Tech Science Press

DOI: 10.32604/sdhm.2022.08886

ARTICLE

Experimental Study on the Degradation of Bonding Behavior between

Reinforcing Bars and Concrete after Corrosion and Fatigue Damage

Shiqin He*, Jiaxing Zhao, Chunyue Wang and Hui Wang

School of Civil Engineering, North China University of Technology, Beijing, 100144, China
*
Corresponding Author: Shiqin He. Email: [email protected]
Received: 21 October 2019 Accepted: 10 November 2021

ABSTRACT
In marine environments, the durability of reinforced concrete structures such as bridges, which suffer from the
coupled effects of corrosion and fatigue damage, is significantly reduced. Fatigue loading can result in severe dete-
rioration of the bonds between reinforcing steel bars and the surrounding concrete, particularly when reinforcing
bars are corroded. Uniaxial tension testing was conducted under static loading and fatigue loading conditions to
investigate the bonding characteristics between corroded reinforcing bars and concrete. An electrolyte corrosion
technique was used to accelerate steel corrosion. The results show that the bond strength was reduced under fati-
gue loading, although the concrete did not crack. Therefore, fatigue loading has negative effects on the bond
strength between corroded steel bars and concrete. The effects of corrosion cracking on bond strength become
more pronounced after corrosion cracking appears along the main reinforcing bars. When the average width
of cracking along main reinforcing bars exceeds 3 mm, the bonding properties deteriorate rapidly based on
the effects of corrosion cracking, whereas fatigue loading exhibits no additional effects on bond strength.

KEYWORDS
Reinforced concrete; fatigue loading; electrolyte corrosion; bond; uniaxial tension

1 Introduction
Marine environments are some of the most aggressive environments on earth. Corrosion damage to
reinforced concrete (RC) structures is a significant problem that necessitates billions of dollars in repairs
for highway structures every year [1]. Such damage is initiated and sustained by the chemical action of
chlorides that are exposure to marine environments [2]. Damage to concrete structures, often resulting
from the corrosion of reinforcing steel bars, is exhibited in the form of expansion, cracking, and spalling
of the concrete covering such bars [3,4]. In addition to coverage loss, a RC member may also experience
structural failure based on the failure of bonds between the concrete and steel [5]. Many marine concrete
structures, such as floating structures, mobile drilling structures, offshore structures, and bridges are
subjected to various types of fatigue cycles. In addition to corrosion, fatigue loading is a significant factor
for determining the lifespan of a structure because it significantly accelerates the deterioration process in
corrosive marine environments [6].
Because controlling crack width and deflection in RC members are the most important requirements for
serviceability, considerable research has been devoted to understanding bonding, tension stiffening, and

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited.
196 SDHM, 2022, vol.16, no.3

crack width control. The study on the bond deterioration behavior between steel and concrete is usually
carried out by beam experiment or pull-out test and finite element method. The majority of existing
studies focus on the influence of corrosion or fatigue on the bond strength and bond stress-slip relation.
Al-Sulaimani et al. [7] conducted investigations on the bond deterioration used pullout tests considering
reinforcement diameter, corrosion rate and the cover to diameter ratio. It was found that the corrosion at
the early stage has positive influence on bond strength, but afterwards the bond strength decreased
consistently with increased corrosion level. Mangat et al. [8] found corresponding relationship between
the bond strength and the degree of reinforcement corrosion under different levels of corrosion using
beam specimens. This phenomenon was confirmed by many other scholars [9]. Lundgren [10] developed
a model of three-dimensional finite element to analyse the bond tests of beams and pull-out tests with
corroded reinforcement carried out by various researchers. The results were compared, and reasonably
good agreement was found. Furthermore, the model was used to study the effect of uniform or localized
corrosion. Fu et al. [11] studied the bond degradation of non-uniformly corroded steel rebars embedded in
concrete using pull-out tests. Shang et al. [12] conducted beam-bonded tests under coupling of three
different levels of sustained loads and chloride attack to study the bond properties between the rebar and
concrete. Previous studies mainly focus on the monotonic bond behavior, while the bond deterioration
under repeated loading has not been given sufficient attention. Several studies indicate that repeated
loading results in progressive bond deterioration. Oh et al. [13] proposed a realistic model for bond
stress-slip relation under repeated loading, and conducted a series of tests to explore the bond-slip
behavior under repeated loadings. Zhang et al. [14] studied the influence of fatigue load on the bond
behavior between rebar and concrete by pull-out tests, and established an empirical model of splitting
failure for the bond stress-slip relationship of specimens under repeated loading, but the corrosion of
rebar was not taken into consideration. Currently, investigations regarding the combined effects of
repeated loading and steel corrosion on bond behavior is rare in the literature. Al-Hammoud et al. [15]
and Lin et al. [16] have carried out investigations in this respect. Lin et al. [16] carried out a series of
pull-out tests to investigate the bond deterioration due to the repeated loading of corroded reinforcement.
A model for bond stress-slip relationship under repeated loading was proposed through systematic
evaluation of the test data. Li et al. [17] conducted an experimental study on bolted connection steel
plates, studied the combined effect of corrosion and fatigue on the fatigue strength of steel connection
plates, and established a model for fatigue strength degradation as a function of corrosion rate. Wang
et al. [18] studied the fatigue performance of reinforced concrete beams under coupled effects of the
cyclic load and corrosive environment, but these tests did not involve the bond deterioration performance
between the rebar and concrete.
Owing to the bond between reinforcing bars and surrounding concrete, the concrete between
neighboring cracks can still carry tensile stress when cracking emerges in reinforced concrete members.
This phenomenon known as the tension stiffening. Massicotte et al. [19] presented a simple incremental
two-dimensional hypoelastic model for the description of tension stiffening in which two types of fixed
crack model and two types of rotating crack model are considered. The model predictions were compared
with the results of tests of reinforced concrete members in uniaxial tension. Khalfallah et al. [20]
described the stress-strain relationship of the tension stiffening effect in the range of cracking to quantify
the tension stiffening phenomenon in the cracking range. Shima et al. [21] built micro and macro models
to understand the bond in reinforced concrete. Other studies have been carried out for tension stiffening
in lightly reinforced concrete slabs, steel fiber-reinforced concrete, FRP reinforced concrete and recycled
aggregate concrete [22–25]. Bui et al. [26] studied the tensile stiffening behavior by means of mesoscopic
and macroscopic hydromechanical lattice simulations and proposed a feasible research method for the
tensile stiffening of reinforced concrete.
SDHM, 2022, vol.16, no.3 197

However, relatively little effort has been devoted to evaluating the effects of corrosion on bonding
behaviors and tension stiffening [27–29]. It is important to evaluate the load carrying capacity of existing
concrete bridges that have been damaged by corrosion and fatigue to develop proper maintenance
strategies, such as repair, strengthening, or reconstruction. However, the structural behavior of damaged
beams has not been fully clarified in previous studies. In this study, tension specimens were fabricated
and an electrolyte corrosion technique was used to accelerate steel corrosion. The bonding characteristics
between the reinforcing bars after experiencing different degrees corrosion and the concrete under static
loading and fatigue loading conditions were investigated.
2 Experimental Setup
2.1 Specimen Preparation
Tension specimens with sizes of 100 × 100 × 1000 mm were reinforced with one reinforcing bar (20 mm
in diameter and 1200 mm in length), as shown in Fig. 1. The concrete covering thickness was 40 mm. The
average yield strength of the reinforcing bars was experimentally determined to be 337.5 MPa. The tensile
strength was 515.9 MPa and the elastic modulus was 1.81 × 105 MPa. A water-to-cement ratio of 0.6 with no
chloride additives was used for concrete fabrication. The average compressive strength of the resulting
concrete cubes after 28 d of curing was 30 MPa. The final concrete specimens were cast in specifically
designed wooden framework, as shown in Fig. 2, with sockets affixed to the left and right ends of the
moulds to allow for the insertion of steel reinforcing bars and ensure uniform concrete covering
thickness. The reinforcing bars extended 100 mm past each end of the concrete specimens. The
protruding sections of the reinforcing bars and 20 mm sections on the ends of the specimens were coated
with epoxy to prevent corrosion damage to these sections. The tension specimens were air cured in the
wooden moulds for 28 d prior to being immersed in the exposure tank.

Figure 1: Tension specimen (unit: mm)

Figure 2: Designed wooden framework

198 SDHM, 2022, vol.16, no.3

2.2 Accelerated Corrosion Testing

After the tension specimens were cured for 28 d, a group of four specimens that were connected in
parallel was submerged in a tank filled with an electrolytic solution (3.5 wt% NaCl solution). The
solution level in the tank was adjusted to the midline of the specimens, as shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 3: Accelerated corrosion setup

An external direct current was applied to the specimens through a DC power supply with a voltage limit
of 10 V and maximum current output of 5 A to accelerate the corrosion process. One end of the rectifier was
connected to the reinforcing steel bars in the specimens through a shunt-resistor and the other end was
connected to a stainless steel plate that acted as a cathode for the accelerated corrosion process. The
corrosion currents were recorded every 1800 s. Faraday’s law determines the theoretical relationship
between the time over which an induced current flows and the extent of corrosion. According to
Faraday’s law, the corrosion level (defined as weight loss or percentage weight loss of the reinforcing
steel bars) can be calculated based on the current values measured by a PC, as shown in Fig. 3. The total
weight loss of a reinforcing steel bar can be expressed as follows [30]:
X   
EW n Ij þ Ij1 EW
Wloss ¼ ½TC  ¼  ðt j  tj1 Þ  (1)
F j¼1 2 F
SDHM, 2022, vol.16, no.3 199

where Wloss is the total weight loss of the reinforcing steel bar in g, TC is the total electric charge in A⋅s or C,
and EW is an equivalent weight indicating the mass of the oxidised metal in g. For pure metal elements, EW is
given by EW ¼ W =n, where W is the atomic weight of the element and n is the valence of the element. For
carbon steel, EW is approximately 28 g. F is Faraday’s constant of electric charge ðF ¼ 96490 C or AsÞ and
Ij is the current in amps at time tj in s.

2.3 Fatigue and Static Tension Loading Testing

The tension tests were performed using an MTS hydraulic servo-controlled universal testing machine
with a capacity of 100 kN of tension. The specimens were tested under loading control. Axial loading
was determined using the MTS data acquisition system and the strains at each deformation stage were
determined by using displacement transducers (linear variable differential transformers) in the tops and
bottoms of the specimens, as shown in Figs. 4 and 5. One set of specimens was subjected to static tensile
loading until failure, theand anorther set of specimens was subjected to fatigue loading with a frequency
of 1 Hz and Static then static loading failure occurred after 20,000 fatigue cycles. The static tensile
cracking load Pcr was obtained from control specimen No. 19. The upper limit of the fatigue load was
0.8Pcr and the lower limit was 2.0 kN with a loading frequency of 1 Hz. The number of loading cycles
was 20,000. After the fatigue loading tests, the specimens were subjected to static tensile loading up to
the tension capacity of the machine. The cracks were then traced on the concrete surfaces and the
corresponding load levels were recorded.

Figure 4: Loading test device diagram (unit: mm)

2.4 Quantification of the Extent of Corrosion

Following the tension loading tests, the resulting crack patterns were recorded. The main tensile
reinforcing bars were then carefully removed from the corroded specimens and cleaned of all adhered
mortar and corrosion products, as shown in Fig. 6. The bars were then weighed to determine the extent of
corrosion. For this process, the bars were dipped into a diluted HCl solution and then into an alkali
200 SDHM, 2022, vol.16, no.3

solution. After being washed with clean water, the bars were oven-dried and brushed with a brass bristle
brush to remove all loosely adhered mortar and corrosion products. The corrosion level was determined
by using the following gravimetric method [31]:
x0  xq
qs ¼  100% (2)
x0
where ω0 is the initial weight per unit length of the reinforcing bar prior to corrosion and xq is the final
weight per unit length of the reinforcing bar after removing the corrosion products.

Figure 5: Displacement measuring method

Figure 6: Corroded steel bar removed from concrete

SDHM, 2022, vol.16, no.3 201

3 Results and Analysis

3.1 Tensile Force and Deformation Curve Calculation
A cracked RC tension member has lower tensile stiffness than prior to cracking. However, within the
tension zone of the tension member, intact concrete between adjacent cracks is still able to sustain a
certain level of tensile stress and contribute to the tensile stiffness of the member [32,33]. This
phenomenon is called tension stiffening because the tension member is apparently ‘stiffened’ by the
tensile resistance of concrete, as shown in Fig. 7d. When a section cracks under an axial tensile force, the
concrete no longer bears tension in the cracked section and the reinforcing bar takes on the tension from
the concrete. This causes a sudden increase in the tensile stress on the reinforcing bar. The stress on the
reinforcing bar σs is maximised in the cracked section and decreases gradually with increasing distance
from the cracked section. The stress is minimised between two different cracked sections. The strain
distribution of the reinforcing bar is the same as the distribution of the stress σs, as shown in Fig. 7a. The
tensile stress distribution of the concrete is opposite to that of the reinforcing bar. The stress of the
concrete σt = 0 near cracked sections and is maximised between cracked sections. However, this stress
does not exceed its tensile strength limit, as shown in Fig. 7e. Tensile stresses are induced in the concrete
between cracks by stress transfer through the bond between the concrete and reinforcing bar. The bond
between the concrete and reinforcing bar experiences local damage on both sides of a crack following a
relative slip, but the bonds elsewhere remain strong.
Specimen elongation can be measured experimentally, as shown in Fig. 5. The average strain ε can then
be calculated based on the elongation. From the calculated strain ε, the tensile force on a bare bar Ps and
tensile force on concrete Pcon are calculated according to the stress–strain relationship of the steel, as
shown in Fig. 7b, and the stress–strain relationship of the concrete, as shown in Fig. 7f, respectively.
Therefore, the axial force P on an RC member can be obtained by using Eqs. (3)–(6):
D0
e¼ (3)
L0
Ps;m ¼ Es eAs (4)
Pc;m ¼ rc ðA  As Þ (5)
P ¼ Ps;m þ Pcon (6)
where D0 is specimen elongation, L0 is specimen length, Pcon is tensile force on the concrete, Ps,m is tensile
force on a bare bar, Ps,m + Pcon is tensile force on the RC, A is cross-sectional area of the specimen (mm2),
A = 100 × 100 (mm2), As is cross-sectional area of the reinforcing bars after corrosion, As = As0(1 − ρs), As0 is
the initial cross-sectional area of the reinforcing bars and ρs is the weight loss ratio of the reinforcing bars, Es
is elastic modulus of the reinforcing bar, Ec is elastic modulus of the concrete, σc is concrete stress, et is
cracking strain of concrete, et ¼ Ec AcPþE
cr
s As
, where Pcr can be obtained experimentally.
202 SDHM, 2022, vol.16, no.3

Figure 7: Tensile stiffness effects [34]

(a) Stress and strain of steel, (b) σ–ε curve of reinforcing bar, (c) tensile member, (d) tension stiffening curve, (e) stress and strain of
concrete, and (f) σ–ε curve of concrete.

3.2 Degradation Ratio of Bonding

As shown in Fig. 8, during the loading process for the uniaxial tensile tests on the RC members, some bond
slip may occur between the loading ends of the steel bars and concrete. For the uncorroded specimens, the slip
between the reinforcing bar and concrete is small and its influence on the load–deformation curve is generally
negligible. However, when cracks along the reinforcing bar appear as a result of steel corrosion, the restraining
and bonding effects of the concrete on the reinforcing decrease gradually and the bond stress at the steel–
concrete interface is reduced, resulting in increased slippage between the steel bars and concrete at various
locations. As slippage accumulates along the length of the bar towards the loading end, the measured RC
member elongation is reduced for corroded members [35]. The degradation ratio Dbond is calculated as follows:
d0  d1
Dbond ¼  100% (7)
d0
where δ0 is the elongation of the control specimen and δ1 is the elongation of a specimen in which bond slip
occurred.
SDHM, 2022, vol.16, no.3 203

Figure 8: Bond degradation diagram

The load–elongation curve of control specimen No. 19 was calculated based on complete bonding
between the steel bar and concrete. The calculated result agrees well with the experimental result. It was
considered that bond slip did not occur because the bond between the reinforcing bar and concrete was
maintained by an end load of 90 kN for specimen No. 19. Therefore, the load–elongation curve of
specimen No. 19 was used as a control curve for comparison. The elongation of the specimens was
obtained experimentally by displacement transducers. The elongation of the concrete is equal to that of
the steel bar if the bond between the steel bar and concrete is maintained. When bond slip occurs
between the concrete and reinforcing bar, the elongation of the concrete, which differs from that of the
reinforcing bar, is smaller than that in the control specimen. The experimental results indicate that the
bond between the steel bar and concrete deteriorates based on corrosion and fatigue loading. The bonding
degradation ratios of the specimens are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Experimental results

Specimen Corrosion Corrosion level Corrosion level Corrosion Loading Concrete Dbond
time (h) calculated (%) gravimetric (%) cracking state strength (%)
(mm) (MPa)
No. 2 203.20 9.12 8.14 no static 45.1 23.80%
No. 3 246.70 9.31 8.14 3.0–6.0 fatigue 43.0 35.50%
No. 4 246.70 7.84 7.34 3.0–5.0 static 43.5 36.40%
No. 9 178.80 9.05 8.04 0.75–6.0 fatigue 40.2 18.80%
No. 14 134.00 2.97 3.01 0.5–1.5 fatigue 38.6 16.40%
No. 15 134.00 2.95 2.54 0.3–0.75 static 37.4 12.40%
No. 16 0 0 0 0 fatigue 40.7 16.20%
No. 17 129.00 3.60 3.86 1.25–3.0 static 42.0 20.10%
No. 18 0 0 0 0 fatigue 45.3 19.50%
No. 19 0 0 0 0 static 45.3 0
No. 20 129.00 3.47 2.76 0.5–1.5 fatigue 45.8 17.90%
204 SDHM, 2022, vol.16, no.3

3.3 Bond Degradation in Uncorroded Specimens after Fatigue Loading

Fig. 9 shows the load–elongation curves of specimen No. 16, which cracked under fatigue loading and
specimen No. 18, which did not crack during the fatigue loading process. The degradation ratio is 16.2% for
specimen No. 16 and 19.5% for specimen No. 18. The test results indicate that bonding at the steel–concrete
interfaces deteriorated after 20,000 loading cycles. However, the concrete cracked during the process of
fatigue loading for specimen No. 18. Fatigue loading had a noticeable effect on the bonds between the
concrete and uncorroded reinforcing bars.

Figure 9: Tensile force-displacement curves for uncorroded specimens

3.4 Bond Degradation in Corroded Specimens

As a result of corrosion, corrosion products accumulated along the peripheries of the steel bars. Based on
the internal pressure created by the increased volume of the corrosion products, the tensile stresses in the
concrete exceeded its tensile strength and generated the longitudinal cracks observed in all of the
corroded specimens. Therefore, the adhesion between the concrete and reinforcing steel bars was partially
lost before the specimens were tested. The load–elongation curves for the corroded specimens are shown
in Fig. 10 with the responses of a bare reinforcing bar. The corrosion levels of specimens No. 14, No. 15,
and No. 20 are 3.01%, 2.54%, and 2.76%, respectively, whereas the bond degradation ratios are 16.4%,
12.4%, and 17.9%, respectively. The test results clearly indicate that the strength of the bonds between
the concrete and reinforcing steel deteriorated when the embedded reinforcing bars were corroded. The
bond degradation ratio of specimen No. 15, which was subjected to static tensile loading, is smaller than
that of specimens No. 14 and No. 20, which were subjected to fatigue loading. This indicates that fatigue
loading has negative effects on bond strength at the steel–concrete interface. The corrosion cracking
width was in the range of 0.3–0.75 mm for specimen No.15 and in the range of 0.5–1.5 mm for
specimens No. 14 and No. 20. Therefore, the bond degradation of specimen No. 15 is less prominent
than that of No. 14 and No. 20 based on its smaller longitudinal cracking width. The corrosion levels of
specimens No. 2, No. 9, and No. 17 are 8.14%, 8.04%, and 3.86%, respectively. The corrosion cracking
width is in the range of 1.0–6.0 mm for all three specimens. The bond degradation ratios are 23.8%,
18.8%, and 20.1%, respectively. The bond degradation of specimen No. 9, which was subjected to fatigue
loading, did not exceed that of specimens No. 2 and No. 17, which were subjected to static loading. This
indicates that the effects of fatigue loading on the bonds between reinforcing bars and concrete become
less prominent with an increased width of longitudinal cracking. The other reason for the significant bond
deterioration of specimen No. 2 is that longitudinal cracking appeared on two surfaces of this specimen.
SDHM, 2022, vol.16, no.3 205

Figure 10: Tensile force-displacement curves for specimens subjected to static and fatigue loading with
different levels of corrosion

3.5 Bond Degradation in Extensively Corroded Specimens

As corrosion progresses, longitudinal cracking and the widening of cracks contribute to further loss of
bond strength. The average corrosion crack widths for specimens No. 3 and No. 4 are much greater than
3 mm and their bond degradation ratios are 35.5% and 36.4%, respectively. Their load–elongation curves
are shown in Fig. 11. The bond degradation ratio of specimen No. 3, which was subjected to fatigue
loading, is the same as that of specimen No. 4. These results indicate that fatigue loading has no
significant effects on the bond strength of extensively corroded specimens because the main reason for
the loss of bond strength is the widening of cracks. Corrosion of reinforcing bar ribs has a significant
influence on the mechanical interlocking between the steel bars and concrete, leading to a deterioration of
bond strength between the corroded ribs on the surface of the steel bar and the concrete. Therefore, force
is not transferred as efficiently from the steel bar to the concrete, leading to greater spacing between
cracks in a specimen with a corroded bar compared to a specimen with an uncorroded bar. Crack spacing
becomes very large in specimens with significant loss of bond strength. For example, specimens
No. 3 and No. 4 did not exhibit any transverse cracking until they were loaded beyond the yield strength
of the reinforcing steel bars, as shown in Fig. 11.

3.6 Analysis of Crack Formation

The transverse and longitudinal cracks on all four surfaces of the members were traced after testing.
Fig. 12 was the photos of cracks on four sides of specimen No. 9 after testing. The transverse load cracks
and longitudinal corrosion cracks of the specimens were drawn according to the cracks in the photo, as
shown in Figs. 13 and 14, which show the crack patterns for the tension specimens that were subjected to
different levels of corrosion and loading in the experiments, the height of each of the four expanded
surfaces in Figs. 13 and 14 is 100 mm. The numbers beside the transverse cracks represent the load levels
at which the cracks appeared in kN. The longitudinal cracks (red lines) are corrosive cracks and the
corresponding numbers represent crack widths in mm.
Several cracks with approximately equal spacing tended to appear after the RC members cracked for the
uncorroded specimens, as shown in Fig. 13. From the concrete cracking distribution of the control specimen
No. 19–0%-Static, one can see that there are six transverse cracks with a uniform distribution. Specimens
No. 18–0%-Fatigue and No. 16–0%-Fatigue experienced static destruction after 20,000 fatigue loading
206 SDHM, 2022, vol.16, no.3

cycles with uncorroded reinforcing bars. Transverse cracking did not occur during the fatigue test for
specimen No. 18, whereas specimen No. 16 experienced cracking after 10,000 fatigue loading cycles.
There are five transverse cracks with a uniform distribution on specimen No. 18 and six transverse cracks
including one fatigue-induced crack on specimen No. 16. There are fewer cracks with larger spacing on
specimen No. 18 compared to specimen No. 19. Therefore, one can conclude that the effects of fatigue
loading on the loss of bond strength result in a reduction of the rate at which force is transferred from the
reinforcing bar to the surrounding concrete.

Figure 11: Tensile force-displacement curves for specimens No. 3, No. 4 and No. 19

Figure 12: Cracks photos of specimen No. 9

The results for corroded specimens are compared to the crack pattern for the uncorroded specimen
No. 19, as shown in Fig. 14. These comparisons clearly reveal the influence of corrosion. As the level of
corrosion increases, the number of cracks decreases and crack spacing increased, indicating a decrease in
the bond strength between the corroded steel and concrete. For specimens No. 14 and No. 15, which
have average corrosion crack widths of less than 1 mm, the average number of transverse cracks is in the
range of 4–5. The transverse cracking distributions are non-uniform compared to the uncorroded
specimen and are nearly the same for specimen No. 15, which was subjected to static tensile loading and
specimen No. 14, which experienced static loading failure after 20,000 fatigue loading cycles. This
indicates that the decrease in bond strength is largely caused by the corrosion of reinforcing bars. For
SDHM, 2022, vol.16, no.3 207

specimens No. 17 and No. 20, which have average corrosion crack widths of 1.5 mm, three transverse cracks
appeared in addition to the longitudinal cracks. The number of cracks decreased and the crack spacing
increased compared to the previous specimens, indicating that bond strength was reduced further.
Transverse cracking occurred on specimen No. 20 after 15,000 fatigue loading cycles. However, the
number of cracks and their distributions are nearly the same as those on specimen No. 17, which was
subjected to static tensile loading. This indicates that fatigue damage has little effect on bond strength
reduction after corrosion cracking occurs. For specimens No. 2, No. 9, No. 3, and No. 4, which exhibited
longitudinal corrosion cracking on multiple surfaces with an average corrosion crack width greater than 3
mm, one can conclude that the bond strength at the steel–concrete interface decreased significantly
because only three transverse cracks occurred with very large crack spacing. Based on this reduced bond
strength, the load on these specimens was largely carried by the steel reinforcing bars. The concrete
carried a relatively small load compared to the uncorroded specimens. The maximum crack widths on the
corroded specimens were much larger than those on the uncorroded specimens because of weaker
bonding between the concrete and reinforcing bars.

26
76 36 76
18

76
76
26 26 18 76

26 30 46 76
26
18 30

26 18 30 18 30
46
30

No. 19-0%-Static

38
38 25
46

38 38
38 38

26 25 25

23
26 23 38 58 28
38 60
58
48

No. 18-0%-Fatigue

No. 16-0%-Fatigue

Figure 13: Transverse cracks on uncorroded specimens

208 SDHM, 2022, vol.16, no.3

No. 14-3.01%-Fatigue

No. 15-2.54%-Static

No. 17-3.86%-Static

No. 20-2.76%-Fatigue

Figure 14: (Continued)

SDHM, 2022, vol.16, no.3 209

No. 2-8.14%-Static

No. 9-8.04%-Fatigue

No. 3-8.14%-Fatigue

No. 4-7.34%-Static

Figure 14: Transverse and longitudinal cracking with different levels of corrosion
210 SDHM, 2022, vol.16, no.3

4 Conclusion
(1) The bond strength of uncorroded RC members was reduced by fatigue loading, but the concrete did
not crack during loading. The number of cracks decreases and crack spacing increases based on the
deterioration of bond strength between steel and concrete following fatigue damage.
(2) Fatigue loading has negative effects on the bond strength between corroded steel bars and concrete.
The effects of corrosion cracking on bond strength become more prominent after corrosion cracking
occurs along the main reinforcing bar. The number of cracks decreases and crack spacing increases
to create a non-uniform transverse cracking distribution on specimens with corroded members.
(3) When the average width of cracking along the main reinforcing bar is greater than 3 mm, bond
strength deteriorates significantly based on corrosion cracking, and fatigue loading has a
negligible effect on bond strength. Extensively corroded members did not exhibit any transverse
cracking until they were loaded beyond the yield strength of the reinforcing steel bars.

Acknowledgement: This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for Beijing Universities
(110052971921/059).

Funding Statement: This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for Beijing Universities
(110052971921/059). S H received the Grant. The fund is set up by the project unit itself so there is no URLs
to sponsors’ websites.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report regarding the
present study.

References
1. Roberge, P. R. (2000). Handbook of corrosion engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill.
2. Broomfield, J. (1997). Corrosion of steel in concrete. London: E & FN Spon.
3. Metha, P. K., Gerwick, B. C. (1982). Cracking-corrosion interaction in concrete exposed to marine environment.
Concrete International, 10, 45–51.
4. Bhargava, K., Ghosh, A. K., Morii, Y., Ramanujam, S. (2005). Modelling time to corrosion induced cracking in
reinforcement concrete structures. Cement Concrete Research, 35(11), 2203–2215. DOI 10.1016/j.
cemconres.2005.06.007.
5. Lundgren, K. (2007). Effect of corrosion on bond between steel and concrete: An overview. Magazine of Concrete
Research, 59(6), 447–461.
6. Ahn, W., Reddy, D. V. (2001). Galvanostatic testing for the durability of marine concrete under fatigue loading.
Cement and Concrete Research, 31, 343–349. DOI 10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00506-8.
7. Al-Sulaimani, G. L., Kaleemullah, M., Basunbul, I. A., Rasheeduzzafar. (1990). Influence of corrosion and
cracking on bond behavior and strength of reinforced concrete members. ACI Structural Journal, 87(2), 230–231.
8. Mangat, P. S., Elgarf, M. S. (1999). Bond characteristics of corroding reinforcement in concrete beams. Materials
and Structures, 32(216), 89–97. DOI 10.1007/BF02479434.
9. Auyeung, Y. B., Balaguru, P., Chung, L. (2000). Bond behavior of corroded reinforcement bars. ACI Materials
Journal, 97(2), 214–220. DOI 10.1016/j.cemconres.2006.05.008.
10. Lundgren, K. (2005). Bond between ribbed bars and concrete. Part 2: The effect of corrosion. Magazine of
Concrete Research, 57(7), 383–395. DOI 10.1680/macr.2005.57.7.383.
11. Fu, C. Q., Fang, D. M., Ye, H. L., Huang, L., Wang, J. D. (2021). Bond degradation of non-uniformly corroded
steel rebars in concrete. Engineering Structures, 226, 111392. DOI 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111392.
12. Shang, H. S., Zhou, J. H., Fan, G. X., Yang, G. T., You, W. J. (2021). Study on the bond behavior of steel bars
embedded in concrete under the coupling of sustained loads and chloride ion erosion. Construction and
Building Materials, 276, 121684. DOI 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121684.
SDHM, 2022, vol.16, no.3 211

13. Oh, B. H., Kim, S. H. (2007). Realistic models for local bond stress-slip of reinforced concrete under repeated
loading. Structural Engineering, 133(2), 216–224. DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:2(216).
14. Zhang, W. P., Zhang, Y. P., Li, H., Gu, X. L. (2020). Experimental investigation of fatigue bond behavior between
deformed steel bar and concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 108, 103515. DOI 10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2020.103515.
15. Al-Hammoud, R., Soudki, K., Topper, T. H. (2010). Bond analysis of corroded reinforced concrete beams under
monotonic and fatigue loads. Cement & Concrete Composites, 32, 194–203. DOI 10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2009.12.001.
16. Lin, H. W., Zhao, Y. X., OžBolt, J., Hans-Wolf, R. (2017). The bond behavior between concrete and corroded steel
bar under repeated loading. Engineering Structures, 140, 390–405. DOI 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.02.067.
17. Li, L., Li, Y. R., Shi, W. H., Li, C. Q. (2021). Deterioration of fatigue strength of bolted connection plates under
combined corrosion and fatigue. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 179, 106559. DOI 10.1016/J.
JCSR.2021.106559.
18. Wang, H., He, S. Q., Yin, X. Q., Cao, Z. Y. (2020). Experimental study on fatigue performance of reinforced
concrete beams in corrosive environment with cyclic loads. Structural Durability & Health Monitoring, 14(2),
95–108. DOI 10.32604/sdhm.2020.06595.
19. Massicotte, B., Elwi, A. E., MacGregor, J. G. (1990). Tension-stiffening model for planar reinforced concrete
members. Journal of Structural Engineering, 116(11), 3039–3058. DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1990)
116:11(3039).
20. Khalfallah, S., Guerdouh, D. (2014). Tension stiffening approach in concrete of tensioned members. International
Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering, 6, 3–6.
21. Shima, H., Chou, L., Okamura, H. (1987). Micro and macro models for bond behavior in reinforced concrete.
Faculty Engineering, 39(2), 133–194.
22. Gilbert, R. I. (2007). Tension stiffening in lightly reinforced concrete slabs. Journal of Structural Engineering,
133(6), 899–903. DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:6(899).
23. Bischoff, P. H. (2003). Tension stiffening and cracking of steel fiber-reinforced concrete. Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, 15(2), 174–182. DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2003)15:2(174).
24. Baena, M., Torres, L., Turon, A., Miàs, C. (2013). Analysis of cracking behaviour and tension stiffening in FRP
reinforced concrete tensile elements. Composites Part B: Engineering, 45, 1360–1367. DOI 10.1016/j.
compositesb.2012.07.026.
25. Rangel, C. S., Amario, M., Pepe, M., Yao, Y. M., Mobasher, B. et al. (2017). Tension stiffening approach for
interface characterization in recycled aggregate concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 82, 176–189. DOI
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.06.009.
26. Bui, T. S., Pham, D. T., Vu, M. N., Nguyen, T. N., Nguyen-Sy, T. (2021). Modeling of the tension stiffening
behavior and the water permeability change of steel bar reinforcing concrete using mesoscopic and
macroscopic hydro-mechanical lattice model. Construction and Building Materials, 291, 123266. DOI 10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2021.123266.
27. Amleh, L., Mirza, S. (1999). Corrosion influence on bond between steel and concrete. ACI Structural Journal,
96(3), 415–423.
28. An, X. H., Shang, F., Shionaga, R., Maekawa, K. (2009). Residual seismic assessment of existing RC structures
subjected to coupled corrosion and fatigue loading. Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Computational Technologies in Concrete Structures, pp. 259–273. Jeju, Korea.
29. Kim, H., Choi, W., Yoon, S., Takafumi, N. (2016). Evaluation of bond properties of reinforced concrete with
corroded reinforcement by uniaxial tension testing. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials,
10(3), 43–52. DOI 10.1007/s40069-016-0152-9.
30. ASTM (1989). Standard practice for calculation rates and related information from electrochemical measurement.
ASTM G, 102(89), 400–406.
31. Ministry of Communications of People’s Republic of China (1998). Testing code of concrete for port and waterway
engineering JTJ270–98. Peoples Communication Press.
212 SDHM, 2022, vol.16, no.3

32. Nga, P. L., Lamb, J. Y. K., Kwan, A. K. H. (1953). Effects of concrete-to-reinforcement bond and loading
conditions on tension stiffening. Procedia Engineering, 14(11), 704–714. DOI 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.090.
33. Gilbert, R. I. (2013). Time-dependent stiffness of cracked reinforced and composite concrete slabs. Procedia
Engineering, 57, 19–34. DOI 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.04.006.
34. Maekawa, K., Pimanmas, A., Okamura, H. (2003). Nonlinear mechanics of reinforced concrete. London: Spon
Press.
35. Shang, F., An, X. H., Kawai, S., Mishima, T. (2010). Open-slip coupled model for simulating three-dimensional
bond behavior of reinforcing bar in concrete. Computers and Concrete, 75(5), 859–865.