Alternative methodology for on site monitoring of
corrosion and remediation of reinforced concrete
N. Birbilis and B. W. Cherry
Difficulties associated with the interpretation of site data
collected over long periods of time from commonly used
corrosion monitoring techniques for steel reinforcement in
concrete, such as corrosion potential measurements and linear
polarisation resistance, often make it difficult to assess
accurately the extent of corrosion. An alternative
methodology for the interpretation of data is proposed, based
upon a model of the quality of the passive film on the steel
surface. This model leads to a representation of the corrosion
state by means of the relationship, over a long period of time,
between the corrosion potential and the logarithm of the
linear polarisation resistance. For the reinforced concrete
panels tested in this study, data points representing this
relationship closely fitted a family of results. This led to the
development of a so called ‘monitoring control diagram’,
MCD, in which for a fixed geometry and fixed experimental
conditions, a relationship between the corrosion potential and
polarisation resistance of steel exists. The establishment of an
MCD may enable the development of a useful monitoring
tool. CEST/2111
Keywords: corrosion in concrete, monitoring, reinforcing
steel, polarisation resistance, remediation
The authors (brian.cherry@spme.monash.edu.au) are in the
School of Physics and Materials Engineering, Monash
University, PO Box 69M. Vic. 3800, Australia. Manuscript
received 21 October 2003; accepted 13 October 2004.
# 2004 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining.
Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute.
INTRODUCTION
The ability to monitor the corrosion of steel buried beneath
several centimetres of concrete presents certain challenges,
especially in terms of physical inspections. On site electro-
chemical techniques that have been developed to monitor
corrosion processes that may be occurring at the reinforce-
ment surface, but of which there is as yet no evidence on the
concrete surface, include half cell potential measurements
and linear polarisation resistance measurements.1 Each of
these techniques provides some information as to what is
going on within the concrete, but none give the complete
story.2,3 In particular, the changes in the environment that
are an inevitable feature of site measurements introduce
random variations into the data that can often mask
underlying fundamental changes in the corrosion process.
This paper attempts to introduce an approach to analysing
data from such techniques, which aims to lead to more
meaningful conclusions. The paper will illustrate this
technique by using it in the context of ranking different
corrosion remediation techniques.
Corrosion potentials
Measuring the corrosion potential Ecorr of reinforcing steel
is the commonest of the corrosion monitoring methods
available, and is widely used in practice to give an indi-
cation of the possible corrosion risk. Corrosion potential
monitoring is outlined in ASTM C876.4 However, in this
standard, the corrosion potential is claimed only to indicate
the relative risk of corrosion; there is no provision of
DOI 10.1179/174327804X13154 Corrosion Engineering, Science and Technology 2004 Vol. 39 No. 4
quantitative information regarding corrosion rates. The
standard suggests that passivity of the reinforcement may
be lost at potentials more negative than 2150 mV(Cu/
CuSO4).4
The indication of corrosion risk by the corrosion
potential reading may be rationalised on the basis of a
simple model of the quality of passive film that protects the
steel. If it is assumed that in unit area of the metal/concrete
interface, an area l is covered by a passive film, then an
area (1-l), is bare metal. The driving potential for the
corrosion current is the difference between the equilibrium
electrode potentials of the oxygen reduction (cathodic)
reaction and the iron dissolution (anodic) reaction. Here,
the ‘equilibrium’ electrode potential is taken as the elec-
trode potential at the exchange current density in the
environment to which the electrode is currently subjected.
These ‘equilibrium’ potentials may be termed E co and E ao
respectively. The associated exchange current densities for
these reactions are i co and i ao . The electrical resistance
associated with the cathodic portion of unit area of the
metal/concrete interface will be termed rc and that asso-
ciated with the anodic portion of unit area of the interface
will be termed ra.
The open circuit corrosion potential Ecorr is, in the
absence of diffusion overpotential effects, determined by
the resistance and activation polarisation of the cathodic
and anodic processes. Its variation with the values of l, ra
and rc may, therefore, be calculated on the basis that the
anodic and cathodic processes are polarised to the same
value.
The cathodic process takes place on the filmed surface.
At the open circuit potential, in unit area, the total cathodic
current, I ccorr , emanating from the filmed area l is equal to
the total anodic current I acorr , emanating from the unfilmed
area (1–l). The cathodic current density at the corrosion
potential, i ccorr , is, therefore, equal to I ccorr /l and the anodic
current density, i acorr , is equal to I acorr /(1-l). The cathodic
current density can be related to the corrosion potential by
the following expression5
{2:3(Ecorr {Eoc zIcorr rc )
c
icorr ~ioc exp : : : : (1)
bc
where bc is the cathodic Tafel slope, i.e. the modulus of the
slope of the cathodic Tafel plot of potential versus log
current. A similar expression to that of equation (1) can be
written for the anodic process.
By equating the values of I acorr and I ccorr at the corrosion
potential, it can be seen that
{2:3(Ecorr {Eoc zIcorr rc )
lioc exp ~
bc
: : : : (2)
a z2:3(Ecorr {Eoa zIcorr ra )
(1{l)io exp
ba
If we define a as a measure of the integrity of the passive
film representing the ratio of filmed to unfilmed area, such
that a is l/(12l), and we now put
1 2:3(bc zba )
~ : : : : : : : : : : : (2a)
B ba bc
K~Eoa =Eoc : : : : : : : : : : : : : (2b)
321
322 Birbilis and Cherry On site monitoring of corrosion and remediation of reinforced concrete

and if as a first approximation we put rc5ra5r, we obtain

Ecorr Icorr r
ln(a)~Kz z : : : : : : : : : (3)
B B
or
Ecorr ~B½ln(a){K
{Icorr r : : : : : : : : (4)
Equation (4) gives a qualitative rationalisation of the
ASTM C876 criteria. If Ecorr is written as
Ecorr ~fnfa,r,Icorr g
then
dEcorr B La Lr
~ zr {r : : : : : : (4a)
dIcorr a LIcorr LIcorr
1 Diagrammatic representation of setup for corrosion
monitoring cell
and since all the terms on the right hand side of
equation (4a) are negative, this indicates an increase in
the corrosion current as the corrosion potential becomes Hence, since
more negative. Although this is generally observed, it has Ii ~Ipa {Ipc : : : : : : : : : : : : : : (5)
been shown6 that corrosion potentials measured at the
surface of the concrete vary markedly with the thick- where Ii is the impressed current per unit area of the metal
ness and resistivity of the concrete. This is a significant surface so that
limitation of corrosion potential measurement as a mon- Ii ~(1{l)ipa {(l)ipc : : : : : : : : : : : (6)
itoring technique. It is also possible that corrosion
 :   : 
potentials can provide misleading information when used c 2 3g a 2 3g
with some more recently developed remediation measures. Ii ~licorr exp {(1{l)icorr exp (7)
bc ba
For example, inhibitors may have a significant impact
on either the exchange current densities or the Tafel slopes Differentiating equation (7) with respect to g yields, when
of either cathodic or anodic corrosion reactions.7 In such g50, and (12l)i acorr 5li ccorr
cases the relative movement of Ecorr may give no indication  
dIi 1 1
of the effectiveness of the inhibitor. Anticarbonation ~2:3icorr z : : : : : : : : : (8)
dg ba bc
coatings and silane type concrete coatings may affect the
resistance polarisation components of the cathodic or If s is the total area of corroding electrode involved, the
anodic corrosion processes by varying amounts and so, ratio of the total applied current to the potential shift is
again, a reduction in corrosion current may be accompa- given by sIi/g. This is the reciprocal of the polarisation
nied by either positive or negative movements of the resistance RP of the entire system that is receiving current
corrosion potential. This is predicted by equation (3) since from a counter electrode so that finally
the measured value of corrosion potential will be reliant 1 ba bc 1 B
upon the Tafel behaviour associated with the anodic icorr ~ : ~ : : : : : : : (9)
2 3s ba zbc RP sRP
and cathodic processes, also a, the ratio of filmed to
unfilmed metal, and Icorr, which includes components A modification of equation (4) incorporating equation (9)
from both the anodic and cathodic exchange currents. As gives a relationship between the corrosion potential and
a result, a more independent estimate of the corrosion polarisation resistance of a metal.
current is required when assessing corrosion remediation  
r
measures. Ecorr ~ ln(a)zK{ B : : : : : : : : (10)
RP
Linear polarisation resistance The value of B has been variously reported to lie between
A common method of monitoring the corrosion rate of 26 mV and 52 mV for the steel in concrete systems.9 Both
concrete reinforcement is based on the linear polarisation the values of B and s are somewhat uncertain in practical
resistance (LPR) technique as developed for metals in cases, thus equation (9) cannot give entirely accurate
solution in the late 1950s.8 In the LPR technique, the figures for the rate of corrosion. It will, however, be
potential of the steel is scanned over a small range in suggested there is considerable value in monitoring with
the vicinity of the corrosion (open circuit) potential. As LPR, especially for determining relative corrosion rates
the current densities and potential shifts associated with brought upon by environmental changes in samples with
the technique are small, it was considered in the original fixed geometry.
derivation of the theory that mass transport (diffusion) As equation (10), although derived by a simple techni-
effects could be neglected. The slope of the polarisation que, indicates the effect of the electrochemical parameters
curve (i.e. the potential change divided by the applied on the relationship between Ecorr and RP, this relationship
current) at the point at which the applied current equals can be used to explore conditions under which (say) the
zero is defined as RP, or the polarisation resistance, and electrical resistivity of the concrete or the integrity of the
is considered a measure of the opposition to metallic passive film may affect the open circuit potential and hence
dissolution. the assessment of the probability of corrosion when using
The classical method for the derivation of the value of the methods such as ASTM C876.
linear polarisation resistance may be applied to the bi-
electrode system considered above, where the cathodic area
is by definition covered by passive film, and the anodic area EXPERIMENTAL
is bare metal. If the system being considered is polarised by A number of precast reinforced concrete fascia panels were
a small amount to a new potential g (mV) negative to the obtained. These panels were 75 mm thick and reinforced
corrosion potential, then putting the anodic current flowing along their centreline by a mesh of 8 mm diameter
in unit area of surface equal to I ap , we can define reinforcing steel. Corrosion probes of the form indicated
I ap 5(12l)i ap and I cp 5li cp . in Fig. 1 were installed (retrofitted) into the panels just

Corrosion Engineering, Science and Technology 2004 Vol. 39 No. 4

 Birbilis and Cherry On site monitoring of corrosion and remediation of reinforced concrete
2 Preremediation data of Ecorr versus 1/RP for the fascia
panels. Steel area probed is 100 cm2
above an intersection point of the reinforcing mesh. The
probes installed consisted of an Ag/AgCl (Sat.) reference
electrode mounted such that its tip was about 20 mm from
the reinforcing bar, and two mixed metal oxide coated
titanium rods that served as counter electrodes provided a
polarising current to the reinforcing steel within the
concrete. The cell design was such that nominally 100 cm2
of reinforcing steel could be polarised during testing. The
corrosion potential was measured using the reference
electrode, while sufficient current was then provided by
the counter electrodes to the reinforcing bar to shift the
corrosion potential in the cathodic direction by no more
than 20 mV to determine RP. In all cases a portable 3LP
device was used for the measurements.
The panels were made from high quality concrete and
were initially in a non-corroding state. They were subjected
to various wet–dry cycles in order to stimulate and suppress
corrosion so that a spectrum of results could be obtained
for panels of varying corrosion activity. Subsequently the
panels were all brought into a corroded state by means of
anodic polarisation, while a chloride containing solution
was applied to the surface. In the second phase of the
experiments, various remediation techniques were applied
to the corroding panels in order to assess the relative
effectiveness of these techniques. Remediation techniques
investigated in this paper were a surface applied organic
migrating corrosion inhibitor (MCI) and a Silane cream,
both of which are classed as penetrants.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In view of the relationship of the two criteria for the
detection of corrosion (i.e. the measurement of the
corrosion potential or the RP) indicated by equation (10),
it was decided to determine the variation in Ecorr with the
reciprocal of the polarisation resistance for the fascia panels
over a period of several months. The results are presented
in Fig. 2. These results indicate an apparent trend in the
data, in that all results obtained (from twelve distinct and
separate monitoring locations) seem to fit a ‘family’ of
results.
From equation (10) and Fig. 2, certain assumptions can
be made about the relationship between the open circuit
potential (Ecorr) and the polarisation resistance. If B can be
considered to be constant, (this assumption will be
questioned later) then it may be suggested that in the more
positive Ecorr (corresponding to a larger RP) region of
Fig. 2, that the second term in equation (10) is small by
comparison with the first. As a result, the value of Ecorr is
primarily controlled by the integrity of the passive film in
such cases. Similarly it may be suggested that, the more
negative values of Ecorr are controlled primarily by the
Corrosion Engineering, Science and Technology 2004 Vol. 39 No. 4
323
3 Preremediation MCD (Ecorr versus log(RP)) for the fas-
cia panels
resistivity of the concrete through which the larger currents
are passing. This statement also corresponds to practical
findings discussed in Ref. 10, which aim to explain varia-
tions in the level of corrosion experienced by environ-
mentally exposed reinforced concrete by the degree of
saturation Sw of the concrete.
It was found that the curve of best fit included in Fig. 2
can be represented by
Ecorr ~{583{120½log(RP )

Consequently, given the relationship between Ecorr and RP,
a plot such as that seen in Fig. 3 can be developed. Figure 3
indicates that it may be possible to define a distinct
relationship between Ecorr and log RP, provided that the
important constraint of constant cell geometry for the
locations under investigation is met, and that this may be
used to develop an understanding of the corrosion and
inhibition mechanisms at work in a given situation.
It has been reported11 that the critical corrosion current
density of 1 mA m22 is considered by various authors to be
the borderline corrosion rate for passive steel in concrete.
The development of a plot such as that seen in Fig. 3, which
we shall define as a ‘monitoring control diagram’ (MCD),
can then indicate the value of Ecorr that corresponds to a
corrosion current density of 1 mA m22. In the case of the
panels that were examined, the polarisation cell was
constructed in such a way that 100 cm2 of reinforcing bar
is polarised. Assuming B in equation (3) is equal to 30 mV,
this indicates that a corrosion current density of 1 mA m22
corresponds to a corrosion potential of approximately
2150 mV. In this case there is a good consistency between
the results obtained using LPR measurements and ASTM–
C876. However the construction of an MCD such as that
seen in Fig. 3 can complement the use of ASTM–C876
since customised criteria can be established for each unique
situation under investigation. Weight is added to this
concept by measurements that were made on laboratory
prism specimens manufactured using a lower quality con-
crete. They also had a polarised area of reinforcement equal
to 100 cm2. In this case it was found that a corrosion
current density of 1 mA m22 corresponded to an Ecorr of
approximately 2220 mV.12 This highlights the fact that the
value of B cannot be assumed to be constant since the Tafel
behaviour of the anodic and cathodic processes may vary.
It also indicates the dependence of the MCD upon the
geometry of the polarisation cell and the corrosion
mechanism.
The notion of using MCDs, similar to that presented in
Fig. 3, to monitor the corrosion of concrete reinforcement
has several advantages. A major reason for this is that site
324 Birbilis and Cherry On site monitoring of corrosion and remediation of reinforced concrete
4 Hypothetical possible shifts in data when using an
MCD
measurements of the corrosion potential and polarisation
resistance against time can vary considerably from results
that may be obtained in the constant temperature/constant
humidity conditions that may be a feature of a well
controlled laboratory. Such site measurements, if consid-
ered as individual points, could be misleading due to
environmental factors of a cyclic nature.10,11,13
When monitoring with MCDs (Ecorr versus log RP), the
data obtained is combined into a ‘family’ of results that
characterise the system under investigation. This ‘family’ of
results includes those individual Ecorr and log Rp points
that are displaced from the fundamental Ecorr and log Rp
relationship by, for example, environmental factors, but
which are contained within an envelope about that
relationship. If monitoring occurs over a long period of
time, then data added to the MCD at later times makes it
obvious whether the form of the MCD remains constant
throughout the lifetime of a structure, or changes as a result
of environmental or aging factors that may be altering.
Once an MCD for a certain system has been established,
then this may act as tool for monitoring the effectiveness of
any subsequent corrosion remediation techniques. In order
to assess the effectiveness of certain corrosion remediation
techniques on the fascia panels, the panels under investiga-
tion were all brought into a similar state of corrosion (as
determined by potential and LPR measurements) by means
of electrochemical (anodic) polarisation. The results follow-
ing remediation for two forms of corrosion remediation
techniques are presented below, as an illustration of the use
of MCDs for this purpose.
Figure 4 shows an MCD for the unremediated (control)
panel. An envelope has been overlaid on the data with
arrows indicating directions in which data families could
possibly shift.
In the event that data families tend to shift towards the
direction denoted (1) in Fig. 4, then this corresponds to an
increase in RP and an increase in Ecorr of the reinforcement.
Both of these factors indicate increased levels of corrosion
resistance and would thus indicate that corrosion pro-
tection is being afforded when compared to the control
panel, based on the complementary data provided by Ecorr
and RP.
In the event that data families shift towards the direction
denoted (2), then this corresponds to the opposite situation,
whereby RP and Ecorr decrease, indicating that corrosion
intensity is becoming more severe based on the compli-
mentary data provided by Ecorr and RP. The type (1) and
type (2) shifts are in agreement with equation (10). The
physical basis for such shifts in the electrochemical
parameters has been discussed and may be attributed to
changes in the integrity of the passive film and the resistivity
of the concrete.
Corrosion Engineering, Science and Technology 2004 Vol. 39 No. 4
5 Post-remediation data for surface applied remediation
techniques
The directions denoted (3) and (4) indicate a more
complicated situation that does not immediately indicate
whether corrosion intensity is increasing or decreasing. An
examination of the situation provided by shifts towards
direction (3) indicates that in such a case the Ecorr value is
moving in a positive direction indicating enhanced passiv-
ity, however, RP is decreasing, indicating that the resistance
to corrosion is decreasing. These two observations are con-
tradictory, therefore further investigation of the observed
phenomena is required. The same is true when data deviates
towards direction (4). The Ecorr and RP values are again
contradictory indicating that further investigation is neces-
sary. There are several common practical situations that
may potentially give rise to data that would deviate towards
directions (3) and (4). Such situations could (say) arise as a
result of the activity of a corrosion macrocell for the former
and the use of a cathodic inhibitor for the latter, with such
shifts in the data not as easily predicted from equation (10).
A type ‘5’ shift, as seen in Fig. 4 indicates that the data have
remained the same as the control data and that there
appears to be no apparent effect (positive or negative) in
such a case.
Penetrants
In order to illustrate the practical implications of the
discussion above, Fig. 5 shows an MCD for MCI and
silane treated panels versus the control panel. All results
have been grouped into families to indicate the character-
istic behaviour of each panel, hence avoiding misleading
results due to environmental fluctuations. Envelopes have
once again been overlaid on the data points for the sake of
clarity and to emphasise the notion that families of results
are more significant than individual data points.
Looking again at Fig. 5, it can be seen, with respect to
the control (untreated) panel, that the MCI causes a
negative shift in Ecorr. Although the MCI tested is a
commercial product of which the active ingredients have
not been published, this behaviour is common to many
inhibitors that are known to be ‘cathodic’ in nature. It may
not necessarily indicate that corrosion attack is being
intensified.3 However, at this stage of the treatment (the
results reported are up to 24 months following MCI
application) when compared to the control panel, corrosion
rates (as judged by RP) are apparently higher for samples
treated with MCI, and this apparent effect has also been
found by other workers.14,15 It should be noted that such
MCIs depend for their action on diffusion processes7 and it
therefore may be some time before benefits from such a
remediation strategy become apparent. Based on the
discussion of Fig. 2 if corrosion were to be reduced by
the MCI treatment, then some modification of either the
passive film integrity or the concrete resistivity would be
 Birbilis and Cherry On site monitoring of corrosion and remediation of reinforced concrete
6 Ecorr versus 1/RP post-remediation data for surface
applied remediation techniques
required. In Fig. 5 it can be seen that in comparison with
the control results the MCI results have been rotated
clockwise and displaced to a lower potential – a tendency to
move in the ‘2’ direction of Fig. 4.
The panels treated with silane cream indicate a positive
shift in half cell potential and polarisation resistance when
compared to the control panel, i.e. a tendency to move in
the ‘1’ direction of Fig. 4. The positive shift in half cell
potential with respect to the control may not have been
expected if in fact a silane coat can bring about a limitation
of the availability of oxygen to the reinforcement, which
should ultimately lead to a negative potential shift. The
polarisation resistance results confirm that corrosion
protection is afforded by the silane, although this may
not be via limiting oxygen supply to the reinforcement, it
may well be due to an increase in the concrete resistivity as
a result of the limiting of ingress of water into the concrete.
This explanation is plausible based on the discussion of
Fig. 4, and reinforces the notion that, following the onset of
corrosion and the breakdown of passive film integrity, the
controlling parameter of the corrosion process is the
concrete resistivity. The silane treatment remains effective
24 months after its application but the extended long term
durability is unknown at this stage and will be monitored in
future work, given that very few data regarding the long
term performance of silanes exist.
If the MCI results are plotted on a 1/Rp versus Ecorr
graph, as in Fig. 6, then it can be seen that at more positive
potentials (the region in which it has been suggested that
the integrity of the passivating film is the controlling factor)
the corrosion current, as judged by 1/RP, is relatively low.
At more negative corrosion potentials (the region in which
it has been suggested that the resistance of the concrete
medium is the controlling factor) the corrosion current is
increased significantly. These ideas might be extended
towards a suggestion that such an inhibitor would be much
more efficient at delaying the onset of vigorous corrosion in
a system subjected to mild attack than it might be in
reducing the corrosion rate of an already severely corroding
reinforcing bar.
In the case of the silane treatment, Fig. 6 indicates that
the line of best fit to the silane treated data is markedly
different to that of the MCI treated panel. The silane data
in Fig. 6 show that across a wide range of potentials, there
is only a modest alteration of 1/RP. This confirms the
notion that resistance of the concrete medium is a dominant
controlling factor for allowing corrosion of reinforcement
to proceed. In the case where this resistance can be
increased, then beneficial remedial effects ought to be
expected.
Corrosion Engineering, Science and Technology 2004 Vol. 39 No. 4
325
General
The presentation of results as in Figs. 5 and 6 appears to be
an attractive and simple procedure for evaluating remedia-
tion suitability and effectiveness, while illustrating the
theory discussed and reinforcing the fact that families of
data are more important than individual data points in the
case of environmentally exposed structures. Further to this
it may also be possible to reveal aspects of the mechanisms
that afford protection in various corrosion remediation
techniques. Future work could be aimed at incorporating
concrete resistivity (rconc) measurements into the control
chart to introduce a third dimension creating a 3D zone in
MCDs, that can be used to characterise the Ecorr–RP–rconc
relationship. The early detection of changes in corrosion
behaviour, namely the detection of the onset of corrosion,
is of great practical importance, since it has been stated that
only minimal corrosion penetrations, i.e. 10 mm, can lead to
enough oxide formation to cause microcracking in the
concrete zone surrounding the reinforcement,16 effectively
signalling the commencement of the deterioration cycle.
The variability present in day to day corrosion measure-
ments is very significant as also seen in10,12,13 since
inevitably, no two tests can ever be conducted in the same
set of conditions for environmentally exposed structures.
Consequently grouping the results into families presents an
attractive alternative for obtaining a qualitative apprecia-
tion of overall corrosion characteristics. Furthermore, the
inaccuracies that may arise from converting LPR data to
corrosion rates, which were thoroughly covered in Ref. 2,
may have to be tolerated and accounted for in the event
that quantitative data is required, at least until a more
comprehensive method can be developed that can minimize
the errors mentioned.2
CONCLUSIONS
The use of MCDs to monitor the corrosion of concrete
reinforcement provides a useful way of interpreting data, in
that unique criteria can be established for the monitoring of
each structure. This removes a reliance on criteria such as
ASTM–C876, which have been shown not to be applicable
in all cases. It was shown that in the corrosion of reinforced
concrete, important parameters controlling the rate of
corrosion are the passive film integrity and the concrete
resistivity.
MCDs remove the uncertainty that is commonly
observed when separately monitoring corrosion potential
or polarisation resistance versus time. Furthermore, the
methodology presented herein is a powerful and attractive
way of ranking remediation techniques against one
another. The results presented indicate that the silane
penetrant is a suitable corrosion remediation technique
based on the situation investigated and the timescale of
testing.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance of Bill Gerritsen (Australasian Corrosion
Consultants) with the preparation of the manuscript is
gratefully acknowledged. The authors also gratefully thank
Winton Associates (Mr Geoff Codner) and Savcor ART
(Australia).
REFERENCES
1. J. A. GONZÁLEZ, S. FELIU, P. RODRı́GUEZ, W. LOPEZ, E. RAMı́REZ,
C. ALONSO and C. ANDRADE: Mater. Struct., 1996, 29, 40–46.
2. J. A. GONZÁLEZ, A. MOLINA, M. L. ESCUDERO and C. ANDRADE:
Corros. Sci., 1985, 25, 917–930.
3. P. R. ROBERGE: ‘Handbook of corrosion engineering’; 1999,
New York, McGraw-Hill.
4. ASTM C876-91, ’Annual book of ASTM Standards’,
Vol 04.02, 440; 1993, Philadelphia, PA, ASTM
326 Birbilis and Cherry On site monitoring of corrosion and remediation of reinforced concrete

5. B. W. CHERRY: Proc. Conf. on ‘Engineering materials’, 11. S. G. MILLARD, D. W. LAW, J. H. BUNGEY and J. CAIRNS:
Melbourne, Australia, 2001, IMEA, 245–250. Nondestuct. Test Eval., 2001, 34, 409–417.
6. B. W. CHERRY, M. FOO and T. H. SIAUW: Corrosion, 1986, 42, 654– 12. N. BIRBILIS, B. W. CHERRY, B. GERRITSEN and M. FORSYTH: Proc.
682. 9th Int. Conf. on ‘Durability of building materials and
7. A. PHANASGAONKAR: PhD thesis, Monash University, components’, Brisbane, Australia, 2002, Paper 257.
Melbourne, Australia, 2000. 13. C. ANDRADE, C. ALONSO and J. SARRIA: Cem. Concr. Compos.,
8. M. STERN and A. L. GEARY: J. Electrochem. Soc., 1957, 104, 56– 2002, 24, 55–64.
61. 14. B. ELSENER: Constr. Build. Mater., 2001, 15, 122–139.
9. C. ANDRADE and J. A. GONZÁLEZ: Mater. Corros., 1978, 29, 515– 15. C. L. PAGE, V. T. NGALA and M. M. PAGE: Mag. Concr. Res., 2000,
519. 52, 1, 25–37.
10. C. ANDRADE: Proc. 15th Int. Corrosion Conf, Granada, Spain, 16. J. P. BROOMFIELD: ‘Corrosion of steel in concrete’; 1997,
2002, Plenary Paper. London, E&F Spon.

Corrosion Engineering, Science and Technology 2004 Vol. 39 No. 4