PROS AND CONS OF HALF-CELL POTENTIALS AND CORROSION RATE

MEASUREMENTS
Thomas Frlund
Germann Instruments A/S
Emdrupvej 102
DK-2400 Copenhagen
Denmark

Oskar Klinghoffer
Force Technology
Park Alle 345
DK-2605 Brndby
Denmark

Henrik E. Srensen
Force Technology
Park Alle 345
DK-2605 Brndby
Denmark

Structural Faults + Repairs, International Conference, London, U.K., July 1st-July 3rd, 2003
KEYWORDS: Half cell potential (HCP), Corrosion rate (Icorr), Galvanostatic Pulse Measurements
(GPM), concrete structures
ABSTRACT
Half-cell potentials and corrosion rate measurements are compared and evaluated.
The paper presents four different on-site cases. The first example is from a bridge pillar exposed to deicing salts. This example shows a good correlation between corrosion rate and half- cell potential
mapping. The second is a dry structure where high half-cell potentials were measured and shown to be
directly misleading, while the corrosion rate provided the reliable results.
In the third testing case very low half-cell potentials were measured in a wet structure, and shown not to
be a reliable indicator of the corrosion activity, again indicated accurately by the determination of
corrosion rate.
The last example is an underground parking with leaking water/ de-icing salts from the above street.
In this case the half -cell potentials indicated high corrosion risk while the corrosion rate is rather low.
In all cases the actual corrosion was documented by exposing the reinforcement during visual inspection.
BACKGROUND
Since 1978 Half Cell Potential (HCP) mapping [1] has been used for detecting corroding areas on
concrete structures in Denmark. In the beginning (after balcony gangway has totally collapsed) this
method was mainly used on carbonated structures and balconies exposed to de-icing salts. Later the
method was used for all kind of structures and the experiences were discussed in Newsletters published
by the Danish Corrosion Centre [2]. It was early recognised that the interpretation of the HCP results
were difficult or misleading in wet and semi-wet structures where lack of oxygen as well as corrosion
would lead to potential gradients. A typical potential map of a highway bridge pillar is shown in fig.1.
The pillar is exposed to de-icing salts splashed from the passing cars up to a level of 2 meters, but also
has a high humidity at the ground level caused by capillary suction. The water filled pore system in the
concrete makes the potential drop because the oxygen necessary to maintain the passive film will not be
able to diffuse into the concrete fast enough.

2 meter
HCP vs. Ag/AgCl
0 mV
-50 mV
-100 mV
-150 mV
-200 mV
-250 mV
-300 mV
-400 mV
-450 mV

0 meter

Fig.1. Typical potential map of a high way concrete pillar exposed to de-icing salts
The ongoing corrosion process is described by the chemical reaction:
2Fe+O2+2H2O2Fe+++4OHThe Fe++ forms at the high pH in concrete a complex protective film with oxygen. This film can be
broken down by the chloride ions from de-icing salts or by neutralising of the high pH eg. by carbonation.
The interpretation problem is that the potential will drop either because the loss of passive film due to
lack of oxygen (the corrosion process will not be able to proceed without oxygen) or because chlorides
breaks down the passive film and start corrosion.
In 1994 it was decided to develop an equipment for concrete structures based on well know techniques for
determination of corrosion rates to be able to distinguish between active corrosion and the lack of oxygen
situation.
The results presented in this paper are all based on Galvanostatic Pulse Measurements (GPM). This
polarisation technique makes it possible within a short time (typically 10 seconds) to calculate the
corrosion rate [3,4]. The equipment gives both the corrosion rate and the half-cell potential as well as the
resistance between the hand-held electrode placed on the examined concrete surface and the
reinforcement.
Four different examples from on-site investigations are described below, one where there is a good
correlation between the HCP method and the GPM method and 3 where the HCP measurements are
misleading.
EXAMPLES OF ON-SITE INVESTIGATIONS
Example nr.1
Two parallel bridges were built in 1965-67 in the Copenhagen area, where the highway crosses over a
railway line, a parking lot and two minor roads. The eastern bridge was rehabilitated extensively at a very
high price in 1978, after which the western bridge have only received much less rehabilitation, but
substantial inspection, test- loadings, probabilistic assessment etc., which essentially have kept the bridge
in function at a much less cost that the eastern part.
Initial inspections, core investigations and chloride profiling in 1999 (fig. 2) pointed out column No.S303
to be suitable for corrosion rate measurements. Electrical continuity in the reinforcement was checked and
a permanent connection was welded to the reinforcement.
2

Chloride profiles in 1999 at level 0.3 m and 1 m

Chloride content, % weight of concrete

0.16
max carbonation front
0.14
0.3 m
1m

0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Depth, mm

Fig 2. Chloride profiles at level 0.3m and level 1 m

The vertical reinforcement (35 mm) is typically in 60 mm depth and the horizontal (14 mm) in 40 mm
depth. Already in 1999 the chloride content in level 0.3 m is so high that active corrosion can be
expected. In September 2000 and in April 2001 corrosion rates were determined together with the halfcell potentials and resistance measurements [5] (fig 3).

Column S303 : Resistance (kOhm)

200
75-90

166

100
66

60-75
Height, cm

133

45-60
30-45
15-30

1 mm vertical
cracks in the
column

33
0-15
0

30

60

West

90

120

150

180

South

210

240

270

East

300

330

0
360

North

West

Degrees from due West

Column S303 : Corrosion rate ( A/cm2)

200

0-2
2-4

166

100

Height, cm

133

66

1 mm
vertical
cracks in
the column

30

60

90

120

150

South

West

180

210

240

East

270

300

330

North

6-8
8-10
10-12
12-14
14-16

33

4-6

16-18

0
360

18-20

West

Degrees from due West

Column S303 : HCP-measurements (mV CSE)
100-150
50-100
200

0-50

166

-50-0

100

1 mm
vertical
cracks in
the column
0

West

30

60

90

120

South

150

180

East

210

240

270

300

North

Degrees from due West

330

Height,
cm

133

-100--50
-150--100
-200--150

66

-250--200

33

-300--250

0
360

West

-350--300
-400--350
-450--400
-500--450

Fig. 3 Resistance, half-cell potentials and corrosion rates in September 2000

In this case there is a rather good correlation between resistance, half-cell potential and corrosion rate
mapping. To verify the corrosion state a break-up was made at the position 90 degrees south near ground
level, see fig. 4.

Fig. 4 Corroding reinforcement. Cross

section loss : 1-2 mm
As the constructions have been examined close during the last 20 years it is possible to make a good
estimate of the initiation of corrosion. Calculation of the average corrosion rate from the cross section loss
of app. 2 mm and assuming the corrosion was initiated after app. 10 years gives an average corrosion rate
of 9A/cm2, which is with in the range of corrosion rates determined at this position by the GPM.
The very low half-cell potentials agree with the high corrosion activity.
Example 2.
The next two examples are from a bridge foundation and a bridge deck in Greenland.
The foundation was investigated in the tidal zone as shown in fig. 5 [6].

Typical cover: 15-50 mm

High Tide
Chloride profile

1,0

Chloride content
[% by mass of concrete]

0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0

Low tide

10

20

30

40

50

Depth below concrete surface [mm]

Fig. 5. The investigated area and the location of the chloride profile.

The chloride concentration in the depth of the reinforcement is in the range between 0,3% and 0,7% of
the concrete weight. As indicated by the half-cell potential measurements corrosion should therefore be
expected. However the measured corrosion rates are low and the verification by visual inspection (fig. 7)
shows no damage to the reinforcement.
Half cell potential map of bridge foundation. Potential in mV vs. Ag/AgCl

90

200-250

120

100-150
50-100
0-50

150

-50-0
-100--50

180

-150--100
-200--150

210

-250--200
-300--250

240

-350--300

Distance from top [cm]

150-200

-400--350
-450--400
510

270
480

450

420

390

360

330

300

270

240

210

Corrosion rate map. Corrosion rates

in A/cm
Distance
from edge [cm]

180

150

120

90

60

30

90

1,00-2,00

120

2,00-3,00
150

3,00-4,00
4,00-5,00

180

5,00-6,00
6,00-7,00

210

7,00-8,00
240

8,00-9,00

Distance from top [cm]

0,00-1,00

9,00-10,00
270
510

480

450

420

390

360

330

300

270

240

210

180

150

120

90

60

30

Distance from edge [cm]

Fig. 6 HCP and Icorr of bridge foundation

Fig. 7 Foto of break-up

Example 3.
The bridge deck from the same bridge in Greenland showed very different results as shown on fig. 8 and
fig. 9.
Chloride profile

1,0
0,9
Chloride content
[% by mass of concrete]

Chloride profile

Corrosion mapping

0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Depth below concrete surface [mm]

Fig.8 The investigated area and the location of the chloride profile.
The typical dept of the reinforcement is here minimum 40-50 mm and the chloride concentration in this
depth is near 0, 3% of the concrete weight. At this high chloride concentrations the half-cell potentials are
expected to be low but the most negative values measured are all above -100 mV vs. Ag/AgCl (fig. 9).

Half cell potentials in mV vs. Ag/AgCl reference electrode

210

150-200

180

100-150
50-100

150

0-50
-50-0
-100--50

120

-150--100
-200--150

90

-250--200
-300--250
-350--300

60

-400--350
-450--400
30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

360

390

420

450

Distance from sidewalk [cm]

200-250

30
480

Distance from dilatation joint [cm]

Fig.9. The read circle indicates the location of the chloride profile and the break-up shown at fig. 11.
The corrosion rate map fig.10 shows a completely different picture and indicates active corrosion at
several locations.

Corrosion rates in A/cm2

180

2,5-5,0
5,0-7,5

150

7,5-10,0
120

10,0-12,5
90

12,5-15,0
15,0-17,5

60

17,5-20,0
30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

360

390

420

450

Distance from sidewalk [cm]

210

0,0-2,5

30
480

Distance from dilatation joint [cm]

Fig.10. Corrosion rate of the bridge deck. The read circle indicates the location of the chloride profile and
the break-up shown at fig. 11. The photo in fig 11 shows the reinforcement covered with a thin layer of
corrosion products. The ribs at the reinforcement are still intact but corroded.

Fig.11. The first picture shows the corroded reinforcement and some water from cooling the diamond
cutting blade. The second picture shows the damage and the mortar repairs.
General comments to examples 2 and 3.
This bridge is located in a very cold environment. During the measurements described above the
temperature was 15 C at midday and this explains the rather high corrosion rates at the bridge deck.
Further there were some damages to the concrete surface due to the traffic directly on the concrete surface
and a lot of mortar repairs.

Example 4.
The last example is an underground car park in the Copenhagen area. The rather constant temperature is
around 15 C during the whole year. Most of the observed damages are due to the leakage of water/deicing salts from the street above. Also de-icing salt from the parked cars in the winter causes damage to
the walls near the floor. The concrete was very dry during the investigation. The walls were surface
treated with the protective coating. At the locations where water was leaking into the construction the
coating was scaling (fig. 12.)

Fig. 12. Leaking of water and de-icing salts cause scaling of coating.
Due to high resistance caused by the coating it was difficult to measure the corrosion rate in the coated
areas. Furthermore the half-cell potential measurements are unreliable at the locations with high
resistance. In the scaled areas measurements were performed with both HCP and GPM techniques .
The HCP measurements from a typical area of the wall are presented in fig. 13.
Carpark wall
HCP
mV vs. Ag/AgCl

240
210

200-250
150-200

180

100-150

120
90

distance , cm

150

50-100
0-50
-50-0
-100--50
-150--100

60
30

Floor level

0
O

-200--150
-250--200
-300--250
-350--300

position

Fig. 13. Potential map of typical area with leakage of water from the street above and capillary suction of
water from the car park floor.
By galvanostatic pulse measurements the actual corrosion rate in the position between I and G at floor
level was estimated to be 0,9 A/cm2. The picture (fig. 14) shows some corroded area but no cross
section loss and the tie wire is intact. In this example both HCP and GPM measurements point out places

with active corrosion. The rather low corrosion rate is in good correlation with the cross section loss
observed while the low half cell potentials indicates a high risk of high corrosion activity.

Fig.14. Exposed reinforcement at floor level in car park wall where HCP show very low values.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Two techniques for evaluation of reinforcement corrosion, half-cell potential (HCP) and
galvanostatic pulse measurements (GPM) are presented and discussed.
2. The evaluation of corrosion by means of the traditional half-cell potential technique using the
existing standards may lead to mistakes in cases where the concrete is water saturated, carbonated
and also exposed to the very low temperature.
3. Complimentary measurements by means of galvanostatic pulse technique determining the
corrosion rate contribute to the unambiguous evaluation of reinforcement corrosion also under
conditions where the results obtained by the HCP technique could be misleading.
4. Four examples from on-site measurements are presented. Three of them show the need of using
corrosion rate measurements together with half-cell potential for reliable evaluation of the actual
corrosion state.
5. It is not possible to estimate the actual loss of cross sectional area of the reinforcement from a
single GPM measurement. If multiple GPM measurements are taken over a period of time, an
average value can be estimated. Alternatively the reinforcement must be exposed in the most
corrosion active areas as done in these 4 examples.

10

REFERENCES:
[1] American Society of Testing and Materials. Standard Test Method for Half-Cell Potentials of
uncoated Reinforcing Steel in Concrete. ASTM C876, 1987.
[2] Arup H., "Potential Mapping of Reinforced Concrete Structures", The Danish Corrosion Centre
Report, January 1984
[3] Klinghoffer, O., Rislund, E., Frlund, T., Elsener, B., Schiegg and Y.;Bhni H. "Assessment of
Reinforcement Corrosion by Galvanostatic Pulse Technique, Proc. Int. Conf. on Repair of Concrete
Strictures, Svolvaer, Norway, pp 391 - 400,1997.
[4] Mietz, J. and Isecke, B., "Electrochemical Potential Monitoring on Reinforced Concrete Structures
using Anodic Pulse Technique", in "Non destructive Testing in Civil Engineering" ed. Bungey, H.,
The British Institute of NDT, 2, 567,1993.
[5] Frlund T., Jensen F.M and Bssler R.,: "Determination of corrosion rate by means of the
galvanostatic pulse technique." First International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and
Management. IABMAS 2002.Barcelona 2002.
[6] Srensen H.E., Frlund T., "Monitoring of Reinforcement Corrosion in Marine Concrete Structures
by the Galvanostatic Pulse Method", Proceedings of International Conference on Concrete in marine
Environments, Hanoi-Vietnam, October 2002.

11