Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 457–468

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Reliability of a corroded RC beam based on Bayesian updating of the

corrosion model
Sharvil Alex Faroz (Doctoral candidate), Nikil N. Pujari (Doctoral candidate), Siddhartha Ghosh ⇑ (Professor)
Structural Safety, Risk & Reliability Lab., Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: RC structures degrade primarily due to corrosion-induced damages, mostly by the loss of steel rebar vol-
Received 28 September 2015 ume. The prediction of time-varying damage due to corrosion is important for assessing the residual life
Revised 2 August 2016 of a structure and making decisions on maintenance/repair. Existing models of prediction fail to provide
Accepted 3 August 2016
realistic estimates of steel loss over time. This paper presents a new methodology for the corrosion reli-
ability analysis of reinforced concrete components, where the corrosion loss is estimated employing
Bayesian updating using field measurements, which also incorporates instrument biases and errors in
Keywords:
the NDT evaluations. Based on compiled experimental results, the updated model provides significantly
Corrosion
Pitting
improved estimation of steel loss over time. Sample reliability analyses over the design life of a corroded
Bayesian updating RC beam show the importance of updating over the existing model, for both pitting and uniform corro-
NDT sion considerations.
Measurement error Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Reliability

1. Corrosion in reinforced concrete primary interest of a structural/maintenance engineer in such

Reinforced concrete (RC) structures occupy a major share of the
infrastructural stock of many countries across the world. The rein-
forcing steel within concrete is protected from corrosion due to the
formation of a passive film around the steel rebar, along with the
low porosity, permeability and high electrical resistivity of good
quality concrete [1]. If these aspects are compromised, then corro-
sion of steel in concrete commences. Generally, aggravating agents
like chloride (Cl
), carbon dioxide (CO2) and to some extent sul-
phur dioxide (SO2) penetrate through the cover concrete and
depassivate the steel to initiate corrosion [2]. Rust produced due
to corrosion occupies more volume than the volume of steel con-
sumed to produce that rust. This rust accumulates in the steel-
concrete interface exerting pressure on concrete which leads to
cracking, spalling and delamination of cover concrete [3]. Overall,
corrosion leads to (i) loss of steel section, (ii) cover cracking and
(iii) loss of bond, ultimately leading to a reduction in the capacity
of a structural member over time [4]. An estimate of the time-
varying capacity of RC structures/components is of prime impor-
tance from the perspective of life-cycle performance.
Experimental evidences suggest that one parameter which can
be associated with various damage levels of an RC structure is
the amount of steel lost due to corrosion [5,6]. Therefore, the
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sghosh@civil.iitb.ac.in (S. Ghosh).
cases is to find the loss of steel in corrosion affected reinforcements
over time which is related to a moment (or shear) failure at the
ultimate limit state (ULS). Although a beam may also be governed
by the serviceability limit state (SLS) in terms of cracking of cover
concrete or loss of stiffness [3,4], in the present study we focus
only on the ultimate limit state of flexure [7,8]. Though models
exist to predict loss of steel over time, significant deviations from
actual measurements are typically reported [9]. Deviation of the
model from in situ situations may be due to a lack of knowledge
about the composition of corrosion products and/or modelling
the complexity of corrosion process [10]. In addition, these factors
also depend on (ambient) conditions which are inherently random.
The prediction model, which is developed based on limited test
specimens, may not represent the actual structure either.
A precise estimation of the residual steel area of rebars is possi-
ble through the destruction of cover concrete, however such oper-
ations may not always be feasible. As an alternative to invasive
techniques, continuous or routine monitoring of the structure
using non-destructive techniques (NDT) may be more appropriate.
These techniques include but are not limited to: infra-red ther-
mography [11–13] and X-ray imaging [14–16] for determining
the steel loss; and linear polarisation resistance technique (LPR)
[17,18] for measuring the rate of corrosion. Although these
schemes can provide a reasonable estimate of the time-varying
condition of a structure, perpetual inspection is seldom possible
and measurements are restricted to a few optimised numbers in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.08.003
0141-0296/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
458 S.A. Faroz et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 457–468
order to minimise the life-cycle cost [19]. Therefore, a planned
scheme of non-destructive data acquisition through intermittent
monitoring and using it – via Bayesian inference – for future pre-
diction of corrosion is deemed suitable for the life-cycle manage-
ment of an RC structure.
The effectiveness of a probabilistic approach to estimate corro-
sion is underlined by many researchers over the last two decades.
The classical statistical methods, however, rely on large quantities
of data to be available to make accurate predictions [20]. Thus,
when limited with small amount of data, Bayesian updating can
be adopted by combining empirical or physics-based prediction
models with NDT measurements.
Corrosion in an RC structure involves two principal phases, (i)
initiation and (ii) propagation [2]. Initiation denotes the period
from construction of new structures to corrosion commencement,
while propagation primarily involves loss of steel (and cracking of
cover) once corrosion has initiated. In the past, there have been
studies addressing the corrosion related problem in RC structures
pertaining to these phases. Some of these studies used monitored
data in conjunction with Bayesian inference, for example Rafiq
et al. [21], Keßler et al. [22], and Samarakoon and Sælensminde
[23]. Of these, while Rafiq et al. [21] developed a methodology to
predict corrosion initiation by making use of embedded sensors
in concrete cover, the other two works relied primarily on the
half-cell potential test data to obtain an updated estimate of the
corrosion initiation time. The research in the past decade has
shifted to the propagation phase, without overlooking the initia-
tion period [24]. In the recent past, there have been studies apply-
ing Bayesian inference using monitored data, in the propagation
phase as well. Suo and Stewart [25] used visual inspection to
update the prediction of proportion of surface cracking due to cor-
rosion related volume expansion. The most significant work in the
use of Bayesian updating for the estimation of steel loss due to cor-
rosion was that by Akiyama et al. [26], wherein the authors consid-
ered both the phases of corrosion. The corrosion initiation time
was updated using chloride concentration results through partially
destructive coring. Further, they adopted visual inspection on crack
width to update the steel loss model, through an empirical relation
between the two. The updated corroded profile of rebars was then
used to obtain the failure probability of the structure. However,
they adopted a steel loss model linearly varying with time, that
did not consider the effect of thickening of the rust layer over
the corroding rebar surface. Also, the corrosion loss was considered
to be uniform, and pitting was disregarded. This study, based on
crack width inspection, implied that inspections need to be per-
formed at an advanced stage of degradation, which may not be
the best strategy, as such reactive inspection is likely to be more
expensive than a proactive one [21].
Considering the random nature of the corrosion process, limited
amount of data and lack of confidence in prediction, Faroz et al. [9]
developed a similar methodology for updating the corrosion model
using the available steel loss data. Their corrosion growth model
was parabolic in time, reflecting the effect of the thickening of
the rust layer. The present work improves this method to incorpo-
rate two major aspects:
 The output of an NDT depends on random factors – like the con-
dition and working environment of the structure, sensitivity of
the NDT equipment, material imperfection and operator skills
[27], etc. – leading to random measurement errors.
 The corrosion of rebars due to chloride ingress is not uniform
because of the heterogeneous ambience of a rebar embedded
in concrete. This localised or ‘pitting’ corrosion – a spatial vari-
ability – if ignored, may lead to an underestimation of the prob-
ability of failure [7,8].
For the work presented in this paper, the likelihood function
used for the Bayesian updating incorporates a model for the ran-
dom measurement error (along with the model/prediction error).
The effects of pitting are included using the pitting factor varying
over space and/or time, over and above the updated prediction of
uniform corrosion. In a major extension of the work by Faroz
et al. [9], the time-varying reliability of a corroded singly rein-
forced beam is estimated based on its flexural failure; and finally,
a comparison between results from the updated and the original
corrosion models is presented.
2. Steel loss due to corrosion
Faraday’s law has been traditionally adopted to model the loss
of steel due to corrosion. This law does not consider the effect of
thickening of rust layer over the corroding rebar surface and over-
estimates the loss of steel [28]. As corrosion progresses, thickness
of the rust goes on increasing and the rate of rust formation
depends on the thickness of rust already produced [29]. Due to a
progressive increase in the diffusion distance, the rate of rust for-
mation decreases [30]. For uniform corrosion, thickness of the rust
layer is proportional to the total mass of rust per unit length of the
corroding bar ðW r Þ, and the rate of rust formation may be
expressed as
dW r kw
¼ c
1 ð1Þ
dt Wr
where t is the time from corrosion initiation, kw is a constant of pro-
portionality and the exponent c depends on the rust layer formed
over the corroding surface [30]. When the rust layer does not
adhere to the corroding surface, c approaches 1 and for an adherent
rust layer it approaches 2. For diffusion based processes, it takes a
value between 2 and 3 depending on the densification of the corro-
sion products [31], 2 being for uniform density. The amount of rust
produced by the time t can be obtained by integrating Eq. (1):
Z t 1c
W r ðtÞ ¼ ckw dt ð2Þ
0
Liu and Weyers [29] adopted this model with c ¼ 2 to estimate
the rust formation. The amount of steel consumed ðW s Þ can be
related to the amount of rust generated as [32]
W s ¼ asr W r ð3Þ
and combining Eqs. (2) and (3) with c ¼ 2, the steel loss can be
obtained as
Z 12
t
W s ðtÞ ¼ 2a2
sr kw dt ð4Þ
0
where kw ¼ pAw D0 icorr [32], D0 is the original diameter of the rebar
and icorr is the mean annual rate of corrosion, yielding
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
W s ðtÞ ¼ 2pD0 icorr Aw a2sr t ð5Þ
In these equations, the parameters Aw and asr are related to the
corrosion process and the amount of rust generated, respectively.
Therefore, these parameters cannot be measured directly and are
treated in the present work as un-observable parameters. Bhargava
et al. [32] gave estimates for these quantities based on the exper-
imental evaluations by Liu [10]. Performing a regression analysis
on these laboratory-based data for D0 measured in mm, icorr in
lA/cm2, W s in mg/mm and t in years, they found: Aw ¼ 2:48614
and asr ¼ 0:61309. Their time-varying steel loss model for uniform
corrosion, thus, can be expressed as
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
W s ðtÞ ¼ 2:423 D0 icorr t ð6Þ
 S.A. Faroz et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 457–468 459

2.1. Models for estimating pitting corrosion Table 1

Time-varying Gumbel parameters of R.

The uniform corrosion model of Eq. (5) is an idealistic assump- D0 (mm) L0 = 50 mm L0 = 100 mm
tion, whereas a realistic estimation of the failure of a structure due m j m j
to corrosion needs to account for pitting effects. A brief review of
12 0.151gt þ 1 0.308gt 0.306gt þ 1 0.312gt
available pitting models for RC structures is presented in this 14 0.120gt þ 1 0.274gt 0.261gt þ 1 0.275gt
section. 20 0.093gt þ 1 0.329gt 0.277gt þ 1 0.360gt
González et al. [33] defined the pitting depth factor Rp as the
ratio of the maximum pit depth ðpmax Þ and the average penetration
of corrosion based on uniform corrosion ðpavg Þ (Fig. 1). They found W s ðtÞ
Rp to vary between 4 and 8 under simulated natural corrosion test-
gt ¼ ð8Þ
W0
ing and between 5 and 13 for impressed current corrosion testing.
where W 0 is the mass per unit length of an un-corroded bar and
The DuraCrete model [34] used a statistical description of the pit-
W s ðtÞ is obtained from Eq. (5). The average residual area of steel
ting factor, with Rp  N ð9:28; 4:04Þ. The statistics of Rp was further
can be expressed in terms of gt :
developed by Stewart [7] and Stewart and Alharthy [8], where the
pitting factor was assumed to be time-invariant and statistically Aavg ¼ A0 ð1
gt Þ ð9Þ
independent for each discrete element of a rebar. Further, it was
where A0 is the original cross-sectional area of a rebar.
assumed that only one critical pit formed inside the considered
Kashani et al. [38] defined an area pitting coefficient as a func-
element, and the minimum area ðAmin Þ was calculated using the
tion of the location along the length of a rebar: Ra ¼ AðxÞ=Aavg ,
formulation suggested by Val and Melchers [35]. Later, Darmawan
where AðxÞ is the cross-sectional area of the corroded bar at loca-
[36] modified their probabilistic model to obtain a time-varying
tion x. They found that Ra follows a lognormal distribution with
model for Rp , by making the location and scale parameters of a
time-varying parameters. Tang et al. [39] suggested a mixed nor-
Gumbel distribution to be functions of icorr and t.
mal distribution for AðxÞ. However, it is unclear which and how
Zhang et al. [37] commented that using Rp may result in an
many normal modes need to be adopted in the time-varying model
inaccurate calculation of the residual cross-sectional area, as the
of AðxÞ.
form and number of pits formed may be complex, to determine
Based on this critical review of existing models, to incorporate
the actual reduced cross-section, as opposed to the simplified
the effect of pitting in corrosion, the model suggested by Zhang
assumption of a single critical pit [7,8,36]. Instead, they suggested
et al. [37] is found to be the most appropriate choice in modelling
a new pitting factor (R) relating the minimum area to the area
steel loss, since it directly characterises the minimum residual
based on uniform corrosion. R expresses the area spatial hetero-
cross-sectional area in a statistical sense.
geneity in pitting:
Aavg 3. Bayesian inference
R¼ ð7Þ
Amin
where Aavg is the average residual cross-sectional area of a corroded Bayesian inference provides a mathematical approach to com-
rebar estimated from the mass loss over an element length based on bine previous notions or beliefs about any phenomenon with
uniform corrosion (Fig. 1). Based on 3D scanning of corroded rebars, newly available information [40,41]. Rebar corrosion in RC is a
Zhang et al. [37] created a time-varying probabilistic model for R phenomenon for which we have scientific or empirical models,
(Table 1), where the scale (m) and location (j) parameters of the but the estimations based on these models are usually different
Gumbel distribution are expressed as functions of the mass loss from the field values. These models rely significantly on some
ratio at time t, which is defined as (un-observable) parameters which we are not very confident about
and their values come from limited statistical data available to the
researchers who calibrated these parameters. Considering that the

Fig. 1. Rebar cross-section for uniform and pitting corrosion.

460 S.A. Faroz et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 457–468

Table 2
Statistics of Aw .

D0 (mm) icorr (lA/cm2) W s (mg/mm) asr W r (mg/mm) t (years) kw Aw

16 2.41 19.75 0.778 25.39 1.84 175.6 1.446

0.723 27.32 202.8 1.674
0.700 28.22 216.4 1.786
0.629 31.40 268.0 2.212
0.622 31.76 274.1 2.262
0.523 37.77 387.7 3.200
0.348 56.76 875.6 7.228
16 1.79 30.21 0.778 38.83 3.54 212.9 2.366
0.723 41.78 246.6 2.741
0.700 43.15 263.1 2.923
0.629 48.03 325.8 3.621
0.622 48.57 333.2 3.703
0.523 57.76 471.3 5.237
0.348 86.81 1064 11.83
16 3.75 14.98 0.778 19.25 0.72 257.4 1.366
0.723 20.72 298.1 1.581
0.700 21.40 317.9 1.687
0.629 23.81 393.8 2.089
0.622 24.08 402.7 2.136
0.523 28.64 569.6 3.022
0.348 43.04 1286 6.826
12.7 1.8 15.64 0.778 20.10 2.38 84.90 1.182
0.723 21.63 98.31 1.369
0.700 22.34 104.9 1.460
0.629 24.86 129.9 1.808
0.622 25.14 132.8 1.849
0.523 29.90 187.9 2.616
0.348 44.94 424.3 5.909

monitoring of corrosion through NDT is a fairly routine event for
important structures these days, a Bayesian updating of the avail-
able corrosion model is proposed here based on limited but actual
evaluations of the in situ condition. Bayesian inference is adopted
to update the un-observable random variables (H) based on the
observed/measured data (X). According to Bayes’ theorem, the
prior information described by the joint probability density func-
0 goodness-of-fit test. A lognormal distribution is found suitable to
tion, f ðHÞ, when combined with the monitored data – quantified
by a likelihood function pðX j HÞ, results in an updated/posterior
00
distribution, f ðH j XÞ:
00 0 Fig. 2(a) shows the empirical and the fitted CDFs of Aw . The prior
f ðH j XÞ / pðX j HÞf ðHÞ
In general, H ¼ ½ H1 H2 . . . Hl T and X ¼ ½ X1 X2 . . . Xn T ,
where Hl are the model variables to be updated subjected to the
observations Xn .
In the steel loss model of Eq. (5), Aw and asr are the un-
observable parameters that are usually obtained by a regression
analysis of data obtained under a specific set of conditions. There-
fore, there exists significant uncertainty associated with these
parameters due to the difference between the test and field condi-
tions. As a consequence, these parameters need to be treated as
random variables in the corrosion model. The Bayesian updating
in this work considers H ¼ ½ Aw asr T , whose probability models
require to be updated based on steel loss ðW s Þ measurements.
asr  Uð0:348; 0:778Þ ð11Þ
Bhargava et al. [32] proposed a procedure to compute Aw from
available data. Following this procedure, 28 values of Aw are gener-
ated (Table 2) using the data reported by Liu [10] (this is the same
data set used by Bhargava et al.). The prior probability model for Aw
is obtained by fitting this statistic using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov
model Aw :
ln Aw  N ð0:9073; 0:6752Þ ð12Þ
ð10Þ
PDF used in the updating is presented in Fig. 2(b). The use of a log-
normal distribution is also justified based on Eq. (5), which requires
Aw to be non-negative.
The joint prior distribution is taken as the product of the densi-
ties of individual parameters, by assuming (for the sake of simplic-
ity) each parameter to be independent of the other:
0 0 0
f ðHÞ ¼ f ðAw Þf ðasr Þ ð13Þ
Prior joint densities based on correlated parameters can also be
updated, if the necessary information regarding correlation is avail-
able [43].
3.2. Errors in modelling and measurement

3.1. Modelling prior probabilities
Through a compilation of data reported in literature, Jamali
et al. [42] gave the values of asr in the range of 0.348–0.778, corre-
sponding to various possible corrosion products. They pointed out
that the rust generated at various sites – such as marine, urban and
industrial environments – comprises of various products. In the
absence of any further information on the composition of rust
products, we conservatively adopt a uniform distribution for the
prior probability model of asr :
The likelihood function used in Eq. (10) serves as a very useful
means of combining the observed/measured data with the prior
information. However, in using the measured data, one must not
rule out the very likely possibility of discrepancy in the adopted
physics-based or empirical model and the presence of error in
the specific measurement techniques used. The likelihood function
used in Bayesian updating incorporates these aspects.
NDT tools for corrosion induced damage monitoring are prone
to measurement errors and have inherent deficiencies that may
lead to uncertain observations [44]. For the present study, we
 S.A. Faroz et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 457–468
Fig. 2. (a) Empirical and fitted (prior) CDFs of Aw ; (b) prior PDF of Aw .
assume that there exists an NDT tool capable of measuring the
average (that is, uniform) loss of steel in concrete. In the context
of the corrosion model of Eq. (5), W m denotes the quantity mea-
sured by the NDT and W p denotes the steel loss predicted by the
existing model:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Wp ¼ 2pD0 icorr Aw a2sr t
Relating the readings from an NDT to the ‘‘true value” of the
observed parameter is possible through measurement error mod-
els, such as lognormal or logit [45]. However, in the present study
a simpler linear model [27] is adopted:
W f ¼ b0 þ b1 W m þ em
where W f denotes the actual steel loss, b0 2 R is the constant bias
(typically expressed in % of W 0 ), b1 2 Rþ is the scaling bias of the
NDT instrument, and em  N ð0; rem Þ denotes the random error in
measurements. b0 ¼ 0 and b1 ¼ 1 signifies an unbiased NDT tool.
Determining the value of these biases may be termed as the
‘‘calibration” of an NDT tool. Al-Amin et al. [46] demonstrated
how these biases (and the random error) can be evaluated using
Bayesian inference. Obtaining the bias statistics needs the actual
‘field’ values of the measured quantity. For steel loss due to corro-
Fig. 3. (a) Prediction following the existing model; (b) calculation of the constant bias b0 .
461
sion, an NDT instrument can be calibrated against ‘‘true” measure-
ments obtained after taking the corroded bar out and using precise
techniques such as 3D scanning or a simple Archimedean principle
of finding the volume of the un-corroded bar. This work does not
focus on obtaining biases for a specific NDT instrument, rather it
emphasises on the importance of b0 and b1 in the prediction of
ð14Þ steel loss over time. The methodology presented here shows how
the biases for a calibrated instrument can be incorporated in the
updated prediction. Fitting a straight line on the squared steel loss
data reported by Torres-Acosta and Sagues [47], b0 is obtained as
1.42% of W 0 (as presented later in Fig. 3(b)). The non-
dimensional scaling bias b1 is assumed to vary in the range 0.75–
1.25, to which the sensitivity of the results is discussed.
ð15Þ
The difference between the predicted value and the true value
ðW p
W f Þ has to be zero for a correct prediction by the model.
For a realistic model, however, a global random error
e  N ð0; re Þ is required to incorporate the deficiencies of the
model and the measurement techniques. Here,
½W p
ðb0 þ b1 W m Þ represents each realisation of the zero mean
Gaussian random variable e. Typically, re is estimated by the user
based on the beliefs about the model uncertainty and the presence
of noise and bias in the measurements [48]. The global error con-
sists of the measurement error (em ) and the model error (eM ), with
462 S.A. Faroz et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 457–468

r2e ¼ r2eM þ r2em . Each of these errors can also be modelled sepa- Table 3
Steel loss data.
rately [49]. rem is typically obtained from a separate calibration
exercise of an NDT instrument. Thus, if rem is already available, Specimen t (days) W m (mg/mm)
reM can be included in the set of model variables H. 1 CPA1 13 22.89
The likelihood function is assumed to follow a normal distribution, 2 CPA2a 17 31.47
with re as the standard deviation of the quantity ½W p
ðb0 þ b1 W m Þ. 3 CPB1 24 40.15
4 CPB2 20 34.46
The likelihood for the ith measurement can be expressed as 5 CPC1 21 36.24
"  2 # 6 CPC2 28 53.44
1 W pi
ðb0 þ b1 W mi Þ 7 CPD1 18 28.64
pðW mi j HÞ ¼ p ffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi exp
ð16Þ
2pre 2r2e 8 CPD2a 20 34.13
9 CPE1 39 69.88
10 CPE2 20 34.94
For n measured data, either a recursive scheme can be adopted
11 CPF1 18 31.32
(where the previously updated density will be used as the prior 12 CPF2a 17 30.79
for the next sequence of updating) or, if the data become available 13 CPG1 10 8.240
for all past measurements together, the likelihood function can be 14 CPG2 10 2.726
15 CP1 12 17.89
constructed as
16 CP2 30 33.73
Y
n
a
Data used for updating.
pðX j HÞ ¼ pðW mi j HÞ ð17Þ
i¼1

The choice of the likelihood function does not affect the updating
procedure. However, as suggested by Karandikar et al. [48], one
should consider the aspect that, since the likelihood is based on
the user’s beliefs, the effect of the likelihood spread on the updated
estimations should be evaluated.
3.3. MCMC simulation for the posterior model
With the availability of prior density functions and the likeli-
hood incorporating the measured data, the posterior or updated
density of the desired parameter(s) can now be computed through
Eq. (10). However, the evaluation of the posterior density is diffi-
cult because the proportionality constant corresponding to Eq.
(10) is usually analytically intractable. Conventional Monte Carlo
(MC) simulations require the full expression of the posterior den-
sity to draw samples from it. To circumvent this situation, a Mar-
kov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation technique using the
Metropolis-Hastings (MH) algorithm is adopted here. MH algo-
rithm allows samples to be drawn from the posterior by making
use of a proposal density function. Considering this, the proposal
density chosen in this paper is a bivariate normal distribution:
" #!
r21 0 interval on the updated prediction of W s ðtÞ. This confidence inter-
qðH00 j H0 Þ  N H0 ;
0 r22
where H0 and H00 are the subsequent samples on the Markov chain.
The values of r21 and r22 are selected such that the acceptance rate
lies between 0.23 and 0.45 to ensure sufficient mixing of a Markov
chain [50], and are kept constant throughout the simulation. To
reduce the auto-correlation between these ‘dependent’ samples,
the so-called ‘thinning’ technique is employed in this work, where
– post burn-in – samples are stored only after a ‘lag’ of 500 itera-
tions. A total of 5000 samples are used after burn-in.
00
Samples from the posterior density function, f ðH j XÞ are then
used to estimate various functions of the variables Aw and asr , such
as W s ðtÞ. This probabilistic characterisation not only provides the
expectation of W s over time, but also its variance, which can be
used to estimate confidence intervals on the steel loss prediction.
3.4. Bayesian updating for steel loss over time
investigation on a corroding 21 mm diameter rebar in concrete,
over an anodic region, were presented. The experiment was con-
ducted using a constant current density with different measured
values of icorr for each specimen. For the present study, all observa-
tions are scaled to an icorr = 100.0 lA/cm2. This is done using the
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
fact that W / icorr t , and keeping t the same for a particular data,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
we have W scaled =W original ¼ 100= icorr . Here, W original is the steel
loss measured in their test and W scaled is the steel loss used in this
paper. From the same work, additional data are used for the valida-
tion of the updated model. These data, including the ones used for
updating, are presented in Table 3 and are shown in Fig. 3(a) along
with the estimates based on the model of Eq. (6). Based on these
data points, Fig. 3(b) illustrates the calculation of the constant bias
b0 in measurements.
The updating is performed for a set of values of re (2.5%, 5.0%,
10.0% and 20.0% of W f ). Fig. 4 shows the effect of the adopted re
value on W s ðtÞ for an instrument with b0 ¼ 1:42% and b1 ¼ 1:0.
The enhancement in prediction of steel loss over time is clearly vis-
ible in the plots of the updated model when compared to the pre-
diction based on the existing model (Eq. (6)), against the measured
data set. In addition to the expected value of the probabilistic steel
loss model used here, these plots also show the 95% confidence
ð18Þ
val typically envelops the measured data points. As expected, an
increase in re widens the 95% confidence interval. Besides, this
increase changes the mean (updated) estimation as well. Further,
effects of the measurement bias are studied by considering differ-
ent b1 values as noted in Table 4. Table 4 presents the change in the
parameters for updated distributions of Aw and asr . Fig. 5 shows
how b1 changes the results for an assumed re ¼ 2:5%. These plots
show that a change in the scaling bias changes the expected value
of W s more than it changes its confidence interval.
The results of this Bayesian updating of the time-varying steel
loss model makes a definite case for using such an approach in cor-
rosion studies. Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 clearly show the improvements that
can be achieved by using Bayesian updating over the existing cor-
rosion estimation models. The next section extends this study to
demonstrate how this updating influences the prediction of time-
varying reliability of a simple RC beam exposed to corrosive
environments.

The proposed approach requires case-specific field measure-

ments for updating the steel loss model using a Bayesian frame- 4. Reliability analysis
work. For the lack of any such data, experimental data from the
work of Torres-Acosta and Sagues [47] are adopted for the purpose For the purpose of an illustrative reliability analysis, we con-
of demonstration. In their work, the results of an experimental sider a simply-supported RC beam reinforced with three bars on
 S.A. Faroz et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 457–468 463

Fig. 4. Prediction using the updated corrosion model (b0 = 1.42%, b1 = 1.0) for (a) re ¼ 2:5%, (b) re ¼ 5:0%, (c) re ¼ 10:0%, and (d) re ¼ 20:0%.

Table 4 The beam is designed as an under-reinforced section so that flexural

Measurement biases considered and their effects on updated Aw and asr (re ¼ 2:5%). failure occurs through the yielding of steel at any time instant. Con-
b0 (% of b1 Updated Aw Updated asr sidering a slab thickness of 150 mm with a uniform floor finish of
W0) 1.0 kN/m2 [52] and a uniform live load of 2.5 kN/m2 [53], we arrive
Sample Sample Sample Sample at a 230 mm by 530 mm beam (d = 500 mm), for the load case of
mean SDa mean SD
1:5DL þ 1:5LL, DL being the dead load and LL the live load. It has
1.42 0.75 12.76 3.109 0.6991 0.06568 a single layer of three 20 mm bars, with f ck = 25 MPa and
1.42 0.875 14.41 3.581 0.7001 0.06636
1.42 1.0 15.94 3.698 0.7044 0.06259
f yk = 415 MPa.
1.42 1.125 17.65 3.919 0.7064 0.06137 Reliability analysis of this beam is performed considering both
1.42 1.25 19.19 3.917 0.7125 0.05711 uniform and pitting corrosion of the rebars. It is assumed that
a
SD = standard deviation. although shear reinforcements get corroded along with flexural
reinforcements, flexural failure always precedes shear failure. Cor-
rosion in reinforced concrete also results in the loss of bond
between steel and concrete, which is ignored in our analyses along
the tension side only, (Fig. 6) for the limit state of collapse due to with the effect of corrosion on the yield strength and ductility of
flexure. This beam is assumed to carry uniformly distributed dead reinforcing steel. For the purpose of reliability analysis, in the limit
and (arbitrary point-in-time) live loads from a floor of dimension state function, the time-varying moment capacity of the beam is
4.65 m  4.65 m. The beam is designed following the Indian Stan- calculated by removing the factors 1.15 for f yk and 1.5 for f ck in
dard IS:456 [51] for a design moment the design equation (Eq. (19)):
 
f yk f yk nb A0  
Md ¼ nb A0 d
1:005 ð19Þ f y Ast ðtÞ
1:15 bfck Mr ðtÞ ¼ f y Ast ðtÞ d
0:771 ð20Þ
bfc
where f yk is the characteristic yield strength of the rebar, f ck is the
characteristic compressive strength of the concrete, nb is the num- where f y and f c are the random variables denoting yield strength of
ber of tension rebars, A0 is the (un-corroded, at t ¼ 0) area of a ten- rebar and compressive strength of concrete, respectively. Ast ðtÞ is
sion rebar, b is the width and d is the effective depth of the beam. the residual cross-sectional area of rebars at time t. The material
464 S.A. Faroz et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 457–468

Fig. 5. Prediction using the updated corrosion model (re ¼ 2:5%) for b0 ¼ 1:42% and (a) b1 ¼ 0:75, (b) b1 ¼ 0:875, (c) b1 ¼ 1:125, and (d) b1 ¼ 1:25.

Fig. 6. Discretisation of a beam.

Table 5 at any given cross-section, steel loss in individual rebars is the same
Statistics of material and geometrical parameters. (that is, full correlation in W s for any two rebars). Also, modelling
Load Distribution Bias CoVa Ref.
error in the design equation is neglected for the lack of any informa-
tion thereof.
fy Lognormal 1.113 0.09 [40]
Traditionally, corrosion reliability analyses have been based on
fc Normal 1.264 0.1266 [60]
b Normal 1 0.02 [61]
the assumption of uniform corrosion [7]. This indirectly implies
d Normal 1 0.02 [61] that the critical section is that at which the highest external bend-
A0 Normal 1 0.04 [61] ing moment acts because of the spatial invariance in uniform cor-
a
CoV = coefficient of variation.
rosion. Pitting corrosion requires a spatial analysis as discussed in
Section 2.1. For this purpose, the beam of length L is divided into
k ¼ L=D elements of equal length D (Fig. 6). The statistics of the
(f y and f c ) and geometrical (b; d and A0 ) variations adopted in the spatial area heterogeneity factor (R) proposed by Zhang et al.
present work are given in Table 5. For simplicity, it is assumed that, [37], adopted for modelling the time-varying pitting corrosion in
 S.A. Faroz et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 457–468
this study, remain the same for each of these elements and each
bar.
The factor Rj ðtÞ for the jth element at time t is considered to be
fully correlated for all rebars, and the minimum area is assumed to
occur at the centre of each element. Assuming Aavg to be the same
for all elements at any time t, the residual steel area for an element
comprising of nb rebars is calculated using Eqs. (7)–(9):
h i
nb A0 1
WWs ðtÞ
Astj ðtÞ ¼ ð21Þ
0
Rj ðtÞ
The moment capacity of the jth element Mrj ðtÞ is calculated using
Eq. (20). As suggested by Zhang et al. [37], an element length of
D ¼ 150 mm is used for all pitting corrosion analyses in our study,
for which the statistical characteristics of Rj ðtÞ are scaled from the
base element size L0 ¼ 50 mm to D, as m ¼ m0 þ j0 lnðD=L0 Þ and
j ¼ j0 . For uniform corrosion, the reliability analyses are per-
 !
formed only at the mid-span of the beam with Rj ðtÞ ¼ 1:0.
The applied moment due to uniformly distributed loads are cal-
culated at the centre of each element
wDL þ wLL  
M qj ¼ Lxj
x2j ð22Þ
2 density estimator provides a very good fit. For Aw , the best proba-
where wDL and wLL are the (unfactored) dead and live loads per unit
length of the beam and xj is the location of the centre of the jth ele-
ment. The loads are considered to be random variables. In the
absence of any probabilistic model recommended for loads in the
relevant Indian Standards, we adopt the models suggested by SriVi-
dya and Ranganathan [54]. These load statistics are presented in
Table 6.
The limit state function for collapse against flexure for the jth
element can now be expressed as
g j ðtÞ ¼ Mrj ðtÞ
Mqj ðtÞ ð23Þ
with a time-varying probability of failure for the beam, treating it as
a series system:
Pf ðtÞ ¼ Pðg j ðtÞ min8j < 0Þ ð24Þ
The reliability of the beam bðtÞ is obtained using a first-order
reliability analysis following the Rackwitz-Fiessler algorithm [55],
for both pitting and uniform corrosion cases. For both cases, the
time-varying reliability analysis is conducted using the existing
(deterministic) model for steel loss (Eq. (6)) and the model based
on Bayesian updating. The reliability of the beam is calculated
every five years over a typical design life of 50 years.
4.1. Updated models for asr and Aw
The Rackwitz-Fiessler analysis following the first-order reliabil-
ity method (FORM) requires all random variables to be modelled
with continuous distribution functions. As discussed in Section 3.3,
Bayesian updating for steel loss provides sufficient samples (5000,
in this case) from the posterior distributions of asr and Aw . These
two parameters need to be modelled with continuous CDFs, which
can be used for a statistical characterisation of W s ðtÞ used in Eq.
(21). For these characterisations and for subsequent reliability
analyses (using the Bayesian updated model of W s ) the following
set of values are adopted for measurement errors and biases:
Table 6
Statistics of load parameters.
Load Distribution Bias CoV
Dead load (DL) Normal 1.050 0.10
Live load (LL) Lognormal 0.179 0.52
465
re ¼ 2:5%; b0 ¼ 1:42%; b1 ¼ 1:0. These values are used for the pur-
pose of illustration only, and any appropriate value may be used.
Fig. 7(a) presents the histogram of posterior samples of asr ,
which shows that this random variable has a very skewed distribu-
tion. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) goodness-of-fit test fails for
most standard probability models (normal, lognormal, gamma,
exponential, extreme types, etc.). A non-parametric kernel density
estimator [56] can be useful to obtain a smooth PDF for such vari-
ables. A kernel density usually consists of a weighing function xð:Þ
with a certain bandwidth (h) which defines its smoothness. The
PDF is generally expressed as
X
n
^f ðHÞ ¼ 1 xðH
Hi ; hÞ ð25Þ
n i¼1
where Hi ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; n are the sampled values. The weighing function
is taken in the form of a Gaussian kernel Kð:Þ for modelling asr :
1 h 1 h2
xðh; hÞ ¼ K ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi exp
2 ð26Þ
h h h 2p 2h
With a bandwidth of 100, the resulting CDF for asr is plotted along
with the empirical one in Fig. 7(b), which shows that the kernel
bilistic model based on the K-S test comes out to be a generalised
extreme value (GEV) distribution with the following parameters:
shape = 0.4035, scale = 1.622, and location = 14.13. The posterior
histogram of Aw along with the fitting of its empirical CDF using this
GEV model is shown in Fig. 8. These kernel density and GEV models
for asr and Aw , respectively, are used in the reliability analysis. The
posterior (paired) samples of asr and Aw also show a linear correla-
tion of q ¼
0:9589, which is included in the reliability analysis
along with the fitted CDFs of these two variables.
4.2. Results of the reliability analysis
Based on a Rackwitz-Fiessler reliability analysis, the initial reli-
ability of the beam, before the initiation of any corrosion, is evalu-
ated as bð0Þ ¼ 6:272, which is high for a civil structural component.
This high reliability can primarily be associated with the low value
of bias (mean to nominal ratio) in the live load model adopted.
Also, the standards used for designing the beam are not based on
rigorous reliability methods, which may result in very conservative
designs, in general (as per Ranganathan [57], a reasonable value is
in the range of 4.3–5.5 for beams designed as per this equation,
governed by flexure). However, the goal of this study is not to
obtain the actual reliability of a general beam, but to see the effects
of using a Bayesian updated corrosion model instead of the existing
empirical model on the time-varying reliability of the beam. This
high reliability also argues against the use of (Monte Carlo or
other) simulation-based analysis, which would require an inordi-
nately large number of simulations to arrive at a reasonable esti-
mate of the probability of failure.
For a parametric study, the beam is subjected to two different
corrosion rates, (a) icorr = 1.0 lA/cm2 signifying low-to-moderate
corrosion and (b) icorr = 10.0 lA/cm2 signifying severe corrosion.
Results of the reliability analyses are presented in graphical form
in Figs. 9 and 10. These plots present how the reliability of the
beam reduces over a design life of 50 years due to corrosion of
rebars (both uniform and pitting). For each case, these plots pro-
vide a comparison between results based on the existing (deter-
ministic) model and the Bayesian updated (probabilistic) model
for steel loss.
As it can be expected, the pitting corrosion model results in a
lower reliability of the beam compared to the uniform corrosion
model at any instant of time. This remains true for both the exist-
ing and updated models. The updated model (which is deemed
466 S.A. Faroz et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 457–468

Fig. 7. (a) Histogram of updated asr ; (b) empirical and fitted CDFs of updated asr .

Fig. 8. (a) Histogram of updated Aw ; (b) empirical and fitted CDFs of updated Aw .

Fig. 9. Time-varying reliability of the beam for icorr = 1.0 lA/cm2. Fig. 10. Time-varying reliability of the beam for icorr = 10.0 lA/cm2.

more realistic compared to the existing model, based on the work updated models becomes more prominent for the severe corrosion
presented earlier in Section 3) shows that the actual effect of cor- rate of 10.0 lA/cm2. The probability of failure is estimated as
rosion is significantly more than that predicted by the existing
Pf ðtÞ  U½
bðtÞ ð27Þ
model of steel loss. The difference between the existing and the
 S.A. Faroz et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 457–468
For the case of pitting corrosion, P f after 50 years is 8:652  10
9
based on the existing model and 1:100  10
3 based on the updated
model (for icorr = 10.0 lA/cm2). This significant difference between
the two models clearly justifies the use of Bayesian updating in cor-
rosion reliability analysis. Similarly, the results highlight the effect
of pitting, as opposed to uniform corrosion, which manifests in a
significant increase in P f (from 4:792  10
7 to 1:100  10
3 ) at
the end of design life in case of a severe corrosion.
5. Concluding remarks
Corrosion of rebars is the primary durability concern in rein-
forced concrete structures. Considering that these structures con-
stitute a large share of civil structures across all countries, and
that many are exposed to polluted and corrosive environments,
the issue of corrosion needs more attention from academic
research in conjunction with maintenance/management processes.
From a structural engineering point of view, loss of rebar area is
the most significant aspect of corrosion because it may eventually
lead to the possible collapse of a structure. The present study pro-
poses a novel approach of Bayesian updating of existing steel loss
model based on monitored data. This approach, while making
use of typical structural health monitoring/NDT outcomes, pro-
vides significantly better estimates of steel loss due to corrosion,
compared to the existing empirical model. It should also be noted
that the Bayesian updating presented here did not require an unre-
alistically large number of measurements to improve the estima-
tions significantly. These can be ‘‘regular” corrosion monitoring
based on a prescriptive scheme, as recommended for concrete
bridges by the Indian Roads Congress [58], or measurements based
on an optimum maintenance scheme, as suggested by Kim et al.
[59]. A time-varying reliability analysis of a sample RC beam over
its design life clearly shows the difference between predictions
based on the existing and updated models, which highlights the
importance of using an updated model. The Bayesian approach
presented here also explains how biases in instruments and mea-
surement/modelling errors can be suitably incorporated in the
updated estimates. This work shows how both pitting and uniform
corrosion models can utilise the Bayesian approach, and how the
assumptions of uniform corrosion may significantly underestimate
the probability of failure.
The proposed framework of corrosion reliability analysis can be
further extended to include more complex corrosion models, for
example (a) different corrosion for individual rebars, (b) corrosion
of shear reinforcements along with flexural rebars, (c) non-uniform
loading, etc.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the three anonymous review-
ers whose critical comments and useful suggestions have been
valuable in enhancing the quality of the paper.
References
[1] Chen D, Mahadevan S. Chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion and concrete
cracking simulation. Cem Concr Compos 2008;30(3):227–38.
[2] Tuutti K. Corrosion of steel in concrete. Tech rep 4-82. Stockholm, Sweden:
Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute; 1982.
[3] Li CQ, Zheng JJ, Lawanwisut W, Melchers RE. Concrete delamination caused by
steel reinforcement corrosion. ASCE J Mater Civil Eng 2007;19(7):591–600.
[4] Hariche L, Ballim Y, Bouhicha M, Kenai S. Effects of reinforcement
configuration and sustained load on the behaviour of reinforced concrete
beams affected by reinforcing steel corrosion. Cem Concr Compos 2012;34
(10):1202–9.
[5] Alonso C, Andrade C, Rodriguez J, Diez JM. Factors controlling cracking of
concrete affected by reinforcement corrosion. Mater Struct 1996;31
(211):435–41.
467
[6] Almusallam AA, Al-Gahtani AS, Aziz AR, Rasheeduzzafar. Effect of
reinforcement corrosion on bond strength. Constr Build Mater 1996;10
(2):123–9.
[7] Stewart MG. Spatial variability of pitting corrosion and its influence on
structural fragility and reliability of RC beams in flexure. Struct Saf 2004;26
(4):453–70.
[8] Stewart MG, Al-Harthy A. Pitting corrosion and structural reliability of
corroding RC structures: experimental data and probabilistic analysis. Reliab
Eng Syst Saf 2008;93(3):373–82.
[9] Faroz SA, Pujari NN, Ghosh S. A Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach
for the estimation of corrosion in reinforced concrete structures. In: Topping
BHV, Iványi P, editors. Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on
computational structures technology. Stirlingshire, UK: Civil-Comp Press;
2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.4203/ccp.106.150 [paper 150].
[10] Liu Y. Modeling the time to corrosion cracking of the cover concrete in chloride
contaminated reinforced concrete structures PhD thesis. Blacksburg,
USA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; 1996.
[11] Chung L, Paik IK, Cho SH, Roh YS. Infrared thermographic technique to
measure corrosion in reinforcing bar. Key Eng Mater 2006;321–323:821–4.
[12] Kobayashi K, Banthia N. Corrosion detection in reinforced concrete using
induction heating and infrared thermography. J Civil Struct Health Monitor
2011;1(1–2):25–35.
[13] Baek S, Xue W, Feng MQ, Kwon S. Nondestructive corrosion detection in RC
through integrated heat induction and ir thermography. J Nondestruct Eval
2012;31(2):181–90.
[14] Michel A, Pease BJ, Geiker MR, Stang H, Olesen JF. Monitoring reinforcement
corrosion and corrosion-induced cracking using non-destructive X-ray
attenuation measurements. Cem Concr Res 2011;41(11):1085–94.
[15] Akiyama M, Frangopol DM. Estimation of steel weight loss due to corrosion in
RC members based on digital image processing of X-ray photogram. In:
Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on life-cycle civil engineering
(IALCCE 2012), Vienna, Austria. p. 1885–91.
[16] Itty PA, Serdar M, Meral C, Parkinson D, MacDowell AA, Bjegović D, et al. In situ
3D monitoring of corrosion on carbon steel and ferritic stainless steel
embedded in cement paste. Corros Sci 2014;83:409–18.
[17] Ahmad S, Bhattacharjee B. A simple arrangement and procedure for in-situ
measurement of corrosion rate of rebar embedded in concrete. Corros Sci
1995;37(5):781–91.
[18] Alghamdi SA, Ahmad S. Service life prediction of RC structures based on
correlation between electrochemical and gravimetric reinforcement corrosion
rates. Cem Concr Compos 2014;47:64–8.
[19] Frangopol DM, Lin KY, Estes AC. Life-cycle cost design of deteriorating
structures. ASCE J Struct Eng 1997;123(10):1390–401.
[20] Ang AHS, Tang WH. Probability concepts in engineering. 2nd ed. New York,
USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2007.
[21] Rafiq MI, Chryssanthopoulos MK, Onoufriou T. Performance updating of
concrete bridges using proactive health monitoring methods. Reliab Eng Syst
Saf 2004;86(3):247–56.
[22] Keßler S, Fischer J, Straub D, Gehlen C. Updating of service-life prediction of
reinforced concrete structures with potential mapping. Cem Concr Compos
2014;47:47–52.
[23] Samarakoon SMSMK, Sælensminde J. Condition assessment of reinforced
concrete structures subject to chloride ingress: a case study of updating the
model prediction considering inspection data. Cem Concr Compos
2015;60:92–8.
[24] Otieno MB, Beushausen HD, Alexander MG. Modelling corrosion propagation
in reinforced concrete structures – A critical review. Cem Concr Compos
2011;33(2):240–5.
[25] Suo Q, Stewart MG. Corrosion cracking prediction updating of deteriorating RC
structures using inspection information. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2009;94
(8):1340–8.
[26] Akiyama M, Frangopol DM, Yoshida I. Time-dependent reliability analysis of
existing RC structures in a marine environment using hazard associated with
airborne chlorides. Eng Struct 2010;32(11):3768–79.
[27] Zheng R, Ellingwood BR. Role of non-destructive evaluation in time-dependent
reliability analysis. Struct Saf 1998;20(4):325–39.
[28] Malumbela G, Moyo P, Alexander M. A step towards standardising accelerated
corrosion tests on laboratory reinforced concrete specimens. J SA Inst Civil Eng
2012;54(2):78–85.
[29] Liu Y, Weyers RE. Modeling the time-to-corrosion cracking in chloride
contaminated reinforced concrete structures. ACI Mater J 1998;95(6):
675–81.
[30] Benarie M, Lipfert FL. A general corrosion function in terms of atmospheric
pollutant concentrations and rain pH. Atmos Environ 1986;20(10):1947–58.
[31] Melchers RE. Mathematical modelling of the diffusion controlled phase in
marine immersion corrosion of mild steel. Corros Sci 2003;45(5):923–40.
[32] Bhargava K, Ghosh AK, Mori Y, Ramanujam S. Analytical model for time to
cover cracking in RC structures due to rebar corrosion. Nucl Eng Des 2006;236
(11):1123–39.
[33] González JA, Andrade C, Alonso C, Feliu S. Comparison of rates of general
corrosion and maximum pitting penetration on concrete embedded steel
reinforcement. Cem Concr Res 1995;25(2):257–64.
[34] DuraCrete. Statistical quantification of the variables in the limit state
functions. The European Union – Brite EuRam III, Project No. BE95-1347; 2000.
[35] Val DV, Melchers RE. Reliability of deteriorating RC slab bridges. ASCE J Struct
Eng 1997;123(12):1638–44.
468 S.A. Faroz et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 457–468
[36] Darmawan MS. Pitting corrosion model for reinforced concrete structures in a
chloride environment. Magaz Concr Res 2010;62(2):91–101.
[37] Zhang W, Zhou B, Gu X, Dai H. Probability distribution model for cross-
sectional area of corroded reinforcing steel bars. ASCE J Mater Civil Eng
2014;26(5):822–32.
[38] Kashani MM, Crewe AJ, Alexander NA. Use of a 3D optical measurement
technique for stochastic corrosion pattern analysis of reinforcing bars
subjected to accelerated corrosion. Corros Sci 2013;73:208–21.
[39] Tang F, Lin Z, Chen G, Yi W. Three-dimensional corrosion pit measurement and
statistical mechanical degradation analysis of deformed steel bars subjected to
accelerated corrosion. Constr Build Mater 2014;70:104–17.
[40] Pujari NN, Ghosh S, Lala S. Bayesian approach for the seismic fragility
estimation of a containment shell based on the formation of through-wall
cracks. ASCE-ASME J Risk Uncertain Eng Syst, Part A: Civil Eng 2015. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/AJRUA6.0000840.
[41] Rastogi R, Ghosh S, Ghosh AK, Vaze KK, Singh PK. Fatigue crack growth
prediction in nuclear piping using Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation.
Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12486.
[42] Jamali A, Angst U, Adey B, Elsener B. Modeling of corrosion-induced concrete
cover cracking: a critical analysis. Constr Build Mater 2013;42:225–37.
[43] Zhu B, Frangopol DM. Reliability assessment of ship structures using Bayesian
updating. Eng Struct 2013;56:1836–47.
[44] Song HW, Saraswathy V. Corrosion monitoring of reinforced concrete
structures – A review. Int J Electrochem Sci 2007;2(1):1–28.
[45] Simola K, Pulkkinen U. Models for non-destructive inspection data. Reliab Eng
Syst Saf 1998;60(1):1–12.
[46] Al-Amin M, Zhou W, Zhang S, Kariyawasam S, Wang H. Bayesian model for
calibration of ILI tools. Proceedings of the Biennial international pipeline
conference, IPC, vol. 2. p. 201–8.
[47] Torres-Acosta AA, Sagues AA. Concrete cracking by localized steel corrosion –
Geometric effects. ACI Mater J 2004;101(6):501–7.
[48] Karandikar JM, Kim NH, Schmitz TL. Prediction of remaining useful life for
fatigue-damaged structures using Bayesian inference. Eng Fract Mech
2012;96:588–605.
[49] Beck JL, Katafygiotis LS. Updating models and their uncertainties. I: Bayesian
statistical framework. ASCE J Eng Mech 1998;124(4):455–61.
[50] Chib S, Greenberg E. Understanding Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. Am Stat
1995;49(4):327–35.
[51] BIS. IS 456 Indian standard for plain and reinforced concrete – Code of
practice. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards; 2000.
[52] BIS. IS 875 Code of practice for design loads for buildings and structures, Part
1: dead loads. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards; 1987.
[53] BIS. IS 875 Code of practice for design loads for buildings and structures, Part
2: imposed loads. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards; 1987.
[54] SriVidya A, Ranganathan R. Reliability based optimal design of reinforced
concrete frames. Comput Struct 1995;57(4):651–61.
[55] Nowak AS, Collins KR. Reliability of structures. New York, USA: McGraw Hill;
2000.
[56] Härdle W, Müller M, Sperlich S, Werwatz A. Nonparametric and
semiparametric models. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2004.
[57] Ranganathan R. Structural reliability analysis and design. Mumbai, India: Jaico
Publishing House; 1999.
[58] IRC. IRC:SP:60-2002 An approach document for assessment of remaining life
of concrete bridges. Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, India; 2002.
[59] Kim S, Frangopol DM, Zhu B. Probabilistic optimum inspection/repair planning
to extend lifetime of deteriorating structures. ASCE J Perform Constr Facilit
2011;25(6):534–44.
[60] BIS. IS 10262 Concrete mix proportioning – Guidelines. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India; 2009.
[61] Lu R, Luo Y, Conte JP. Reliability evaluation of reinforced concrete beams.
Struct Saf 1994;14(4):277–98.