Corrosion Science 48 (2006) 531–545

www.elsevier.com/locate/corsci

EVect of the reinforcement bar arrangement

on the eYciency of electrochemical chloride
removal technique applied to
reinforced concrete structures
P. Garcés ¤, M.J. Sánchez de Rojas, M.A. Climent
Dpto. Ing. de la Construcción, Obras Públicas e Infraestructura Urbana,
Universidad de Alicante. Apdo. 99, E-03080 Alicante, Spain

Received 26 January 2004; accepted 25 February 2005

Available online 17 May 2005

Abstract

This paper reports on the research done to Wnd out the eVect that diVerent bar arrange-
ments may have on the eYciency of the electrochemical chloride removal (ECR) technique
when applied to a reinforced concrete structural member. Five diVerent types of bar arrange-
ments were considered, corresponding to typical structural members such as columns (with
single and double bar reinforcing), slabs, beams and footings. ECR was applied in several
steps. We observe that the extraction eYciency depends on the reinforcing bar arrangement. A
uniform layer set-up favours chloride extraction. Electrochemical techniques were also used to
estimate the reinforcing bar corrosion states, as well as measure the corrosion potential, and
instant corrosion rate based on the polarization resistance technique. After ECR treatment, a
reduction in the corrosion levels is observed falling short of the depassivation threshold.
 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Electrochemical chloride removal; Concrete; Reinforcement corrosion

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 9659 03324; fax: +34 9659 03678.
E-mail address: pedro.garces@ua.es (P. Garcés).

0010-938X/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2005.02.010
532 P. Garcés et al. / Corrosion Science 48 (2006) 531–545

1. Introduction

The use of electrochemical techniques, as opposed to cathodic protection, to arrest

or prevent reinforced concrete corrosion began in the early 70’s [1–3]. The method
has been studied with increased interest up to the present with improvements and
new developments. A direct current is applied between the reinforcement and an elec-
trode that is placed temporarily outside of the concrete. The reinforcement is the neg-
ative pole, (the cathode), and the outer electrode is the positive pole (the anode).
Since negatively charged ions, such as chloride ions, migrate in the direct-current
Weld away from the reinforcement toward the positively charged outer electrode, rel-
atively large amounts of chloride can be removed out of the concrete within a rela-
tively short time [4–6]. Some practical procedures for performing the electrochemical
chloride removal (ECR) from concrete were patented between 1986 and 1994 [7–10].
The inXuence of reinforcement bar arrangement on the ECR eYciency has not
been studied, although in an interesting previous work [11] it was suggested that the
rebar internal set up aVects the ion migration inside concrete and consequently the
ECR process. By other side, Ihekwaba et al. [12] obtained that geometrically curved
structures reinforced with longitudinal steel and spiral ties shows promise of a better
Cl¡ ion extraction, than in structures with planar surfaces incorporating rectangular
hoops.
The present paper presents the results of research on the ECR technique when
applied to specimens simulating the bar arrangements of typical real structural mem-
bers. Five diVerent types of bar arrangements were considered, corresponding to typ-
ical structural members such as columns (with single and double bar reinforcing),
slabs, beams and footings. The extraction process follow up has been achieved by
determining the total chloride contents (TCC) at various depths in concrete blocks
submitted to ECR. Electrochemical techniques were also used to estimate the corro-
sion state of reinforcing bars, to measure the corrosion potential and instant corro-
sion rate, based on the polarization resistance technique.

2. Experimental program

2.1. Materials and concrete blocks preparation

Locally produced Portland cement with limestone CEM II/A-L 32.5 was used.
Limestone sand and gravel (maximum size 20 mm) were always employed as the
aggregate. The dosage and main properties of the concrete are shown (Table 1).
The concrete blocks were prepared in the laboratory at 20 °C and 90% RH with
mechanical compaction. Immediately after casting the blocks into the mould, they were
covered with a polyethylene Wlm and kept at 20 °C. After demoulding 24 h later, the
blocks were introduced for curing into a chamber (RH 7 95%), at 20 °C, for 28 days.
DiVerent types of concrete blocks were fabricated and called column, double bar
column, slab, beam and footing according to the diVerent rebar set-ups typically used
in similar real structural members. The concrete used was purposefully of poor
 P. Garcés et al. / Corrosion Science 48 (2006) 531–545 533

Table 1
Dosage of concrete mix
Materials Content
Gravel 1050 kg/m3
Sand 1083.2 kg/m3
Cement 195 kg/m3
Cl¡ (by cement mass) 4% or 3%
Distilled water 200 l/m3
Compressive strength 9.7 N/mm2
w/c ratio 1.0

quality having a high w/c ratio and consequently high porosity and low compression
strength. Chloride was added to the concrete at the time of casting as NaCl salt
dissolved in the mix water, 3% or 4% Cl¡ relative to cement mass.
The Wve specimen block types were prepared with rebar arrangements as follows:
Column: Prismatic block 22 cm wide (both directions) and 20 cm high with bars at
two levels. The centres of the bars are located at 5.1 cm and 16.4 cm from the surface.
Bars of 12 mm diameter were located horizontally 10.6 cm apart and were tied
together by two ⭋ 6 mm stirrups separated by 10 cm (see Fig. 1).
Double bar column: Block of the same size as the column and the same reinforce-
ment arrangement, except that main bars were groups of two ⭋ 12 mm as often used
in real columns (see Fig. 2).
Slab: Block of the same size as the previous ones. In this case there are two rein-
forcement levels. The centres of the bars are located at 5.9 cm and 17.2 cm from the
surface. Three bars of ⭋ 12 mm diameter were located. There were also six other ⭋
8 mm equally spaced bars crossing the main ones perpendicularly (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 1. Column.
534 P. Garcés et al. / Corrosion Science 48 (2006) 531–545

Fig. 2. Double bar column.

Fig. 3. Slab.

Footing: Block of the same size as before. Only one level of bars, three ⭋ 12 mm at
5.9 cm from the top surface and other three ⭋ 8 mm crossing the main ones perpen-
dicularly (see Fig. 4).
Beam: Same size block. Two levels of bars: two ⭋ 12 mm at the upper level
10.6 mm apart and 5.1 cm from top surface with three ⭋ 12 mm at the lower level
5.9 cm apart (see Fig. 5).
 P. Garcés et al. / Corrosion Science 48 (2006) 531–545 535

Fig. 4. Footing.

Fig. 5. Beam.

All straight bars had both ends projecting 10 cm outside the concrete blocks. The
exposed bars were wrapped with plastic tape to avoid corrosion.
On top of each block a PVC plate frame was inserted to form a rectangular fence
in order to hold a pool of the electrolyte Xuid in contact with the concrete top surface
as shown in Fig. 6. The electrolyte was distilled water. The anode was a Ti–RuO2 wire
mesh. The Ti–RuO2 mesh had the following characteristics: diameter of the wire
1 mm; the diagonals of the opening rhombs were 34 mm and 12 mm; the mass was
290 g/m2 and the electrical resistance per length unit (for a width of 1.2 m) was
0.041
/m. It was submerged in the electrolyte pool.
536 P. Garcés et al. / Corrosion Science 48 (2006) 531–545

Fig. 6. Working arrangement of column.

2.2. Electrochemical extraction treatment

The electrochemical chloride extractions were performed galvanostatically at cur-

rent densities of 5 A/m2, (area related to exposed concrete surface from this point on).
The current was applied to all bars. The voltages needed to maintain these current
densities increased with time during the treatment, and range from 10 V to 35 V. The
ECR treatment was performed in several steps: a Wrst extraction was conducted until
a total electric charge density of 2 £ 106 C/m2 was accumulated. The treatment was
interrupted, the anodes and electrolytes were removed, and the concrete blocks were
stored for 15 days in a humidity chamber (RH 7 95%). Cores were then extracted to
determine the new TCC proWle. Once the holes were repaired with chloride-free mor-
tar a new current step was applied until a total charge of 5 £ 106 C/m2 was accumu-
lated. After another period of a 15 day without current new core extractions were
obtained and the block was connected to bring the total accumulated charge to
10 £ 106 C/m2. After another 15 day storage period cores were again drilled again for
new TCC proWles. The duration of the treatment was of about 550 h.
The same procedure was used for ECR in the double bar column block. For the
slab, footing and beam blocks the same procedure was applied, except that the Wrst
current stop was made after a charge density of 5 £ 106 C/m2.

2.3. Determination of total chloride content

Before applying current cylindrical cores were drilled into the block surface and
the holes Wlled with chloride-free cement mortar. The cores were extracted using a
 P. Garcés et al. / Corrosion Science 48 (2006) 531–545 537

HILTI drilling machine model DD-160E with a drill tool of 25 mm internal diameter.
The cores were then sliced in 25–30 mm thick disks and classiWed according to their
depth in the concrete block. Each disk was manually crushed into powder in order to
analyse the total chloride content (TCC).
After each step of ECR powdered concrete samples were obtained in a similar
manner at prescribed depths and analyzed for their chloride contents.
The determination of total Cl¡ contents of the concrete samples was performed by
potentiometric titration of the suspensions obtained by dilute nitric acid digestion of the
samples [13]. All Cl¡ concentrations are expressed as percentages of the cement mass.
The diVerence between the Cl¡ content before and after ECR allowed us to calculate the
eYciency of the treatments, expressed as % Cl¡ removed for each particular tested point.

2.4. Corrosion measurement technique

The corrosion state of steel rebars before and after ECR was evaluated by deter-
mining the corrosion potential (Ecorr) versus a Cu/CuSO4 saturated reference elec-
trode, and the corrosion rate (Icorr) measured by the linear polarization resistance
technique [14]. All these parameters were measured using a GECOR 6 device
(GEOCISA, Madrid, Spain).

3. Results

3.1. Results obtained for diVerent types of bar arrangements submitted to ECR

Fig. 7 shows the chloride content proWle and percentages of total chloride content
(TCC) removed for a column type block submitted to ECR treatment. In the same
Wgure the TCC proWles at step A (before applying current); B (after the Wrst current
step, 2 £ 106 C/m2 accumulated); C (after second current step, 5 £ 106 C/m2 accumu-
lated); D (end of ECR process, 10 £ 106 C/m2 accumulated) are shown. The initial
TCC was about 4% corresponding to the amount used in the mix when the blocks
were fabricated. As is widely known, chloride ions react with tri-calcium aluminate to
form the so-called “Friedel Salt” C3AH10 · CaCl2 and C3AH32 · 3CaCl2. This, among
other reasons, can explain why the total Wnal removed chloride is less than 100%.
After step B a signiWcant TCC decrease in depths to 50 mm (that is the rebar surface)
is detected with TCC values measured at about 1%. For depths between 50 and
90 mm TCC is near to 2%. For deeper areas, 100 mm and up, there is a gradual
decrease of TCC down to 1.5% at 160 mm depth. After step C TCC is constant from
surface through 50 mm depth; then a gradual decrease appears down to 1% at 90 mm
depth. For depths in between 110 and 170 mm TCC becomes 1.5%. At the end of
ECR (step D) the gain in removed chloride is not signiWcant. In Figs. 8–11, like Fig. 7,
the percentages of total chloride extraction data are presented. Two depth ranges can
be distinguished: 0–50 mm, that is in between anode and cathode and 50–170 mm,
behind the reinforcement. The chloride extraction percentages range from 54% to
28% for the column block type.
538 P. Garcés et al. / Corrosion Science 48 (2006) 531–545

chloride content (% of cement mass)

4 100
3.5

removed chloride (%)

80
3
2.5 60
2
1.5 40

1
20
0.5
0 0
10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
depth (mm)

Fig. 7. Chloride content proWle (䉬: before ECR (step A), 䊐: after passing 2 £ 106 C/m2 (step B), 䉱: after
passing 5 £ 106 C/m2 (step C), : after Wnishing ECR (10 £ 106 C/m2) (step D)). Percentage of chloride
removed (䊉) after end of treatment of column block.

chloride content (% of cement mass)

4 100
3.5

removed chloride (%)

80
3
2.5 60
2
1.5 40

1
20
0.5
0 0
10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
depth (mm)

Fig. 8. Chloride content proWle (䉬: before ECR, : after Wnishing ECR (10 £ 106 C/m2)). Percentages of
chloride removed (䊉) after end of treatment of double bar column block.

In Figs. 8–11, corresponding to others types of bar arrangements studied in this

work, in order to simplify only data corresponding to the end of the ECR treatment
are shown.
Fig. 8 shows the chloride content proWle and percentages of total chloride content
(TCC) removed for the double bar column block submitted to ECR treatment, with
an initial value of 3% approximately. After the end of treatment, near the concrete
surface the TCC value is about 1.7%, slightly decreasing appears down to 1.5% at the
50 mm depth. For greater depths the TCC reaches an almost constant value of about
1.5%. The chloride extraction percentages for either depth range are 52–50% for the
double bar column block type.
 P. Garcés et al. / Corrosion Science 48 (2006) 531–545 539

chloride content (% of cement mass)

5 100

removed chloride (%)

4.5
4 80
3.5
3 60
2.5
2 40
1.5
1 20
0.5
0 0
10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
depth (mm)

Fig. 9. Chloride content proWle (䉬: before ECR, : after Wnishing ECR (10 £ 106 C/m2)). Percentages of
chloride removed (䊉) after end of treatment of slab block.

chloride content (% of cement mass)

5 100
4.5

removed chloride (%)

4 80
3.5
3 60
2.5
2 40
1.5
1 20
0.5
0 0
10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
depth (mm)

Fig. 10. Chloride content proWle (䉬: before ECR, : after Wnishing ECR (10 £ 106 C/m2)). Percentages of
chloride removed (䊉), after end of treatment of footing block.

A similar comparison between the TCC and distributions of percentages of Cl¡

extraction, after Wnishing the ECR treatments, for slab and footing types of block
may be obtained from Figs. 9 and 10. The initial TCC are again about 4%. After
treatment, near the concrete surface the TCC value is about 2.5%, slightly increasing
to 3% at 50 mm for the slab block. Conversely, the TCC slightly decreases to 2% at
50 mm for footing block. We note that for 110–170 mm depths TCC values decrease
to 1.5% and 0.6% for slab and footing blocks respectively. The chloride extraction
percentages for either depth ranges are 35–36% for slab block type and 44–66% for
the footing block type.
540 P. Garcés et al. / Corrosion Science 48 (2006) 531–545

chloride content (% of cement mass)

5 100
4.5

removed chloride (%)

4 80
3.5
3 60
2.5
2 40
1.5
1 20
0.5
0 0
10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
depth (mm)

Fig. 11. Chloride content proWle (䉬: before ECR, : after Wnishing ECR (10 £ 106 C/m2)). Percentages of
chloride removed (䊉) after end of treatment of beam block.

Finally, Fig. 11 shows the TCC proWle and percentages of total chloride content
(TCC) removed for the beam block submitted to ECR treatment. The initial TCC is
in the range of (3.5–4.5%). After ECR for depths between the surface and 30 mm,
TCC values drop to 2%. For 30–110 mm depths TCC values decrease slightly to 1.5%
and increase in the depth range 110–170 mm up to 2%. The chloride extraction per-
centages for either depth range from 38% to 60% for the beam block type.

3.2. Ecorr and Icorr results

Rebar potential and corrosion current density rate were measured in all blocks at
intermediate ECR treatment steps, at the end of all treatment and three years later
with blocks stored in a humidity chamber. Initial readings, before treatment, were
taken in the double bar block and assumed valid for all blocks.
As shown in Fig. 12B, Ecorr values of the column block were ¡438 mV, at 250
hours of treatment (step C) and ¡650 mV at the end of it (step D). After the 3-year
period Ecorr becomes ¡770 mV. In the double bar column block the initial Ecorr value,
before ECR treatment, was ¡367 mV. After 550 hours of treatment (step D) Ecorr was
¡609 mV and after the 3-year period ¡697 mV. A slight change of Ecorr values from
the intermediate step to the end of treatment observed in the beam and footing
blocks with Ecorr values of ¡608 to ¡568 mV and ¡534 to ¡588 mV, respectively.
Ecorr values for the slab block were ¡419 mV (intermediate step). These three latter
blocks showed similar Ecorr values after the 3-year period, ¡693, ¡654 and ¡663 mV,
respectively.
Fig. 12A shows the Icorr values before, during and after ECR treatment for each of
the blocks. In the column block, after passing 5 £ 106 C/m2 (step C), Icorr was
4.52 A cm¡2. At the end of treatment (step D) the Icorr was 4.13 A cm¡2 and
1.46 A cm¡2 after 3 years. At the same stages Icorr values for the double bar column
block were 2.65, 1.37 and 2.91 A cm¡2, respectively. The beam block Icorr values were
4.08 and 3.14 A cm¡2 in the ECR steps and 2.41 A cm¡2 after 3 years. In the footing
 P. Garcés et al. / Corrosion Science 48 (2006) 531–545 541

7 Icorr (µA.cm -2) (B)

0
Ecorr (mV)
-100 Column
Double barcolumn (A)
-200 Beam
Footing
Slab
-300

-400

-500

-600

-700

-800
A C D 3 years later

Steps

Fig. 12. Change of Icorr and Ecorr values for rebars of diVerent block types for the various steps of
ECR treatment (A: before treatment, C: after passing 5 £ 106 C/m2 and D: after passing 10 £ 106 C/m2 and
3 years after treatment).

block an important drop is observed from the intermediate step with 6.28 A cm¡2 to
the Wnal step with 2.67 A cm¡2 and 0.42 A cm¡2 after 3 years. Contrarily, in the slab
block Icorr values increase from 1.5 to 4.15 A cm¡2 in the ECR steps and decreased to
1.02 A cm¡2 after 3 years.

4. Discussion

The results in the precedent sections allow one to compare the performances of the
Wve diVerent types of bar arrangements considered, corresponding to typical struc-
tural members such as column, double bar column, slab, beam and footing. An inter-
esting point to be investigated in these tests is the diVerent eYciency of ECR in the
segments above and below the Wrst reinforcement level. In the Wrst segment (in
between the anode and cathode) the chloride ions move in one single direction, from
542 P. Garcés et al. / Corrosion Science 48 (2006) 531–545

steel bars to the surface. In the second range (between rebars) the situation is more
complex, as established Wang et al. [16]. The transport rate of hydroxide ions near
the steel cathode is lower than its generation rate due to the electrochemical reactions
at steel cathodes. Thus, the concentration of hydroxide ions increases with time dur-
ing the ECR process. Since the current Xow takes place mainly in the region between
the anode and cathode, the transport of ions in the region between rebars becomes
more diYcult because Cl¡ ions have to pass in between the negatively charged top
rebars [11], in addition to the eVect of the diVusion process. This is why the transport
of ions in that region is very slow in this segment. By other side, it must be considered
that the second level bars could have been under less current density than those of the
Wrst level.
Another interesting point to be considered is the eVect of having two parallel rein-
forcement layers coinciding (or not) vertically. Or at least if the bars of both levels are
vertically aligned or not. Anyway the validation of these comparisons requires that
the rest of the variables, which can inXuence the measured Cl¡ removal eYciency be
kept constant: a dosage, concrete mix, curing time, ECR conditions, a same anodic
arrangements, etc.
The experimental results obtained in the test, demonstrate the diVerent ECR
behaviour for diVerent bar arrangements in one or more layers. The chloride ions
that have migrated outside are promptly replaced by ions coming from inner
depths, but not from reinforcing so that the chloride content should decrease more
gradually in areas close to the concrete surface than in areas close to the reinforce-
ment [15]. As described above this occurs in the beam and footing blocks. In the
beam because there is a bar in the middle of the bottom layer which does not exist
in the top layer (closer to the anode) making the movement of Cl¡ ions easier in
between the two layers. This also occurs in the footing block because there is a sin-
gle rebar layer close to the anode. Contrarily, column, double bar column and slab
blocks have bars aligned in the two levels and show diVerent behaviour. In these
structures, the chloride content in the area close to concrete surfaces is lower than
in the area adjacent to the Wrst rebar layer as described by Tritthart and Wang et al.
[15,16]. The explanation may be found considering that, with aligned rebars, the
OH¡ that has originated in the second level will tend to move towards the surface
because it is attracted by the anode. In their migration to the anode the OH¡ ions
will encounter the Wrst level rebars, negatively charged, which will repel them and
limit their movement. This will cause an accumulation of OH¡ in the surroundings
of the Wrst rebar level and, consequently, the Xow of chloride ions will diminish,
resulting in a lower eYciency in this area. Chloride ions migrating from the sur-
rounding area of the second rebar level towards the anode will move with diYculty
due to the repellent eVect of the Wrst rebar level negative charge. In the slab block, in
addition to the rebar alignment, there are also two other sets of thinner bars cross-
ing perpendicularly and obstructing the chloride movement. The chloride
extraction at the area in between the rebar levels is similar to the one for depth
range 0–50 mm and is much lower than for the other blocks. These results are con-
sistent with the ones obtained by Hope et al. [11] with a single rebar set-up, both
with and without rebar displacement.
 P. Garcés et al. / Corrosion Science 48 (2006) 531–545 543

In a previous paper [17] the inXuence of multiple mats, numerically simulated has
been reported, and the results are consistent with the ones experimentally obtained in
the present paper.

4.1. Ecorr, Icorr

The eVect of ECR application on the corrosion level of reinforcing steel is a sub-
ject of interest [18–23]. In this work, and only as auxiliary measurements, kinetic data
of rebar corrosion at various steps of ECR treatment are presented and discussed.
Ecorr values can be used to establish the active or passive state of steel bars [24]. Con-
trasting of Ecorr values prior and after ECR is the most utilized way to evaluate the
behaviour of a repair procedure. In principle, a shift of potential to more positive values
after the ECR treatment should demonstrate the eYciency of this technique. The main
appreciable fact from Fig. 12B is that for all the block types Ecorr values become more
and more negative from the beginning to the end of ECR application, even though the
total chloride content decreases to as much as 50% of the original value. So, it may lead
to erroneous conclusions if the Ecorr value alone is considered because the steel state
depends very much on the pore cement network humidity. Ecorr values should be con-
sidered in conjunction with cement resistivity values and the pore saturation index.
By other side, there exist diVerences in criteria of the risk associated with each corro-
sion rate, as has been stated by BroomWeld [25]. Now, if the rebar becomes depassivated,
the corrosion rate governs the durability of the structure and corrosion intensities
greater than or equal to 1A/m2, which corresponds to the intensity level measured in
most of the arrangements of this work, become inadmissible, if one takes into account
that corrosion penetrations >100m usually cause cracking of the cover and adherence
loss of the reinforcement and 1Acm¡2 causes penetrations of 11 m/year in the steel
[26,27]. In relation with Icorr data the main appreciable fact from Fig. 12 is that for all the
block types Icorr does not show signiWcant change, except for the footing block type, after
various steps of ECR treatment. Only after 3 years, inside a humid chamber, all Ecorr val-
ues became more negative and the Icorr values were notably lower. These results agree
with those of Marcotte et al. [23]: the electrochemical chloride extraction treatment
halted chloride-induced corrosion but increased the overall general corrosion rate. These
higher corrosion current densities can be explained as follows: (1) the extraction treat-
ment resulted from a localized accumulation of hydroxide ions and (2) the electrochemi-
cal reduction of oxygen at the steel/mortar interface. The former caused an alkaline
attack of the surface of the steel, while the latter inhibits repassivation. Thus, it is proba-
ble that general corrosion conditions will persist in treated structures until an internal
equilibrium is restablished at the steel/concrete interface (i.e., diVusion of hydroxide ions
throughout the concrete cover and diVusion of oxygen to the surface of the steel). It is
only once this stage is reached that a treated structure may truly be considered rehabili-
tated. An alternative hypothesis, also explaining the results, consists in considering that
the usual Icorr values in reinforced concrete structures in an active corroding state should
be enough to maintain an acid pH value at the interface of steel-corrosion products
inside an alkaline medium such as concrete, so that once the corrosion is active, chlo-
rides are no longer required to maintain the process [18].
544 P. Garcés et al. / Corrosion Science 48 (2006) 531–545

The results and considerations of the precedent paragraphs allow us to state that
with identical parameters for all the block types (dosage, concrete mix, curing time,
ECR conditions, etc.) the rebar corrosion level may not be dependent on the residual
chloride content. Consideration must be given to the fact that the structures may cor-
rode by other means and the kinetics of this process after 3 years is mainly controlled
by humidity, temperature and O2 diVusion.

5. Conclusions

Based on the results obtained in this experimental investigation the following con-
clusions can be drawn:

1. In general, for all studied structures, total chloride content decreases to about 50%
of the original value after the ECR treatment.
2. The extraction eYciency depends on the reinforcing bar arrangement. A uniform
layer set-up favours chloride extraction.
3. It is possible to reduce the chloride content in between two reinforcement layers.
4. After ECR treatment and after a long period of time a reduction in the corrosion
rates is observed but does not reach the depassivation threshold. Under these con-
ditions the required conditions for corrosion probably persist until the internal
steel-concrete equilibrium is established. For this reason Ecorr values are under
¡350 mV and the Icorr values are quite high even after ECR treatment.

Acknowledgement

We thank the funding received for this work from the Consellería de Cultura,
Educació i Esport de la Generalitat Valenciana through grant GRUPOS04/58.

References

[1] D.R. Lankard, J.E. Slater, W.A. Hedden, D.E. Niesz, Neutralisation of chloride in concrete, Batelle
Columbus Laboratories, Federal Highway Administration (USA), Report No FHWA-RD-76-60,
(1975) 1–143.
[2] J.E. Slater, D.R. Lankard, P.J. Moreland, Electrochemical removal of chlorides from concrete bridge
decks, Mater. Perform. 15 (1976) 21–26.
[3] G.L. Morrison, Y.P. Virmani, F.W. Stratton, W.J. Gilliland, Chloride removal and monomer impreg-
nation of bridge deck concrete by electro-osmosis, Kansas Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration (USA), Report No. FHWA-Ks-RD-74-1, (1976) 1–38.
[4] C. Andrade, M. Castellote, C. Alonso, An overview of electrochemical realkalisation and chlo-
ride extraction, in: D.W.S. Ho, I. Godson, F. Collins (Eds.), Proceedings of 2nd International
RILEM/CSIRO/ACRA Conference on Rehabilitation of Structures, Melbourne, Australia, 1998,
pp. 1–12.
[5] Electrochemical Rehabilitation Methods for Reinforced Concrete Structures. A State of the Art
Report. J. Mietz (Ed.), IOM Communications Ltd. London (998) ISBN 1-86125-082-7.
 P. Garcés et al. / Corrosion Science 48 (2006) 531–545 545

[6] J. Tritthart, Electrochemical chloride removal: an overview and scientiWc aspects, in: J. Skalny, S.
Mindess (Eds.), Materials Science of Concrete V, American Ceramic Society, Westerville, Ohio, USA,
1998, pp. 401–441.
[7] Ø. Vennesland, O.A. Opsahl, A.P. Russell-Rayner, Removal of chlorides from concrete, European
Patent Application number 86302888.2, Publication number 0 200 428 (1986).
[8] Ø. Vennesland, O.A. Opsahl, J.B. Miller, Process for rehabilitating internally reinforced concrete by
removal of chlorides, European Patent Application number 90108562.1, Publication number 0 398
117 (1990).
[9] H. Roper, Method for inhibiting concrete cancer, World Intellectual Property Organization, Interna-
tional Patent Publication number WO 93/21130 (1993).
[10] J.E. Bennett, J.R. Blasius, T.A. Mitchell, T.R. Turk, T.J. Schue, Apparatus for the removal of chloride
from reinforced concrete structures, US Patent number 5296120 (1994).
[11] B.B. Hope, N.M. Ihekwaba, C.M. Hansson, InXuence of multiple rebar mats on electrochemical
removal of chloride from concrete, Mater. Sci. Forum 192–194 (1995) 883–890.
[12] N.M. Ihekwaba, B.B. Hope, C.M. Hansson, Structural eVect on rehabilitation of vertical concrete
structures by ECE Technique, Cement Concrete Res. 26 (1) (1996) 165–175.
[13] M.A. Climent, E. Viqueira, G. de Vera, M.M. López-Atalaya, Analysis of acid-soluble chloride in
cement, mortar and concrete by potentiometric titration without Wltration steps, Cement Concrete
Res. 29 (1999) 893–898.
[14] M. Stern, A.L. Geary, A theoretical analysis of the shape of polarization curves, J. Electrochem. Soc.
104 (1) (1957) 56.
[15] J. Tritthart, Changes in the composition of pore solution and solids during electrochemical chloride
removal in contaminated concrete, in: Proceedings of the Second CANMET/ACI International Sym-
posium on Advances in Concrete Technology (Las Vegas, NV), SP 154-8 (1995) 127–143.
[16] J.Y. Wang, L.Y. Li, C.L. Page, Two-dimensional model of electrochemical chloride removal from con-
crete, Comput. Mater. Sci. 20 (2001) 196–212.
[17] I.L.H. Hansson, C.M. Hansson, Electrochemical extraction of chlorides from concrete. Part I—A
qualitative model of the process, Cement Concrete Res. 23 (1993) 1141–1152.
[18] A. Cobo Escamilla, Comprobación de la eWcacia de la realcalinización y de la ECR de cloruros como
métodos de rehabilitación de las estructuras corroídas de hormigón armado, Ph.D. Thesis (in Span-
ish), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain (2001).
[19] L. Odden, The repassivating eVect of electrochemical realkalisation and chloride extraction, in: R.N.
Swamy (Ed.), Proceedings of International Conference on Corrosion Protection of Steel in Concrete,
SheYeld, 1994, 1473–1488.
[20] J. Mietz, B. Isecke, Rehabilitation of corrosion induced damaged of reinforced concrete structures by
electrochemical protection methods in Progress in the understanding and prevention of corrosion.
Institute of Materials, Sociedad Española de Química Industrial and European Federation of Corro-
sion, London, (1993) 611–618.
[21] J.A. González, A. Cobo, M.N. González, E. Otero, On the eVectiveness of realkalisation as a rehabili-
tation method for corroded reinforced concrete structures, Mater. Corros. 51 (2000) 97–103.
[22] C.L. Page, S.W. Yu, L. Bertolini, Some potential side-eVects of electrochemical chloride removal from
reinforced concrete, in: Proceedings of International Conference UK Corrosion & Eurocorr 94,
Chamaleon Press, London, UK, 1994, pp. 228–238.
[23] T.D. Marcotte, C.M. Hansson, B.B. Hope, The eVect of the electrochemical chloride extraction treat-
ment on steel-reinforced mortar. Part I: electrochemical measurements, Cement Concrete Res. 29
(1999) 1555–1560.
[24] ASTM C-876-87, Standard test method for half-cell potentials of uncoated reinforcing steel in con-
crete.
[25] J.P. BroomWeld, Life prediction of corrodible structures, NACE Symposium, Cambridge, Sep 1991,
paper 14.
[26] J.A. Gonzalez, S. Feliu, P. Rodríguez, Corrosion 53 (1993) 65.
[27] C. Andrade, C. Alonso y M. Molina, Cover cracking as a function of bar corrosion. Part I—Experi-
mental test, Mater. Struct. 26 (1993) 453.