土木工程外文文献

土木外文文献 外文翻译 Materials and Structures ? RILEM 2010 10.1617/s11527-010-9700-y Original Article Impact of crack width on bond: confined and unconfined rebar 1 23David W. Law, Denglei Tang, Thomas K. C. Molyneaux and 3Rebecca Gravina (1) School of the Built Environment, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK (2) VicRoads, Melbourne, VIC, Australia (3) School of Civil, Environmental and Chemical Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia David W. Law Email: D.W.Law@hw.ac.uk Received: 14 January 2010 Accepted: 14 December 2010 Published online: 23 December 2010 Abstract This paper reports the results of a research project comparing the effect of surface crack width and degree of corrosion on the bond strength of confined and unconfined deformed 12 and 16 mm mild steel reinforcing bars. The corrosion was induced by chloride contamination of the concrete and an applied DC current. The principal parameters investigated were confinement of the reinforcement, the cover depth, bar diameter, degree of 1 外文翻译 corrosion and the surface crack width. The results indicated that potential relationship between the crack width and the bond strength. The results also showed an increase in bond strength at the point where initial surface cracking was observed for bars with confining stirrups. No such increase was observed with unconfined specimens. Keywords Bond - Corrosion - Rebar - Cover - Crack width - Concrete 1 Introduction The corrosion of steel reinforcement is a major cause of the deterioration of reinforced concrete structures throughout the world. In uncorroded structures the bond between the steel reinforcement and the concrete ensures that reinforced concrete acts in a composite manner. However, when corrosion of the steel occurs this composite performance is adversely affected. This is due to the formation of corrosion products on the steel surface, which affect the bond between the steel and the concrete. The deterioration of reinforced concrete is characterized by a general or localized loss of section on the reinforcing bars and the formation of expansive corrosion products. This deterioration can affect structures in a number of ways; the production of expansive products creates tensile stresses within the concrete, which can result in cracking and spalling of the concrete cover. This cracking can lead to accelerated ingress of the aggressive agents causing further corrosion. It can also result in a loss of strength and stiffness of the concrete cover. The corrosion products can also affect the bond strength between the concrete and the reinforcing steel. Finally the corrosion reduces the cross section of the reinforcing steel, which can affect 2 外文翻译 the ductility of the steel and the load bearing capacity, which can ultimately impact upon the serviceability of the structure and the structural capacity [12, 25]. Previous research has investigated the impact of corrosion on bond [2–5, 7, 12, 20, 23–25, 27, 29], with a number of models being proposed [4, 6, 9, 10, 18, 19, 24, 29]. The majority of this research has focused on the relationship between the level of corrosion (mass loss of steel) or the current density degree (corrosion current applied in accelerated testing) and crack width, or on the relationship between bond strength and level of corrosion. Other research has investigated the mechanical behaviour of corroded steel [1, 11] and the friction characteristics [13]. However, little research has focused on the relationship between crack width and bond [23, 26, 28], a parameter that can be measured with relative ease on actual structures. The corrosion of the reinforcing steel results in the formation of iron oxides which occupy a larger volume than that of the parent metal. This expansion creates tensile stresses within the surrounding concrete, eventually leading to cracking of the cover concrete. Once cracking occurs there is a loss of confining force from the concrete. This suggests that the loss of bond capacity could be related to the longitudinal crack width [12]. However, the use of confinement within the concrete can counteract this loss of bond capacity to a certain degree. Research to date has primarily involved specimens with confinement. This paper reports a study comparing the loss of bond of specimens with and without confinement. 2 Experimental investigation 2.1 Specimens 3 外文翻译 Beam end specimens [28] were selected for this study. This type of eccentric pullout or ‘beam end’ type specimen uses a bonded length representative of the anchorage zone of a typical simply supported beam. Specimens of rectangular cross section were cast with a longitudinal reinforcing bar in each corner, Fig. 1. An 80 mm plastic tube was provided at the bar underneath the transverse reaction to ensure that the bond strength was not enhanced due to a (transverse) compressive force acting on the bar over this length. Fig. 1 Beam end specimen Deformed rebar of 12 and 16 mm diameter with cover of three times bar diameter were investigated. Duplicate sets of 4 外文翻译 confined and unconfined specimens were tested. The confined specimens had three sets of 6 mm stainless steel stirrups equally spaced from the plastic tube, at 75 mm centres. This represents four groups of specimens with a combination of different bar diameter and with/without confinement. The specimens were selected in order to investigate the influence of bar size, confinement and crack width on bond strength. 2.2 Materials The mix design is shown, Table 1. The cement was Type I Portland cement, the aggregate was basalt with specific gravity 2.99. The coarse and fine aggregate were prepared in accordance with AS 1141-2000. Mixing was undertaken in accordance with AS 1012.2-1994. Specimens were cured for 28 days under wet hessian before testing. Table 1 Concrete mix design 10 mm 7 mm Materw/washed washed Cement Sand Salt Slump ial c aggregaggreg ate ate Quant381 kg0.517 kg463 kg463 kg18.84 k140 ? 233333ity /m 49 /m /m /m g/m 5 mm In order to compare bond strength for the different concrete compressive strengths, Eq. 1 is used to normalize bond strength for non-corroded specimens as has been used by other researcher [8]. (1) where is the bond strength for grade 40 concrete, τ exptl is the experimental bond strength and f is the experimental c compressive strength. 5 外文翻译 The tensile strength of the Φ12 and Φ16 mm steel bars was nominally 500 MPa, which equates to a failure load of 56.5 and 100.5 kN, respectively. 2.3 Experiment methodology Accelerated corrosion has been used by a number of authors to replicate the corrosion of the reinforcing steel happening in the natural environment [2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 18, 20, 24, 27, 28, 30]. These have involved experiments using impressed currents or artificial weathering with wet/dry cycles and elevated temperatures to reduce the time until corrosion, while maintaining deterioration mechanisms representative of natural exposure. Studies using impressed currents have used current densities between 22100 μA/cm and 500 mA/cm [20]. Research has suggested that 2μA/cmcurrent densities up to 200 result in similar stresses during the early stages of corrosion when compared 2to 100 μA/cm [21]. As such an applied current density of 2200 μA/cm was selected for this study—representative of the lower end of the spectrum of such current densities adopted in previous research. However, caution should be applied when accelerating the corrosion using impressed current as the acceleration process does not exactly replicate the mechanisms involved in actual structures. In accelerated tests the pits are not allowed to progress naturally, and there may be a more uniform corrosion on the surface. Also the rate of corrosion may impact on the corrosion products, such that different oxidation state products may be formed, which could impact on bond. The steel bars served as the anode and four mild steel metal plates were fixed on the surface to serve as cathodes. Sponges (sprayed with salt water) were placed between the metal plates and concrete to provide an adequate contact, Fig. 2. 6 外文翻译 Fig. 2 Accelerated corrosion system When the required crack width was achieved for a particular bar, the impressed current was discontinued for that bar. The specimen was removed for pullout testing when all four locations exhibited the target crack width. Average surface crack widths of 0.05, 0.5, 1 and 1.5 mm were adopted as the target crack widths. The surface crack width was measured at 20 mm intervals along the length of the bar, beginning 20 mm from the end of the (plastic tube) bond breaker using an optical microscope. The level of accuracy in the measurements was ?0.02 mm. Measurements of crack width were taken on the surface normal to the bar direction regardless of the actual crack orientation at that location. Bond strength tests were conducted by means of a hand operated hydraulic jack and a custom-built test rig as shown in Fig. 3. The loading scheme is illustrated in Fig. 4. A plastic tube of length 80 mm was provided at the end of the concrete section underneath the transverse reaction to ensure that the bond strength was not enhanced by the reactive (compressive) force (acting normal to the bar). 7 外文翻译 The specimen was positioned so that an axial force was applied to the bar being tested. The restraints were sufficiently rigid to ensure minimal rotation or twisting of the specimen during loading. Fig. 3 Pull-out test, 16 mm bar unconfined Fig. 4 Schematic of loading. Note: only test bar shown for clarity 3 Experimental results and discussion 8 外文翻译 3.1 Visual inspection Following the accelerated corrosion phase each specimen was visually inspected for the location of cracks, mean crack width and maximum crack width (Sect. 2.3). While each specimen had a mean target crack width for each bar, variations in this crack width were observed prior to pull out testing. This is due to corrosion and cracking being a dynamic process with cracks propagating at different rates. Thus, while individual bars were disconnected, once the target crack width had been achieved, corrosion and crack propagation continued (to some extent) until all bars had achieved the target crack width and pull out tests conducted. This resulted in a range of data for the maximum and mean crack widths for the pull out tests. The visual inspection of the specimens showed three stages to the cracking process. The initial cracks occurred in a very short period, usually generated within a few days. After that, most cracks grew at a constant rate until they reached 1 mm, 3–4 weeks after first cracking. After cracks had reached 1 mm they then grew very slowly, with some cracks not increasing at all. For the confined and unconfined specimens the surface cracks tended to occur on the side of the specimens (as opposed to the top or bottom) and to follow the line of the bars. In the case of the unconfined specimens in general these were the only crack while it was common in the cases of confined specimens to observe cracks that were aligned vertically down the side—adjacent to one of the links, Fig. 5. 9 外文翻译 Fig. 5 Typical crack patterns During the pull-out testing the most common failure mode for both confined and unconfined was splitting failure—with the initial (pre-test) cracks caused by the corrosion enlarging under load and ultimately leading to the section failing exhibiting spalling of the top corner/edge, Fig. 6. However for several of the confined specimens, a second mode of failure also occurred with diagonal (shear like) cracks appearing in the side walls, Fig. 7. The appearance of these cracks did not appear to be related to the presence of vertical cracks observed (in specimens with stirrups) during the corrosion phase as reported above. 10 外文翻译 Fig. 6 Longitudinal cracking after pull-out Fig. 7 Diagonal cracking after pull-out The bars were initially (precasting) cleaned with a 12% hydrochloric acid solution, then washed in distilled water and neutralized by a calcium hydroxide solution before 11 外文翻译 being washed in distilled water again. Following the pull-out tests, the corroded bars were cleaned in the same way and weighed again. The corrosion degree was determined using the following equation where G is the initial weight of the steel bar before 0 corrosion, G is the final weight of the steel bar after removal of the post-test corrosion products, g is the 0 weight per unit length of the steel bar (0.888 and 1.58 g/mm for Φ12 and Φ16 mm bars, respectively), l is the embedded bond length. Figures 8 and 9 show steel bars with varying degree of corrosion. The majority exhibited visible pitting, similar to that observed on reinforcement in actual structures, Fig. 9. However, a small number of others exhibited significant overall section loss, with a more uniform level of corrosion, Fig. 8, which may be a function of the acceleration methodology. Fig. 8 Corroded 12 mm bar with approximately 30% mass loss Fig. 9 Corroded 16 mm bar with approximately 15% mass loss 3.2 Bond stress and crack width 12 外文翻译 Figure 10 shows the variation of bond stress with mean crack width for 16 mm bars and Fig. 11 for the 12 mm bars. Figures 12 and 13 show the data for the maximum crack width. Fig. 10 Mean crack width versus bond stress for 16 mm bars Fig. 11 Mean crack width versus bond stress for 12 mm bars 13 外文翻译 Fig. 12 Maximum crack width versus bond stress for 16 mm bars Fig. 13 Maximum crack width versus bond stress for 12 mm bars The data show an initial increase in bond strength for the 12 mm specimens with stirrups, followed by a significant decrease in bond, which is in agreement with other authors [12, 15]. For the 16 mm specimens an increase on the control bond stress was observed for specimens with 0.28 and 0.35 mm mean crack widths, however, a decrease in bond stress was observed for at the mean crack width of 0.05 mm. 14 外文翻译 The 12 mm bars with stirrups displayed an increase in bond stress of approximately 25% from the control values to the maximum bond stress. An increase of approximately 14% was observed for the 16 mm specimens. Other researchers [17, 24, 25] have reported enhancements of bond stress of between 10 and 60% due to confinement, slightly higher to that observed in these experiment. However the loading techniques and cover depths have not all been the same. Variations in experimental techniques include a shorter embedded length and a lower cover. The variation on the proposed empirical relationship between bond strength, degree of corrosion, bar size, cover, link details and tensile strength predicted by Rodriguez [24] has been discussed in detail in Tang et al. [28]. The analysis demonstrates that there would be an expected enhancement of bond strength due to confinement of approximately 25%—corresponding to a change of bond strength of approximately 0.75 MPa for the 16 mm bars (assessed at a 2% section loss). For the 12 mm bars the corresponding effect of confinement is found to be approximately 35% corresponding to a 1.0 MPa difference in bond stress. The experimental results (14 and 25%, above) are 60–70% of these values. Both sets of data indicate a relationship showing decreasing bond strength with (visible surface) crack width. A regression analysis of the bond strength data reveals a better linear relationship with the maximum crack width as opposed to the mean crack width (excluding the uncracked confined specimens), Table 2. Table 2 Best fit parameters, crack width versus bond strength Unconfined Confined Unconfined Confined 12 mm 12 mm 16 mm 16 mm Mean crack width 2 R 0.920 0.637 0.672 0.659 Slope (m) ?3.997 ?3.653 ?2.999 ?8.848 15 外文翻译 Unconfined Confined Unconfined Confined 12 mm 12 mm 16 mm 16 mm Intercept 7.560 8.122 6.496 8.746 (b) Maximum crack width 2 R 0.937 0.855 0.714 0.616 Slope (m) ?2.719 ?2.968 ?1.815 ?5.330 Intercept 7.805 8.403 6.707 9.636 (b) There was also a significantly better fit for the unconfined specimens than the confined specimens. This is consistent with the observation that in the unconfined specimens the bond strength will be related to the bond between the bars and the concrete, which will be affected by the level of corrosion present, which itself will influence the crack width. In confined specimens the confining steel will impact upon both the bond and the cracking. 3.3 Corrosion degree and bond stress It is apparent that (Fig. 14) for corrosion degrees less than 5% the bond stress correlated well. However, as the degree of corrosion increased there was no observable correlation at all. This contrasts with the relationship between the observed crack width and bond stress, which gives a reasonable correlation, even as crack widths increase to 2 and 2.5 mm. A possible explanation for this variation is that in the initial stages of corrosion virtually all the dissolved iron ions react to form expansive corrosion products. This reaction impacts on both the bond stress and the formation of cracks. However, once cracks have been formed it is possible for the iron ions to be transported along the crack and out of the concrete. As the bond has already been effectively lost at the crack 16 外文翻译 any iron ions dissolving at the crack and being directly transported out of the concrete will cause an increase in the degree of corrosion, but not affect the surface crack width. The location, orientation and chemistry within the crack will control the relationship between bond stress and degree of corrosion, which will vary from specimen to specimen. Hence the large variations in corrosion degree and bond stress for high levels of corrosion. Fig. 14 Bond stress versus corrosion degree, 12 mm bars, unconfined specimen Significantly larger crack widths were observed for the unconfined specimens, compared to the confined specimens with similar levels of corrosion and mass lost. The largest observed crack for unconfined specimens was 2.5 mm compared to 1.4 mm for the confined specimens. This is as expected and is a direct result of the confinement which limits the degree of cracking. 3.4 Effect of confinement The unconfined specimens for both 16 and 12 mm bars did not display the initial increase in bond strength observed for 17 外文翻译 the confined bars. Indeed the unconfined specimens with cracks all displayed a reduced bond stress compared to the control specimens. This is in agreement with other authors [16, 24] findings for cracked specimens. In cracked corroded specimens Fang observed a substantial reduction in bond strength for deformed bars without stirrups, while Rodriguez observed bond strengths of highly corroded cracked specimens without stirrups were close to zero, while highly corroded cracked specimens with stirrups retained bond strengths of between 3 and 4 MPa. In uncorroded specimens Chana noted an increase in bond strength due to stirrups of between 10 and 20% [14]. However Rodriguez and Fang observed no variation due to the presence of confinement in uncorroded bars. The data is perhaps unexpected as it could be anticipated that the corrosion products would lead to an increase in bond due to the increase in internal pressures, caused by the corrosion products increasing the confinement and mechanical interlocking around the bar, coupled with increased roughness of the bar resulting in a greater friction between the bar and the surrounding concrete. However, these pressures would then relieved by the subsequent cracking of the concrete, which would contribute to the decrease in the bond strength as crack widths increase. A possible hypothesis is that due to the level of cover, three times bar diameter, the effect of confinement by the stirrups is reduced, such that it has little impact on the bond stress in uncracked concrete. However, once cracking has taken place the confinement does have a beneficial effect on the bond. It may also be that the compressive strength of the concrete combined with the cover will have an effect on the bond stresses for uncorroded specimens. The data presented here has a cover of three times bar diameter and a strength of 18 外文翻译 40 MPa, other research ranges from 1.5 to four times cover with compressive strengths from 40 to 77 MPa. 3.5 Comparison of 12 and 16 mm rebar The maximum bond stress for 16 mm unconfined bars was measured at 8.06 MPa and for the 12 mm bars it was 8.43 MPa. These both corresponded to the control specimens with no corrosion. The unconfined specimens for both the 12 and 16 mm bars showed no increase in bond stress due to corrosion. For the confined specimens the maximum bond stress for the control specimens were 7.29 MPa for the 12 mm bars and 6.34 MPa for the 16 mm bars. The maximum bond stress for both sets of confined specimens corresponded to point of the initial cracking. The maximum bond stresses were observed at a mean crack width of 0.01 mm for the 12 mm bars and 0.28 mm for the 16 mm bars. The corresponding bond stresses were, 8.45 and 7.20 MPa. Overall the 12 mm bars displayed higher bond stresses compared to the 16 mm bars at all crack widths. This is attributed to a different failure mode. The 16 mm specimens demonstrate splitting failure while the 12 mm bars bond failure. 3.6 Effect of casting position There was no significant difference of bond strength due to the position of the bar (top or bottom cast) once cracking was observed, Fig. 15. For control specimens, with no corrosion, however, the bottom cast bars had a slightly higher bond stress than the top cast bars. These observations are in agreement with other authors [4, 11, 15, 22]. It is generally accepted that uncorroded bottom cast bars have significantly improved bond compared to top cast bars due to the corrosion products filling the voids that are often present under top cast bars as the corrosion progresses [14]. The corrosion also acts as an ‘anchor’, 19 外文翻译 similar to the ribs on deformed bars, to increase the bond. Overall, the mean value of bond stress for all bars (corroded and uncorroded) located in the top were within 1% of the mean bond stress of all bars located in the bottom of the section—for both unconfined and confined bars. This is probably due to the level of cover. The results reported previously are on specimens with one times cover [14]. However, at three times cover it would be anticipated that greater compaction would be achieved around the top cast bars. Thus the area of voids would be reduced and thus the effect of the corrosion product filling these voids and increasing the bond strength would be reduced. Fig. 15 Bond stress versus mean crack width for 12 mm bars, top and bottom cast positions, confined specimen 4 Conclusions A relationship was observed between crack width and • bond stress. The correlation was better for maximum crack width and bond stress than for mean crack width and bond stress. 20 外文翻译 Confined bars displayed a higher bond stress at the • point of initial cracking than where no corrosion had occurred. As crack width increase the bond stress reduced significantly. Unconfined bars displayed a decrease in bond stress • at initial cracking, followed by a further decrease as cracking increased. Top cast bars displayed a higher bond stress in • specimens with no corrosion. Once cracking had occurred no variation between top and bottom cast bars was observed. The 12 mm bars displayed higher bond stress values • than 16 mm with no corrosion, control specimens, and at similar crack widths. A good correlation was observed between bond stress • and degree of corrosion was observed at low levels of corrosion (less than 5%). However, at higher levels of corrosion no correlation was discerned. Overall the results indicated a potential relationship between the maximum crack width and the bond. Results shown herein should be interpreted with caution as this variation may be not only due to variations between accelerated corrosion and natural corrosion but also due to the complexity of the cracking mechanism in reality. 21 外文翻译 References 1. Almusallam AA (2001) Effect of degree of corrosion on the properties of reinforcing steel bars. Constr Build Mater 15:361–368 2. Almusallam AA, Al-Ghatani AS, Aziz AR, Rasheeduzzafar (1996) Effect of reinforcement corrosion on bond strength. Constr Build Mater 10(2):123–129 3. Alonso C, Andrade C, Rodriguez J, Diez JM (1998) Factors controlling cracking of concrete affected by reinforcement corrosion. Mater Struct 31:435–441 4. Al-Sulaimani GJ, Kaleemullah M, Basunbul IA, Rasheeduzzafar (1990) Influence of corrosion and cracking on bond behavior and strength of reinforced concrete member. ACI Struct J 87(2):220–231 5. Andrade C, Alonso C, Molina FJ (1993) Cover cracking as a function of rebar corrosion: Part 1. Experimental test. Mater Struct 26(9):453–464 6. Andrade C, Alonso C, Rodriguez J, Casal J, Diez JM (1995) Relation between corrosion and cracking. Internal report of Brite/Euram Project BE-4062, C.E.C. 7. Andrade C, Alonso C, Rodriguez J, Garcia M (1996) Cover cracking and amount of rebar corrosion: importance of the current applied accelerated tests. In: Fourth international congress concrete in the service of mankind: concrete repair, rehabilitation and protection, Dundee 22 外文翻译 8. Baldwin MI, Clark LA (1995) The assessment of reinforcing bars with inadequate anchorage. Mag Concr Res 37(171):95–102 9. Bhargava K, Ghosh AK, Mori Y, Ramanujam S (2007) Models for corrosion induced bond strength degradation in reinforced concrete. ACI Mater J 104(6):594–603 10. Cabrera JG (1996) Deterioration of concrete due to reinforcement steel corrosion. Cem Concr Compos 18(1):47–59 11. Cairns J, Plizzari G, Du Y, Law DW, Franzoni C (2005) Mechanical properties of corrosion damaged reinforcement. Mater J 126(4):256–264 12. Cairns J, Du Y, Law DW (2006) Residual bond strength of corroded and plain round bars. Mag Concr Res 58(4):221–231 13. Cairns J, Du Y, Law DW (2007) Influence of corrosion on the friction characteristics of the steel/concrete interface. Constr Build Mater 21(1):190–197 14. Chana PS (1990) A test method to establish realistic bond stress. Mag Concr Res 42(151):83–90 15. Clark LA, Saifullah M (1990) Effect of corrosion on reinforcement bond strength. In: Forde M (ed) Proceedings fifth structural faults and repair. Engineering Technical Press, Edinburgh, pp 113–119 16. Fang C, Lundgren K, Chen L, Zhu C (2004) Corrosion influence on bond in reinforced concrete. Cem Concr Res 34:2159–2167 23 外文翻译 17. Fang C, Lundgren K, Plos M, Gylltoft K (2006) Bond behaviour of corroded reinforcement steel bars in concrete. Cem Concr Res 36:1931–1938 18. Lee HS, Noguchi T, Tomosawa F (2002) Evaluation of the bond properties between concrete and reinforcement as a function of the degree of reinforcement corrosion. Cem Concr Res 32(8):1313–1318 19. Li CQ, Yang Y, Melchers RE (2008) Prediction of reinforcement corrosion in concrete and its effect on concrete and strength reduction. ACI Mater J 105(1):3–10 20. Maaddawy ET, Soudki K, Topper T (2005) Long-term performance of corrosion-damaged reinforced concrete beams. ACI Struct J 102(5):649 21. Maddawy ET, Khaled AS (2003) Effectiveness of impressed current technique to simulate corrosion of steel reinforcement in concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 15(1):41–47 22. Mangat PS, Elgarf MS (1999) Bond characteristics of corroding reinforcement in concrete beams. Mater Struct 32:89–97 23. Molina FJ, Alonso C, Andrade C (1993) Cover cracking as a function of rebar corrosion: Part 2. Numerical model. Mater Struct 26(9):532–548 24. Rodriguez J, Ortega LM, Casal J (1994) Corrosion of reinforcing bars and service life of reinforced concrete structures: corrosion and bond 24 外文翻译 deterioration. In: International conference on concrete across borders, Odense, pp 315–326 25. Rodriguez J, Ortega LM, Casal J, Diez JM (1996) Corrosion of reinforcement and service life of concrete structures. In: Durability of building materials and components. Proceedings of the seventh international conference, vol 1, pp 117–126 26. Schieβl P, Raupach M (1997) Laboratory studies and calculations on the influence of crack width on chloride-induced corrosion of steel in concrete. ACI Mater J 94(1):56–62 27. Stanish K, Hooton RD, Pantazopoulou SJ (1999) Corrosion effects on bond strength in reinforced concrete. ACI Mater J 96(6):915–921 28. Tang D, Molyneaux TCK, Law DW, Gravina R (2008) The influence of chloride induced corrosion cracks on the strength of confined and unconfined reinforced concrete. In: Proceedings structural faults and repair, Edinburgh 29. Vidal T, Castel A, Francois R (2004) Analyzing crack width to predict corrosion in reinforced concrete. Cem Concr Res 34(1):165–174 30. Yuan Y, Ji Y, Shah SP (2007) Comparison of two accelerated corrosion techniques for concrete structures. ACI Struct J 104(3):344–347 25