Construction and Building Materials 15 Ž2001.

361᎐368

Effect of degree of corrosion on the properties of reinforcing

steel bars

Abdullah A. AlmusallamU
Department of Ci¨ il Engineering, King Fahd Uni¨ ersity of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia

Received 15 February 2000; received in revised form 10 November 2000; accepted 5 January 2001

Abstract

This paper reports results of a study conducted to assess the effect of degree of corrosion of reinforcing steel bars on their
mechanical properties. Reinforcing steel bars, 6 and 12 mm in diameter, that were corroded in reinforced concrete specimens
were removed and tested in tension. Results indicated that the level of reinforcement corrosion does not influence the tensile
strength of steel bars, calculated on the actual area of cross-section. However, when the nominal diameter is utilized in the
calculation, the tensile strength is less than the ASTM A 615 requirement of 600 MPa when the degree of corrosion was 11 and
24% for 6- and 12-mm diameter steel bars, respectively. Furthermore, reinforcing steel bars with more than 12% corrosion
indicates a brittle failure. 䊚 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Concrete; Reinforced bars; Corrosion; Failure

1. Introduction the reinforcing steel. The dense and relatively im-

The reduction in the useful service-life of reinforced
concrete structures, mainly due to reinforcement corro-
sion, is a cause of concern to the construction industry
world wide. Considerable resources are expended to
repair and rehabilitate deteriorating concrete struc-
tures. It is estimated that more than $20 billion are
required for the repair and rehabilitation of highway
structures in the US w1x and more than £600 million for
repairing road bridges in the UK w2x. The cost of repair
and rehabilitation of reinforced concrete structures in
the other parts of the world is not very well docu-
mented, but undoubtedly, considerable resources have
to be allocated towards restoring the useful service-life
of deteriorating concrete structures.
In normal situations, concrete provides protection to
U protect the surface of the steel from direct access of
Tel.: q966-3-860-2900; fax: q966-3-860-2911.
E-mail address: musallam@ksu.edu.sa ŽA.A. Almusallam..
permeable structure of concrete provides the physical
protection, while the high alkalinity of the pore solu-
tion provides the chemical protection. The alkaline
compounds, mainly calcium and to a certain extent
pottasium and sodium, in the cement contribute to the
high alkalinity ŽpH) 13.5. of the pore solution. At this
high pH, steel is passivated in the presence of oxygen
presumably due to the formation of a sub-microscopi-
cally thin ␥-Fe 2 O 3 film w3,4x. Hime and Erlin w5x sug-
gested that the passivating layers on the steel surface
could have a composition other than that of ␥-Fe 2 O 3 .
According to Page w6x, the lime-rich layer at the steel-
concrete interface, provides further protection to the
steel. This was confirmed by Leek and Poole w7x who
reported that the interfacial layer consists of an aggre-
gates-free zone of portlandite wCaŽOH. 2 x of variable
thickness Ž5᎐15 ␮ m. disrupted by inclusions of calcium
silicate hydrate ŽC᎐S᎐H. gel. This layer is thought to
aggressive ions and to act as an alkaline buffer to pH

0950-0618r01r$ - see front matter 䊚 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S 0 9 5 0 - 0 6 1 8 Ž 0 1 . 0 0 0 0 9 - 5
362 A.A. Almusallam r Construction and Building Materials 15 (2001) 361᎐368
reductions resulting from the hydrolysis of corrosion
products w8x. According to Sagoe-Crentsil and Glasser
w9x, both CaŽOH. 2 and C᎐S᎐H gel form a buffering
pair and a high pH is as readily maintained by C᎐S᎐H
as by CaŽOH. 2 .
Corrosion of the reinforcing steel bars is caused
either due to diffusion of the chloride ions to the steel
surface or due to carbonation of concrete. Corrosion of
reinforcing steel and the subsequent cracking of con-
crete due to the ingress of chloride ions to the steel
surface is more predominant than that due to carbona-
tion of concrete. A number of mechanisms by which
chlorides break down the passive layer have been pro-
posed, e.g. the chemical dissolution of the film w10x, the
build up of the metal holes at the filmrsubstrate inter-
face w11x and also, the high chloride concentrations at
the iron oxiderpore solution interface which leads to
local acidification and pitting w12x. Leek and Poole w7x,
based on SEMrEDS studies of the passive film break-
down on steel in mortar prisms, have shown that chlo-
ride ions initiate corrosion by breaking the bond
between the film and the metal. Whatever the cause,
corrosion of reinforcing steel leads to cracking of con-
crete and subsequent loss in the load-carrying capacity
of a reinforced concrete member.
The reduction in the load-carrying capacity of a
reinforced concrete member due to reinforcement cor-
rosion is attributed to the combined effect of a de-
crease in the bond between concrete andror reduction
in the tensile strength of the bars. While some data are
available on the effect of reinforcement corrosion on
the bond strength of concrete w13,14x, its influence on
the mechanical properties of reinforcing steel is scantly
investigated. Maslehuddin et al. w13x evaluated the ef-
fect of atmospheric corrosion on the mechanical
properties of steel bars. However, it should be noted
that atmospheric corrosion does not affect the mechan-
ical properties of reinforcing steel as much as its corro-
sion in concrete. Also, corrosion of reinforcing steel
induces cracks in concrete, thereby affecting the in-
tegrity of a structural component. The degree of rein-
forcement corrosion and the resulting decrease in the
load-carrying capacity of both steel bars and the struc-
tural component needs to be evaluated to assess the
residual strength of concrete and formulate repair
strategies.
This study was conducted to evaluate the relation-
ship between the degree of corrosion of the steel bars
in concrete on their mechanical properties.
2. Experimental program
Reinforcing steel bars were embedded in the con-
crete specimens prepared with ASTM C 150 Type V
cement. Crushed limestone with a maximum size of 19
mm, specific gravity of 2.64 and water absorption of
2.3% was used as coarse aggregate, while beach sand
with a specific gravity of 2.64 and water absorption of
0.56% was used as fine aggregate. A coarse to fine
aggregate ratio of 1.68 and a waterrcement ratio of
0.45 were kept invariant in all the concrete mixtures.
Two groups of concrete specimens were prepared. The
first group of specimens was prepared with 6-mm di-
ameter steel bars while the other group was prepared
with 12-mm diameter steel bars. Deformed reinforcing
steel bars meeting the requirements of Grade 60 of
ASTM A 615 were utilized in the concrete specimens.
After casting, the concrete specimens were cured for
28 days. The corrosion of reinforcing steel was acceler-
ated by impressing an anodic current of 2 mArcm2 .
This was done through an integrated system incor-
porating a DC rectifier with a built-in ammeter to
monitor the current and a potentiometer to control the
current intensity. The concrete specimens were par-
tially immersed in 5% sodium chloride solution in a
fiberglass tank so that the reinforcing steel bars were
above the solution. This type of arrangement was se-
lected to assure that the corrosion product formed is
not washed away and cracks are formed in the concrete
specimens. The direction of the current was adjusted so
that the reinforcing steel became an anode and a
stainless steel plate placed on top of the concrete
specimen served as a cathode. A schematic representa-
tion of the test set-up is shown in Fig. 1. In order to
induce different levels of reinforcement corrosion, a
calibration curve establishing the relationship between
the duration of the impressed current and the corre-
sponding degree of reinforcement corrosion was pre-
pared prior to conducting the actual experiments. The
current supplied to each concrete specimen was
checked on a regular basis and a drift was corrected by
adjusting the potentiometer. The desired degree of
reinforcement corrosion was obtained by applying the
anodic current for the time period assessed from the
calibration curve.
After the desired level of reinforcement, corrosion
was obtained, the concrete specimens were split along
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the accelerated corrosion test
setup.
 A.A. Almusallam r Construction and Building Materials 15 (2001) 361᎐368 363

the line of the steel bars. The degree of reinforcement

corrosion was measured as gravimetric loss in weight of
the reinforcing steel bars after cleaning them with
Clark’s solution according to ASTM G1. After assess-
ing the weight loss, the steel bars were tested in tension
to evaluate their mechanical properties. The mechani-
cal properties of the steel bars were evaluated using an
Instron Universal Testing machine of 250 kN capacity.
A purpose-built extensometer was utilized to measure
the elongation in the bar. The load and elongation data
were recorded using a computerized data acquisition
system at pre-determined load intervals till failure of
the specimen occurred. The data so generated were
utilized to plot stress᎐strain diagrams for each of the
tested specimens. The stress᎐strain diagrams were uti-
lized to determine the yield and tensile strength of the
steel bars. The elongation, due to the applied load, was Fig. 2. Stress᎐strain curve for 6-mm diameter steel bar with 0.88%
measured after the completion of the tensile test and it corrosion.
was expressed as a percentage of the original gauge
length. The tensile tests were conducted on both clean
and corroded reinforcing steel bars so that the influ- 12-mm diameter steel bars, with 11.7 and 32.70% cor-
ence of degree of reinforcement corrosion on the ten- rosion, respectively. In this group of specimens also,
sile properties of reinforcing steel bars could be as- the degree of reinforcement corrosion did not affect
sessed. the ultimate tensile stress. The variation of the tensile
strength of 12-mm diameter steel bars, with the degree
of reinforcement corrosion, is plotted in Fig. 7. These
3. Results and discussion data indicate that the variation in the tensile strength
with degree of corrosion is very insignificant. For exam-
3.1. Effect of corrosion on the tensile properties of steel ple, the actual tensile stress is 760 MPa for the clean
bars bars and 844 MPa for the steel bars with 80% corro-
sion. The data on tensile strength calculated using the
Figs. 2 and 3 are typical stress᎐strain curves for actual and nominal diameter of 12-mm diameter are
6-mm diameter steel bars with varying degrees of cor- summarized in Table 2. The tensile strength calculated
rosion. The tensile strength of both the groups of these using actual area of cross-section is more than 600
steel bars is almost similar. However, the total elonga- MPa specified by ASTM A 615. However, the tensile
tion of the bars with 0.88% corrosion is more than that strength calculated on the nominal area based on a
of bars with 13.9%. Table 1 summarizes the tensile
strength data for 6-mm diameter bars with varying
degree of reinforcement corrosion. These data indicate
that the actual load carried by the bars decreased with
increasing level of reinforcement corrosion. However,
due to a decrease in the cross-section of the bars net
tensile strength is marginally affected. Fig. 4 shows the
variation of the ultimate strength of 6-mm diameter
steel bars with the degree of corrosion. The ultimate
strength of the clean bars and those corroded to 75%
corrosion was 796 and 741 MPa, respectively. It should
also be noted that even after degradation of the bars
due to reinforcement corrosion their tensile strength is
more than 600 MPa specified by ASTM A 615. Table 1
also shows the tensile strength of bars calculated using
the nominal diameter, i.e. 6 mm. Using this criteria the
tensile strength of the steel bars falls below the ASTM
A 615 criteria of 600 MPa when the degree of rein-
forcement corrosion is 11.6% and above. Fig. 3. Stress᎐strain curve for 6-mm diameter steel bar with 13.9%
Figs. 5 and 6 are typical stress᎐strain curves for corrosion.
364 A.A. Almusallam r Construction and Building Materials 15 (2001) 361᎐368

Table 1
Tensile strength of 6-mm diameter steel bars

Specimen Corrosion Average Ultimate Actual tensile Nominal tensile

噛 Ž%. diameter Žmm. load ŽkN. stress ŽMPa. stress ŽMPa.

STI 0 5.9 21.76 796 769.0

ST2 0 5.9 21.76 796 769.0
ST3 0 5.9 21.76 796 769.0
2SAC2 0.88 5.85 21.01 781.7 742.8
2SCB2 1.10 5.80 20.49 775.9 724.8
1SAA1 1.22 5.85 20.86 776.1 737.5
2SAA1 1.45 5.81 20.53 774.5 725.8
2SAA2 1.45 5.89 21.09 774.03 745.6
1SCD1 1.63 5.85 20.762 772.45 734.0
1SCB2 11.64 5.25 16.521 763.2 584.0
2SCA2 12.364 5.10 16.75 819.95 592.2
1SAB2 13.13 4.8 14.62 808.07 517.0
2SAB2 13.89 4.95 14.13 734.00 499.4
1SAG1 17.83 4.95 13.05 678.20 461.4
2SAG2 19.40 4.95 15.03 780.80 531.2
1SAD1 24.95 4.30 10.79 743.00 381.5
2SCC1 27.27 4.15 9.043 668.56 319.7
1SCC1 28.32 4.00 9.281 738.90 328.1
2SAH2 32.02 3.90 9.266 776.00 327.6
1SCA2 40.70 4.10 10.156 769.00 359.0
1SAI2 48.25 4.10 10.134 767.60 358.3
2SAI2 75.00 3.00 4.877 740.80 172.2

diameter of 12 mm is less than the value specified by A
615 for reinforcement corrosion of 24% and above.
The above results indicate that even at high levels of
corrosion, there is no significant change in the tensile
strength of bars calculated using the actual cross-sec-
tion. However, when the nominal diameter of the bars
is utilized to calculate the tensile strength, these values
fall below the ASTM A 615 specifications of 600 MPa
for reinforcement corrosion of 11.6% or more for 6-mm
diameter steel bars and 24% or more for 12-mm di-
ameter steel bars. Also, the brittleness of steel bars is
affected by the degree of reinforcement corrosion as
will be discussed in the latter part of this paper. Masle-
huddin et al. w13x exposed reinforcing steel bars of six
different sizes to the atmosphere for 16 months and
concluded that the effect of rusting of reinforcement
due to atmospheric exposure for 16 months on the
yield and ultimate tensile strength of reinforcing steel
is insignificant. Their test results indicated either a
slight increase or no change in the strength of steel
with increasing period of exposure. However, in their
tests, nominal diameter of bars was utilized to calculate
the yield and tensile strength. Aldridge et al. w14x
exposed steel bars of various sizes conforming to ASTM
A 350-56T to three different corrosive environmental

Fig. 4. Variation of ultimate strength with the degree of corrosion in Fig. 5. Stress᎐strain curve for 12-mm diameter steel bar with 11.7%
6-mm diameter steel bars. corrosion.
 A.A. Almusallam r Construction and Building Materials 15 (2001) 361᎐368 365

Fig. 7. Variation of ultimate strength with a degree of corrosion in

12-mm diameter steel bars.

Fig. 6. Stress᎐strain curve for 12-mm diameter steel bar with 32.7%
corrosion.
conditions, namely, normal out-doors, moist room with
100% relative humidity and simulated sea-water spray
for an exposure time varying up to 12 months. Their
study indicated that tensile strength of indoor and
outdoor corroded bars was not affected by the degree
of surface corrosion, while the ultimate tensile strength
of the 3 months sea water rusted bars was reduced by
approximately 3.7% w14x.
Uomoto et al. w15x evaluated the tensile strength of
steel bars obtained from structures affected by rein-
forcement corrosion. Their study indicated that both
the yield and ultimate strengths of corroded steel bars
were within the range of 90᎐95% of the non-corroded
bars. Also, Uomoto and Misra w16x conducted strength
tests on the corroded bars from beams and columns
exposed to marine environment for varying periods.
They reported that the reduction in both the yield

Table 2
Tensile strength of 12-mm diameter bars

Specimen Corrosion Average Ultimate load, Actual tensile Nominal stress

噛 Ž%. diameter Žmm. ŽkN. stress ŽMPa. ŽMPa.

1PCCT 0 11.75 82.38 759.72 728.1

2PCCT 0 11.75 82.25 758.5 727.0
3PCCT 0 11.70 81.58 758.8 721.0
1PCC 2.11 11.63 80.52 757.97 711.7
2PAG 2.69 11.75 82.12 757.3 725.8
2PCD 3.37 11.70 81.31 756.3 718.7
2PAH 3.93 11.71 81.37 757.5 719.2
1PAG 4.0 11.70 81.68 753.9 722.0
2PAE 4.78 11.71 81.11 753.3 716.9
1PAH 5.09 11.67 80.36 751.29 710.3
1PAE 5.68 11.70 80.96 753.0 715.6
2PFD 6.60 11.58 78.66 746.7 695.2
1PFE 7.80 11.44 76.61 745.32 677.1
1PCA 11.72 11.10 71.94 743.42 635.8
2PFF 12.29 11.00 74.32 782.00 656.9
2PCA 15.65 10.50 69.88 807.0 617.6
1PAC 20.55 10.50 69.45 802.0 613.8
1PAD 24.0 10.20 64.27 786.0 568.0
1PCB 24.0 10.05 59.33 748.0 524.4
2PAD 25.65 10.05 60.5 762.0 534.7
1PAJ 32.65 9.35 54.71 796.8 483.5
1PAB 39.50 8.60 47.34 815.0 418.4
1PAA 48.25 7.30 33.68 816.0 297.7
1PCD 51.00 7.90 40.00 816.0 353.5
1PAF 60.70 7.45 29.36 673.0 259.5
2PAA 80.00 4.50 13.43 844.0 118.7
366 A.A. Almusallam r Construction and Building Materials 15 (2001) 361᎐368

Fig. 8. Load-elongation curves for 6-mm diameter steel bars with Fig. 9. Effect of corrosion on the configuration of reinforcing steel
varying degree of corrosion. bars.

strength and the ultimate strength of steel bars ranged thinned section of the steel bars is stretched by a
from 5 to 10% of the original bars. tensile force, the strain would be concentrated at the
notch and the overall strain of the bar will be less at
3.2. Effect of corrosion on the mode of failure of the bars failure than in an uncorroded bar. Hence, as the notch
becomes deeper, the stress concentration progressively
increases at the locations of notch and the rebar behav-
Fig. 8 shows the load-elongation curves for 6-mm ior effectively becomes more brittle.
diameter steel bars, corroded to different levels. This
comparison indicates that as the degree of corrosion
increases, the corresponding elongation of the bar be-
fore failure decreases. There is a systematic pattern
wherein with increasing corrosion, the bars fail with
decreasing amount of yield strain compared to the
non-corroded bars, which show a large amount of yield-
ing before their ultimate failure. This indicates that
corrosion of reinforcing steel increases its brittleness.
Reinforcing steel bars with 12.6% or more reinforce-
ment corrosion indicate a brittle behavior. Also, the
elongation of bars with 12% or more corrosion is
generally less than that specified by ASTM A 615, i.e.
9%. Fig. 9 shows the effect of increasing corrosion on
the rebar configuration. It is seen that as corrosion
progresses beyond 40%, relatively small lengths of re-
bars show thinning, thereby demonstrating the ten-
dency for notch formation with increasing corrosion.
Figs. 10 and 11 show several severe notches for bars
corroded to 75 and 80%, respectively. This preferential
corrosion is characterized for high levels of chlorides or
for situations where concrete is cracked or honey-com-
bed at specific locations providing ingress to chloride
ions and oxygen to the steel surface at such locations.
Preferential corrosion resulting in the thinning of steel
bars over small lengths would have the effect of reduc-
ing considerably the cross-sectional area of the bars
locally and hence, reducing the load-carrying capacity
of the bars. Preferential corrosion and notch formation
also alters, as seen in Fig. 8, the load-deformation
characteristics of the rebars. When a notch or locally Fig. 10. Effect of 75% corrosion on rebar configuration.
 A.A. Almusallam r Construction and Building Materials 15 (2001) 361᎐368
Fig. 11. Effect of 80% corrosion on rebar configuration.
The above finding is supported by a study conducted
by Almusallam et al. w17x. Their study indicated a
decrease in the load-carrying capacity of concrete slabs
with corroded reinforcement due to a reduction in the
area of the cross-section of the bars at the points where
corrosion was concentrated, thereby reducing the
load-carrying capacity of the steel at these locations
and the bars exhibited sudden failure without yielding.
They concluded that reinforcement corrosion not only
reduces the strength of the slabs but also induces
brittle failure. They also indicated a close relationship
between the failure characteristics of reinforcing steel
bars and the slabs with corroded reinforcement. The
practical implications of this position is that the large
deformations that occur in under-reinforced flexural
members prior to failure will not occur when the bars
are severely corroded, thereby eliminating the most
desirable warning prior to failure of the structure.
Results projecting a reduction in the load-carrying ca-
pacity and loss in ductility of beams made with bars
corroded to varying degrees have also been reported by
Uomoto et al. w15x and Uomoto and Misra w16x. Ting
and Nowak w18x developed a mathematical model to
evaluate the effect of reinforcing steel area on flexural
behavior of reinforced concrete beams. They concluded
that the strength reduction, due to reinforcement cor-
rosion, is a linear function of the loss of the material
due to corrosion.
4. Conclusions
A marginal decrease in the tensile strength of steel
bars was noted with increasing degree of reinforcement
corrosion when the stress was calculated utilizing the
actual area of cross-section. Also, the tensile strength
calculated using the actual area of cross-section was
more than 600 MPa for bars with as much as 75 to 80%
corrosion. However, when the tensile strength was cal-
culated utilizing the nominal diameter, the tensile
strength was less than the ASTM A 615 requirement of
367
600 MPa when the level of corrosion was 12% or more
in 6-mm diameter steel bars and 24% or more in the
12-mm diameter steel bars.
The data on stress᎐strain characteristics of reinforc-
ing steel bars corroded to varying levels of corrosion
indicate a decrease in the ductility of bars with increas-
ing level of corrosion. Furthermore, with increasing
levels of corrosion bars failing at low level of yield
strain compared to uncorroded steel bars that demon-
strate large yielding before failure. Reinforcing steel
bars with 12.6% or more reinforcement corrosion indi-
cated a brittle behavior. Also, the elongation of bars
with more than 12% corrosion was less than 9% speci-
fied by ASTM A 615.
The results of this study indicated a close relation-
ship between the failure characteristics of steel bars
and slabs with corroded reinforcement in that a sudden
failure of slabs in flexure was noted when the degree of
reinforcement corrosion was more than 13%.
References
w1x Strategic High Research Program. Concrete and Structures:
Progress and Product Update. Washington DC: National Re-
search Council, 1989.
w2x Wallbank EJ. The Performance of Concrete in Bridges, HMSO,
London, 1989.
w3x Pourbaix M. Applications of electrochemistry in corrosion sci-
ence and practice. Corros Sci 1974;14:25᎐28.
w4x Pourbaix M. In: Franklin JA, editor. Atlas of Electrochemical
Equilibria in Aqueous Solutions. New York: Pergamon Press,
1966:312.
w5x Hime W, Erlin B. Some Chemical and Physical Aspects of
Phenomena Associated with Chloride-Induced Corrosion, Cor-
rosion, Concrete and Chlorides. Detroit: ACI SP-102, Americal
Concrete Institute, 1987:1᎐12.
w6x Page CL. The mechanisms of corrosion protection in rein-
forced concrete marine structures. Nature 1975;258:514᎐515.
w7x Leek DS, Poole AB. In: Page CL, Treadaway KWJ, Bamforth
Q, editors. The Breakdown of the Passive Film on High Yield
Mild Steel by Chloride Ions, Corrosion of Reinforcement Cor-
rosion in Concrete. London: Elsevier Science, 1990:65᎐73.
w8x Page CL, Treadaway KWJ. Aspects of electrochemistry of steel
in concrete. Nature 1982;279Ž5862.:109᎐115.
w9x Sagoe-Crenstil KK, Glasser FP. In: Page CL, Treadaway KWJ,
Bamforth Q, editors. Analysis of the Steel Concrete Interface,
Corrosion of Reinforcement in Concrete. London: Elsevier
Applied Science, 1990:74᎐86.
w10x Hoar TP. The anodic behavior of metals. Corros Sci
1967;7:341᎐355.
w11x Chao CY, Lin LF, MacDonald DD. A point defect model for
anodic passive films. Part I: film growth kinetics. Part II:
chemical breakdown and pit initiation. J Electrochem Soc
1981;128:1187᎐1194.
w12x Alvarez MG, Galvele JR. The mechanisms of pitting of high
purity iron in NaCl solutions. Corros Sci 1984;24:27᎐48.
w13x Maslehuddin M, Ibrahim IM, Al-Sulaimani GJ, Al-Mana AI,
Abduljauwad SN. Effect of rusting of reinforcing steel on its
mechanical properties and bond with concrete. ACI Mater J
1990:496᎐502.
w14x Aldridge WW, Jaffarzadeh M, Farhadi K. Effect of Corrorsion
368 A.A. Almusallam r Construction and Building Materials 15 (2001) 361᎐368
Band Bar Spacing on Bond Properties of Reinforcing Bar in
Concrete. University of Oklahoma Research Institute, 1970.
w15x Uomoto T, Tsoji K, Kakizawa T. Deterioration mechanism of
concrete structures caused by corrosion of reinforcing bars.
Trans Jpn Concr Inst 1984;6:163᎐170.
w16x Uomoto T, Misra S. Behaviour of Concrete Beams and Columns
in Marine Environment when Corrosion of Reinforcing Bars
takes Place. Detriot: ACI Spec. Publ. SP-109, American Con-
crete Institute, 1984:127᎐146.
w17x Almusallam AA, Al-Gahtani AS, Aziz AR, Dakhil FH, Rashee-
duzzafar P. Effect of reinforcement corrosion on flexural be-
havior of reinforced concrete slabs. ASCE J Mater Civil Eng
1996;8Ž3.:123᎐127.
w18x Ting SC, Nowak AS. Effect of reinforcing steel area loss on
flexural behavior of reinforced concrete bars. ACI Struct J
1991;88Ž3.:309᎐314.