Multiple Corrosion-Protection Systems for Reinforced-Concrete Bridge

Components: Laboratory Tests : REVIEW

Introduction
The objective of the study described in the introduction was to evaluate the performance, cost
effectiveness, and projected life expectancy of various techniques for improving the corrosion
resistance of ECR in bridge decks and marine environments. The study aimed to use multiple
corrosion-protection strategies to enhance the performance of ECR, which is a good but not perfect
corrosion-protection system.
Overall, the introduction provides a comprehensive overview of the subject matter and sets the
stage for the laboratory tests that are discussed in the paper. It highlights the importance of
developing methods to improve the performance of ECR and sets clear objectives for the study. The
introduction is well-written and provides a good foundation for the rest of the paper.

System studied
The study evaluated seven types of reinforcing steel bars, including an uncoated one and six with
fusion-bonded epoxy coatings. Different corrosion-protection systems were tested, including
improved adhesion between the epoxy and the steel, the use of corrosion inhibitors, a primer
coating containing microencapsulated calcium nitrite, and multiple coatings. Control systems and
systems with corrosion inhibitors were evaluated in concretes with water-cement ratios of 0.45 and
0.35, while the other systems were evaluated in concrete with a w/c ratio of 0.45. The results of the
study can provide valuable information for the development of more effective corrosion protection
systems for steel reinforcing bars in concrete structures.
Test procedure
The test procedures included laboratory tests that evaluated the overall corrosion performance of
different corrosion-protection systems for reinforcing steel when exposed to high chloride
concentrations. Three test methods were used, including the southern exposure, cracked beam, and
ASTM G109 tests, with the former two providing useful data on corrosion performance in uncracked
and cracked concrete, respectively. However, the test methods used in this study did not address
the case in which epoxy-coated reinforcement remains electrically disconnected from other
reinforcement, which may result in higher corrosion rates in damaged or separated epoxy segments.

Southern exposure test

The Southern Exposure Test is a rigorous corrosion test that simulates 15-20 years of chloride
exposure for marine structures and 30-40 years of exposure for bridge decks under tropical
conditions within a 48-week period. The test uses a small concrete slab with reinforcing steel mats
that are evaluated for corrosion. The specimen is subjected to a 7-day alternate ponding and drying
regime, followed by continuous ponding for 12 weeks, and then the alternate ponding and drying
regime begins again. Corrosion performance is evaluated by measuring the macrocell corrosion
current, corrosion potentials, and monthly linear polarization resistance readings. Upon corrosion
initiation, the chloride content is determined by drilling horizontally using a 6.4-mm diameter bit.
Overall, the Southern Exposure Test provides valuable information on the corrosion resistance of
reinforcing steel in concrete structures.
Cracked beam test
The Cracked Beam Test is a method used to model the corrosion of reinforcing steel in which cracks
directly expose the steel to deicing chemicals. It involves simulating a crack parallel to and above the
top reinforcing bar through the insertion of a stainless steel shim, which is then removed to leave a
direct path for chlorides to the reinforcing steel. The specimen is then subjected to cycles of wetting
and drying with a sodium chloride solution for up to 96 weeks. This test is used to evaluate the
corrosion performance of stainless steel reinforcing bars.
Linear polarization resistance measurement
Linear polarization resistance (LPR) measurements are a technique used to measure the combined
microcell and macrocell corrosion on metal surfaces, such as reinforcing steel in concrete. The
method involves using a noncorroding counter electrode and a reference electrode to establish a
polarization curve by imposing a range of potentials on the metal and measuring the corresponding
corrosion currents. The slope of the linear region in kΩ · cm2 is proportional to the resistance of the
metal, and the total corrosion current density in A=cm2 can be obtained using a Stern-Geary
constant. The total corrosion rate in μm=year can be calculated using the obtained values for iron
and zinc. LPR measurements are typically taken every four weeks to track the corrosion rates of
metal surfaces.
Reinforcing bar preparation
The text describes the preparation process for reinforcing bars prior to specimen fabrication. The
bars are drilled and tapped to accommodate a machine screw and any sharp edges are removed.
Depending on whether the bars are uncoated or epoxy-coated, they are cleaned with acetone or
soap and water, respectively. The epoxy-coated bars are then penetrated with holes to simulate
defects in the coating, with four or ten holes representing 0.21% and 0.52% damage to the surface,
respectively. The evaluation of the specimens depends on whether both layers of the MC bars are
penetrated or just the epoxy layer, and damaged epoxy regions are cleaned with acetone. Overall,
the text provides a detailed account of the preparation process for reinforcing bars in this specific
context.

Chloride contents at corrosion initiation

It provide a summary of the chloride contents obtained from concrete samples in a study on
corrosion initiation in reinforcement bars. The study aimed to determine the critical chloride
corrosion threshold and its range of values in different concrete systems, which can be used to
predict the life expectancy of structures such as bridge decks. The results showed that the chloride
contents for coated bars were higher than for conventional reinforcement, with ECR systems having
the highest values. The differences between the values for ECR systems were not statistically
significant, and the ECR system with a primer coating containing microencapsulated calcium nitrite
had the highest chloride threshold. The table includes details on the concrete mixtures used in the
study. Overall, the text provides useful information for those interested in the performance of
different concrete systems in terms of chloride corrosion threshold.

Corrosion losses
This text summarizes a study on the chloride contents in concrete samples to determine the critical
chloride corrosion threshold for reinforcement bars in different concrete systems. The study found
that coated bars had higher chloride contents than conventional reinforcement, with ECR systems
having the highest values. The differences between ECR systems were not significant, and the ECR
system with a primer coating containing microencapsulated calcium nitrite had the highest chloride
threshold. The text provides valuable information for those interested in the performance of
different concrete systems in terms of chloride corrosion threshold.
Southern Exposure Specimens and cranked beam specimen
This text appears to be an excerpt from a technical report or academic paper discussing the results
of corrosion tests on different types of reinforcing steel in concrete. The review briefly summarizes
the corrosion losses observed in the southern exposure specimens and cracked beam specimens,
comparing conventional steel and epoxy-coated steel with different water/cement ratios. The results
indicate that epoxy coating provides significant corrosion protection, especially in cracked concrete,
and that a lower water/cement ratio also offers some benefits. The review provides numerical data
and figures to support these conclusions.
Epoxies with improved adhesion
The study investigated the effectiveness of epoxies with improved adhesion for reinforcing steel in
concrete structures. The findings indicate that under high-chloride and high-moisture exposure
conditions, increased adhesion between the epoxy and reinforcing steel does not provide any
benefits. In fact, all bars with higher adhesion epoxies exhibited higher average macrocell corrosion
losses than conventional ECR specimens. The study supports previous findings that adhesion of
epoxy-coating to the underlying steel is not a good predictor of corrosion performance. Overall, the
review highlights the limitations of improved adhesion epoxies in protecting reinforcing steel in
concrete structures.

Bars with multiple coating

The study compared the corrosion performance of bars with multiple coatings with those with
conventional ECR coatings. The results showed that bars with multiple coatings had greater
corrosion losses due to the corrosion of the zinc, which is more active than iron. The study suggests
that the exposed zinc at the edges of openings on the top bars may serve as sacrificial anodes for the
exposed steel on the bottom bars. The findings demonstrate the importance of selecting appropriate
coating materials and configurations for reinforcement bars to ensure long-term durability and
structural integrity.
Summary and conclusion
This paper compares various techniques for improving the corrosion resistance of epoxy-coated
reinforcement, including different coatings, concrete additives, and surface treatments. The tests
found that damaged conventional fusion-bonded epoxy coating significantly improves the corrosion
resistance of reinforcement steel, but cracks in concrete over the reinforcement can result in earlier
corrosion initiation and higher corrosion rates. Decreasing the water-cement ratio of concrete and
using corrosion inhibitors provide limited additional corrosion protection in cracked concrete.
Multiple-coated bars with a zinc coating underneath a conventional epoxy coating exhibited high
corrosion rates due to the zinc protecting the underlying steel. Lastly, epoxies with increased
adhesion to the steel did not provide any advantage over conventional epoxy coatings.

REFERENCE PAPER : HTTPS://SCI-HUB.HKVISA.NET/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000991

AUTHOR : DAVID DARWIN, DIST.M.ASCE1 ; MATTHEW O’REILLY, M.ASCE2 ; JOANN BROWNING, M.ASCE3 ; CARL
E. LOCKE4 ; Y. PAUL VIRMANI5 ; JIANXIN JI6 ; LIEN GONG7 ; GUOHUI GUO8 ; JASON DRAPER, M.ASCE9 ; AND
LIHUA XING10