Construction and Building Materials 222 (2019) 750–765

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Review

Atmospheric corrosion of weathering steels. Overview for engineers.

Part II: Testing, inspection, maintenance
M. Morcillo a,⇑, I. Díaz a, H. Cano b, B. Chico a, D. de la Fuente a
a
National Centre for Metallurgical Research (CENIM-CSIC), Avda. Gregorio del Amo 8, 28040 Madrid, Spain
b
Department of Civil and Environmental, Universidad de La Costa, Calle 58#55-66, Barranquilla, Atlántico 080002, Colombia

h i g h l i g h t s

Methods to evaluate the protective ability of rust layers on weathering steels (WS).

Corrosion problems in WS structures.

Testing, inspection and maintenance of WS structures.

Advanced WS.

Painting of WS.

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

Article history: The atmospheric corrosion of weathering steel (WS) has been extensively discussed in the scientific lit-
Received 24 September 2018 erature, but a comprehensive overview of this topic from an engineering viewpoint is currently lacking.
Received in revised form 29 March 2019 The present publication seeks to fill this gap, providing engineers, designers and steel manufacturers with
Accepted 19 June 2019
an insight into the current state of knowledge on this important structural material and presenting key
Available online 1 July 2019
research findings in a way that promotes their practical application. The Part II of this review sets out the
methods available to evaluate the protective ability of rust layers and describes testing, inspection and
Keywords:
maintenance techniques. The paper ends with a number of examples of corrosion problems in WS struc-
Weathering steel
Atmospheric corrosion
tures, an overview of new advanced WS, and considers the painting of WS in highly corrosive
Engineering atmospheres.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751
2. Methods to evaluate the protective ability of rust layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751
2.1. Laboratory methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751
2.1.1. Protective ability indices (PAI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751
2.1.2. Potential measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 752
2.2. Field methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753
2.2.1. Visual observation of rust appearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753
2.2.2. Ferroxyl test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753
2.2.3. Steel thickness measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753
2.2.4. Electrochemical AC impedance and harmonic current measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753
3. Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754
4. Corrosion problems in weathering steel structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 755
4.1. Bolted lap joints in electrical transmission towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 756
4.1.1. Evaluation of corrosion attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 756
4.1.2. Maintenance of bolted joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 756

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: morcillo@cenim.csic.es (M. Morcillo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.06.155
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Morcillo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 222 (2019) 750–765 751

4.1.3. Tubular weathering steel structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757

4.2. Bridge constructions in coastal areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757
4.2.1. Rust flaking (exfoliation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757
4.2.2. Pitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758
4.3. Weathering steel artworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758
5. Inspection and maintenance of weathering steel structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759
5.1. Inspections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760
5.2. Inspection methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760
5.3. Performance verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760
5.4. Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 761
6. Advanced weathering steels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762
6.1. Cr steels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762
6.2. Ni steels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762
7. Painting of weathering steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763
7.1. Application of paint coatings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763
7.2. Surface rust stabilisation treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764

1. Introduction
The atmospheric corrosion of weathering steel (WS) has been
extensively discussed in the scientific literature, but a comprehen-
sive overview of this topic from an engineering viewpoint is cur-
rently lacking. The present publication seeks to fill this gap,
providing engineers, designers and steel manufacturers with an
insight into the current state of knowledge on this important struc-
tural material and presenting key research findings in a way that
promotes their practical application. In the Part I of this review,
published previously, various aspects of WS atmospheric corrosion,
such as corrosion mechanisms, corrosion products and layers,
effect of exposure environment conditions and long term perfor-
mance were addressed, focusing also a number of design and met-
allurgical considerations.
This Part II sets out the methods available to evaluate the pro-
tective ability of rust layers and describes testing, inspection and
maintenance techniques. The paper ends with a number of exam-
ples of corrosion problems in WS structures, an overview of new
advanced WS, and considers the painting of WS in highly corrosive
atmospheres.
2. Methods to evaluate the protective ability of rust layers
2.1. Laboratory methods
2.1.1. Protective ability indices (PAI)
According to Yamashita et al., the mass ratio of goethite to lepi-
docrocite (a/c) in the rust formed on WS, as detected by XRD, is a
function of exposure time (see Fig. 1a). The a/c ratio rises propor-
tionally with exposure time as a result of the long-term phase
transformation. The relationship between a/c and the corrosion
rate is illustrated in Fig. 1b, where it is seen that the WS corrosion
rate drops as the a/c rises, and that a/c > 2 is a necessary condition
for a protective final rust layer. a/c may be regarded as an indicator
to assess the rust layer’s protective ability [1].
Kamimura et al. [3] subsequently found that the a/c mass ratio
does not show the same tendency to rise with exposure time in
marine atmospheres, where the rust layer contains not only lepi-
docrocite and goethite but also important amounts of akaganeite
(b) and spinel (S) (magnetite and/or maghemite). Instead, they
saw that a new index, the a/c* ratio
a a
¼ ð1Þ
c c þ b þ S
can be closely related to the steel corrosion rate in this type of
atmosphere when the chloride deposition rate is higher than
20 mg Cl/m2/day. When the a/c* ratio exceeds a certain critical
threshold, the resulting steel corrosion rates are lower than
10 lm/year.
Hara et al. [4] observed that while the a/c* index shows good
correlation with the corrosion rate in environments away from
the coast, this is not so in coastal regions. Therefore, in order to
assess the rust layer’s protective ability in all types of atmospheres,
they proposed the simultaneous use of two indices: a/c* and
(b + S)/c*, plotting the ternary diagram shown in Fig. 2.

5 80
Corrosion rate ( m/year)

4
60

3
40
2

20
1

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 3
Exposure time (years)
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Relation between a/c of the rust layer formed on weathering steel and exposure time (a) and corrosion rate (b). According to Yamashita and Misawa [1,2].
752 M. Morcillo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 222 (2019) 750–765

200

Potential of electrode on immersion (mV vs. S.H.E)

Protective
rust
A
α/γ*= 1 100

Inactive Active rust 0

protective
rust

-100 B
10 20 30 %
β-FeOOH + spinel (S)
(β+S)/γ*= 0.5
-200
Fig. 2. Ternary diagram of composition of rust layer [4].

-300
(a) When a/c* > 1, a corrosion rate of >10 lm/year is not
observed (protective rust).
(b) When a/c* < 1, the corrosion rate is determined by (b + S)/
c*. As to whether the corrosion rate is more than or less than -400
10 lm/year, this is substantiated by another index, (b + S)/c*,
whereby (b + S)/c* > 0.50 (active non-protective rust), and
(b + S)/c* < 0.50 (inactive protective rust). -500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Dillmann et al. [5] subsequently suggested a new index for the
protective ability of rust: a*/c*, Time (days)

a aþS

Fig. 3. Relationship between electrode potential (vs. S.H.E.) and time for steels that
¼ ð2Þ
c c þ b form a protective patina (A) and those that form a non-protective patina (B) [7,8].

where they consider that magnetite, despite being a conductive rust

phase, presents relatively high stability, like goethite, and that these Potenciometer
two phases comprise the protective component of the rust. Conse- with a battery
quently they note that the more the rust layers have aged, the
higher the a*/c* mass ratio will be. V
Reference electrode
(Ag/AgCl/KCl sat’d)
2.1.2. Potential measurements
The Cebelcor electrochemical method of cyclic immersion/
emersion developed by Pourbaix in 1966 (as mentioned before) Cu wire
Sponge Magnet
is based on the very simple principle that passive steel exhibits a Electronic
(0.1M-Na2SO4 Rust layer
high electrode potential in aerated water, while corroding steel contact
soln.)
exhibits a low electrode potential [6–8].
Potentials of around +0.10 VSHE have been measured on WS
with a protective rust layer, compared to 0.10 VSHE or lower on Steel
CS or WS with a non-protective rust layer (Fig. 3). As time passes
and a protective patina is progressively formed, the electrode (a)
potential gradually increases to more or less high values depending 0.2
on the final quality of the rust layer.
Potential (V vs. SCE)

According to Pourbaix et al., the Cebelcor method generally 0

allows a reliable comparison of steel behaviour in rural or indus-
trial atmospheres within three weeks, or nine weeks in the case
-0.2
of marine atmospheres.
Kashima et al. [9] studied the protective ability of rust layers 10 years
developed on WS after exposure in an industrial environment for -0.4
different times by means of potential measurements (Fig. 4a). 5 10 years
The potential of WS in 0.10 mol/L Na2SO4 solution shows a ten- 5 years
-0.6
dency to become more noble with increasing exposure time. The 0 1 2 3 4
potential of WS with rust layers developed after a prolonged expo- / *
sure time, and thus with greater atmospheric corrosion resistance,
(b)
is above 0.30 VSCE (0.05 VSHE). In contrast, the potential of CS
after a similarly long exposure time is less noble at about 0.45 Fig. 4. (a) Measuring potential assembly; (b) relationship between potential and
VSCE (0.20 VSHE). In view of these findings, the potential may be protective ability index a/c* [9].
 M. Morcillo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 222 (2019) 750–765 753

Index 1 2 3 4 5

Appearance
of coupon

Description Large swelling Rust size: ≈ 5- Rust size: 1-5 Rust size: fine Rust size: fine
of and laminated 25 mm. mm. adherent and Color: light
characteristics flaky layer. Partial Not uniform uniform rust. brown.
swelling and rust. Color: dark
flaky layer. brown.
Rust
> 800 μm > 400 μm < 400 μm < 400 μm < 200 μm
thickness
Fig. 5. Standard photographs of appearance indices classified into five steps and description of the characteristics [4].

2.2.2. Ferroxyl test

Index 1
The ferroxyl test [10] detects anodic dissolution of Fe2+ ions
Index 2
Index 3 from local active sites. The steel surface is wetted with a solution
0.1 Index 4 of 10 g potassium ferrocyanide and 60 g NaCl in 1 L of water and
Index 5 any unstable rust products are removed from the surface. The
Corrosion rate (mm/y)

appearance of blue spots on the filter paper indicates that a stable

and protective rust film has not yet fully formed. Although the fer-
roxyl test is easy to perform, it may yield deceptive information if
the test solution is not able to completely penetrate thick and
0.01 heterogeneous rust layers.

2.2.3. Steel thickness measurements

1E-3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Exposure time (years)
Fig. 6. Relationship between corrosion rates as a function of exposure time for each
appearance level (index) of coupons (Fig. 5) [4].
considered to reveal certain characteristics of the rust patina. As
the amount of goethite in the rust increases, so the potential
becomes more noble, suggesting that it is dependent on the rust
layer composition. The potential is also correlated with the a/c*
ratio in the rust composition, with a potential of 0.30 VSCE corre-
lating to a/c* = 2. Accordingly, both the potential and the a/c* ratio
may be used to assess the protective ability of rust layers formed
on WS (Fig. 4b).
2.2. Field methods
2.2.1. Visual observation of rust appearance
The colour and grain size of rust (as determined by the tape
method [4]) can provide some information on the steel corrosion
rate. The development of rust is classified according to the levels
shown in Fig. 5, prepared for rusts of more than nine years in age
(not applicable to younger rusts). This five-step classification of
the appearance of rust developed on WS has been established by
the Japan Iron and Steel Foundation (JISF) and Japan Association
of Steel Bridge Construction (JASBC) [4]. Fig. 6 illustrates how the
corrosion rate changes at each appearance level (index) as a func-
tion of the exposure time.
A precise measurement of steel plate thickness is an essential
part of a structural assessment procedure due to the high uncer-
tainty of corrosion loss appraisals. Ultrasonic thickness measure-
14 16 18
ment is the most common method for gauging the residual
thickness of corroded WS plates on structures. The reliability of
this process is dependent on the accuracy of the ultrasonic testing
equipment and the regularity of the steel surface, which tends to
be somewhat roughened by the corrosion process [11]. The thick-
ness measurements recorded by standard ultrasonic gauges are not
affected by any corrosion products on the reverse side of the WS
plates, but when a rust patina is present on the side where the
measurement is made, the measured thickness is likely to be
inflated by a larger amount than the actual thickness of the steel.
2.2.4. Electrochemical AC impedance and harmonic current
measurements
Kihira et al. [10,12,13] developed portable testing equipment to
identify the presence of protective corrosion product layers on WS
using electrochemical AC impedance and harmonic current mea-
surements. Probes were connected through a 0.10 M Na2SO4 solu-
tion to the surface of WS and CS specimens which had been
exposed to a mild industrial atmosphere for thirteen years. The
measurement of AC impedance and harmonic current characteris-
tics revealed a perceptible dissimilarity in the corrosion product
films formed on the different steels at frequencies of 100 mHz to
1 kHz.
The results obtained with this method, along with other data
provided by measurements involving AC impedance and an elec-
tromagnetic film thickness gauge, allowed the researchers to show
a connection between rust thickness and corrosion resistance on a
large number of WS specimens exposed at different sites all over
Japan. Fig. 7 shows the resulting quantitative classification map
of WS performance. In zone A, the development of a uniform
754
Protective rust: 40 – 380
µm. Ideal patina for
weathering steel
100
Rust film resistance (k
10
1
0.1
Initial rust: < 270 µm. Initial
stage of service or long-term
exposure to a mildly corrosive
environment
Fig. 7. Quantitative classification of the states of corrosion products on weathering steels based on measurements of rust film resistance and rust thickness [10,12,13].
protective corrosion product layer allows an increase in rust film
resistance without any increase in its thickness. Contrarily, in zone
C, the increase in rust thickness is not mirrored by an increase in
rust film resistance, due to the formation of very thick anomalous
rust.
3. Testing
Progress in the early development of WS came through the per-
formance of extensive outdoor exposure tests involving a large
number of steels in a range of rural, urban, industrial and marine
atmospheres. Unfortunately, this type of approach is expensive
and takes a long time to provide significant results. Another disad-
vantage of natural corrosion tests is the difficulty of adequately rep-
resenting shape, size and movement factors that affect metallic
structures in real service conditions. Besides, as is known, variations
in climate and air purity can give rise to widely contrasting results.
Even within the same area, sites that are only tens or hundreds of
metres apart can present considerable differences in aggressivity
as a result of microclimates or local pollution gradients.
In atmospheric corrosion stations suitably sized test specimens
are fixed on racks by means of non-conductive plastic or porcelain
clips. The racks are usually set at an angle of 45° from the horizon-
tal in Europe or 30° from the horizontal in the United States. They
are generally south-facing in the northern hemisphere and north-
facing in the southern hemisphere, but in coastal locations it
may be preferable to have them facing towards the shoreline.
Detailed indications on the deployment of test specimens on racks
have been set out in several specifications [14,15]. After a given
atmospheric exposure time the specimens are removed from the
racks and taken to the laboratory for gravimetric testing in order
to ascertain the corrosion losses sustained. Mass loss data serves
M. Morcillo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 222 (2019) 750–765
PROTECTIVE
NO DATA SO FAR
A D
ANOMALOUS
INITIAL C
B
200 400 600 800 1000
Thickness of rust ( m)
Anomalous rust: > 270 µm.
Numerous cracks sometimes bearing
sea salt. Not protective rust. Rust
formed when the wetting period is
excessive and/or accumulated salt is
present
to estimate the structural integrity of a material after a given time
in service and is typically used by structural engineers to build in
an allowance for the predicted mass loss over a structure’s design
life.
The late 1960’s saw renewed interest in the development of
innovative WS compositions and researchers turned to accelerated
laboratory tests in order to study the influence of alloying compo-
sitions on WS performance [16]. It quickly became established that
wet/dry cycles constituted an essential component of any labora-
tory study aimed at evaluating WS atmospheric corrosion beha-
viour [17].
Over the years a number of accelerated laboratory tests have
been developed for WS [6,18–21], though not always matching
the results of field exposure tests [22]. An inherent difficulty with
accelerated tests is that no single test can represent the different
kinds of atmospheric exposure, and the relative merits of a WS in
one type of atmosphere may not be relevant in another [23]. In
addition to this, accelerated tests are often excessively sophisti-
cated, their results may be difficult to interpret, and the necessary
testing equipment is not always commercially available.
For many years, exposure to marine atmospheres has been sim-
ulated in the laboratory by continuous salt spray testing [24], but
the classic salt fog test has a poor reputation and there is over-
whelming agreement that its results lack reproducibility and are
not well correlated with real atmospheric exposure. In contrast,
intermittent salt spray testing is considered to offer a far better
approximation to coastal and marine conditions [25], and the per-
formance of cyclic salt spray testing with alternative saline solu-
tions other than NaCl provides even better correlation [24].
Many studies on the atmospheric behaviour of materials in
urban and industrial environments consider the influence of sulfur
dioxide (SO2), a pollutant commonly found in these atmospheres.
 M. Morcillo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 222 (2019) 750–765 755

(a) Atmospheric exposures (b)

Fig. 8. Typical sketches of corrosion versus exposure time for WS in different types of atmospheres (a) and in different wet/dry cyclic tests (b) [30].

Haynie and Upham [26], in an exposure study involving sophisti-

cated controlled environment cabinets with scheduled dew/light
cycles, reported that SO2 significantly accelerated the WS corrosion
rate, and that the forecast corrosion showed good agreement with
real exposure results. The behaviour of ferrous metals in the pres-
ence of SO2 has often been assessed in the laboratory using the
Kesternich test, a simple cyclic exposure test [27,28].
Great efforts have been dedicated to finding ways to obtain
accurate forecasts of atmospheric corrosion without the con-
straints of gravimetric tests, particularly with regard to the long
time periods required. In this respect, electrochemical cells have
yielded highly promising results [29]. Electrochemical techniques,
and especially impedance measurements, have been extensively
used in many research studies.
In 1966 the Belgian Centre for Corrosion Study (CEBELCOR)
developed an electrochemical method [6–8], usually referred to
as the Cebelcor test, which consists of repeated cycles of immer-
sion in a saline solution and drying in the laboratory atmosphere
following preestablished cycles of 12 min. of immersion and
42 min. of drying. The simple principle behind this test is that a
passive steel exhibits a high electrode potential in aerated water,
while a corroding steel exhibits a low electrode potential. The
Cebelcor test has been used to simulate different types of atmo-
spheres by simply changing the saline solution used: distilled
water to simulate rainwater in a rural environment, sodium bisul-
fite to simulate urban and industrial atmospheres, and sodium Fig. 9. Typical crevice corrosion in a bolted lap joint [32].
chloride to simulate marine atmospheres.
In a recent paper by the authors [30] the following conclusions
were reached: (a) wet/dry cyclic tests can cut the time taken in the facing, cladding and roofing and has a specific application in archi-
laboratory to assess the protective ability of rusts formed on WS, tectural projects.
(b) rural-urban atmospheres with low SO2 pollution can be simu- Kucera et al. [31] reviewed long-term experiences in Sweden
lated by the Cebelcor test, (c) industrial atmospheres with high and the Czech Republic with COR-TEN constructions erected since
SO2 pollution are reasonably well simulated by the Kesternich test the late 1960’s. Performing systematic field tests and periodic
and (d) marine atmospheres can be simulated by the Prohesion inspections of selected structures, they assessed aspects such as
cyclic test [25]. Fig. 8 allows a comparison to be drawn between the effect of the orientation of freely exposed surfaces, corrosion
field experimentation (Fig. 8a) and wet/dry cyclic laboratory tests problems on rain-protected surfaces and surfaces with deposits,
(Fig. 8b). and the impact of chlorides. Special interest was paid to assessing
the impact of the design of different structural parts on their in-
4. Corrosion problems in weathering steel structures service corrosion behaviour. This study gave rise to a number of
interesting and relevant conclusions:
WS have been extensively used in different outdoor structures
around the world. Typical examples include transmission towers, (a) WS is sensitive to the environment in terms of exposure
bridges, chimneys, lamp posts, etc. WS is also used in the field of conditions:
756 M. Morcillo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 222 (2019) 750–765

Negative effect of frequency of fogs and frosts, specific
industrial pollution and marine environments.

Degree of sheltering and orientation of surfaces (horizon-
tal), where the accumulation of dirt and chlorides (mar-
ine atmospheres), etc. in combination with long times
of wetness give rise to corrosion attack under the rust
layer and development of pits on steel base.
(b) Attention must be paid to the design of the structure and the
quality of its implementation using production techniques
such as welding. It is recommended to avoid complicated
designs and to assure good drainage.
(c) Crevice corrosion can occur in relation with overlapped
sheets, bolted lap joints, etc. where voluminous rust layers
can also cause deformation of the joined elements which
may lead to the breakage of joints, cracking of welds, etc.
(d) WS elements subject to the risks mentioned above cannot be
considered maintenance free. Special precautions must be
taken in order to avoid local corrosion attack: application
of protective paint coatings or periodic cleaning of dirt, loose
rust, etc.
By way of example, the following subheadings consider three
common examples of WS structures where atmospheric corrosion
problems tend to be encountered.
4.1. Bolted lap joints in electrical transmission towers
Bolted joints are susceptible to crevice corrosion as a result of
the accumulation of moisture resulting from moisture condensa-
tion or rainfall (Fig. 9) [32]. Water penetrates the joint together
with corrosive species from the atmosphere, and in this restricted
space both drying of the accumulated moisture and dilution of the
accumulated corrosive species is hindered. Corrosion in lap joints
can sometimes lead to deformation of the joined parts.
In the former Czechoslovakia, the presence of a very high SO2
concentration in the atmosphere, with many situations of atmo-
spheric corrosivity category C4-C5 (ISO 9223) [33], meant that spe-
cial care had to be taken when using WS for structural applications.
In these circumstances, while the rust developed on the free sur-
faces of steel parts promoted the formation of a protective rust
patina, corrosion in and around crevices was very significant and
often led to deformation of the joints themselves. Joined parts were
also found to experience a higher proportion of non-adherent rust,
active sulfate nests and pitting corrosion attack [32].
4.1.1. Evaluation of corrosion attack
It is interesting to mention a study on this subject carried out by
Knotkova and Vlckova [34], in which bolted joints of Atmofix 52A
WS deployed in power transmission towers for long exposure
times were dismantled, removed the rust by pickling and the cor-
rosion attack experienced in the joints was systematically evalu-
ated in relation with the following variables: corrosivity of the
exposure site, microclimatic effects of the surrounding area, spatial
orientation of the tower element above the base height, corrosion
of the joining elements (bolts and washers), and special corrosion
phenomena in important structural elements.
Table 1
Mean relative corrosion losses of joint elements [34].
Corrosion attack Max. pit depth (lm)
Bolt
Slight 135
Middle 220
Severe 335
The evaluation of corrosion attack was performed by: photo-
graphic documentation of elements, samples and contact surfaces
before and after dismantling, evaluation of rust inside the crevices,
measurement of residual thickness after removal of rust by pick-
ling, and assessment of corrosion attack of joining elements.
Some of the results obtained are presented below.
4.1.1.1. Rust layer evaluation. Inside the crevice the rust layer thick-
ness and appearance is not uniform. The highest thicknesses are
found near the crevice edges. In the vicinity of the bolt hole, the
rust layer thickness decreases. The rust is more coherent in close
proximity of the bolts, where almost no rust is found. The lightest
rust colours appear on the steel surface, while the rust inside the
crevice presents a darker colour.
Metallographic analysis shows a different type of rust inside the
crevice to that found outside. Inside the crevice the rust seems to
be more compact than outside on the open surface. The compact-
ness and visual uniformity of rust inside the crevice gives evidence
about the process stabilisation and the limited effect of outside
conditions.
4.1.1.2. Measurement of joining element residual thickness. Detailed
residual thickness measurements and circumference measure-
ments around the bolt holes were performed. The results were
evaluated for selected areas, directions and lines on the joint sur-
faces. The following were the main conclusions reached:

The most intense corrosion occurs along the edges of the joints
and in places where the crevice is less tight due to the position
and spacing of the bolts.

Corrosion attack is distinctly less intense in the bolt axis-line.

No attack or only insubstantial attack is found around the cir-
cumference of the bolt holes, which is where the joint is
tightest.

There is notably less corrosion attack and pitting on the surface
inside the crevice than on fully exposed surfaces.
4.1.1.3. Corrosion attack of joining elements. Joining elements are
always the weakest point of tower structures. Visual examination
showed different severities and types of corrosion attack. The
results of metallographic pit depth measurements on bolts and
washers are shown in Table 1.
4.1.2. Maintenance of bolted joints
Elimination of crevice corrosion seems to be a complex problem
with no quick or simple long-term solution. In view of the volume
and properties of rust inside the crevice, hydrophobic treatment is
practically impossible and cannot be efficient. Barrier coatings will
not easily penetrate the crevice and the parts covering the joint
will quickly deteriorate and lose their protective capacity. Knot-
kova and Vlkova [34] note two alternatives for the rehabilitation
of crevices:
(a) disassembly of the joint, removal of rust from the crevice
surfaces, application of anticorrosive protection on the cre-
vice surfaces, reassembly of the joints, and application of a
protective coating system.
(b) removal of rust from crevices without disassembling the
joints, cementing of the crevices, and application of a protec-
tive coating system on and around the crevices.
Washer New towers and structures made of WS should be designed
140 with bolted joints that fully comply with the optimum recom-
150 mended spacing of bolt holes and the necessary rigidity and flat-
215
ness of the contact surfaces. The contact surfaces should be
 M. Morcillo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 222 (2019) 750–765
painted or otherwise coated in full compliance with current stan-
dards and recommendations. Another requirement is that bolted
joints should be checked both during and after assembly.
4.1.3. Tubular weathering steel structures
Tubular structures have been widely used for electric power
transmission and distribution towers, lighting gantries for athletics
fields, car parks and road junctions, wind turbine towers, etc.
According to Hoitomt [35], the use of WS for the manufacturing
of tubular structures (poles) to support electricity transmission
and distribution lines has been proven to be an ideal application.
Their practicality is inherently enhanced by the vertical installation
and basic design characteristics that eliminate water and debris
traps.
Numerous reports of corrosion problems on other types of WS
structures were effectively blocking the utilisation of WS for tubu-
lar applications. These structural problems included: pack-out
between overlapping angle iron legs of lattice transmission towers;
excessive corrosion of below-deck bridge members; galvanic cor-
rosion resulting when dissimilar metals are in direct contact; and
rust staining of supporting concrete under WS structures. Other
concerns included issues such as: exposure to sea-coast environ-
ments; prolonged periods of rain/fog and/or high rainfall; heavy
snow; industrial pollution; acid rain; contact with soil; agricultural
fertilisers and herbicides, etc. A study of forty-seven structures at
twenty-three sites was undertaken in order to provide information
that would answer questions being raised about the service life of
WS tubular structures in a variety of environments [35]. The exam-
ination and evaluation process considered the following aspects:
remanent thickness of plates, oxide formation (pitting, colour),
pack-out of slip joints, condition of galvanised line hardware,
ground-line conditions in buried concrete formations, weather
data, etc. According to Hoitomt [35] the performance of tubular
WS structures was seen to be excellent. Oxide growth and the
resultant metal loss is negligible after twenty-five years. Reduction
of structural integrity due to corrosion is negligible and should not
be a deterrent to the choice of WS in the design of tubular utility
structures by structural design engineers. However, great attention
should always be paid to the specific location and the installation
procedures for WS structures. The design of tubular WS structures
should always include the avoidance of water traps and direct con-
tact of the steel with soil or damp, decaying vegetation.
Fig. 10. Atmospheric corrosion of different steels versus salinity of the atmosphere.
Data corresponding to 12 months of exposure. The letter E indicates the situations
where the exfoliation of the rust layers was observed.
757
4.2. Bridge constructions in coastal areas
Conventional WS used in bridge construction is prone to suffer
important corrosion problems. According to Raman [36], under
wet and dry cycles of near equal length WS forms a protective rust
layer. However, under wetter conditions in the presence of high
humidity and chlorides or when water remains stagnant on WS
surfaces for long periods of time, excessive rusting and the forma-
tion of non-protective rust layers may prevail.
Cook [37] also notes that when WS is exposed to a higher than
acceptable time of wetness due to poor or no controlled water drai-
nage, the bridge structure in general will undergo a higher than
expected rate of steel corrosion, especially in regions of local accu-
mulation of water or wet soil and debris in these poorly drained
locations, such as lower flanges. Furthermore, the presence of chlo-
rides from marine aerosol or from road deicing salt applications
increases the structure’s corrosion due to the prolonged exposure
of certain steel sections to chloride polluted aqueous layers. Con-
trolled water drainage will reduce the time of wetness and pollu-
tant exposure to the steel members.
Nowadays it is commonplace in bridge design to provide fully
enclosed rain drainage systems that keep the steel dry enough to
allow wet-dry cycling through general daily humidity changes.
However it is an important design consideration to ensure that
the drainage system expels the water sufficiently far away from
the steel so as to minimise the effects of wind-driven spray. Large
deck overhangs are now often designed to reduce salt-polluted
water from affecting fascia girders.
Raman notes two major corrosion problems with WS on bridges
in Lousiana [36]: (a) the formation of coarse, non-adherent flake-
type or exfoliated rust leading to great metal loss, and (b) severe
pitting underneath the rust.
4.2.1. Rust flaking (exfoliation)
In general, steel corrosion can be directly related with the atmo-
spheric salinity content of the exposure environment [2]. When the
atmospheric salinity content rises, the outermost surface of the
rust layer formed in marine atmospheres evolves from an agglom-
eration of grains (rust particles) to the appearance of rust flakes
and the formation of multilayer rust layers (anomalous thick rust
layers) [38]. As the exposure time increases, these flakes and mul-
tilayer rust layers show a tendency to become exfoliated
(detached) from the substrate steel, which is thereby left without
a protective cover and prone to an acceleration of the metal corro-
sion process.
Studies undertaken by the authors with regard to CS corrosion
in chloride-rich atmospheres found that the mean Cl deposition
rate had to surpass a critical threshold of around 300 mg/m2/day
in order for the exfoliation of plain CS and conventional WS to
occur [39]. With this level of atmospheric salinity the annual steel
corrosion loss was in excess of 100 lm (Fig. 10). Fig. 10 shows the
corrosion of different CS specimens after one year of exposure in
various marine atmospheres with different Cl deposition rates.
Exfoliation of the rust layer was observed in those situations indi-
cated by the letter E.
These exfoliated rust layers are formed by multiple rust strata
which are clearly visible in the cross sections shown in Fig. 11.
Inspection of the thick rust layer by optical microscopy reveals that
it is basically composed of one or more compact rust strata of a
greyish colour and a metallic shine, the exact number of strata
varying depending on the area of the rust layer under observation.
For more information on the rust exfoliation mechanism, please
refer to other papers published recently by the authors [39–41].
Attention in Fig. 10 is drawn to how the advanced WS contain-
ing 2.83 wt% Ni presents 58% lower corrosion rates than the plain
CS, and that exfoliation does not take place at salinity levels of
758 M. Morcillo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 222 (2019) 750–765

DENOMINATION CHARACTERISTICS
Red-brown coloured. Its surface appearance, texture and
chemical composition are all typical of the outermost rust
Outermost rust formed also on mild steel in marine atmospheres
Fragile compact rust layer exhibiting a grayish colouring and a
metallic shine. Its internal structure is highly porous with
Compact rust
abundant fine linearly arrayed voids

Loose rust interlayer Orange-red coloured. Highly porous loose rust layer

Compact rust
Innermost rust Heterogeneous pattern with orange and brown patches

1 mm

Fig. 11. Optical micrograph of exfoliated (multilayered) rust formed in a very aggressive marine atmosphere [39–41].

1000

Element C O Cl Fe
Atomic % 27 48 2 23
O
Fe

500

Fe Fe

C
Cl Cl
100 μm Fe
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1136 mg Cl-/m2.d
(a) (b)
Fig. 12. (a) Formation of pits in the steel substrate exposed to a severe marine atmosphere. (b) Cl signal in the EDS spectrum [42].

up to 300 mg Cl/m2/day. Exfoliation can be seen to occur on this
WS at salinity levels of around 650 mg Cl/m2/day. From the point
of view of exfoliation, the application of a conventional WS does
not represent any benefit, though its corrosion is 22% lower than
that of plain CS.
4.2.2. Pitting
Under the flakes and multilaminar rust, pitting occurs. Fig. 12a
illustrates pit formation on a steel substrate that has been exposed
to a severe marine atmosphere. The Cl signal of the corresponding
EDS spectrum (Fig. 12b) confirms the presence of this element
inside the pit [42].
According to Raman [36], most of the pits in interior locations
on bridges are about 0.25 mm deep after some twelve years of
exposure. Horizontal, sloping and downward facing surfaces in
sheltered interior locations seem to have somewhat deeper pits
than comparable upward facing surfaces. Vertical surfaces experi-
ence the least severe pitting. Partly enclosed boxed locations and
regions where water tends to accumulate and stagnate develop
wider and deeper pits; chloride and salt accumulation is also
higher in these areas.
In fact, rather than using the term ‘‘pits”, these points should be
referred to as preferential attack sites or depressions (troughs), as
they present a more open and smoother profile than for instance
the pitting that occurs on aluminium or stainless steel exposed
to the marine atmosphere, where localised attack goes consider-
ably deeper than the mean penetration of steel corrosion. Fig. 13
has been prepared with data obtained by different researchers
[43] and shows the relationship between the penetration of the
deepest troughs and the mean penetration of atmospheric corro-
sion on steel. According to the slope of this plot, the penetration
of the deepest troughs is more than 3.6 times the mean penetration
of generalised attack.
4.3. Weathering steel artworks
The rustic appearance of WS makes it ideal for many artistic and
architectural applications, and it is widely used for outdoor sculp-
tures and building frontages. Thus it has come to form a part of our
common cultural heritage, and as such needs to be monitored and
safeguarded.
Angelini et al. [44] carried out an in situ study into the effects of
atmospheric corrosion on a large outdoor WS sculpture statue. Like
most outdoor WS artefacts, the corrosion product layer on the sta-
tue presents areas of different colours, according to the direction in
which the metal plates are facing, and some of the welds are
affected by localised corrosion attack. Much of the outer surface
of the sculpture, constantly exposed to sunlight, is covered with
 M. Morcillo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 222 (2019) 750–765
900
800
Penetration of the deepest troughs, m
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 revise existing provisions governing the application of WS,
0 100
Mean penetration, m
Fig. 13. Relationship between the penetration of the deepest troughs and the mean
penetration in the atmospheric corrosion of steel [43].
uniform and well-adherent layers of red-orange or red-brown cor-
rosion products, and presents greater roughness than uncorroded
areas of the alloy. A degree of localised attack is seen around some
welds, including the presence of large pits, which gives rise to a
consequent local decrease in the thickness of the protective rust
layer.
5. Inspection and maintenance of weathering steel structures
This section refers to the specific case of bridges, highlighting
the efforts that have been made in Japan to improve the durability
of this type of structures. In Japan nearly 75% of the demand for WS
is for bridges.
According to Yamaguchi [45], corrosion resistance is a key fac-
tor for prolonging the service lifetime of steel bridges. Steel bridges
are usually treated with anticorrosive paint, a system that is effec-
tive but costly, as it can represent between 5 and 15% of a super-
structure’s initial construction cost. Moreover, repainting will be
a: corrosion as expected
b: corrosion advances
faster than expected
Corrosion loss
Fig. 14. Scheme of corrosion-loss variation with time [47].
759
required every ten years or so throughout the structure’s service
life. Therefore in financial terms, taking into account full life-
cycle costs, conventional steel may be an uncompetitive option
for bridge construction.
The use of WS for bridge construction allows life-cycle costs to
be cut. Thanks to WS’s ability to mitigate corrosion by developing a
dense layer of fine rust on its surface, the corrosion rate steadily
drops as the rust layer grows, to a level a which practically no dam-
age is caused in engineering terms. As a result, WS bridges do not
require painting, and therefore their cost may be considerably
cheaper than conventional steel bridges. This is the main reason
for the recent popularity of WS bridges in Japan, where for instance
in 2006 more than 30 wt% of all the steel used in steel bridge con-
struction was WS.
However, amid a growing number of WS bridge projects,
reports of the development of anomalous very thick rust on these
structures are emerging [46]. In response to these circumstances,
the Working Group on Weathering Steel Bridges under the Com-
mittee to Improve Steel Bridge Performance of the Japanese Society
of Steel Construction (JSSC) was set up in 2003. This working group
is constituted by a range of specialists including construction engi-
neers, bridge owners and academics, who coordinate to review and
200 300 improve inspection and diagnostic techniques, and refresh classic
repair and painting methods for corroded steel bridges. It has stud-
ied the current state of WS know-how and conducted additional
research in order to enhance WS bridge durability design. In
2006, when the group’s activities came to an end, it published a
technical report on ‘‘Potentials and New Technologies of Weather-
ing Steel Bridges” that was subsequently published by JSSC [47].
This report consisted of four volumes:
Vol. A: Recommendations for Durability Design of Weathering
Steel Bridges
Vol. B: Technologies for Durability Design of Weathering Steel
Bridges
Vol. C: Weathering Steel Bridge Maintenance Manual
Vol. D: Collection of Data
The WS bridge maintenance manual noted the importance of
predicting corrosion loss variations as an intrinsic part of durability
design, and of comparing real corrosion losses with predicted val-
ues in order to validate WS performance throughout the bridge’s
service lifetime.
As is known, the corrosion loss (penetration curve) of WS may
be represented by the function:
Y ¼ AXB ð3Þ
where X is time (years), Y is penetration (mm), A is first-year corro-
sion loss (mm), and B is an index of the decrease in corrosion loss.
According to this function, A shows environmental severity whilst
1/B expresses the rust layer’s ability to lower the corrosion rate.
Both coefficients have been seen to be mutually related [47]. If A
and B are awarded known values, corrosion losses may be forecast
b for all of the structure’s design service lifetime. However, corrosion
can advance faster than expected (Fig. 14).
a
Table 2
Criteria for rust level according to the Japan Iron and Steel Federation and the Japan
Bridge Association [48].
Rust level Description of the rust Rust thickness
5 Few in quantity; relatively bright Less than about 200 lm
4 Less 1 mm in size; fine and uniform Less than about 400 lm
Time 3 1–5 mm in size Less than about 400 lm
2 5–25 mm in size Less than about 800 lm
1 Formation of thick rust layer More than about 800 lm
760
100000
Ion Transfer Resistance, Ω
10000 I-4
1000
I-5 I-3
100
0 200 400
Thickness of rust, μm
Fig. 15. Guideline for rust level classification for existing weathering steel
structures, based on Ion Transfer Resistance (ITR) measurements [12,49]. I: ITR;
1–5: Rust level (Table 2).
Table 3
Corrosion loss at end of 100-year working life
[47].
Rust level Corrosion loss
5 Less than about 0.5 mm
4 About 0.5 mm
3 About 0.5 mm
2 0.5–1.0 mm
1 Higher than 1.0 mm
5.1. Inspections
Two types of corrosion-related inspections must be carried out
on WS bridges: an initial inspection and subsequent periodic
inspections. All bridges, whatever their characteristics, are subject
to periodic general inspections; for instance, national highway
bridges are checked on a five-year basis. Therefore it makes good
sense and is more cost-effective to carry out corrosion-related
inspections in conjunction with the periodic general inspections.
The initial inspection is to be carried out at an early moment in
the service lifetime of a WS bridge, and its aim is to identify any
basic defects. The detection of unexpected (abnormal) general
rusting may cast doubt on the judgement of environmental condi-
tions. The development of any localised abnormal rust needs to be
addressed at once. In the event that a thick rust layer has devel-
oped, its cause should be ascertained and measures adopted to
eliminate it without delay.
Periodic inspections are mainly performed with the aim of
assessing corrosion losses, and thus must be carried out only when
rust development has stabilised. As such, the general recommen-
dation is that this type of corrosion-related inspection should com-
mence about ten years after bridge construction. The periodicity of
corrosion-related periodic inspections shall be established on the
basis of rust formation. Assuming that the bridge is in a satisfactory
state, once every ten years should be sufficient as no great changes
in the corrosion rate are to be expected. When the measured cor-
rosion losses differ substantially from forecast values, the reasons
for this must be determined.
5.2. Inspection methods
(a) Evaluation of external appearance. The rust colour (pho-
tograph) and granulometry (tape test) [4] provide insight
into the corrosion rate. The rust level is evaluated according
M. Morcillo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 222 (2019) 750–765
Visual rust rang (Table 2)
I-2'
Durable State
(Low Corrosion Rate) Thick (Anomalous) Rust
I-1
Protective Rust
I-2
A B C
600 800 1000
Corrosiveness of environment
(a)
Penetration
C
B
A
Exposure time
(b)
Fig. 16. Schematic illustration of the durable state concept [50]. (a) Relationship
between the durable state concept and visual ratings of rust (Table 2). (b) Type of
penetration/exposure time curves.
to Table 2, looking at the density and size of the rust [48]. A
more quantitative method for evaluating rust, known as Ion
Transfer Resistance (ITR), is illustrated in Fig. 15. This
method has been reported elsewhere [12,49] and equipment
is commercially available.
(b) Determination of rust thickness using an electromagnetic
coating thickness tester.
(c) Determination of plate thickness using an ultrasonic thickness
gauge.
5.3. Performance verification
The results obtained in the evaluation of the external appear-
ance can be used to estimate corrosion losses after a one hundred
years service lifetime, as indicated in Table 3 [47].
Level 3–5 rust development represents acceptable behaviour
and does not require any additional action. Level 1–2 rust develop-
ment may be indicative of unacceptable behaviour. When the cir-
cumstances that gave rise to the development of this rust have
been identified and satisfactorily remedied, no further action will
be required. If this is not the case, plate thickness measurements
must be performed, giving rise to three potential scenarios:
(1) If corrosion losses are below the forecast value for this point
in the service lifetime, no additional action is required.
(2) If corrosion losses are above the forecast value for this point
in the service lifetime, but below the forecast value for the
entire service lifetime, no additional action is required
now. Nevertheless, the following inspection should be car-
ried out sooner and be more exhaustive.
(3) If corrosion losses have already surpassed the forecast value
for the bridge’s entire service lifetime, a study must be car-
ried out to make a revised forecast of its end of lifetime rust
 M. Morcillo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 222 (2019) 750–765 761

Planning Realization of long life

& Service as unpainted steel structures minimum maintenance
Designing structures

Step C
Step A Step B Exclusion of causes or
repair if needed
Showing of the
maintenance Inspection
Unexpected
guidelines Contingency Plan

Important measure for

exclusión of factors that
Normal Rolling Plan may shorten the life of
(No extra maintenance needed) structures

Fig. 17. Risk based minimum maintenance (RBMM) bridge concept for weathering steel. Controlling points for corrosion risks [49,51].

condition. This study should consider how corrosion losses Table 5

are distributed around the bridge and examine the issue of New weathering steels [54].

safety throughout its service lifetime. If safety requirements Application Alternatives

are found to be met, no additional actions are required now. Non-marine atmospheres Increasing the phosphorus content
Nevertheless, the following inspection should be carried out Increasing the silicon content
sooner and be more exhaustive. Alternatively, if this study Increasing the nickel content
concludes that safety is threatened, remedial measures must Addition of titanium
Nitrogen alloying
be adopted immediately in order to guarantee safety.
Addition of boron
Addition of rare earths (RE)
Low-carbon microalloyed bainitic steel
5.4. Maintenance Marine atmospheres Manganese-copper-phosphorus alloys
Addition of tungsten
In order to assure long-term structural durability, bridge design Ultrafined grained silicon-aluminium steel
must take into consideration the degradation of steel members Chromium steels
Nickel steels
over long time periods. To this end, SABI, the chemistry committee
of the Japan Society of Corrosion Engineers, has come up with the
‘‘durable state concept”, which envisages a situation where the WS
corrosion rate is sufficiently slow to avoid the formation of thick plementary penetration curves. Despite the establishment of the
(anomalous, laminated, etc.) rust layers. durable state, gradual thinning of the WS members will neverthe-
Fig. 16a shows a graphic representation of the durable state less continue to proceed. For this reason, structural design must
concept [50]. Region A presents a thin rust layer that remains take into consideration the forecast corrosion losses for very long
unchanged from the initial state for a long time period thanks to service lifetimes of up to one hundred years.
the low aggressiveness of the corrosion environment. Region B pre- When the rust thickness on WS is below 400 lm, for instance
sents a thin layer of protective rust that is influenced by a corrosion (Table 2), a durable state may be said to have been achieved. This
environment of medium severity. Region C presents a thick anoma- situation will lead to WS corrosion losses of less than 0.30 mm per
lous rust layer caused by a severely corrosive environment. It is in side after fifty years in service. Despite the formation of a protec-
regions A and B that the durable state must be implemented, as tive rust layer, the corrosion rate never drops to zero, and corrosion
this is where WS rusting is under control. Fig. 16b also shows com- losses of 0.50 mm per side are forecast for a service lifetime of one

Table 4
Levels of anti-corrosion design for WS bridges.

Anti-corrosion level Rust Status* Typical appearance Rust Corrosion loss (mm per
rating thickness side) for 100 years of
(Table 2) (lm) exposure (Table 3)
I Corrosion loss occurring during design service period does 5 Normal Thin rust due to very low <200 <0.5
not affect designed load capacity of the bridge. Rust rating corrosion rate
must be kept from 3 to 5 4 Average rust particle size: <400 0.5
<1 mm
3 Average rust particle size:
1–5 mm
II 2 Observation Rust like fish scale (flakes). 400–800 0.5–1.0
needed Average rust particle size:
5–25 mm
III 1 Unexpected Thick and/or delaminated >800 >1.0
rust layer
*
Status can be judged after 9 years of exposure.
762 M. Morcillo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 222 (2019) 750–765
hundred years. In practical terms, such a small corrosion loss is
negligible and will not influence the stability of a steel structure
[50].
To reduce the risk of anomalous rusting on WS structures,
Kihira et al. [49,51] devised a computerised system for predicting
corrosion that has been adopted as an internal sales control tool
for advanced WS. This system keeps track of all corrosion risks sim-
ply using the data provided by inspections of steel member sur-
faces. Both visual and instrument-based rust tracking procedures
must be established. Provision also needs to be made for repair
and retrofitting operations.
The system for managing risk based minimum maintenance
(RBMM) of WS bridge structures is shown in Fig. 17, which consid-
ers the following steps:
Step A – An essential part of risk control to assure the appropri-
ate use of WS. Due to tight building schedules, this stage must
involve instant assessment.
Step B – Design and materials alone are insufficient to assure
ultra-long-term durability. Field controls are also vital, since
unpredictable accidents or environmental changes can happen
over the course of protracted service lifetimes. Experts have devel-
oped a five-level visual inspection ranking (Table 2).
Step C – Monitoring (inspection) shows unexpected results that
surpass the risk criteria.
In steps B and C the WS structure has not yet entered failure
mode and contingency plans may be implemented, for instance
flushing off saline deposits, reapplying painted protection systems,
channelling water leaks, retrofitting, etc.
Table 4 shows anticorrosive design levels for WS bridges and
the corresponding rust rating status, typical appearance, rust thick-
ness and corrosion loss for one hundred years of exposure [51,52],
as propounded by the Japan Association of Steel Bridge Construc-
tion and Japan Iron and Steel Federation.
6. Advanced weathering steels
The initial development of WS was entirely a result of empirical
development and was based on a limited range of conventional
alloying elements including Cr, Ni, Cu and P at just a few concen-
trations. The impact of these additions on steel corrosion perfor-
mance was already well understood, and so only modest
enhancements of steel behaviour in outdoor conditions were
achievable by varying their concentration.
9 III) oxides, and this could favour the modification of ion-
8 rosion interface.
7
Corrosion rate, ( m/year)
6 in view of to the acidifying properties of Cr.
5
4 hydroxides, altering the ion-exchange properties of colloidal
3 on the steel surface due to irregularities in the rust layer.
2
1 Japan in 2006.
0
0 1 2 3 4
Cr content (wt%)
Fig. 18. Variation of steel corrosion rate with the chromium content after two years
of exposure in Qingdao marine atmosphere [57].
Current WS design focuses on how to avoid the constraints of
conventional WS, and concentrates principally on achieving
improvements in aspects such as: (a) corrosion resistance; (b)
the time taken for protective rust layers to form; and (c) applica-
tion in harsh conditions, especially marine atmospheres [53].
Table 5 shows the latest advances that have taken place in the
development of WS according to their field of application. Consid-
eration is made of two main groups: non-marine atmospheres and
marine atmospheres [54]. Over the last ten years or so developers
have proposed a number of novel WS compositions, usually as a
result of laboratory research. The potential of these new materials
can only be borne out or dismissed by means of long term atmo-
spheric exposure testing.
Focusing on what is perhaps the main constraint of conven-
tional WS, its deficient behaviour in the marine environment, mod-
ern WS design for marine atmospheres may be said follow two
clearly different lines: chrome steels and nickel steels, as presented
below.
6.1. Cr steels
Copson [55] and Larrabee and Coburn [56] already noted in the
1960’s that Cr had a favourable impact on steel behaviour during
atmospheric exposure in marine environments. Zhang et al. [57]
ratified this finding in a marine atmosphere at Qingdao. Steel
thickness losses in marine atmospheric exposure were consider-
ably smaller when increasing amounts of Cr were added to the
steel (Fig. 18). In another study also performed in the marine atmo-
sphere of Qingdao, Zhang et al. [58] observed an important
improvement in marine atmospheric corrosion resistance, in com-
parison to CS, when both Cu (0.30 wt%) and Cr (1.53 wt%) were
added to the alloy.
6.2. Ni steels
The case of a new WS (Ni 3.00 wt% – Cu 0.40 wt% – Ca 20 ppm
wt), commercialised by Nippon Steel as Coastal Weathering Steel
[59], is illustrated below by way of example. Kihira et al. [60]
reported that the design of this new WS, developed in 1989 for
application in marine atmospheres, is based on three fundamental
aspects:
(a) Higher Ni content. This measure reduces WS active dissolu-
tion rates, lowering acidification at the steel/rust interface
resulting from the hydrolysis of metal ions. Rust developed
in this way can incorporate Ni (II) irons to stabilise Fe (II,
exchange properties so as to promote alkalisation at the cor-
(b) Exclusion of Cr. This measure is vital in order to strengthen
the anticorrosive behaviour of WS in coastal environments,
(c) Addition of Ca. The aim of this action is to raise the pH at the
corrosion interface, promoting stabilisation of the iron oxy-
corrosion products, and ensuring a passive state at bare sites
More than 27 Tn of his advanced coastal WS was produced in
Usami et al. [61] and Kimura et al. [62,63], in a nine-year study
undertaken in the Kimitsu atmosphere (79 mg Cl/m2/day), also
observed the high resistance of Ni steels in the presence of a
3.00 wt% Ni addition, avoiding the formation of very thick (abnor-
mal) rust layers or the occurence of their exfoliation (Fig. 19). Fur-
ther information on the mechanisms by which this WS achieves
 M. Morcillo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 222 (2019) 750–765
2.0
1.5
Average thickness loss, mm
Conventional WS
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 1
Conventional WS: C 0.05 wt% - Si 0.05 wt% - Mn 1.0 wt% - P 0.008 wt% -
Cu 0.4 wt%
Fig. 19. Influence of Ni addition amount on weathering performance of Ni 3.00 wt% – Cu 0.4 wt% – Ca 20 ppm wt in marine atmosphere of Kimitsu (79 mg Cl/m2.d) [61–63].
Fig. 20. Evolution with time of exposure of corrosion rates of Ni 2.83 wt% – Cu
0.28 wt% in two marine atmospheres of different aggressivity [65].
greater corrosion resistance in the marine environment can be
found in the publication [64].
Few published references have assessed the corrosion rate of this
kind of steels as a function of the atmospheric chloride deposition
rate, and specifically only two studies are known: one by the authors
[65] and another by Sugimoto and Kita [66]. Fig. 20, obtained by the
authors after five years of exposure, shows that an advanced steel
with 3.00 wt% Ni is suitable for use without a protective paint coat-
ing in an atmosphere with a chloride deposition rate of 20 mg Cl/
m2/day, because the evolution of the corrosion rate after five years
of exposure approaches the limit of 6 lm/year [67], and can surpass
this limit after longer times as the corrosion rate comes to reach a
steady-state value. On the other hand, there is no doubt that this
advanced steel should not be used unpainted in more aggressive
atmospheres (e.g. 70 mg Cl/m2/day) where, although data was only
available for two years of exposure, the corrosion rates are exces-
sively higher the 6 lm/year range.
Sugimoto and Kita [66], in a five-year field study involving the
exposure of three types of WS: conventional (Cu 0.30 wt% – Cr
763
Abnormal exfoliated rust
Not exfoliated rust
2 3 4 5
Ni (wt%)
0.50 wt%), advanced A (Ni 3.00 wt% – Cu 0.40 wt%) and advanced
B (Ni 1.50 wt% – Mo 0.30 wt%) in three marine atmospheres with
chloride deposition rates of 18, 42 and 103 Cl/m2/day, observed
the best behaviour of the advanced WS A, which did not present
exfoliation only when exposed in the least aggressive of the atmo-
spheres (18 mg Cl/m2/day), with an estimated attack penetration
of <0–5 mm in a one-hundred years forecast obtained by applying
the power function:
C ¼ Atn ð4Þ
where C is corrosion after time t, and A and n are constants.
7. Painting of weathering steel
Although it may somehow seem contradictory to apply a pro-
tective coating on a WS, this is a practical solution that has fre-
quently been put into practice to solve corrosion problems.
7.1. Application of paint coatings
WS are usually exposed to the atmosphere in bare conditions,
though it is not rare to see them also painted, and not only to
extend their service lifetime but also for aesthetic reasons.
As WS only requires a smaller thickness due to its better
mechanical properties, the cost ratio between the use of WS or
CS is actually lower than a price comparison per unit of weight
would seem to suggest. A British Steel publication in 1970 [68] sta-
ted that the higher cost of CORTEN B steel than normal steel qual-
ities may be completely offset by the lower weight of steel used in
the design; however, in this respect it is important to bear in mind
that any thickness reduction could affect the lifetime of the struc-
ture if its corrosion resistance is not proportionally improved.
In view of the important role that rust propagation under the
coating plays in the destruction of the coating, it is obviously
advantageous to use metallic substrates that are less corrodible
than ordinary steel, such as WS. According to Arponen [69], paint
films are less susceptible to deterioration on WS than on CS. If
the decision to paint a WS is taken, the difference between the cost
of structures built with this steel or an ordinary steel will depend
fundamentally on whether the paint lasts longer on one or the
764 M. Morcillo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 222 (2019) 750–765
other. If the difference is no more than 25%, it is not clear whether
changing the steel would be economically justified [70].
The greatest savings are obviously achieved when WS can be
used in bare condition. The rising cost of protective coatings and
the need for periodic maintenance means that this alternative
should always be examined with the greatest of interest. However,
as Bishop [71] acknowledges, the potential for using unpainted WS
in corrosive environments is fairly limited. Painting can only be
avoided without fear when WS is exposed to environments of
low corrosivity. In such situations, another factor with an unfa-
vourable economic impact is that the WS surface needs to be
blasted in order to ensure that the rust layer which forms over time
(protective patina) is uniform and adherent. As is logical, the tech-
nical and economic implications of any option will need to be care-
fully assessed in order to reap the maximum benefit with these
steels.
It has been seen that painted WS structures enjoy substantially
longer service lifetimes than painted CS structures [72,73], and
that the behaviour of the paint coating is largely dependent on
the atmospheric exposure conditions and the specific paint/metal
system used. A study by Wang et al. [74], assessing Cor-Ten A steel
exposed in a very severe industrial atmosphere (130 mg SO2 4 /
m2/day) showed that epoxy-MIO/polyurethane systems behaves
better when applied on silicate-type ZRP than on epoxy-type
ZRP, and that the visual appearance and protective properties of
painted WS are always better than those of painted CS, as con-
firmed by impedance measurements in the laboratory.
In the field of conservation, a number of coating materials are
currently being used for the corrosion protection of outdoor metal
sculptures. In a paper by Decker et al. [75] in the framework of the
CONSIST project at the Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum, Cor-
ten steel was coated with products such as wax, acrylic resin and
polyurethane resin and subjected to laboratory tests. The experi-
mental results showed that the coatings alter the outward aspect
of the metallic surface, adding shine to or dulling the surface,
and that none of the tested products is entirely adequate in terms
of appearance and protection. Cor-ten sculptures will always be
susceptible to suffering serious damage, though there is also great
potential for coatings to extend their service lifetime. In such appli-
cations it is specially important that coatings be regularly main-
tained. It is preferable to have no coating rather than a defective
coating.
7.2. Surface rust stabilisation treatments
Cook and Yamashita [76] note the alternative, in very severe
marine atmospheres, of improving the corrosion performance of
High Performance Steels (HPS) by applying coatings that impede
chloride ion diffusion to the WS substrate, while allowing the for-
mation of the protective nanophase goethite (Cr-FG) patina. They
note that the dispersion of Cr2(SO4)3, together with other pigments,
in a vinyl butyral resin gives rise to a coating which when applied
on WS is effective to quickly form a Cr-FG rust layer, taking just
two years in an aggressive marine atmosphere with a chloride
deposition rate of 61 mg Cl/m2/day [53,77]. WS coated in this
way could offer a minimal maintenance steel structure for a very
long service lifetime.
Finally, the Japanese company JFE Steel Corporation commer-
cialises two types of resin-based solvent-borne coatings, as a single
coating, for application on WS:

Cupten Coat Aqua [78]: an anionic type resin to suppress the
penetration of chlorides, forming a porous film that allows
appropriate levels of H2O and O2 to permeate through the coat-
ing. A dense and continuous rust layer is formed under the coat-
ing suppressing rust outflow.

e-RUS [79]: the coating formed can be used as an undercoat. It
prevents the formation of rust outflow and shortens the period
of colour unevenness that occurs before a protective rust is
formed.
References
[1] M. Yamashita, T. Misawa, Recent progress in the study of protective rust-layer
formation on weathering steel, Proceedings Corrosion’ 98, San Diego, 1998.
Technical Publication 357.
[2] J. Alcántara, D. de la Fuente, B. Chico, J. Simancas, I. Díaz, M. Morcillo,
Marine atmospheric corrosion of carbon steel: a review, Materials 10 (2017)
406.
[3] T. Kamimura, S. Hara, H. Miyuki, M. Yamashita, H. Uchida, Composition and
protective ability of rust layer formed on weathering steel exposed to various
environments, Corros. Sci. 48 (2006) 2799–2812.
[4] S. Hara, T. Kamimura, H. Miyuki, M. Yamashita, Taxonomy for protective ability
of rust layer using its composition formed on weathering steel bridge, Corros.
Sci. 49 (2007) 1131–1142.
[5] P. Dillmann, F. Mazaudier, S. Hoerlé, Advances in understanding atmospheric
corrosion of iron. I. Rust characterization of ancient ferrous artefacts exposed
to indoor atmospheric corrosion, Corros. Sci. 46 (2004) 1401–1429.
[6] M. Pourbaix, Une méthode électrochimique rapide de prédétermination de la
corrosion atmosphérique, Rapports Techniques CEBELCOR Vol. 109, RT 160
(August 1969).
[7] M. Pourbaix, J. Van Muylder, A. Pourbaix, J. Kissel, An electrochemical wet and
dry method for atmospheric corrosion testing, in: W.H. Aylor (Ed.),
Atmospheric Corrosion, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1982, p. 167.
[8] M. Pourbaix, J. Van Muylder, A. Pourbaix, J. Kissel, Applications of an
electrochemical wet and dry method for atmospheric corrosion testing,
Rapports Techniques CEBELCOR Vol. 139, RT 259 (Oct. 1980).
[9] K. Kashima, S. Hara, H. Kishikawa, H. Miyuki, Evaluation of protective ability of
rust layers on weathering steels by potential measurement, Corros. Eng. 49
(2000) 25–37.
[10] T. Murata, Weathering steel, in: R.W. Revie (Ed.), Uhlig’s Corrosion Handbook,
J. Wiley & Sons, New York, 2000, pp. 569–580.
[11] N. Damgaard, S. Walbridge, C. Hansson, J. Yeung, Corrosion protection and
assessment of weathering steel highway structures, J. Constr. Steel Res. 66
(2010) 1174–1185.
[12] H. Kihira, S. Ito, T. Murata, Quantitative classification of patina conditions for
weathering steel using a recently developed instrument, Corrosion 45 (1989)
347–352.
[13] S. Ito, H. Kihira, T. Murata, A new method to monitor in-situ protective
properties of rust on weathering steel, in: S.W. Dean, T.S. Lee (Eds.),
Degradation of Metals in the Atmosphere, ASTM STP 965, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 366–373.
[14] ISO 8407, Corrosion of Metals and Alloys - Removal of Corrosion Products
from Corrosion Test Specimens, International Organization for
Standardization, Genève, 1991.
[15] ASTM G50, Conducting atmospheric corrosion tests on metals, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1991.
[16] Corrosion, in: L.L. Shreir, R.A. Jarman, and G.T. Burstein (Ed), Corrosion Control,
third ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1994, pp. 19:53–19:57.
[17] K.A. Chandler, M.B. Kilcullen, Corrosion resistant low-alloy steels: a review
with particular reference to atmospheric conditions in the United Kingdom, Br.
Corros. J. 5 (1970) 24–32.
[18] A.F. Bromley, M.B. Kilkullen, J.F. Stanners. in: 5th European Congress of
Corrosion, Paris, France, 1973.
[19] R.A. Legault, S. Mori, H.P. Leckie, An electrochemical-statistical study of the
effect of the chemical environment on the corrosion behavior of mild steel,
Corrosion 26 (1970) 121–128.
[20] A.W. Hassel, S. Bonk, S. Tsuri, M. Stratmann, A universal alternating immersion
simulator for accelerated cyclic corrosion tests, Mater. Corros. 59 (2008) 175–
180.
[21] J. Wang, Z.Y. Wang, W. Ke, Corrosion behaviour of weathering steel in diluted
Qinghai salt lake water in a laboratory accelerated test that involved cyclic
wet/dry conditions, Mater. Chem. Phys. 124 (2010) 952–958.
[22] E. Johansson, J. Gullman, Corrosion study of carbon steels and zinc.
Comparison between field exposure and accelerated tests, in: W.W. Kirk, H.
H. Lawson (Eds.), Atmospheric Corrosion, ASTM STP 1239, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1995, pp. 240–256.
[23] F.L. LaQue. Corrosion testing, in: Proceedings ASTM, 1951, pp. 495-582.
[24] ASTM B117-11, Standard practice for operating salt spray (fog) apparatus,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 2011.
[25] G. Haynes III, Types of tests: cabinet, in: R. Baboian (Ed.), Corrosion Tests and
Standards. Application and Interpretation, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, 1995, pp. 91–97.
[26] F.H. Haynie, J.W. Spence, J.B. Upham, Effects of air pollutants on weathering
steel and galvanized steel: a chamber study, in: S.K. Coburn (Ed.), Atmospheric
Factors Affecting the Corrosion of Engineering Metals, ASTM STP 646,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1978, pp. 30–47.
[27] ISO 3231, Paints and varnishes – Determination of Resistance to Humid
Atmospheres Containing Sulphur Dioxide, International Organization for
Standardization, Genève, 1993.
 M. Morcillo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 222 (2019) 750–765
[28] ISO 6988, Metallic and Other Non Organic Coatings – Sulphur Dioxide Test
with General Condensation of Moisture, International Organization for
Standardization, Genève, 1985.
[29] J.A. González, Control de la Corrosión. Estudio y Medida por Técnicas
Electroquímicas, CSIC, Madrid, 1989.
[30] P. Montoya, I. Díaz, N. Granizo, D. De la Fuente, M. Morcillo, A study on
accelerated corrosion testing of weathering steel, Mater. Chem. Phys. 142
(2013) 220–228.
[31] V. Kucera, P.E. Augustsson, D. Knotkova, L. Rozlivka, Experience with the use of
weathering steels in constructions in Sweden and the Czech Republic,
International Workshop on Atmospheric Corrosion and Weathering Steels,
Corrosion and Protection group of University of Antioquia, Cartagena de Indias,
Colombia, 2004.
[32] D. Knotkova, J. Steinbauer, A. Kopilikova, Crevice corrosion in bolted lap joints
made of weathering steels, International Workshop on Atmospheric Corrosion
and Weathering Steels, Corrosion and Protection group of University of
Antioquia, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, 2004.
[33] EN ISO 9223, Corrosion of metals and alloys - Corrosivity of atmospheres -
Classification, determination and estimation, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, 2012.
[34] D. Knotkova, J. Vlckova, Atmospheric corrosion of bolted lap joints made of
weathering steels, in: W.W. Kirk, H.H. Lawson (Eds.), Atmospheric Corrosion,
ASTM STP 1239, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1995, pp. 114–136.
[35] M.L. Hoitomt, Performance of weathering steel tubular structures, in: H.E.
Townsend (Ed.), Outdoor Atmospheric Corrosion, American Society for Testing
and Materials315, Philadelphia, 2002, p. 301.
[36] A. Raman, Atmospheric corrosion problems with weathering steels in Lousiana
bridges, in: S.W. Dean, T.S. Lee (Eds.), Degradation of Metals in the
Atmosphere, ASTM STP 965, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 16–29.
[37] D.C. Cook, The corrosion of high performance steel in adverse environments,
in: ISIAME, Madrid, 2004, pp. 63–72.
[38] J. Calero, J. Alcántara, B. Chico, I. Díaz, J. Simancas, D. De la Fuente, M. Morcillo,
Wet/dry accelerated laboratory test to simulate the formation of multilayered
rust on carbon steel in marine atmospheres, Corros, Eng. Sci. Technol. 52
(2017) 178–187.
[39] B. Chico, J. Alcántara, E. Pino, I. Díaz, J. Simancas, A. Torres-Pardo, D. De la
Fuente, J.A. Jiménez, J.F. Marco, J.M. González-Calbet, M. Morcillo, Rust
exfoliation on carbon steels in chloride-rich atmospheres, Corros. Rev. 33
(2015) 263–282.
[40] M. Morcillo, J. Alcántara, I. Díaz, B. Chico, J. Simancas, D. De la Fuente, Marine
atmospheric corrosion of carbon steels, Rev. Metal. Madrid 51 (2015) e045.
[41] M. Morcillo, B. Chico, D. De la Fuente, J. Alcántara, I. Odnevall Wallinder, C.
Leygraf, On the mechanism of rust exfoliation in marine environments, J.
Electrochem. Soc. 164 (2017) C8–C16.
[42] J. Alcántara, B. Chico, I. Díaz, D. de la Fuente, M. Morcillo, Airborne chloride
deposit and its effect on marine atmospheric corrosion of mild steel, Corros.
Sci. 97 (2015) 74–88.
[43] S. Feliu, M. Morcillo, Corrosión y Protección de los Metales en la Atmósfera,
Bellaterra, Barcelona, 1982.
[44] E. Angelini, S. Grassini, M. Parvis, F. Zucchi, An in situ investigation of the
corrosion behaviour of a weathering steel work of art, Surf. Interface. Anal.
ECASIA 2011 special issue (2011).
[45] E. Yamaguchi, Assessment method for atmospheric corrosiveness and
durability design of weathering steel bridges, in: Proceedings of the 23rd
US-Japan Bridge Engineering Workshop, Public Work Research Institute,
Tsukuba, Japan, 2007, pp. 386–394.
[46] E. Yamaguchi, S. Nakamura, K. Hirokado, C. Morita, Y. Sonoda, T. Aso, H.
Watanabe, K. Yamaguchi, K. Iwatsubo, Performance of weathering steel in
bridges in Kyushu-Yamaguchi region, Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshuu A, JSCE 62
(2006) 243–254.
[47] Potentials and new technologies of weathering steel bridges, JSSC Technical
Report No 73, 2006.
[48] Japan Iron and Steel Federation (JISF) and Japan Association of Steel Bridge
Construction (JASBC): Application of weathering steels to bridges, Japan Iron
and Steel Federation (JISF), Tokyo, 2002.
[49] H. Kihira, Systematic approaches toward minimum maintenance risk
management methods for weathering steel infrastructures, Corros. Sci. 49
(2007) 112–119.
[50] H. Kihira, T. Senuma, M. Tanaka, K. Nishioka, Y. Fujii, Y. Sakata, A corrosion
prediction method for weathering steels, Corros. Sci. 47 (2005) 2377–2390.
[51] Y. Fujii, H. Kihira, M. Tanaka, K. Matsuoka, Corrosion risk management
methods to realize long-term durability of weathering steel bridges, Nippon
Steel Technical Report No. 97, 2008.
765
[52] H. Kihira, H. Yasunami, T. Kusunoki, Y. Harada, M. Tanaka, H. Takezawa, K.
Matsuoka, K. Tanabe, 3% Ni-advanced weathering steel and its applicability
assessing method, Nippon Steel Technical Report No. 90, 2004.
[53] M. Yamashita, H. Uchida, Recent research and development in solving
atmospheric corrosion problems of steel industries in Japan, Hyperfine
Interact. 139 (140) (2002) 153–166.
[54] M. Morcillo, I. Díaz, B. Chico, H. Cano, D. de la Fuente, Weathering steels: from
empirical development to scientific design. A review, Corros. Sci. 83 (2014) 6–31.
[55] H.R. Copson, Long-time atmospheric corrosion tests on low-alloy steels, Proc.
ASTM 60 (1960) 1–16.
[56] C.P. Larrabee, S.K. Coburn, The atmospheric corrosion of steels as influenced by
changes in chemical composition, in: Proceedings of the 1st International
Congress on Metallic Corrosion, London, 1961, pp. 279–285.
[57] Q. Zhang, J. Wu, W. Zheng, J. Wang, J. Chen, X. Yang, A. Li, Characterization of
rust layer formed on low alloy steel exposed in marine atmosphere, J. Mater.
Sci. Technol. 18 (2002) 455–458.
[58] Q.C. Zhang, J.S. Wu, J.J. Wang, W.L. Zheng, J.G. Chen, A.B. Li, Corrosion behavior
of weathering steel in marine atmosphere, Mater. Chem. Phys. 77 (2002) 603–
608.
[59] Nippon Steel Corporation, Coastal Weathering Steel (AC 330), 2006.
[60] H. Kihira, S. Ito, S. Mizoguchi, T. Murata, A. Usami, K. Tanabe, Creation of alloy
design concept for anti air-born salinity weathering steel, Zairyo- to -Kankyo
49 (2000) 30–40.
[61] A. Usami, T. Kusunoki, H. Kihira, 3%-Ni weathering steel plate for uncoated
bridges at high airborne salt environment, Nippon Steel Technical Report No.
87, 2003.
[62] M. Kimura, H. Kihira, M. Nomura, Y. Kitajima, Corrosion protection mechanism
of the advanced weathering steel (Fe-3.0Ni-0.40Cu, mass%) in a coastal area,
in: D.A. Shifler (Ed.), Corrosion in Marine and Saltwater Environments II-Proc.
of the International Symposium, Electrochemical Society, Pennington, NJ,
2005, pp. 133–142.
[63] M. Kimura, H. Kihira, N. Ohta, M. Hashimoto, T. Senuma, Control of Fe (O, OH)6
nano-network structures of rust for high atmospheric-corrosion resistance,
Corros. Sci. 47 (2005) 2499–2509.
[64] M. Kimura, T. Mizoguchi, H. Kihira, M. Kaneko, Various scale analyses to create
functioning corrosion products, in: Y. Waseda, S. Suzuki (Eds.),
Characterization of Corrosion Products on Steel Surfaces, Advances in
Materials Research, Springer, Heildelberg, 2006, pp. 245–272.
[65] H. Cano, I. Díaz, D. de la Fuente, B. Chico, M. Morcillo, Effect of Cu, Cr and Ni
alloying elements on mechanical properties and atmospheric corrosion
resistance of weathering steels in marine atmospheres of different
aggressivities, Mater. Corros. 69 (2018) 8–19.
[66] I. Sugimoto, K. Kita, Evaluation of applicability for Ni-advanced weathering
steels and bridge high-performance steels to railway steel bridges, QR of RTRI
51 (2010) 33–37.
[67] M. Morcillo, B. Chico, I. Díaz, H. Cano, D. De la Fuente, Atmospheric corrosion
data of weathering steels. A review, Corros. Sci. 77 (2013) 6–24.
[68] Weathering steel in Bridgework, British Steel Corporation, Technical Brochure,
1970.
[69] M. Arponen, O. Forsén, Formation and properties of the protective oxide layer
on weathering steels, Proceedings of the 14th International Corrosion
Congress, 1999.
[70] F.W. Fink, F.H. Buttner, W.K. Boyd, Technical-economic evaluation of air-
pollution corrosion costs on metals in the U.S., Battelle Memorial Institute,
Columbus, 1971.
[71] R.R. Bishop, Economic and technological trends in protection methods,
Construct. Steelwork Metals Mater. 30–33 (1971).
[72] P. Hans, The Behavior of Paints on Cor-Ten Steel, U.S. Steel Corp., 1970.
[73] H.R. Copson, C.P. Larrabee, Extra durability of paint on low-alloy steels, ASTM
Bulletin (1959) 68.
[74] J.H. Wang, F.I. Wei, H.C. Shih, Assessing performance of painted carbon and
weathering steels in an industrial atmosphere, Corrosion 53 (1997) 206–215.
[75] P. Decker, S. Brüggerhoff, G. Eggert, To coat or not to coat? The maintenance of
Cor-Ten sculptures, Mater. Corros. 59 (2008) 239–247.
[76] D.C. Cook, M. Yamashita, High performance steels: properties, production,
bridges and corrosion characteristics, International Workshop on Atmospheric
Corrosion and Weathering Steels, Corrosion and Protection group of University
of Antioquia, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, 2004.
[77] H. Nagano, M. Yamashita. Formation of corrosion protective rust on steel
exposed to the atmosphere. Available from: http://zkk.co.jp/reppdf/naga1108.
pdf.
[78] Waterborne rust stabilizing surface treatment for weathering steel ‘‘Cupten
Coat Aqua” TM, JFE Technical Report No. 11, 2008.
[79] Early rust-stabilizing type surface treatment ‘‘e-RUS” TM, JFE Steel
Corporation.