Professional Documents
Culture Documents
emission
ABSTRACT
Acoustic Emission (AE) sensing was employed to assess the rate of corrosion of steel strands in small scale concrete
block specimens. The corrosion process was accelerated in a laboratory environment using a potentiostat to supply a
constant potential difference with a 3% NaCl solution as the electrolyte. The embedded prestressing steel strand served
as the anode, and a copper plate served as the cathode. Corrosion rate, half-cell potential measurements, and AE activity
were recorded continuously throughout each test and examined to assess the development of corrosion and its rate. At
the end of each test the steel strands were cleaned and re-weighed to determine the mass loss and evaluate it vis-à-vis the
AE data. The initiation and propagation phases of corrosion were correlated with the percentage mass loss of steel and
the acquired AE signals. Results indicate that AE monitoring may be a useful aid in the detection and differentiation of
the steel deterioration phases, and estimation of the locations of corroded areas.
Keywords: acoustic emission, corrosion, durability, prestressed concrete, reinforced concrete
1. INTRODUCTION
The corrosion of reinforcing steel is a major durability issue for prestressed and reinforced concrete structures in coastal
areas and where de-icing salts are regularly used. The environment in good quality concrete has high alkalinity due to
the presence of sodium, potassium, and calcium hydroxides developed during hydration. The concrete surrounding the
reinforcement acts as a physical barrier and the steel remains passivated. If the alkalinity level is reduced the steel
reinforcement becomes susceptible to corrosion.
After the formation of corrosion byproducts in steel reinforcement, the product first accumulates at the bar surface and
tries to fill the closest voids. They then spread throughout the material and mix with the hydrated products of cement
stressing the concrete cover until it relaxes by the formation of cracks. Depending on the degree of hydration and the
type of oxide this corrosive product will have a much higher volume than the original metal. The unit volume of the final
corrosion product Fe(OH)3·3H2O may be as large as six times the original Fe volume1. This oxide layer will exert stress
to the concrete surrounding the reinforcement which will produce cracks along the length of the steel. The process
ultimately reduces the strength of the bond and may affect the load bearing capacity of the components undergoing
distress, resulting in a decrease of service life2.
1.1 Research significance
Corrosion of reinforcing steel is the most common source of distress in concrete bridges near the marine environment or
components in contact with de-icing salts. Corrosion decreases the cross sectional area of steel strands minimizing their
ductility and increasing stress concentrations at the reinforcement interface 3. Billions of dollars are attributed annually
toward repair of corroded structures. The presence of hairline cracks can be detrimental to the structure due to the
available space to accommodate the oxides without expanding the surrounding concrete4. It is therefore important to
seek monitoring methods that can effectively assess corrosion in reinforced concrete members. Acoustic Emission may
be a promising method due to its extreme sensitivity to crack growth caused by expansion of ferrous products 5. In this
paper AE is compared with other corrosion assessment methods.
*
mangualj@email.sc.edu; phone 1 787 246-6158
2. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
2.1 Test specimens
Four specimens were tested under accelerated corrosion. Two specimens were notched and pre-cracked at midsection
and two specimens were un-cracked. Concrete specimens with dimensions 4.5 × 4.5 × 20 inches (114 × 114 × 508 mm)
and an embedded 0.5 in. (13 mm) diameter grade 270 low relaxation prestressing strand were cast using concrete having
28-day compressive strength of 6 ksi (41.4 MPa), w/c ratio of 0.4, and No. 57 coarse aggregate. The specimens were air-
cured for 28 days and then removed from the molds. The notched specimens (denoted as “Type A”) were then loaded in
bending to produce a crack that extended throughout the entire midspan cross-section. Figure 1 shows a sketch of Type
A specimens, which were used to simulate the effect of hairline cracks in prestressed concrete. The remaining un-
cracked specimens (“Type B”) were used to study corrosion behavior in un-cracked concrete.
5.0
20.0 4.5
Figure 1. Schematic of Type A concrete specimen with embedded steel strand. Dimensions in inches (1.0 in. =
25.4 mm)
In addition to the four test specimens described above, two control specimens were monitored without the impression of
current to assess background noise. Test durations were selected such that the total amount of weight loss did not exceed
2% of the original weight of the steel strand. Previous investigations have noted that after achieving a 3% weight loss of
steel the remaining load capacity decreased as the percentage of weight loss increased6.
2.2 Accelerated corrosion test setup
The accelerated corrosion setup, illustrated in Figure 2, consists of electrochemical cells developed by placing each
2.5
specimen in a plastic vessel with a 3% NaCl water solution, and electrically connecting a copper plate with the steel
strand. The copper plate, placed beneath the concrete specimen supported by neoprene pads, serves as the cathode. The
NaCl solution rests 0.25 in. (7 mm) below the level of the strand. The faces of the concrete are covered with a corrosive
resistant layer to avoid edge effects. Test durations were 2 and 6 days; one Type A and one Type B specimen was tested
for each duration. Specimens A-01 and B-01 correspond to a 2 day potential supply while specimens A-02 and B-02
correspond to a 6 day potential supply.
Resistor
Figure 3. Phenomenological model showing phases of corrosion for steel immersed in seawater8.
where:
Rp = polarization resistance, Ω-cm2
ΔE = change in applied potential relative to corrosion potential Ecorr, mV
Δi =current response to applied potential spectrum, mA
icorr = corrosion current, µA/cm2
ba, bc = anodic and cathodic Tafel slopes, mV
The corrosion current, icorr, is calculated from Equation 1 and is normalized by the area polarized, typically 1 cm 2.
Corrosion rate may be calculated from Equation (2). A plot of LPR sweep and Tafel curve for steel under accelerated
corrosion is shown in Figure 4.
0.13 icorr EW
CR = (2)
d
where:
CR = corrosion rate, milli-inch per year (mpy)
EW = equivalent weight of iron, 27.92 g
d = density of iron, 7.8 g/cm3
-0.54 -0.54
-0.56 -0.56
-0.58 -0.58
2.0 AE sensor
1.0
10.0 1.0
Figure 5. AE sensor layout on surface specimen (Type B specimen shown). Dimensions in inches (1.0 in. = 25.4
mm).
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Corrosion detection
As the corrosion process advances, an increase in AE activity was observed in all specimens just a few hours after
supplying the external potential. Half-cell potential measurements shifted toward a more negative value as the passive
film surrounding the strand was broken. This process is shown in Figure 6, where the cumulative signal strength and
passing current are plotted with respect to the test duration for specimen A-01.
During the initial stage of the test, the passing current decreases because the concrete surrounding the steel
reinforcement provides resistance and the amount of chloride solution permeating the concrete and reaching the strand is
low. As the passive steel comes in contact with the electrolyte, the resistance is reduced and an increase in passing
current is observed. During this phase, the oxygen transport controls the reaction rate but corrosion will later decrease as
the chloride ions accumulate in the surroundings of the reinforcement and depassivate the steel. The AE signal may be
attributable to microcracking of the concrete as the corrosion product builds up around the reinforcing steel 14. The slope
for the onset of corrosion, and for the dormant phase, is similar in both curves. As corrosion progresses, the slopes are
steeper and decrease as the oxygen transport is reduced in Phase II.
2.0E+8
0.20
Time (hours)
Figure 6. Signal strength and passing current vs. time for specimen A-01 (2 day test).
Figure 7 shows cumulative signal strength versus time for specimens Type A for the first 48 hours of testing. A steady
increase in signal strength may be observed from the figure and could be attributed to the onset of corrosion. Specimen
A-01 was tested for two days with a potentiostat, whereas specimen A-02 was tested for six days with a DC switching
rectifier. The specimens tested with the rectifier showed slower initiation times than specimens that were continuously
tested with the potentiostat; in addition, higher currents were obtained from the potentiostat-controlled specimens when
compared to rectifier-controlled. The dormant phase of the corrosion process is also noticeable with the transitional
period occurring at approximately 22 hours into testing.
0.15
1.5E+8
0.20
A-01
A-03
0.15 A-02
0.10
0.05
0
0 14 28 42
Time (hr)
Time (hours)
0.20
2.0E+ 8 -300
m
V
-400
1.0E+ 8
0.10
-450
5.0E+ 7
0.05
-500
0.0E+00 -550
rh
(gn m
C
lativeS
u
00 28 56
200000 84 112
400000 140
Time (hr)
Time (hours)
Figure 8. Signal strength and half-cell potential vs. time for specimen A-02.
Corrosion rate values are only useful after the steel depassivates, performing LPR sweeps on passive steel will provide
erroneous results. In Figure 9 cumulative signal strength versus time is compared to corrosion rate versus time during a 2
day test. During the onset of corrosion, the corrosion rate and slope of the cumulative signal strength curve increase. A
maximum corrosion rate is obtained after culminating Phase I, and as the process approaches the dormant phase, both
the slope of the cumulative signal strength curve and corrosion rate gradually decrease.
s )
0.16
1.6E+8 450
m
V
te(
a
R
rsin
o
C
375
1.2E+8
0.12
300
8.0E+7
0.08 225
150
y )
p
m
4.0E+7
0.04
Signal Strength 75
Corrosion Rate
0.0E+0
0 0
rh
n
eS
gtivm
C
u
la
0 14 28 42
(
Time (hr)
Time (hours)
Figure 9. Signal strength and corrosion rate behavior vs. time (specimen A-01).
Location of corroded areas was achieved through triangulation of the AE signals using the source location capability of
the software; wave speeds were calculated by performing pencil lead breaks on the surface of the concrete
andcalculating the travel time between sensors. Figure 10 shows the location of events at 25, 50, 100, and 125 hours of
testing for specimen B-02 (un-cracked specimen). Each graph, labeled (a) through (d), represents the coordinate system
for the specimen. The bold dots represent the three sensors in the triangular configuration shown in Figure 5; the lighter
dots represent located AE events. The located events indicate that the corrosion process is distributed throughout the un-
cracked specimens.
4.2 Effect of concrete cracks on rate of corrosion
Corrosion rate and half-cell potential for specimen B-02 (un-cracked specimen) are plotted in Figure 11. In the first few
days of testing half-cell potential values were overly positive indicating that a remainder of the passive film was still
present, therefore, corrosion rates with respect to Ecorr yielded no data. Specimen B-01 (un-cracked), which was tested
for 2 days, showed positive values throughout the test and began to decrease at the end of the test. Linear polarization
measurements for specimen B-02 were achievable on the third day of testing, in which half-cell potential measurements
shifted to more negative values as a result of chloride ingress. The relationship between corrosion rate and half-cell
potential can be seen; where an increase in corrosion rate will be reflected in a more negative half-cell potential value.
Y position vs. X position
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
(a) (b)
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
(c) (d)
Figure 10. Locating active zones for specimen B-02 at: (a) 25 hrs, (b) 50 hrs, (c) 100 hrs and (d) 125 hours into
testing. Dimensions150
in inches (1 in. = 25.4 mm). -530
Corrosion Ra te
B-03
Half-Cell Potential
Series2 -535
100 -540
-545
50 -550
-555
0 -560
0 50 100 150
Time (hr)
Time (hours)
Figure 11. Corrosion rate and half-cell potential for specimen B-02.
The results from Figure 11 may be compared to the half-cell potential values displayed in Figure 12, where both types of
specimens (cracked and un-cracked) are compared.
Figure 12 (a) shows half-cell potential readings for Type A specimen (cracked). Free chloride passage quickly lowers the
potential of the steel anode and maximizes the amount of current supplied. Figure 12 (b) shows the slow shift in potential
towards the negative region for Type B specimens (un-cracked). It may be concluded that the half-cell potential for un-
cracked specimens remains positive at least 2 days into testing, depending on the concrete cover width and supplied
current density. When compared to Type B (un-cracked) specimens, the corrosion rates of all crack-induced specimens
were above the active threshold.
-100 500
A-01 B-01
A-03 A-01 200 B-03 B-01
-300
A-02 B-02
-100
-500
(m
(m
lf -C
V
lf -C
V
elP
elP
tn
tn
iao
iao
-400
)
)
H
H
a
a
-700 -700
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Time (hr) Time (hr)
-0
3
-0
3
B-03
)
)
24 B-02 0.2
A-03
18 A-02 0.15
12 0.1
6 0.05
(A m
C
m
lstreh
n
a u
.ig
0 0
(B
ltreh
n
a C
u
.sig
0 50 100 150
Time (hr)
Time
Time (hours)
Figure 13. Cumulative signal strength versus time for cracked and un-cracked specimens (zero to 6 days).
4.3 Steel mass loss model
After testing, each specimen was broken apart and the steel strand was removed, cleaned and re-weighed as stated by
ASTM G115, 16. Inspection of the corroded prestressing strand depicted higher surface loss on the side closest to the
electrolyte solution. The experimental mass loss calculations presented in Table 1 were achieved by obtaining the
percentage mass reduction in the steel embedded inside the concrete. As stated by Faraday, the amount of mass loss is
dependent upon time, the amount of current being charged, and the number of electrons transferred. Although Faraday’s
law realistically portrays the dissolution of steel in an acidic solution it proves difficult to estimate the amount of
reinforcement steel mass loss. This arises by the fact that the phenomenological model governs the corrosion process of
steel embedded in concrete surrounded by a thick cover, and Faraday’s formula linearly depicts the dissolution of iron in
an acid media. Also, the level of the steel strand was kept above the solution level rather than immersed.
For the application of a variable current under potential control, the trapezoidal rule was employed to integrate the
current density as a function of test duration, Equation 3;
M × ∫ i ×t
Mass loss = (3)
z ×F
where:
Mass loss of embedded steel, g
M = molecular weight of iron, 54.8 g/mol
i = passing current, A
t = test duration, s
z = electrons transferred, 2
F = Faraday’s constant, 96,487 C/mol
Table 1 Mass loss measurements and Faraday’s theoretical model.
Specimen no. Original mass (g) Mass loss (%) Mass loss (%) [Eq. 3]
A-01 388.6 1.12 2.76
A-02 392.3 0.90 1.57
B-01 392.8 0.15 0.42
B-02 393.4 0.73 2.92
Figure 14 (a, b) shows the corroded steel strands for cracked specimens A-01 and A-02, respectively. Although
specimen A-01 was continuously tested with the potentiostat during a 2 day period, the amount of shed steel was greater
than specimen A-02. When compared, specimen A-01 lost 1.12% of its total initial mass under an average passing
current of 230 mA; whereas specimen A-02 lost 0.90% of the initial mass during a 6-day period and a 40 mA average
current controlled by a rectifier. Therefore, the amount of passing current compensates for the short test duration of
specimen A-01. The accuracy and energy capabilities of the potentiostat influence the results and are also seen in the AE
data; specimens under potentiostat-control show an increase in cumulative signal strength earlier than rectifier-controlled
specimens and the current density imparted is higher in these specimens.
1 inch 1 inch
(a) (b)
Figure 14. Corroded steel strand after finalizing test for (a) specimen A-01 and (b) specimen A-02.
4.4 Summary
The study described provides insight into the capabilities of Acoustic Emission (AE) monitoring for detection of damage
due to corrosion in reinforced concrete elements. Small scale concrete specimens were cast with an embedded 0.5 in. (13
mm) diameter prestressing strand. Two specimens were pre-cracked at midspan and two were un-cracked. The
corrosion process was accelerated in a laboratory environment by applying a potential to the strand. Passing current,
half-cell potential, corrosion rate, and AE data were compared to assess the potential of AE monitoring for detecting the
onset of corrosion and its progression. Acoustic emission proved to be reliable in detecting the initiation phase of un-
cracked concrete, while half-cell and corrosion rate data does not show this trend until the steel is fully depassivated.
Signal strength for the un-cracked specimens increased at a much lower rate than for the cracked specimens. The
presence of a crack permits chloride diffusion, thereby decreasing time to depassivation and causing localized damage.
The magnitude in terms of cumulative signal strength in the un-cracked specimens was much higher than for the cracked
specimens. It is hypothesized that steel expansion leading to the formation of cracks at the concrete bond for un-cracked
specimens may be more energetic due to absence of the pre-crack to liberate this pressure.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are drawn:
• Progression of corrosion is a faster process in Type A (cracked) specimens because chloride is diffused more
readily, lowering the potential of steel, whereas a decrease in half-cell potential is not noticeable in Type B (un-
cracked) specimens until day 3. Even though the electrochemical monitoring of the Type B specimens yielded
no reasonable results in the first days of testing, AE displayed a slow growing signal.
• Analysis of the passing current and the corrosion rates obtained by performing linear polarization generally
agree with the shape of the cumulative signal strength graph. The passing current and corrosion rate values in
laboratory conditions will fluctuate depending on the passivity of the steel, the amount of chloride ingress, and
debonding due to corrosion cracks at the steel-concrete interface.
• Uniform concrete reduces the amount of current which may be applied, delaying the detection of corrosion with
conventional methods. Therefore, half-cell potential data and corrosion rate do not give indications while the
steel is still passive.
• Increased AE activity with higher energy was observed in Type B specimens, believed to be associated with the
absence of an external crack to release the expansive pressure.
• When comparing the experimental mass loss for Type A (cracked) specimens, it may be concluded that the 6
day test fully encompasses Phases I and II of the model, an increase in AE hits and a dormant phase being
clearly visible. The cumulative signal strength obtained from Type B (un-cracked) specimens show that, at the
end of the 6-day test, the corrosion process approached the dormant phase of the model.
• Monitoring concrete members containing prestressing steel with AE, by means of an accelerated corrosion cell,
yielded pertinent information for the identification of pitting corrosion initiation and progression. The presence
of corrosion activity was associated with AE data and represented through AE features. The position of the
activity was determined using triangulation.
REFERENCES
[1] Li, Z., Zdunek, A., Landis, E., and Shah, S., “Application of Acoustic Emission Technique to Detection of
Reinforcing Steel Corrosion in Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, 95(1), 68-76 (1998).
[2] Jaffer, S., and Hansson, C., “Chloride-Induced Corrosion Products of Steel in Cracked-Concrete Subjected to
Different Loading Conditions,” Cement and Concrete Research, 39(2), 116-125 (2009).
[3] Yoon, D., Weiss, W., and Shah, S., “Assessing Damage in Corroded Reinforced Concrete Using Acoustic
Emission,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 126 ( 3), 273-283 (2000).
[4] Alonso, C., Andrade, C., Rodriguez, J., and Diez, J., “Factors Controlling Cracking of Concrete Affected by
Reinforcement Corrosion," Materials and Structures, 31(7), 435-441 (1998).
[5] ElBatanouny, M. K., Mangual, J., Ziehl, P., and Matta, F., “Detecting Corrosion of Steel Prestressing Strands
Using Acoustic Emission,” Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society (PHM), (2010).
[6] Auyeung, Y., Balaguru, P., and Chung, L., “Bond Behavior of Corroded Reinforcement Bars,” ACI Materials
Journal, 97(2), 212-220 (2000).
[7] Ohtsu, M., and Tomoda, Y., “Phenomenological Model of Corrosion Process in Reinforced Concrete Identified
by Acoustic Emission,” ACI Materials Journal, 105(2), 194-199 (2008).
[8] Melchers, R., and Li, C., “Phenomenological Modeling of Reinforcement Corrosion in Marine Environments,”
ACI Materials Journal, 103 (1), 25-32 (2006).
[9] ASTM C876, "Standard test method for half-cell potentials of uncoated reinforcing steel in concrete", American
Standard for Testing and Materials, 1-6 (1991-Reapproved 1999).
[10] ASTM G59, "Standard Test Method for Conducting Potentiodynamic Polarization Resistance Measurements,"
American Standard for Testing and Materials, 1-4 (1997-Reapproved 2003).
[11] ASTM E1316, "Standard Terminology for Nondestructive Examinations," American Standard for Testing and
Materials, 1-33 (2006).
[12] Ridge, A., and Ziehl, P., “Evaluation of Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Beams: Cyclic Load Test and Acoustic
Emission Methods,” ACI Structural Journal, Technical paper 103-S84, 832-841 (2006).
[13] Seah, K., Lim, K., Chew, S., and Teoh, S., “The Correlation of Acoustic Emission with Rate of Corrosion,”
Corrosion Science, 34(10), 1707-1713 (1993).
[14] Zdunek, A., and Prine, D., "Early Detection of Steel rebar Corrosion by Acoustic Emission Monitoring",
Corrosion, Paper no. 547, ITI technical report no. 16, 1-9 (1995).
[15] ASTM G1, "Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens”, American
Standard for Testing and Materials, 1-9 (2003).
[16] Austin, S., Lyons, R., and Ing, M., “Electrochemical Behavior of Steel-Reinforced Concrete During Accelerated
Corrosion Testing,” Corrosion, 60(2), 203-212 (2004).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is performed under the support of the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Technology Innovation Program, Cooperative Agreement Number 70NANB9H9007.