Fusion-Bonded Epoxy Coatings: a Technology for Rebar Corrosion Prevention

J !lan "ehr# 3M Corrosion Protection Department, USA Fi$ry F Barou$y, Consulting Services Dept., Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia

%ntroduction
Corrosion of steel in concrete has become a costly problem in the United States over the last t enty!five years." Appro#imately half of the nearly si# hundred thousand bridges in the US $ederal Aid %igh ay system have structural deficiencies or are functionally outmoded. According to US $ederal %igh ay Administration &$%'A( estimates, a )uarter of US bridge dec*s are badly deteriorated. Since the beginning of road!salt application, e#pensive repairs are often re)uired ithin five to ten years. +t,s a orld ide problem. -esearch indicates that the service life of buildings in the Arabian .ulf may be five to fifteen years. -einforced concrete bridges near the seashore in /apan sho rapid deterioration ithin ten years of construction. 0he problem is caused primarily by inorganic!salt induced corrosion of steel in concrete. 0he salt, primarily chloride, penetrates the concrete from sources such as road!deicing salts or sea e#posure. +t can also be built in through the use of salt!contaminated aggregate, sea ater in the concrete, or chloride!based admi#tures. 0he chloride ion initiates and cataly1es the corrosion reaction. 0he iron corrosion products resulting from the reaction occupy a much greater volume than iron and cause tremendous pressure on the concrete. 0he pressure causes the concrete to crac* and spall, allo ing even greater access of corrodents to the steel and accelerated deterioration of the structure. 2 'hile most attention is paid to rebar, all steel components are affected as ell bridge dec*s, piers, pilings, and guardrails. 3rror4 -eference source not found 0his paper addresses the protection of those elements by describing available alternatives and providing an overvie of fusion!bonded epo#y coating materials, case histories, trends in the industry, and specific concerns about the use of fusion!bonded!epo#y coated rebar &$53C-(.

&echanis' of Reinforcing (teel Corrosion in Concrete

0he traditional vie of the reinforced concrete structure is that the concrete is protective to the reinforcing steel bars through the combined effects of the chemical reactions bet een the steel and the cement hydration products and the environmental barrier provided by the concrete cover. +f these conditions are maintained ithin the concrete mass, the steel bars do not corrode and the structure should have the e#pected trouble!free life span.

Poor )uality reinforced concrete structure contributes to a faster deterioration of the steel reinforcing bars. 6o degree of compaction, e#cess ater in the concrete mi#, and the hydration process are considered the main factors to create voids ithin the concrete and ma*e the concrete structure porous. Porosity of concrete allo s penetration and ingress of aggressive elements &e.g., chloride, o#ygen, carbon dio#ide, and other materials that vary from one location to another( to the embedded steel rebar and to initiate corrosion. 0he primary factors controlling the initiation of the steel corrosion and its mechanism in concrete are summari1ed in the follo ing points4 0he rate of steel depassivation 0he initiation of the macrocells due to the differential aeration and chloride absorption 0he lo resistivity attributed by the concrete pore ater 0he presence of o#ygen to accelerate the corrosion process

0he corrosion of steel in concrete is an electrochemical process, hich results in the formation of a corrosion cell. 0he follo ing corrosion mechanism is the most li*ely for steel rebar embedded in the concrete hen significant variations e#ist in the surface characteristics of the steel. 0he steel surface initiates cathodes and anodes electrically connected through the body of the steel bar. 0he 7half cell reaction8 ta*es place, by inducing an electromotive force *no n as standard redo# potential hen the metal is connected to a hydrogen electrode 9 see 3)uation ".
E)uation *

$or iron4 $e !! $e:2 : 2 e ! &Anode( 0he electrons liberated at the anode migrate to the cathode and react in various ays dependant upon the p% value and the availability of o#ygen. See 3)uation 2, 3)uation 3, and 3)uation ;.
E)uation +

2e : 2% : < =2 !!!!!! %2=

E)uation ,

2e : %2= : < =2 !!!!! %2=

E)uation -

2e : 2% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %2 0he anodic and cathodic reactions are autocatalytic and result in the transformation of metallic iron &$e( to rust. 0he rust formation is accompanied by a significant increase in the volume, suggested as large as seven times that of the original $e volume. 0he volume increase causes concrete crac*ing and spalling. Effect of Chloride %ons 'hen the steel is placed in a highly al*aline solution &p% >"".?(, even in the presence of o#ygen, corrosion ill not be initiated. +n fact, slightly rusted bars ill be dissipated hen placed in strong al*ali. 0hat is the reason hy, during construction, slightly rusted steel bars do not create a concern.

0he chloride ions ingress does not lo er the p% in the concrete. %o ever, it destroys the passive layer on the steel bars. 0he depassivated steel bars do not corrode in the presence of the chloride ions only. 0he corrosion occurs after the presence of the carbon dio#ide lo ers the p% belo "", thus contributing to corrosion initiation. Sources of chloride are either in the concrete mi#, mainly from the sand, aggregates, or the ater used, or as chloride ingress from the environment, such as in the marine atmospheric environment. Effect of Carbonation Carbonation is the al*alinity loss in the concrete mass. 0he product of the reaction bet een carbon dio#ide in the normal outside air and the al*aline products, mainly the calcium hydro#ides, is calcium carbonate. +n case of high ater@concrete ratio, carbonation continues to the depth here the reinforcing steel bar is embedded. 'hen carbon dio#ide penetrates through the concrete cover in the presence of ater in the pores, it drives the p% to lo er values hich depassivates the steel =ther hydration products in the cement can go through the same reaction ith carbon dio#ide causing a significant )uality loss of the cement and faster deterioration of the concrete mi#. Effect of other Ele'ents Sulfide can be found in the cement as a contaminant &more than A.2B(. 0he sulfide ion has been found more destructive to the steel rebar embedded in the concrete if it goes higher than the regulated percentage sho n. -egardless of the sulfide ion source, it has been the cause of several cases of hydrogen embrittlement 9 particularly in pre!stressed rebar.

&echanis' of FBE coated steel corrosion in concrete

+n the a*e of the premature failure of $53 coated steel rebar in the $lorida Ceys bridge substructures, many research or*s by users and academia investigated the performance of $53 coated steel in various environments and service conditions. Most of the laboratory test results confirmed that the $53 material, applied under controlled conditions, passed successfully all )ualification and service simulated tests. %o ever, in a fe cases, field samples sho ed poor adhesion to the e#tent of delamination and disbonding of the $53 rebar. =ften times, that delamination as used as the definition for a Dcoating failure,, rather than corrosion or concrete distress. 2 +n order to understand hat ent rong to cause premature failure of the $53 rebar, numerous data ere collected from various fields for investigation and assessment. 3 Corrosion control of the $53 coating is a function of the coating,s ability to provide a barrier against ater, o#ygen, chloride, and other aggressive elements ; that prevents permeation through the coating film to attac* the metal substrate. 0here are critical properties re)uired for corrosion protection $53 coatings that include adhesion and etting ability to the rebar. -eduction in adhesive strength ill increase the delamination process rate. ?, E. An investigation into delamination of $53 coatings in a simulated pore solution environment suggested the follo ing delamination mechanism4 F Delay time before initiation of observable delamination processes may be a function of ater penetration through the coating to the interfacial or interphasial coating@substrate region.

Delamination of $53 coatings from steel substrates is predominantly caused by hydro#yl ions. -ate of $53 delamination is controlled by transport processes from a pore in the coating and along the delaminated coating@substrate interface to the disbondment front. 0he locality of failure of coating adhesion is in the interfacial or interphasial coating@substrate region. 0he rate of $53 delamination in near!passive conditions is controlled by hydro#yl ion migration from the bul* e#ternal solution to the coating@substrate disbondment front. 0he rate of $53 delamination in the condition of underfilm corrosion is controlled by hydrated cation movement to the cathode site.

.esign of FBE coating po/der for steel rebar coating

Ge technologies are under continual development to optimi1e the properties of the $53 coating to improve coating utility. 0he stoiciometric ratio must be controlled by the e)uilibrium bet een the curing group and the epo#y group. $or e#ample, increasing the level of curing agent may reduce the cross!lin* density and increase fle#ibility, hile decreasing chemical resistance. +mpact resistance or hardness is a function of the cross!lin* density. %igher densities can be achieved using lo molecular eight curing agents that sho tightly cross!lin*ed structures. Adding non!reactive diluents can interfere ith this structure, providing the end product ith more fle#ibility but less toughness. Mechanical adhesion is the gripping force that results from the roughness of the substrate, &i.e. pea*s and valleys(. Changing from a round to angular surface profile and increasing the depth of the valleys can improve this type of adhesion. Polar adhesion is the hydrogen bonding hich occurs bet een the substrate and epo#y coating. Chemical bonds are formed through electron sharing by groups on the substrate and epo#y resin. 0hese bonds are by far the strongest and contribute most to adhesion. .roups such as nitrogen and o#ygen can bond ith iron and silica.

Corrosion Protection (trategies

0here are several corrosion protection strategies available. 0he five most prominent approaches ta*e advantage of properties of the corrosion cell to reduce corrosion damage to structure steel4 surface sealers, concrete barrier, chemical stabili1ation, electrochemical, and steel coating. " A final alternative is to replace the steel ith materials such as stainless steel or fiber!reinforced plastic. H SU-$AC3 S3A63-S4 Sealers include membranes and materials such as silanes, silo#anes, and methacrylates that function by providing an impervious layer on or in the concrete bet een e#ternal corrodents and the steel. I Corrosion caused by chloride already in the concrete from contaminated aggregate or concrete additives can still occur. Damage to the sealer allo s ater and chloride penetration. Practical considerations are important 9 sealers are site applied and subJect to the vagaries of eather and construction practices. Surface preparation of the e#isting concrete can be an important factor. Some materials may remain tac*y after application. "A A *ey element for successful implementation is for the sealer to prevent the ingress of ater but allo the passage of ater vapor to prevent blistering and peeling. ;

C=GC-303 5A--+3-4 +ncreasing concrete depth has proven effective in slo ing the ingress of chloride to the steel. 0he biggest problem ith this process, besides increased cost, is an increase in crac*ing propensity. +n principle, concrete barriers ma*e part or all of the concrete less permeable to ater and the associated ions. 0he typical procedure is to use overlays composed of late#!modified concrete, lo !slump concrete, asphalt, or polymer concrete. Problems encountered include increased crac*ing, increased permeability ith age, scaling, and ater entrapment. Use of silica fume can significantly reduce permeability and increase electrical resistance of the concrete "" but is e#pensive and increases the ris* of higher corrosion rates in the presence of crac*s. "2 $ly ash and natural po11olans should perform similarly, "3, "; but the results have varied from increased corrosion rates hen used ith admi#tures to reduced corrosion rates ith e#ternally applied chlorides. "? C%3M+CA6 S0A5+6+KA0+=G4 Chemical protection relies on changing the concrete environment to reduce corrosion. Calcium nitrite, the most commonly used inhibitor, does not reduce the permeability of the concrete, nor does it prevent corrosion. -ather, it competes ith chloride to react ith the steel and reduce the corrosion rate. 0 o dra bac*s are that it acts as a set accelerator for concrete, and normally needs a retarder. Second, the amount re)uired is difficult to predict because e#posure varies in different parts of the structure. ; =rganic based inhibitors, such as amine! and ester!based admi#tures or* by slo ing chloride permeation and forming a protective film on the steel surface. F 363C0-=C%3M+CA64 Cathodic protection or*s by imposing an electric potential to oppose the corrosion cell. +t re)uires an anode current distribution system and a po er supply. 0he maJor dra bac* is that it is a technically sophisticated, e#pensive system that re)uires trained!engineer site visits. +t also re)uires high maintenance e#penditures and an e#ternal po er supply, often in remote areas. " 0he long!term effects of cathodic protection treatment are not ell defined. H
C=A03D -35A-4

.alvani1ing provides protection through a 1inc barrier bet een the steel and the environment and by acting as a sacrificial anode for the steel."E Kinc does corrode, but the volume of the corrosion products is often less than that of iron products. 0herefore, corrosion ta*es longer to cause crac*ing and spalling of the concrete. =bservations from a sea ater e#posure evaluation sho ed clear evidence of progressive corrosion of the 1inc layer under natural e#posure conditions. "F 3po#y!coated reinforcement is used e#tensively in construction to protect steel from corrosion. "H 3po#y coating or*s by preventing chloride and moisture from reaching the surface of the steel. +ts greatest advantage lies in its applicability to e#isting designs ithout changes in load capacity or section si1e, the only change is in the modification of development length.3rror4 -eference source not found $%'A,s 2AA3 Gational 5ridge +nventory sho ed more than ?;,AAA US bridges contained $53C- in either the top mat or in both the top and bottom mats. "I 'ell over one!hundred!thousand structures utili1ing $53C- are no in place ith only a handful of problem applications, hich ill be discussed later.

Epoxy Coated Rebar0&anufacturing Process

0he application of fusion!bonded epo#y to reinforcing steel is straightfor ard and uncomplicated4 clean the steel, heat it to the proper temperature, apply the po dered! epo#y coating material, allo the coating to cure, and inspect. %o ever, the details are

important and must be understood and implemented to assure a )uality coating that ill e#tend the or*ing life of a structure in a corrosive environment. 2A 0hese same steps apply hether the steel is fabricated before or after coating. %o ever, the e)uipment configuration and the po der coating gel and application characteristics need to be designed to meet the coating process.

FBECR Perfor'ance
0here is an over helming preponderance of e#perience that sho s $53C- does hat it as originally designed to do4 reduce the level of corrosion of concrete encased steel to significantly increase the life of the structure. 2" 3#ample surveys follo . M+GG3S=0A 5-+D.3 D3CC4 5ridge number "IA"?, in Minnesota, has carried a heavy volume of traffic since constructed in "IF3, endured e#treme seasonal temperatures as ell as free1e@tha cycles, and received several annual doses of deicing salt for t enty years at the time of the study. 0hese are conditions that routinely caused bridge!dec* deterioration ithin ten to t elve years prior to the use of $53C-. Despite the fact that it as constructed using coated bar only in the top mat, and the technology as ne at the time of construction &modified pipe!coating application e)uipment as used(, it received a rating of H, on a scale of one to eight, on its "Ith annual inspectionLthe same rating it received on it,s first. Go corrosion!related maintenance or repair or* as re)uired during those years. 22 '3S0 M+-.+G+A 5-+D.3S4 0his evaluation surveyed t elve of the earliest bridge dec*s utili1ing epo#y!coated rebar. A number of bridges constructed about the same time ith blac* bar acted as a control. 0he study included a visual survey, an acoustic chain drag to determine delamination, and chloride testing hen eather allo ed. 5ased on e#perience ith blac*!bar bridges of the same vintage, the e#pectation as that there ould be a number of spalls, significant delamination of the concrete and crac*ing e#tending through the dec*. 'hat as found as mathematically non!e#istent spalling and a uniform absence of delamination. 0he use of $53C- did not eliminate concrete crac*ing, but it greatly reduced the corrosion associated ith blac* bars and crac*s. Chloride levels ranged from 2." to ?.3 pounds per cubic yard &".2 to 3.2 *g@m3(. 0he researchers concluded, 7 . . . from the data gathered in this investigation that the use of epo#y coated reinforcement does result in dramatic reduction of delamination in bridge dec*s and by inference an increase in useful life e#pected of the dec*.8 23 'AS%+G.0=G S0A03 5-+D.3S4 +n late "II2, the 'ashington State D=0 surveyed four bridges constructed ith epo#y coated rebar in the late seventies!early eightiesLincluding the %ood Canal floating concrete pontoon bridge in sea ater. 'eather conditions permitted chloride sampling of only t o of the bridges here the levels ere in the ten to t elve pounds per cubic yard &;.? to ?.? *g@ m3( range. 0he conclusion4 7 . . .the system &3C-( is doing a good Job of corrosion protection so far in the structures e tested.8 2; G=-0% CA-=6+GALSU5S0-UC0U-3S +G A MA-+G3 3GM+-=GM3G04 Misual inspections, coring, and laboratory studies ere performed on three bridges constructed in "IH?. Go e#traordinary crac*s or deterioration attributable to corrosion as observed. Despite chloride levels ranging from one to over nineteen pounds per cubic yard &A.E to "".3 *g@ m3(, the coated reinforcement bars ere not significantly affectedLvery slight rusting as detected only in areas ith coating damage such as pinholes and holidays. 7+t is concluded

that the epo#y coating in the selected bridges is providing ade)uate corrosion protection for the reinforcement steel.8 2? N +n spite of the one!hundred!thousand plus structures constructed ith $53C- and only a handful of reported problems, the effectiveness of the technology as a long!term corrosion!protection system is currently a subJect of debate. 0hose cases, though small in number, have often, and fre)uently inaccurately, been publici1ed. Part of the concern stems from the early e#pectations of the technology as a panacea for all corrosion related problems in concrete. 2E 3arly studies sho ed that even non! specification!coated rebar ould provide a great improvement in reduced corrosion rates. 2F 0he implication of these studies as that any coated rebar ould protect the structure against corrosion and early )uality control regimes reflected that misunderstanding by providing little attention to the details important for good!)uality coating application to rebar. 0here as also little concern about handling damage to the coating. More recent studies and e#periments have utili1ed ne e#pectations, often erroneously referring to a debondment of the coating as an indication of coating failure. 2H %o ever, Sohanghpur ala and Scannell, in a study of core samples representing 3F"? bridge dec*s &almost ; million m2(, found that 7although progressive corrosion must be accompanied by complete adhesion loss, coating adhesion alone as not found to be a good predictor of corrosion condition.8 2I $ollo ing are e#amples reporting poor performance of coated rebar. $6=-+DA C3OS4 0he often!cited $lorida Ceys bridges, substructures provided a a*e up call for the $53C- industry. +n the late "IHA,s, out of five bridges, the substructures of four sho ed signs of deterioration after only si# to ten years. 0he bridges are located in a subtropical marine environment and 7are continuously subJected to salt spray in the splash 1one, combined ith etting and drying cycles, high temperatures, and chlorides and moisture, hich produce a very corrosive environment.8 3rror4 -eference source not found +mportantly, the discovery of this 7problem8 removed the halo effect from epo#y! coated rebars4 there ere circumstances here $53C-, as supplied at the time, did not solve all the problems. 0his resulted in many studies sponsored by public and private sources and a much greater understanding of the corrosion phenomenon, the importance of )uality control in the coating process, and the idea that a ne#t generation of $53 may be re)uired. $ollo !up or* and studies of other $lorida bridges have highlighted the importance of adhesion and the effects of damage to the coating during the installation process. 3A, 3" =-3.=G 03S0 P+634 +n "IHA, the =regon Department of 0ransportation &D=0( constructed several reinforcement concrete beams and lashed them to an e#isting bridge substructure in the tidal 1one of Oa)uina 5ay along the =regon coast. Gine years later, one of the piles as autopsied ith a surprise finding4 even ith chloride levels in e#cess of t enty pounds per cubic yard &"".I *g@ m3(, t o of the longitudinal bars had light corrosion and disbondment, but t o of the bars did not sho signs of distress and the coating as ell adhered. I Subse)uent testing of the bars sho ed that the good performing bars had a coating thic*ness of I to "2 mils &22? to 3AA microns( compared to ; to E mils &"AA to "?A microns( for the distressed bars. 32

0ests of the bars ith thin coating also sho ed inade)uate blast cleaning and evidence that the bars had been salt contaminated prior to coating. 0his provided further evidence of the importance of understanding and implementing the details for coating application. CAGAD+AG S0-A03.+C %+.%'AOS -3S3A-C% P-=.-AM &C!S%-P(4 0he second phase of this program designed to evaluate the effectiveness of $53C- for long!term &fifty year( performance as completed in "II2. +t evaluated bars from coaters and Job sites, and investigated field sites. 0he conclusion as that state!of!the!art coated rebars 7 ill not be effective in providing long!term . . . corrosion protection to reinforcement in salt contaminated concrete.8 0he study postulated that the failure mechanism involved progressive loss of coating adhesion. 2? 0o summari1e, the problem seen in the $lorida Cey bridges resulted in t o *ey changes. 0he first as it raised a concern about all structures utili1ing $53C- and caused many surveys of e#isting structures. 0he results of those surveys have been very reassuring, $53C- is performing to reduce the corrosion that damages concrete structures. 3valuation of hundreds of structures in many different environments point to that same conclusion. Second, it resulted in many research studies designed to understand the fe problems that ere unearthed during these surveys. 0hat understanding has caused significant improvements and changes in industry standards, procedures, and e#pectations.

%ndustry Trends
+GDUS0-O S0AGDA-DS4 3arly AS0M standards ere ritten around the procedures developed by the original Gational 5ureau of Standards &G5S, no Gational +nstitute of Science and 0echnology &G+S0(( during the evaluation of non!metallic coating materials for reinforcement corrosion prevention. 33 Mery fe changes in the specifications, none substantive, ere made until observations of the $lorida Ceys bridges demonstrated a need for revie . As a result of the observations of the =regon test pile & hich sho ed a direct correlation bet een corrosion areas and coating thic*ness and other studies(, both AAS%0= and AS0M specifications increased the re)uirement for median coating thic*ness by about t o mils &fifty microns(. 0he allo able holiday &microscopic holes in the coating not visible to the unaided eye, but detectable ith an electric probe( count in the application plant as reduced. .ood handling practices of $53C- ere defined to minimi1e damage to repair of e#posed steel improve the performance of the $53C-. 3; PUA6+0O4 As a result of the findings of the importance of the application process to the performance of $53C-, the industry )uic*ly responded by developing improved )uality control processes and standards. =ne e#ample is the "II2 introduction of the Concrete -einforcing Steel +nstitute &C-S+( Moluntary Certification Program. 3#amples of *ey measurements under the program include surface profile, bar cleanliness &removal of mill scale and visible contaminants(, inorganic salt detection, application temperature, and coating thic*ness. Adhesion tests such as hot! ater immersion and cathodic disbondment ere added. $ollo up studies sho ed a significant improvement in the )uality of the coated rebar as applicators learned ho to meet the certification re)uirements. 3? $53C- +G 5=0% MA0S4 +n a nine!year laboratory test sponsored by the $%'A in heavily salt contaminated concrete, slabs ith $53C- in both the top and bottom mat ith A.?B intentional damage sho ed macrocell current density only slightly increased from 1ero. 0he results ere almost the same as for stainless steel bars. 3rror4 -eference source not found, 3E

C=A0 A$03- $A5-+CA0+=G -35A-4 0he US =ffice of Gaval -esearch funded a study to evaluate methods of protecting reinforcing steel in aterfront concrete structures. 3F 0he FE!month study e#posed concrete slabs to a subtropical!marine intertidal environment. 0he results suggested that in a splash 1one environment, rebar should not be bent after coating. A result as the development of $53C- designed for application to reinforcing steel after fabrication. 3H Coating after fabrication significantly reduces the amount of coating damage sustained during the rebar bending process. 0his greatly reduced the macrocell current density hen top and bottom mats ere electrically connected in the $%'A sponsored study. 3rror4 -eference source not found $inally, since the coating does not have to be as fle#ible, pipecoating!li*e technology can be used for the $53 to promote adhesion retention. 3rror4 -eference source not found, 3I 0his technology is gaining popularity in oceanfront and splash!1one concrete construction. ;A

(pecific Concerns
P+00+G. C=--=S+=G4 +n a severe corrosion environment, here coating damage penetrates to the steel substrate, there ill be corrosion. 0here is no e#ception based on si1e or location of the damage. ;" 0his is different from pit corrosion, hich is an e#tremely locali1ed attac* occurring hen steel passivity is destroyed only locally, forming a small anodic area. $or uncoated steel, the larger surrounding cathodic areas drive the anodic reaction resulting in a pit. +n a sense, the pit cathodically protects the surrounding metal. +n the case of coated rebar, ho ever, the coating restricts the availability of surrounding cathodic areas and restricts the corrosion activity, alleviating its severity. $or coated steel, an occasionally e#pressed concern is about macrocell pit corrosion. 3rror4 -eference source not found Macrocell driven pit corrosion implies a large cathode area driving a small anode such as in a holding tan* ith coated sides, but an uncoated bottom. 0he very nature of damage to the epo#y coating on the rebar ma*es that scenario unli*ely. 3ven in the case of uncoated bottom mats and coated top mats, there are fe , if any, reports of pit corrosion resulting in significant loss of cross section. 0hat is li*ely due to the relatively limited interconnectivity bet een bars because of the insulating characteristics of the coating. "E 5=GD+G. 0= C=GC-3034 +n general, uncoated bars provide better bond strength than coated bars. 0here are three components to bond strength4 adhesion, friction, and mechanical bearing of the concrete on the steel deformations. 5oth adhesion and friction relate to roughness of the steel.&or coating( 5ecause $53C- is smooth and concrete does not adhere ell to its surface, bond strength develops primarily through mechanical bearing. Different studies have given different results, but most give values of E? to IAB as the relative level of bond strength for epo#y!coated bar compared to blac* bar. 0here are several other factors that significantly affect the bond strength of rebar 9 coated or uncoated4 cover, casting position, concrete slump, and degree of consolidation. 0here is a nearly linear increase in bond strength ith increasing concrete cover. Casting position affects bond strength because increasing the amount of concrete belo the bar increases settlement and bleeding hich lo ers bond strength. Ultimate bond strength decreases ith increasing slump. 6ac* of vibration reduces bond strength. +n summary, hile there are several other significant variables, coating on rebar does reduce relative bond strength. 0hat means that increased development length is re)uired

for splice and anchorage lengths 9 there is no re)uirement for increased cross!sectional area of the steel. ;2, ;3, 3rror4 -eference source not found 'hat does this mean in practical termsQ Using a typical bridge design for a three!thousand ft &I"; m( bridge, fifty ft &"? m( ide, the added splice length ould be appro#imately t elve hundred ft &3EE m( of additional rebar for an additional cost of appro#imately si#! hundred dollars on an eleven million dollar proJect 9 an appro#imate A.AA?B increase in cost. 5ecause of concern raised about the effect of loss of adhesion of epo#y coating to steel on bond strength, ;; the $%'A sponsored a study comparing pullout strength among uncoated bars, coated bars, and debonded coated bars. 0heir findings sho ed that there ere measurable differences, but they ere not large enough to constitute a structural safety problem. 0he conclusion4 7A 2A to 3A percent degree of disbondment bet een the epo#y coating and its steel substrate for bars used as the main fle#ural reinforcement of a one! ay slab does not compromise the slab,s fle#ural capacity.8 ;?

Conclusion
0he increasing scrutiny follo ing the $lorida Ceys bridges phenomenon sho s continued successful performance of epo#y!coated rebar to protect structures from corrosion induced deterioration. Ge information generated by those evaluations and the many research studies are changing and improving the coating and construction industry. Significantly improved attention to detail has resulted in far superior coated reinforcement compared to only a fe years ago.

"A

References

""

7Ge Development in 6aboratory 0esting of 3po#y Coated -einforcing Steel,8 6ee, S. C., Mc+ntyre, /. $., and %artt, '. %., GAC3, "II;. 2 7$53C -ebars Must not be Used,8 Car, A. C., 0he +ndian Concrete /ournal, /anuary 2AA;. 3 7$53C -ebars Must be Used,8 Singha -oy, P. C., 0he +ndian Concrete /ournal, /anuary 2AA;. ; 7-ole of Adhesion and etting Properties of $usion 5onded 3po#y &$53( Coating in Corrosion Control of -ebars used in 5ridge Dec*s8, Marughese, C., the +nternational Conference on Corrosion and -ehabilitation of -einforced Concrete Structures, =rlando $lorida 9 Dec. "IIH. ? 7Modes and Mechanisms for the Degradation of $usion!5onded 3po#y!Coated Steel in a Marine Concrete 3nvironment,8 Gguyen, 0, and Martin, /. '., /C0 -esearch, Mol. ", Go. 2, April 2AA;. E 7-evie of Concrete Structural Deterioration Due to -einforcement Corrosion in Marine 3nvironment8, 5arou*y, $.$., !"st +nternational Conference on Performance of -ebar Protection Systems, Abu Dhabi UA3, "IIF. F 75ehavior of 3po#y Po der Coatings on Mild Steel Under Al*ali Condition8 Dar in, A. 5., Scantlebury, /. D. ! /ournal of Corrosion Science R 3ngineering Molume 2, August "III. H 7$usion!5onded 3po#y Coated -ebar,8 Strobel, -. $., 3M, April "II". I 7$ield 3valuation of 5ridge Corrosion Protection Measures,8 Sherman, M. -., Carras)uillo, -. /., and $o ler, D. '., Center for 0ransportation -esearch, 0he University of 0e#as at Austin, March "II3. "A 7-esearch Directions in Cathodic Protection for %igh ay 5ridges,8 Schell, %. C. and Manning, D. .., Gational Association of Corrosion 3ngineers, "IHI. "" 7-esistance to Chloride +on Penetration of Concrete,8 Gai*, G., Sehn, A., GAC3 Corcon 2AA;, Ge Delhi, +ndia, December 2AA;. "2 73ffect of Chemical and Mineral Admi#tures on the Corrosion of Steel in Concrete,8 Gmai, C. C. and Attiogbe, 3. C., GAC3 +nternational, "II2. "3 70he -ole of $. *, and D in Durable Concrete Structures,8 Medala*shmi, -, Palanisamy, G, GataraJan, C., /eya, S., GAC3 Corcon 2AA;, Ge Delhi, +ndia, December 2AA;. "; 7-esistance to Chloride +on Penetration of Concrete,8 Gai*, G, Sehn, A, GAC3 Corcon 2AA;, Ge Delhi, +ndia, December 2AA;. "? 7Concrete Durability problems in the Arabian .ulf -egion,8 Saricimen, %, Proceedings of the ; th +nternational Conference on Deterioration and -epair of -einforced Concrete, pp. I;3!I?I, =ctober "II3. "E 7Kinc Coating on Construction 5ars 9 a Panacea to Corrosion in -einforced Concrete Composites,8 5hattacharyya, 0, Sar*ar, S, Cha*rabarti, +, 5hattacharJee, D, and Mahesh ari, M. D., GAC3 Corcon 2AA;, Ge Delhi, +ndia, December 2AA;. "F 7Performance of 3po#y Coated -ebar, .alvani1ed -ebar, and Plain -ebar ith Calcium Gitrite in a Marine 3nvironment,8 5ur*e, D., University of Sheffield, 3ngland, "II;. "H 7Corrosion Performance of 3po#y!Coated -einforcement,8 Cahhaleh, C. K., Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil 3ngineering, 0he University of 0e#as at Austin, 0S, May "II;. "I 7-esisting Corrosion,8 6ee, S, Crauss, P. D., Mirmani, O. P., Public -oads, May!/une 2AA?. 2A Fusion-Bonded Epoxy (FBE): A Foundation for Pipeline Corrosion Protection, 8 Cehr, /. A., GAC3 +nternational, 2AA3. 2" 7Performance of 3po#y!Coated -ebars in 5ridge Dec*s,8 Smith, /. 6., Mirmani, O. P., C-S+ reprint from Public -oads, "III. 22 73po#y Coated -ebar 5enefits Minnesota Dec*,8 Allen, /., Roads and Bridges, /une "II3. 23 73valuation of 5ridge Dec*s Using 3po#y Coated -einforcement,8 Cessler, -. -., 6ipscomb, D., 'est Mirginia Department of 0ransportation Division of %igh ays, /anuary "II;. 2; 70esting 5ridges ith 3po#y Coated -ebarL"II2,8 $in*le, -. .., Schult1, -. 6., 'ashington State D=0 memorandum, December "II3. 2? 7A -eport on the Performance of 3po#y Coated -einforcement Steel in Substructures of Coastal 5ridges in Gorth Carolina,8 Materials 0est Unit, Gorth Carolina D=0, =ctober "II3. 2E 73po#y!Coated -ebar4 A -evie ,8 Geff, 0. 6., Concrete -einforcing Steel +nstitute, -evie draft, "II;. 2F 7Corrosion of Gonspecification 3po#y!Coated -ebars in Salty Concrete,8 Clear, C. C., Mirmani, O. P. Public -oads, Mol. ;F, Gumber ", "IH3. 2H 7Performance 3valuation of 3po#y!Coated -einforcing Steel and Corrosion +nhibitors in a Simulated Concrete Pore 'ater Solution,8 Pyc, '. A., Masters thesis4 Mirginia Polytechnic +nstitute and State University, $ebruary ";, "IIF. 2I 7Condition and Performance of 3po#y!Coated -ebars in 5ridge Dec*s,8 Sohanghpur ala, A. A., Scannell, '. 0., Public -oads, Govember@December "III. 3A 7Corrosion of 3po#y Coated -ebar in $lorida 5ridges,8 SagTUs, A. A., P.+., College of 3ngineering, University of South $lorida, May "II;. 3" 7Corrosion Process and $ield Performance of 3po#y Coated -einforcing Steel in Marine Substructures,8 SagTUs, A. A., Po ers, -. .., and Cessler, -., Gational Association of Corrosion 3ngineers, "II;. 32 7=regon 0est Pile, 6og 2AI -ebar 3valuation for the =regon Department of 0ransportation,8 3M 6aboratory 3valuation -eport, "IHI. 33 7Gonmetallic Coatings for Concrete -einforcing 5ars,8 Clifton, /. -., 5eeghly, %. $., and Mathey, -. .., US Department of 0ransportation, $ebruary "IF;.
"

7.ood 3C-5 %andling Cey to Durability,8 Mughrabi, K, .ulfContrtuction=nline, Mol. SSM, Go. E, /une 2AA;. 7C-S+ Puality Control Survey, $ilm 0hic*ness and %olidays,8 Geff, 0. 6., C-S+, "II2. 3E 7Stainless Steel -einforcement -ebar for Durable Structures,8 /ayasan*ar, C. -., GAC3 Corcon 2AA;, Ge Delhi, +ndia, December 2AA;. 3F 7Performance of 3po#y!Coated -ebar, .alvani1ed -ebar, and Plain -ebar ith Calcium Gitrite in a Marine 3nvironment,8 5ur*e, D. $., Gaval $acilities 3ngineering Service Center, /uly "II;. 3H AS0M A I3;@A I3; M 9 AA, 73po#y!Coated Prefabricated Steel -einforcing 5ars,8 &'est Conshohoc*en, PA4 AS0M, -eapproved 2AAA(. 3I V3#ternal and +nternal Pipeline Coatings in Arabian .ulf Area,V 'ard, D.C., Moore, 3.M. and %a *ins, P./., Proceedings ?th +nternational Conference on +nternal and 3#ternal Protection of Pipes, +nnsbruc*, =ctober "IH3. ;A 7Corrosion Control for the -ichmond@San -afael 5ridge,8 %ot1, 3, =,-eilly, M. 0., Materials Performance, =ctober 2AA3. ;" 7Studies on Damage and Corrosion Performance of $abricated 3po#y Coated -einforcement,8 Cahhaleh, C. K., Chao, %. O., /irsa, /. =., Carras)uillo, -. 6., and 'heat, %. .., Center for 0ransportation -esearch, 0he University of 0e#as at Austin, /anuary "II3. ;2 75ond of 3po#y Coated -einforcement to Concrete Cover4 Casting Position, Slump, and Consolidation,8 %adJe!.haffari, %., Choi, =. C., Dar in, D., and McCabe, S. 6., 0he University of Cansas for -esearch, +nc., /une "II2. ;3 7$inite 3lement $racture Analysis of Steel Concrete 5ond,8 5ro n, C., Dar in, D., and McCabe, S. 6., 0he University of Cansas Center for -esearch, +nc., Govember "II3. ;; 73ffectiveness of 3po#y Coated -einforcing SteelL$inal -eport,8 Clear, C. C., Canadian Strategic %igh ay -esearch Program, "II2. ;? 7Structural 3ffects of 3po#y Coating Disbondment,8 Chase, S. 5., $%'A!-D!I3!A??, Govember "II3.
3; 3?