ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 96-S17
Flexural Strength of Concrete Beams with Corroding
Reinforcement
by Pritpal S. Mangat and Mahmoud S. Elgarf
The paper presents the results of an experimental study on
111 under-reinforced concrete beams to determine their resid-
ual flexural capacity after undergoing different degrees of rein-
forcement corrosion. Corrosion was induced in the laboratory
by an accelerated corrosion technique using two sources of
external power supply. The beams were precured for different
periods of up to 1 year before accelerated corrosion was
induced in the reinforcement. Different degrees of reinforcing
bar corrosion were induced in increments, ranging from 1.25 to
10 percent at corrosion rates of 1, 2, 3, and 4 mA/cm2. The
beams were reinforced with two longitudinal bars. Shear rein-
forcement was provided by external means using steel collars.
The results show marked reductions in flexural strength due
to reinforcement corrosion, which is caused primarily by the
breakdown of bond at the steel/concrete interface.
Keywords: flexural strength; load-deflection curve; reinforced concrete;
reinforcement corrosion; repairs.
INTRODUCTION
The large-scale construction of infrastructure in Europe and
the United States after World War II relied heavily on the use of
reinforced concrete. It was based on the secure assumption that
protection awarded to steel reinforcement by concrete was per-
manent. Recent experiences, unfortunately, have proved other-
wise and have highlighted the importance of developing service
life prediction models of deteriorating structures so that optimal
strategies for their maintenance and repair can be developed.
One of the major deterioration processes in reinforced con-
crete is reinforcement corrosion made possible by carbonation
of concrete or by chloride penetration to steel level. A concep-
tual model1 to estimate the service life of corroding reinforced
concrete is based on corrosion initiation and corrosion propaga-
tion time periods. Steel is depassivated at the end of the corro-
sion initiation period either because of the presence of threshold
levels of chloride concentration on its surface or because of loss
of alkalinity of the cover concrete due to carbonation. Research
on the corrosion initiation period has reported different thresh-
old levels of chloride concentration which depassivate steel.2-4
Models for predicting long-term chloride concentration from
routine inspection data of concrete construction have also been
derived.5,6 Field methods for determining the corrosion propaga-
tion rates in reinforced concrete have been developed,7-10 which
assist with service life predictions.
The next link required in the service life prediction of corrod-
ing structures is a knowledge of the residual strength of rein-
forced concrete elements as affected by the degree of
reinforcement corrosion. A number of researchers have attempt-
ed to define the service life of corroding reinforced concrete. It
has been suggested that 10 to 25 percent reduction in steel bar
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999
TECHNICAL PAPER
section due to corrosion results in failure of serviceability.11
Service life predictions based on the loss of safety margin in
concrete members due to section loss have also been attempt-
ed.12 Some researchers have defined levels of deterioration
based on visual indications, such as rust stains.13 Color modifi-
cations, however, are not always present and cannot be consid-
ered as a prerequisite for damage classification. Some
researchers have considered the presence of longitudinal crack-
ing in concrete as a sign of ultimate limit state,14 but flexural
testing of members in this condition has shown small loss in the
ultimate flexural strength. The significant loss of reinforcement
bond with concrete due to steel corrosion15 is likely to be the
primary cause of reduction in flexural strength.
Development and validation of some predictive models for
the service life assessment of reinforced concrete have been at-
tempted.16-18 Their accuracy relies on the correct modeling of
deterioration processes. Also, the relationship between degree
of reinforcement corrosion and the residual strength and stiff-
ness of flexural members is a key requirement for any model for
predicting the service life of structures. This paper derives such
a relationship based on experimental data.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Optimal decision making about repair and maintenance of re-
inforced concrete structures requires the capability of predicting
the residual structural capacity of members that are undergoing
reinforcement corrosion. The complex interactions that occur
between different bars (i.e., shear and tensile reinforcement)
during corrosion need to be simulated in the laboratory in a con-
trolled manner so that their individual and cumulative effects on
structural capacity can be quantified. The parameters of rein-
forcement corrosion which are routinely monitored in the field,
i.e., time of corrosion initiation, and rates of reinforcement cor-
rosion need to be related to the residual structural capacity of re-
inforced members so that decisions on optimal repair/
maintenance strategies can be made. The experimental investi-
gation presented in this paper makes a significant contribution
to satisfy this need by developing analytical expressions (and
nomograms) which can be used to determine the long-term
structural capacity of reinforced concrete beams undergoing dif-
ferent degrees of reinforcement corrosion. The degree of corro-
sion is a function of rate of corrosion, duration of corrosion
period (since initiation), and reinforcing bar diameter.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 1, January-February 1999.
Received September 29, 1997, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright  1999, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Perti-
nent discussion will be published in the November-December 1999 ACI Structural
Journal if received by July 1, 1999.
149
ACI member Pritpal S. Mangat is a professor of construction materials and head of
the Built Environment Research Centre at Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield,
England. He is a member of ACI Committee 544, Fiber Reinforced Concrete. His
research interests include long-term performance of concrete repair, high-perfor-
mance materials derived from industrial waste products, and fiber reinforced cement
composites.
Mahmoud S. Elgarf is a consultant on repair and rehabilitation of reinforced con-
crete structures in Cairo, Egypt. He obtained his PhD from the University of Aberdeen
EXPERIMENTAL
Test program
Details of the test program are given in Table 1. Nine groups
of beam specimens were manufactured for the experimental
study. A total of 111 under-reinforced beams were subjected to
accelerated corrosion damage by two external power supply
sources and then tested under flexure. The degree of corrosion
(as a percentage reduction in reinforcing bar diameter) is de-
fined by the expression 2RT/D percent, where R is the rate of
corrosion in mm/year, D is the reinforcing bar diameter in mm,
and T is the time elapsed in years after corrosion initiation. In
Table 1, the corrosion rate is defined as the intensity of the in-
duction current provided from the external power supply. Cor-
rosion duration is defined as the time taken to complete the
induction of corrosion in reinforcement to the desired degree.
The precorrosion period is defined as the duration of curing the
beams in water (after demolding) prior to inducing corrosion in
the reinforcement and, therefore, simulates the period after
which corrosion is initiated in the reinforcement.
The under-reinforced concrete beam specimens were 910-mm
(36-in.) long and had a rectangular cross section of 150-mm (6-
in.) depth, 100-mm (4-in.) width. Each beam specimen was sin-
gly reinforced with two deformed steel bars of 10-mm (0.4-in.)
diameter (8 mm in Groups 3 and 7 in Table 1) as shown in Fig.
1 and 2. The bars were 1100-mm (43-in.) long, including the an-
chorage length in the form of U-shaped hooks at the ends. The
reinforcing bars were positioned symmetrically in the cross sec-
tion at a spacing of 50 mm (2 in.), and the cover to the centroid
of tensile reinforcement was 25 mm. Double-leg stirrups made
with mild steel bars of 6-mm (0.24-in.) diameter were provided
at a spacing of 70 mm (2.75 in.) in specimens of Groups 1 and
4 in Table 1. Two 6-mm (0.24-in.) diameter longitudinal bars
were also provided at the top of the beam to hold the reinforce-
ment cage together (Fig. 1). The presence of stirrups interfered
with the corrosion-inducing phase in the reinforcement and
made it impossible to maintain an accurate and uniform control
on the degree of reinforcing bar corrosion. Consequently, no stir-
rups and no top steel were provided in the beam specimens of
Groups 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Instead, shear reinforcement was
provided by means of external collars as described in Section
2.4.
Materials and mixes
Ordinary portland cement was used throughout. The fine ag-
gregate was a washed concrete sand conforming to the medium
zone of BS 882:1965 (FM 2.15 to 3.45). The coarse aggregate
was 10 mm maximum size crushed grey granite. The reinforcing
bars used in the experiments were standard 10 and 8-mm diame-
ter high-yield bars. The yield strength of the reinforcement bars
was 520 N/mm2 (75.4 ksi) and modulus of elasticity was 206
kN/mm 2 (29,877 ksi).
The concrete mix used for the beams had proportions (by
weight) of 1:2.24:3.22 with a water-cement ratio of 0.53. The
150
Fig. 1—Beam specimens with stirrup reinforcement (Groups 1
and 4).
Fig. 2—Beam specimens of Groups 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9 (without
stirrup reinforcement).
cement content was 425 kg/m3 (715 lb/yd3 ). One percent (by
weight of cement) sodium chloride salt was added to the mix to
improve concrete conductivity so that accelerated galvanic cor-
rosion could be induced as described in Section 2.3 by means of
external current supply. The average compressive strength of
the concrete cubes after 28 days was 40 N/mm 2 (5.8 ksi), with a
standard deviation of 1 N/mm 2. The concrete mix was cast hor-
izontally in the beam molds and compacted by means of an elec-
tric poker vibrator. After casting, the molds were covered with
polythene sheets for 24 hr and then demolded. After demolding,
the beam specimens were cured by complete immersion in wa-
ter for periods ranging between 10 days and one year, as shown
in Table 1. Although corrosion is active, even under water, in
highly chloride contaminated concrete due to O2 diffusion into
saturated concrete, the rate is very slow and is negligible relative
to corrosion induced by external current supply (Section 2.3).
The control beams tested after the pre-curing period of 10 days
and 1 year showed no reinforcement corrosion. After precuring,
specimens were transferred to the accelerated corrosion induc-
ing apparatus for periods between 12 and 384 hr to induce dif-
ferent rates of corrosion in the reinforcement as described in the
next section. After inducing a predetermined degree of corro-
sion in the reinforcement (Table 1), the beams were again cured
under immersion in water until they were ready for flexural test-
ing after a total age of 28 days after casting (except for Group 9
tests where the beams were tested at 1 year after casting).
Accelerated corrosion in reinforcement
After a minimum period of 11 days after casting, each beam
specimen of Groups 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (Table 1) was subjected
to an accelerated galvanic corrosion process in an electrolytic
cell by means of two identical integrated systems. Each system
incorporated a direct current power supply with a built-in am-
meter to monitor the cell current. Fig. 3 shows the layout of the
corrosion setup. The corrosion process of reinforcing bars took
place in a plastic tank where 3.5 percent NaCl solution was used
as the electrolyte. The solution level in the tank was adjusted to
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999
in 1994. His research interests include corrosion science.

151 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999

 Table 1—Experimental program
Degree of Corrosion
No. of corrsion, * rate, Precorrosion Corrosion
Group no. Reinforcement details specimens percent mA/cm 2 curing period duration, hr
1 2 φ 10 mm reinforcing bars
2 — — — —
Control φ 6 mm reinforcing bars
2 2 φ 10 mm reinforcing bars 3 — — — —
Control No stirrups
3 2 φ 8 mm reinforcing bars 2 — — — —
Control No stirrups
2 2.5 3 15 days 32
2 φ 10 mm reinforcing bars
φ 6 mm reinforcing bars 2 5.0 3 16 days 64
4
One reinforcing bar 2 7.5 3 17 days 96
corroding only
2 10.0 3 18 days 128
2 φ 10 mm reinforcing bars 2 2.5 3 15 days 32
No stirrups 2 5.0 3 16 days 64
5 Both reinforcing bars
corroding in alternative 2 7.5 3 17 days 96
sequence 2 10.0 3 18 days 128
3 1.25 3 15 days 16
3 2.50 3 15 days 32
2 φ 10 mm reinforcing bars
No stirrups 3 3.75 3 17days 48
6
Both reinforcing bars 3 5.00 3 15 days 64
corroding simultaneously
3 7.50 3 15 days 96
3 10.0 3 15 days 128
2 2.5 2 15 days 32
2 φ 8 mm reinforcing bars
No stirrups 2 5.0 2 15 days 64
7
Both reinforcing bars 2 7.5 2 15 days 96
corroding simultaneously
2 10.0 2 17 days 128
3 1.25 1 15 days 48
3 2.50 1 15 days 96
3 3.75 1 15 days 144
3 5.00 1 15 days 192
3 7.50 1 12 days 288
3 10.0 1 10 days 384
3 1.25 2 15 days 24
3 2.50 2 15 days 48
2 φ 10 mm reinforcing bars
No stirrups 3 3.75 2 15 days 72
8
Both reinforcing bars 3 5.00 2 15 days 96
corroding simultaneously
3 7.50 2 15 days 144
3 10.0 2 15 days 192
3 1.25 4 15 days 12
3 2.50 4 15 days 24
3 3.75 4 15 days 36
3 5.00 4 15 days 48
3 7.50 4 15 days 72
3 10.0 4 15 days 96
2 5.0 3 15 days 64
2 φ 10 mm reinforcing bars
No stirrups 2 5.0 3 28 days 64
9
Both reinforcing bars 2 5.0 3 6 months 64
corroding simultaneously
2 5.0 3 1 year 64
*
(2RT/D) percent.
Note: 1 mA/cm2 = 6.4 mA/in. 2

slightly exceed the concrete cover plus reinforcing bar diameter diameter (excluding the bent-up portion) within a short times-
to ensure adequate submersion of the longitudinal reinforcement, cale. The relationship between corrosion current density and the
excluding the vertical portion of the bent up bars at the ends of the weight of metal lost due to corrosion was determined by applying
beam. The current intensity of the power supply and the corrosion Faraday’s law19 as follows
period were selected for each beam in order to achieve the desired
AIt
degree of corrosion of the submerged level of reinforcement bar, as ∆ ω = -------- (1)
shown in Table 1. Each degree of corrosion was selected to pro- ZF
vide a predefined percentage reduction in the longitudinal bar

ACI StructuralJournal/January-February 1999 152

 The expression 2R T/D percent, which represents reduction in
reinforcing bar diameter due to corrosion over T years, is also de-
fined as the degree of reinforcement corrosion in this paper.
Substituting for R from Eq. (5) into (6) gives percent reduc-
tion in reinforcing bar diameter 2R T/D percent

T
= 2312i ---- (7)
D

The example below shows how corrosion simulation periods

in the laboratory (listed in Table 1) are derived from Eq. (7) and
how they relate with corrosion periods in the field.
For a selected degree of corrosion, such as 2RT/D = 2.5 percent,
reinforcing bar diameter, D = 10 mm, and corrosion current den-
Fig. 3—Layout of corrosion setup. sity of 1mA/cm2 adopted in the laboratory, the time period re-
quired for inducing corrosion is [from Eq. 7)]:T = 4 days.
where Under field conditions, a current density of 10 µA/cm 2 (64.5
∆ω = metal weight lost due to corrosion µA/in.2 ), for example, can result in high rates of corrosion. To
A = atomic weight of iron (56 g) achieve the same degree of corrosion as in the laboratory (2R
I = corrosion current (amp) T/D = 2.5 percent) on a 10-mm-diameter reinforcing bar, the
t = time elapsed (sec) corrosion period in the field would be [from Eq. (7)]: T = 1.08
Z = valency of the reacting electrode (iron), which is 2 year.
F = Faraday’s constant (96,500 amp sec) Preliminary tests were carried out before commencing the
The metal weight loss due to corrosion can also be expressed as formal research program reported in this paper to confirm the
reliability of the accelerated corrosion inducing apparatus to
∆ ω = a δγ (2) provide accurately the predefined (calculated) percentage re-
ductions in reinforcing bar diameter. Beam specimens shown in
where Fig. 2 were used for the investigation. The results showed that
a = reinforcing bar surface area before corrosion (cm2 ) the calculated reductions in reinforcing bar diameter [Eq. (1)]
δ = material loss (cm) were well within 10 percent error of the measured reduction in
reinforcing bar diameter after the corrosion inducing period.
γ = density of material (g/cm3)
The corrosion current can be expressed as As shown in Table 1, for each beam specimen of Group 4
tests, one longitudinal bar only was subjected to corrosion while
the second one was left uncorroded. For each of the beams of
I = ia (3)
Group 5, the corrosion of each of the reinforcing bars took place
in turns, while for Groups 6 to 9, both the reinforcing bars were
where i = corrosion current density (amp/cm2). subjected to the same amount of corrosion simultaneously. Four
Substituting from Eq. (2) and (3) into (1) gives
degrees of corrosion were investigated for Groups 4, 5, and 7,
i.e., 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10 percent reduction in bar diameter,
Ai t whereas for Group 6, six degrees of corrosion were investigated,
δ = ---------- (4)
γZ F i.e., 1.25, 2.5, 3.75, 5.0, 7.5, and 10 percent reduction in bar di-
ameter. The beams of Groups 1, 2, and 3 underwent no corro-
Considering steel reinforcement in concrete, the density of sion and, therefore, provided control specimens to which
iron γ = 7.86 g/cm3 (0.49 lb/ft3), and values for A, Z, and F from performance of other beams were related. Group 6 and 8 tests
above can be substituted in Eq. (4). were designed to examine the flexural load capacity of corro-
If R is defined as the material loss per year (cm/year), its value sion damaged beams when corrosion was induced at four differ-
can be determined from Eq. (4) by substituting t = 1 year (in ap- ent rates: 1, 2, 3, and 4mA/cm 2. Group 9 was designed to
propriate units) to give investigate the effect of precorrosion curing period (time before
corrosion is first initiated in the reinforcement) on the flexural load
capacity of subsequently corrosion-damaged beams. The investiga-
R = 1156i  ----------
cm
(5) tion involved testing the flexural load capacity of 5.0 percent corro-
 year
sion damaged beams when corrosion was induced at a rate of 3 mA/
cm 2 (19.4 mA/in.2) after four different pre-corrosion curing peri-
As an example, for a corrosion current density i of 1 mA/cm 2, ods: 15 days, 28 days, 6 months, and 1 year.
the corrosion rate R equals 1.156 cm/year [from Eq. (5)].
If in a reinforced concrete structure the period of corrosion af-
Flexural testing
ter initiation is T years, then metal loss after T years = RT (cm) At the age of 28 days after casting (up to 1 year for the beams
Therefore, percent reduction in reinforcing bar diameter in T of Group 9), the specimens were tested under four-point bend-
years ing to determine their load-deflection curves and the ultimate
flexural strength. Fig. 4 shows the arrangement for flexural test-
2R T ing and external shear reinforcement of the beams. The middle-
= ---------- × 1 0 0 (6)
D third span of the beam which undergoes pure bending is free

153 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999

Fig. 4—Arrangement for four-point bending tests and external
shear reinforcement.
Fig. 6—Load-deflection curves of corroded reinforced concrete
beams (Groups 2 and 8). (Corrosion rate: 4 mA/cm2 .)

Fig. 5—Load-deflection curves of corroded reinforced concrete

beams (Groups 2 and 8). (Corrosion rate: 2 mA/cm2.)
Fig. 7—Effect of corrosion rates on load-deflection relation-
from shear reinforcement. Beams in which stirrup reinforce- ship of corroded beams. (Corrosion degree: 2.5 percent.)
ment was not provided (Fig. 2) were prevented from shear fail-
ure by externally reinforcing the shear zones by means of
tubular steel collars (Fig. 4). This ensured that all beams devel-
oped their full flexural resistance and ultimately suffered a typ-
ical flexural failure in the middle-third span. A transducer was
employed to monitor the beam deflection. The outputs of the
testing machine and the transducer were connected to a chart re-
corder to plot the load-deflection curves. The testing machine
loading rate was 5 kN/min (1124 lb force/min).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Load-deflection curves
Average load-deflection relationships for the beam specimens
were obtained by combining the results of two or three specimens
tested in each case as indicated in Table 1. Some typical load-de-
flection curves are shown in Fig. 5 to 8. Fig. 5 and 6 show that
the degree of corrosion (2RT/D percent) induced in the steel re-
inforcement at different corrosion rates has a marked influence
on the load-deflection curves. The slope of the load-deflection
curves in Fig. 5 and 6 increases with increasing degree of rein-
forcement corrosion (2RT/D percent), thereby indicating a grad-
ual reduction in stiffness of the beams. Fig. 7 shows that the
influence of different corrosion rates (1 to 4 mA/cm2 ) used for
inducing a relatively low degree of corrosion of up to 2.5 percent
on the load-deflection curves is fairly small. Similar corrosion
rates when used to induce a higher degree of corrosion of 7.5 per-
cent (Fig. 8) lead to the load-deflection curves being much more
corrosion-rate-dependent. This indicates that for accelerated cor-
rosion testing in the laboratory, the lowest practical corrosion
Fig. 8—Effect of corrosion rate on load-deflection relationship
of corroded beams. (Corrosion degree: 7.5 percent.)
rates should be used for inducing reinforcement corrosion, espe-
cially when the simulated degree of corrosion (2 RT/D percent)
is required to be high.
Simulation of field conditions of corrosion in the laboratory
is an approximate process. Chloride contamination of concrete
in the field normally results in localized pitting corrosion of re-
inforcement in the early stages. At a more advanced stage of de-
terioration which leads to serviceability failure, this type of
corrosion becomes widespread due to the formation of multiple

ACI StructuralJournal/January-February 1999 154


Fig. 9—Typical mode of failure under four-point bending test
of: (i) control beams with uncorroded reinforcement; and (ii)
beams with corroded reinforcement.
pitting sites. The resulting deterioration resembles the effects of
uniform corrosion, causing extensive cracking, staining, and
spalling of the cover concrete. The initiation of corrosion is like-
ly to occur at the stirrup reinforcement surface which has the
minimum concrete cover. Then the overall corrosion mecha-
nism of the tensile steel becomes more complex with portions of
longitudinal bars acting as anodes and others as cathodes. Thus,
there are countervailing influences occurring; internal stirrups
may improve flexural resistance, but corrosion rates of the ten-
sile steel could be higher because of the stirrups. In this paper,
the shear reinforcement was provided by external means by us-
ing steel collars.
The loss of flexural capacity of beams is likely to be insignif-
icant when localized pockets of pitting corrosion occur on the stir-
rup and longitudinal reinforcement bars. Large reductions in
flexural capacity (strength and flexural rigidity), rendering a beam
inadequate for serviceability loads, are likely to occur only when
localized pitting has extended to many sites resulting in extensive
and relatively uniform levels of corrosion. Such corrosion
would cover sufficiently large surface area of reinforcement to
cause considerable cracking, staining, and spalling of the con-
crete cover zone. In the case of carbonated concrete, similarly
significant reductions in flexural capacity would result when
uniform corrosion occurs over large surface areas of reinforce-
ment, leading to cracking and spalling of the cover concrete.
The complex conditions of field corrosion need to be simulat-
ed in a simple but representative manner in the laboratory to aid
systematic research upon which decisions to strengthen or provide
nonstructural repair to structures can be made. The method used
in this investigation to induce accelerated corrosion in the labora-
tory is a satisfactory simulation of field conditions which result
in significant reduction in flexural capacity. The relatively sim-
ple procedure of corroding the flexural reinforcement only is
used in this investigation, but more complex procedures can be
considered in the future based on the findings of this research.
Flexural strength
Fig. 9 shows the typical modes of flexural failure which oc-
curred under four-point bending tests on control reinforced con-
155
crete beams with no reinforcement corrosion and on beams
which suffered different degrees of reinforcement corrosion.
The control beams exhibited a classical bending failure of an
under-reinforced beam. The failure of the corroded beams was
initiated by bond failure at the longitudinal reinforcement inter-
face. At 60 to 70 percent of the failure load, horizontal splitting
of concrete occurred along the tensile reinforcement interface. At
about 90 percent of the failure load, vertical tensile cracks typical
of flexural failure appeared in the pure-bending zone of the
beams, as shown in Fig. 9, which led to failure. The failure
mechanism may be explained in terms of the bond between lon-
gitudinal reinforcement and concrete being reduced by rein-
forcement corrosion to an extent that, as load increased,
transmission of stresses between the two materials gradually be-
came concentrated at the beam ends where anchorage was pro-
vided by the bent portions of reinforcement. These portions of
the reinforcement were not corroded since they were above the
submerged level of the beams during the accelerated corrosion-
inducing process (Section 2.3). As the applied load increased,
the pullout stresses at the anchorages increased until a stage was
reached when full anchorage was no longer maintained. As a re-
sult, the moment of resistance provided by the tensile reinforce-
ment was controlled by the anchorage (bond) of the bars and its
magnitude was less than that provided by fully bonded tensile
reinforcement bars that yield at failure. Ultimate failure oc-
curred due to vertical tensile cracking in the maximum bending
moment zone as shown in Fig. 9. Levels of destruction which
were observed at the beam ends (anchorage zone) just before
beam failure confirm that final failure of the beams did not take
place until anchorage at the beam ends was no longer main-
tained.
Considering the data obtained for Groups 1 to 7 tests (Table
1), graphs are plotted in Fig. 10 between the degree of reinforce-
ment corrosion (2RT/D percent) and the average flexural load
capacity of corroded beams as a percentage of the average load
capacity of the corresponding control beams. These graphs
show a clear relationship between degree of corrosion and the re-
duction in flexural strength. The results presented in Fig. 10 show
that, relative to other groups, higher values of flexural load capac-
ity are associated with the beams of Group 4. This is due to the
fact that only one of the two reinforcing bars underwent corro-
sion in the Group 4 tests, and in addition, the beam specimens
of this group were also provided with internal stirrup reinforce-
ment which would have had a beneficial effect on the bond
strength of corroded reinforcement in concrete due to the con-
finement provided by the stirrups.
The remaining groups of tests represented in Fig. 10 show
similar reductions in flexural load capacity due to different de-
grees of reinforcement corrosion. This suggests that different se-
quences of corroding the two reinforcing bars (alternating or
simultaneous) has an insignificant influence on flexural capacity.
The residual flexural strength of the beams was also calculated us-
ing the standard composite mechanics expression for moment of
resistance of under-reinforced beams given in relevant codes
such as ACI 318-89 and BS 8110. The reduction in reinforcing
bar diameter due to corrosion was taken into account. The cal-
culated values bear no relationship with the experimental results
plotted in Fig. 10. For example, at a corrosion degree of 10 per-
cent, the calculated residual strength in flexure is over 80 per-
cent of the control beam whereas the corresponding
experimental results of beams with simultaneously corroding
reinforcing bars is between 20 to 30 percent. Similar differences
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999
Fig. 10—Relationship between degree of corrosion (2RT/D
percent) and flexural strength of beams.
Fig. 11—Effect of corrosion rate on flexural strength of beams.
exist at lower degrees of reinforcement corrosion. This indicates
that the interfacial bond strength reduction at the steel/concrete
interface is the primary factor responsible for the deterioration
of flexural capacity of the corroded beams of this investigation
rather than the reduction in reinforcing bar cross section.
Fig. 11 illustrates the effect of corrosion rate on the flexural
load capacity of beams damaged by different degrees of corro-
sion induced in the reinforcement at four different corrosion
rates: 1, 2, 3, and 4 mA/cm2. Up to a corrosion degree of 3.75 per-
cent (2RT/D = 3.75 percent), the results in Fig. 11 show a small
effect of corrosion rate on flexural load capacity. However, at a
corrosion degree of 5 percent and beyond, the flexural load ca-
pacity decreases significantly with increasing corrosion rate.
Fig. 12 presents results of the flexural capacity of beams of Group
9 which were damaged by 5 percent degree of reinforcement corro-
sion at a rate of 3 mA/cm2. The beams were pre-cured for dif-
ferent periods (15 days, 28 days, 6 months, 1 year) before
corrosion was induced. The results show that the residual flexural
strength of the corroded beams for each of the pre-curing periods
is about 70 percent of the control beams. The implication of this
result is that the age of a concrete structure when corrosion initi-
ation occurs may not have any significant effect on the residual
strength of the corroded elements when corrosion in the rein-
forcement has propagated to a significant degree.
Development of residual strength equation of
ACI StructuralJournal/January-February 1999
Fig. 12—Effect of precorrosion curing period on flexural
strength of corroded beams.
Fig. 13—Relation between degree of corrosion (2RT/D per-
cent) and flexural strength of beams. (Corrosion rate: 1 mA/
corroded beams
Fig. 13 shows the relationship between the degree of corrosion
(2RT/D percent) and the flexural load capacity B (as a percentage
of the control beam) of the beams of Group 8 tests (Table 1) which
were corroded at a rate of 1mA/cm2 (6.45 mA/in 2). The individual
results of the three beam specimens tested at each of the different
degrees of corrosion (2RT/D percent) of 1.25 to 10 percent are
shown separately. Nominal scatter between the results of individ-
ual beams is evident (coefficient of correlation 95 percent). A
nonlinear regression analysis of the experimental data gives the
following relation between B percent and 2 RT/D percent.
 
B percent =  1 – sin 7  ----------percent 1 0 0
2 2R T
(8)
 D 
Similar relationships of the form

B percent =  1 – sin ψ  2----------percent
2 RT  1 0 0 (9)
 D 

are obtained for beams in which corrosion was induced at rates of
2, 3, and 4 mA/cm 2 (Groups 6 and 8, Table 1). A typical example
of such a relationship shown by the experimental data is given in
156
Fig. 14—Typical relationship between degree of corrosion and Fig. 15—Comparison between experimental and calculated
flexural strength of beams. (Corrosion rate: 4 mA/cm2.) flexural strength of corroded beams [Eq. (11)].

Table 2—Values of coeffecient ψ corresponding to

corrosion current density i
i, µA/cm 2 ψ
1000 7.0
2000 7.5
3000 8.0
4000 8.5

Fig. 14. In Eq. (9), ψ is a constant which varies with the corrosion
rate adopted.
As previously explained, the corrosion rate R due to a current
density i of 1 mA/cm 2 works out to be 1.156 cm/year (0.46 in./
year). Therefore, a general expression can be obtained by sub-
stituting for R in terms of current density i in Eq. (9). This gen- Fig. 16—Predicted flexural strength with time [Eq. (11)] of
eral expression relates the flexural load capacity (B percent) of reinforced concrete beams corroding at different rates. (Corro-
the beam to the corrosion current density i, the time elapsed in sion currents 10 to 60 µA/cm2 .)
years since the initiation of corrosion (T), and the diameter of re-
inforcement ( D) as follows Eq. (11) has been used to produce nomograms for determin-
ing the residual strength of corroding beams reinforced with re-
 inforcing bars of different diameters. A typical example is given
T 
B percent =  1 – sin  2.312 ψ ----i 1 0 0
2
(10) in Fig. 16. The range of corrosion current densities covered are
 D 
10 µ A/cm2 (64.5 mA/in. 2) to 60 µ A/cm2 (387 mA/in. 2) which
represent the likely range of values encountered in field struc-
Table 2 presents the values of the corrosion current density (i tures undergoing high to very high rates of reinforcement corro-
µA/cm2 ) and the corresponding values of the coefficient ψ de- sion. Current information available in literature, based on outdoor
termined from the nonlinear regression analysis of the experi- exposure and field studies, shows that high rates of corrosion oc-
mental results. These values of ψ are approximately the natural cur at Icorr values exceeding 1 µ A/cm2 (6.45 µ A/in.2 )20 and 2.7 to
logarithm of the corresponding values of current density (ψ = 27 µA/cm2 .16,21 Very high rates of corrosion are expected at Icorr
lni). Therefore, Eq. (10) can be rewritten as values exceeding 10 µ A/cm2 (64.5 µA/in.2) 20 and exceeding 27
µA/cm2 .16,21 Field data on some highway bridges in the UK also
showed high corrosion currents in the range 10 to 60 µA/cm2 .
  1 0 0
B percent =  1 – sin  2.312----ilni
T
2
Nomograms at lower corrosion currents, however, can also be
 
(11)

 D easily derived from Eq. (11). The countervailing influences of in-
ternal stirrup reinforcement improving flexural resistance while
Considering the relationship described by Eq. (11), a graph is also increasing the rates of corrosion in the longitudinal rein-
plotted in Fig. 15 representing the equation and the correspond- forcement (which reduces flexural strength) are not covered by
ing experimental data obtained in this investigation. Fig. 15 the nomograms since, in the tests reported, shear reinforcement
shows that up to a corrosion degree 2R T/D of 3.75 percent, val- was externally provided by collars.
ues of the flexural load capacity calculated from Eq. (11) are in
good agreement with the experimental results. At higher de- Further discussion
grees of corrosion, the predicted flexural capacity from Eq. (11) The predictive model for residual strength of corroded rein-
becomes more conservative. forced concrete beams presented in Eq. (11) provides a conser-

157 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999

vative estimate of their residual strength. This is because the
effect of internal stirrup (shear) reinforcement on maintaining
the flexural capacity of a corroding beam has not been included
in the prediction model. The residual flexural capacity of beams
was determined following induced accelerated corrosion in the re-
inforcement within 12 to 384 hr. Such corrosion periods are gross
reductions of actual corrosion periods of many years which occur
in real practice to produce the same degree of corrosion. These
differences in accelerated and normal corrosion periods can have
a significant influence on residual strength. Longer corrosion
periods allow the corrosion products to be dissipated gradually
in the pore structure of the concrete matrix, thereby reducing the
radial stresses exerted at the reinforcing bar/concrete interface.
The gradual dissipation of corrosion products under long corro-
sion periods in the field and the migration of Na+ and other ions
may also cause softening of the cover concrete. In the case of ac-
celerated corrosion, in the laboratory, however, the rapid pro-
duction of corrosion products allows little time for their
dissipation in the pore structure, and there was no evidence of
any softening of the cover concrete. Instead, accelerated corro-
sion results in greater radial stresses at the interface resulting in
more immediate and extensive cracking and debonding than
may occur in real practice. In the laboratory experiments, as ac-
celerated corrosion was induced in the tension reinforcement
bars of the beams, longitudinal cracks appeared on the soffit di-
rectly underneath each of the two reinforcing bars and extended
parallel to the reinforcement along its length. Another similar
longitudinal crack appeared on the side face of the beam directly
adjacent to each reinforcing bar. These were typical tensile
cracks caused by the radial stresses exerted by the expansive
corrosion products. The maximum crack widths on the beam
soffit corresponding to the degree of corrosion (percent reduc-
tion in reinforcement diameter) of 2.5, 3.75, 5, and 7.5 percent
were 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 mm, respectively. The crack widths
were also influenced significantly by the induced corrosion rate
(mA/cm2 ). For example, a degree of corrosion of 5 percent in-
duced at a corrosion rate of 1, 2, and 3 mA/cm2 resulted in max-
imum crack widths of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 mm, respectively. The
effect of the rate at which corrosion products are deposited on
tension cracking is obvious from these observations. An exten-
sive investigation on the effect of reinforcement corrosion on
the bond in flexural elements was also carried out in this re-
search project. The detailed results, which are under separate
publication, show that under small degrees of reinforcement
corrosion (less than 0.5 percent), the flexural bond strength ex-
ceeds that of the control beams with corrosion-free reinforce-
ment. This increase is due to the confinement radial stresses on
the reinforcement surface induced by the expansive corrosion
products since the cover zone does not crack at such small levels
of corrosion. At higher degrees of corrosion, the bond strength
decreases very sharply, reaching values of under 60 percent (rel-
ative to control beams) at corrosion rates exceeding 2 percent.
Such large reductions in bond strength are caused by the conver-
sion of surface layers of steel reinforcement into corrosion prod-
ucts. This results in the breakdown of any chemical bond at the
interface. Once the expansive corrosion products introduce suf-
ficient tension in the cover zone to cause cracking of the con-
crete, the confinement of the reinforcement bars is lost, and the
corrosion products start migrating through the cracks. This re-
sults in a further loss of frictional mechanical bond. The loss of
the reinforcing bar cross section through corrosion also reduces
the interlocking bond provided by deformed reinforcement bars.
ACI StructuralJournal/January-February 1999
Since the value of the natural logarithm of unity equals zero
(ln1 = 0), the residual flexural capacity of a beam undergoing
corrosion at a rate of 1 µA/cm2 , as calculated from Eq. (11), will
always be 100 percent, despite the fact that, in practice, some
loss in strength will occur after an infinitely long period of ex-
posure. This, however, is only a theoretical limitation with little
practical significance since in the field, higher corrosion cur-
rents are associated with corrosion rates which cause deteriora-
tion of reinforced concrete structures.16,17,21
Another limitation of Eq. (11) is that the rate of reinforcement
corrosion (i) is assumed as a single value. However, corrosion
of reinforcement in concrete structures is believed not to pro-
ceed at a constant rate throughout the corrosion propagation
stage.22,23 The initial corrosion rate is low but it increases to a
maximum value as the depassivation of steel is completed. In
the longer term diffusion, barriers against agents of corrosion
(i.e., oxygen, moisture, and salts) are formed as a result of grad-
ual accumulation of corrosion products at the steel/concrete in-
terface. The result is a lowering of the corrosion rate. The
corrosion products are of a fragile nature and, therefore, the dif-
fusion barrier developed by them is unable to grow indefinitely.
It cracks as it grows as a result of stresses exerted upon it. After
a period of time the thickness of the diffusion barrier will reach a
maximum value and, therefore, it can be assumed that the avail-
ability of corrosion agents (oxygen and moisture, etc.) at the in-
terface will be minimum, resulting in the lowest corrosion rate.
Further refinement of the predictive model for residual strength
as represented by Eq. (11) is possible in the future to take ac-
count of the variations of corrosion rates.
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions presented in this paper pertain to concrete
beams reinforced with longitudinal bars which undergo differ-
ent degrees of accelerated corrosion in the laboratory, simulat-
ing corrosion in the field. Countervailing interactions with
stirrup reinforcement are not represented since shear reinforce-
ment was provided externally.
1. Reinforcement corrosion in concrete has a marked effect
on both the flexural load capacity and deflection of beams. At a
degree of corrosion (2R T/D percent) of 10 percent, for example,
the residual strength reduces to about 25 percent of the flexural
capacity of the control beam.
2. The period of precuring beams (up to 1 year) before corro-
sion is induced in the reinforcement has no influence on their
flexural strength.
3. The reduction in reinforcing bar cross section due to corro-
sion has an insignificant effect on the residual flexural strength of
beams. The reduction in residual strength is primarily due to the
loss or breakdown of the steel/concrete interfacial bond.
4. The residual strength of flexural members undergoing cor-
rosion of longitudinal reinforcement is given by the following ex-
pression
 
B percent =  1 – sin  2.312----ilni 1 0 0
2 T
D
 
where
B percent = percent of flexural strength of control beam
T = time elapsed in years after corrosion initiation
D = reinforcing bar diameter (mm)
i = rate of corrosion (µ A/cm2)
158
 5. Nomograms for predicting the long-term residual strength of
corroding flexural members can be derived for various sizes of
reinforcement bars.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper presents some of the results of an EC funded BRITE/EURAM
project BREU P3-91, “Assessment of Performance and Optimal Strategies
for Inspection and Maintenance of Concrete Structures Using Reliability
Based Expert Systems.” The partners in this project are: Sheffield Hallam
University/Aberdeen University, UK; Labein, Bilbao, Spain; CSR, Aalborg,
Denmark; Instituto Superior Technico, Lisboa, Portugal; and Jahn Inge-
nieurs Bureau, Brielle, Netherlands.
CONVERSION FACTORS
1 in. = 25.4 mm
1 lb-force = 4.448N
1 lb = 0.454 kg
1 lb/yd 3 = 0.594 kg/m 3
1 lb/ft3 = 16 kg/m 3
1 ksi = 6.895 MPa
REFERENCES
1. Tuutti, K., Corrosion of Steel in Concrete, 1st ed., Swedish Cement
and Concrete Research Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, 1982.
2. Page, C. L., and Lambert, P., “Analytical and Electrochemical Investi-
gations of Reinforcement Corrosion,” UK Department of Transportation,
TRRL Contractor Report No. 30, 1986.
3. Mangat, P. S., and Gurusamy, K., “Corrosion Resistance of Steel
Fibres in Concrete under Marine Exposure,” Cement and Concrete
Research , V. 18, 1988, pp. 44-54.
4. Schissl, P., and Raupach, M., “Influence of Concrete Composition and
Micro Climate on the Critical Chloride Content in Concrete,” Proceedings,
Corrosion of Reinforcement in Concrete, C. L. Page, K. W. Treadaway, and
P. B. Balmforth, eds., Society of Chemical Industry, 1990.
5. Mangat, P. S., and Molloy, B. T., “Prediction of Long-Term Chloride
Concentration in Concrete,” Materials and Structures, V. 27, 1994, pp. 338-
346.
6. Mangat, P. S., and Molloy, B. T., “Prediction of Free Chloride Con-
centration in Concrete Using Routine Inspection Data,” Magazine of Con-
crete Research, V. 46, No. 169, Dec. 1994, pp. 279-287.
7. American Society for Testing and Materials, “Corrosion Rates of Steel
in Concrete,” STP 1065, ASTM, 1991.
8. American Society for Testing and Materials, “Test Methods to Mea-
sure the Corrosion Rate of Steel in Field Concrete,” Standardisation-News,
Sept. 1992, p. 4.
9. Millard, S. G.; Gowers, K. R.; and Gill, R. P., “Practical Field Mea-
surement of Reinforcement Corrosion in Concrete Using Linear Polariza-
tion Methods,” British Journal of Nondestructive Testing, V. 34, No. 9,
Sept. 1992, pp. 444-452.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999
10. Feliu, S.; Gonzalez, J. A.; Andrade, C.; and Feliu, V., “Determining
Polarization Resistance in Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” Corrosion Science, V.
29, 1989, pp. 105-113.
11. Comité Euro-International du Béton, “Assessment of Concrete Struc-
tures and Design Proceedings for Upgrading,” Bulletin d’information, No.
162, Aug. 1983.
12. Rodriguez, J., and Andrade, C., “Load-Bearing Capacity Loss in
Corroding Structures,” American Concrete Institute, Spring Convention,
Canada, 1990.
13. Andrade, C.; Alonso, M. C.; and Gonzalez, J. A., “An Initial Effort to
Use the Corrosion Rate Measurements for Estimating Reinforcing Bar Dura-
bility,” ASTM Symposium on Corrosion Rate of Reinforcements in Concrete,
1988.
14. Okada, K.; Kobayshi, K.; and Miyagawa, T., “Influence of Longitudi-
nal Cracking Due to Reinforcement Corrosion on Characteristics of Rein-
forced Concrete Members,” ACI Structural Journal, Mar.-Apr. 1988, pp. 134-
140.
15. Al-Sulimani, G. J.; Kaleemullah, M.; Basunbul, I. A.; and
Rasheeduzzafar, “Influence of Corrosion and Cracking on Bond Behaviour
and Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members,” ACI Structural Journal, V.
87, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1990, pp. 220-231.
16. Clifton, J. R., and Pommersheim, J. M., “Predicting Remaining Ser-
vice Life of Concrete,” Corrosion and Corrosion Protection of Steel in
Concrete, Proceedings , International Conference, University of Sheffield,
R. N. Swamy, ed., V. 1, 1994, pp. 619-634.
17. Andrade, C.; Alonso, M. C.; Gonzalez, J. A.; and Rodriguez, J.,
“Remaining Service Life of Corroding Structures,” IABSE Report 57/1,
Durability of Structures, 1989, pp. 259-364.
18. Purvis, R. L.; Babaei, K.; Clear, K. C.; and Markow, M. J., “Life Cost
Analysis for Protection and Rehabilitation of Concrete Bridges Relative to
Reinforcement Corrosion,” Strategic Highway Research Program, SHRP-S-
377, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994.
19. Fontana, M. B., and Green, N. D., Corrosion Engineering, McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1967.
20. Andrade, C., and Alonso, C., “Progress on Design and Residual Life
Calculation with Regard to Reinforcing Bar Corrosion of Reinforced Con-
crete,” Techniques to Assess the Corrosion Activity of Steel Reinforced
Concrete Structures, ASTM STP 1276, N. S. Berke, E. Escalante, C. K.
Kmai, and D. Whitney, eds., American Society for Testing Materials, 1996.
21. Clear, K., “Measuring Rate of Corrosion of Steel in Field Concrete
Structures,” Paper No. 88-0324, 68th Annual Meeting of Transportation
Research, 1989.
22. Locke, C. E., “Corrosion of Steel in Portland Cement Concrete,”
Corrosiom Efficiency, Stray Currents, Technical Evaluation of Corrosion
Rebars in Concrete, ASTM STP 906, 1986, pp. 4-14.
23. Locke, C. E., “Corrosion of Steel in Portland Cement Concrete: Fun-
damental Studies,” Proceedings, International Congressional Meeting on
Corrosion, 1984, pp. 225-228.
159