have significant differences.

Deicing Salt
ConnDot provided the deicing salt for this project. Its chemical content was primarily sodium
chloride. This salt was mixed into a 15% sodium chloride solution (approximate solution found on bridge
decks). To aid dissolving of the salt in solution, the salt wascrushed into smaller particles and mixed with
hot water. The solution was then stirredvigorously for approximately 30 seconds. This solution stood for at
least one day toallow settlement of impurities and undissolved salt and then filtered through a No. 200sieve.
The filtered solution was stored in five-gallon plastic containers.

CONCRETE MIXES
A good quality, air-entrained concrete was used in both phases of the study as a control to compare
the corrosion inhibiting characteristics of the commercial and prototypeinhibitors.

Mix Design
Aggregate
Properties Coarse Agg regate Fine Aggregate
Bulk Specific Gravity (dry) 2.88 2.73
Absorption 1.29% 0.85%
To provide the water/cement ratio specified by ConnDOT (assuming it is based upon saturatedsurface-dry aggregates), additional batch water was added to account for the absorption of the oven-dried
coarse and fine aggregates. The b atch water was also adjusted to account for the water contained in the
corrosion inhibiting solutions, excluding the Inhibitor B mixes, which did not need adjusting per
instructions from the manufacturer. The mix proportions were the same as in Phase I. To remain consistent
with the Phase I program, the maximum water/cement, w/c, ratio was set at 0.44 with a slump of 4 inches.
The slump obviously depended greatly on the amount of water present in the mixture.
However, some admixtures also affected the consistency of the mixture. An advantage of some
admixtures is that they allow the desired consistency to be reached while maintaining a lower w/c ratio.
Additionally, the cement content can have an affect on the performance of some inhibitors. These factors
led to the conclusion that the amount of cement in the mixture should be held constant, not the w/c ratio.
Therefore, to achieve the proper consistency the w/c ratios for the new study varied from 0.38 to 0.45.

The average was 0.427 while the median value was 0.44. Only one mix had the value of 0.45,
exceeding the limit, but the mix was still used due to the minimal divergence from the maximum. The
intended maximum slump for the mixtures was 4.0 inches.
In order to maintain individual mix characteristics, the slumps were allowed to vary. All values
were below the maximum and ranged from 1.0 to 3.5 inches. When the consistency is affected by the
admixtures it is possible that the set time of the mixture could also be altered. For the new study, the set
times of the mixes were measured. The results of this testing are in Section 5.2.3.
The air content of concrete mixtures must also be controlled to achiev e a desired product. The
DAS and DSS mixes did not use any air entraining admix ture. The commercial inhibitors and the control
mixes used air entraining admixtures per recommendations of the manufacturers. The air content is
recommended to be 7.5% with a range of 1% to +2% for concrete with a maximum aggregate size of 3/8
inch and exposure to severe conditions [40]. All but two mixes were within this range. Th e deviant
mixes were both below the lower limit. Batch sizes were 1.0, 1.1, and 1.25 c.f., depending on the number o f
specimens required for testing. Table 4.4 shows the mix proportions for the corrosion specimens.

The prevention of corrosion

on structural steelwork
The cost effective corrosion protection of structural steelwork should present little diffi culty
for common applications and environments if the factors that affect durability are recognised at the
outset. This note aims to give specifi ers an insight into the factors involved. In dry heated interiors no
special precautions are necessary. Where precautions are required modern durable protective coatings
are available which, when used appropriately, provide extended maintenance intervals and improved
performance.

The corrosion process

Most corrosion of steel can be considered as an electrochemical process that occurs in a series
ofconsecutive stages. The details of this process can be summarised by the following equation:4Fe + 3O2 +2H 2O = 2Fe2 O2 H2 O
Iron/Steel) + (Oxygen) + (Water) = Rust From this it can be seen that for iron and steel to corrode it is
necessary to have the simultaneous presence of water and oxygen. In the absence of either, corrosion does
not occur.

What affects the rate of corrosion?

The principle factors that determine the rate of corrosion of steel in air are the time of wetness and the
presence of atmospheric pollution typically present as suplhates and chlorides.
Time of wetness
This is the proportion of total time during which the surface is wet, due to rainfall, condensation, etc.
Sulphates
These originate from sulphur dioxide gas that is produced during the combustion of fossil fuels.
Chlorides
These are mainly present in marine environments. The highest concentrations of chlorides are to be found in
coastal regions and there is a rapid reduction when moving inland.
Both sulphates and chlorides increase corrosion rates. They react with the surface of the
steel to produce soluble salts of iron that can concentrate in pits and are themselves corrosive.
Because of variations in atmospheric environments, corrosion rate data cannot be generalised,
however, environments and corresponding corrosion rates are broadly classifi ed in BS EN ISO 12944
Part 2 and ISO 9223
The effect of design on corrosion prevention
In external or wet environments, design can have an important bearing on the corrosion of steel
structures. In dry heated interiors no special precautions are necessary. The prevention of corrosion should
therefore be taken into account during the design stage of a project. The main points to be considered are:
To avoid the entrapment of moisture and dirt
The key here is to avoid the creation of cavities and crevices; so welded joints are preferable to
bolted joints. Lap joints should be avoided or sealed where possible. Additionally drainage holes to
prevent standing water may have to be incorporated.
Coating application
The design should ensure that the selected protective coatings can be applied effi ciently.
Typically this might involve ensuring adequate access for painting or adding drain/vent holes to sealed
components, which will be subject to hot dip galvaniz ing.
The application of protective coatings
Surface Preparation:The surface preparation of steel is concerned with the removal of mill-scale, rust and other
contaminants to provide a satisfactory substrate for coating and is generally considered to be a two stage
process.
The first stage of any surface preparation is to remove residues of grease, oil or marking inks.
The second stage is to remove any mill scale and rust and is generally done by either hand and power tool
cleaning or abrasive blast cleaning.

Painting
Painting is the principle method of protecting structural steelwork from corrosion.
Paints are made by mixing, pigments (the coloured part), binders (the film forming component) and
solvent (which dissolves the binder).

the

Paints are usually applied one coat on top of another and each coat has a specific function or purpose.
The primer is applied directly onto the cleaned steel surface. Its purpose is to wet the surface and to
provide good adhesion for subsequently applied coats. In the case of primers for steel surfaces, these
are also usually required to provide corrosion inhibition.
The intermediate coats (or undercoats) are applied to build the total film thickness of the system.
Generally, the thicker the coating the longer the life and this may involve the application of several coats.
The finishing coats provide the first line of defence against the environment and also determine the final
appearance in terms of gloss, colour, etc.
Hot dip galvanizing.
The most common method of applying a metal coating to structural steel is by hot-dip galvanizing.
Following surface preparation as described earlier the galvanizing process involves the following stages:
i. The cleaned steel is immersed in a uxing agent to ensure good contact between the steel and zinc
during the galvanizing process.
ii. The cleaned and uxed steel is dipped into a bath of molten zinc at a temperature of about 450C. At this
temperature, the steel reacts with the molten zinc to form a series of zinc/iron alloys integral with the steel
surface.
iii. As the steel workpiece is removed from the bath, a layer of relatively pure zinc is deposited on top of
the alloy layers.
As the zinc solidifies it usually assumes a crystalline metallic lustre, often referred to as spangling.
The thickness of the galvanized coating is in uenced by various factors including the size and
thickness of the workpiece, the steel surface chemistry and the surface preparation of the steel.
Weathering Steels
Weathering steels are high strength, low alloy weldable structural steels that possess good
weather resistance min many atmospheric conditions without the need for protective coatings. They
contain up to 2.5% of alloying elements, e.g. chromium, copper, nickel and phosphorous. On exposure to
air, under suitable conditions, they form an adherent protective rust patina.
This acts as a protective layer that, with time, causes the corrosion rate to reduce until it reaches a
low terminal level, usually between 2-5 years.

Key Points
1. In dry heated interiors no special precautions are necessary.
2. The corrosion of steel can be considered as an electrochemical process
3. For steel to corrode it is necessary to have the simultaneous presence of water and oxygen.
4. The principle factors that determine the rate of corrosion of steel in air are the time of wetness and
the presence of atmospheric pollution.
5. The prevention of corrosion should therefore be taken into account during the design stage of a project.
6. Painting is the principle method of protecting structural steelwork from corrosion.
7. Hot dip galvanizing is the most common method of applying a metal coating to structural steel
8. Weathering steels are high strength, low alloy weldable structural steels that possess good weather

CORROSION PROTECTION PHILOSOPHY

Site conditions must be carefully evaluated before choosing a corrosion control methodology.
Factors such as location of the structure, aggressiveness of the environment at the site, condition and
chloride content of the existing structure, local materials quality and level of maintenance must be taken
into consideration when formulating a corrosion protection plan. The following is a discussion of the
individual aspects of TxDOT s comprehensive corrosion protection philosophy.
Epoxy Coated Reinforcing Steel
TxDOT currently utilizes epoxy-coated reinforcing steel in almost all structures where increased
durability is desired. Whether the structure is in a northern location in the state (where it is subject to
deicing salts from above) or a coastal environment (where warm saltwater is in contact from below)
determines the ex tent of use of epoxy-coated reinforcing steel in the superstructure and substructure.
Epoxy coating increases the cost of the steel reinforcement by 25 to 50 percent. Coastal structures such as
the Redfish Bay and Morris and Cummings Cut Bridges near Corpus Christi, Texas utilized epoxy-coated
reinforcement throughout both the superstructure and substructure for a total bridge cost increase of about
1.8 percent.
Attention to detail is important for effective performance of epoxy-coated reinforcement. Bends in
the epoxy-coated reinforcing bars are avoided if possible. In slabs, both top and bottom mats of reinforcing
are usually epoxy-coated unless precast concrete panels are used to form the bottom of the slab. Epoxycoated bars and uncoated bars should not be mixed in a reinforced concrete member. CTR s tests revealed
increased corrosion in uncoated bars near their intersection with coated bars in some of the specimens.
Care in the fabrication, handling, storage and placement is important for the successful performance
of epoxy coated reinforcement. Ensuring that the finished epoxy coated reinforcement product meets
TxDOT Materials Specification requirements, that the product arrives on site in good condition, that it is
stored properly on site and it is installed carefully with all visible damaged patched properly are all
important functions of the TxDOT inspection team. TxDOT has seen a substantial increase in the quality of

epoxy coated reinforcement over the last few years, due in part to vigilant inspection.

Cement and Increased Concrete Cover over the Reinforcing Steel

Many times, both sulfates and chlorides are present in an aggressive environment, such as sea water.
TxDOT specifies Type II cement for any structure where durability in a sulfate exposure environment is a
concern. The depth of concrete cover over the reinforcing steel, neglecting effects of cracking, is directly
related to the time it takes for the chlorides to penetrate to the level of the reinforcing steel and initiate
corrosion. Increasing the amount of concrete cover over the reinforcing steel, taking into account the\
location in the structure and the effects the increased depth of cover will have on flexural crack width, is one
method utilized to protect the reinforcing steel. Type II cement increases the resistance of the concrete to
sulfate attack in an attempt to keep the cover intact to protect the reinforcing steel.
Decreased Permeability
Decreasing the concrete permeability is vital in increasing the durability of a reinforced concrete
structure. As concrete permeability decreases, the time it takes forchlorides to penetrate to the reinforcing
steel level and initiate corrosion increases. Lowered permeability can be achieved by lowering the
water/cement ratio or with the addition of fly ash or silica fume to the concrete mix. The presence of fly ash
or silica fume lowers the permeability of the concrete by filling up the interstitial spaces between the cement
particles with the smaller fly ash or silica fume particles. TxDOT has routinely allowed the contractor the
option of replacing 20 to 35 percent of the cement with fly ash for economy. On a few experimental
projects recently, TxDOT has specified concrete permeability instead of a mix design to allow the contractor
more latitude to achieve the desired result. In these cases, fly ash was necessary to achieve the required
permeability value. Silica Fume has been tried on a couple of projects but concrete workability and
finishing problems and cost associated with it have prevented its use by nTxDOT on any more than a trial
basis.
Moderately lowering the water/cement ratio can also lower concrete permeability however, lowering
the water/cement ratio too much can also cause problems. For example, greatly reducing the water/cement
ratio in a bridge deck through the use of high range water reducers to maintain workability can lead to
excessive plastic shrinkage cracking on the surface and thus actually lead to increased permeability.

Corrosion-Inhibiting Admixtures
An inorganic corrosion-inhibiting admixture, calcium nitrite, has been used on a limited basis to
deter corrosion of the reinforcing steel once chlorides have penetrated to the reinforcing bar level. This
admixture is considered a set accelerator by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) and it
can change the workability characteristics of the mix. In warm climates, such as in Texas, a set retarding
admixture is usually necessary when calcium nitrite is used in the mix to maintain a suitable time period to
place and finish the concrete. Product information from the supplier indicate s calcium nitrite works best
when the water/cement ratio is less than 0.40 but this usually requires the use of a superplasticizing admix
ture. Also, the effectiveness of calcium nitrite is greatly diminished with water/cement ratios above 0.45.
The mix usually does not release bleed water so continuous fog misting during finishing operations is also
necessary. Through experience, it has been determined at TxDOT that a moderately low dosage rate of
calcium nitrite, about 2 gallons per cubic yard of concrete, achieves a good balance between corrosion
protection and maintaining concrete workability.

Concrete Sealers
TxDOT has also sponsored studies on a number of concrete sealers and has tried several of them in
the field. Some of the best results have been achieved with silane and siloxane penetrating concrete sealers
and these are sometimes used on bridge decks in the northern parts of the State. Sealer penetration in most
cases is only a few millimeters and they must be reapplied on the surface of bridge decks every few years to
maintain their effectiveness. Achieving the required sealer penetration on reduced permeability concrete
can be difficult.
Epoxy waterproofing is sometimes used on interior bent or abutment caps under open joints in the
bridge slab to provide another layer of protection to the substructure in aggressive environments. Following
proper application procedures is essential to the successful performance of this barrier.
Cathodic Protection Systems
TxDOT ex periences with cathodic protection systems have been less than favorable. For example,
in October of 1988, five (5) different cathodic protection systems were installed and monitored on the U.S.
87 Missouri-Pacific Railroad overpass structure in Big Spring, Texas. The types of systems, location in the
structure and the results of monitoring are shown in Table 1.
Improvements in cathodic protection systems since 1988 have led TxDOT to revisit the issue. The
Queen Isabella Causeway, in Port Isabel, Texas, has been retrofitted with four different cathodic protection
systems. The systems have been installed during the past year and data is unavailable.
Cathodic protection is not a corrosion protection method used by TxDOT currently and there are no
plans for its use in the future. TxDOT s limited experience with in- service performance of cathodic
protection has been poor. The cost to install and maintain these systems compared to bridge rehabilitation
and replacement costs in Texas are high.
Construction Details
Construction details are an important method used by TxDOT to lessen the impact of aggressive
environments on highway structures. Sealed joints, sealed expansion joints or eliminating some or all of the
joints altogether in the bridge deck help to protect the substructure from chloride contaminated water
draining down from above. The key is to minimize, as much as possible, the conditions under which
corrosion can initiate and progress. Drip pans to catch runoff and avoiding details that could pond water are
good insurance against corrosion induced damage. If chloride contaminated water must contact the
structure, then it should be drained from the structure as quickly as practical. Joints between precast
elements or cold joints between cast-in-place parts should be as watertight as possible.

Prevention of coating in corrosion

Steel in concrete is usually protected against corrosion by passivation of the steel arising from the
high alkalinity of the pore solutions within the concrete. A stable oxide layer is formed on the steel surface
which prevents the anodic dissolution of iron. Loss of durability in reinforced concrete only occurs if this
stable oxide layer is rendered unstable (if depassivation occurs) due to the ingress of chlorides to the
steel/concrete interface or carbonation of the concrete reducing the alkalinity of the pore solution at the
steel/concrete interface. Durable reinforced concrete therefore must be designed to resist carbonation and to
exclude chlorides from any source [1]. Reinforcing steel should be embedded in concrete specified in
accordance with current standards. In particular the mix design and minimum cover must be observed and
suited to corrosivity of environment. In many cases this will provide sufficient corrosion protection to the
reinforcing steel, provided that the concrete is correctly placed, compacted and cured.
Nevertheless there is significant evidence that some of these conditions are not fulfilled and that
problems of steel and concrete deterioration are due either to inadequate design or to incorrect site practice.
There are circumstances in which it is difficult to achieve the specified design life without additional
corrosion protection measures. Problems arise if

the concrete cover and the concrete quality is - by design or otherwise - reduced relative to the
necessary values for the surrounding environmental conditions (e. g. by extreme filigree elements);

special structures have to be erected, e. g. connections between precast and cast in place elements or
heat insulated joints between the structure and external structural elements (e. g. balconies);

non-dense or dense lightweight concrete is designed to reach a required thermal insulation as well as
low ownweight;

structures are exposed to high concentrations of chlorides (e. g. in marine structures and bridge or
parking decks due to the use of deicing salts).

In such cases designers may consider modifications to the concrete mix design in order to decrease
permeability. Coatings and surface treatments to limit chloride ingress into the concrete, the use of corrosion
protected reinforcement and of more corrosion resistant materials for the reinforcement (e. g. stainless
steels) and addition of inhibitors to the fresh concrete and cathodic prevention by impressed current my also
be considered. This publication gives a survey of corrosion protection of reinforcement that prevent or
retard corrosion and which might be proposed and used for new structures but also as preventive and as
repair measures for existing reinforced concrete structures.
Application of coated reinforcement
Epoxy coating is one of the most widely used techniques for protecting reinforcing bars against
corrosion inside the concrete. The effectiveness of and Japan [6]. Later this method has spread also to
Canada, Middle East and Europe. Epoxy-coated rebar has been in frequent use in the United States since the
mid-1970s. There the main application is in the decks of highway bridges subject to deicing salts but all
over the world the product has also been used as reinforcement in many other fields of concrete
constructions e. g. garages, substructures of marine bridges and offshore structures. The consumption of
epoxy-coated reinforcement in USA has increased gradually to about 250.000 tons yearly in 1990. In

Europe the application concentrates on single projects.

Manufacture of the coating

There are two types of epoxy-coatings: liquid and powder coatings. Because of better corrosion
protection efficiency [7] electrostatic spraying of epoxy powder to the straight lengths of rebar currently
accounts for the majority of coated rebar. After cleaning the steel by abrasive blasting in electrostatic
spraying the electrically charged powder particles are sprayed onto a preheated steel surface (+230C)
where they melt to form an even and uniform powder film. After a heat catalysed irreversible reaction the
powder starts to gel. After the film is solidified the coated bars are cooled in water or air.
As a result an uniform coating without pores and cracks is the best. Experiences showed that fusion
bonded epoxy-coatings render rather even thicknesses, even across the ribs on ribbed bars.
With regard to failures in application of epoxy-coated bars in substructure of marine bridges some
producer use chromated bars to improve adhesion between steel and epoxy.
Mode of action
The purpose of the coating is to isolate and insulate the steel from the corrosive environment. The
coating act solely as a barrier against the environment. The epoxy-coatings used today to protect reinforcing
steel contain no corrosion inhibitive pigments.
To provide adequate protection the coatings should have a minimum thickness. Nevertheless it
should not be so thick that it empedes flexibility and bonding of the coating between steel surface and
concrete: According to US standard ASTM A 775-81 the thickness of epoxy powder coating in order to
fulfil flexibility, bonding and corrosion protection requirements should be between130m and 300m.
If there are defects on the coating through which aggressive agents can penetrate the barrier,
corrosion concentrates on these areas. Integrity of the coating therefore is essential for effective corrosion
protection. The film therefore must be free from pores, cracks and damaged areas.
Properties of coating
Owing to their chemical composition epoxy resins exhibit several physical properties such as high
ductility, small shrinkage in polymerisation, good abrasion resistance, good heat resistance and outstanding
adhesion on metal surfaces if sufficiently pretreated.
Epoxy resins normally exhibit good durability against solvents, chemicals and water. The long-term
durability of most epoxy-coatings in concrete are good. Thin epoxy coatings until 250m are not
completely impermeable to oxygen and moisture, but diffusion ca be reduced by sufficient thickness and
density. Chloride permeability in a defect free coating is considerably lower than that of water vapour and
oxygen if a powder epoxy-coating has a thickness of 130- 250m [7].
Epoxy-coatings have no electrically but a electrolytical conductivity in the presence of water and/or
increased temperatures. Areas beyond the coating can act as anodes and cathodes of corrosion elements if
adhesion is removed. But

the epoxy-coating will not soften or deteriorate in the highly alkaline environment,

it has an excellent adhesion to a well pretreated steel reinforcement, ensuring no delamination as a

result of corrosion forces.

Corrosion protection behavior

In numerous accelerated corrosion tests on natural exposure epoxy-coated and untreated or in other
way protected steel bar reinforcement have been compared. Sound epoxy-coating provided considerable
long-term protection to the steel when exposed in carbonated concrete and concrete with a high
concentration of chloride. The use of epoxy-coatings free of essential defects guarantees complete
protection in carbonated concrete and a significant reduction in the rate of deterioration of reinforced
concrete containing high levels of chloride.
The corrosion prevention ability of liquid epoxy-coatings is not quite as good as that of powder
epoxy-coatings. Liquid coatings may have many holidays or are more permeable to water and/or chloride
ions.
Cracks in the concrete did not increase corrosion of epoxy-coated bars with an undamaged coating.
However, the use of coatings in chloride containing concrete does not provide complete protection.
Corrosion of the steel may be initiated at breaks in the film. In concrete with high levels of chloride an
attack was observed to be spreading from points of defect in the coating. There was very little bonding
between the steel an the coating. Film disponding appears to be a consequence of a cathodically controlled
underfilm corrosion [10]. This caused a systematic break-down of the coating and cracking of concrete.
These results indicate that epoxy barrier coatings may have a finite tolerance limit for chlorides.

Cathodic Protection as a Corrosion Control Alternative

corrosion of reinforcing steel in con- crete is a widespread and enormously costly problem in all
parts of the United States. Numerous concrete structures including bridge decks and substructures, parking
garages, balconies and others are deteriorating as a result of reinforcing steel corrosion. Virtually any
reinforced concrete structure is susceptible to the ravages of cor- rosion if subjected to the right
environment.
The corrosion process that takes place in concrete is electrochemical in nature, very similar to a
battery. Electrochemical corro- sion is corrosion which is accompanied by a flow of electrons between
cathodic and anodic areas on a metal surface. In concrete the electro-chemical corrosion reactions are most
often triggered when three factors chloride, oxygen and moisturemeet at the reinforcing steel surface. A
sort of natural battery develops within the reinforced con- crete structure, generating a low-level inters- nal
electrical current. The points where this current leaves the metal surface and enters the concrete electrolyte
are called anodes. The current leaving the concrete and return- ing to the steel does so at the cathodes. Corrosion or oxidation (rust) occurs only at an- odes.
When corrosion of reinforcing steel oc- curs, the rust products occupy more volume than the original
steel, causing tension forces in the concrete. Since concrete is relatively weak in tension, cracks soon
develop as shown in Figure 1, exposing the steel to even more chlorides, oxygen and moistureand the
corrosion process accelerates. As corro- sion continues, delaminationsseparations within the concrete and
parallel to the sur- face of the concrete occur. Delaminations are usually located at, or near, the level of
reinforcing steel. Eventually concrete chunks break away or spall off.

Visual signs of corrosion-induced dam- age on many types of reinforced concrete structures are
becoming more and more prevalent. In many parts of the country one can hardly drive across a bridge or
enter a parking garage that doesnt have some de- gree of corrosion damage.
The rate of concrete deterioration at any given time is dependent on many factors in- cluding
corrosion rate, reinforcing steel con- centration, concrete properties, cover and the environment, to name a
few. Once corrosion has begun there is one thing for certainit will only get worse and it will do so at an
ever-increasing rate. Ultimately, if corrosion is allowed to continue, structural integritycan be compromised
due to loss of section of the reinforcing steel and/or loss of bond between the steel and the concrete, and replacement may be the only solution.
In order to mitigate or control a corro- sion problem (provide low future mainte- nance and long
term protection) specific in- formation is needed for any given structure. Fortunately, proven technology and
scien- tific methods are available to evaluate cor- rosion of reinforcing steel (and other em- bedded metals)
and associated damage on reinforced concrete structures. These tech- niques are designed to determine the
extent of damage, define the corrosion state of steel in undamaged areas, evaluate the cause, or causes, of
corrosion, and determine the po- tential for the steel to corrode in the future resulting in further damage. It is
only after this information is obtained through a de- tailed corrosion condition evaluation that a suitable
repair and protection specification can be developed for a corrosion-plagued structure. It is important to
point out that con- crete itself can deteriorate regardless of the condition of embedded reinforcement. Examples of this include freeze/thaw damage and alkali-silica reactions. Various concrete tests are therefore
often conducted as part of an overall evaluation.
Although there are similarities between corrosion of conventionally reinforced con- crete structures
and pre-tensioned or post- tensioned structures, the majority of this ar- ticle applys to conventionally
reinforced concrete structures only, particularly with respect to the applicability of cathodic pro- tection.

Cathodic Protection
What is cathodic protection? Simply put, cathodic protection (CP) is a widely used and effective
method of corrosion control. Many people, engineers included, think ca- thodic protection is some kind of
voodoo. Others believe CP is so complicated and expensive that it has no practical use in the concrete
rehabilitation industry. Then there are those who say CP doesnt work or that it is unreliable in the long
term. The facts, how- ever, show that CP is not so complicated, is often the most cost-effective course of action, has practical application on reinforced concrete structures, and that it most defi- nitely works. Of
course, performance of CP systems, like all other corrosion protection systems, is directly dependent on
sound specifications, proper installation, and moni- toring and maintenance. With CP, one can- not simply
install it and forget it. Good long term performance of all CP systems requires good monitoring and
maintenance proce- dures, a reason why CP is sometimes dis- counted as an alternative protection system.

What some investigators and specifiers ap- parently dont recognize is that there is no such thing as a
corrosion protection system which does not require periodic inspection and maintenance. In fact, some
corrosion protection systems actually require periodic replacement or reapplication.

For decades, cathodic protection has been successfully used to protect pipelines, ship hulls, off shore
oil platforms, heat exchang- ers, underground tanks, and many other fa- cilities exposed to a corrosive
environment. Granted, its first application to steel in con- crete was only in 1973, but weve come a long
way since then. Cathodic protection of steel in concrete is simply a means of fight- ing fire with fire, or in
this case, electricity with electricity. The corrosion process gen- erates electric currents. Cathodic protection
supplies a source of external current to coun- teract the corrosion current. Hence, corro- sion stops, or at
least is greatly minimized.
After millions of dollars of research in the areas of corrosion of steel in concrete and corrosion
mitigation, ca- thodic protection evolved as the only technique which could positively arrest corrosion of
steel in existing concrete struc - tures. In fact, some time ago the Federal Highway Admin- istration
(FHWA) acknowl- edged that cathodic protection was the only rehabilitation technique that had proven to
stop corrosion in salt-contami- nated bridge decks regardless of the chloride content in the concrete. It
should be noted, however, that CP is not always needed nor is it applicable on every structure. More on this
later.

Types of CP Systems
Cathodic protection systems can be grouped into two basic types; impressed current sys- tems and
galvanic, or sacrificial anode, sys- tems. In both types of systems, the reinforc- ing steel is forced to function
as a cathode, hence the name cathodic protection. Anodes and cathodes exist on a corroding rebar and
corrosion occurs at the anode, but with CP an auxiliary anode is used to force the en- tire rebar to function
as a cathode.
Impressed current cathodic protection is achieved by driving a low voltage direct current from a
relatively inert anode mate- rial, through the concrete to the reinforcing steel. Figure 2 shows the basic
layout re- quired for impressed current cathodic pro- tection systems. Direct current of sufficient magnitude
and direction is applied, so as to oppose the natural flow of current resulting from the electrochemical
corrosion process. The direct current is supplied by an external power source, most often a CP rectifier. Recently, the use of solar power has received attention and research is underway.
Galvanic, or sacrificial anode, cathodic protection is based on the principles of dis- similar metal
corrosion and the relative po- sition of specific metals in the galvanic se- ryes. No external power source is
needed with this type of system and much less main- tenancy is required. Such systems also pro- vide
protective current primarily to areas on the steel surface which need it the most. However, the relatively
high resistivity of concrete led to early opinions that the low driving voltage provided by such systems
would be inadequate for cathodic protection of steel in concrete. Actual research and test- ing of galvanic
CP systems has thus been limited, except in Florida. The Florida De- partment of Transportation has
conducted extensive research and has reported much success in the use of galvanic anode CP sys- tems on
bridge substructure members in marine environments. This can probably be attributed to the lower
resistance moist con- crete found in marine substructures and in- novative CP designs.
The zinc on galvanized reinforcing steel functions as a sacrificial anode much the same way as zinc
in a sacrificial anode CP system does. In this case, the steel is pro- tected by the zinc from the day the rebar

is galvanized. However, once all the zinc is consumed, the base steel will be susceptible to corrosion in the
same way as plain rein- forcing steel.
Another example of a sacrificial anode in concrete is aluminum (for example, bal- cony railings) in
contact with reinforcing steel. This situation is similar to galvanized reinforcing steel, although it is not a
favor- able or intentional application of sacrificial anode protection. It is well known that cor- rosion of
embedded aluminum in concrete can occur and crack the concrete. The situa- tion can be made worse,
however, if the alu- minum is in contact with reinforcing steel. Aluminum, being more active than steel, can
act as a sacrificial anode to protect the rein- forcing. Hence, misapplication or acciden- Tal application of
sacrificial anodes can have undesirable consequences.

As stated earlier, cathodic protection has evolved as the only proven procedure for effectively
mitigating and controlling cor- rosion of steel in existing chloride-contami- nated conventionally reinforced
concrete structures. The characteristics, relevant de- sign parameters, development of necessary
components, limitations, installation proce- dures and performance history of many types of CP systems for
concrete structures con- taining mild reinforcing steel have been ex- tensively researched and documented.
The widespread use of cathodic protection and the need for design, installation, testing, per- formance and
maintenance guidelines, prompted the National Association of Cor- rosion Engineers (NACE) to compile
and issue a standard recommended practice for Cathodic Protection of Reinforcing Steel (conventional
mild steel) in Atmospherically Exposed Concrete Structures. In addition, standard specifications for
cathodic protec- tion of reinforced concrete bridge decks will soon be available from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

Selection of CP for Corrosion Control on Reinforced Concrete Structures

As discussed earlier, CP is not always needed nor is it necessarily applicable on every structure. The
first step is to have a concrete and corrosion condition survey conducted in order to define the cause and
extent of the problem. With the results of a thorough condition survey at hand, the en- gineer must analyze
the data and make a determination on the type of repair and pro- tection method to use. If cathodic protection is chosen then another determination must be made in order to choose the most appropriate system for
the conditions en- countered.
To select and design a proper repair and protection scheme it is imperative that the cause, or causes,
of the distress are properly diagnosed and fully understood, and that the extent of damage is determined.
Before se- lecting cathodic protection for a given struc- ture a number of issues need to be consid- ered.
Some of these include:
Is the owner looking for long term reha- bilitation (say greater than 15 or 20 years)? Cathodic
protection is usually most cost ef- fective when long term rehabilitation is de- sired. The amount of
damaged concrete is another factor in choosing CP. If only a small amount of delamination and spalling has

occurred, CP may not be the most appropri- ate choice for future protection. Similarly, if the majority of a
concrete structure is badly deteriorated, replacement may be in order. The in-between situations require
consider- ation of other information gathered from the condition survey. One advantage of CP is that
removal of sound concrete is not re- quired, thus a considerable cost savings may be realized. It may be a
viable alternative to removing two or three inches of concrete over a large area in order to prevent future
corrosion.
The corrosion rate of the reinforcing steel must also be considered. If the corrosion rate is high in
areas which are yet undamaged, conventional repairs will not aid in control- ling future corrosion. Actually
stopping or slowing the rate to an acceptable level may be necessary, and CP is the only technique which is
presently available for accomplish- ing this.

The chloride concentration in the con- crete throughout the structure is also impor- tant. If sufficient
chlorides are present at the reinforcing steel depth in many areas of the structure, CP may be the
economically vi- able alternative. However, if the chloride content is relatively low, or if the chlorides are
generally located only in isolated areas of the structure, another corrosion protec- tion system may be most
appropriate.
Another factor to consider is whether or not the concrete distress was solely caused by corrosion of
reinforcing. For example, if freeze/thaw or alkali-silica reaction prob- lems are encountered, CP is not the
way to go. Such deterioration will continue with or without cathodic protection. In fact, in the case of alkalisilica reactions, recent research indicates that CP current can actually accel- erate the reactions.

There are many things to consider in se- lecting a suitable rehabilitation plan for a deteriorated
concrete structure. A few of the most important issues related to CP have been mentioned here. In many
cases, a life cycle cost analysis is useful in selecting the most appropriate rehabilitation method.
As discussed earlier, once CP has been selected, the exact type of CP system must be chosen. The
type of anode is one of the most critical components of a CP system. The particular application may
preclude the use of some of the available anodes and CP systems. The type of surface to be protected (top
surface, soffit, vertical, etc.) and its ge- ometry, concrete cover over reinforcing steel, the environment in
and around the structure, and structural considerations, such as whether the structure can support the additional dead load resulting from some CP systems, are all important factors in select- ing a specific CP
system.
There are several different types of im- pressed current and sacrificial anode CP sys- tems. For the
purposes of this article, some typical CP systems used on bridge decks and substructures are shown. Some
of these sys- tems are also widely used on other types of structures and other systems, not shown here, are
also being utilized.
Figures 3 through 6 show some of the typical CP systems used on bridge decks. Briefly, shows a
coke asphalt CP system, Figure 4 shows a mounded conduc- tive polymer CP system 5 pre- sents a titanium
based anode mesh system. Both the mounded conductive polymer and titanium mesh anode systems require
a cementitious overlay as shown. All CP systems require some amount of embedded instrumentation for
monitoring purposes.

Summary
Reinforcing steel corrosion has caused an enormous amount of damage on many dif- ferent types of
concrete structures, and is an ongoing problem throughout the United States. Fortunately, proven methods
are available to evaluate corrosion of reinforc- ing steel and the associated damage on rein- forced concrete
structures. These tools al- low one to determine the extent of damage, define the corrosion state of steel in
undam- aged areas, evaluate the cause, or causes, of corrosion, and determine the potential for the steel to
corrode in the future resulting in further damage. Other methods are also avail- able to investigate concrete
de- terioration processes unrelated to reinforcing steel corrosion. It is only after the required in- formation is
obtained through a detailed concrete and corro- sion condition evaluation that a suitable repair and
protection specification can be developed for a deteriorated reinforced concrete structure.

Cathodic protection is a widely used and effective method of corrosion control for re- inforced
concrete structures. Cathodic pro- tection supplies a source of external current to counteract the corrosion
current. Hence, corrosion stops, or at least, is greatly mini- mized.
In the authors opinion, those involved in recommending or specifying concrete repair and
protection systems owe it to their cli- ents to become familiar with CP and to con- sider its application when
appropriate.

Almost any atmospherically exposed re- inforced concrete structure or portion of re- inforced
concrete structure of almost any ge- ometry can be cathodically protected. How- ever, existing structures
must be considered individually with regard to the need for and applicability of CP. Remember, not all

struc- tures are good candidates for CP, but CP is the only system that can truly retard or miti- gate
corrosion. Before selecting cathodic protection for a given structure a number of issues need to be
considered. If CP is cho- sen then several other points must be taken into account in order to choose the
most ap- propriate system for the conditions encoun- tered.

A new look at repairing corrosion damaged concrete

Arc-spraying of zinc on concrete for the cathodic protection of steel reinforcement

Every year building owners and managers are faced with the costs of repairing and patching
concrete that spalls when the reinforcing steel corrodes, usually due to the presence of salt. Removal,
patching and the application of waterproofing membranes are some of the treatments that, alone or in
combination, have traditionally been used to rehabilitate corrosion-damaged concrete. However, there are
concerns about the effectiveness of using such approaches to deal with reinforcement corrosion when the
concrete is contaminated by salt, because contamination remains and corrosion continues unless virtually
all the concrete is removed.
Sacrificial cathodic protection is regarded by many as a possible rehabilitation alternative which, if
applied before damage occurs, can reduce repair costs significantly. With this method of protection, a zinc
film is sprayed on the concrete surface; the zinc, rather than the reinforcing steel, then becomes the site of
corrosion activity.
While cathodic protection has shown promise in Florida in preventing corrosion of coastal bridges,
until recently, no equivalent research had been carried out in the more severe and varied Canadian
climate. To assess the viability and potential of this new rehabilitation strategy, a team of researchers from
IRC and initiated laboratory and field investigations.
In one of the field studies, undertaken in partnership with the Ministry of Transportation of Quebec
in 1993, seven reinforced concrete columns of a Montreal bridge were flame-sprayed with zinc. Now,
more than 20 months later, the zinc continues to protect the bridge columns.
In another field study, NRC researchers, in partnership with the International Lead Zinc Research
Organization, metalized driving surfaces in an Ottawa parking garage with zinc. For the most part, high
levels of protection were provided by the metalizing, although in extremely wet areas the zinc sacrificed
itself more rapidly than in dry areas, indicating that more zinc needs to be applied in areas where water
collects.
Current work at NRC involves metalizing alloys (zinc in combination with other materials, such as
magnesium or aluminium) onto concrete. Researchers expect that these materials will prove more
effective than pure zinc in providing protection to concrete in dry environments.

Corrosion Protection systems

Industrial Furnaces Corrosion protection began in the late 1990s as a spin off to what we were
already doing with refractory lining systems and how they themselves protect a steel shell against heat and
corrosion.That evolved into what we are now doing today as supplier and installers of specialty flooring
and lining systems. Our corrosion protection systems protect steel, concrete floors, walls, tanks, ceilings,
and
other
applications.
Our crew can offer plants the complete package, with experienced personnel being able to handle
projects ranging from floor resurfacing to complete concrete and steel restoration. Our experience helps to

catch problems before they evolve into time-consuming expensive overhauls. If a complete overhaul is
needed, our customers benefit from knowing the job is going to be done right the first time, eliminating
any unplanned costly down time.
Our product line has successfully performed in:

General industry

Foundries

Chemical plants

Paper mills

Pulp mills

Tank hose basements

Food processing plants

Meat processing plants

Metal finishing plants

Steel plants

Services

Installation: We install lining and refractory systems

Self-Installation: We do not need to install the product in order to sell them to you. Installation over
concrete or metal is simple with pre measured, prepackaged kits, and easy to follow instructions.
We will also provide personnel if desired to work with plant maintenance to help them apply these
materials themselves.

Please contact us when your facility requires a corrosion protection system. Your application will
be analyzed by our engineering staff to establish specific product and installation requirements.

Product Line

Coatings

Chemical-resistant refractories and mortars

Membranes

Elastomeric membranes and grouts

Substrate repair materials

Lining systems: Can be applied to the interior of tanks and trenches. These seamless linings can be
applied to horizontal, vertical, and overhead surfaces. They are specially formulated to withstand a
broad range of chemical attack while resisting temperatures up to 350 degrees Fahrenheit.

Chemical-Resistant Refractories: Protect to 2100 degrees Fahrenheit.

Polymer Concrete: We carry four variations of polymer concretes which are commonly used for
building or rebuilding trenches, sumps, pumps and machinery pads. These products are both
pourable and trowelable and are extremely acid and alkaline resistant. Their built-in fiber
reinforcement virtually eliminates cracking and tremendously increases its impact resistance.
Inside our 100,000 square foot warehouse is a casting shop which services municipalities with precast polymer concrete shapes for their sewer systems.

Traditional fiberglass and Carbon mat reinforced installation systems

Structrul Reinforcement

Better grade of concrete with lower w/c ratio and well compacted.
A polymeric coating is applied to the concrete member to keep out aggressive agents. A polymeric
coating is applied to the reinforcing bars to protect them from moisture and aggressive agents.
Fly Ash - Using a Fly Ash concrete with very low permeability, which will delay the arrival of
carbonation and chlorides at the level of the steel reinforcement. Fly Ash is a finely divided silica rich
powder that, in itself, gives no benefit when added to a concrete mixture, unless it can react with the
calcium hydroxide formed in the first few days of hydration. Together they form a calcium silica hydrate
(CSH) compound that over time effectively reduces concrete diffusivity to oxygen, carbon dioxide, water
and chloride ions.
Modified quality of steel reinforcement which are less susceptible to corrosion such as special
grade of stainless steel, CRS (Corrosion Resistant Steel),TMT steel etc.
Pre-applied impermeable coating (Epoxy, CECRI & CBRI coating) Stainless steel or gladded
stainless steel is used in lieu of conventional black bar
Admixtures (Nitrites and Nitrates) for concreting, which are to be added in the green
concrete.

Electrochemical injection of the organic base corrosion inhibitors, ethanolamine and guanidine, into
carbonated concrete.
Other inorganic inhibitors, which are known to be migratory in nature. The migration process
is diffusion through water and diffusion through vapour phase.
Structural design aspects of corrosion control involve factors such as configurational (geometrical)
considerations that minimize or, if possible, eliminate exposure to corrosives

Conclusion

Methods of corrosion control of steel-reinforced concrete include steel surface treatMent, the use of admixtures in concrete, surface coating on concrete, and cathodic
Protection

References:
1. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, ACI 318, ACI Manual of Concrete
Practice, Part 3 American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mi.
2. Corrosion of Metals in Concrete, ACI 222R, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 1.
3. Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures, ACI 224R, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice,
Part 3.
4. Design and Construction of Fixed Offshore Concrete Structures, ACI 357R, ACI Manual
of Concrete Practice, Part 4.
5. Perenchio, W.F., Corrosion of Reinforcing Steel, ASTM STP 169C, 1994, pp. 164-172.
6. Whiting, D., ed., Paul Klieger Symposium on Performance of Concrete, ACI SP-122, 1990,
499 pp.
7. Berke, N.S., Pfeifer, D.W., and Weil, T.G., Protection Against Chloride Induced
Corrosion, Concrete International, Vol. 10, No. 12, 1988, pp. 44-55.