See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340719559

Empirical models of corrosion rate prediction of steel in reinforced

concrete structures

Article in Journal of Science and Technology in Civil Engineering (STCE) - HUCE · April 2020
DOI: 10.31814/stce.nuce2020-14(2)-09

CITATIONS READS
3 492

2 authors, including:

Dang Vu Hiep
Hanoi Architectural University
27 PUBLICATIONS 693 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ngoc Tan Nguyen on 26 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Science and Technology in Civil Engineering NUCE 2020. 14 (2): 98–107

EMPIRICAL MODELS
OF CORROSION RATE PREDICTION OF STEEL IN
REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Nguyen Ngoc Tana,∗, Dang Vu Hiepb
a
Faculty of Building and Industrial Construction, National University of Civil Engineering,
55 Giai Phong road, Hai Ba Trung district, Hanoi, Vietnam
b
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Hanoi Architectural University,
Km 10 Nguyen Trai road, Thanh Xuan district, Hanoi, Vietnam
Article history:
Received 17/12/2019, Revised 03/01/2020, Accepted 06/01/2020

Abstract
Corrosion rate is one of the most important input parameters in corrosion-induced damage prediction models
as well as in calculation of service-life for reinforced concrete structures. In most cases, instantaneous mea-
surements or constant corrosion rate values used in damage prediction models is irrelevant. The new factors
appearing such as corrosion-induced cover cracking, concrete quality to change the corrosion rate should be
taken into consideration. This study shows several empirical models to predict the corrosion rate and their lim-
its of application. The predicted values of steel corrosion rate using four empirical models are compared with
the measured values of a series of 55 experimental samples collected from the literature. The results show that
the empirical models overestimated the experimental corrosion rate. Using model proposed by Liu and Weyers
provided the best agreement with the experimental data.
Keywords: corrosion rate; prediction model; reinforced concrete; chloride ions; reinforcement corrosion.
https://doi.org/10.31814/stce.nuce2020-14(2)-09 c 2020 National University of Civil Engineering

1. Introduction

Corrosion of structural steel in reinforced concrete structure has drawn major interest from well-
known authors in recent decades. The process of steel corrosion is illustrated by the general model
first proposed by Tuutii K. in 1980 [1]. According to the model, the mentioned process in uncracked
concrete can be divided into two stages: (i) initiation phase, in which chloride ions penetrate the
concrete cover while the rebars inside are still in a passive state; (ii) propagation phase, in which
rebars are corroded due to their exposure to chloride ions after their outer passive layer has been worn
away. The majority of prediction models only focus on the first stage (initiation phase) or the chloride
ion threshold above which corrosion happens. Few researches have carried out on the propagation
phase, especially under the condition where the concrete cover has already cracked due to the applied
loads [2].
This study will focus on prediction models of the corrosion rate during the propagation phase.
It should be noted that the corrosion rate of steel rebars in concrete structures can be affected by

∗
Corresponding author. E-mail address: tannn@nuce.edu.vn (Tan, N. N.)

98
 Tan, N. N., Hiep, D. V. / Journal of Science and Technology in Civil Engineering

diverse factors, namely: temperature, humidity, electrical resistivity of concrete, admixtures, quality
of concrete, concrete cover thickness, the loading situation of structure, surface cracks, the intrusion
of oxygen, and the direction of structure surface. However, it is impossible to integrate all the above
factors into one particular model. Therefore, several factors (e.g. humidity, temperature, quality of
concrete) will be indirectly accounted by employing some specific constants.

2. Empirical models for corrosion rate prediction

2.1. Alonso et al.’s model (1988) [3]

This was the first time, Alonso et al. [3] presented a prediction model of corrosion rate that was
based on a statistical analysis of concrete electrical resistivity. Mortar samples having the dimensions
of 20 × 55 × 80 mm were made of different types of cement with the same water-cement ratio w/c
of 0.5. The corrosion rate was accelerated using a CO2 chamber (100% concentration) with relative
humidity (RH) of 50 - 70%. Instantaneous corrosion current icorr was measured by using the LPR
technique (Linear Polarisation Resistance) and then determined by the gravimetric analysis method.
The relation between icorr (µA/cm2 ) and electrical resistivity of concrete ρe f is described in Eq. (1)
with kcorr = 3 × 104 µA/cm2 .kΩ-cm.
kcorr
icorr = (1)
ρe f
Eq. (1) which was formulated for a CO2 filled environment similar to the condition under which
corrosion happens in the atmosphere, presents the direct relationship between icorr and ρe f . However,
Alonso et al.’s model has a few major flaws: (a) icorr is not only affected by electrical resistivity of
concrete but also by the appearance of newly formed cracks during the corrosion process; (b) icorr can
also be affected by the thickness of the concrete cover; (c) the equation can be only used for corrosion
in atmospheric conditions, which tend to take years before reaching the propagation phase. Therefore,
it is not applicable for predicting corrosion rate in chloride environment, in which the propagation
phase can occur very early.

2.2. Yalcyn and Ergun’s model (1996) [4]

Used cylindrical samples of concrete had the dimensions of 150 mm in diameter, 150 mm in
height and were mixed with salt during the manufacturing process. The tested samples were made of
Pozzolan cement. The corrosion current was measured using the HCP technique (Half Cell Potential)
and LPR technique at 1, 7, 28, 60 and 90 days. Yalcyn and Ergun’s model [4] shows the relation
between the corrosion rate icorr (µA/cm2 ) and time Θ in Eq. (2), with i0 being the initial corrosion
rate, C being a constant relating to the thickness of the concrete cover, permeability, pH and water
saturation of concrete. In this experiment, the authors used only one value of C as 1.1 × 10−3 day−1
for all cases.
icorr = i0 e−CΘ (2)
This model was deduced based on experiments on accelerated corrosion, not natural or nearly
natural corrosion. In reality, chloride ions would have to be removed from the concrete structures.
Therefore, the model fails to reflect the corrosion process in real-life cases (the initiation phase had
been bypassed in this experiment). The model can only be applied to uncracked concrete structures.
With pre-cracked concrete structures, it may not be appropriate to apply this model due to the drastic
influence of cracks on both initiation and propagation phases. The model also implies that the value

99
 Tan, N. N., Hiep, D. V. / Journal of Science and Technology in Civil Engineering

of icorr depends solely on the variable of time and not including other parameters (e.g. environmental
conditions) and thus, incorrectly reflecting the nature of the corrosion process.

2.3. Liu and Weyers’s model (1998) [5]

In a more expansive research of Liu and Weyers [5], the authors based on experimental results
from 2927 sets of data from 7 series of chloride-exposed samples that were experimented in outdoor
conditions for 5 years, had proposed the following prediction model for corrosion rate icorr (µA/cm2 )
as Eq.(3).
" #
3006
icorr = 0.926 exp 7.98 + 0.7771 ln(1.69Ct ) − − 0.000116Rc + 2.24t −0.215
(3)
T

Eq. (3) reveals the fact that the corrosion process of steel rebars in regular service environments
relates to the chloride content Ct (kg/m3 ), temperature T (K) at the surface of steel rebars, electrical
resistivity of the concrete cover Rc (Ωs), and the corrosion time t (years). Similar to Yalcyn and
Ergun’s model [4], Eq. (3) is based on experimental results of tested samples that consisting of the
addition of salt to the concrete mixture and therefore it is only applicable to a specific stage of the
corrosion process. However, this model denies the reliance of corrosion rate on the thickness of the
concrete cover and the humidity of the environment. Moreover, the model also does not distinguish
the two major stages of corrosion.
The electrical resistivity of concrete can be determined using the following empirical formula:

Rc = exp [8.03 − 0.54 ln(1 + 1.69Ct )] (4)

2.4. Vu and Stewart’s model (2000) [6]

Vu and Stewart [6] presented a prediction model based on the assumption that the corrosion rate
was determined by the consumption of oxygen on the surface of rebars. Thus, the corrosion rate icorr
would be a function of the quality and the thickness of the concrete cover (w/c, C). This assumption is
reasonable only in particular parts of Australia, America, Europe and Asia where humidity levels are
quite high (above 70%). In fact, those are only two amongst a multitude of factors affecting the speed
of the corrosion process. Based on experimental data of different authors, Vu and Stewart proposed a
prediction model in Eq. (5) for the corrosion rate denoted icorr(1) during the propagation phase after a
year of corroding in chloride environment at 20◦C temperature and 75% relative humidity.

37.8(1 − w/c)−1.64
icorr(1) = (5)
C
During the propagation phase of corrosion, the corrosion rate icorr (t p ) is predicted by Eq. (6) with
C (cm) being the thickness of the concrete cover, t p (years) being the current duration of propagation
phase.
icorr (t p ) = 0.85t−0.29
P icorr(1) (6)
The model shown in Eq. (6) possesses significant improvements over models in Eqs. (1), (2)
and (3) in that: (a) it clearly distinguishes the two different stages of corrosion; (b) it has taken into
consideration the direct impact of the water-cement ratio w/c and the thickness of the concrete cover
C on the speed of corrosion; (c) it allows the prediction of corrosion rate during the propagation phase
even when the concrete structures are cracked due to corrosion. However, it still has its disadvantages:

100
 Tan, N. N., Hiep, D. V. / Journal of Science and Technology in Civil Engineering

the speed of corrosion in the early phases of propagation is not affected by the chloride content on
the surface of concrete structures. The model is established on the assumption that the consumption
of oxygen greatly influences the speed of corrosion while in chloride environments, strong corrosion
can still occur without the presence of a large amount of oxygen.

2.5. DuraCrete model (2000) [7]

The European research project DuraCrete was initiated in 1996 with the involvement of many
European countries. The objective was to work out a design and assessment code for reinforced con-
crete structures. In the Appendix B of DuraCrete introduced a relation between the corrosion rate
icorr (µm/year) and influencing factors in Eq. (7) with mo being the constant regarding the relation
between corrosion rate and electrical resistivity of concrete, αc being the value representing pitting
corrosion, Fclc being the value representing chloride corrosion, γV being the local coefficient of cor-
rosion, ρ being electrical resistivity of concrete, given by Eq. (8).
m0 c c
icorr = α Fcl γV (7)
ρ
!nres
thydr
ρ= ρc0 kt,res kc,res kT,res kRH,res kcl,res (8)
t0
where ρc0 (Ωm) is the electrical resistivity of concrete at 28 days; thydr is the duration of cement
hydration, which affects ρc0 (this normally does not exceed one year); nres is the factor concerning
the influence of time on electrical resistivity of concrete; kt,res , kc,res , kT,res , kRH,res , kcl,res are factors
concerning the impact of testing method, curing, temperature, humidity and chloride content, respec-
tively.
The value of icorr (µm/year) in Eq. (7) needs to be converted into icorr (µA/cm2 ) using a constant
of 11.5−1 due to the difference in units. The DuraCrete model actually improves on that in Eq. (1) by
adding the impact of other factors that affect the speed of corrosion over time. Despite having consid-
ered additional factors, Eq. (7) still has some drawbacks similar to those of Eq. (1). The influencing
parameters are determined by using probabilistic models and presumed to be constants at the instance.
A major advantage of the DuraCrete model is that it takes into consideration the impact of many
actual concerning factors of corrosion environments in order to assess the behavior of corroded struc-
tures.

2.6. Pour-Ghaz et al.’s model (2009) [8]

Pour-Ghaz et al. have investigated the effect of temperature on the corrosion rate of steel in con-
crete using simulated polarization resistance experiments [8]. The simulated experiments were based
on the numerical solution of the Laplace’s equation with predefined boundary conditions of the prob-
lem and have been designed to establish independent correlations among corrosion rate, temperature,
kinetic parameters, concrete resistivity and limiting current density for a wide range of possible an-
ode/cathode (A/C) distributions on the reinforcement. The results capture successfully the resistance
and diffusion control mechanisms of corrosion as well as the effect of temperature on the kinetic pa-
rameters and concrete/pore solution properties, have been used to develop a closed-form regression
model in Eq. (9) for the prediction of the average and maximum corrosion rates of steel in concrete.
* +
icorr,ave 1  $
= γ ηT dκ iλL + µT νiL + θ(T iL )υ + χργ + ζ

(9)
icorr,max τρ
101
 Tan, N. N., Hiep, D. V. / Journal of Science and Technology in Civil Engineering

where ρ (Ωm) is the concrete resistivity; T (K) is temperature; d (m) is concrete cover thickness and
iL (A/m2 ) is the limiting current density. The constants in Eq. (9) are given in Table 1.

Table 1. The constants of Pour-Ghaz et al.’s model in Eq. (9)

icorr,ave icorr,max
Constant Value Constant Value
τ 1.181102362 × 10 −3
τ 1
η 1.414736274 × 10−5 η 0.32006292
ζ −0.00121155206 ζ −53.1228606
κ 0.0847693074 κ 0.00550263686
λ 0.130025167 λ 0.120663606
σ 0.800505851 σ 0.787449933
µ 1.23199829 × 10−11 µ −3.73825172 × 10−7
θ −0.000102886027 θ 47.2478753
υ 0.475258097 υ 0.00712334564
χ 5.03368481 × 10−7 χ 0.003482058
ν 90487 ν 784679.23
$ 0.0721605536 $ 0.0102616314

The concrete resistivity at the desired temperature T (K) is calculated by Eq. (10), with ρ0 be-
ing the concrete resistivity at the reference temperature T 0 (K), R ≈ 8.314 J/(mole K) being the
universal gas constant, and ∆Uρ (kJ/mole) being the activation energy of the Arrhenius relation-
ship (Eq. (11)) that depends on the degree of saturation S r . Meanwhile, the limiting current density
iL (A/m2 ) is estimated for each case by using Eq. (12) as a function of concrete cover d (mm, oxy-
gen diffusion coefficient of concrete DO2 (m2 /s) and amount of dissolved oxygen on the surface of
concrete COs 2 (mole/m3 ), with zc being the number of electrons participating the cathodic reaction
and F = 96500 C/mole being the Faraday’s constant. The DO2 is calculated by the model proposed by
Papadakis et al. [9] in Eq. (13), with ε p being the porosity of hardened cement paste and RH being the
relative humidity. The COs 2 can be estimated by using the relationship between the amount of dissolved
oxygen on the surface of concrete and temperature in Eq. (14).
∆Uρ 1
 
1
T − T0
ρ = ρ0 e R
(10)
26.753349
∆Uρ = (11)
1 − 4.3362256 × e−5.2488563S r
DO2 COs 2
iL = zc F (12)
d
DO2 = 1.92 × 10−6 ε1.8
p (1 − RH)
2.2
(13)
1.575 × 105 6.642 × 107 1.244 × 1010 8.622 × 1011
LnCOs 2 = −139.344 + − + − (14)
T T2 T3 T4
Pour-Gahz et al.’s model proposes to use many auxiliary models that are given in the other studies
in order to estimate the limiting current density and concrete resistivity. These models consider the
porosity, saturation and water-cement ratio in concrete, not including the chloride content. Therefore,

102
 Tan, N. N., Hiep, D. V. / Journal of Science and Technology in Civil Engineering

the estimated values may have high errors due to the limitations of the model used, such as the lack
of influencing parameter on the limiting current density and concrete resistivity, the intrinsic error of
the model, etc. Moreover, the calculations of Pour-Gahz et al.’s model are complicated in comparison
with the other models.

3. A comparison between predicted values of steel corrosion rate by empirical models and ex-
perimental data
This section contains comparisons between the corrosion rates obtained from the literature and
from the four models of Liu and Weyers, Vu and Stewart, DuraCrete, and Pour-Ghaz et al. These mod-

Table 2. Synthesis of experimental data from the literature – part 1

T RH Ct icorr
Author Sample C (mm) d (mm) w/c t (years)
(K) (%) (%) (µA/cm2 )
1 7 6 0.5 273 50 2.0 1.0 0.11
2 7 6 0.5 273 90 2.0 1.0 0.19
3 7 6 0.5 273 T.I. 2.0 1.0 0.80
4 7 6 0.5 303 50 2.0 1.0 0.05
5 7 6 0.5 303 90 2.0 1.0 2.29
6 7 6 0.5 303 T.I. 2.0 1.0 1.64
7 7 6 0.5 323 50 2.0 1.0 0.02
8 7 6 0.5 323 90 2.0 1.0 2.80
9 7 6 0.5 323 T.I. 2.0 1.0 6.26
10 7 6 0.5 273 50 4.0 1.0 0.13
11 7 6 0.5 273 90 4.0 1.0 1.94
12 7 6 0.5 273 T.I. 4.0 1.0 0.47
Lopez 13 7 6 0.5 303 50 4.0 1.0 0.11
et al. 14 7 6 0.5 303 90 4.0 1.0 2.64
[10] 15 7 6 0.5 303 T.I. 4.0 1.0 6.80
16 7 6 0.5 323 50 4.0 1.0 0.05
17 7 6 0.5 323 90 4.0 1.0 1.61
18 7 6 0.5 323 T.I. 4.0 1.0 0.87
19 7 6 0.5 273 50 6.0 1.0 0.30
20 7 6 0.5 273 90 6.0 1.0 0.43
21 7 6 0.5 273 T.I. 6.0 1.0 0.18
22 7 6 0.5 303 50 6.0 1.0 0.14
23 7 6 0.5 303 90 6.0 1.0 1.01
24 7 6 0.5 303 T.I. 6.0 1.0 2.58
25 7 6 0.5 323 50 6.0 1.0 0.15
26 7 6 0.5 323 90 6.0 1.0 1.15
27 7 6 0.5 323 T.I. 6.0 1.0 7.21
A 15 10 0.6 287 81 0.78 2.73 0.47
Morris
B 15 10 0.4 287 81 0.43 2.73 0.079
et al.
C 15 10 0.6 287 81 1.65 2.73 4.10
[11]
D 15 10 0.6 287 81 0.16 2.73 0.09
Otieno et al. PC-40-40-U-L 40 10 0.4 298 50 1.28 2.34 1.78
[12] PC-40-20-U-L 20 10 0.4 298 50 1.40 2.34 1.85
Jee and OPC 0.45 25 12 0.45 300 65 0.20 1.72 0.27
Pradhan OPC 0.50 25 12 0.50 300 65 0.30 1.72 0.53
[13] OPC 0.55 25 12 0.55 300 65 0.37 1.72 1.75
M15-1V 30 10 0.48 293 85 1.5 0.7 0.06
M15-1H 30 10 0.48 293 85 1.5 0.7 0.05
Luping M30-1V 30 10 0.48 293 85 3.0 0.7 0.21
[14] M30-1H 30 10 0.48 293 85 3.0 0.7 0.17
M15-1V 30 10 0.48 293 85 1.5 1.0 0.05
M30-1V 30 10 0.48 293 85 3.0 1.0 0.18
T.I.: totally immersion in water.
103
 Tan, N. N., Hiep, D. V. / Journal of Science and Technology in Civil Engineering

els have been verified appropriately by experimental data used to establish models. However, addi-
tional verification of other independent experimental data is required. The two models of Alonso et al.
[3], Yalcyn and Ergun [4] are too simple and hence, not included in this section.
The experimental data obtained from the literature [10–15] are synthesized in Table 2 and Table 3,
and are characterised by the parameters as follows: the concrete cover thickness C (mm), the diameter
of steel rebar d (mm), the water-cement ratio w/c, the temperature T (K), the relative humidity RH
(%), the chloride content Ct (% or kg/m3 ), the corrosion time t (years) and the corrosion rate measured
by experiment icorr (µA/cm2 ). There are 55 experimental data that were carried out on different types
of testing samples, such as: mortar specimens of dimensions 20 × 55 × 80 mm [10], cylindrical
specimens of 150 mm in diameter and 300 mm in length [11]; beam specimens of dimensions 120 ×
130×375 mm [12]; prismatic specimens of dimensions 62×62×300 mm [13]; slab specimens of small
dimensions 250 × 250 × 70 mm [14]; and, slab specimens of large dimensions 1180 × 1180 × 216 mm
[15].

Table 3. Synthesis of experimental data from the literature – part 2

C d T RH Ct t icorr
Author Sample w/c
(mm) (mm) (K) (%) (kg/m3 ) (years) (µA/cm2 )
1 51 16 0.45 299 70 0.31 0.9 0.072
2 51 16 0.45 300 70 0.31 0.9 0.095
3 51 16 0.42 300 70 0.78 0.9 0.147
4 51 16 0.42 300 70 0.78 0.9 0.173
5 51 16 0.42 291 70 0.63 0.9 0.065
6 70 16 0.45 290 63 0.31 1.0 0.052
Liu
7 51 16 0.44 306 70 2.45 1.0 0.210
[15]
8 51 16 0.41 295 70 1.43 1.0 0.093
9 51 16 0.44 282 70 0.78 1.0 0.111
10 70 16 0.45 286 63 0.36 0.9 0.055
11 51 16 0.45 286 63 0.36 0.9 0.055
12 70 16 0.44 292 75 2.45 0.9 0.129
13 70 16 0.44 292 75 2.45 0.9 0.146

The values of chloride content in a few tests are presumed to be portions of the weight of cement or
concrete. The weight of concrete is presumed to be 2500 kg/m3 , cement used in mentioned tests is the
OPC cement, no additional admixture is used. Figs. 1–4 show the ratio imodel /iexp between corrosion
rates obtained from empirical models and from experiments for a series of 55 experimental data. The
experimental results containing all needed information are rarely obtained due to the absence of a few
essential parameters. Thus, the results of analyses still need to be verified further on other independent
experiments.
Fig. 1 shows that Liu and Weyers’s model provides the predicted values of corrosion rate which
are closest to the experimental data. The ratio imodel /iexp has an average value of 4.86 for a series of
55 experimental data used. However, if the chloride ions content is high enough, from 1.5% to 6.0%
[10, 14], the electrical resistivity of concrete will be reduced, and lead to erroneous predictions that
are significantly different from the experimental data.
Fig. 2 shows that Vu and Stewart’s model provides widely varied results that are substantially
larger than the actual values. The ratio imodel /iexp has an average value of 50.14 for a series of 55
experimental data used. This value is 10 times more than that of Liu and Weyers’s model. The ratio

104
cement used in mentioned tests is the OPC cement, no additional admixture is used.
Figures 1 - 4 show the ratio imodel/iexp between corrosion rates obtained from empirical
models and from experiments for a series of 55 experimental data. The average value of 4.86 for a series of 55 experimental data used. However, if the chloride
experimental
results containing all needed information are rarely obtained due to the ions content
absence of a is
fewhigh enough, from 1.5% to 6.0% [10, 14], the electrical resistivity of
concrete
essential parameters. Thus, the results of analyses still need to be verified will on
further be reduced, and lead to erroneous predictions that are significantly
other independent experiments. Tan, N. N., Hiep, D. V. / Journal of different
Sciencefrom
and theTechnology
experimentalindata.
Civil Engineering

Liu and Weyers's model Average line Vu and Stewart's model Average line
70 600
60 500
50
Ratio imodel /iexp

Ratio imodel /iexp

400
40
300
30
20 200

10 100

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Sample No. Sample
Journal of Science and Technology No.Engineering NUCE 2020
in Civil

Figure 1. Comparison between the predicted

Figure 1. Comparison betweenresults
thebypredicted Figure
Liu and Weyers’s
results 2. Comparison
model and
Figure between the predicted
2. Comparison results
between thebypredicted
Vu and Stewart’s
resultsmodel and
by Liu and Weyers’sexperimental
model and model, but much
dataexperimental data by higher
Vu and than
Stewart’sexperimental
that of Liu
model data
and Weyers’s model.
and experimental data
Figure 1 shows that Liu and Weyers’s model provides the predictedFigure values2 shows
of that Vu and Stewart’s model provides widely varied results that
DuraCrete model Average line
are substantially
corrosion rate which are closest to the experimental data. The ratio imodel/iexp has 300
anlarger than the actual values. The ratio imodel/iexp has an average value
value can reach to 600 on the sample having the chloride
of 50.14 content
for a series of of more
55 experimental datathan 2%.value
used. This As ismentioned
10 times more than that
above, this model is rather 250
9 simple, does not take of Liuinto consideration
and Weyers’s model. Themany
ratio factors
value can concerning
reach to 600 onthe envi- having the
the sample
ronmental conditions that affect the corrosion chloride
rate. content of
It should more
be than 2%.
noted As mentioned
that this above,
model this
was model is rather
established simple, does
Ratio imodel/iexp

200
not take into consideration ◦ factors concerning the environmental conditions that
many
based on experimental results obtained in a specific condition (293 K and 75% humidity).
affect 150 rate. It should be noted that this model was established based on
the corrosion
Fig. 3 presents the results of the ratio imodel /iexp for a series of samples when parameters such as
o
100 obtained in a specific condition (293 K and 75% humidity).
c experimental results
kt,res , kc,res , kT,res , kRH,res , kcl,res , nres , Fcl , ρ0 are assigned to be the average values that are presented in
c

a study by Val and Chernin [16]. Additionally, according Figure 3 presents the results of the ratio imodel/iexp for rate a serieisofalso
samples when
50 to DuraCrete model, corrosion
parameters
relied on the variable of wet duration which is very hard to control such as k t,res , k c,res , k
in real , k
T,res life , k
RH,ressituations.
cl,res , n ,
res FIt
c
, ro be seen to be the
cl can
c
are assigned
averageasvalues 0
that are presented in a study by Val of and Chernin [16]. Additionally,
that in this case in which parameters are assigned mentioned,0 5 the 10 predicted
15 20 25 values 30 35 40corrosion 45 50 55rate 60
according to DuraCrete model, corrosion rate isof 21.43 for a series of wet
also relied on the variable
are higher
Journal than
of Science andthe experimental
Technology values.NUCE
in Civil Engineering 2020 imodel /iexp has an average value
The ratio Sample No.
duration which is very hard to control in real life situations. It can be seen that in this
of 55 experimental data used, smaller than that of Vu3.and Stewart’s model, but much higher than that
case Figure
in which Comparison
parameters are between
assigned theaspredicted
mentioned, results by Duracrete
the predicted model
values and
of corrosion
of Liu
model, but much andthan
higher Weyers’s
that of Liumodel.
and Weyers’s model. experimental data
rate are higher than the experimental values. The ratio imodel/iexp has an average value of
21.43 for a series of 55 experimental data
Pour-Ghaz et al.'sused,
modelsmaller than that line
Average of Vu and Stewart’s
DuraCrete model Average line
300 60

250 50
Ratio imodel /iexp
Ratio imodel /iexp

200 40 10
150 30

100 20

50 10

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Sample No. Sample No.

Figure 3. Comparison between the predicted results by DuracreteFigure

model4. Comparison between the predicted results by Pour-Ghaz et al.’s model and
and
Figure 3. Comparison between the predicted results Figure 4. Comparison between the predicted results
experimental data experimental data
by Duracrete model and experimental data by Pour-Ghaz et al.’s model and experimental data
Figure 4 presents the comparison results between the predicted values by Pour-
Pour-Ghaz et al.'s model Average lineGhaz et al.’s model for the average corrosion rate and experimental data. In this
60Fig. 4 presents the comparison results between calculation,thethe predicted values
empirical model by Pour-Ghaz
in Equation et toal.’s
(4) is used modelthe concrete
determine
for50the average corrosion rate and experimental data. In this calculation, the empirical model in Eq.the(4)
resistivity of the samples, without using the empirical models cited in study of Pour-
Ghaz et al. [8], since these models do not consider the chloride content in concrete
is used to determine the concrete resistivitysamples. of the samples,
The results without
show that using the empirical
the predicted models corrosion
values of maximum cited rate are
Ratio imodel/iexp

40
in the study of Pour-Ghaz et al. [8], since these overestimated.
models do Thenot
model of maximum
consider corrosion rate
the chloride cannot in
content be applied
concrete for all samples.
30 Meanwhile, the model of average corrosion rate is acceptable. The ratio imodel/iexp has the
105
20
11
10

0
 Tan, N. N., Hiep, D. V. / Journal of Science and Technology in Civil Engineering

samples. The results show that the predicted values of maximum corrosion rate are overestimated. The
model of maximum corrosion rate cannot be applied for all samples. Meanwhile, the model of average
corrosion rate is acceptable. The ratio imodel /iexp has the average value of 7.16 for a series of 55 exper-
imental data used. This value is smaller than that of Vu and Stewart’s model and DuraCrete model.

4. Conclusions
This study presents the pros and cons of six empirical models proposed by different authors that
are used to predict the corrosion rate of steel in concrete structure occurring in chloride environ-
ments. The experimental data collected from separated experiments are compared with the predicted
values from the models of Liu and Weyers, Vu and Stewart, DuraCrete and Pour-Ghaz et al. A few
conclusions can be drawn as follow:
- In general, all mentioned models provide higher values of corrosion rate compared to actual
values from experiments.
- Liu and Weyers’s model provides the most accurate prediction of corrosion rate. However, when
the chloride content reaches a value ranging from 1.5% to 6.0%, the predicted values can be overesti-
mated in comparison with the actual values.
- Despite its simplicity, Vu and Stewart’s model provides excessively higher prediction of steel
corrosion rate and thus greatly affects the structure life calculation.
- When using DuraCrete model, a careful consideration must be taken with regard to the input
parameters since these values are obtained in a particular condition of experiment and thus, may not
be applicable.
- The calculation of Pour-Ghaz et al.’s model is more complicated in comparison with the other
models since there are many constants in the formula and it must use the auxiliary models to estimate
the limiting current density and concrete resistivity. Their limitation is that they can cause high error
in the prediction of corrosion rate. The model of average corrosion rate is acceptable, while the model
of maximum corrosion rate cannot be applied in the majority of cases.
The validation of the mentioned models is provisionally acceptable due to the lack of experimental
data. Therefore, to apply the models to the climate of Vietnam’s region [17, 18] appropriately requires
a large-scale, long-term experimentation in order to calibrate existing models or to establish new ones.

References
[1] Tuutti, K. (1980). Service life of structures with regard to corrosion of embedded steel. Special Publica-
tion, 65:223–236.
[2] Francois, R., Arliguie, G. (1994). Durability of loaded reinforced concrete in chloride environment.
Special Publication, 145:573–596.
[3] Alonso, C., Andrade, C., Gonzalez, J. A. (1988). Relation between resistivity and corrosion rate of
reinforcements in carbonated mortar made with several cement types. Cement and Concrete Research, 18
(5):687–698.
[4] Yalcyn, H., Ergun, M. (1996). The prediction of corrosion rates of reinforcing steels in concrete. Cement
and Concrete Research, 26(10):1593–1599.
[5] Liu, T., Weyers, R. W. (1998). Modeling the dynamic corrosion process in chloride contaminated concrete
structures. Cement and Concrete Research, 28(3):365–379.
[6] Vu, K. A. T., Stewart, M. G. (2000). Structural reliability of concrete bridges including improved chloride-
induced corrosion models. Structural Safety, 22(4):313–333.
[7] Duracrete (2000). Probabilistic performance based durability design of concrete structures. Document
BE95-1347/R17.
106
 Tan, N. N., Hiep, D. V. / Journal of Science and Technology in Civil Engineering

[8] Pour-Ghaz, M., Isgor, O. B., Ghods, P. (2009). The effect of temperature on the corrosion of steel in
concrete. Part 1: Simulated polarization resistance tests and model development. Corrosion Science, 51
(2):415–425.
[9] Papadakis, V. G., Vayenas, C. G., Fardis, M. N. (1991). Physical and chemical characteristics affecting
the durability of concrete. Materials Journal, 88(2):186–196.
[10] López, W., González, J. A., Andrade, C. (1993). Influence of temperature on the service life of rebars.
Cement and Concrete Research, 23(5):1130–1140.
[11] Morris, W., Vico, A., Vazquez, M., de Sanchez, S. R. (2002). Corrosion of reinforcing steel evaluated by
means of concrete resistivity measurements. Corrosion Science, 44(1):81–99.
[12] Otieno, M., Beushausen, H., Alexander, M. (2016). Chloride-induced corrosion of steel in cracked con-
crete – Part I: Experimental studies under accelerated and natural marine environments. Cement and
Concrete Research, 79:373–385.
[13] Jee, A. A., Pradhan, B. (2019). Study on development of empirical relationships between durability
parameters of concrete made with different types of binder and exposed to chloride environment. Con-
struction and Building Materials, 212:799–817.
[14] Luping, T. (2002). Calibration of the electrochemical methods for the corrosion rate measurement of steel
in concrete. SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute, SP Building Technology.
[15] Liu, Y. (1996). Modeling the time-to corrosion cracking of the cover concrete in chloride contaminated
reinforced concrete structures. PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
[16] Val, D., Chernin, L. (2008). Service-life performance of reinforced concrete structures in corrosive envi-
ronments. In Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering (Biondini
F and Frangopol D (eds)). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 247–252.
[17] Tan, N. N., Dung, T. A., Thế, N. C., Tuan, T. B., Anh, L. T. (2018). An experimental study to identify the
influence of reinforcement corrosion on steel-concrete bond stress. Journal of Science and Technology in
Civil Engineering (STCE) - NUCE, 12(6):29–38.
[18] Nguyen, N. D., Tan, N. N. (2019). Prediction of residual carrying capacity of RC column subjected in-
plane axial load considering corroded longitudinal steel bars. Journal of Science and Technology in Civil
Engineering (STCE) - NUCE, 13(2V):53–62.

107

View publication stats