4.4 Article

Reliability of Galvanostatic Pulse Technique in assessing the corrosion rate of rebar in concrete structures: Laboratory vs field studies

期刊

KSCE JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 867-877

出版社

KOREAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS-KSCE
DOI: 10.1007/s12205-010-1023-6

关键词

corrosion rate; galvanostatic pulse technique; electrochemical impedance; spectroscopic technique; frequency domain time domain; transient technique; weight-loss method

资金

  1. ISARC
  2. Centre for Corea, Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Corrosion of rebar in concrete structures is one among the various causes impairing its long-term durability. Precise assessment of corrosion rate (CR) is of prime importance to evaluate the structural safety as well as for estimation of service life of concrete structures. Among the electrochemical techniques, Galvanostatic Pulse Technique (GPT) is very promising for field mapping due to its rapidity. The reliability of GPT in determining the CR under passive and active state of rebar has been carried out using small size laboratory specimens and large scale aged concrete structures. The CR determined by the GPT is compared with the CR obtained by Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy Technique (EIST) and weight-loss method. The study reveals that an anodic pulse of 100 mu A with a pulse duration of 10 seconds is able to determine the CR from 1-663 mu m/y (from negligible to higher corrosion activity) on the rebar network more precisely even up to 65 mm of cover concrete. For instance the rebar corroding at higher rate, the CR predicted by GPT is very close to the CR by weight-loss method whereas it is 20 times less by EIST. In the case of passive state of rebar, the CR predicted by EIST is very close to weight-loss method whereas GPT predicts 10 times higher. In aged structures, the change in microstructure of concrete and loss of moisture from the concrete make the potential of rebar and resistivity of concrete more unpredictable and mislead the status of rebar embedded inside the concrete.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据