COMPARATIVE STUDY ON VARIOUS METHODS USED FOR

CORROSION PROTECTION OF REBAR IN CONCRETE

Raviteja Kilaparthi1*, Sangeeta Gadve2
1

Department of Applied Mechanics, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur440010, India

Department of Applied Mechanics, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur440010, India

*raviteja.kilaparthi@gmail.com

Abstract
Corrosion of reinforcing steel is one of the major causes of deterioration of reinforcement
concrete structures worldwide. While several methods of corrosion protection of steel reinforcing
bars in concrete have been developed, a unique method of corrosion protection is yet to be
established. This paper experimentally compares the five commonly used methods of corrosion
protection of rebar in concrete which are; high grade concrete, use of inhibitors in concrete,
concrete surface coating, rebar coating and cathodic protection. Concrete cylindrical specimens
with embedded rebar are exposed to alternate wetting and drying cycles in sodium chloride
solution to accelerate corrosion of rebar for a stipulated period of 72 days/ 1722 hours.Corrosion
monitoring is carried out by measuring half-cell potential of the specimens twice a day during
the exposure period.At the end of corrosive exposure, pullout test is carried out on all specimens
to determine bond strength.After the pullout test, mass loss in the rebar is determined for all
rebars. All these parameters are compared with the control specimen which is unprotected and
the relative advantages and disadvantages of all methods have been studied.
Keywords:Rebar; Corrosion protection; Alternate wetting and drying; Pullout; Mass loss
1. INTRODUCTION
Steel reinforcement in the concrete is most susceptible to corrosion and therefore is one of the
major problems civil engineers are facing today. Corrosion is one factor which affects the

durability of structure and it causes serious damage when the structure is exposed to severe
environment. Corrosion product istoo voluminous like eight to ten times the volume of steel. The
corrosion product tries to come out of the concrete and it results in the degradation of bond and
formation of cracks in concrete. The present study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of
various corrosion protection methods that are commonly applied to steel reinforced concrete
structures.
2. EXPERIMENTAL
2.1 Mix Design
Mix design was performed according to IS 10262:2009. M20 grade of concrete is used for all the
specimens except for HGC specimens. M50 grade of concrete was used for HGC specimens.
Accelerated curing (IS 9013:1978) is the method performed for curing the cubes prepared.
2.2 Preparation of Reinforced Concrete Specimens
Cylindrical specimens with an embedded steel bar were casted in this study. The height andthe
diameter of the specimen were 200 mm and 100 mm,respectively. A standard reinforcingbar of
306 mm length and 12 mm nominal diameterof Fe 500 grade was used.The bar was wrapped
with Teflon tape at two locations. One is at the bottom of rebar which is kept inside the concrete
and the other location is the exposed region which is kept outside the concrete. At the top of
exposed region, a copper wire was wrapped for 1 cm portion till the extreme top of rebar and
some part is left outside. The 1cm portion is again covered with Teflon tape forwarded by
araldite. The wire left outside the rebar is used for monitoring of corrosion. A specialmolding
system was fabricated forcasting the specimens shown in Figure 1 (a). The system is able to
accuratelymaintain the position and inclination of the bar withrespect to that of the cylinder.A
control specimen (CS) which is unprotected is prepared along with protected specimens to
compare the corrosion behavior. Figure 1 (b) shows the cylindrical specimen with concentric
rebar.
2.3 Corrosion Protection Methodologies
2.3.1 High Grade Concrete-M50 grade of concrete was used to prepare high grade concrete
(HGC)specimens. No other ingredients were used to prepare HGC specimens. HGC reduces the
porosity of concrete hence it does not allow the corrosion causing agents oxygen, chlorides and
CO2.

2.3.2 Use of Corrosion Inhibitors- Water based organic corrosion inhibitor that works on the
Bipolar InhibitionMechanism (BIM). This inhibits corrosion of steel in concrete at both the
poles, cathodic & anodic simultaneously. BIM inhibitordiffuses through the densest concrete to
reach thecorroding steel. The migration of inhibitor takes place over a prolonged period of time
andhence this molecular layer shall continue toprotect rebar by its constant presence.The
inhibitor (IN) was added to the fresh concrete while mixing at 2kg per cubic meter of concrete.
The application procedures for the inhibitors used are basically given by the product
manufacturers.
2.3.3 Concrete Surface Coating-A two pack polyamide cured air drying epoxy compound. One
pack is a base and the other pack is curing agent. The mix and curing agent were mixed in equal
proportions by volume to prepare the surface coating (SC) that is to be applied on concrete
surface. The prepared coating was allowed to remain five minutes before application. This mix
was applied on the surface of concrete with two coats with in a time interval of 24 hours between
coats.
2.3.4Rebar Coating- Rebar coating (RC) used was an epoxy compound.RC was prepared by
mixing base which is epoxy compound and curing agent in equal proportions and allowing it for
5 minimum before applying to the rebar. The prepared mix was applied to the rebar using brush
carefully and allowed it to cure for 48 hours minimum.
2.3.5 Cathodic Protection- For sacrificial anode method, aluminium metal was used as anode.
The connection was given through a simple electric wire as shown in Figure 2(a).One end of the
wire is connected to the copper wire left outside the rebar and the other end is connected to the
anode metal. A groove was given to the anode metal to tie the wire properly which is coming
from rebar. For impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) method, Carbon fiber reinforced
plastic (CFRP) plates were used as anodes. Current density of 0.9mA/cm2 was applied to the
rebar from DC source. ICCP installation was done as shown in Figure 2(b). Specimen was kept
in the plastic bucket with the salt water inside throughout the exposure period since it is an
electrolyte which maintains the closed connection.
2.4 Corrosion exposure
As the corrosion of rebar in concrete is a prolonged process, accelerated corrosion is the proper
method to complete the study quickly.Alternative wetting and drying process was implemented
to corrode the rebars with in limited period of time. Alternative wetting and drying produces a

corrosive environment of dense saline fog which produces severely corrosive conditions. This
happens due to drying and evaporation of water in hot climatic conditions. All the specimens
were kept in 3.5% Aqueous NaCl solution which contains 3.5% salt as shown in Figure 3(a).The
specimens were kept on the roof top which can provide proper oxygen to the rebar easily. The
process was done at a temperature of 35 0 C. A cycle contains 24 hours in which, 8 hours wetting
and 16 hours drying. The process was continued for 72 days/1722 hours including wetting and
drying.
2.5 Corrosion monitoring using half-cell potential measurements
The half-cell potential (HCP) measurement is an electrochemical technique commonly used by
engineers to assess the severity of corrosion in reinforced concrete structures.One can measure
the potential difference between a standard portable half-cell normally; copper/ copper sulphate
(Cu/CuSO4) standard reference electrode and silver/ silver chloride (Ag/AgCl) standard
electrode are usually used. Any reference electrode is placed on the surface of the concrete with
the steel reinforcement underneath. Figure 3(b)shows the basics for such a measurement, also
called HCP measurement.The reference electrode is connected to the negative end of the
voltmeter and the steel reinforcement to the positive.A wet sponge is kept between electrode and
the concrete surface.Ag/AgCl reference electrode was used to measure HCP readings. The
readings were taken twice a day at an interval of 12 hours. HCP readings were taken throughout
the exposure period.
2.6 Pull-Out Test
At the end of exposure period, all the specimens were subjected to pullout test using a specially
fabricated pull-out assembly and universal testing machine (UTM) as shown in Figure 4. Pullout
assembly was first fixed into the UTM and gradual tensile load was applied on the rebar till the
load reaches its ultimate value.
2.7 Mass loss
After the pull-out, the Teflon tape from the rebar was removed and the rebars were cleaned
properly with the use of wire brush and acetone to ensure that there is no visible rust on the
surface of rebar. After cleaning the rebar, mass loss was calculated.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Three test parameters are studied in the present work. Half-cell potential measurement is being
nondestructive as corrosion monitoring parameter;bond strength and mass loss are being

destructive as corrosion assessing parameters.

3.1Half-cell potential measurement
Figure 5(a) shows the variation of HCP for HGC, IN, SC and CR with reference to CS. The HCP
for CP methods and CR method is neglected since the measurement is irrelevant for these
protection methods. According to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), if the
HCP values become more negative it indicates higher corrosion rate. For CS it is shown that the
HCP values increase with the increase in exposure period. This indicates that corrosion was
taking place with the increase in exposure period for CS. For the other protected specimens
which are HGC, IN and SC, the HCP variation indicates that no corrosion taking place since the
trend goes towards positive.
3.2 Bond Strength and Mass Loss
As discussed earlier, pullout tests were carried out on all the specimens to know the bond
strength between concrete and rebar. After performing pullout test, the mass loss due to corrosion
is determined for all the specimens. Table 1 shows the bond strength (bd) and % mass loss(%ML)
for all the specimens. It can be observed that the bdof all the protected specimens have been
increased as compared to the unprotected control specimens except in case of ICCP specimens
and CR specimens. bdis highest for HGC and lowest for ICCP. As compared to CS, bdof HGC,
IN, SC and SA specimens are higher and %MLis lower which indicates that the corrosion in these
protected specimens is lesser than that of CS. bdof ICCP specimens is lesser than CS due to the
over protection level and bdof CR specimens is CS due to the smoothness and frictionless
properties of coating applied on the rebar. FromFigure 5(b), it is clearly shown that even though
the bond loss is present, %ML for ICCP and CR specimens is less compared to CS which
indicates that corrosion is less in these protected specimens.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Comparing the various corrosion protection methods following conclusions can be drawn:
1. All the corrosion protections methods are effective with their relative advantages and
disadvantages.
2. HGC have shown best performance in providing bond between concrete and steel due to
its material property which holds the bar tight. It is clear that as the grade of concrete
increases bond strength also increases according to IS 456-2000.

3. Even though the grade of concrete is less for IN specimens unlike HGC, they have shown
best performance in protecting rebar from corrosion and providing adequate bond
between rebar and concrete.
4. Surface coated specimens have also shown positive results in protecting rebar from
corrosion but not as effective as HGC and IN.
5. Rebar coated specimens have shown best result in providing protection to the rebar from
corrosion but failed to provide sufficient bond between concrete and rebar.
6. For applying ICCP system, no standard protection current densities are available.
Therefore obtaining the appropriate current density is a major task in the implementation
of ICCP system as small increase in protection current density can have adverse effect on
bond strength.
7. In SA system, since the issues of current density are not involved, it is easier to apply as
compared to ICCP but replacement of anodes over a period is the limitation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am greatly indebted to my respectable guide Dr. Sangeeta Gadve, Associate Professor, Applied
Mechanics Department, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur for her eminent
guidance and generous encouragement throughout my project work. Her valuable guidance, not
only on the academic front but also on the social front, is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
References must be indicated in the text by a superscript arabic numeral at the end of a sentence,
and numbered consecutively throughout the manuscript.
1. Bertolini, L., Gastaldi, M., Pedeferri, M., &Redaelli, E. (2002). Prevention of steel corrosion
in concrete exposed to seawater with submerged sacrificial anodes. Corrosion science, 44(7),
1497-1513.
2. Cheng, A., Huang, R., Wu, J. K., & Chen, C. H. (2005). Effect of rebar coating on corrosion
resistance and bond strength of reinforced concrete. Construction and Building
Materials, 19(5), 404-412.
3. Ormellese, M., Lazzari, L., Goidanich, S., Fumagalli, G., & Brenna, A. (2009). A study of
organic substances as inhibitors for chloride-induced corrosion in concrete. Corrosion
Science, 51(12), 2959-2968.
4. Page, C. L., &Sergi, G. (2000). Developments in cathodic protection applied to reinforced
concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 12(1), 8-15.

Table 1 AverageBond Strengths and Mass loss of all the specimens.

Control (CS)

Bond strength
(bd) (MPa)
6.556

% Mass loss
(%ML)
0.64

High grade Concrete (HGC)

Inhibitors (IN)
Surface coated (SC)
Rebar coated (RC)
Sacrificial Anode (SA)
Impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP)

9.317
8.262
7.236
5.625
6.868
4.724

0.259
0.128
0.254
0
0.127
0.126

S. No

Type of Specimen

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Figure1Preparation of cylindrical reinforced concrete specimens.

Figure 2 Anode installations for cathodic protection methods.

Figure 3 Corrosion exposure and corrosion monitoring

Figure 4 Pullout test

Figure 5 Half cell, % mass loss and bond strength variations