Construction and Building Materials 208 (2019) 444–453

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Role of cement type on performance change of reinforcing steel

due to chloride extraction
Rana Elgebaley a, Yehia Elshazly b, Mona Elsalamawy a
a
Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Egypt
b
Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Egypt

h i g h l i g h t s

ECE treatment is capable of removing the chloride ions.

ECE has an adversely effect on bond strength and it is affected by cement type.

Silica fume blended cement has been proved to be effective.

Type of cement is an important factor to protect steel from corrosion.

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

Article history: Electrochemical chloride extraction ‘‘ECE” has been used for reinforced concrete structures to protect
Received 8 January 2019 steel from chloride-induced corrosion. ECE may change the performance of steel interface as represented
Received in revised form 1 March 2019 by polarization resistance, corrosion rate and pull out bond strength. Thus, there is a need to evaluate
Accepted 4 March 2019
these effects before and after ECE treatment for reinforced concrete made with different types of cements.
Available online 9 March 2019
This paper presents the evaluation of the performance changes of concrete specimens containing steel
rebar with different times of (ECE) treatments.
Keywords:
In this study; plain and blended cement which are commonly used in marine environment are inves-
Electrochemical chloride extraction
Polarization resistance
tigated; two types of ordinary Portland cement ‘‘CEM I 42.5N” with different alkalis and percentages of
Steel corrosion C3A and two types of blended cement; SLAG cement ‘‘CEMII/B-S-42.5N” and CEM I 42.5N with 10% silica
fume. Concrete mixes are subjected to either internal or external sources of chlorides. Other protective
methods have been evaluated for comparison; corrosion inhibitor admixtures and cementitious surface
coating. Corrosion initiation and corrosion rate were estimated by non-destructive techniques (Half-cell
potential and polarization resistance), while the pull out bond strength was evaluated for all mixes before
and after chloride extraction. The results indicated that applied ECE is an effective method of chloride
removal, but it adversely affects the pull out bond strength irrespective of cements type. However, the
use of silica fume blended cement has been proved to be effective.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction be controlled [2]. Cement composition can be changed by control-

Corrosion of steel reinforcement is the major problem in con-
crete structures. Chlorides are the main reason of this deterioration
where they can penetrate into concrete in marine environment or
in case of using contaminated aggregate. Many preventation meth-
ods are proposed to minimize the risk of corrosion; such as
improving concrete properties by changing the cement type, or
using corrosion inhibitor admixture and other electrochemical
techniques [1].
Previous studies were noted that by changing the composition
of cement used for concretes the diffusion of chlorides ions can
ling the concentration of tricalcium aluminate (C3A) in cement, or
using mineral materials such as blast furnace slag and silica fume.
The partial replacement of cement by these materials leads to ben-
eficial effects on reinforcement concrete structure [3,4]. Recently
ECE technique has found new practical grounds in reducing the
effect of corrosion of steel. It has been widely used to remove the
chloride ions from steel interface leading to the reduction of the
corrosion current density, therefore significantly prolonging the
service life of the chloride-contaminated concrete structure [5].
In this technique, the steel rebars was subjected as a cathode and
an external anode was connected to the concrete surface. The

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.022
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R. Elgebaley et al. / Construction and Building Materials 208 (2019) 444–453
current density used for ECE is more than 2 A/m2, thus the resul-
tant electrical field gradient repulses the negative chloride ions
and other anions away from the reinforcing steel. Previous studies
[6] illustrated that ECE is nearly non-destructive and cost effective
rehabilitation technique for chloride-contaminated reinforced con-
crete structures. This techniques could remove more than 50%
chloride ions at steel-concrete interface after 7 weeks treatment
[7]. However, the demerits of ECE treatment is accumulation of
positively charged ions such as Na+ and K+ at the interface
between steel and concrete [8].
It is very important also to study the efficiency of using
advanced electrochemical techniques of ‘‘ECE” on different con-
crete properties by using plain and blended cement. Many
researchers focused on the factors that affect ECE treatment such
as the different electrolytes, current densities, durations of treat-
ment, reinforcement arrangement and type of cements [9–13].
But there is no a lot available information is available to rapidly
estimate the influences of ECE treatment on bond between steel
and concrete. Thus there is important need to evaluate the pull
out bond strength and corrosion rate before and after ECE treat-
ment for concrete with different types of cement. It is also impor-
tant to estimate and select the most effective and economic
protection methods to resist chloride –induced corrosion due to
internal or external chloride diffusion.
1.1. Research significance
ECE process has been established as one of the most efficient
technique for reducing, or even eliminating, corrosion in reinforced
concrete structures. Yet, there is a need to evaluate its effect on the
performance of steel interface as represented by polarization resis-
tance, corrosion rate and pull out bond strength. Also, the effect of
cement type and pozzolanic additives represent another factor that
may alter the performance. This study aims to fill the gap in knowl-
edge in this area by evaluating the performance of ECE for different
concrete mixes considering all the previous factors. Furthermore,
commonly traditional protection methods, such as corrosion inhi-
bitors and surface coating that can be used efficiently and econom-
ically to protect steel reinforcement from corrosion have been
evaluated.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Cement
Four types of cement were used throughout this study; two types of plain Ordi-
nary Portland cement and two types of blended cement. Two types of ordinary Port-
land cement namely; cement #1 and cement #2 were used where cement #1 has
higher values of alkalis and C3A content compared to cement #2. Blended cement
with slag or silica fume was studied as an example of commonly used blended
cement in concrete subjected to marine environment. According to ESS4756-1/
2009 slag cement is designated as Cem II/B-S-42.5, while 10% replacement of
cement#1 by silica fume ‘‘SF” has been used as silica fume blended cement. Chem-
ical compositions and physical properties of the materials are shown in Table 1.
2.1.2. Aggregate
Natural siliceous sand was used as fine aggregates with specific gravity 2.6 and
fineness modulus of 2.85. The coarse aggregate was pink limestone of 12.5 mm
nominal maximum size and specific gravity 2.58. Coarse and fine aggregate satisfy
the ASTM C33 specification [14].
2.1.3. Admixture
Organic Corrosion inhibitor concrete admixture and cementitious concrete sur-
face coating materials was used as alternative traditional protecting methods of
concrete structures. XRD was conducted on the cementitious concrete surface coat-
ing materials, where it reveals that this material mainly composed of 30% sand, 40%
cement and 26% sodium carbonates. SF which meets the requirement of ASTM
C1240/2011 [15] has been used as mineral admixture.
445
2.1.4. Steel reinforcement
Steel reinforcement 12 mm diameter was used as steel reinforcement through-
out this study. The chemical composition and mechanical properties of steel are
given in Table 2. The steel rebars were cut into 15 cm long bars, cleaned with
50% citric acids solution to remove any debris material on its surface then cleaned
with distilled water and immediately dried with compressed air before using.
2.2. Mix proportions
Concrete specimens were prepared with cement content of 350 kg/m3; water/
cement ratio is 0.47 and ratio of fine/coarse aggregate 1:1.5. The details of concrete
mix proportion were shown in Table 3. Concrete mixtures were designed to satisfy
grade of 25 MPa. Two concrete mixtures were studied; sound concrete which does
not contain any chloride and contaminated concrete where, sodium chloride ‘‘0.15%
by weight of cement” was added to the mixing water as a source of chloride ions.
High range of water reducing admixture ‘‘Type F” was added to the mix to improve
the workability of concrete and consistency with slump 17 cm. All concrete speci-
mens were covered with wet clothes for 24 h, and then they were immersed in
sodium chloride solution (3.5% NaCl) for one year. Other protective methods from
corrosion such as corrosion inhibitor admixture ‘‘C.I” and concrete surface coating
‘‘SC” were used for comparative studies.
2.3. Experimental methods
Cubes of 100  100  100 mm were used to monitor concrete compressive
strength with time. Cylinder specimens of 75  150 mm reinforced with 12 mm
steel bars placed centrally was prepared to evaluate the pull out bond strength;
specimen configuration is shown in Fig. 1. Half-cell potential technique was used
to determine the initiation of corrosion, the test was conducted using Cu/CuSO4 ref-
erence electrode. Polarization resistance measurement was used to determine cor-
rosion behavior and corrosion rates of steel reinforcement before and after use ECE
techniques.
2.3.1. Half-cell potential
Half-cell potential measurement represents the thermodynamic trend of corro-
sion, but it cannot be used to represent the instantaneous corrosion rate [2]. As the
reinforcing bar changes from a passive to an active state the potential of the steel
measured against a reference electrode becomes increasingly more negative. It is
suggested in ASTM C-876 [16] that, the rebar has a corrosion possibility higher than
90% when the measured half-cell potential is lower than 350 mV (CSE) and a
potential lower than 500 mV (CSE) represents a severe corrosion happened on
the steel.
2.3.2. Linear polarization measurement
The corrosion rate was measured based on anodic current density obtained
from the polarization curve, Fig. 2a&b Show the setup of polarization resistance
measurement. This test was conducted periodically after 6 months and one year
of chloride exposure period. The corrosion cell consists of three electrodes; Graphite
counter electrode, saturated calomel electrode (CSE) as reference electrode and
steel reinforced in concrete specimens as working electrode [17]. The steel rod
was cathodically and anodically initial polarized from 2.5 V to 2.5 V with scan rate
2 mV/s as recommended by Gonzalez et al. [18].
2.3.3. Electrochemical chloride ion extraction, ECE.
2.3.3.1. Theory of ECE. The ECE treatment includes external anodes such as stainless
steel mesh and direct power supply to generate constant potential. The electro-
chemical reactions occurring at the external anode are represented in two
equations
2H2 O ! 4Hþ þ O2 " þ4e ð1Þ

2Cl ! CL2 " þ2e ð2Þ
At the reinforced steel, hydrogen gas is evolved according to Eq. (3)
H2 O þ 2e ! 2OH þ H2 " ð3Þ
From Eq. (2), The oxygen gas is consumed then the hydroxyl ion OH– and chlo-
ride Cl– move toward the external anode through the pores and holes of concrete
[19]. The ECE treatment was affected by many factors such as; voltage, current den-
sity, anode materials, thickness of concrete layout of steel rebars and concrete
microstructure.
2.3.3.2. ECE set up. Concrete specimens which were exposed to chloride solution for
one year were connected to the negative end of DC power supply with voltage
2–3 V at constant current density of 5.0 A/m2. External stainless steel mesh placed
around the concrete cylinder was used as anode. ECE process set up is shown in
Fig. 3. The pH value of the electrolyte was checked every day and the solution
was renewed every two days to avoid the evolution of chloride gas. The treatment
446 R. Elgebaley et al. / Construction and Building Materials 208 (2019) 444–453

Table 1
Properties of cementitious materials.

Chemical composition Ordinary Portland cement, CEM I42.5N Blended cement

Cement #1 Cement #2 Slag cement Cem II/B-S-42.5N Cement #1 + 10%SF
Cem I42.5N
Silicon dioxide SiO2 20.17 20.44 23.77 26.08
Aluminum oxide Al2O3 4.7 4.65 5.65 3.85
Iron oxide Fe2O3 3.38 4.3 3.25 3.80
Calcium oxide CaO 62.6 62.79 56.24 54.85
Magnesium oxide MgO 2.8 1.53 3.71 2.58
Sulfur Trioxide. SO3 2.76 2.35 2.84 2.55
Loss of ignition L.O.I 3.63 2.0 2.82 4.464
Potassium oxide K2O 0.34 0.19 0.27 0.34
Sodium oxide Na2O 0.51 0.32 0.55 0.48
Chloride 0.05 0.04 0.1 –
Total alkalis 0.72 0.44 0.72 –
C3S 56.0 53.4
C3A 6.70 5.0
Physical properties
Initial setting 2 h 45 min 2 h 45 min 1 h 40 min 3 h 25 min
Final setting 5h 3 h 55 min 4 h 20 min 5 h 55 min
Heat of hydration J/g 291.65 249.74 261.58 282.6

Table 2
Mechanical and Chemical properties of steel bars.

Mechanical properties Chemical composition

Steel diameter Yield stress MPa Ultimate stress MPa Elongation percent % Weight per unit meter Carbon content Sulfur Phosphor
12 mm 489 574 18 0.868 0.405 0.023 0.009

Table 3
Concrete mix proportion.

Type of cement Constituents of mixes Kg/m3

W/C Cement Fine aggregate Coarse aggregate SF admixture Type F
Cement #1 0.47 350 740 1060 – 4
Cement #2 –
Cem II/B-S-42.5 –
Cement#1 + 10%SF 35
cement#1 + C.I 12

was conducted on concrete cube specimens at 7 and 28 days.

Fig. 4 shows that 28 days compressive strength for all concrete
mixture was higher than 25 Mpa. Highest compressive strength
was achieved in the silica fume blended cement, where compres-
sive strength increased by 37.8% at age of 28 days compared to ref-
erence concrete made by Cement#1. This conform with pervious
studied about effectiveness of using silica fume due to its high fine-
ness and specific surface area which lead to increasing the strength
and lowering the permeability [20]. On the other hand, Slag
cement shows a slightly reduction in compressive strength of
10.5% and 3% lower than reference concrete made by Cement#1
at 7 and 28 days respectively. This may be due to delay pozzolanic
reaction of slag [21].

Fig. 1. Dimension of specimen.

period varied from 10, 20 and 30 days. After each period, corrosion rate was mon-
itor using Potintiostat. After the completion of 30 days, the pull out bond strength
between steel bars and concrete was determined.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Compressive strength
Concrete mixture was designed to satisfy the required specifica-
tion of 25 Mpa compressive strength. Thus compressive strength
3.2. Potential-time behavior
Potential difference between the reinforced steel bar and the
reference electrode (Cu/CuSo4) was recorded periodically every
month up to one year. Potential difference for each concrete spec-
imen is calculated as the average reading of ten bars specimens. In
potential analysis, the corrosion probability increases by increasing
negatively potential difference according to ASTM C 876 [22]. The
potential-time behavior of steel embedded in contaminated con-
crete and sound concrete up to one year are shown in Fig. 5a and
b respectively. All specimens immersed in chloride solution,
 R. Elgebaley et al. / Construction and Building Materials 208 (2019) 444–453
Ponostat
Working
Counter
electrode
electrode
(Steel bar)
Graphite
Reference
electrode
3.5% NaCl
(a): schematic of potential cell set up
(b): potenal state cell
Fig. 2. Polarization resistance measurement.
potential values were between 400 and 600 mv/SCE. For speci-
mens containing cement#1 and others with silica fume, the steel
potential remained constant up to one year, this indicated that
chlorides reached the rebar and the profiles became rather flat.
On the other hand, specimens containing Cement#2 (low alkalis)
showed a higher negative potential values which indicated that
higher amount of chloride ions have reached steel bars due to
lower content of alkalis.
It is observed that lower potential values for specimens contain-
ing slag cement ‘‘Cem II B–S 42.5N” in comparison with
cement#1. Slag cement show a negative potential 650 ± 100
mv/SCE after immersion in chloride solution up to 120 days for
sound and contaminated concrete specimens, this may be due to
slightly increase in binding capacity of slag cement after 120 days
Fig. 3. ECE process set up.
447
[2]. Previous studies concluded that for slag cement low potential
values between 600 and 700 mv/SCE were recorded [18]. As
indicated in previous studies, sulphides are responsible of such
results [23]. Another hypothesis demonstrated that due to the finer
porosity of composition CEMII-S and the saturated condition in the
experiments, there is low oxygen content at the steel/concrete
interface. In absence of oxygen, steel potential could reach value
as low as 1 V/SCE [24]. According to ASTM standard, the analysis
shows that the corrosion probability is very high for all the rebars
since the beginning of the experimental study. It is important to
note that the interpretations are of probabilities of corrosion only
and that there are other possible causes of high negative potentials.
It should also be noted that half-cell potentials give no indication
of the rate of corrosion, nor of how long the steel has been corrod-
ing [25]. It is important to point out that despite these negative
(lower than 700 mV SCE) potential values the steel in such condi-
tions that concrete are completely immersed in the sea water nor-
mally does not exhibit a significant corrosion rate [26].
3.3. Polarization studies before ECE
The results of polarization resistance for different concretes
specimens after one year of chloride exposure are shown in
Fig. 6a and b for contaminated and sound concrete respectively.
It can be observed that the use of blended cement with SF or slag
resulted in a slightly higher potential difference. This means that,
current density of corrosion shifts to the positive potential.
3.4. Factor affecting ECE
3.4.1. Effect of cement type on ECE
ECE has been conducted on chloride contaminated and sound
concrete specimens after one year of chloride exposure for differ-
ent periods 10, 20, and 30 days. After each period of polarization
resistance measurement was conducted to quantify the instanta-
neous corrosion state of steel. The polarization curves before and
after chloride ion extraction for the different concretes are shown
in Figs. 7–10. Each graph consist of two curves; one for specimens
which was subjected to one year of chloride exposure before ECE
and the other for specimens subjected to ECE treatment for
30 days. It was observed from these Figures that for all types of
cement, samples showed a decrease in corrosion rate after treat-
ment. Steel bars exhibit a passive condition after 30 days of ECE.
The current density values are also shifted to lower values. For
example in chloride contaminated concrete; the current density
of steel shifted from 102 lA.cm2 to 103 lA.cm2 for steel in
concrete made with cement#1while, no significance difference of
448 R. Elgebaley et al. / Construction and Building Materials 208 (2019) 444–453

50
Cement#1 cement#1
0 Cement#2
Cement#2
Cement#1+10% SF Cement#1+10%SF
CemII-S-42.5N low 10% corrosion
Cem II-B-S 42.5 N

SCE potential difference in mV

40
Compressive strength MPa

-200

intermediate corrosion
30
-400 90% corrosion

20
-600

10
-800
Severe corrosion

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0
7 28 Ages in days

Ages (days) a. Chloride Contaminated concrete

Fig. 4. Compressive strength for different concrete mixes.

cement#1
current density by using Cement #2. It should be noted that for the 0 Cement#2
sound concrete the initial current density was lower than the chlo- Cement#1+10%SF
CemII-S-42.5N low 10% corrosion
ride contaminated concrete.
SCE potential difference in mV

-200
3.4.2. Effect of blended cement on ECE intermediate corrosion
The effect of ECE was dependent on type of cement due to
mechanism of chloride binding. For concrete with silica fume -400
blended cement, the current density was shifted from 104 lA. 90% corrosion

cm2 to 106 lA.cm2. It can be observed that the use of slag

cement or silica fume blended cement has reduced the corrosion
density significantly. This may be due to the formation of very fine
products of hydration that lead to pores refinement [27] and lower
chemical immobilization of chlorides in blended cement concrete.
Consequently, an increase in the resistance to penetration of
aggressive agents is obtained. Previous studies which study the
influence of blending cement with slag show that better durability
of slag cement concrete than ordinary Portland cement concrete
under the same environment or the identical treatment condition
[28,29].
3.4.3. Chloride extraction efficiency
The efficiency of chloride ion extraction was expressed as the
percentage of reduction of current density after 30 days of ECE
compared to initial value before ECE treatment as shown in Figs. 11,
12 for contaminated and sound concrete respectively. The effi-
ciency of ECE was calculated as follows;
Di lA=cm2
% of ECE efficiency ¼
iinitial
where; Di lA=cm2 is the difference between initial current density
before ECE and current density after 30 days of chloride extraction.
iinitial is the current density before chloride extraction.
The efficiency of ECE in contaminated concrete was almost
stable for the different types of concrete. The efficiency was 22%,
20%, 25%, 28% for concrete with cement#1; cement #2; slag
cement and silica fume blended cement respectively. As shown
in Fig. 10; the results of current density for sound concrete indi-
cated that the efficiency of ECE was affected by cement types
where higher efficiency (44%) was found in concrete with plain
cement; cement#1 and cement #2 cement. while this value was
32%, 28% for concrete made by slag cement and concrete with silica
fume respectively. this is may be related to low permeability and
-600
Severe corrosion
-800
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Ages in days
b. Sound concrete
Fig. 5. Half-Cell potential measurements.
finer pore structure which limiting chloride diffusion in cement
containing pozzolanic additives [30]. It was also observed from Fig-
ures that the current density for blended cement concrete was
lower significantly compared to ordinary Portland cement con-
crete. Where these reductions were 19%, 38% for slag and silica
ð4Þ fume blended cement respectively compared to ordinary Portland
cement at the end of the ECE treatment.
3.4.4. Corrosion rate
Corrosion rate of steel reinforcement was calculated from elec-
trochemical measurement during ECE. Fig. 13a, b shows a compar-
ison of corrosion rate of concrete samples with different types of
cement for contaminated and sound concrete respectively. It was
observed that, the blended cement sample with 10% of silica fume
has the lowest corrosion rate prior and after to ECE. The reduction
of corrosion rate was almost completed within 10 days of ECE
which is considered as sufficient time for repair and rehabilitation
of any concrete structure.
After ECE treatment, the total reduction of corrosion rate com-
pared to initial value before treatment were 44%, 64.4%, 61% and
 R. Elgebaley et al. / Construction and Building Materials 208 (2019) 444–453 449

3 60% for steel in Cement #1, Cement#2, Slag and silica fume con-
Cement#1 (intermediate alkalis) crete respectively. The electrochemical chloride extraction showed
Cement#2 (Low alkalis)
Cem ent#1+10%SF more than 64% efficiency in terms of reduction in corrosion rate
2
Cem II-B/S irrespective of chloride levels in different concretes. This observa-
tion clearly brings out the fact that this treatment is able to remove
Corrosion Potential (V)/SCE

1 electrochemically the chlorides form concrete and protect the

rebars from the corrosive environments without any need of using
re- alkalization agents. Corrosion rate after 30 days of ECE was cal-
0 culated also using weight loss by estimating the weight loss of
rebar by calculating the difference between the initial weight
before casting and the final weight after ECE using Eq. (5)
-1

C:RðmpyÞ ¼ K W=q A t ð5Þ

-2
Which: K = 534 as constant, W = weight loss (mg) , q = density
7.9 g/cm3
-3 A = exposed area (in2), T = time (hr.).
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 The results of calculated corrosion rate using electrochemical
Current intensity, µ A/cm
2 process and weight loss method for all different protection tech-
niques are tabulated in Table 4. Advanced techniques of corrosion
a: contaminated concrete protection ‘‘ECE” and traditional techniques such as corrosion inhi-
bitor admixtures and cementitious surface coating materials are
3 compared in terms of corrosion rate as shown in Table 2. The
Cement #1 (intermediate alkalis) higher values of corrosion rate may be due to higher current den-
Cement #2(Low alkalis) sities, where other authors believe that concrete cracking can gen-
2 Cement#1 +10%SF
Cem II-B/S erate as a function of the chloride extraction rate [31].

1
3.5. Comparative study between traditional technique and ECE
(V)

0
corr

A comparative study was conducted between different corro-

E

sion protection techniques; ECE, corrosion inhibitor admixture

-1 and cementitious surface coating. Polarization curves for three dif-
ferent techniques after one year of chloride exposure are presented
in Fig. 14a, b for contaminated concrete and sound respectively. It
-2
should be noted that, traditional protection techniques ‘‘corrosion
inhibitor admixture or cementitious surface coating” were com-
-3 pared with ECE of SF blended cement concrete and cement#1.
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 The results show that no significance difference between concrete
2
Current intensity, µ A/cm
specimens containing corrosion inhibitor admixture and surface
coated concrete specimens. However, the current density
b: sound concrete specimens decreased significantly for SF-concrete specimens and concrete
specimens with intermediate alkalis (cement #1) subjected to
Fig. 6. Polarization curves for concrete specimens after one year.
ECE for 30 days, where the values of Icorr were lower than the lim-
its of 0.1 lA/cm2 proposed for passive conditions [9,32].

Fig. 7. Potentiostatic polarization curves for steel embedded in chloride contaminated concrete made with ordinary Portland cement a). Before ECE treatment b). After ECE
treatment.
450 R. Elgebaley et al. / Construction and Building Materials 208 (2019) 444–453

Fig. 8. Potentiostatic polarization curves for steel embedded in chloride contaminated concrete made with blended cement a). Before ECE treatment b). After ECE treatment.

Fig. 9. Potentiostatic polarization curves for steel embedded in sound concrete made by ordinary Portland cement a). Before ECE treatment b). After ECE treatment.

Fig. 10. Potentiostatic polarization curves for steel embedded in sound concrete made by blended cement a). Before ECE treatment b) After ECE treatment.

3.6. Effect of ECE on pull out bond strength
Fig. 15 shows the results of pull out bond strength for steel
embedded in different concrete mixture before ECE. It was
observed that pull out bond strength for chloride contaminated
concrete was higher than in sound concrete. The increase of pull
out bond strength in contaminated concrete compared to sound
concrete was slightly for ordinary Portland cement -concrete,
where pull out bond strength was increased by 7% and 24% for con-
crete with cement#1 and cement#2 respectively. While for con-
crete made of slag, silica fume and corrosion inhibitor, the
increase of pull out bond strength reached to 38% & 39% and 41%
respectively. These results were confirmed by other researches
[3,8] who illustrated the effect of the thin layer of corrosion on
 R. Elgebaley et al. / Construction and Building Materials 208 (2019) 444–453 451

80 60
Cement #1 Cement #1
Cement#2 Cement#2
70
Current density micro ampere/cm 2

Cement#1+10%SF
50 Cement#1+10%SF
Cem II-S-42.5 N Cem II-S-42.5 N

Corrosion rate , mpy

60
40
50

40 30

30
20

20
10
10

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Time of chloide extraction (days) Duration of ECE, days

Fig. 11. Corrosion current densities of reinforced chloride contaminated concrete

a : Contaminated concrete during ECE
with the ECE treatment time.

60
Cement #1
80 Cement#2
Cement #1 50 Cem I+10%SF
Corrosion rate , mmpy
Current density micro ampere/cm 2

Cement#2 Cem II-S-42.5 N

70 Cement#1+10%SF
Cem II-S-42.5 N
40
60

50 30

40
20
30
10
20

10 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 Duration of ECE, days
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
b: Sound concrete during ECE
Time of chloide extraction (days)
Fig. 13. Corrosion rate of steel reinforcement.
Fig. 12. Corrosion current densities of reinforced sound concrete with the ECE
treatment time.

steel bar used to increase the surface roughness and enhance the
friction between steel bar and the surrounding concrete.
It should be noted that ECE may have an adversely effect on pull
out bond strength due to the path of chloride extraction near the
steel/concrete interface. Fig. 16 shows the reduction of pull out
bond strength after ECE for chloride contaminated and sound con-
crete, where, the pull out bond strength of chloride contaminated
concrete was decreased by 50%, 63% for concrete with plain
cement; cement#1 and cement #2 respectively. The reduction of
pull out bond strength in concrete with blended cement by slag
and silica fume was 58% and 28% respectively. For sound concrete,
the reduction for pull out bond strength was almost the same for
different concrete mixture and this reduction was 63% on average.
The causes of this reduction of pull out bond strength after to
ECE was reported previously by Wang, X., et al. [11]. It was
depicted that ECE treatment alter the chemistry and morphology
of the cement paste near the steel-mortar interface. Chang [33]
found that interface softening was the main cause leading to cohe-
sive forces degradation and the reduction reached about 40% to
60%. Other studies [6] reported that during ECE process, the hydro-
xyl ion OH and chloride Cl ions move from the cathode to the
anode; and the ions of Na+ and k+ also move to the cathode and
accumulated near the steel rebar, and some of them combined
with the hydroxyl ion OH to produce the alkaline hydroxide,
which would make the concrete become softened. This would
decrease the cohesive force between the steel rebar and the
concrete.
After one year of chloride exposure, the reduction of pull out
bond strength in coated-concrete compared to reference concrete
specimens ‘‘cement #1” 8 was 29.6% and 54% for contaminated
and sound concrete respectively. This indicates that, surface treat-
ments may be very effective in slowing down the penetration of
aggressive substances (good barrier properties), usually they also
slow down the evaporation of water from the concrete This may
raise problems of vapor pressure, causing loss of bond between
the concrete and the surface-treatment layer (terminating or at
least reducing the protection provided [34]. On the other hand,
concrete specimens containing corrosion inhibitor admixture
reveals a slightly enhancement in pull out bond strength. The
452 R. Elgebaley et al. / Construction and Building Materials 208 (2019) 444–453

Table 4
The corrosion rate values from potential state and weight loss.

Type of cement Corrosion rate calculated from potential state ‘‘mpy” Corrosion rate calculated from weight loss ‘‘mpy”
Sound concrete Contaminated concrete Sound concrete Contaminated concrete
Cement#1 16 18.5 12.4 16.2
Cement #2 15 16 12.4 13.7
Slag cement 15 11.5 16 10
Silica fume Blended cement 13 10 11 12
Corrosion inhibitor 18 20 12 17
Surface coating 16 20 13 15

3 12
Cement #1 (intermediate alkalis) after ECE Cement#1
Cement#1 +10%SF, after ECE Cement#2
Corrosion inhibitor
2 Cement#1+10% SF
concrete surface coating 10
Cem II-B-S 42.5 N
Corrosion inhibtor
1 Surface coating

Bond strength, MPa

8
(V)

0
corr

6
E

-1
4

-2
2
-3
-5
10 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
0
2
Current intensity, µ A/cm Contaminated concrete Sound concrete
a: Contaminated concrete Fig. 15. Pull out bond strength before chloride extraction.
3
Cement #1 (intermediate alkalis) after ECE
Cement#1 +10%SF, after ECE
Corrosion inhibitor
2 100
concrete surface coating
Cement #1
Cement#2
1 Cement #1+10%SF
80 Cem II-S-42.5 N
(V)

Reduction in bond strength %

Surface coating
0
corr
E

60
-1

40
-2

-3
-5 20
10 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
2
Current intensity, µ A/cm

b: sound concrete 0
Contaminated concrete Sound concrete
Fig. 14. Potentiostatic polarization curves for different corrosion protection
techniques. Fig. 16. Effect of using E.C.E technique on bonding strength.

increase of pull out bond strength was 2%, 8.3% for sound and type and pozzolanic additives was studied where they may alter
contaminated concrete respectively. the performance. The main conclusions were as follow.

1. The type of cement plays an important role to reduce the corro-

4. Conclusion
In this paper, the effect of ECE on the performance of steel
interface was evaluated using polarization resistance, corrosion
rate and pull out bond strength. In addition, the role of cement
sion potential and corrosion current; where current density for
steel embedded in plain cement#1 concrete was less than
cement#2 by 50% and 47% for contaminated and sound con-
crete respectively. This may be due to the Cement#1 has higher
alkalinity than cement#2.
 R. Elgebaley et al. / Construction and Building Materials 208 (2019) 444–453
2. The efficiency of ECE was affected by the cement types; where
higher efficiency (44%) was found in Concrete with plain
cement, while this value was 32%, 28% for slag cement concrete
and silica fume concrete respectively.
3. The current density for steel embedded in blended cement con-
crete was lower significantly than ordinary Portland cement
concrete; where the reduction in current density was 38%,
20% for slag cement in contaminated and sound concrete
respectively. Silica fume blended cement has the lowest values
of current density reduction and the reduction reached 40%.
4. ECE is able to reduce the corrosion rate of steel reinforcement
significantly due to its efficiency in chloride extraction.
5. The process of ECE was successfully completed within 10 days.
Among the four types of concrete studied, Slag and silica fume
concrete performed well during ECE treatment.
6. Pull out bond strength for steel embedded in chloride contam-
inated concrete was higher than in sound concrete.
7. The reduction of pull out bond strength after 30 days of ECE for
chloride contaminated concrete was 50% and 63% for concrete
with plain cement; cement#1 and cement #2 respectively.
While the reduction was 58% and 28% for concrete made by slag
and silica fume respectively.
8. Corrosion inhibitor admixture has no adverse effect on the pull
out bond strength between steel reinforcement and concrete.
Conflict of interest
None.
References
[1] R.B. Polder, Electrochemical chloride removal from concrete prisms containing
chloride penetrated from sea water, Constr. Build. Mater. 10 (1) (1996) 83–88.
[2] V.C. de Oliveira Pereira, E.C.B. Monteiro, K. da Silva Almeida, Influence of
cement type in reinforcement corrosion of mortars under action of chlorides,
Constr. Build. Mater. 40 (2013) 710–718.
[3] V. Bouteiller et al., Corrosion initiation of reinforced concretes based on
Portland or GGBS cements: chloride contents and electrochemical
characterizations versus time, Cem. Concr. Res. 42 (11) (2012) 1456–1467.
[4] C. Andrade, R. Buják, Effects of some mineral additions to Portland cement on
reinforcement corrosion, Cem. Concr. Res. 53 (2013) 59–67.
[5] W. Feng et al., Improvement on the repair effect of electrochemical chloride
extraction using a modified electrode configuration, Materials 11 (2) (2018)
225.
[6] J. Orellan, G. Escadeillas, G. Arliguie, Electrochemical chloride extraction:
efficiency and side effects, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (2) (2004) 227–234.
[7] H.Y.N. Thi, H. Yokota, K. Hashimoto, Effects of electrochemical chloride
extraction on hydrated products of various cement paste systems, J. Adv.
Concr. Technol. 13 (12) (2015) 564–582.
[8] J.Z. Du Fengyin, Z. Tiejun, D. Xueyan, Electrochemical chloride extraction from
corrosion-resistant steel bar-reinforced concrete, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 13 (7)
(2018) 7076–7094.
[9] J.O. Herrera, G. Escadeillas, G. Arliguie, Electro-chemical chloride extraction:
influence of C3A of the cement on treatment efficiency, Cem. Concr. Res. 36
(10) (2006) 1939–1946.
[10] A. Toumi, R. Francois, O. Alvarado, Experimental and numerical study of
electrochemical chloride removal from brick and concrete specimens, Cem.
Concr. Res. 37 (1) (2007) 54–62.
453
[11] X. Wang et al., Change of electrochemical property of reinforced concrete after
electrochemical chloride extraction, J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. Mater. Sci. Ed. 22
(4) (2007) 764–769.
[12] X. Gao, Y. Yang, H. Deng, Electrochemical changes of pre-corroded steel
reinforced concrete due to electrochemical chloride extraction, Int. J.
Electrochem. Sci. 6 (6) (2011) 1797–1809.
[13] K. Zhang, W. Shan, W.-B. Sun, Voltage on the distribution of the residual
chlorine ion of the concrete after the electrochemical dechlorination
treatment, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, IOP
Publishing, 2017.
[14] ASTM, ASTM C 33: Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1986.
[15] ASTM, A., Standard specification for silica fume used in cementitious mixtures.
2011.
[16] Standard, A., C876: Standard Test Method for Corrosion Potentials of Uncoated
Reinforcing Steel in Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2009.
[17] Ø. Vennesland, M. Raupach, C. Andrade, Recommendation of Rilem TC 154-
EMC: ‘‘electrochemical techniques for measuring corrosion in concrete”—
measurements with embedded probes, Mater. Struct. 40 (8) (2007) 745–758.
[18] N.R. Jarrah et al., Electrochemical behaviour of steel in plain and blended
cement concretes in sulphate and/or chloride environments, Constr. Build.
Mater. 9 (2) (1995) 97–103.
[19] T. Huang, X. Huang, P. Wu, Review of recent developments of electrochemical
chloride extraction on reinforced concrete in civil engineering, Int. J.
Electrochem. Sci. 9 (2014) 4589–4597.
[20] J. Dotto et al., Influence of silica fume addition on concretes physical properties
and on corrosion behaviour of reinforcement bars, Cem. Concr. Compos. 26 (1)
(2004) 31–39.
[21] J. Lizarazo-Marriaga, P. Claisse, E. Ganjian, Effect of steel slag and portland
cement in the rate of hydration and strength of blast furnace slag pastes, J.
Mater. Civ. Eng. 23 (2) (2010) 153–160.
[22] Astm, C., Standard Test Method for Half-Cell Potentials of Uncoated
Reinforcing Steel in Concrete, American Society for Testing and Materials,
1999, pp. 876–891.
[23] A. Roy, Sulfur speciation in granulated blast furnace slag: an X-ray absorption
spectroscopic investigation, Cem. Concr. Res. 39 (8) (2009) 659–663.
[24] V. Garcia et al., Potential measurement to determine the chloride threshold
concentration that initiates corrosion of reinforcing steel bar in slag concretes,
Mater. Struct. 47 (9) (2014) 1483–1499.
[25] C. Hansson, A. Poursaee, S. Jaffer, Corrosion of reinforcing bars in concrete, R&D
Serial 3013 (2007).
[26] B. Elsener, Half-cell potential mapping to assess repair work on RC structures,
Constr. Build. Mater. 15 (2–3) (2001) 133–139.
[27] M.S. Meddah, A. Tagnit-Hamou, Pore structure of concrete with mineral
admixtures and its effect on self-desiccation shrinkage, ACI Mater. J. 106 (3)
(2009) 241.
[28] K.H. Lee et al., Evaluation of electrochemical treatment of chloride
contaminated mortar containing GGBS, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017 (2017).
[29] K.B. Kim, J.P. Hwang, K.Y. Ann, Influence of cementitious binder on chloride
removal under electrochemical treatment in concrete, Constr. Build. Mater.
104 (2016) 191–197.
[30] M. Ismail, B. Muhammad, Electrochemical chloride extraction effect on
blended cements, Adv. Cem. Res. 23 (5) (2011) 241.
[31] L.R. de Almeida Souza et al., Electrochemical chloride extraction: efficiency
and impact on concrete containing 1% of NaCl, Constr. Build. Mater. 145 (2017)
435–444.
[32] G. Fajardo, G. Escadeillas, G. Arliguie, Electrochemical chloride extraction (ECE)
from steel-reinforced concrete specimens contaminated by ‘‘artificial” sea-
water, Corros. Sci. 48 (1) (2006) 110–125.
[33] J. Chang, Bond degradation due to the desalination process, Constr. Build.
Mater. 17 (4) (2003) 281–287.
[34] U. Angst et al., Critical chloride content in reinforced concrete—a review, Cem.
Concr. Res. 39 (12) (2009) 1122–1138.