Title:
Corrosion Performance of Poorly Pickled Stainless Steel Reinforcement
Author(s):
M. O’Reilly, J. Sperry, D. Darwin, J. Lafikes, I. Somogie, S. Storm, and J. Browning
Publication:
Materials Journal
Volume:
114
Issue:
6
Appears on pages(s):
839-845
Keywords:
chlorides; corrosion; microcell; pickling; stainless steel
DOI:
10.14359/51701008
Date:
11/1/2017
Abstract:
XM-28 (UNS S24100) and 2304 (UNS S32304) stainless steel reinforcing bars with different levels of pickling were evaluated for corrosion resistance using the rapid macrocell and cracked beam tests outlined in ASTM A955. Two heats of XM-28 from the same producer were evaluated using the rapid macrocell test. A single heat of 2304 was evaluated in two conditions; as-received from the manufacturer and re-pickled using both ASTM A955 tests. The poorly pickled heat of XM-28 reinforcement failed the rapid macrocell test with a peak individual corrosion rate exceeding 16 μm/y, while the properly pickled heat passed with no significant corrosion measured. The poorly pickled 2304 reinforcing steel failed the macrocell and cracked beam tests, with peak corrosion rates of 1.07 and 6.48 μm/y, respectively, while upon re-pickling, the same heat of steel passed both tests. These results suggest the need for a method to verify that the pickling process has been performed properly. Performance during the first week of the rapid macrocell tests or requiring that the bars exhibit a bright, shiny, uniformly light surface represent two potential methods for establishing the adequacy of pickling.
Related References:
ASCE, 2013a, Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 119 pp.
ASCE, 2013b, Failure to Act: The Impact of Current Infrastructure Investment on America’s Economic Future, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 25 pp.
ASTM A955/A955M-15, 2015, “Standard Specification for Plain and Deformed Stainless-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 11 pp.
Darwin, D.; O’Reilly, M.; Somogie, I.; Sperry, J.; Lafikes, J.; Storm, S.; and Browning, J., 2013, “Stainless Steel Reinforcement as a Replacement for Epoxy Coated Steel in Bridge Decks,” Final Project Report – FHWA-OK-13-08, Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Aug., 205 pp., also SM Report No. 105, Univ. of Kansas Center for Research, Lawrence, KS.
Ji, J.; Darwin, D.; and Browning, J. P., 2005, “Corrosion Resistance of Duplex Stainless Steels and MMFX Microcomposite Steel for Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks,” SM Report No. 80, University of Kansas Center for Research, Lawrence, KS, 507 pp.
Jones, D., 1996, Principles and Prevention of Corrosion, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 572 pp.
Koch, G.; Broongers, H.; Thompson, N.; Virmani, Y.; and Payer, J., 2002, “Corrosion Cost and Preventive Strategies in the United States,” Report No. FHWA-RD-01-156, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 773 pp.
McDonald, D.; Sherman, M.; Pfeifer, D.; and Virmani, P., 1995, “Stainless Steel Reinforcing as Corrosion Protection,” Concrete International, V. 17, No. 5, May, pp. 65-70.
O’Reilly, M.; Darwin, D.; Browning, J. P.; and Locke, C. E., 2011, “Evaluation of Multiple Corrosion Protection Systems for Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks,” SM Report No. 100, University of Kansas Center for Research, Lawrence, KS, 535 pp.
Smith, F., and Tullmin, M., 2007, “Using Stainless Steels as Long-Lasting Rebar Material,” Materials Performance, V. 38, No. 5, pp. 72-76.
Trejo, D., and Pillai, R., 2004, “Accelerated Chloride Threshold—Part II: Corrosion-Resistant Reinforcement,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 101, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 57-64.