Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

~

~~ \ I Ct t

~S

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

Primersto the Reinforcement in Mortars:


Effectiveness as a Function of Primer Type,
Exposure Conditions, and Amount of Sodium
Chloride
P. Castro-Borges,t." M. Balancn, " El. Moreno, "" and J.H. Chan-Cabrera""

KEY WORDS: concrete, locaUzed repair, marine environment,


mortars, primers, reinforcement. sodium chIoride

ABSTRACT
Primers are customarily used to preventjurther corrosion of
rebar during the repair process for corrosion-damaged concrete structures on the coast ofYUt:atn. However, there are
not enough data about their effectiveness l this enviroronent.
TIlis work presents laboratory data of mortar specimens
where primers to the relforcement were used as they are
currently llocalized repairs ltropical marine coasts. Four
different. locaIly available primers were used accordlg to
their hypotheticaL protection mechanism (banier, cathodic protection. inhibition. and repassivation). Primers were applied to
the rebars and then embedded lmortar and subjected to two
exposiffe conditions: partiaI immersion to different solutions
of sodium chIoride (NaCl; 0.4, 2.0, and 5.0%) and wet and
dry cycles (12 h wet and 12 h dry) to a NaCl solution (3.5%)
at 50C. Th.eelectrochemicaL behavior of the specimens was
followed through polarization resistance, corrosion potentiaI.
and electrical resistance. In p~ticaL terms, the use of primers proved to be a good optiort'for economicaL andfast repairs
or in cases where concrete was of bad quality (for example,.
concrete with a water-to-cement [wfc] ratio higher than 0.5). A
degree of primer eifectiveness was obtained according to the
electrochemicaL behavior of the repair. Banier-type primers
were more degradation-resistant than the others. Although
primers proved to be a reasonable optionfor ocalized repair,
juture behavior must befollowed carejully.
Submitted for publ1cation March 2006: in revised form, August
2006.
. Crresponding
author. E-mail: pcastro@inda.cinvestav.mx.
Centro de Investigacin y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN-Unidad

Mrtda, Km. 6 Antigua Carretera a Progreso, Mrtda, Yucatn,


Mxico.
.. Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad Autnoma de Yucatn,
Mrtda, Yucatn, Mxico.

CORROSION-Vol.

63, No. 3

INTRODUCTION
Primers used as a corrosion prevention method have
behaved well after 30 years in service, as observed
iI! Figure l. This structure was located in fue Port of
Progreso. Yucatn, at about 200 m from fue seashore,
It corresponds to a part of an intemal column from
an office that was demolished to construct a shopping mall, Primers were only used in fue longitudinal
reinforcing bars (called rebars). Despife being used as
a corrosion prevention method, fue apparent state of
fue rebars was very good. This situation has encouraged constructors about fue advantages of using this
kind of method to protect fue reinforcement under
similar conditions,
Currently. primers are being used in concrete
under several environments as a method to protect
fue reinforcement from corrosion in localized repairs, I
The use of primers to fue reinforcement as a repair
method has been reported in fue literature.2-4 As a
localized repair method, fue use of fue primer involves
its application in Borne specific parts of fue reinforcement while others remain uncoated. Therefore. depending on fue exposure environment, type ofprimer.
extent of fue zone primed. concrete quality, electrical
contact with uncoated parts. etc.. primers have shown
to cause, or not, galvanic coupling between fue rebars from fue repaired zone and fue rebars from fue
areas surrounding fue repaired zone.5-7Some ofthem

0010-9312/07/000033/$5.00+$0.50/0
@ 2007. NACE International

231

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

'"""-

~~

"""'-

Gulf of Mexico
~

DDDD
DO O
000

Marsh

AGUR E 1. Visual aspect of rebars primedwith

an inhibitor-type

primer system from a 30-year-old

office that was demolished

to construct a ~hopping mallo

have shown bad perfonnance when used in localized


repairs. However. as technology develops. newand
better primers emerge in fue market. so that new investigations and results are being reported in tenns of
their behavior when used in localized repairs.8
In contrasto localized repairs can be perfonned in
severa! parts of a structural element and can be subjected to different stresses and environmental actions.
Primer perfonnance is dependent not only on fue type
of structural element but also on fue exposure conditions of fue elemento According to several data in fue
literature. differences in behavior could be due to fue
type of exposure and not only on fue type of fue primer's protection mechanism. For example. fue performance of a primer in a concrete element placed in fue
splash zone would be different under immersion conditions. However. there is not enough available data
in fue literature to c1arify this. Thus. fue objective of
this paper was to show fue degree of primer effectiveness under two exposure conditions. fue presence of
sodium chloride (NaCl) and fue type of primer.

~
EXPERIMENTAL
PROCEDURES
Saturated calcium hydroxide (Ca[OHb) solutions
were prepared and two exposure conditions were
tested: continuous partial immersion (3.5% NaCI) and
wet (partial immersion in 0.4. 2. and 5% NaCI) and
dry cyc1es (in an oyen at 50C).

Specimens Construction
The specimens consisted of 6-mm-diameter corrugated reinforcing steel bars (rebars). ASTM grade
75.(1)single (continuous immersion tests) and double
111

AS1M Internatlonal.

PA 19428.

232

100 Barr Harbor Dr1ve. West Conshohocken.

(wet and dry tests) cast in mortar prisms as in other


investigations.9 Figure 2 shows a sketch with fue dimensions and characteristics of both types of probes.
and Figure 3 shows a photo of them once seto The
mortar samples were constructed following fue procedure described in ASTM C192.IO Four theoretical

protection mechanisms of primers 11 were taken into


account: cathodic protection (zinc chromate [ZnCrO4]).
barrier (coal-tar epoxy). inhibition Oead base). and repassivation (cement grout). The first three primers are
sold fue most in Southern Mexico O'able 1). They are
not.designed for their use in a1ka1ine environments.
but fuey have shown mixed. interesting results. The
fourth mechanism was obtained using cement-based
grout. It is well known that cement paste has a very
a1ka1ine pH. and in fuis environment steel is passivated. In addition. blank specimens were casto
Tables 2 and 3 show fue distribution of specimens for fue immetsion tests and for fue wet and dry
ones. respectively.
Electrochemical Measurements
Figures 4 and 5 show a photo and a scheme of
fue specimens during partial immersion. or wet and
dry cyc1es. respectively. Figure 6 shows fue cell configuration for electrochemical measurements.
For both types of tests. fue mortar samples were
immersed in saturated Ca(OH)2 solutions alter 24 h
of setting with no curing. The lack of curing was to
simulate real conditions and to accelerate degradation processes. The wet/dry cyc1e was 12 h/12 h as
in other investigatlons.12 Once in their respective_exposure conditlons. measurements of corrosion potential (Eoorr).polarization resistance (R,).and electrical
solutlon resistance (RJ were perfonned periodicalIy.
The mortar samples were broken once fue tests were
CORROSION-MARCH

2007

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTlON

Working electrodes

ffi

Internal view of the specimen's side

F\

ion
Cement = 1
Sand = 3
Water = 0.5

ortar propo

8cm

Electrical
contact

8cm

-----..

Part
covered
with the
primer

1cm
1 cm
1 cm
3cm
2cm
2cm

2cm

I 5.5 cm I
Double rebar
specimen

Single rebar
specimen

FIGURE 2. Sketch with the dimensibns and characteristics

Part covered with


the insulating tape

Exposed
area

o, both types o, specimens.

finished to obtain gravimetric losses of fue rebar specimens. The gravimetric


loses were obtained according
to ISO 8407.13
A cornmercial

potentiostatj

galvanostat

was used

to obtain fue electrochemical parameters. Ecorr was


measured using a saturated calomel electrode (SCE) ,
taking into account that fue primers used are not
completely impermeable so they allow fue measurements by this mean.1 A corrosion monitoring
system
was used to apply fue linear polarization resistance
technique (RJ. From fue corrosion potential, 15 mV
in fue cathodic direction were enforced at a scan rate
ofO.06 mVjs to avoid as much as possible fue effect
of large time constants, which are fue product of fue
influence of non-Faradaic
processes that. added up

to fue Faradaic ones, would cause an overestimation


of~. ~ was obtained ITomfue slope of fue potentialcurrent curve at fue maximum potential deviation.
The ohmic IR drop was measured externally with a
four-point Wenner probe resistivity meter, using th~
same set up as in fue corrosion measurements, which
was' used to compensate fue ~ data when evaluated.

AGURE

3. Photo o( the concrete specimens

once set.

TABLE 1
Characteristics of the Primers Tested

Characteristic
Formulation
Type of coating
General use
Thickness obtained
Solvent
Color
Finish
Surface preparation

CORROSION-Vol.

Type 01primer
(According to its Theoretical Protection Mechanism)
CathodicProtection
Barrier
Zinc chromate
Primer
Metallic surfaces, interior and exterior
200 11m
Thinner
Green yellow
Matte
Dry and oxide-free

63, No. 3

Goal-lar epoxy
Primer
Tanks, ships, and submerged equipment
200~
Thinner
Black
Matte
Dryand oxide-free

Inhibitor
Lead base
Primer
MetaJlicsurfaces
200 11m
Thinner
Orange
Matte
Dryand oxide-free

233

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

TABLE2
Oistributionof Single Specimens (One Embedded Rebar),
According to the Type of Primerand NaCI Solution, for Immersion Tests

""-"

Type 01 Primer
(According to its Theoretical
Protection Mechanism)

Cathodic
Protection

NaCI solution (%)


Number 01rebar specimens
Total number 01concrete samples

0.4
2

2.0
2
6

Barrier

5.0
2

0.4
2

2.0
2
6

Inhibitor
5.0
2

0.4 2.0
2
2
6

5.0
2

Repassivant
0.4 2.0 5.0
2
2
2
6

Blank
0.4
2

2.0
2
6

5.0
2

TABLE 3
Oistribution of Oauble Specimens (Twa Embedded Rebars),
According fo the Type af Primer far Tests with Wet and Ory Cyc1es
Type 01 Primer
(According to its Theoretical
Protection Mechanism)

Cathodic
Protection

Barrier

Inhibitor

1
2

1
2

1
2
5

Number 01 concrete samples


Number 01 rebar specimens
Total number of concrete samples

Partial immersion

Blank
1
2

Side view

Barrier01plastic

Exposed
area =3 cm

'-'"

Repassivant
1
2

level 01the
solution

} 1.5 cm

Place 01plastic

FIGURE 4. Photo and scheme of specimens

for parta! immersion

The apparent corrosion c~nt


density (icolT)
was calculated with fue Stern and Geary equation assuming
B

= 26

for fue steel in fue active state and B

= 52

for

fue steel in fue passive state in fue Equation (1). regardless of fue primer used: 14
iCOlT

= B/Rp

(1)

Evaluation Griteria
The primer effectiveness was obtained comparing
fue electrochemical data together with fue time for
depassivation data. The IDean was a decisive parameter used for fue comparisons among fue different
parameters. Active corrosion (depassivation) was
considered after having a corrosion rate higher than
234

tests.

0.2 .LA/cm2. which is fue accepted corrosion tlu'eshold


for steel in concrete. 15-16 The effectiveness of fue Rp
during fue evaluation of fue primers was due to fue
fact that fuese were not completely impermeable. as
has been discussed elsewhere.1 If they were impermeable. Rp measurements would be inadequate and
other additional techniques must be used. The ASTM
C87617 criteria were followed for IDean Ecorr.while for
IDean icolTand R.. fue Durar Manual Criterial8 were
followed. Tables 4 through 6 show fue criteria followed
in this paper to evaluate fue corrosion risk. The advantages of using fue IDean for interpretation of fue
data oficolThas been discussed elsewhere.9
Two important things must be taken into account
with fuese criteria. Potentials according to ASTM
CORROSION-MARCH

2007

CORROSION,SCIENCE SECTION

Side view

Wet and dry cycle

"-"

Barrier of plastic

}1.scm

Piece of plastic

FIGURE 5. Photo and scheme of specimens for wet and dry cycles~

Working electrode,
WE

Reference electrode, RE
(SCE)

"-"

TABLE 4
Corrosion Risk in Reinforced Concrete
from Corrosion Potentials, According to ASTM C876
Eco" (mVsce)

Corrosion Risk

Ecorr> -124
-124>
Eco" > -274
Eco" < -274

10%
50%
90%

TABLE 5
Corrosion Risk in Reinforced Concrete
from Corrosion Rates, According to Durar Manual
icorr(IJA/cm2)
ico" < 0.1
0.1 < co"< 0.2
0.2 < ico"< 0.5
0.5 < co"< 1.0
icorr> 1.0

FIGURE 6. Cell configuraranfor electrochemical measurements.

C876 refer to uncoated rebars. It is assumed that ibis


criterion wiIl apply to our ,fase because of our permeable coatings. The other fact is that fue criteria to
evaluate R" (indirect way of lmowing resistivity) from
fue Durar Manuall7 take into account only uncoated
rebars. A careful interpretation had to be done because fue R" being measured takes into account both
mortar and primer resistances.
RESUL TS ANO OISCUSSION

\....-

Tables 7 through 9 show fue IDean of corrosion


rates. corrosion potentials. and electrical resistances
from Day 40 to fue end of fue experiment (Day 147)..
A careful analysis of fuese tables leads to Table 10.
which shows fue average depassivation time for each

CORROSION-Vol. 63, No. 3

Corrosion Risk
Negligible
Uncertainty
Significant
High
Very high

TABLE 6
Corrosion Risk in Reinforced Concrete
from Concrete Resistivity, According to Durar Manual
Corrosion Risk
Resistivity (kQ.cm)
p > 20
20>p>10
10>p>5
p<5

, Low
Lowto moderate
High
Very high

of fue tested conditions, as weIl as fue corrosion risk.


Table 10 shows a level of primer effectiveness comparing fue measured parameters.
In general. fue more chloride content in partial
immersion tests, fue smaller il!e depassivation time.
It seems to be that all fue primers behave in a similar
way to that of fue blank, in fue sense that they are
permeable to chloride. Under partial irnmersion, only
primers wiili cathodic protection and barrier effects
235

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

TABLE 7
Mean Corrosion Current Density Va/uesAccording to Primer Trpe 'rom Dar 40 to the End o, the Experiment

--

Mean icorr(IJA/em~
Exposure Type

Cathodie
Proteeton

Barrier

Inhibtor

Repassivant

Blank

0.4% NaCI solution


2.0% NaCI solution
5.0% NaCI solution
Wet and dry cycles

0.25
0.44
0.54
3.30

0.14
0.18
0.24
0.21

0.77
1.06
0.94
5.37

0.34
1.30
1.13
37.68

0.63
1.52
3.46
29.85

TABLE 8
Mean Corrosion Potentia/ Va/uesAccording to Primer Trpe 'rom Dar 40 to the End o, the Experiment
Mean Eco., (mVscd
Type of Primer

Cathodie
Exposure Type
0.4% NaCI solution
2.0% NaCI solution
5.0% NaCI solution
Wet and dry cycles

Proteetion

-486
-562
-566
-551

Barrier
;'

-570
-747
-605
-399

Inhibitor

Repassivant

Blank

-417
-494
-466
-494

-195
-436
-403
-602

-317
-569
-686
-598

T ABLE 9

Mean E/ectrica/ So/ution Resistance Va/uesAccording fa Primer Trpe 'rom Dar 40 to the End o, the Experiment
Mean R. (kQ.em)
Type of Primer
Cathodie
Exposure Type
............

0.4% NaCI solution


2.0% NaCI solution
5.0% NaCI solution
Wet and dry cycles

Proteetion

2.02
1.03
0.64
1.88

Barrier

Inhibitor

Repassivant

Blank

44.03
9.38
8.60
89.45

0.56
0.63
0.42
1.25

0.76
0.55
0.39
0.12

1.00
0.63
0.39
0.15

increase fue time for depassivation. compared with


fue blank. The best primer under this condition was
fue barrier one. The inhibitor and fue repassivant
primers behaved worse than fue blank specimens.
Conversely. also trom Table 10. fue other exposure condition (wet and dry cyc1es) affected fue primers' behavior in a different formo Under this exposure.
fue primers with cathodic protection, barrier, and
inhibitor effects performed better than fue blank and
fue repassivation ones. Indi!idually. ZnCrO4 (cathodic
protection) behaves better under partial immersion
conditions than in wet/ dry conditions if fue chloride
content is lower than 2%. The coal-tar epoxy coating
(barrier) performs well in both conditions. The leadbased (inhibitor) primer behaves better in wet/ dry
conditions than in partial immersion cona.itions. According to fue results ofTables 7 and lO, fue repassivation primer did not work better than fue blank
in any of fue two exposure conditions; and fue blank
showed that partial immersion at 50/0NaCI and wet
and dry cyc1es have a similar effect.
Visual observation of fue specimens showed that
fue wet and dry cyc1es promoted more corrosion than
fue partial immersion test. as can be seen in Figures
236

7 through 11. confirming fue results presented in


Table 7. These figures give an idea of how fuese coatings were observed to degrade after fue course of fue
exposure experiments. Visual inspection of fue specimens trom fue wet and dry cyc1es also confirmed fue
observed corrosion rates. with fue blank and repassivant specimens showing fue worst performance. The
best performance was observed for fue coal-tar epoxy
specimens (with 2 orders of magnitud e lower iCOIT
and
30 times longer for depassivation than fue blank
specimens). followed by fue cathodic protection and
fue lead-based specimens (with 1 arder of magnitude
lower iCOIT
and 4 to 6 times longer for depassivation
than fue blank specimens). The icOIT
results presented
here were influenced. as expected. by fue measurement technique. Figure 12shows a plot of fue electrochemical vs. gravimetric losses 13for one selected
case (partial immersion in 5% NaCI solution). Some
of fue results were within twice fue expected dispersion. In all cases. fue epoxy-primed rebars (open triangIes) had higher gravimetric than electrochemical
loses probably due to fue primer removal procedure
for gravimetric measurements. Hence. fue advantage
of using electrochemical measurements was observed
CORROSION-MARCH

2007

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

TABLE10
Effectiveness Primer Scale According to the Average Depassivation Time
for Each of the Tested Exposure Conditions as Well as Their Corrosion Risk
CorrosionRisk
Mean
Mean
Depassivation
Performance
Time
Primer Type
icon'
Econ'
Partial immersion in a 0.4% NaCIsolution
More
Bafrier
N.A.
Passive
90%
effective
Cathodic
90%
77 days
Significant
t
protection
Blank
90%
51 days
High
Less
Repassivant
50%
2 days
High
effective
Inhibitor
90%
2 days
High
Partial immersion in a 2.0% NaCIsolutionMore
Barrier
effective
Cathodic
t
protection
Blank
Less
Inhibitor
effective
Repassivant

Partial immersion
More
effective
t
Less
effective

in a 5.0% NaCI solution


Barrier
Cathodic
protection
Inhibitor
Repassivant
Blank

Wet and dry cycles


More
effective

'--/

t
Less
effective

Barrier
Cathodic
protection
Inhibitor
Blank
Repassivant

N.A.
36 days

63, No. 3

Very high risk


Very high risk
Very high risk

90%
90%

Very high
Very high

90%
90%

1 day

Very high

90%

107 days
16 days

Significant
High

90%
90%

Low
Very high risk'

1 day
3 days
2 days

High
Very high
Very high

90%
90%
90%

Very high risk


Very high risk
Very high risk

125 days
23 days

Significant
Very high

.90%
90%

Low
High risk

17 days
4 days
1 day

Very high

90%
90%
90%

Very high risk


Very high risk
Very high risk

17 days
1 day

fue coating, fue zinc parti~le grain size. and fue zinc
partic1e distribution, because fue three of them can
influence fue results.19 Under fue trials undertaken,
coal-tar epoxy primers had fue best performance during fue corrosion initiation periad in both types of
exposure conditions. However. it is important to take
roto account fut. although not equal to fuese tested
here, fusion-bonded, epoxy-coated rebars embedded
in chloride-contaminated
concrete environments deteriorate at faster rates once fuey started to fail. 20 It
is also well known that epoxy-coated rebar does not
provide total protection to fue steel reinforcement.
although they significantly extend fue corrosion initiation period as compared to uncoated bars for structures subjected to chloride environments.21 There

CORROSION-Vol.

Low
High risk

Passive
Significant

here because fue results trom fue gravimetric tests


cannot allow fue performance of fue primers under
study to differentiate.
The results exposed here show fuat it is important to study fue exposure conditions and to know fue
primer behavior before recornmending it for a specific
environment. In fue case of fue zinc-rich primers.
it is necessary to take roto account fue thickness of

\...,

Mean
R",

Very high
Very high

Low
Very high risk
Very high risk

Veryhigh risk
Very high risk

are other effects that were not taken roto account in


this investigation, such as corrosion under tape or
cathodic disbondment that could affect fue repair
after different or longer exposure periods. Because
of fue specimen's set-up used for this investigation,
fue galvanic effect that may cause fuese primers on
real structures was not studied.It is strongly recommended to c1arify this topic before applying fuese findings in real structures. These recornmendations call
attention to fue importance of knowing fue primers'
long-term behavior to guarantee fueir proper use.
The use of primers, especially fue barrier type,
preved to be a good option for economical and fast
repairs, particularly in cases where concrete is of bad
quality (for example, with a water-to-cement ratio
[wfc] higher than 0.5). Its evaluation under laboratory-simulated aggressive conditions is very important
to anticipate their behavior in real structures. However, results trom field evaluations would differ from
fuese from fue laboratory due to fue action of other
variables, which are hard to take roto account in fue
laboratory (wind, marine breeze, other pollution factors, etc.).
237

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

Proba with cathodic protection primer

Proba with barrier primer

--

Partia/ immersion
in a 5% NaCI solution

Partia/ immersion
in a 5% NaCI solution

Wet and dry


cycle

FIGURE 7. Aspect o( the rebars exposed to partal immersion


(5% NaCI) and wet and dry cycles. Cathodic protection-type primer.

Proba with inhibitor primer

Wet and dry


cycle

RGURE 8. Aspect o( the rebars exposed to partal immersion


(5% NaCI) and wet and dry cycles. Barrier-type primer.

Proba with repassivation primer

Blank proba

Partia/ immersion
in a 5% NaCI solution

Wet and dry


cycle

.
FIGURE 9. Aspect o( the rebars lJxposed
to partal immersion (5% NaCI) and wet
and dry cycles. Inhibitor-type primer.

Partia/ immersion
in a 5% NaCI solution

FIGURE 10. Aspect o( the rebars exposed


to partal immersion (5% NaCI) and wet
and dry cycles. Repassivation-type primer.

CONCLUSIONS
.:. The conclusions presented apply to fue conditions
and materials investigated in this work. Recornmendations discussed here should be taken into account

when using fuese primers under different trials and


producs.
.:. A degree of primer effectiveness was obtained based
on fue corr~gan rates and fue time for depassivation.

238

Wet and dry


cycle

Partia/ immersion
in a 5% NaCI solution

Wet and dry


cycle

FIGURE 11. Aspecto(the rebars exposed


to partal immersion (5% NaCI) and wet
and dry cycles. Blank probas.

The best performance was observed for fue barrier


type ofprimer. followed by fue cathodic protection
and fue inhibitor primers. In contrasto fue repassivation primer did not show any improvement ayer fue
blank specimens. .:. Due to fue primer permeability. it was possible to
distinguish fue moment of fue rebar depassivation
(failure of primer) based on fue means of Eco...Rp.
and Rs.

CORROSION-MARCH2007

....

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

"-'"'

.:- All primers studied proved to be sensitive to fue


amount of chlorides. The higher fue chloride content,
fue smaller fue depassivation time.
.:- Primers were more resistant to deterioration (reinforcement depassivation) in partial irnmersion than in
wet and dry cyc1es.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

1,000
C>

..
CI)
ID

ff
O

100

J
ea
(.)
'E

~(.)

10

O
....

The authors recognize fue partial support of CONACyT


(31350-U), CINVESTAV-Mrida, and FIUADY.

ID
[jJ

REFERENCES

'---"

10
Gravimetric

1. P. Castro, E. Pazini, C. Andrade. C. Monso, Corrosion 59. 6


(2003): p. 535-546.
2. P. Schiessel, W. Breit, "Local Repair Measures Damaged by
Reinforcement Corrosion. Aspects of Durability." in Corrosion of
Reinforcement in Concrete Construction, 4th Int. Symp., eds.
C.L. Page. P.B. Barnforth, J.W. Figg (Cambrldge U.K.: The Royal
Society of ChemistIy, 1996), p. 327-336.
3. E. Pazini. C. Andrade, "Behavior of Surface and Barrier Coatings
on Reinforcements in Cement Mortar Containing Chloride.' in
Corrosion and Corrosion Protection of Steel in Concrete, ed.
RN. Swamy (Sheffield. U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press. 1994). p.
1.044-1.054.
4. P. Castro. C. Andrade. E. Pazini. C. Monso. "Influence ofTemperature on fue Galvanic Current Induced by a Localized Repair
When Using Primers to fue Reinforcement: paper 37, Latincorr/
2000 (Cartagena, Colombia: Universidad de Antioquia. 2000), p. 8.
5. P.J.M. Monteiro, P.R Helene, 'Can Local Repairs be Durable
Solutions for Steel Corrosionin Concrete Structures,' in Corrosien and Corrosion Protection of Steel in Concrete, ed. RN.
Swamy (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), p.
1.525-1,538.
6. E.J. Pazini, P. Castro, C. Andrade, C. Alonso, "Effect ofPassivant
and Cathodic Protection Primer Systems on fue Galvanic Currents Induced by Localized Repairs: in Concrete Durability and
RepairTechnology, eds. RK. Dhir, M.J. McCarthy (London. U.K.:
Thomas Telford, 2000), p. 424-432.
7. W. Morris, M. Vzquez, S.R de Snchez, J. Mater. Se1.35 (2000):
p. 1,885-1.890.
8. E.J. Pazini, P. Castro, C. Andrade, C. Alonso, "1nfluence ofPrimers with Barrier and Repassivant Effect on fue Galvanic CUrTent
Induced by a Localized Repair," V CONPAT Proc., ed. A. de la
Fuente (Montevideo, Uruguay: ALCONPAT, 1999), p. 1,929-1,936
(in Spanish).
.
9. C. Alonso, C. Andrade, M. Castellote, P. Castro. Cero. Concr. Res.
30 (2000): p. 1.047-1,055.
10. ASTM C192, "Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in
fue Laboratory,' in Annual Book of ASTM Standards (West Conshohocken, FA: ASTM Intemational, 2004).

100
Losses (mg)

1,000

FIGURE 12. Electrochemical vS.gravimetric losses o{ specimens in


pattial immersion with 5% o{ NaCI.

11. M. Morcillo, 'Coatings as an Anticorrosive Protection, Chapter


XV,' in Theory and Practlce Against Corrosion. ed. J .A. Gonzlez
(Madrid, Spain: CSIC, 1984), p. 423-427 (in Spanish).
12. P. Castro. M. Quintal, S. Rejn, "Use of Primers to fue
Reinforcing Steel, Influence of fue Exposure to fue Environment
Before Painting,' VI CONPAT Proc. (Santo Domingo. Dominican
Republic: ALCONPAT, 2001) (in Spanish).
13. ISO 8407, "Corrosion of Metals and Alloys-Removal
of Corrosion
Products from Corroson Test Specmens'
(Geneva, Switzerland:
Intemational
Organization ofStandardizatlon
[ISO], 1991).
14. C. Andrade, J.A. Gonzlez. Werkst. Korros. 29 (1978): p. 515-519.
15. JA. Gonzlez, C. Andrade, C. Monso, S. Feliu, Cero. Concr. Res.
25 (1995): p. 257-264.
16. C. Andrade, V. Castel0, C. Monso, J.A. Gonzlez, "The Detenninatlon afilie Corroson Rate of Steel Embedded in Concrete by
fue Polarizatlon Resstance and AC Impedance Methods,' in Corroson Effects of Stray CUrTents and Techniques for Evaluating
Corrosion of Rebars in Concrete, ed. V. Chacker. ASTM Specal
Technical Publication 906 (West Conshohocken.
FA: ASTM International, 1984), p. 43-63.
17. ASTM C876, "Test Method for Half-Cell Potentials of Reinforcing
Steel in Concrete,' in Annual Book of ASTM Standards
(West
Conshohocken,
FA: ASTM Intemational,
2004).
18. O. Troconis and members of DURAR network. "Manual for
Inspection, Evaluation and Diagnostic of Corroson in Concrete
Structures'
(Maracaibo, Venezuela: CYTED. 2000), p. 207 [in
Spanish).
19. C.M. Abreu, M. Izquierdo, P. Merino. X.R Novoa. C. Prez.
Corroson 55.12 [1999): p. 1,173-1.181.
20. D.D.N. Singh. R Ghosh. Corroson 61.8 (2005): p. 815-829.
21. P. Montes. T.W. Bremner. 1. Kondratova. Corroson 60, 10 (2004):
p. 974-981.

\....

CORROSION-Vol.

63, No. 3

239