Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124461

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Inhibitor efficiency of migratory corrosion inhibitors to reduce corrosion in

reinforced concrete exposed to high chloride environment
Arpit Goyal a, *, Eshmaiel Ganjian b, Homayoon Sadeghi Pouya c, Mark Tyrer d
a
Institute of Future Transport and Cities, Coventry University, Coventry CV1 2JH, United Kingdom
b
Concrete Corrosion Tech Ltd., Birmingham, United Kingdom
c
Atkins Transportation, UK and Europe, Birmingham, United Kingdom
d
Collegium Basilea, Basel, Switzerland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Chloride-induced corrosion of steel reinforcement is the most important cause of premature failure of reinforced
Corrosion inhibitors concrete structures. Corrosion inhibitors have proven to be an effective method to reduce corrosion rate in terms
Reinforced concrete of application and cost-effectiveness. Various types of inhibitors are present such as organo-functional silanes,
Electrochemical testing
Amino-alcohol and Surfactant & amine salts-based inhibitors. The inhibitor efficiency of six major commercial
migratory corrosion inhibitors, for reinforced concrete available in UK, was investigated using electrochemical
study and permeability measurements to determine the most efficient inhibitor to protect steel in concrete with
high chloride environment. It is showed that these compounds are effective inhibitors for reinforced concrete
structures. Out of the tested inhibitors, organo-functional based inhibitors showed the best inhibitor efficiency
and barrier properties.

1. Introduction Soylev and Richardson (2008) presented review on most common

One of the major challenges of recent years in the construction in­
dustry has been to extend the service life of existing reinforced concrete
(RC) structures, especially those exposed to marine environments or de-
icing salts [1,2]. To prevent damage in concrete structures, the appli­
cation of corrosion inhibitors (CI) has proven to be an effective method
[3]. Corrosion inhibitors are chemical substances that reduce corrosion
rates without significantly changing the concentration of any other
corrosion agents [3]. They are of relatively low cost and easy to handle,
as compared to other preventive measures for corrosion protection.
Migratory corrosion inhibitors (MCI) are either admixed or surface-
applied as liquid to the concrete surface and form a self-replenishing
monomolecular protective layer on steel [4]. They reach the steel sur­
face by migrating through concrete by capillary infiltration and vapour
diffusion and gets deposited on it by polar attraction [4]. The applica­
tion of the inhibitor to the concrete surface necessitates the substance’s
penetration to the rebar surface at depth, where it must achieve a suf­
ficiently high concentration to delay depassivation or reduce the rate of
corrosion [5]. The most commonly used surface applied MCI are amine
salts and amino-alcohol based inhibitors [6]. Recently organofunctional
silanes (OSI) based MIC has also shown promising results [7].
corrosion inhibitors in concrete, specifically: amino-alcohols (AMA),
calcium nitrites, and sodium mono fluorophosphates (MFP) [8]. The
authors demonstrated the efficacy of amino alcohol-based MCI due to a
pore-blocking effect using concrete resistivity measurements. However,
these inhibitors only block the pores on the surface of concrete rather
than the bulk concrete [9]. In addition, the research showed great
concern on the long-term effectiveness of CI over real environment and
suggested to study detailed analysis of factors influencing migrating rust
inhibitors protection efficiency [8]. Vedalakshmi et al. (2009) studied
migration efficiency of AMA based MCIs and observed that the corrosion
current density decreased by twenty times when an MCI was used [10].
Furthermore, these authors observed migration efficiency of the MCI is
inversely proportional to the w/c, concrete thickness, and strength of
concrete. Lastly, the authors concluded that for high-chloride exposed
concrete structures, AMA based MCIs are most suitable as admixed in­
hibitor, rather than being surface-applied [10]. These AMA inhibitors
were also effective in improving chloride resistance, water resistance
and carbonation resistance [6]. Malik et al. (2004) studied the perfor­
mance of MCIs which are proprietary blends of surfactants and amine
salts in a water-carrier and observed significant reduction in corrosion
current density and corrosion rate in MCI treated concrete specimens

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: arpitgoyal88@gmail.com (A. Goyal).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124461
Received 25 May 2021; Received in revised form 26 July 2021; Accepted 4 August 2021
Available online 12 August 2021
0950-0618/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Goyal et al. Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124461

exposed to both seawater and 5% NaCl solution. Even after exposure for
19 months, no or low corrosion was visually observed [11]. Coppola
et al. (2020) studied inhibiting efficiency of OSI based MCI and reported
75% reduction in chloride diffusion in CI protected concrete irrespective
of w/c, type of cement and CI dosage mainly due to water repellent
nature of silane based MCI [9]. Moreover, OSI treated slabs showed
reduced chloride ingress and three to six times delayed corrosion initi­
ation time than control [7].
From practical experience, the major problem with migrating CI is
the depth of penetration; it may not be deep enough to reach the steel
[3]. In addition, there are no proper guidelines to decide the type of MCI
best suited for the expected concrete condition. The aim of this research
is to evaluate the inhibitive action of three different type of MCI i.e.,
AMA, OSI and surfactants & amine salts based towards chloride-induced
corrosion of carbon steel rebar in an alkaline environment when applied
to the concrete, and to determine if any of the substances has a positive
impact in reducing corrosion when compared to a control condition. The
results of this research can be directly used by contractors and practi­
tioners for making an informed decision on selection of the appropriate
MCI for concrete repair and protection.
2. Materials and test program
electrochemical measurement with ribbed mild steel bars of 10 mm
diameter at the centre. Ribbed mild steel bars were cleaned with abra­
sive paper and then washed with acetone to remove any rust products
present before embedding them into specimens. Each specimen was also
embedded with one mixed metal oxide (MMO) counter electrode and
one Ag/AgCl/0.5 M KCl reference electrode (Fig. 1). Cylinders
(100mmx200mm) and discs (100mmx50mm) were cast for electrical
resistivity and water absorption measurement respectively. In total, 84
specimens were prepared. Specimens were demoulded after 24 h and
cured in solution similar to mixing water at 20 ± 1 ◦ C for a total period of
28 days.
2.3. Treatment of specimens
After curing, concrete surface was prepared by wire brushing the
concrete surface and exposing a finer proportion of aggregates and
removing the laitance layer (Fig. 2). After surface preparation, specimen
surface was cleaned of any dust using non-contaminated compressed air,
before inhibitor application. Then, the inhibitors were applied on the
specimen surface, by airless spray in required dosage as per the manu­
facturer’s recommendation, except for control specimens.

2.1. Inhibitors 2.4. Experimental tests

A total of six inhibitors were used during the experiment. MCI-1 and
MCI-2 were organo-functional silanes-based inhibitors, MCI-3 and MCI-
4 were Amino-alcohol inhibitors and MCI-5 and MCI-6 were Surfactant
and amine salts- based inhibitors. Physical properties, chemical prop­
erties and applied dosage of the inhibitors as reported by the manufac­
tures is summarized in Table 1.
2.2. Concrete specimen preparation
Specimens with water cement ratio of 0.5, 360 kg/m3 ordinary
Portland cement (CEM1), 640.5 kg/m3 of fine aggregate, 1189.5 kg/m3
of coarse aggregate with 20 mm maximum size were used for the study.
Three percent of chloride by weight of cement was deliberately added to
the mixing water during casting of specimens to create high chloride
environment except for control samples. This is higher than the chloride
contamination levels known to cause corrosion of reinforced concrete
but simulates highly corrosive marine structure conditions. For each
experiment, three specimens for each inhibitor and three specimens for
control conditions (mixed and cured in freshwater with no inhibitor
treatment) were prepared. 100 × 100 mm cubes were cast for
Table 1
Properties and applied dosage of the inhibitors.
MCI Type Form Density pH Manufacturer’s
(kg/L) recommended
dosage (kg/m2)
2.4.1. Potentiodynamic polarization measurement
The electrochemical behaviour of concrete was investigated by
potentiodynamic polarization technique using a computer-controlled
potentiostat. The test was performed by applying a small perturbation
±20 mV from the open circuit potential to the reinforcing steel, at a scan
rate of 0.001 V/s, measuring change in current and calculating polari­
zation resistance (Rp). From the Rp value, corrosion current density
(Icorr) was then calculated. The readings were taken every 7 days for
both the tests. Considering, the limitations of the Linear Polarization
Resistance (LPR) technique for quantifying the corrosion rate, the
recorded Icorr values were used to calculate inhibitor efficiency relative
to control specimens, as suggested by Vedalakshmi et al. (2009) [10].
The percentage inhibition achieved by each inhibitor was calculated
using Eq (1):
Icorr,initial − Icorr,final
Inhibitior efficiency(%) = × 100 (1)
Icorr,initial
2.4.2. Open circuit potential (OCP) measurement
For OCP measurements, the potential difference between the rein­
forcing steel bar and the embedded Ag/AgCl/0.5MKCl reference elec­
trode was measured using a high impedance multimeter as per Concrete
Society Technical Report 60 [12]. One probe of the multimeter was
connected to the reference electrode and other to the exposed steel to
complete the electric circuit. The readings were taken every 7 days for

MC1- Organo- Viscous 0.9 – 0.4

1 functional (Whitish)
silanes
MC1- Organo- Liquid 0.882 11 0.68
2 functional (Colourless to
silanes almost
colourless)
MCI- Amino- Liquid (Clear 1.05 8.5 1.5
3 alcohol Green Liquid)
MCI- Amino- Transparent 1.13 11 0.5
4 alcohol Liquid
MCI- Surfactant Liquid (Clear to 1.05 9.5 0.6
5 and amine hazy amber)
salts
MCI- Surfactant Liquid 1.06 9 2
6 and amine (Brownish)
salts
Fig. 1. Reinforced concrete arrangement for electrochemical measurements.

2
A. Goyal et al.
Fig. 2. Surface preparation and application of corrosion inhibitors on cube (100 mm × 100 mm), cylinders (100 mm × 200 mm) and discs (100 mm × 50 mm).
both the tests under free corrosion potential conditions and at ambient
temperature.
2.4.3. Concrete electrical resistivity measurement
The Wenner four-probe method was used for the determination of
surface resistivity of the concrete as per AASTHO T358-15 [13]. After
curing the sample in water tank for 28 days, sample was surface dried,
placed in a pan with an inch of water and four readings per sample were
taken at an angle of 90◦ . Probes of a Proceq™ resistivity meter were
arranged over the longitudinal axis of the cylinder and pressed against
concrete surface to ensure a stable value. Average of the reading of the
set was calculated. Consecutive readings were taken every 14 days. The
reported results show average results of the three specimens tested in the
same conditions.
2.4.4. Capillary water absorption test
The permeability properties of the coatings were measured in terms
of capillary water absorption according to the British Standard method
BS 1062-3 [14]. For water absorption, one side of the concrete disc was
coated with inhibitor and the specimen’s edges and reverse side were
sealed against water ingress by two-component epoxy resin. Then, the
specimens were subjected to three wetting and drying cycles comprising
of 24 h storage in potable water at 23 ± 2 ◦ C, followed by 24 h drying at
50 ± 2 ◦ C. The specimens were then stored at 50 ± 2 ◦ C for 24 h after the
last cycle and finally conditioned in the atmosphere for another 24 h at
23 ± 2 ◦ C and 50 ± 5% relative humidity. The specimens were then
placed in water with the coated surface facing the water side and weight
gain was measured for 24 h at frequent intervals after placing the
specimen in water. The water absorption rate was then computed.
2.4.5. Breakout and visual examination
At the end of the testing cycles, the steel bars were extracted from the
Fig. 3. Change in steel/concrete/electrolyte potential with time for different corrosion inhibitors.
3
Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124461
concrete specimens by breaking them using a compressive testing ma­
chine at an appropriate load. Each rebar was visually examined and the
extent of corrosion was qualitatively evaluated.
3. Results
3.1. Efficiency of MCI in corroded reinforced concrete
3.1.1. OCP measurement vs time
Fig. 3 compares the potential-time behaviour of different MCI treated
concrete with control specimens over a period of 70 days. As observed,
for controlled specimens i.e., without inhibitor application, potentials
move to a more negative direction, indicating increased corrosion. At
the end of 70 days, potential increased by 25%. However, after treating
concrete specimens with MCI, steel/concrete potentials moved to a more
positive direction and remains in passive state at end of 70 days. A po­
tential shift of 40–50% was observed for all the inhibitors. This shows
that for all treated specimens, inhibitors have migrated enough to reach
the steel bar and protect them. The potential shift observed for treated
specimens were in order of MCI-1 > MCI-2 > MCI-6 > MCI-5 > MCI-3 >
MCI-4. Thus, highest drop was observed for OSI based inhibitor treated
specimens i.e., 50%.
3.1.2. Corrosion rate measurement vs time
The change in corrosion rate with time, with respect to corrosion rate
before inhibitor application is shown in Fig. 4. As observed, for
controlled specimens i.e., without inhibitor application, the corrosion
rate increases with time. At the end of 70 days, the corrosion rate in
controlled specimens increased by 50%, moving steel from moderate to
high corrosion rate, as per the criterion given in the Concrete Society
Technical Report 60 [12]. At the end of 70 days, the Icorr of control
specimen was 1.09 µA/cm2 which is 30–40% higher than the treated
A. Goyal et al.
Fig. 4. Change in corrosion rate with time for different corrosion inhibitors.
specimens. On the other hand, for all the specimens protected by various
corrosion inhibitors, the corrosion rates decreased with time. The lowest
Icorr of 0.55 µA/cm2 was observed for MCI-1 at the end of 7 days. This
shows that the inhibitor ions in the solution are able to react sponta­
neously with the steel surface, resulting in a significant reduction in
anodic reaction and thus reduction in Icorr.
Table 2 below shows inhibitor efficiency at end of 70 days. As
observed, the concreted treated with MCI shows inhibitor efficiency of
20–40%. The efficiency achieved by different MCI’s were in order of
MCI-1 > MCI-2 > MCI-3 > MCI-4 > MCI-5 > MCI-6. Similar to OCP
measurement, highest efficiency of 35–39% is achieved by OSI-based
corrosion inhibitor. The results clearly indicated that the all the in­
hibitors are able to perform efficiently in high chloride concrete envi­
ronment. However, a longer time is needed to achieve the full corrosion
protection.
3.1.3. Electrical resistivity
Fig. 5 shows change in concrete electrical resistivity with time. As
observed, for control specimens i.e., without inhibitor application, re­
sistivity does not change significantly and remains in the range of 4–5
kΩ-cm throughout the testing period. The use of surface applied corro­
sion inhibitors showed strong improvement in electrical resistivity of the
concrete at all testing ages. Highest electrical resistivity was observed in
OSI-based inhibitors (MCI1 and MCI2) ranging from 8 to 9.5 kΩ-cm at 7
days. This decreased at later ages. This is followed by MCI-3 and MCI-4
and then MCI-5 and MCI-6. However, for other two types of inhibitors,
highest resistivity was observed at 49 days. This indicates that the tested
MCIs also provide water repellent protection [9]. As per the criterion
given in the Concrete Society Technical Report 60 [12], all the
Table 2
Inhibitor efficiency of the tested inhibitors at end of 70
days.
Sample Inhibitor efficiency (%)
Control
–
MCI-1 39%
MC1-2 35%
MCI-3 33%
MCI-4 33%
MCI-5 25%
MCI-6 22%
4
Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124461
specimens are in very a high corrosion rate state except MCI-1 and MCI-2
which showed increased resistivity and hence slower corrosion kinetics.
3.1.4. Capillary water absorption
Fig. 6 shows the permeability properties of different corrosion in­
hibitors when applied to a concrete surface. The specimens without any
corrosion inhibitor application show the highest water transmissibility
rate. About 90–92% reduction in the water transmissibility is observed
for MCI-1 and MCI-2 corrosion inhibitors and are classed as ‘W3’ i.e. low
permeability coatings as per BS EN 1062-1:2004 [15]. For all other
inhibited specimens, about 30% reduction was observed, except for
MCI-5 which showed the least reduction of 17%. They all are classed as
‘W2’ i.e., medium permeability coatings. Thus, it can be seen that that
all MCIs provide substantial protection against ingress of water or
aggressive chemicals, such as chloride salt.
3.1.5. Visual examination
At the end of the testing period, reinforcement bars in the samples
were visually inspected to see the efficiency of the applied inhibitors.
Fig. 7 presents the recorded images of the rebar section and its exami­
nation under optical microscopy and observation is summarised in
Table 3. As observed, control specimen shows severe corrosion pits
across the rebars. In contrast, all treated samples showed little or no sign
of corrosion. Particularly, MC-1 and MCI-2 showed no evidence of
corrosion at end of the testing age. In case of MCI-3, MCI-4 and MCI-5,
minor red oxide was observed on the top side of rebar. However, this is
less severe than that observed in control specimens.
4. Discussion
The results obtained in this research clearly show that all the in­
hibitors were able to achieve 30–40% inhibitor efficiency in 70 days,
compared to the control specimen and thus are able to control corrosion
in chloride contaminated concrete. All the electrochemical testing re­
sults showed reduced corrosion when corrosion inhibitors were applied
to the specimens. This is due to inhibitive action of the MCIs, reaching
the reinforcement steel, forming a protective layer around the steel bar
and thereby limiting corrosion. However, due to the short duration of
testing, corrosion is not proven to be fully controlled in any of the
specimens in the long term. All the inhibitors protects both cathodic and
A. Goyal et al.
Fig. 5. Change in concrete electrical resistivity with time for different corrosion inhibitors.
Fig. 6. Water Transmissibility of concrete specimens treated with different corrosion inhibitors.
anodic zones on the steel bar and thus reduces the corrosion rate. Thus,
the most important protection mechanism for the tested inhibitors is
actual corrosion inhibition. However, OSI-based inhibitors also block
concrete pores to further inhibit penetration of water and chloride in
concrete. This can be observed from electrical resistivity and water ab­
sorption results.
4.1. Protection mechanism
The best protection is achieved by OSI-based corrosion inhibitors in
comparison to AMA and surfactant & amine salt-based inhibitors. At the
end of the testing period, the potential shift and corrosion rate observed
were 170 mV and 0.55 µA/cm2 respectively. As shown by electrical
resistivity and water absorption data, the mechanism of action of OSI-
based MCI in slowing-down the corrosion process within the cement
matrix, is primarily due to its water repellent nature. Similar results
were observed by Coppola et al (2020) [9]. This type of inhibitor has a
small molecular size which allows for penetration into the concrete as
well as adsorption and bonding of the amino functionality onto the steel
5
Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124461
surface and thus, effectively reduces the corrosion reaction [7]. Organo-
functional silanes based corrosion inhibitors have low viscosities and
surface tension which aids in overcoming the capillary forces and thus
allows penetration through the concrete [7]. In addition, these in­
hibitors can form covalent metallosiloxane bonds (MeOSi)n when they
react with the steel surface, resulting in a cross-linked silane film
structure, which further strengthens the passive film on the steel surface
[16].
The protection mechanism of AMA inhibitors is to penetrate through
capillary pores in concrete by liquid diffusion and through transport in
microcracks present in the concrete. Once, they are absorbed on the steel
surface by forming coordinate bonds between steel and the nitrogen
atoms of amine groups in MCI, they form a monomolecular layer
reducing both anodic and cathodic reactions [6,10]. This is confirmed
by a positive shift in the steel/concrete/electrolyte potential and a
corresponding reduction in the corrosion rate. This shift is about 50 mV
lower, when compared with the OSI-based inhibitors. Even the electrical
resistivity is 22% lower and water is 760% higher than those seen with
OSI-based inhibitors respectively. Consequently, based on the
A. Goyal et al. Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124461

At last, surfactant & amine salt-based inhibitors forms a protective

layer on the steel due to amphiphilic nature of surfactant molecules
[17]. The absorption of surfactant on steel surface is highly dependent
on the composition of the inhibitor used. A minimum concentration of
the inhibitor is required at which the surfactant molecule forms aggre­
gates such as micelles in the solution. These structures maintain free
monomeric surfactant molecules concentration which in turn de­
termines absorption of the CI on the steel [17]. Similar to AMA based
inhibitors, the potential shift observed was approximately 50% less
compared to OSI-based inhibitors. In addition, the electrical resistivity is
about 28% lower and water absorption is about 850% higher than OSI-
based inhibitors, respectively. Thus, it was assumed that the concen­
tration of inhibitor used as per manufacturer’s recommendation was not
sufficient to completely protect the steel in high chloride concrete
environment. Further research is required examining high dosage of
inhibitor application to analyse if the higher dosage of this type of CI will
outperform the inhibitor efficiency of other two forms of inhibitors. We
suggest in such cases, highly polar compounds will naturally form mi­
celles in solution, providing a reserve of corrosion inhibitor. As the
compound permeates the concrete, it will bind to the surface of the steel,
displacing the equilibrium conditions, as it is effectively removed from
free solution. This in turn will cause a reduction of micelle size as more
of the compound enters the aqueous phase. This is an important
consideration, as it may offer a mechanism by which corrosion in­
hibitors could remain active long into the service life of the concrete
structure.
However, these inhibitors can cause pitting (macrocell) corrosion if
the applied concentration falls below the critical level. This effect is
mainly observed for anodic inhibitors. Cathodic inhibitors are less likely
to cause pitting [18,19]. Thus, the application of corrosion inhibitors
requires accurate and uniform application ensuring threshold concen­
tration of CI is applied. Continuous monitoring of corrosion rate is
required to determine the effectiveness of the protection method. This
will give lesser chance of application of lower concentration of in­
hibitors leading to pitting. In addition, macrocell current flowing be­
tween anode and cathode is mainly affected by concrete resistivity [20].
The increased resistivity of concrete by OSI-based inhibitors will have
additional advantage to avoid pitting corrosion as increased concrete
resistivity will restricts flow of macrocell current.

5. Conclusion

These results indicate that all specimens treated with corrosion in­
hibitors showed reduced corrosion rate compared to the control speci­
Fig. 7. Visual examination reinforced steel extracted from treated concrete mens. Among these inhibitors, organo-functional silanes MCI-1 and
specimens at end of testing period (a) Controlled (b) MCI-1 (c) MCI-2 (d) MCI-3 MCI-2 showed the highest drop-in corrosion rate and potential values.
(e) MCI-4 (f) MCI-5 (g) MCI-6.
Moreover, the highest electrical resistivity and water absorption was
also observed for MCI-1 and MCI-2 inhibitors, indicating enhanced
Table 3
barrier properties. Thus, organo-functional silanes-based CI showed the
Condition of the extracted rebar from concrete at the end of testing period. most efficient corrosion resistant and barrier properties compared to the
AMA and Surfactant-based inhibitors. This is primarily due to its water
Sample Visual Observation (Degree of Corrosion)
repellent nature. However, inhibitors are not for long-term protection
Control Severe and the length of protection of corrosion inhibitors cannot be pre­
MCI-1 No
determined. It depends on the exposure condition and corrosion state of
MC1-2 No
MCI-3 Medium the rebars. For example, in case of high wetness condition or porous
MCI-4 Low concrete, inhibitor can leach out leading to reduced length of protection.
MCI-5 Low Hence, this should be combined with a corrosion monitoring system so
MCI-6 Low we know when reapplication may be needed. Moreover, interaction of
inhibitor and high chloride concentration in long-term is still a matter of
electrochemical results observed here, these inhibitors should be added research.
to the concrete when concrete is exposed to high chloride environment
instead of applying at the surface. Similar results were observed by CRediT authorship contribution statement
Vedalakshmi (2009), where for concrete in a high chloride environment;
higher protection efficiency is achieved when inhibitor is added with Arpit Goyal: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
concrete/repair mortar rather than applied to the surface [10]. Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Eshmaiel Ganjian: Validation,
Project administration, Supervision, Writing - review & editing.

6
A. Goyal et al.
Homayoon Sadeghi Pouya: Methodology, Supervision, Writing - re­
view & editing. Mark Tyrer: Supervision, Project administration,
Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Saint-Gobain Weber, United Kingdom for
the financial support of this study. The authors would like to acknowl­
edge the following people for their valuable contributions to this study:
Dr Deiniol Davies, Briony Brooks, and Dr Estelle Dalod of Saint-Gobain
Weber, United Kingdom.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
[1] A. Goyal, H. Sadeghi Pouya, E. Ganjian, Performance assessment of specialist
conductive paint for cathodic protection of steel in reinforced concrete structures,
Constr. Build. Mater. 223 (2019) 1083–1094.
[2] M. Dixit, A.K. Gupta, A review of different assessment methods of corrosion of steel
reinforcement in concrete, Iran. J. Sci. Technol. – Trans. Civ. Eng. (2021), https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40996-021-00644-5.
[3] A. Goyal, H.S. Pouya, E. Ganjian, P. Claisse, A review of corrosion and protection of
steel in concrete, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 43 (2018) 5035–5055, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13369-018-3303-2.
[4] M. Shen, A. Hansen, Protecting concrete reinforcement using admixtures with
migratory corrosion inhibitors and water repellent component, NACE Corros. 4250
(2014) 1–7.
Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124461
[5] B. Elsener, M. Büchler, F. Stalder, H. Böhni, Migrating corrosion inhibitor blend for
reinforced concrete: Part 2 - Inhibitor as repair strategy, Corrosion 56 (2000)
727–732, https://doi.org/10.5006/1.3280576.
[6] H. Zheng, W. Li, F. Ma, Q. Kong, The effect of a surface-applied corrosion inhibitor
on the durability of concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 37 (2012) 36–40, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.07.007.
[7] N.S. Berke, B.E. Bucher, K.M. Ade, P.K. DeNicola, Organofunctional silane inhibitor
surface treatment of concrete for corrosion, Transp. Res. Rec. 2550 (2016)
115–122, https://doi.org/10.3141/2550-15.
[8] T.A. Söylev, M.G. Richardson, Corrosion inhibitors for steel in concrete: state-of-
the-art report, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (2008) 609–622, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2006.10.013.
[9] L. Coppola, D. Coffetti, E. Crotti, G. Gazzaniga, T. Pastore, Chloride diffusion in
concrete protected with a silane-based corrosion inhibitor, Materials (Basel) 13
(2020) 2001, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13082001.
[10] R. Vedalakshmi, K. Rajagopal, N. Palaniswamy, Determination of migration
efficiency of amino alcohol based migrating corrosion inhibitor through concrete,
Corros. Eng. Sci. Technol. 44 (2009) 20–31, https://doi.org/10.1179/
174327808X272405.
[11] A.U. Malik, I. Andijani, F. Al-Moaili, G. Ozair, Studies on the performance of
migratory corrosion inhibitors in protection of rebar concrete in Gulf seawater
environment, Cem. Concr. Compos. 26 (2004) 235–242, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0958-9465(03)00042-8.
[12] The Concrete Society, Electrochemical tests for reinforcement corrosion, Wiltshire,
2004.
[13] AASHTO T, 358, Surface resistivity indication of concrete’s ability to resist chloride
ion penetration, Am. Assoc. State Highw. Transp. Off. (2017).
[14] BSI, BS EN 1062-3: Paints and varnishes - Coating materials and coating systems
for exterior masonry and concrete Part 3: Determination of liquid water
permeability, London, 2004.
[15] BSI, BS EN 1062-1 Paints and varnishes - Coating materials and coating systems for
exterior masonry and concrete, London, 2004.
[16] E.P. Plueddemann, Silane Coupling Agents, Plenum, New York, 1991.
[17] Y. Zhu, M.L. Free, R. Woollam, W. Durnie, A review of surfactants as corrosion
inhibitors and associated modeling, Prog. Mater. Sci. 90 (2017) 159–223, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.07.006.
[18] B.N. Popov, Corrosion Engineering: Principles and Solved Problems, 1st ed.,
Elsevier, Oxford, 2015. doi:10.2307/23499350.
[19] H.-S. Lee, V. Saraswathy, S.-J. Kwon, S. Karthick, Corrosion inhibitors for
reinforced concrete: a review, Corros. Inhib. Princ. Recent Appl. (2018), https://
doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72572.
[20] M.M.S. Cheung, C. Cao, Application of cathodic protection for controlling
macrocell corrosion in chloride contaminated RC structures, Constr. Build. Mater.
45 (2013) 199–207, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.04.010.