A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Corrosion Performance of Poorly Pickled Stainless Steel Reinforcement
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 macro-cell 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.
Corrosion Performance of Poorly Pickled Stainless Steel Reinforcement
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 macro-cell 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.
Corrosion Performance of Poorly Pickled Stainless Steel Reinforcement
M O'Reilly (author) / J Sperry / D Darwin / J Lafikes / I Somogie / S Storm / J Browning
ACI materials journal ; 114
2017
Article (Journal)
English
Corrosion Performance of Poorly Pickled Stainless Steel Reinforcement
| British Library Online Contents | 2017
Welded, pickled stainless steel reinforcements: corrosion results after 9 years in mortar
| Online Contents | 2016
Electrochemical investigation of pickled and polished 304L stainless steel tubes
| British Library Online Contents | 2000
Corrosion of Stainless Steel Reinforcement in Cracked Concrete
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2002