Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Central Japan Railway, 900 17th Street NW, Suite 520, Washington, DC 20006, USA
Nippon Sharyo, 1-1 Sambommatsu-Cho, Atsuta-Ku, Nagoya, Aichi 456-8691, Japan
c
University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, School of Civil Engineering, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Available online 14 June 2012
Keywords:
Carbonation
Concrete
Electrochemical injection
Organic corrosion inhibitors
Railway viaduct
Durability
a b s t r a c t
As a possible means of alleviating carbonation-induced reinforcement corrosion in aging reinforced
structures, electrochemical injection of corrosion inhibitors has been proposed. This method involves
application of aqueous solutions of organic base corrosion inhibitors onto the concrete surface with controlled current densities passed between anodes placed within the inhibitor solutions and the embedded
steel bars acting as cathodes. This present contribution describes a site trial of electrochemical inhibitor
injection applied to a 40-year-old carbonated high-speed railway viaduct in Tokyo. The efciency of
inhibitor penetration to the embedded reinforcement and the electrochemical effects brought about by
the proposed method are discussed.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
After long-term atmospheric exposure, many reinforced
concrete structures throughout the world have started to exhibit
signs of carbonation-induced reinforcement corrosion and therefore require maintenance to extend their service lives [1]. The corrosion of steel reinforcement and the bursting stress caused by
rust, which occupies a much larger volume than the parent metal,
can result in cracking or spalling of the cover concrete and reduction in structural strength. Several approaches have been used in
the remedial treatment of such structures; they include partial
replacement of concrete cover, electrochemical re-alkalisation,
cathodic protection, and surface application of corrosion inhibitors
[2,3]. The method of partial replacement is considered the conventional option, but it can be time-consuming, expensive and inconvenient, often associated with noise, dust and general disruption
during the repair process. As far as electrochemical re-alkalisation
is concerned, criteria for determining completion of a successful
treatment and its long-term durability have been somewhat
unclear [46] and, in the case of cathodic protection, the effectiveness of the technique as a means of repassivating steel in
carbonated concrete requires long-term monitoring and periodic
adjustment of the impressed current installation to be undertaken
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 202 429 1900; fax: +1 202 429 1917.
E-mail addresses: kubojun@jr-central-usa.com (J. Kubo), YUJI-TANAKA@cm.
n-sharyo.co.jp (Y. Tanaka), c.l.page.1@bham.ac.uk (C.L. Page), m.page@bham.ac.uk
(M.M. Page).
0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.05.010
Concentration (mmole/1)
1400
Cathode
0A//m2
1200
1A//m2
1000
5A//m2
800
600
400
200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Fig. 3. Steel corrosion rates in carbonated concrete after EII treatment cf. those of
untreated controls.
HO C2 H4 NH3 () HO C2 H4 NH2 H
3. Site trial
3.1. Target structure and preliminary survey
The target structure selected for trial application of electrochemical corrosion inhibitor injection was a viaduct that has been
in service carrying high-speed rail train cars for almost 40 years in
Tokyo. These reinforced concrete viaducts usually consist of three
elements as shown in Fig. 4(left). The designed concrete cover is
40 mm for a slab and a cantilever, 50 mm for the bottom of a beam,
and 60 mm for the side of a beam. The viaducts total surface of
56 m2 was used for the site trial as shown in Fig. 4(right). Based
on the survey record prior to the electrochemical treatment, the
reinforcing steel bars were found to be almost exactly where they
were expected to be located and the average carbonation depth
measured was 19 mm for cantilevers, 36 mm for slabs and
40 mm for bottom and side beams. The un-neutralised remainder (concrete cover minus carbonation depth), which is an indicator of the risk of initiation of carbonation-induced corrosion of
steel in concrete [15], was no greater than 10 mm in slabs and
beam bottoms. However, the corrosion potential (Ecorr, SCE scale)
and corrosion rate (Icorr) of the embedded steel, which were measured at 63 positions (for Ecorr) and 14 positions (for Icorr) in the
three sections, ranged between 67 mV and 148 mV, and
0.013 lA/cm2 and 0.123 lA/cm2 respectively. The corrosion rates
were obtained by means of EIS (electrochemical impedance spectroscopy) with an excitation signal of maximum amplitude of
20 mV applied for the interrogation of half of the steel surface
(length 40 mm) at each estimated area over a frequency swept
from 10 Hz to 0.1 mHz. The measurements were conducted by
means of portable equipment (CM-V, developed by Shikoku
Research Institute Inc.) utilising a double-electrode (DE) system
that polarises the embedded reinforcement with a round central
counter electrode (CCE, / 40 mm) and an additional ring-shaped
guard counter electrode (GCE, outer: / 106 mm, inner: / 45 mm)
surrounding the former one but captures the corrosion current
only owing through the CCE to interrogate the limited target area
[16]. These ndings implied a high probability that the steel still
remained in a largely passivated condition according to published
Fig. 4. Target RC viaduct (left) and electrochemically treated area (right, indicated as grey box).
CO2
() HCO3 pK2 : 10:33
3 H
HCO3
Fig. 5. Schematic view (left) and site picture (right) of electric circuits.
Fig. 6. Ethanolamine carbonation setup (left) and inhibitor solution spray (right).
Table 1
Extracted cores for inhibitor penetration analysis.
No.
Member
No.
Member
1
2
3
4
40
Cantilever
Beam (side)
Beam (bottom)
Slab
Slab (6 months)
480
480
480
480
480
40
60
50
40
40
5
6
7
8
8
Cantilever
Beam (side)
Beam (bottom)
Slab
Slab (6 months)
840
840
840
840
840
40
60
50
40
40
Fig. 7. Concentration proles of injected ethanolamine in concrete just after the electrochemical treatment ((a) cantilever, (b) slab, (c) beam, and (d) control. Solid vertical
line: rebar position, broken vertical line: carbonation front).
It is suggested that a similar buffering equilibrium will also apply in the case of electrochemical injection of carbonated ethanolamine. Although the task of bubbling CO2 to produce a carbonated
ethanolamine solution of pH 9.0 during preparation of the external
electrolyte to be used for the EII treatment required time and effort, the procedure was thought to be benecial in terms of longterm durability and harmlessness to the original structure.
4.3. Efciency of electrochemical injection
Overall penetration proles of ethanolamine that was electrochemically injected into concrete are shown for the various parts
Fig. 8. Concentration proles of injected ethanolamine just after and 6 months after
the electrochemical treatment (in the slab). Solid vertical line: rebar position,
broken vertical line: carbonation front).
Position
Before treatment
After treatment
Treated
Cantilever
Beam
Slab
91
107
109
0.09
0.04
0.04
N/A
330
N/A
N/A
1.11
N/A
269
N/A
207
1.18
N/A
1.73
115
116
118
0.17
0.11
0.14
Non-treated (distance)
30 cm
120 cm
125
119
0.07
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
202
179
1.38
N/A
128
126
0.10
N/A
1 Week
reinforcing bars. Application of this treatment to concrete structures with substantially varied cover thickness using a single electric circuit would therefore be liable to result in non-uniform
inhibitor injection. This suggests that, for the treatment to be generally effective, every circuit needs to be arranged to cover a zone of
fairly similar concrete cover thickness throughout. Reasonably detailed information on concrete cover distribution in the structure
concerned would therefore be useful in the planning stage of an
EII project.
The other notable feature of the results shown in Fig. 7 is that
treatments carried out at total charge densities of 480 A h/m2
and 840 A h/m2 did not result in major differences in the concentrations of inhibitors injected into the concrete, which implies that
a charge density greater than 480 A h/m2 may be excessive. It may
be relevant to note here that, in the case of electrochemical realkalisation, one of the issues over which it has proved difcult
to achieve a broad consensus of agreement in the literature has
concerned criteria to determine the completion of a successful
treatment [46]. Similarly for EII, the completion criteria of this
treatment must obviously be rened, taking into consideration
the long-term durability of this method in maintaining steel
passivation.
4.4. Pore solution pH near cathode
The pH values recorded near the steel cathode in the core extracted from concrete at the end of the treatment at 840 A h/m2
were in the range of 12.613.2. Taking into account that this region
had not been fully carbonated before the treatment and thus the
initial pH would have been expected to exceed 13, the alkalinity
generated at the steel cathode during the electrochemical treatment did not seem to have raised the pH signicantly. The values
recorded are lower than those reported previously when electrochemical re-alkalisation was applied in the conventional manner
to columns of a different partially carbonated reinforced concrete
railway viaduct of a similar design with an un-neutralised remainder of approximately 2030 mm (pH: 13.013.6) despite the fact
that a smaller total charge density of 360 A h/m2 was used than
those involved in the present investigations [19]. As mentioned in
Section 2, the difference is readily explicable because of the consumption of cathodically generated hydroxyl ions by deprotonation
of ethanolamine cations migrating towards the cathode in the concrete. This restraint on the increase in pH near the cathode during
the treatment might be considered advantageous if electrochemical
injection of inhibitors were to be applied to concrete containing
aggregates that are susceptible to the alkali-silica reaction [20,21].
4.5. Evolution of inhibitor concentration proles after treatment
The penetration proles of the electrochemically injected
inhibitor, obtained immediately after and 6 months after the completion of the treatment of the slab are presented in Fig. 8. As was
found in previous research [13,14], when the penetration proles
of the inhibitors are compared at the two different occasions, the
2 Weeks
6 Months
paired proles resemble one another quite closely. This demonstrates that substantial concentrations of the inhibitor still remained
in the vicinity of the steel after 6 months of normal exposure
post-treatment.
4.6. Electrochemical monitoring
The average corrosion potential (vs SCE) and corrosion rate proles of the steel bars embedded in the electrochemically treated
concrete are shown in Table 2, together with those measured at
positions in the non-treated region at a distance of 30 cm and
120 cm from the boundary. Just after the electrochemical treatment, the steel potential would have been around 1000 mV owing to electrolysis, as was observed previously [13]. The steel
potential showed recovery to more noble values with time. The relatively high corrosion rates of above 1.0 lA/cm2 observed 1 week
or 2 weeks after the treatment also recovered to 0.10.2 lA/cm2.
The average steel potential in the beam 1 week after the treatment
showed a wide range between 210 mV and 514 mV. The lower
potentials (<400 mV) were recorded at the steel bar embedded in
the region positioned at the central part of the beam. It was found
that the steel embedded in the non-treated region at 30 or 120 cm
distance from the boundary showed a similar trend in negative
shift of steel potential after the treatment, as well as its recovery
in 6 months. However, it would be worthwhile to continue electrochemically monitoring the steel embedded in the boundary area
between treated and non-treated regions to investigate the effect
of partially applied electrochemical treatment on the steel passivation in surrounding regions of the structure.
5. Conclusions and suggestions for further work
From the site trial described above, the electrochemical injection of the organic base corrosion inhibitor, ethanolamine, into
an existing aged carbonated concrete railway viaduct was found
to allow penetration of an adequate concentration of the inhibitor
in the vicinity of the steel for passivation of the steel under the
conditions studied. The moderate pH change near the steel cathode
during the electrochemical treatment, which is presumably attributable to the buffering action of signicant concentrations of ethanolamine injected to this region, would be likely to mitigate the
risk of alkali-silica reaction in concrete with certain types of potentially reactive siliceous aggregate. It was also found that variability
in concrete cover, as is usually the case in real concrete structures,
signicantly affects the current density distribution in the medium, resulting in an uneven injection treatment if the individual
anode zones are made too extensive. Detailed information on the
distribution of concrete cover within the structure is therefore
needed in order to establish a reasonable treatment plan for successful inhibitor injection. In addition, it was found in this trial that
there seems to be little advantage in increasing the total charge
density beyond a certain magnitude as this does not contribute
to further signicant enhancement of inhibitor injection. Further
work needs to be done to establish acceptance criteria to deter-
[8] Page CL, Ngala VT, Page MM. Corrosion inhibitors in concrete repair systems.
Mag Conc Res 2000;52:2537.
[9] Elsener B, editor. Corrosion inhibitors for steel in concrete state of the art
report. European federation of corrosion publications, 35. London: Maney
Publishing/The Institute of Materials; 2001.
[10] Soylev TA, Richardson MG. Corrosion inhibitors for steel in concrete. Constr
Build Mater 2008;22:60922.
[11] Sawada S, Kubo J, Page CL, Page MM. Electrochemical injection of organic
corrosion inhibitors into carbonated cementitious materials: Part I Effects on
pore solution chemistry. Corros Sci 2007;49:1186204.
[12] Kubo J, Sawada S, Page CL, Page MM. Electrochemical injection of organic
corrosion inhibitors into carbonated cementitious materials: Part II
Mathematical modelling. Corros Sci 2007;49:120527.
[13] Kubo J. Methods of remedial treatment for carbonation-induced corrosion of
reinforced concrete. PhD thesis, Leeds University; 2007.
[14] Kubo J, Sawada S, Page CL, Page MM. Electrochemical inhibitor injection for
control of reinforcement corrosion in carbonated concrete. Mater Corros
2008;59:10714.
[15] Parrott LJ. A study of carbonation-induced corrosion. Mag Concr Res
1994;46:238.
[16] Yokota M, Kohno K. Experimental study on the technical possibilities of the
double-counter electrode method in AC impedance measurements of concrete
reinforcement. In: Swamy RN, editor. Corrosion and corrosion protection of
steel in concrete. Proceedings of the international conference held at the
University of Shefeld. Shefeld Academic Press; 1994. p. 21023.
[17] Andrade C, Alonso MC, Gonzalez JA. In: Berke NS, Chaker V, Whiting D, editors.
Corrosion rates of steel in concrete. STP 1065. Philadelphia: ASTM; 1990. p.
2937.
[18] Lide DR, editor. Handbook of chemistry and physics. Boca Raton (Florida): CRC
Press; 2011.
[19] Kitago Y, Ashida M, Kikuta N, Miyagawa T. An experimental study on
improvement of concrete and repair effect using electrochemical methods. J
JSCE 2000;46:10115.
[20] Sergi G, Page CL, Thompson DM. Electrochemical induction of alkalisilica
reaction in concrete. Mater Struct 1991;24:35961.
[21] Page CL, Yu SW. Potential effects of electrochemical desalination of concrete
on alkalisilica reaction. Mag Concr Res 1995;47:2331.