CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General
The corrosion of steel reinforcements in concrete is a longstanding a global problem that has
caused widespread damage to concrete structures. It is normally caused by aggressive agents
such as chloride ions from marine environments, deicing salt and chloride-contaminated
aggregates. The formation of corrosion products (rust) involves a substantial increase in volume,
resulting in expansive stresses around corroded steel bars. These stresses can cause concrete
covers to crack and spall, thereby reducing the serviceability of concrete structures. Corrosion
results in reduced cross sectional area of concrete reduced mechanical properties of steel,
changed bond strength between steel and concrete, reduction in load carrying capacity. The
severity of damage depends on types of corrosion i.e. pitting or uniform, extent of corrosion and
location of corrosion.. Corrosion-related maintenance and repairs for concrete infrastructure
around the world cost approximately $100 billion annually
If accurate modelling of corroded structures and deterioration of material properties is done then
safety and service life of corroded structures can be accurately predicted. It will also decrease the
cost of inspection, repair works and maintenance. To repair the damaged structures, the strength
of the existing structure needs to be estimated. Hence many experimental, analytical and
numerical studies have been done to know the influence of corrosion on RCC structures. Yet, no
universal technique is available to assess the reduced capacity of corroded structures..

1
 CHAPTER 2

METHODS FOR CALCULATION OF RESIDUAL BOND STRENGTH

Flexural capacity of reinforced concrete member is affected by corrosion because corrosion

results reduced yield strength, reduced cross sectional area of bar and also affects bond strength
which increases for low level of corrosion and then decreases. At low level of corrosion residual
flexural capacity is mainly governed by mechanical properties and area of corroded
reinforcement but at higher level of corrosion it is mainly governed by the residual bond strength
between concrete and corroded reinforcement. Hence to predict the residual flexural capacity the
residual bond strength must be known.
Corrosion of reinforcing steel in reinforced concrete affects structural performance in two ways:
by loss of steel section and through deterioration of steel-concrete bond

2.1 Cabrera et al. bond model:

Cabrera et al. (1996) conducted experiments (pull out tests) on specimens of size 100 mm*300
mm *200mm without stirrups. The empirical equation to find bond strength as function of
corrosion level (Co) is:
For normal Portland cement concrete, fbo = 23.478-1.313Co (2.1)

For fly ash concrete, fbp = 26.133-1.341Co (2.2)

From results it can be concluded that fly ash concrete exhibited better resistance to corrosion
damage than normal Portland cement concrete. The reduced level of corrosion in fly ash concrete
is attributed to the higher resistivity of this concrete. It is observed that significant increase in the
mid span deflection due to corrosion. When the corrosion level reached 9% the beam deflection
is increased 1.5 times the deflection of the non-corroded beam. This model have been proposed
for specimens without stirrups.

2.2 Stanish et al. bond model

Stanish et al.(1999) investigated the effect of corrosion products on bond strength by conducting
experiments on a total of 10 one way slabs by applying four point load having cross sectional

2
dimension 350 150 mm and span of 1300 mm for different target levels of corrosion,

namely 0,2,5,8,10%. On the basis of experimental results (flexural test), the maximum bond

strength in terms of percentage mass loss ( X p ) is

bu
=0.770.027 X p (2.3)
f '
c

'
where, bu = ultimate bond strength , f c = uniaxial compressive strength of concrete

Good agreement was found between the experimental and analytical results. It is concluded that
in the absence of confinement, loss of bond in the tension zone of flexural elements is
detrimental to overall load-carrying and deformability/ductility. This model have been proposed
for the specimens without stirrups.

2.3 Lee et al. bond model:

Lee et al. (2002) investigated the effect of reinforcement corrosion on the bond properties by
conducting pull out tests and FEM analysis. The bond strength (ub) in terms of corrosion level
(Co) as variable is

ub = 5.21e-0.0561Co (corrosion percentage at cracking corrosion percentage)

= 0.34fc - 1.93 (corrosion percentage at cracking > corrosion percentage) (2.4)

Where fc = compressive strength of concrete

It is observed that the specimens with no lateral reinforcement incurred brittle failure from
increasing of cracks due to reinforcement corrosion, the specimens with lateral reinforcement are
fractured by slipping of reinforcement because of confining effect

2.4 Chung et al. bond model:

Chung et al.(2004) performed flexural tests on slab having cross sectional dimension 500

90 mm and span of 1000 mm. Corrosion was induced by accelerated corrosion technique and
mass loss of reinforcement was 0-15%. All the slabs were tested under four point loading. After

3
the analysis of flexural test they proposed a reduction factor R in terms of mass loss of
reinforcement. To find the bond strength for any known value of mass loss the reduction factor
will be multiplied with the initial bond strength. Equation for reduction factor is given as:

(1.06)
R=2.09 X P for X P 2 (2.5)

(1.06)
R=2.09 X P for X P >2 (2.6)

where Xp is corrosion level

Good agreement was found between the experimental and analytical results . In all specimens, the
average bond stress tends to increase until the actual corrosion level reached 2% and then started
to decrease after 2% of corrosion level. Before 2% corrosion level, the corrosion rusts on the
surface of corroded steel bar caused increase in friction stress between reinforcing bar and
concrete, which overrides the decreasing bond stress due to corrosion. From experiments, it is
observed that when corrosion level is greater, the number of cracks is less but they are more
localized and have wider crack widths. When the corrosion level is lower, the number of cracks
is greater, but they are distributed along the member and have small crack widths. These
empirical model have been proposed for the specimens without stirrups.

2.5 Bhargava et al. bond model:

Based on experimental data Bhargava et al. (2007) proposed empirical formula to find out bond
strength reduction factor R. The proposed equation are:

a. Pull out test model:

R=1.0 for X P 1.5

R=1.192 e
0.117 X P
for X P >1.5 (2.7)
b. Flexure model
R=1.0 for X p 1.5

R=1.346 e
0.198 X P
for X P >1.5 (2.8)

Where, Xp is corrosion level

4
5
 CHAPTER 3
METHODS FOR CALCULATION OF RESIDUAL FLEXURAL
CAPACITY
Residual flexural capacity of corroded flexural members depends on area and mechanical
properties of corroded bar and also depends on residual bond strength between concrete and
reinforcement. Methods for prediction of residual bond strength are described earlier. For
reduced mechanical properties of reinforcement and reduced are empirical formula are used.

3.1 Wang and Liu:

For prediction of residual flexural capacity method suggested by Wang and Liu (2008) is used
with slight modification.

Reduction in mechanical characteristics of reinforcement

Reduced yield strength of reinforcement is given by following relationship

1.24 w
For uniform corrosion, f yx = (1 - ) fy
100

(3.1)

1.98 w
For pitting corrosion, f yx = (1 - ) fy
100

(3.2)

Reduced modulus of elasticity of reinforcement is given by following relationship

0.75 w
For uniform corrosion, Esx = (1- ) Es
100

(3.3)

1.13 w
For pitting corrosion, Esx = (1- ) Es
100

(3.4)

6
Where, f y , f yx = yield strength of uncorroded, corroded reinforcement respectively

Es , Esx = elastic modulus of uncorroded, corroded reinforcement respectively

w = mass loss (%)

Reduction in cross sectional area of reinforcement

Attack penetration depth(x) is expressed in terms of w mass loss (%) by [Wang and Liu
(2010)]

d. w
x =
400

(3.5)

Where, d=initial diameter of bar (mm)

Calculation of flexural capacity of a corroded RC beam

Here it is assumed that average bond strength u ( x ) is half that of ultimate bond strength [

u (x ) ]

Fig. 3.1: Schematic diagram of Reinforced Concrete beam

3.1.1 Flexural Capacity When u ( x ) u ( 0)

In this case calculation is done as per codal provisions. Behaviour of concrete in compressive
bending is described by hognestad type parabola.
7
 [ ( )]
2
2 c c
c =f 'c (3.6)
0 0

'
Where, f c is the strength of concrete in compression value of 0 is 0.002.

In the case of beam having compressive bar influence of corrosion will also be
considered. Yield strength, elastic modulus and cross sectional area will be modified as

mentioned earlier. For compression zone c 'e will be calculated same as c e .when the clear

' ' ' ' ' '

cover of compression bar is c ' , effective depth = h0 x =h0(c c e ) and a sx=as (c c e )

3.1.2 Flexural capacity when u ( x )< u (0)

Increase in corrosion level causes the reduction in bond strength and hence strain compatibility
condition is not valid at all section hence codal provisions available for ultimate moment cannot
be used. But equilibrium condition of forces as well as compatibility of deformation should be
satisfied.

F y =0
L L

s dy = cd dy
0 0

(3.7)

8
 (a) Perfectly bonded beam

(b) Unbonded beam

Fig. 3.2: (a) Bonded and (b) Unbonded beam

Where, Fy is the forces acting along horizontal direction s and cd are strain of steel

and concrete at level of tensile bar. L is span of RC beam.

Now for a beam having perfectly bonded bar but mechanical properties of bar are same
as that of corroded one. Strain compatibility condition can be given as:

h0 x x c1
s 1= c 1 (3.8)
xc 1

Where s 1 is strain of perfectly bonded tensile bar. c 1 is strain of concrete at top

E sx
compression fibre, f yx / and c 1 cu .
s 1 yx

Now consider a beam whose geometry and mechanical properties are same as that of
corroded bar and bar is unbonded along the span L except the anchorage length provided beyond

support.it is assumed that bond strength available in the anchorage length is u (0) .then eq.

(3.7) can be written as:

av
h0 x x c 2
s 0 L =2 cd dy + c2 l0 (3.9)
0
x c2

9
Where,

s 0= Constant strain in unbonded steel = s 0 /E sx

s 0= Constant stress in unbounded steel

a v = Shear span

l0 =Span of constant moment

c 2 =compressive strain at top fibre

x c2= Neutral axis depth in length l 0

A s f yx , u (0) n d x l a
and s0 A s min , l a is anchorage length beyond support.

If strain in concrete are small compared to strain of concrete in span of constant moment then eq.
(3.9) becomes

l h x
s 0= 0 c 2 0 x c2
L xc 2

(3.10)

Now strain compatibility equation is known for perfectly bonded and unbounded beam.
Hence by using interpolation strain compatibility condition can be established for partially
bonded beam and is given as:

h0 x x cx
sx=g ( u ( x )) cx (3.11)
x cx

Where, sx and cx are strain in steel and strain in top compressive fibre. Expression of

g( u ( x )) is given as:

10
 u ( x ) l 0 u ( 0 ) u (x)
g ( u ( x )) = + (3.12)
u ( 0) L u (0)

Where 0 u (x) u (0) .

Putting the value of g ( u ( x )) in eq. (4.11)

sx=
[ u (x) l 0 u ( 0 ) u ( x )
+
u (0) L u (0) ] h x
cx 0 x cx
x cx (3.13)

Where, sx yx and cx cu . sx is calculated by using the related relationship

T sx= sx E sx A sx ,T umax and f yx A sx where T umax = maximum force resisted by corroded

bar beyond midpoint and residual bond strength.

Following equations are to be used for calculate flexural capacity of corroded beam.

' ' ' ' '

F scx =Escx (x cx asx )/ x cx . cx A scx A scx f ycx u ( x )n d x l /2 (3.14)

cx 2cx
'
A sx sx E sx =f b x cxc
(
0 3 20 )
+ F scx (3.15)

cx 2cx
'
M fx =f b x cxc
( 0 3 0 )
2 Z 0 x + F scx (h 0 x a 'sx ) (3.16)

4 0 cx
Z 0 x =h0 x x cx (3.17)
12 04 cx

Where,

A scx =Area of corroded compressive bar

f ycx =Yield strength of corroded compressive bar

11
 Escx =Elastic modulus of corroded compressive bar

u ( x ' ) =Average maximum bond strength of corroded compressive bar

x ' =Attack penetration depth (mm) of compressive bar

n' =No. of compressive bar

b=Width of beam

d ' =Diameter of uncorroded compressive bar

d 'x = Reduced diameter of corroded compressive bar

l ' = Total length for compressive bar

Z 0 x = Lever arm and M fx =Moment capacity

12
 Fig. 3.3: Analytical method for flexural capacity of corroded RC beam

3.2 Bhargav et al.:

13
Bhargava et al. (2007) investigated the relationship between the bond strength and the
reinforcement corrosion in reinforced concrete (RC). An attempt has been made to evaluate the
flexural strength of RC beams with corroded reinforcement failing in bond.

Fig. 3.4 Formulation of flexural strength of reinforced concrete beams

(a) typical reinforced concrete beam; (b) strain distribution (c) stress distribution
Total Compressive Force Fcx = Fccx + Fscx
Where Fccx is the compressive force in concrete and Fscx is the force of compression in
compressive steel.

for ccx0.002: Fccx=k fck b xux [500 ccx - (25000/3)*ccx] (3.18)

Ycx = xux - xux [((1000/3) - 62500 ccx)/ (500-(250000/3) ccx)] (3.19)

for 0.002<cc0.0035:

Fccx = k fck b xux [(3*ccx-0.002)/ (3*ccx)] (3.20)

Ycx = xux - xux [(6*ccx-(0.000004/ccx))/(12*ccx-0.008)] (3.21)

for scx ( fy/Es): Fscx = scx Es Ascx (3.22)

for scx > ( fy/Es): Fscx = fy Ascx (3.23)

The flexural moment resistance of beam corresponding to percentage of corrosion Xp is given

by

Mux =Fccx (d-Ycx) + Fscx (d-dsc) (3.24)

Where b, d are width and effective depth of beam respectively,

ccx, scx are strains in concrete and compressive steel corresponding to Xp respectively

14
 xux height of compression zone corresponding to Xp
dsc is distance between centroid of compression steel and the edge of compression zone.
Ycx is distance from point of application of compression force from compression edge.
fck is uniaxial cube compressive strength of concrete
Ascx is area of compressive steel corresponding to Xp
fy, Es is the yield strength, Elastic modulus of the steel respectively.
k, is partial factor of safety of concrete and steel respectively.

3.3 Chung et al.

Chung et al. (2008) conducted experiments on concrete slabs (1200mm * 500mm * 90mm)
reinforced with corroded and uncorroded reinforcement bars. Simply supported slab are tested
using a four point load setup. Bond lengths and corrosion levels are varied in the samples.
Moment capacity is predicted from results of pullout tests.

Compressive Force, C = 0.5 b Ec y (kd)/(d - kd) (3.25)

Tension Force, T = [( 0.25 db fy) + ( db Ib fb)] (3.26)

By equating tension and compression force, solving quadratic equation in terms (kd ) of neutral
axis depth is calculated.

Ecb y (kd) = (d-kd)[(0.5 db fy) + ( 2 db lb fb)] (3.27)

Moment is calculated using equation given below:

Mn = T (d-(kd/3)) (3.28)

Where kd = neutral axis depth, b = width of the slab, lb = embedded length of the bar

y = yield strain of stee*l, Ec = elastic modulus of concrete,/

db = the diameter of the bar, fy = yield strength of steel,

From experimental studies, it is observed that flexural capacity is reduced when the loss in
diameter exceeds 2%. The loss of tension capacity due to bond deterioration is more critical than
forces due to the decrease in cross sectional area of bars.

15
METHODOLOGY :

Kumar A (2014) calculated residual flexural capacity of beam is calculated as suggested by Wang
and Liu (2008) with little modification. Finite element analysis of corroded flexural members is
done by 2D modelling in ATENA.

Bhargava et al.(2007), Wang and Liu (2008) proposed analytical methods for calculation of
residual flexural strength for beams whereas Chung et al. (2008) proposed analytical method for
for calculation of residual flexural strength for slabs. The residual bond strength between
concrete and reinforcement will be calculated using different bond models i.e., Cabrera et al.
(1996), Stanish et al.(1999), Lee et al.(2002), Chung et al.(2004), Bhargava et al.(2007).

The bond model which gives best prediction of residual flexural capacity by Chung et al.(2008)
method will be used for modelling residual bond strength in ATENA. The experimental results of
Chung et al. (2008) will be validated using ATENA. The residual load carrying capacity of
bridge culvert subjected to various IRC loads will be estimated using the above model.

16
+
REFERENCES
1 Bhargava, K., Ghosh, A. K., Mori, Y., Ramanujam, S. (2007), Corrosion induced bond
strength degradation in reinforced concrete-analytical and empirical method, Nuclear
Engineering and Design; 237, 1140-1157.
2 Cabrera, J. G. (1996) Deterioration of concrete due to reinforcement steel corrosion,
Cement & Concrete Composites; 18(1), 47-59.
3 Chung, L., Najm, H., Balaguru, P. (2008), Flexural behavior of concrete slabs with
corroded bars, Cement and Concrete Composites: 30, 184-193.
4 Chung, L., Cho, S. H., Kim, J. H. J., YI, S.T. (2004 )Correction factor suggestion for
ACI development length provisions based on flexural testing of RC slabs with various
levels of corroded reinforcing bars, Engineering Structures; 26(8), 1013-1026.
5 Kumar, A. (2013), Nonlinear Response of corroded RC Flexural Elements, M.Tech
thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, 2013
6 Lee, H. S., Noguchi, T., Tomosawa, F. (2002), Evaluation of the bond properties
between concrete and reinforcement as a function of the degree of reinforcement
corrosion, Cement and Concrete Research; 32, 1313-1318.
7 Stanish, K., Hooton, R. D., Pantazopoulou, S. J.1996), Corrosion effects on bond
strength in reinforced concrete, ACI Structural Journal; 96(6):915-922.
8 Wang, X. H., Liu, X. L.(2008), Modelling the flexural capacity of corroded RC beams,
J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.); 13(2):129-135.

17