ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 104-S34
Comparison of Two Accelerated Corrosion Techniques for
Concrete Structures
by Yingshu Yuan, Yongsheng Ji, and Surendra P. Shah
Characterizing deterioration of reinforced concrete structures
caused by the corrosion of steel bars is a major problem in predicting
service life. Normally, the galvanostatic method is used for
accelerating steel bar corrosion in concrete. The surface
characteristics of the corroded steel bar, however, are found to be
different when the corrosion is induced by galvanostatic method or
by natural environment. Recently, an artificial climate environment
has been used to accelerate reinforcing bar corrosion in concrete. This
method is becoming important in assessing the durability of concrete
structures because of the similarity in surface characteristics of the
corroded steel bar under natural and artificial climate environments.
In this study, two groups of reinforced concrete beams were
degraded as a result of the corrosion of steel bars. One group of
beams was subjected to the galvanostatic method, while the other
group was corroded using the artificial climate environment.
Comparative studies including the corroded characteristics of
steel bar surface, the mechanical behavior of the corroded bar, and
the load-bearing capacity were conducted. The comparisons between
the two groups of beams were based on the identical width of corrosion
cracking. Obvious differences were found from the comparisons.
Keywords: acceleration; corrosion; deterioration; reinforcement.
INTRODUCTION
Corrosion of steel reinforcement is one of the major causes
inducing deterioration of reinforced concrete structures. In
the past two decades, researchers have used the galvanostatic
method to study the effects of the degree of corrosion on
deterioration of the structural response. The method is an
impressed current technique for accelerating steel bar corrosion
in concrete. Corrosion on the steel bar is induced by applying
an electrical potential using the steel bar in concrete as the
anode and a stainless steel bar as the cathode. The corrosion
degree can be controlled by varying the current density and/
or the time interval of the impressed current. The advantages
of adopting this method are achieving a high degree of
corrosion within a short period of time and the easy control
of the corrosion degree desired. Many studies have been
carried out using the galvanostatic method in the past two
decades, such as the mechanical behavior of corroded steel
bar;1-2 the bond behavior between corroded bar and
concrete;3-5 the structural behavior of corroded elements;6-7
the behavior of marine concrete structure under fatigue
loading;8 and the interaction between loading, corrosion, and
serviceability of reinforced concrete.9 It is of benefit to qual-
itatively study the effect of the corrosion degree on the dete-
rioration of the structural behavior. However, it can be very
difficult to quantitatively predict the corrosion degree-
dependent deterioration of the structural behavior.
From an electrochemical aspect, the corrosion process is
different when the corrosion is induced using the galvanostatic
method or under a natural environment. A different corrosion
process will lead to different corrosion characteristics on the
344
TECHNICAL PAPER
surface of the steel bar and different deterioration of the bond
behavior between the corroded bar and concrete and will lead
to different capacity and ductility behavior of the structure. The
corrosion process of the bar corroded under an artificial
climate environment can be the same as under a natural envi-
ronment. Therefore, the durability test under artificial climate
environment not only can achieve the purpose of accelerating
steel corrosion and control the degree of the corrosion, but
also result in the same corrosion characteristics on the bar
surface. Researchers10-13 have begun to adopt the new accel-
erated corrosion technique for durability.
In this research, the corrosion process and the differences
of the structural behavior under the impressed current technique
and artificial climate environment are studied. The purpose
is to verify if the artificial climate environment can be
adopted as an accelerated technique for the durability test
instead of the galvanostatic method. Identical reinforced
concrete beams were corroded under the two accelerated
corrosion techniques, and the comparisons of their structural
behavior are carried out based on the same crack width
caused by steel bar corrosion.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
To study the influence of the reinforcing bar corrosion on
the response of the reinforced concrete beams, the galvanostatic
method of inducing corrosion is commonly employed. The
corrosion process, however, is known to be different with the
impressed current technique as compared with the natural
environment. An alternative method of inducing corrosion
using artificial climate environment is proposed in this study.
To correctly predict the response of concrete structures subjected
to steel bar corrosion, it is essential that an appropriate
method be used in the laboratory to accelerate corrosion. It is
shown that the process of corrosion and the consequent
structural degradation are different when the two methods
were used to induce corrosion.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Reinforced concrete beams for testing
The reinforced concrete beams employed for testing are
divided into three groups. The first group (Group A) is
corroded under an artificial climate environment, the second
group (Group B) is corroded using the galvanostatic method,
and the third group (Group K) is in a non-corroded state. The
concrete composition, reinforcement, and dimension of the
ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 3, May-June 2007.
MS No. S-2006-184.R3 received September 9, 2006, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright
proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published
in the March-April 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by
November 1, 2007.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2007
Yingshu Yuan is a Professor of civil engineering at China University of Mining and
Technology, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, China. His research interests include durability test
methods, concrete durability, and durability assessment of concrete structures in service.

Yongsheng Ji is a Research Assistant and Lecturer of civil engineering at China

University of Mining and Technology.

Surendra P. Shah, FACI, is a Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering at Fig. 2—Arrangement of reinforcement (all dimensions are
Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill., and the Director of the Center for Advanced
Cement-Based Materials. He is a member of ACI Committees E803, Faculty Network in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.).
Coordinating Committee; 215, Fatigue of Concrete; 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement; 446, Fracture Mechanics; 544, Fiber Reinforced Concrete; 548, Polymers
in Concrete; and 549, Thin Reinforced Cementitious Products and Ferrocement. His
research interests include the development and behavior of cement-based materials,
high-performance concrete, fiber-reinforced composites, durability, nondestructive
testing, and fracture/failure behavior.

Fig. 3—Setup of galvanostatic method for accelerated

corrosion.
Fig. 1—Arrangement of loading on test beam (all dimensions Table 1—Comparison of capacity and ductility of
are in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.). corroded beam
test beams are identical in the three groups. The structural Corrosion Average Capacity during Ultimate
behavior comparisons of the corroded beams are carried Beam crack width, corrosion bar yielding Py , capacity Pu, Ductility
no. mm (in.) degree, % kN (lbf × 103) kN (lbf × 103) fy /fu
out under the same corrosion crack width caused by steel
46.3 (10.41) 49.3 (11.08) 4.725
bar corrosion. K-1 0.0 (0.0) 0
[1.00] [1.00] [1.00]
The dimensions of the test beams are b x h x l = 100 x 160 x 47.8 (10.75) 50.4 (11.33) 3.367
1500 mm [3.937 x 6.299 x 59.055 in.], the concrete grade is A-1 0.2 (0.008) 1.1
[1.03] [1.02] [0.71]
C25, and the mixture proportions by weight are C:S:A:W = 47.0 (10.56) 49.8 (11.20) 1.916
B-1 0.2 (0.008) 1.4
1:1.75:2.98:0.55. Normal portland cement No. 32.5, river [1.02] [1.01] [0.41]
sand, and coarse aggregate of crushed basalt stone with a A-2 0.5 (0.020) 1.6
46.0 (10.34) 48.9 (10.99) 2.008
maximum aggregate size of 16 mm (0.630 in.) were used. [0.99] [0.99] [0.42]
The beam, shown in Fig. 1, was simply supported with a 45.5 (10.23) 46.2 (10.39) 1.360
B-2 0.5 (0.020) 3.0
[0.98] [0.94] [0.29]
span of 1.2 m (47.244 in.), and two concentration forces
45.6 (10.25) 46.3 (10.41) 1.650
were applied on the span. The arrangement of reinforcement A-3 0.8 (0.032) 2.4
[0.98] [0.94] [0.35]
in the test beam is shown in Fig. 2, and the thickness of the 44.4 (9.98)
concrete cover is 15 mm (0.591 in.). Three different corrosion- B-3 0.8 (0.032) 4.4 — —
[0.90]
cracking widths were selected for the corrosion control and Note: [ ] indicates ratio of value of corroded beam and value of no corrosion beam;
comparisons. The beams are loaded to failure after corrosion. Group A is corroded under artificial climate environment; Group B is corroded using
galvanostatic method; Group K is non-corroded beams; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN =
The grouping of the specimens is shown in Table 1. 224.82 lbf.

Artificial climate environment for
accelerating corrosion
The corrosion process of the test beams under an artificial
climate environment can be accelerated by way of high
temperature, high humidity, and repeated wetting-and-
drying cycles. Corrosion of the test beams in this group was
carried out in the artificial climate room controlled by a
computer system. The artificial climate conditions in this
testing were temperature T = 40 °C (104 °F), relative
humidity (RH) = 80%, and salt water (5% NaCl solution)
spraying (1 hour) and infrared light shining (7 hours) for the
wetting-and-drying cycle.
Galvanostatic method for accelerating corrosion
At first, the test beam is immersed in a solution of 5%
NaCl for 7 days, then direct electric current is impressed on
the steel according to the setup shown in Fig. 3. The position
of the corroding steel bar in concrete is higher than the level of
the solution for avoiding the dissolution of oxidation products.
The two bars (main tensile reinforcement in the beam) act
as the anode and the stainless bar in the centre of the beam
section acts as the cathode in the setup, as shown in Fig.3.
The amount of corrosion is related to the electrical energy
consumed, which is a function of voltage, amperage, and
time interval. The amount of corrosion and the electric
current can be estimated by Faraday’s law based on the
corrosion degree. The electric current I can be estimated by
surface area S of the steel bar to be corroded and using the
equation: I = S × 0.01 to 0.02 mA/mm2 [6.45 to 12.90 mA/in.2].
A current of 1A (ampere) was applied in the corrosion
process. During the corrosion process, the electric current
should be kept constant. The process was continued until the
crack width achieved the desired value as shown in Table 1.
COMPARISONS OF STRUCTURAL
BEHAVIOR OF CORRODED BEAM
Capacity and ductility
Figures 4 and 5 show the comparisons of the structural
behavior between non-corroded and corroded beams and
show the comparisons of the structural behavior between the
beams corroded under an artificial climate environment
(ACE) and using the galvanostatic method (G method) based
on the corrosion crack width 0.5 or 0.8 mm (0.020 or 0.032 in.).
The corresponding values of capacity and ductility are

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2007 345


Fig. 4—Comparison of structural behavior (corrosion crack
width of 0.5 mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.).
Fig. 5—Comparison of structural behavior (corrosion crack
width of 0.8 mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.).
Fig. 6—Brittle failure patterns—bond failure.
shown in Table 1. In this table, the average corrosion degree
is defined by weighing the bar before and after corrosion.
Failure mode of corroded beam
The failure modes of the corroded Beams A-1 and B-1 and
Beams A-2 and B-2 at the low corrosion degree show similar
failure mode with non-corroded Beam K-1. The mode shows
that the tensile bar yielded first in the tension zone, and then
underwent obvious plastic deformations of the bar. Finally,
the concrete crushed in the compression zone of the beam.
This failure mode shows ductile characteristics.
When the corrosion crack width reaches 0.8 mm (0.032 in.),
the comparison of failure modes between Beams A-3 and B-3
show a clear difference. Beam A-3 corroded under the artificial
climate environment still showed ductile failure characteristics.
Beam B-3, however, corroded using the galvanostatic
method showed brittle failure mode. This sudden failure is
caused by bond failure of the main tension corroded bar; the
failure pattern is shown in Fig. 6.
Corrosion characteristics on surface of
steel bar in concrete
After the structural behavior testing, the beams were
broken and the steel bars were cut and removed for observation
analyses. Figures 7 and 8 show corrosion distribution along
346
Fig. 7—Corrosion distributions under artificial climate
environment.
Fig. 8—Corrosion distributions using galvanostatic method.
the surface of the steel bar under an artificial climate environment
and using the galvanostatic method, respectively. The corrosion
shows nearly uniform distribution around the steel bar
corroded using the galvanostatic method, but only under an
artificial climate environment was corrosion found at the
surface of the steel bar facing the concrete cover.
The chemical compositions of corrosion products on the
bars corroded under an artificial climate environment and
using the galvanostatic method appear to be different. By
observation, the corrosion products show different colors
caused by different chemical compositions. The differences are
mainly due to the time intervals of the corrosion process. For the
beam under an artificial climate environment, the corrosion
process took more than 3 months for cracking. For the beam
corroded using the galvanostatic method, the corrosion process
took approximately 3 days. Fast corrosion reaction leads to
insufficient oxidation and different chemical compositions in the
corrosion products.
Mechanical behavior of corroded steel bars
The mechanical behavior comparison of the corroded bars
was carried out on the beams with the same corrosion crack
width. Table 2 shows the comparison results. In the table, the
corrosion degree is defined by the weight of the bar before and
after corrosion. The nominal yield and ultimate strength are the
measured tension force by the nominal section area of the steel
bar. The toughness is the deformation near tension failure in the
100 mm (3.937 in.) zone divided by 100 mm (3.937 in.).
The test results show that nominal yield and ultimate
strength and toughness values in Group B are lower than the
strength and toughness values in Group A. In Table 1, the
corrosion degree in Group B is higher than the corrosion
degree in Group A based on the same corrosion crack width.
Therefore, the effective section area in the beam of Group B
is less than in the beam of Group A.
ANALYSES OF RESULTS
Electrochemical corrosion process
Carbonation and chloride diffusion under a natural or artificial
environment are gradual processes proceeding from the
concrete surface to the inside. The passivity of the steel bar
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2007
Fig. 9—Corrosion process under natural or artificial climate
environment.
facing the concrete cover is at first broken. Figure 9 is a
sketch of the corrosion process under natural or artificial
environment and shows that the anodes of electrochemical
corrosion reaction is mainly located on the bar surface facing
the concrete cover. Therefore, the corrosion distribution
shown in Fig. 7 mainly occurred on the surface of the steel
bar facing the concrete cover under a natural or an artificial
climate environment.
Figure 10 shows the electrochemical process using the
galvanostatic method. In the reaction, the whole surface of the
steel bar in concrete is the anode; the corrosion occurred almost
entirely around the whole surface of steel. The corrosion
characteristics shown in Fig. 8 are almost uniform in
distribution on the surface of the steel bar facing and at the back
of the concrete cover.
Deterioration of bond strength between corroded
bar and concrete
The deterioration degree of the bond strength based on the
same corrosion crack width is different between the two
accelerated corrosion techniques due to the different corrosion
distribution on the bar surface. When the structural behavior
of Beams A-3 and B-3 were compared, the bond strength of the
main tension bars in Beam A-3 was higher than that in Beam B-3
due to a smaller corroded area on the bar surface of Beam A-3.
This results in different failure modes of the two beams.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the experimental investigation
using an artificial climate environment and using the
galvanostatic method, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. The steel bar in concrete can be corroded using the
galvanostatic method, but its electrochemical corrosion
process is different from the corrosion process under the
artificial climate and natural environment. The differences
lead to different corrosion distribution on the surface of the
steel bar. The corrosion mainly occurs on the surface of the
steel bar on the side facing the concrete cover under an
artificial climate and natural environment; however, the
steel bar is corroded on the whole surface of the steel bar
when using the galvanostatic method;
2. The corrosion of the main steel bar in the beam can
reduce the loading capacity and ductile characteristic and
can transfer the failure mode from ductile to brittle mode.
Different corrosion characteristics on the surface of the steel
bar are the main reasons that cause the different structural
behavior of the concrete beams corroded by two different
methods of inducing corrosion; and
3. The corrosion process and corrosion characteristics of
the steel bar under artificial climate environment are similar
to that of corrosion under natural environment. Artificial
climate environment as an accelerated laboratory test method is
more representative than the galvanostatic method.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2007
Fig. 10—Corrosion process using galvanostatic method.
Table 2—Comparison of mechanical behavior of
corroded bar
Nominal
Corrosion Average Nominal yield ultimate
Beam crack width, corrosion strength MPa, strength MPa, Toughness,
no. mm (in.) degree, % (psi × 103) (psi × 103) %
A-2 0.5 (0.020) 1.6 349.4 (50.67) 535.2 (77.62) 23.3
B-2 0.5 (0.020) 3.0 331.7 (48.11) 517.5 (75.05) 15.0
A-3 0.8 (0.032) 2.4 340.6 (49.40) 521.9 (75.69) 16.7
B-3 0.8 (0.032) 4.4 256.5 (37.20) 362.7 (52.60) 11.7
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145.03 psi.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the National Science
Foundation of China (NSFC). The research works belong to one part of the
projects (50478100 and 50538070), which are supported by the NSFC.
REFERENCES
1. Almusallam, A. A., “Effect of Degree of Corrosion on the Properties
of Reinforcing Steel Bars,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 15,
2001, pp. 361-368.
2. El Maaddawy, T. A., and Soudki, K. A., “Effectiveness of Impressed
Current Technique to Simulate Corrosion of Steel Reinforcement in Concrete,”
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 15, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.
2003, pp. 41-47.
3. Lee, H.-S.; Noguchi, T.; and Tomosawa, F., “Evaluation of the Bond
Properties between Concrete and Reinforcement as a Function of the
Degree of Reinforcement Corrosion,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 32,
2002, pp. 1313-1318.
4. Auyeung, Y.; Balaguru, P.; and Chung, L., “Bond Behavior of Corroded
Reinforcement Bars,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 97, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2000,
pp. 214-220.
5. Congqi, F.; Lundgren, K.; Chen, L.; and Zhu, C.; “Corrosion Influence on
Bond on Reinforced Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 34,
2004, pp. 2159-2167.
6. Uomoto, T., and Misra, S., “Deterioration of Concrete Beams and
Columns Caused by Corrosion of Reinforcing Steel Bars,” 4th Interna-
tional Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components,
Singapore, 1987.
7. Ballim, Y., and Rei, J. C., “Reinforcement Corrosion and the Deflection
of RC Beams––An Experimental Critique of Current Test Methods,”
Cement & Concrete Composites, V. 25, 2003, pp. 625-632.
8. Ahn, W., and Reddy, D. V., “Galvanostatic Testing for the Durability
of Marine Concrete under Fatigue Loading,” Cement and Concrete
Research, V. 31, 2001, pp. 343-349.
9. Yoon, S.; Wang, K.; Weiss, W. J.; and Shah, S. P., “Interaction
between Loading, Corrosion, and Serviceability of Reinforced Concrete,”
ACI Material Journal, V. 97, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2000, pp. 637-644.
10. Li, C. Q., “Initiation of Chloride-Induced Reinforcement Corrosion
in Concrete Structural Members-Experimentation,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 98, No. 4, July-Aug. 2001, pp. 502-510.
11. Li, C. Q., and Melchers, R. E., “Time-Dependent Risk Assessment
of Structural Deterioration Caused by Reinforcement Corrosion,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2005, pp. 754-762.
12. Nounu, G., and Chaudhary, Z., “Reinforced Concrete Repairs in
Beams,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 13, 1999, pp. 195-212.
13. Yuan; Y.; Li, G.; and Jiang, D., “Corrosion Rate of Rebar in Concrete,”
International Conference on Advances in Concrete and Structures
(ICACS), Sept. 17-19, 2003, Xuzhou, China, pp. 388-373.
347