Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106153

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Effects of Zinc alloy layer on corrosion and service life of

galvanized reinforcing steels in chloride-contaminated concrete
Melati Sari Dewi a, Pakawat Sancharoen b, *, Pitichon Klomjit c,
Somnuk Tangtermsirikul a
a
School of Civil Engineering and Technology, Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology (SIIT), Thammasat University, Pathum Thani,
Thailand
b
Construction and Maintenance Technology Research Center, Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University, Pathum
Thani, Thailand
c
National Metal and Materials Technology Center (MTEC), Pathum Thani, Thailand

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Corrosion of reinforcing steel affects the service life of structures. A chloride environment exposed
Corrosion to reinforced concrete structures accelerates the corrosion process. Hot-dipped galvanized steel
Reinforcing steel was used as reinforcing steel instead of bare carbon steel to provide better protection against
Galvanized steel corrosion. The coating layers of galvanized steel have different compositions which can affect
Chloride corrosion behavior. When galvanized steel has been corroded, it will expose the zinc-alloy layer
Service life
that has a different composition than the top pure zinc layer. A comparative study on electro­
Electrochemical properties
chemical properties such as concrete resistivity, polarization resistance, corrosion current density,
anodic Tafel slope, cathodic Tafel slope, and corrosion rate of bare carbon steel (BS), galvanized
steel (GS), and corroded galvanized steel (CGS) was conducted. The BS, GS, and CGS were
embedded in concrete with different mix proportions by varying water-to-binder ratios, chloride
contents, and types of binder. The electrochemical properties data were measured by the Wenner
four-probe, linear polarization resistance (LPR), and potentiodynamic polarization resistance
(PPR) tests. The measurement results show that the resistivity of 0.4 w/b concrete is higher than
0.6 w/b concrete. Corroded galvanized steel’s polarization resistance is lower than bare carbon
steel’s and galvanized steel’s. The corrosion rate calculated from the Stern-Geary equation of
corroded galvanized steel is higher than bare carbon steel and galvanized steel. Based on the
calculation results, the specimens with galvanized steel have a longer crack-initiating life than the
bare carbon steel. The crack-initiating life of the reinforced concrete structures using galvanized
steel can be more precisely predicted by considering the corroded galvanized layer.

1. Introduction
Chloride is one of the main causes of corrosion that directly damages reinforcing steel [1]. Chloride that attacks reinforced concrete
structures can come from the environment (external chloride) or the chloride-containing concrete raw materials (internal chloride)
[2]. To reduce the severity of corrosion damage by chlorides, concrete and steel quality must be improved. Variations in the concrete

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.S. Dewi), [email protected] (P. Sancharoen), [email protected] (P. Klomjit), [email protected]
(S. Tangtermsirikul).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106153
Received 19 December 2022; Received in revised form 6 February 2023; Accepted 18 February 2023
Available online 20 February 2023
2352-7102/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.S. Dewi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106153

mixtures including water-to-binder ratio and binder type, and type of reinforcing steel have been conducted [2]. One option is to
replace bare carbon steel with galvanized steel.
Literature reported that galvanized steel has a longer service life than bare carbon steel [3–5]. Corrosion of bare carbon steel is
considered to have two stages; initiation and propagation stage, while galvanized steel has three stages: initiation, protection, and
propagation stages [3,6]. The initiation stage is the ingression period of chloride to reach a critical chloride level. The critical chloride
contents of bare carbon steel and galvanized steel are proposed in some research studies to be 0.4% and 1% by weight of cement,
respectively [3,7,8]. The protection stage is the stage where zinc on the steel surface sacrifices itself to protect the steel. The last stage is
the propagation stage where the steel begins to corrode, causing the reinforced concrete structures to crack, spall, and collapse [3,9,
10].
Galvanized steel consists of layers of pure zinc and zinc alloy that affects the corrosion behavior of galvanized steel [11–13].
Literature [5,14–16] reported the average corrosion rate of galvanized steel without considering the effects of the zinc alloy layer.
Fig. 1 shows an illustration of the corrosion process of galvanized steel. The corrosion occurs on 3 layers, pure zinc (thickness of 15
μm), zinc alloy (thickness of 81 μm), and iron [12,17,18]. As zinc is passivated at a pH of 8–12.5, while iron is passivated at a higher pH
of 10–13.5 [19,20]. The corrosion behavior of pure zinc and zinc alloy layers are different and needed to be studied. Zinc requires an
environment that can keep the pH from increasing and being in the passivation phase.
Concrete mix proportion also affects the corrosion behavior of reinforcing steel. Various supplementary cementitious materials are
introduced and applied in cement and concrete not only to optimize the performance of the binder system but also to reduce their
carbon footprint. It was found in a previous study that fly ash decreases the pH of concrete [2]. Passivation of zinc can be enhanced at
lower pH of fly ash concrete. Recently, Portland composite cement (PCC) according to TIS 2594–2556, has also been introduced as a
practical cement in Thailand [21]. To produce PCC, limestone powder is blended with cement clinker with the main purpose to reduce
carbon dioxide emission of the cement product [22]. The addition of limestone powder affects various concrete properties such as pH,
hydration processes, and chloride binding [23,24]. The corrosion of reinforcing steel in PCC concrete is also needed to be studied.
Electrochemical properties such as concrete resistance, polarization resistance, corrosion current density, anodic Tafel slope, and
cathodic Tafel slope are required for the evaluation of the corrosion rate of reinforced concrete structures. The experimental results can
be used to compare the electrochemical properties of various types of reinforcing steel in different concrete mixtures. In this study,
specimens with varied binder types and chloride concentrations were prepared. Three types of reinforcing steel, including bare carbon
steel (BS), galvanized steel (GS), and corroded galvanized steel (CGS) are studied. The corroded galvanized steel was used for obtaining
a more precise prediction of the galvanized steel in the actual condition during the service period of concrete structures.

2. Experiment
2.1. Materials
The reinforcing steels used were bare carbon steel (BS), galvanized steel (GS), and corroded galvanized steel (CGS). BS was a
deformed bar, grade SD40 according to TIS 24–2559 [25] having a diameter of 12 mm and a length of 150 mm. GS was a bare carbon
steel, coated with zinc by the hot-dipped galvanizing technique in the factory, resulting in a galvanized layer thickness of about 130
μm. CGS is the galvanized steel after being immersed in hydrochloric acid (HCl) for 10 min according to ASTM G1 to simulate corrosion
of the pure zinc layer and expose the zinc alloy layer [26]. CGS had a remaining galvanized layer thickness of about 80 μm and the zinc
alloy layer was reached as can be observed from the XRF test results in Table 1. The percentage of Fe is higher in the CGS than in the GS.
The tested concrete has water-to-binder ratios of 0.4 and 0.6. The chloride used is analytical-grade sodium chloride (NaCl) with
varied contents of 0%, 0.75%, and 1.5% chloride by weight of the binder. Three types of binders used were a Portland composite
cement (PCC) according to TIS 2594-2556 [21], an ordinary Portland cement (OPC) according to ASTM C 150 [27], and PCC replaced
with 30% of fly ash (FA) by weight of the binder. The fly ash was obtained from the Mae Moh powerplant, Thailand. The properties of
the fly ash follow the class 2b according to TIS 2135–2545 [28]. Table 2 shows the chemical compositions of each binder by the XRF
test. The properties of coarse aggregate and fine aggregate were according to ASTM C33 [29].

Fig. 1. Corrosion process illustration of galvanized steel (not to scale).

2
M.S. Dewi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106153

Table 1
Chemical compositions measured on the surface of GS, CGS, and BS.

Chemical composition (%) GS CGS BS

Cr 0.16 0.00 0.26

Fe 5.67 10.96 99.40
Zn 94.16 89.04 0.34
Galvanized layer thickness (μm) 130 80 0

2.2. Preparation of specimens

Table 3 shows 15 concrete mix proportions used to make specimens in this study. Each type of reinforcing steel, cut to a length of
150 mm, was prepared by connecting an electric wire at one end for electrochemical property tests, as shown in Fig. 2. As shown in
Fig. 3, the steel was coated with epoxy on both ends, with an uncoated length of 6 cm. The corroded galvanized steel was tested only in
the mixtures with a w/b of 0.4 (4PCC and 4FA) with chloride contents of 0% and 1.5% by weight of the binder. While the steel-
reinforced 100 × 100 × 100 mm cubic specimens with a reinforcing steel embedded to obtain a 3-cm covering depth were used for
LPR and PPR tests, as shown in Fig. 4. As the size of the specimen affects the concrete resistivity [30], a 150 × 150 × 150 mm cubic
unreinforced specimen was used for electrical resistivity measurement. The specimens were cured using plastic wrap until 28 days of
age and then put in the control box with a relative humidity of 95 ± 2% and a temperature of 28 ± 2 ◦ C for 30 days before testing.

2.3. Electrochemical measurements

The Wenner four-probe as shown in Fig. 5(a) was used to measure the electrical resistivity of concrete (ρ). The measurements were
carried out in 4 directions including two perpendicular to the edge and two diagonal directions as shown in Fig. 5(b). The results were
the average of the 4 measured values. The electrical resistivity (ρ) from the Wenner four-probe tests was used to calculate the concrete
resistance (Rc ) as shown in Equation (2).
Linear polarization resistance (LPR) and potentiodynamic polarization resistance (PPR) measurements were conducted by using a
Gamry potentiostat with the IFC 1010–29138 model. The equipment had 3 electrodes, including a counter electrode (CE) that was
stainless steel placed on the specimen’s top surface, as shown in Fig. 6. The working electrode (WE) was the reinforcing steel and the
reference electrode (RE) was saturated Cu/CuSO4 [2]. The specimen was set in the airtight, insulated, and aluminum foil-sealed box
during testing to prevent moisture fluctuation and electric disturbance during electrochemical measurements as shown in Fig. 6(b).
The LPR measurement is a non-destructive test to obtain electrochemical properties. In this study, the open circuit potential (OCP)
determination time was 100 s. Then the potentiostat applies a potential of ±10 mV from the observed open circuit potential (OCP) and
a scan rate of 0.5 mV/s. The test was performed to measure the polarization resistance (RP ) of reinforcing steel. The measured po­
′

larization resistance (RP ) test results include the effects of an ohmic drop. Therefore, a calculation of compensated polarization
′

resistance (RP ) is required as shown in Equation (1) [31] and Equation (2) [32].

(1)
′
RP = RP − Rc

The obtained electrical resistivity (ρ) was then used to calculate the concrete resistance (Rc ) as shown in Equation (2) with the
details of the notations shown in Table 5. In determining the current flow area during the LPR test, it was assumed that the current
flowing from the reinforcing steel spreads throughout the concrete area.
L
Rc = ρ (2)
A1
Similarly, the PPR test began with a 100 s delay for the open circuit potential (OCP) to be stabilized. An initial and final potential of

±200 mV from OCP and a scan rate of 0.5 mV/s were used. In this test, measurements were made to obtain anodic Tafel slope (βa ),
cathodic Tafel slope (βc ), and corrosion current density (Icorr ). βa and βc were used to calculate the value of B based on the Stern-Geary
equation as shown in Table 4 and Equation (4) and corrosion current density (Icorr ) as shown in Equation (3) [33]. Again, the details of
the notations in Equations (3) and (4) are given in Table 5.

Table 2
Chemical compositions of the binders.

Elements Content (%)

PCC FA OPC

SiO2 13.63 29.47 19.70

Al2O3 2.67 15.26 5.19
Fe2O3 3.31 15.72 3.34
CaO 66.21 24.10 64.80
SO3 1.91 3.55 2.54
Na2O 0.31 1.41 0.16
K2 O 0.35 1.88 0.44

3
M.S. Dewi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106153

Table 3
Mix proportions of the tested concrete.

Name Chloride content (% by weight of binder) w/b FA (%) Unit Content (kg/m3)

PCC OPC FA Sand Gravel NaCl Water

4PCCCL0 0 0.4 0 454.4 – 0.00 811.4 971.3 0.00 181.8

4PCCCL0.75 0.75 0 454.4 – 0.00 811.4 971.3 5.6 181.8
4PCCCL1.5 1.5 0 454.4 – 0.00 811.4 971.3 11.2 181.8
4FACL0 0 30 307.9 – 131.9 811.4 971.3 0.00 175.9
4FACL0.75 0.75 30 307.9 – 131.9 811.4 971.3 5.4 175.9
4FACL1.5 1.5 30 307.9 – 131.9 811.4 971.3 10.9 175.9
6PCCCL0 0 0.6 0 355.3 – 0.00 811.4 971.3 0.00 213.2
6PCCCL0.75 0.75 0 355.3 – 0.00 811.4 971.3 4.4 213.2
6PCCCL1.5 1.5 0 355.3 – 0.00 811.4 971.3 8.9 213.2
6FACL0 0 30 242.4 – 103.9 811.4 971.3 0.00 207.8
6FACL0.75 0.75 30 242.4 – 103.9 811.4 971.3 4.3 207.8
6FACL1.5 1.5 30 242.4 – 103.9 811.4 971.3 8.6 207.8
6OPCCL0 0 0 – 355.3 0.00 811.4 971.3 0.00 213.2
6OPCCL0.75 0.75 0 – 355.3 0.00 811.4 971.3 4.4 213.2
6OPCCL1.5 1.5 0 – 355.3 0.00 811.4 971.3 8.8 213.2

Fig. 2. Prepared reinforcing steel: (a) Galvanized steel; (b) Corroded galvanized steel; (c) Bare carbon steel.

Fig. 3. Reinforcing steel coated by epoxy (C: Coated, U: Uncoated, Scale 1:1).

B
Icorr = (3)
RP × A2

βa × βc
B= (4)
2.3 × (βa + βc )
Based on the electrochemical properties, the corrosion rate can be determined as shown in Equation (5) for mg/cm2 year unit and
Equation (6) for mm/year unit according to Faraday’s law [34]. The equivalent weight (EW) and density (D) of BS, GS, and CGS were
required, and their descriptions and values are shown in Table 5 [34]. Specifically for CGS, the values of EW and D were obtained by
calculation according to ASTM G102 [34] using the chemical compositions in Table 1.
rcorr1 = 3.65 × K × Icorr × EW (5)

4
M.S. Dewi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106153

Fig. 4. (a) Wenner four-probe test specimen, (b) LPR and PPR test specimen.

Fig. 5. Electrical resistivity measurement: (a) Wenner four-probe test; (b) Directions of the test.

Fig. 6. (a) Electrochemical test setup, (b) Specimen setup in the box.

0.00327 × Icorr × EW
rcorr2 = (6)
D

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Electrical resistivity
The Wenner four-probe measurement renders the results of the electrical resistivity of concrete as shown in Fig. 7. The lower
resistivity generally results in a higher corrosion rate of reinforcing steel [2,30,35]. The concrete with a water-to-binder ratio of 0.4 has
a higher resistivity than that with a water-to-binder ratio of 0.6. This is because there are fewer connected pores when the
water-to-binder ratio decreases [36]. In this study, 3 types of binders were used, which also greatly affected the resistivity of the
concrete. The electrical resistivity of FA concrete was higher than PCC concrete and OPC concrete. The use of fly ash at 30% binder
replacement increased the resistivity significantly. This was caused by the decreased conductivity of the pore solution, pore densifi­
cation, and high chloride binding capacity of FA concrete [2,30,37,38].
Concrete contaminated by chloride has a lower resistivity than concrete that is free from chloride [2,30,39], verified by the 6OPC

5
M.S. Dewi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106153

Table 4
Anodic and cathodic Tafel slopes from PPR measurements.

Mix proportions BS GS CGS

βa βc βa βc βa βc

4PCCCL0 0.75 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.21 0.08

4PCCCL0.75 0.36 0.13 0.10 0.09
4PCCCL1.5 0.33 0.14 0.64 0.27 0.06 0.06
4FACL0 0.08 0.04 0.13 0.09 0.16 0.14
4FACL0.75 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.77
4FACL1.5 0.09 0.11 0.33 0.23 0.25 0.22
6PCCCL0 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.05
6PCCCL0.75 0.20 0.11 0.09 0.06
6PCCCL1.5 0.32 0.19 0.47 0.25
6FACL0 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.06
6FACL0.75 0.05 0.04 0.18 0.10
6FACL1.5 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.12
6OPCCL0 0.55 0.09 0.09 0.07
6OPCCL0.75 0.20 0.44 0.06 0.07
6OPCCL1.5 0.16 0.13 0.04 0.03

Table 5
Parameters in each equation.

Notation Description Value Unit

Rc Concrete resistance Calculation kΩ

ρ Electrical resistivity Wenner four-probe test kΩ.cm
L Covering depth 3 cm
A1 Area of current flow 100 cm2
RP Compensated polarization resistance Calculation kΩ
RP
′
Polarization resistance LPR test kΩ
Icorr Corrosion current density Calculation μA/cm2
B Stern-Geary constant Calculation mV
A2 Area of the uncoated steel 22.608 cm2
βa Anodic Tafel slope PPR test mV
βc Cathodic Tafel slope PPR test mV
rcorr1 Corrosion rate Calculation mg/cm2 year
rcorr2 Corrosion rate Calculation mm/year
K Constant value 0.008954 g.cm2/μA.m2 day
EW Equivalent weight BS (Iron): 27.923 g
GS (Zinc): 32.700
CGS Zinc alloy): 32.090
D Density BS (Iron): 7.874 g/cm3
GS (Zinc): 7.140
CGS (Zinc alloy): 7.210

Fig. 7. Electrical resistivity of concrete in each mix proportion.

6
M.S. Dewi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106153

concrete mix results in Fig. 7. The main cause of the reduction in electrical resistivity of concrete with chloride is that NaCl is
transformed into an aqueous electrolyte by absorbing water [40]. In contrast, the use of PCC in chloride-contaminated concrete shows
a higher resistivity than concrete without chloride. This is because limestone in PCC reacts with chloride causing denser pore structures
[41]. So electrical resistivity of PCC concrete increased with the amount of chloride. PCC with fly ash concrete contaminated with
chloride shows the highest electrical resistivity. This can reduce the corrosion rate of the reinforcing steel.

3.2. Polarization resistance

The polarization resistance (RP ) is the linear slope of the relationship between the current and potential. The corrosion resistance of
the passive film is directly proportional to the polarization resistance. When the value of RP is high, the corrosion resistance of the steel
is high. Fig. 8 describes the relationship between the percentage of chloride in concrete and compensated polarization resistance (RP ).
These results are influenced by variations in the concrete mix proportion.
Comparing the results of each type of steel related to the variation of concrete mix, galvanized steel in PCC concrete without
chloride has a higher RP than FA concrete at 0.4 w/b ratio. The RP of galvanized steel in PCC concrete using 0.6 w/b ratio is lower than
OPC and FA concrete which is similar to the literature [2] because fly ash decreases the pH of concrete. For reinforcing steel in
chloride-contaminated concrete, the steel in FA concrete has a higher RP than that in the OPC concrete and PCC concrete. This is
because fly ash increases chloride binding capacity and also decreases the porosity of the concrete [2,42,43]. The higher chloride
content reduces the RP because chloride destroys the passive film. The RP of bare carbon steel (BS) is lower than those of GS and CGS
due to the weaker passive film. The RP of corroded galvanized steel is significantly lower than that of the galvanized steel but is still
higher than that of the bare carbon steel in chloride-contaminated concrete.

3.3. Corrosion rate

The results of the corrosion rate (rcorr ) of reinforcing steel calculated from Equations (5) and (6) with variations in the concrete
mixture in a chloride environment are shown in Figs. 9 and 10. The corrosion rate and RP have an inverse relationship, where a higher
RP shows a lower corrosion rate. rcorr is also influenced by the values of B, EW and D, which have different values for different types of
reinforcing steel as shown in Table 5. The corrosion rate of steel in the concrete with a water-to-binder ratio of 0.4 is lower than that
with a water-to-binder ratio of 0.6. This is because the higher the water-to-binder ratio, the higher the porosity and the lower electrical
the resistivity of the concrete [2]. The reinforced concrete specimens in a chloride environment have a high corrosion rate, due to the
breakdown of the passive film. OPC concrete has a higher corrosion rate than PCC concrete and FA concrete. This is because FA
concrete has higher chloride binding ability and low porosity of concrete [2,44], and PCC concrete has a denser pore structure.
The corrosion rate of galvanized steel (GS) is significantly lower than those of corroded galvanized steel (CGS) and bare carbon steel
(BS), especially in chloride-contaminated concrete because the oxide of zinc is denser than iron. It should be noted that the corrosion
rate of CGS is significantly higher when compared to that of GS. This affects the service life of galvanized steel. The corrosion rate
calculated by Equations (5) and (6) in Figs. 9 and 10 is later used to predict crack-initiating life based on the corrosion process
illustrated in Fig. 1, with or without considering the Zn-alloy layer.

3.4. Time until corrosion cracking on the concrete surface (crack-initiating life)
The service life of a structure can be defined based on various stages of deterioration. In this study, the time until corrosion cracking
appears on the concrete surface (crack-initiating life) is considered and predicted based on the corrosion rate of each tested condition
as shown in Figs. 9 and 10. According to the standard specifications for concrete structures [45], cracks can be generated on the
concrete surface due to corrosion of reinforcing steel when the amount of the corroded steel reaches 10–100 mg/cm2 depending on
various factors such as covering depth, arrangement of steel, strength of concrete, etc. It was reported that a value of 10 mg/cm2
corresponded to a conservative estimation concerning the time of occurrence of corrosion cracking [45]. Based on Ueda et al. [46], the

Fig. 8. Polarization resistance of different reinforcing steel.

7
M.S. Dewi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106153

Fig. 9. Corrosion rates of different steel types and concrete mix proportions (mg/cm2 year).

Fig. 10. Corrosion rates of different steel types and concrete mix proportions (mm/year).

corrosion amount that causes concrete surface cracking is equal to 10 mg/cm2 for 10 mm covering depth. An increase of 10 mm in the
covering depth requires an addition of 10 mg/cm2 of corrosion amount to initiate cracking. As the covering depth was 30 mm in this
study, the corrosion amount of 30 mg/cm2 was used as a cracking criterion to determine the time until corrosion cracking appeared on
the concrete surface.
Table 6 shows the results of predicted time until corrosion cracking occurs on the concrete surface with variations of chloride and
concrete mixture. The thickness of pure zinc and zinc alloy layer is referred from the literature [17] as shown in Fig. 1. According to
Fig. 1, corrosion process is calculated by considering and not considering the presence of the zinc alloy layer. For GS and CGS,
corrosion of the galvanized layer is firstly calculated according to Equation (6). Then the corrosion amount of BS is calculated and
compared to cracking criteria according to Equation (5). The corrosion current density (Icorr ) used to calculate corrosion rate is shown
in Table 6. It is noted that since the purpose of this study is to compare the corrosion resisting performance of the GS, CGS, and BS from
starting time of corrosion, the crack initiating life does not include the corrosion initiation life (ti ) (the period from right after the
specimens were prepared until when the chloride content around the steel reached the critical chloride content). The galvanized steel

Table 6
Service life from corrosion initiation to cracking (propagation stage).

Name Current density (Icorr ) (μA/cm2) Service life from corrosion initiation to cracking (years)

GS CGS BS GS not considering Zn alloy layer GS considering Zn alloy layer BS

4PCCCL0 0.1 0.3 0.3 164 142 112

4PCCCL1.5 0.7 0.8 2.0 25 24 16
4FACL0 0.1 0.2 0.1 200 179 139
4FACL1.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 48 46 35

8
M.S. Dewi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106153

in 4PCC chloride-free concrete without considering Zn alloy layer demonstrates the concrete surface cracking time of 164 years, while
a shorter time of 142 years was obtained when considering Zn alloy layer and the bare carbon steel shows only 112 years of cracking
time. In a chloride environment of 1.5% by weight of binder, the cases of analysis of galvanized steel without considering Zn alloy
layer, galvanized steel considering zinc alloy and bare carbon steel result in the cracking times of 25, 24, and 16 years, respectively.
Based on the results, the galvanized steel has a longer service life than the bare carbon steel. However, considering corrosion rate of the
Zn alloy layer is necessary because the service life of galvanized steel is affected by the Zn alloy layer. Fly ash concrete has a longer
cracking time due to its higher electrical resistivity and lower corrosion rate.

4. Conclusions
This study is about electrochemical properties and corrosion rate of reinforced concrete with different reinforcing steel by con­
ducting experiments and estimate the time until corrosion cracking on the concrete surface of bare carbon steel and galvanized
reinforcing steel in various mixtures of concrete with varied chloride contents, with and without considering zinc alloy layer. The
following conclusions can be made.
1) Fly ash concrete shows higher electrical resistivity than normal concrete due to pore densification and different ions concentration.
Limestone powder in PCC concrete increases electrical resistivity of the chloride-contaminated concrete due to the reaction be­
tween limestone powder and chloride ion. As a result, the corrosion rate of fly ash PCC concrete is the lowest.
2) The polarization resistance of GS is higher than that of CGS and BS, especially in chloride-contaminated concrete as the passive film
of zinc is denser than iron. As the zinc alloy layer is a combination between zinc and iron, the polarization resistance of CGS is lower
than that of BS in chloride-free concrete due to galvanic corrosion. However, in the chloride-contaminated concrete, CGS shows
higher polarization resistance than BS.
3) The corrosion rate of GS is the lowest. The corrosion rate of CGS is also lower than that of BS, especially in chloride-contaminated
concrete. GS and CGS in FA concrete show lower corrosion rates than in PCC concrete because the passive film of zinc is more stable
in the lower pH environment of the fly ash mixture.
4) Prediction of concrete surface corrosion cracking time of GS-reinforced concrete needs to consider the corrosion rate of the zinc
alloy layer in CGS as the zinc alloy layer has a higher corrosion rate than the zinc layer and so causes a shorter crack-initiating life.
However, the CGS specimen still has a longer crack-initiating life than the BS specimen.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Melati Sari Dewi: Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Pakawat
Sancharoen: Supervision, Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. Pitichon Klomjit: Super­
vision, Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. Somnuk Tangtermsirikul: Supervision,
Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper

Data availability

The authors do not have permission to share data.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the Center of Excellence in Material Science, Construction and Maintenance Technology
Project, Thammasat University. This study was supported by Chair Professor Grant (P-19-52302), the National Science and Technology
Development Agency (NSTDA), Thailand and by AUN/Seed-Net scholarship to the first author.

References
[1] J. Roman, R. Vera, M. Bagnara, A.M. Carvajal, W. Aperador, Effect of chloride ions on the corrosion of galvanized steel embedded in concrete prepared with
cements of different composition, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 9 (2) (2014) 580–592.
[2] D.V.P. Tran, P. Sancharoen, P. Klomjit, S. Tangtermsirikul, Effects of concrete mix proportion and chloride content on electrochemical properties of reinforcing
steel in concrete, Eng. J. 24 (3) (2020) 23–34.
[3] S.R. Yeomans, Galvanized Steel Reinforcement: Recent Developments and New Opportunities, Proceedings of 5th International Federation for Structural
Concrete, Melbourne, Australia, 2018.
[4] L. Soufeiani, G. Foliente, K.T. Nguyen, R. San Nicolas, Corrosion protection of steel elements in façade systems–A review, J. Build. Eng. 32 (2020), 101759.
[5] D. Darwin, M. O’Reilly, O. Farshadfar, J. Browning, C. Locke Jr., Corrosion-induced Concrete Cracking for Uncoated and Galvanized Reinforcing Bars, American
Concrete Institute, 2018.
[6] R. Rodrigues, S. Gaboreau, J. Gance, I. Ignatiadis, S. Betelu, Reinforced concrete structures: a review of corrosion mechanisms and advances in electrical
methods for corrosion monitoring, Construct. Build. Mater. 269 (2021), 121240.
[7] D. Darwin, J. Browning, M. O’Reilly, L. Xing, Critical Chloride Corrosion Threshold for Galvanized Reinforcing Bars, University of Kansas Center for Research,
Inc, 2007.

9
M.S. Dewi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106153

[8] H. Zheng, J.-G. Dai, W. Li, C.S. Poon, Influence of chloride ion on depassivation of passive film on galvanized steel bars in concrete pore solution, Construct.
Build. Mater. 166 (2018) 572–580.
[9] M. Otieno, M. Alexander, H.-D. Beushausen, Corrosion in cracked and uncracked concrete–influence of crack width, concrete quality and crack reopening, Mag.
Concr. Res. 62 (6) (2010) 393–404.
[10] E. Verstrynge, C. Van Steen, E. Vandecruys, M. Wevers, Steel corrosion damage monitoring in reinforced concrete structures with the acoustic emission
technique: a review, Construct. Build. Mater. 349 (2022), 128732.
[11] A. Yadav, H. Katayama, K. Noda, H. Masuda, A. Nishikata, T. Tsuru, Effect of Fe–Zn alloy layer on the corrosion resistance of galvanized steel in chloride
containing environments, Corrosion Sci. 49 (9) (2007) 3716–3731.
[12] P. Pokorny, P. Tej, M. Kouril, Evaluation of the impact of corrosion of hot-dip galvanized reinforcement on bond strength with concrete–a review, Construct.
Build. Mater. 132 (2017) 271–289.
[13] S. Grandhi, V. Raja, S. Parida, Effect of manganese addition on the appearance, morphology, and corrosion resistance of hot-dip galvanized zinc coating, Surf.
Coating. Technol. 421 (2021), 127377.
[14] M. Jasniok, M. Sozanska, J. Kolodziej, B. Chmiela, A two-year evaluation of corrosion-induced damage to hot galvanized reinforcing steel b500sp in chloride
contaminated concrete, Materials 13 (15) (2020) 3315.
[15] Y.-q. Wang, G. Kong, C.-s. Che, B. Zhang, Inhibitive effect of sodium molybdate on the corrosion behavior of galvanized steel in simulated concrete pore
solution, Construct. Build. Mater. 162 (2018) 383–392.
[16] T. Bellezze, D. Timofeeva, G. Giuliani, G. Roventi, Effect of soluble inhibitors on the corrosion behaviour of galvanized steel in fresh concrete, Cement Concr.
Res. 107 (2018) 1–10.
[17] R.E. Wilmot, Corrosion protection of reinforcement for concrete structures, J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall 107 (3) (2007) 139–146.
[18] V. Di Cocco, F. Iacoviello, L. D’Agostino, S. Natali, Damage micromechanisms in a hot dip galvanized steel, Procedia Struct. Integr. 3 (2017) 231–236.
[19] J. Thomas, T. Nurse, The anodic passivation of iron in solutions of inhibitive anions, Br. Corrosion J. 2 (1) (1967) 13–20.
[20] F.A. Cedrim, V.L.S.d. Almeida, C.A.C.d. Souza, P.R.L. Lima, M.D.d. Jesus, D.V. Ribeiro, Corrodibility and adherence of reinforced concrete rebars electroplated
with zinc and zinc-nickel alloys, Mater. Res. 22 (2019).
[21] TIS, Hydraulic cement, in: TIS 2594-2556, 2013. Thailand).
[22] M. Uddin, M. Jameel, H.R. Sobuz, M. Islam, N.M. Hasan, Experimental study on strength gaining characteristics of concrete using Portland Composite Cement,
KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 17 (4) (2013) 789–796.
[23] K.Y. Ann, H.-W. Song, Chloride threshold level for corrosion of steel in concrete, Corrosion Sci. 49 (11) (2007) 4113–4133.
[24] A. Kijjanon, T. Sumranwanich, W. Saengsoy, S. Tangtermsirikul, Chloride penetration resistance, electrical resistivity, and compressive strength of concrete with
calcined kaolinite clay, fly ash, and limestone powder, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 35 (3) (2023), 04022462.
[25] TIS, Steel Bars for Reinforced Concrete: Deformed Bars, in: TIS 24-2559, 2016 (Thailand).
[26] ASTM, Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens, in: ASTM G 1, United States of America, 2003, pp. 1–9.
[27] ASTM, Standard Specification for Portland Cement, in: ASTM C 150, United States of America, 2018, pp. 1–9.
[28] TIS, Coal Fly Ash for Use as Admixture in Concrete, in: TIS 2135-2545, 2003 (Thailand).
[29] ASTM, Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates, in: ASTM C 33, United States of America, 2010, pp. 1–8.
[30] S.W. Hnin, P. Sancharoen, S. Tangtermsirikul, Effects of concrete mix proportion on electrical resistivity of concrete, in: Materials Science Forum, Trans Tech
Publ, 2016.
[31] M. Daniyal, S. Akhtar, Corrosion assessment and control techniques for reinforced concrete structures: a review, c 5 (1) (2020) 1–20.
[32] H. Layssi, P. Ghods, A.R. Alizadeh, M. Salehi, Electrical resistivity of concrete, Concr. Int. 37 (5) (2015) 41–46.
[33] M.G. Sohail, S. Laurens, F. Deby, J.P. Balayssac, N. Al Nuaimi, Electrochemical corrosion parameters for active and passive reinforcing steel in carbonated and
sound concrete, Mater. Corros. 72 (12) (2021) 1854–1871.
[34] ASTM, Standard Practice for Calculation of Corrosion Rates and Related Information from Electochemical Measurements, in: ASTM G 102-89, United States of
America, 2004, pp. 1–7.
[35] S. Rath, P. Sancharoen, P. Klomjit, S. Tangtermsirikul, Effects of carbonation on corrosion rate of reinforcing steel in different concrete and repair materials, Eng.
J. 25 (6) (2021) 75–86.
[36] K. Hornbostel, C.K. Larsen, M.R. Geiker, Relationship between concrete resistivity and corrosion rate–A literature review, Cement Concr. Compos. 39 (2013)
60–72.
[37] H. Justnes, A Review of Chloride Binding in Cementitious Systems, vol. 21, Nordic Concrete Research-Publications-, 1998, pp. 48–63.
[38] T. Sumranwanich, S. Tangtermsirikul, A model for predicting time-dependent chloride binding capacity of cement-fly ash cementitious system, Mater. Struct. 37
(6) (2004) 387–396.
[39] L. Bertolini, B. Elsener, P. Pedeferri, E. Redaelli, R.B. Polder, Corrosion of Steel in Concrete: Prevention, Diagnosis, Repair, John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
[40] E. Schindelholz, B. Risteen, R. Kelly, Effect of relative humidity on corrosion of steel under sea salt aerosol proxies: I. NaCl, J. Electrochem. Soc. 161 (10) (2014)
C450.
[41] M.H. Davoudi, E. Kabir, Interaction of lime and sodium chloride in a low plasticity fine grain soils, J. Appl. Sci. 11 (2011) 330–335.
[42] T.-H. Ha, S. Muralidharan, J.-H. Bae, Y.-C. Ha, H.-G. Lee, K.-W. Park, D.-K. Kim, Accelerated short-term techniques to evaluate the corrosion performance of
steel in fly ash blended concrete, Build. Environ. 42 (1) (2007) 78–85.
[43] L. Prak, T. Sumranwanich, S. Tangtermsirikul, Time-dependent model for predicting chloride binding capacity of concrete with crystalline material, J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 33 (2) (2021), 04020473.
[44] M. Kouril, P. Pokorny, J. Stoulil, Corrosion mechanism and bond-strength study on galvanized steel in concrete environment, Corrosion Science and Technology
16 (2) (2017) 69–75.
[45] JSCE, Standard Specifications for concrete structures, in: Maintenance JSCE No.17, 2007. Japan.
[46] H. Ueda, Y. Sakai, K. Kinomura, K. Watanabe, T. Ishida, T. Kishi, Durability design method considering reinforcement corrosion due to water penetration,
J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 18 (1) (2020) 27–38.

10