Effects of Steel Reinforcement Corrosion On Carbon-Fibrereinforced Polymer Repaired Slabs

Structures and Buildings
Volume 169 Issue SB1

Effects of steel reinforcement corrosion
on carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer
repaired slabs
Zhuang, Zhou and Sun
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Structures and Buildings 169 January 2016 Issue SB1
Pages 4653 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/stbu.14.00105
Paper 1400105
Received 19/10/2014
Accepted 23/04/2015
Published online 25/07/2015
Keywords: corrosion/slabs/strength & testing of materials
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved
Effects of steel reinforcement

corrosion on carbon-fibrereinforced polymer repaired
slabs
1
&
Ning Zhuang PhD
3
&
Haodong Sun BS
Associate Professor, College of Harbor, Coastal and Offshore

Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing, China
Student Researcher, College of Harbor, Coastal and Offshore

2
&
Yujue Zhou BS
Student Researcher, College of Harbor, Coastal and Offshore

This paper presents the test results of reinforced-concrete (RC) slabs strengthened with carbon-fibre-reinforced
polymer (CFRP) sheets and exposed to a corrosive environment. Nine slab specimens (1500 700 100 mm) were
constructed and subjected to accelerated corrosion exposure. Test variables included the clear concrete cover (10, 25
and 40 mm), the longitudinal reinforcing bar diameter (8, 10 and 12 mm) and different degrees of corrosion. The
corresponding current and concrete corrosion cracks were continually monitored throughout the corrosion process. A
decrease in the clear concrete cover increased the corrosion crack width and the cracking time of slab specimens to
levels higher than those resulting from an increase in the reinforcing bar diameter. All slab specimens were tested to
failure in four-point bending, to investigate the load-carrying capacity and average crack spacing of each corroded slab
specimen. In addition, some reinforcing bars were extracted, to determine the loss in the steel mass when varying the
clear concrete cover and the reinforcing bar diameter. The study reported in this paper thus establishes the effects of
the clear concrete cover and the reinforcing bar diameter on corrosion activity in CFRP-strengthened RC slabs.
1.
Introduction
Structural systems using reinforced-concrete (RC) flat-plate

slabs are widely used in coastal structures, parking garages,
bridge decks and the like. However, corrosion of RC slabs is
a common durability problem encountered during their service
life, just as it is for beams, columns and other important
elements in concrete structures. In recent years, carbon-fibrereinforced polymer (CFRP) products have been widely accepted as one of the most effective new technologies to control
the problem of corrosion because CFRP products have a
number of advantages over traditional RC elements, such as
corrosion resistance, a favourable strength-to-weight ratio
and durability in adverse environments. CFRP is also easy to
apply.
Corrosion of steel bars in RC structures is the primary cause
of structural deterioration. Typically, concrete provides a
highly alkaline environment, which results in the formation of
46
a passivating film that protects the steel from corrosion.

However, the passivating film surrounding the steel is broken
down when the chloride ion concentration exceeds a critical
threshold value or there is a reduction in the alkalinity of the
concrete, caused by carbonation. The increased volume of corrosion products (rust) in the vicinity of rebar results in concrete
tensile stresses that may be large enough to cause internal
microcracking, external longitudinal cracking and, eventually,
spalling (Chernin et al., 2010). This may lead to an acceleration in the corrosion rate and/or a reduction in bond, which in
turn may lead to serviceability failure and/or a loss of structural integrity (Steware and Rosowsky, 1998). And, of course,
the exposed steel bars are no longer protected against corrosion. A CFRP-wrapped member undergoing active corrosion
can exhibit improved structural performance through a combination of the following two mechanisms: (a) confinement of
the concrete section, thereby lessening corrosion cracking and
bond-splitting cracks; and (b) prevention of further chloride
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF MORATUWA] on [14/11/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
The performance of corrosion-damaged RC slabs is affected

by many factors, such as cracks in the concrete cover, loss of
bond between the concrete and the corroding reinforcement, a
reduction in the cross-sectional area of the reinforcing steel
and so on. The study mainly focused on two effective factors
the clear concrete cover and the reinforcing bar diameter
affecting the corrosion activity of RC slabs reinforced by
CFRP sheets.
2.
Experimental programme
2.1 Test programme

The test programme included nine RC slab specimens, as listed
in Table 1. A total of nine slabs, each measuring 1500 mm
700 mm in plan and 100 mm in depth, as shown in Figure 1,
were cast for this research. The corrosion cracks in each specimen were measured by using a microscope at different stages of
Clear concrete
cover: mm
10
25
40
10
12
CF8-10
CF8-25
CF8-40
CF10-10
CF10-25
CF10-40
CF12-10
CF12-25
CF12-40
Nomenclature: CF12-10 denotes a slab specimen with a

12 mm diameter bar and 10 mm of clear cover, strengthened
with CFRP
Table 1. Test matrix
(a)
6 mm
hollow
stainless
bar
700
Corrosion protection research using CFRP composite

materials has mostly concentrated on beams, cylinders, girders
and columns (Badawi and Soudki, 2005; Bonacci and Maalej,
2001; Debaiky et al., 2002, 2007; El-Gamal et al., 2007; El
Maaddawy et al., 2006; Kreit et al., 2011; Masoun and
Soudki, 2006; Ray et al., 2011; Soudki and Sherwood, 2000).
The use of CFRPs for protecting RC structures from corrosion
hold promise because they can easily be bonded to concrete members and enhance the structural behaviour of beams
and columns (Bae and Belarbi, 2009; Soudki et al., 2007). To
the authors knowledge, however, there is very limited information in the literature on the corrosion control of CFRPstrengthened RC slabs. Hussein and Fawzy (2010) studied the
effects of steel corrosion on the structural performance of RC
slabs strengthened with CFRP strips and exposed to a corrosive environment. It was concluded that the increase in flexural
capacity achieved using the CFRP strengthening schemes
was significantly reduced due to corrosion of the steel. The
recorded reductions in the flexural strength gains for the
CFRP-strengthened corroded slabs relative to the gains for the
strengthened-uncorroded slabs were about 55%, 38% and 41%
for the externally bonded CFRP system without anchors, the
externally bonded CFRP with anchors and the near-surfacemounted CFRP system, respectively. No other detailed information has been found in the literature on CFRP-strengthened
RC slab corrosion. So, an extensive experimental study was
undertaken to examine the corrosion activity of RC slabs
reinforced by CFRP sheets. It should be noted that the flexural
mechanic performance of beams and one-way slabs is similar,
but their cracking behaviour differs due to their different geometric dimensions. Nine one-way slabs with CFPR strengthening were studied to examine their cracking behaviour and the
loaddisplacement response of RC slabs subjected to corrosion
exposure.
Reinforcing bar diameter: mma
D10 @ 120
ingress into the concrete, thereby reducing the rate of corrosion

(Soudki and Sherwood, 2000, 2003).

repaired slabs
A
D8 @ 200
1500
(b)
1500
100

10
6 mm hollow stainless bar
D10 @ 120
D8 @ 200
Figure 1. Typical dimensions (mm) and reinforcement details of

test slabs (clear cover 10 mm, D10 represents a deformed bar with
a diameter of 10 mm): (a) plan view; and (b) section AA
corrosion. At the end of the corrosion (15% corrosion), three

different clear cover (10, 25 and 40 mm) and bar diameter
(8, 10 and 12 mm) slab specimens were tested to failure under
four-point bending. The CFRP-strengthened slabs were instrumented with linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs)
and strain gauges to measure the vertical displacement at the
midspan along the slab axis, as illustrated in Figure 2 and later
in Figure 6. The average crack spacing and loaddeflection
were also monitored. At the end of the test, the reinforcing
bars were extracted, to determine the loss in the steel mass.
2.2 CFRP strengthening schemes
In accordance with ACI 440 (ACI, 2002) recommendations,
nine slab specimens were strengthened with CFRP strips
(Hussein and Fawzy, 2010). The strengthening consisted of two
plies of CFRP sheet, as shown in Figure 2. Each CFRP sheet
was 100 mm wide, 12 mm thick and 1200 mm long, bonded to
the tensile face of the RC slab specimens with the fibres
oriented parallel to the slab axis (the longitudinal direction), to
47


repaired slabs
counteract the reduction in the steel area caused by corrosion;

the CFRP strips will also resist the bond-splitting forces and
corrosion expansive forces that occur during the corrosion
process.
test slabs was 8, 10 and 12 mm nominal diameter steel with

a yield strength of 300 MPa and an ultimate strength of
400 MPa. Unidirectional carbon fibre fabric (SikaWrap 230C)
was used for strength. The cured CFRP strips had a modulus
of elasticity of 65 GPa, an ultimate tensile strength of 894 MPa
and an elongation of 133% at break, as reported by the
manufacturer.
2.3 Accelerated corrosion technique

To induce corrosion damage to the test specimens in a reasonable time-scale, an accelerated corrosion technique was used.
Accelerated corrosion was induced through an internal
cathode terminal using a 6 mm diameter hollow stainless steel
bar. The stainless steel bar acted as the cathode while the steel
reinforcement acted as the anode for this corrosion process,
and a DC galvanostatic power supply was used to provide the
current desired (Figure 3). The hollow stainless steel bar was
placed approximately 50 mm from the bottom face of the slab,
as shown in Figure 1. The slabs were placed in a high-humidity
chamber and connected to a power supply, to induce an electric current with a current density of 140 A/cm2. The times to
reach various degrees of corrosion mass loss were calculated
according to Faradays law. For example, to obtain a theoretical mass loss of 10% for specimens with 10 mm diameter bar
reinforcement, a constant current of 64 mA was applied for a
period of 56 d (El-Maaddawy and Soudki, 2003, 2005).
2.4 Material properties
A water/cement ratio of 055 was used for the concrete mixes.
The 28 d compressive strength (cylinder) of the concrete was,
on average, 30 MPa 12 MPa. The flexural reinforcement in
Strain gauge
100
CFRP sheets
700
100
1200
1500
Figure 2. CFRP strengthening scheme for the slab specimens

(mm)
6 mm hollow stainless steel bar
Reinforcing bar
Power
supply
+
Figure 3. Schematic of the accelerated corrosion set-up
48
Slab
specimens
3.
Test results and discussion
3.1 Corrosion cracking

The slab specimens were subjected to accelerated corrosion for
periods of time ranging from 0 to 84 d, to achieve the desired
theoretical corrosion degree of 015% mass loss based on
Faradays law. At the end of the corrosion phase, significant
deterioration was observed for the corroded slabs. No visible
degradation in the bond between the CFRP sheets and the
concrete was observed during this accelerated corrosion
process.
All the specimens had the same final cracking pattern, which
is shown in Figure 4. The width of the corrosion cracks was
accurately measured using a microscope during the corrosion
process. Six longitudinal cracks were observed at the surface of
the slab specimens, running parallel to the corroded reinforcing
bars. The cracks directly under the CFRP sheets did not open
as wide as those cracks not under the CFRP sheet. The
average width of the cracks directly under the CFRP sheets
was about 30% lower than that of other cracks in the slab
specimens. This indicates that the CFRP sheets coated the concrete surface sufficiently to minimise the ability of oxygen to
ingress to the level of the steel.
Each slab specimen can be divided into four areas: A1, A2, B1
and B2. The crack width of areas A1 and A2, which are
located at the edge of a slab specimen, was, on average, 20%
higher than the crack width in areas B1 and B2, which are
located in the middle area of the specimen. The crack width of
area A1, which is at the two ends of the specimen, was about
35% higher than that of the middle area of A2, and the crack
width of area B1, and was also about 16% higher than that of
the middle area of B2.
Figure 5 plots the average crack width against the degree of corrosion, as the corrosion increased from 0 to 15% mass loss.
The average crack width for all the slab specimens increased
with the increase in corrosion. The corrosion cracks were
widest in slab specimen CF12-10 and thinnest in slab
specimen CF8-40 at the end of the accelerated corrosion
process. For the same clear concrete cover, the maximum crack
width of specimens CF12-10, CF12-25 and CF12-40 was
about 78%, 82% and 77% higher than that of slab specimens
CF8-10, CF8-25 and CF8-40, respectively, as the diameter
of the reinforcing bar decreased from 12 to 8 mm. For the
same reinforcing bar diameter, the maximum crack width of


repaired slabs
A1
25
40
25
60
A2
55
35
30
30
18
30
30
30
15
30
15
35
28
15
15
12
12
28
45
40
CFRP sheet
30
10
B1
30
30
15 15
14
A1
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
10
25
25
25
25
22
22
25
25
27
28
28
28
30
30
30
25
25
25
CFRP sheet
18
45
25
B2
10
13
15
15
20
60
25
B1
35
45
35
15
35
30 15
30
30
18
13
35
35
40
45
60
25 25
A1
A2
A1
40
Figure 4. Cracking pattern of specimens at the end of corrosion
09
08
07
Crack width: mm
and comprising specimens CF8-25, CF10-25 and CF12-25,

was, on average, 18% higher that of group 3.
CF12-10
CF10-10
CF8-10
CF12-25
CF10-25
CF8-25
CF12-40
CF10-40
CF8-40
06
05
04
The time of cracking and the maximum corrosion crack

widths measured in the specimens are also presented in
Table 2. From Figure 5 and Table 2, it is evident that the
maximum crack width increased as the steel bar diameter
increased and the clear concrete cover decreased, and there was
a similar correspondence as the cracking time increased.
03
02
01
0
0
8
10
Mass loss: %
12
14
16
Figure 5. Crack width at different degrees of corrosion
specimens CF8-10, CF10-10 and CF12-10 was about 32%,

337% and 325% higher than that of specimens CF8-40,
CF10-40 and CF12-40, respectively, as the clear concrete cover
increased from 10 to 40 mm. This indicates that the clear concrete cover had more effect on the crack width than did the
reinforcing bar diameter. So, the maximum crack width of the
test slab specimens can be divided into three groups according
to the clear concrete cover, as shown in Table 2. Group 3, with
a clear concrete cover of 40 mm and comprising the three
specimens CF8-40, CF10-40 and CF12-40, had the maximum
crack width of, on average, 054 mm. The maximum crack
width of group 1, with a clear concrete cover of 10 mm and
containing specimens CF8-10, CF10-10 and CF12-10, was, on
average, 263% higher than that of group 3. The maximum
crack width of group 2, with a clear concrete cover of 25 mm
3.2 Four-point bending load

After corrossion to 15% mass loss, the slab specimens were
loaded to failure under four-point bending with an effective
span of 1300 mm and a shear span of 400 mm (Figure 6).
The slabs failed by the CFRP laminate debonding followed by
concrete crushing. The loaddeflection relationship for each
15% corroded slab is given in Figure 7. The ultimate loads of
the corroded slabs decreased as the reinforcing bar diameter
increased and the concrete cover decreased, with the crosssection of the slabs remaining unchanged, but the reinforcing
bar diameter was a more effective factor in increasing the ultimate strength compared with the concrete cover. For example,
the ultimate strength of the CF12-10 specimen, which had a
10 cm concrete cover and a 12 cm reinforcing bar diameter,
was, on average, about 41% higher than that of CF10-10,
which had the same 10 cm concrete cover, and was, on average,
about 23% higher than that of CF12-25, which had the same
12 cm steel bar diameter. When the slabs were loaded, all the
corroded slabs exhibited almost the same flexural response, as
shown in Figure 7. This indicated that the reinforcing bar
diameter and the concrete cover had only a minor effect on the
flexural stiffness of slab specimens. The maximum stiffness of
CF12-10 was about 26% higher than that of the minimum
stiffness of CF10-40.
49


repaired slabs
Cracking time
Specimen ID
Maximum crack width
Concrete
cover: mm
Bar diameter:
mm
Corrosion
time: d
Degree of corrosion:
% mass loss
Under the
CFRP sheet: mm
Not under the

CFRP sheet: mm
10
8
10
12
10
9
8
19
16
15
058
056
054
077
080
084
25
8
10
12
11
11
10
20
20
19
046
045
042
060
063
066
40
8
10
12
15
14
13
27
25
23
035
037
039
051
054
057
Group 1
CF8-10
CF10-10
CF12-10
Group 2
CF8-25
CF10-25
CF12-25
Group 3
CF8-40
CF10-40
CF12-40
Table 2. Crack width and cracking time during corrosion
60
Load cell
Steel spreader beam
50
Slab specimen
Strain gauges
Steel seat
LVDT
CFRP sheet
Load: kN
40
30
20
400 mm
1300 mm
CF12-10
CF10-10
CF8-10
10
Figure 6. Load test set-up
CF12-25
CF10-25
CF8-25
CF12-40
CF10-40
CF8-40
0
0
3.3 Crack spacing

The average spacing measured during the four-point bending
test can be determined as schematically described in Figure 8
and calculated as
Pn
1:
Sm
i1
Si
where Sm is the average spacing, Si is the spacing of crack i and

n is the the number of crack spacings. The average crack
spacing of specimen CF10-10 obtained during testing is plotted
in Figure 9. All of the corroded slab specimens demonstrated
almost the same crack pattern, in which several cracks were
observed at the bottom soffit of the slabs, running perpendicular to the reinforcing bars. The average spacing for each slab
was measured, and is summarised in Table 3 for comparison.
From Table 3, it is evident that the average spacing increased as
the diameter of the reinforcing bar increased, when the concrete
50
10
20
30
Deflection: mm
40
50
Figure 7. Loaddeflection behaviour of the slab specimens
cover remained constant; in contrast, the average spacing

increased as the concrete cover decreased, when the bar diameter remained unchanged. The average spacing of specimens
CF10-10 and CF12-10, which had 10 mm of concrete cover,
was about 88% and 183%, respectively, lower than specimen
CF8-10. The average spacing of specimens CF10-25 and
CF12-25, which had 25 mm of concrete cover, was reduced by
about 97% and 180%, respectively, compared with specimens
CF8-25. For a concrete cover of 40 mm, a reduction of about
70% and 159% occurred for specimens CF10-40 and CF12-40
compared with the average spacing of specimen CF8-40.When
the diameter of the reinforcing bar remained unchanged, the
average spacing of slab specimens with a concrete cover of
10 mm (CF10-10 and CF12-10), 25 mm (CF10-25 and CF1225) and 40 mm (CF10-40 and CF12-40) was about 49% and


repaired slabs
101%, 39% and 123%, and 52% and 133% lower than for
specimens CF8-10, CF8-25 and CF8-40, respectively.
It is evident that the measured mass losses in the laboratory

were always lower than the theoretical calculated mass loss of
15% based on Faradays law at the end of corrosion because of
rust gathering around the reinforcing bar and preventing oxygen
and water from reaching the rebar. The measured mass losses of
the reinforcing bar under CFRP sheet (Figure 13) were, on
average, 27% lower than those of the reinforcing bar not under
CFRP sheet (Figure 12). For each reinforcing bar, the measured
mass losses in the middle span were less than those of the two
ends section, as in Figures 1113, which is in accordance with
the crack appearing in the two ends of slab specimens earlier
than in the middle span during the accelerating corrosion
process. Based on Figures 12 and 13, it can also be concluded
that the measured mass losses increased as the steel bar diameter
increased and the clear concrete cover decreased.
The average spacing increase resulting from the increase in

the reinforcing bar diameter was 70183%, compared with
39133% resulting from a decrease in the concrete cover. This
implies that the diameter of reinforcing bar had more effect on
the average spacing than did the concrete cover.
3.4 Steel mass loss

Two reinforcing steel bars, which were just under the CFRP sheet
but not under the CFRP sheet, were extracted from each slab
specimen. A mass loss analysis was performed on the reinforcing
steel bars in accordance with the standard ASTM GI-90
(ASTM, 1999), to obtain the degree of corrosion. Seven reinforcing steel coupons, measuring 25 cm in length, were cut from
each extracted reinforcing steel bar. The location of the coupons
is shown in Figure 10. The degree of corrosion plotted against
the location of the reinforcing steel coupon for CF10-10 and the
extracted reinforcing steel samples is presented in Figures 1113.
S1 S2 S3 S4
S5
S6
Si
Figure 8. Determination of the average crack spacing of the slab

specimens
15
25
27
26
26
27
28
27
16
28
29
29
45
32
29
36
32
32
29
41
41
44 43
45
32
32
29
29
29
30
23
28
27
23
29
28
28
23
27
24
40
40
43
45
46
32
45
26
26
28
28
28
28
43
31 32
43
37
34
43
Average crack
spacing: mm
CF8-10
CF10-10
CF12-10
CF8-25
CF10-25
CF12-25
CF8-40
CF10-40
CF12-40
10
10
10
25
25
25
40
40
40
8
10
12
8
10
12
8
10
12
1205
1098
984
1264
1141
1036
1327
1234
1115
51
36
46
46
56
35
55
42 54
32
42 52
34
44
43
44
46
45
56
56
44
42
46
62
50
40 33
36 41
41
40
35
38
29
28
28
29
27 15
26
17
33
32
31
32
21
23
27
30
30
32
18 27
32
29
33
30
31
29 18
34
29
29
32
25
34
38
34
14
15
28
37
46
56
15
28
35
35
41
55
56
50
15
21
36
28
27
Bar diameter:
mm
20
51
52
46
23
Concrete
cover: mm
Table 3. Average spacing of each slab specimen
46
51
Slab
specimen
31
29
28
26
19
27
Figure 9. Average crack spacing of specimen CF10-10
51


repaired slabs
Seven reinforcing steel coupons

100
150
15% theoretical
148
146
200
200
200
200
200
200
100
Mass loss: %
100
1500
Figure 10. Location of reinforcing steel coupons in each

reinforcing bar (mm)
144
142
140
CF12-10
CF10-10
CF8-10
CF12-25
CF10-25
CF8-25
CF12-40
CF10-40
CF8-40
138
136
150
Mass loss: %
145
134
0
15% theoretical
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Location of reinforcing steel coupons: mm
1400
Figure 12. Degree of corrosion plotted against the location of

reinforcing steel coupons for the reinforcing bar not under the
CFRP sheet
140
135
130
150
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
4.
Conclusion
This paper presents the results of an experimental programme

investigating the effect that varying the clear concrete cover
and the diameter of reinforcing bar has on concrete slabs strengthened with CFRP sheets subjected to corrosion. To fully
characterise the effects, nine slab specimens that had a clear
concrete cover of 10, 25 and 40 mm and a longitudinal reinforcing bar diameter of 8, 10 and 12 mm were tested. Based on
the tested data, the following can be concluded.
As the degree of corrosion increased from 0 to 15% mass loss,
all specimens had the same final cracking pattern. The crack
width located at the edge of a slab specimen was, on average,
20% higher than the crack width located in the middle area of
the specimen. The average width of cracks directly under
CFRP sheets was about 30% lower than that of other cracks in
the slab specimens. The crack width and the crack time for the
RC slabs was significantly affected by the clear concrete cover
and the reinforcing bar diameter, and increased as the reinforcing bar diameter increased and the clear concrete cover
decreased. The crack width and the crack time were more sensitive to the clear concrete cover than to the reinforcing bar
diameter of the RC slabs.
The corroded slabs failed by the CFRP laminate debonding
followed by concrete crushing in the four-point bending test.
52
144
Mass loss: %

reinforcing steel coupons for the reinforcing bar of CF10-10
15% theoretical
147
141
138
CF12-10
CF10-10
CF8-10
CF12-25
CF10-25
CF8-25
CF12-40
CF10-40
CF8-40
135
132
129
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400

reinforcing steel coupons for the reinforcing bar under the CFRP
sheet
Increasing the reinforcing bar diameter was more effective in

increasing the ultimate strength of slabs compared with increasing the clear concrete cover. The reinforcing bar diameter and
the concrete cover had little impact on the flexural stiffness of
slab specimens. The maximum stiffness of CF12-10 was
slightly enhanced (by 26%) relative to the minimum stiffness
of CF10-40.
The average spacing increased as the diameter of the reinforcing bar increased, when the concrete cover remained constant,
but, in contrast, increased as the concrete cover decreased,
when the bar diameter remained unchanged. The average spacing resulting from an increasing reinforcing bar diameter
increased by 70183% compared with 39133% for a


repaired slabs
decreasing concrete cover. So, increasing the diameter of the

reinforcing bar had more effect on the average spacing than
increasing the clear concrete cover.
reinforcement in concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil

Engineering 15(1): 4147.
El-Maaddawy T and Soudki KA (2005) Carbon-fiber-reinforced
polymer repair to extend service life of corroded reinforced
concrete beams. Journal of Composites for Construction
9(2): 187194.
El Maaddawy T, Chahrour A and Soudki K (2006) Effect of
fiber-reinforced polymer wraps on corrosion activity and
concrete cracking in chloride-contaminated concrete
cylinders. Journal of Composites for Construction 10(2):
865869.
Hussein M and Fawzy TM (2010) Structural performance of
CFRP-strengthened RC slabs in a corrosive environment.
Journal of Composites for Construction 14(6): 865869.
Kreit A, Al-Mahmoud F, Castel A et al. (2011) Repairing
corroded RC beam with near-surface mounted
CFRP rods. Materials and Structures 44(7): 12051217.
Masoun S and Soudki K (2006) Evaluation of corrosion activity
in FRP repaired RC beams. Cement and Concrete
Composites 28(10): 969977.
Ray I, Parish GC, Davalos JF et al. (2011) Effect of concrete
substrate repair methods for beams aged by accelerated
corrosion and strengthened with CFRP. Journal of
Aerospace Engineering 24(2): 227239.
Soudki KA and Sherwood TG (2000) Behavior of reinforced
concrete beams strengthened with carbon fiber reinforced
polymer laminates subjected to corrosion damage.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 27(5): 10051010.
Soudki KA and Sherwood TG (2003) Bond behavior of corroded
steel reinforcement in concrete wrapped with carbon fiber
reinforced polymer sheets. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering 15(4): 358370.
Soudki KA, El-Salakawy E and Craig B (2007) Behavior of
CFRP strengthened reinforced concrete beams in corrosive
environment. Journal of Composites for Construction 11(3):
291298.
Steware MG and Rosowsky DV (1998) Structural safety and
serviceability of concrete bridges subject to corrosion.
Journal of Infrastructure Systems 4(4): 146155.
The measured mass losses in the laboratory were always lower

than the theoretical calculated mass loss of 15% based on
Faradays law. The measured mass losses of reinforcing bars
under the CFRP sheet were, on average, 27% lower than those
of reinforcing bars not under the CFRP sheet. The measured
mass losses in the slab midspan were less than in the two ends
of the slab specimens, with cracks appearing in the two ends of
the slab specimens earlier than in the middle span. The
measured losses increased as the steel bar diameter increased
and the clear concrete cover decreased.
Acknowledgements
This research was financially supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (51379073) and the Natural
Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20131317).
REFERENCES
ACI (American Concrete Institute) (2002) ACI 440:
Fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement. American

Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
ASTM (1999) G1-90: Standard procfile for preparing,
cleaning, and evaluating corrosion test specimens.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Badawi M and Soudki K (2005) Control of corrosion-induced
damage in reinforced concrete beam using carbon
fiber-reinforced polymer laminates. Journal of Composites
for Construction 9(2): 195201.
Bae SW and Belarbi A (2009) Effects of corrosion of steel
reinforcement on RC columns wrapped with FRP sheets.
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 23(1):
2031.
Bonacci JF and Maalej M (2001) Behavioral trends of RC beams
strengthened with externally bonded FRP. Journal of
Composites for Construction 5(2): 102113.
Chernin L, Val DV and Volokh KY (2010) Analytical modeling of
concrete cover cracking caused by corrosion of
reinforcement. Materials and Structures 43(4): 543556.
Debaiky A, Green M and Hope B (2002) Carbon fiber-reinforced
polymer wraps for corrosion control and rehabilitation of
reinforced concrete columns. ACI Materials Journal 99(2):
129137.
Debaiky AS, Green MF and Hope BB (2007) Modeling of
corroded FRP-wrapped reinforced concrete columns in
axial compression. Journal of Composites for Construction
11(6): 556564.
El-Gamal S, El-Salakawy E and Benmokrane B (2007) Influence
of reinforcement on the behavior of concrete bridge deck
slabs reinforced with FRP bars. Journal of Composites for
Construction 11(5): 449458.
El-Maaddawy T and Soudki KA (2003) Effectiveness of
impressed current technique to simulate corrosion of steel
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the

editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students. Papers should be 20005000 words long (briefing
papers should be 10002000 words long), with adequate
illustrations and references. You can submit your paper
online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
53

Effects of Steel Reinforcement Corrosion On Carbon-Fibrereinforced Polymer Repaired Slabs

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Effects of Steel Reinforcement Corrosion On Carbon-Fibrereinforced Polymer Repaired Slabs

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Structures and Buildings

Volume 169 Issue SB1

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers