146

DOI: 10.1002/maco.201005773

Materials and Corrosion 2011, 62, No. 2

Corrosion assessment and restoration strategies of reinforced concrete buildings of the cultural heritage
L. Bertolini, M. Carsana*, M. Gastaldi, F. Lollini and E. Redaelli
Since the beginning of the 20th century, in Italy as in many other countries, reinforced concrete (RC) became one of the most popular construction materials and it was used for buildings, monuments, infrastructures, etc. Several of these structures, although of recent formation, have now been included in the cultural heritage, because of their architectural or social relevance. As a consequence of the typical urban or rural exposure conditions of these buildings, they often suffer damage due to carbonation-induced corrosion of reinforcement, such as concrete spalling or cracking or rust stains that may affect the serviceability of structures. Furthermore, chloride-induced corrosion of reinforcement, may also concern buildings exposed to de-icing salts or marine environments. Due to strict requirements related to the preservation of the original materials and texture, the repair of structures that belong to the cultural heritage cannot rely on the conventional repair technique, based on the replacement of carbonated concrete. Therefore, the conservation of RC buildings of the cultural heritage is a challenge, since it requires the development of specific strategies aimed at finding the best compromise between, on one hand, the restoration of structural safety and the prevention of future damage and, on the other hand, the preservation of the original materials and surfaces. This paper analyses the results of inspections carried out on several buildings, built in Italy throughout the 20th century in different micro- and macro-climates, with the aim of showing their peculiarities with regard to steel corrosion and the selection of restorations strategies.

1 Introduction
A large number of RC structures built in the past 40100 years are now included in the cultural heritage because of their architectonical or social relevance. These include, for instance, buildings, infrastructures and dismissed industrial structures. Most of these structures suffer damage due to carbonation of concrete and consequent corrosion of embedded steel bars [1]. Cracking or spalling of the concrete cover affects the aesthetic aspect, serviceability, safety and structural integrity of these structures. Restoration of RC structures should be aimed at rehabilitating the structural safety and at preventing any further damage to the structure, by controlling the corrosion rate of steel. Considering structures of the cultural heritage, also the
L. Bertolini, M. Carsana, M. Gastaldi, F. Lollini, E. Redaelli Politecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Chimica, Materiali e Ingegneria Chimica Giulio Natta, via Mancinelli, 7, 20131 Milano, (Italy) E-mail: maddalena.carsana@polimi.it

conservation of the structure, the materials and the surface is of primary importance. The design of a restoration work should start with an accurate investigation of the structure, aimed both at collecting information on the materials, since properties of concretes used in the past may be quite different from those of more recent concretes, and on the corrosion of embedded steel. As far as the selection of the repair technique is concerned, the interaction between the requirement for a long enough residual service life after the restoration work and the necessity of reducing the impact of the repair work on the structure (e.g. by reducing the amount of material to be replaced) should be considered. In fact, strict requirements related to preservation of the original materials and texture should be met in the case of buildings that belong to the cultural heritage. Therefore, the conventional repair technique, based on the replacement of carbonated concrete cover with a cementitious mortar, is usually not advisable. Other repair approaches are required in order to develop specific strategies aimed at finding the best compromise between, on one hand, the restoration of structural safety and the

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

wileyonlinelibrary.com

www.matcorr.com

Materials and Corrosion 2011, 62, No. 2

Corrosion assessment of reinforced concrete buildings

147

prevention of future damage and, on the other hand, the preservation of the original materials and surfaces. Even though techniques that can control corrosion of steel bars without requiring the removal of the original concrete cover, such as electrochemical techniques or hydrophobic treatments, are now available, the choice of the most appropriate approach to guarantee a long residual service life of the structure is not an easy task. As a consequence, the conservation of RC buildings of the cultural heritage is a challenge in the management of the cultural heritage patrimony, since it requires the development of specific strategies and techniques for repair. This paper summarises the results of inspections on several old buildings subjected to carbonation-induced corrosion and exposed to different environmental conditions and microclimates (results on some buildings have been described extensively elsewhere [27]). Even though many infrastructures, e.g. bridges, are now part of the cultural heritage, only buildings will be considered in this paper. Possible repair strategies are also discussed depending on the degree of the present damage of the structure.

2 Carbonation and steel corrosion

Concrete is a material widely used in the architecture of recent formation. Since the second half of the 20th century, in Italy and many other countries, it was one of the most popular materials both for structures and decorative elements. Corrosion of steel reinforcement, unfortunately, is a widespread cause of degradation that determines a progressive damage of buildings. This, in general, starts with cracking of concrete, continues with the spalling of the concrete cover and, eventually, may also lead to structural failure. Even when structural safety is guaranteed, the consequences of corrosion may affect the exterior aspect of the building (e.g. due to cracking of concrete, rust spots, exposed rebars, etc.) or lead to hazards for people (e.g. when concrete debris may fall, due to detachment of concrete cover). Corrosion of steel in concrete may be induced by carbonation [8], chloride penetration or stray currents [1]. In the case of buildings and structures exposed to atmospheric environment, corrosion is usually due to carbonation of concrete. This is a consequence of the reaction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with alkaline constituents of the cement paste, which leads to a decrease in the pH of the liquid in the pores of hardened cement paste. As a consequence, in moist conditions, steel rebars become in contact with a nearly neutral pore solution and thus lose passivity (which can be guaranteed only in non-carbonated concrete, characterised by pH values higher than 13, and in the absence of significant amounts of chloride ions). A general attack may then take place on the steel, whose main effect is the production of expansive rust at the steel surface and the consequent development of tensile stresses in the concrete cover, which will eventually lead to cracking or spalling. The service life of a structure subjected to carbonation induced corrosion is composed by an initiation period, during which the carbonation front advances through the concrete and reaches the steel surface (when its depth equals the concrete cover thickness), and a propagation period, when corrosion takes place leading to cracking of concrete [9]. The initiation stage

essentially depends on the thickness of the concrete cover, the moisture content of the concrete (in normal exposure conditions, the drier the concrete is, the faster the carbonation rate is) and the concrete composition (the carbonation rate decreases as the water/ cement ratio decreases). As we will see later, in reinforced concrete buildings of cultural heritage, the initiation period is normally terminated, and the performance of the RC is essentially due to its exposure conditions [10, 11], which determine the moisture content and, consequently, the corrosion rate of the steel bars embedded in the carbonated concrete. In buildings located near the sea, chloride ions may penetrate the concrete cover. Chlorides may induce highly localised corrosion attacks (pitting corrosion) when a threshold content is reached at the steel surface; in concrete exposed to the atmosphere this value usually ranges between 0.4 and 1% of chloride by mass of cement. This type of corrosion does usually take place on buildings directly exposed to the seawater, especially in the tidal or splash zone of partially immersed buildings. Buildings along the coast are usually subjected to both carbonation and chloride penetration (promoted by the chloride bearing marine atmosphere); in this case initiation of corrosion is often due to carbonation. Nevertheless, the presence of a small amount of chloride in the concrete (e.g. lower than 0.4% by mass of cement) has a harmful effect on the steel, since it may lead to a remarkable increase in the corrosion rate, even in a relatively dry environment.

3 Evaluation of RC structures of the cultural heritage

The knowledge of the present state of conservation of a structure and the evaluation of its likely evolution in the future are crucial tasks in order to properly plan a restoration work. Unfortunately, very often repair works are carried out without any previous reasonable assessment of the structure, and simply follow the generic procedures included in the technical documentation of commercial products for repair. Moreover, in spite of the high number of historical RC structures that are damaged by steel corrosion, few data are available in the literature concerning the carbonation behaviour of concrete and the corrosion of steel in old structures. Thus designers of restoration works often fail to find any support in the choice of the restoration technique and in the design of the procedure for the intervention. In order to give some examples of assessment of RC structures subjected to corrosion induced damage, the results of the inspections that were carried out by the Authors in the past years on 16 buildings will be briefly analysed. These buildings are located in different parts of Italy, are exposed to different macroand micro-climates and have different uses; Table 1 summarises the peculiarities of the buildings, each labelled with a capital letter. Figure 1 shows some details of the buildings. They were firstly assessed by visual inspection and, then, selected RC elements were subjected to measurements of carbonation depth, chloride content, concrete cover thickness, corrosion potential of steel and electrical resistivity of concrete. Results of inspection are summarised in Table 2, where the minimum (m), maximum (M)

www.matcorr.com

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

148

Bertolini, Carsana, Gastaldi, Lollini and Redaelli

Materials and Corrosion 2011, 62, No. 2

Table 1. Main features of the buildings subjected to corrosion assessment

Building
A B C D E F G H I L M N O P Q R
a

Type
Industrial building Bell tower Stadium Industrial building School College College/School Covered market Residential/Ofce Ofce University building Sport building Residential/Ofce University Church Residential

End of construction
1901/1945/1960 1926 1926/1937/1955/1990 1942 1950 1951 1957 1957 1958 1959 1960 1960 1965 1965 1967 1976

Agea
104/60/45 78 82/71/53/16 63 55 52 46 48 51 44 42 45 38 38 42 27

Environment (location)
Urban-Marine (Genoa) Como Lake (Valmadrera) Urban (Milan) Alps (Sellero) Urban (Milan) Urban (Milan) Urban (Milan) Padana Plain (Crema) Urban (Milan) Urban-Marine (Bari) Urban (Milan) Urban-Marine (Genoa) Urban (Milan) Urban (Milan) Urban (Milan) Urban (Milan)

Coating
Render Paint Render Tiles Render Render Render Tiles Tiles Render

Number of years from the construction until the time of inspection. controls of the cover thickness during the construction phase (e.g. Fig. 2building Q), as well as in thin structural elements where also the design concrete cover thickness was lower than 20 mm (e.g. Fig. 2building O). Inspection on the RC structures was made by means of both analyses on concrete and non-destructive techniques. In order to assess the quality of the concrete and to verify whether it can be assumed as uniform throughout the building, Schmidt hammer tests were carried out. It should be observed that this test is characterised by a great scatter of results, due to the variability of the compressive strength of concrete and the influence of several parameters related to the surface hardness of concrete (which is the parameter actually measured by the Schmidt hammer).

and average values (ave) obtained from each measurement are shown; the number of measurements (#) is also reported. Figure 2 shows some examples of exterior effects of corrosion, as detected by visual inspection in some of the buildings. Usually, cracking of the concrete cover and the presence of exposed rebars could be observed in the parts of the buildings that were exposed to wetting. This occurred at the outside of most buildings, but not in the sheltered parts, as well as inside the buildings. Sometimes, however, when water could penetrate from the roof, heavy corrosion attacks were also observed in the inside of the buildings (e.g. Fig. 2 building E). Often the concrete cover was detached in the areas where the concrete cover was lower than the average, due to poor (or none)

Figure 1. Some examples of the inspected structures (labels refer to the designation of the building according to Table 1)

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

www.matcorr.com

Materials and Corrosion 2011, 62, No. 2

Corrosion assessment of reinforced concrete buildings

149

Table 2. Summary of the main ndings of the inspection of the buildings, regarding: Schmidt hammer tests, concrete cover thickness, carbonation depth under inside and outside exposure, total chloride content at steel depth by mass of cement (# number of measurements; m minimum value; M maximum value; ave average value; K carbonation coefcient, in mm/year0.5, estimated from the average depth of carbonation)
Building Age (years) Schmidt hammer strength (MPa) A/01 104 10 30 48 36 2 54 82 71 7.0 B C/26 C/37 D A/45 E F C/55 G H I(s) I(d) L M A/60 N O P Q C/90 R

Cover thickness (mm)

Carbonation inside (mm)

Carbonation outside (mm)

Chlorides (% mass) Rdep

a

# m M ave # m M ave # m M ave K # m M ave K M %

78 82 71 63 60 55 52 53 46 48 51 51 44 42 45 45 38 38 42 16 27 729 70 200 290 10 30 610 350 50 60 30 170 330 91 81 17 13 17 12 23 17 21 20 23 30 48 14 17 14 43 69 48 64 60 51 69 69 69 51 66 66 62 69 69 60 38.8 29 39 32.8 38.2 50.7 53 56.6 33.9 46.6 57.6 43.6 43.9 52 52.8 128 25 15 149 105 10 35 319 53 317 100 157 14 10 145 56 33 205 20 38 0 0.5 0.5 <5 21 30 0.5 7 0 19( ) 5 2 22 28 5 0 7 0 6 11 57 54 35 40 57 45 54 56 50 59 59 50 70 44 47 48 58 48 53 80( ) 26 28.7 29 21.5 20.4 19 35.5 35.4 23 25.9 28.2 41.1( ) 27.0 20.9 26.4 33.7 31.3 18.1 28.1 24.2 24 11 2 6 6 4 18 2 2 12 50 25 55 20 18 24 23 16 25 9 167 93 175 70 80 55 86 20 34 35 102 53 118 47.5 42.8 44 50.5 19 30.5 21.7 11.3 6.3 15.2 6.4 5.9 6.5 7.6 2.8 4.9 4.2 25 15 20 37 16 8 53 22 3 2 2 7 7 4 11 6 9 0 7 0 8 0 5 0a 0 8 0 0 7 6 5 0 20 3 95 100 78 46 58 77 56a >60 20 15 6 33 49 19 32 31 35 >21 12.7 10 4.5 25.6 38.8 14.8 12.5 27 16.1 31.3 57.3 23.6 22 28 43.5 24a 3.5 7.2 3.3 3 4.1 6.3 >2.9 1.9 1.5 0.7 3.8 6.3 2.4 1.9 6.7 3.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.15 0.4 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 48 100 84 86 54 45 62 19 20 21 87 17 16

Including the thickness of the coating made of a layer of render (thickness in mm: m 5, M 27, s 13) plus a layer of cementitious mortar (thickness in mm: m 5, M 50, s 17).

Figure 3, for example, compares the frequency distribution of buildings D and G. The strength of the concrete among different buildings may be quite different, as it is shown by Table 2; the average values of the estimated strength of concrete ranged from 33 MPa (buildings D and in the part of building C built in the 1920s, C/26) to 57 MPa (in building G and in the part of building A built in the 1960s, A/60). It can, however, be observed, that the Schmidt hammer tests, being a non-

destructive measurement, can extensively be carried out throughout the structure and can be used as an index of the homogeneity of the concrete. Once homogeneity of the concrete among different RC elements has been assessed, the number of tests can be reduced by limiting the analyses to a number of representative elements, while results may be extended to the other elements subjected to the same exposure conditions. This approach may reduce the

Figure 2. Effects of corrosion (labels refer to the designation of the building according to Table 1)

www.matcorr.com

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

150

Bertolini, Carsana, Gastaldi, Lollini and Redaelli

Materials and Corrosion 2011, 62, No. 2

Figure 3. Examples of frequency distribution of results of Schmidt hammer tests

Figure 4. Examples of frequency distribution of cover thickness on outermost rebars

number of cores and thus the cost of the inspection but also the damage to the historical building. Analyses on concrete focused on the evaluation of the protection that concrete can provide to the embedded steel. With regard to the diagnosis of rebar corrosion, measurements of penetration of carbonation and chlorides are essential. From results of these measurements it is possible to assess whether pre-conditions required for corrosion are reached or not in the structure, i.e. if rebars have already been reached by the carbonation front or by a content of chlorides high enough to initiate pitting corrosion. Even in case these pre-conditions are not satisfied yet, analysis of concrete is anyway necessary in order to evaluate the future evolution of carbonation or chloride penetration, and thus the time to initiation of corrosion. The depth of carbonation was measured on concrete cores, usually 30 mm in diameter, by means of the phenolphthalein test. The chloride content was also measured in order to evaluate possible contamination of the raw materials of concrete; in the case of structural element exposed to the sea, chloride profiles were plotted by measuring the (acid soluble) chloride content at different depths in the concrete cover. In this way, it was possible to check the content of chlorides on the rebar surface. In order to asses the risk of corrosion of steel bars, the carbonation depth and the chloride profiles were compared to the concrete cover thickness (which was measured with a magnetic-type covermeter). A great variability could be observed also for these types of measurement. For instance, Figs. 4 and 5 compare the frequency distribution of the cover thickness and the carbonation depth in some buildings. Both the carbonation depth and the cover thickness may vary within an interval of several tens of millimetres. For instance, building G showed cover thicknesses between 10 and 50 mm (Fig. 4) and carbonation depth at the age of 46 years between 10 and 60 mm (Fig. 5). Similarly, Fig. 6 shows the variability in the chloride profile measured in some RC elements exposed towards the sea; a great variability was observed especially near the surface, where local conditions of wetting and

drying of concrete may lead to enrichment or leaching of chlorides. Results of carbonation depth, concrete cover and chloride content are summarised in Table 2. Results of carbonation depth have been divided according to the exposure of the concrete (inside or outside of the building); considering the average value of the carbonation depth and the age of the structure at the time of inspection, a carbonation coefficient K has been calculated, according to the relationship: x Kt1/2, that is usually considered to describe the penetration of carbonation depth (x) as a function of time. Coefficient K allows a comparison of the structures measured at different ages. Even though for some buildings the number of measurements of carbonation depth is rather low (taking into account the variability shown in Fig. 5), it can be noted that coefficients K in Table 2 are, in general, higher inside the buildings compared to the outside. This is due to the higher

Figure 5. Examples of frequency distribution of the carbonation depth

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

www.matcorr.com

Materials and Corrosion 2011, 62, No. 2

Corrosion assessment of reinforced concrete buildings

151

Figure 6. Examples of chloride profiles (in two elements exposed to the sea of building N)

rate of carbonation in dry concrete, where carbon dioxide may diffuse faster in the air-filled pores. There is also a general trend that shows that the carbonation coefficient tends to be lower in buildings with a concrete with higher strength (as showed by Schmidt hammer test); this is in agreement with the lower porosity of stronger concrete. Nevertheless, the correlation between the two measurements is not always verified and it seems rather difficult to estimate the carbonation coefficient only from the strength of the concrete. Reliable results of carbonation depth can only be obtained with a sufficiently representative campaign of phenolphthalein tests on concrete cores. If the number of carbonation and concrete cover thickness measurements is high enough to plot a frequency distribution, as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, a statistical approach may also be used to estimate the percentage of surface where corrosion has initiated (i.e. where the carbonation depth is equal or higher than the cover thickness). For instance, the percentage of reinforcement of building N likely to be depassivated, Rdep, was estimated using the method proposed in ref. [12]. The variation interval of the frequency distributions of concrete cover and carbonation depth was divided in smaller depth intervals of 5 mm each and the proportion of cover depth and carbonation depth measurements falling within every interval was evaluated, as shown in Table 3. Rdep was calculated using depth interval as:
x Rdep pp i <x xi1 x>xi1 pk

1 x pp i <x 2

xi1 xi <x xi1 pk

(1)

The percentage of surface where corrosion has initiated was estimated as 21%.

Rdep was evaluated for all the buildings for which a significant number of measurements (both of carbonation depth and concrete cover) was available (Table 2). This parameter allows to evaluate the extension of areas where the initiation phase is terminated, and hence where the reinforcement is corroding. For instance, for buildings D and O it can be observed that Rdep is higher than 86% and it can be reasonably assumed that almost everywhere steel reinforcements are depassivated and corrosion can take place and could lead to cracking and detachment of concrete in the unsheltered areas. Some of the buildings considered in this work had an external coating made of a rendering or ceramic tiles (Table 1). From data shown in Table 2, it is difficult to assess the role of such coatings on the kinetics of carbonation, since direct comparison to buildings with uncoated concrete is not possible, due to different strength of concrete, and moreover few carbonation depth measurements are available on coated buildings. Nevertheless, it appears that there are no dramatic differences and thus coatings are unlikely to have a significant effect on the carbonation rate. However, in the case of building I, a rather thick coating made of a double layer of dense and strong mortar, with average thickness of about 30 mm, was present on the surface of structural elements (indicated with I(s) in Table 2). Carbonation occurred slowly in the low porosity cementitious coating and this provided a good protection from carbonation to the structural concrete which hardly showed to be carbonated even after 50 years of exposure in the centre of Milan. In the same building, corrosion of bars was limited to decorative elements (newels, ledges, parapets, indicated with I(d) in Table 2) which were made of a dense mortar, even though this was protected by a polymeric coating [5]. From the analyses of carbonation depth and concrete cover thickness it can be concluded that in significant portion of the buildings surface carbonation has reached the depth of bars and corrosion has initiated. In order to assess the actual corrosion condition of the steel, electrochemical techniques were applied. Mapping of the corrosion potential of the steel [13] and the electrical resistivity [1] of concrete was helpful in the diagnosis of corrosion, especially in detecting the corroding areas. In carbonated concrete, the two techniques were able to detect zones where the concrete was damp (where its resistivity was usually below 200300 V m) and, consequently steel was corroding (showing corrosion potential values usually lower than 200 mV vs. Cu/CuSO4). Since the moisture content in the concrete is the main factor in determining the corrosion rate of the steel, these measurements were useful to detect areas where corrosion propagation may lead in short time to the cracking of concrete (possibly, the propagation time of corrosion could also be estimated [1]). It was also observed that the presence of a rendering or tiles on the surface of the building may reduce the average moisture content in the underlying concrete, thus

Table 3. Percentage of concrete cover, pp, and carbonation depth, pk, measurements falling within different interval depth

Depth interval (mm)

pp (%) pk (%)

05
0 0

510
1.8 0

1015
3.6 0

1520
3.6 44.4

2025
14.4 11.1

2530
18 33.3

3035
10.8 11.1

3540
26.1 0

4045
12.6 0

4550
9.1 0

www.matcorr.com

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

152

Bertolini, Carsana, Gastaldi, Lollini and Redaelli

Materials and Corrosion 2011, 62, No. 2

decreasing the average corrosion rate of steel and prolonging the service life of the structure. Indeed, buildings with a surface protection of concrete showed a generally much better conservation compared to buildings with concrete exposed directly to the atmosphere, in spite of the similar depth of carbonation. Hence, renders or tile coatings seem to have a significant role in increasing the service life of old buildings exposed to chloridefree environment, since they may prolong the propagation time of corrosion. In the presence of chlorides in the concrete cover, the corrosion rate in carbonated concrete may be rather high even in relatively dry environments; the last row of Table 2 shows that even in buildings built in non-marine areas, small amounts of chlorides (up to 0.2% by mass of cement) can be found in the concrete (possibly due to contamination of raw materials of the concrete mix). Penetration of chlorides in the buildings near the seacoast led to significant amount of chlorides at the depth of the steel bars (e.g. about 0.4% in buildings L and N after 45 years, Table 2). Consequently, corrosion rate is expected to be higher in these buildings compared to buildings where there are no chlorides. The wide variability of results between different buildings and within a single building clearly shows that an assessment should be carried out for any specific structure under study, in order to diagnose the state of conservation of the building and to estimate the evolution of the degradation in the future. Subsequently, it is possible to design the restoration work.

4 Restoration of RC structures damaged by corrosion

Conservation of the modern architectural heritage requires the development of restoration techniques that, besides ensuring the return to acceptable safety and serviceability conditions, can interrupt the ongoing corrosion and allow the conservation of the

building, also with regard to the original materials. Unfortunately, these objectives may be in contrast among themselves. The conventional technique for restoration consists in the removal of the carbonated or chloride-contaminated concrete and in its replacement with a cementitious mortar. Details and design criteria for this technique are described elsewhere [1]. It should, however, be observed that, when the penetration of carbonation or chlorides has occurred on wide areas and depths (e.g. in buildings D, H and O in Table 2), the removal of a large amount of sound concrete may be required. For instance, Fig. 7a depicts a structure where carbonation has reached the depth of the steel reinforcement (carbonated concrete is shown by lighter grey colour), and in some areas concrete is cracked or spalled. A repair work that only replaces the spalled or cracked concrete (Fig. 7b) may fail in a rather short time (e.g. 35 years) since moisture from the environment may promote further corrosion in the rebars that have remained in carbonated concrete (Fig. 7c). In order to provide long-term protection to the steel bars, all the concrete that is carbonated and may become damp, should be removed, even if it is still mechanically sound, as shown in Fig. 7d. As a consequence, this type of repair work is not able to guarantee the conservation of the original material; the original surface and texture of the concrete will also be lost. The lack of concrete removal by claiming the conservation of the original materials would simply be fictitious, since the further propagation of corrosion of the bars that remain in contact with carbonated and wet concrete may lead to a more extensive damage of the concrete cover and to the necessity of removing even more concrete in the next future. The search for a reasonable compromise that provides a longterm conservation of both the materials and the whole structure may take advantage of several techniques of protections that can extend the service life of the bars either in the original concrete or in the new repair mortar. Additional protections may be used in the repaired area in order to improve the long-term protection

Figure 7. Comparison of different approaches of restoration of structures damaged by carbonation induced corrosion: (a) before repair, (b) repair limited to cracked or detached concrete, (c) subsequent cracking of carbonated concrete, (d) repair based on the complete replacement of carbonated concrete, (e) application of a surface treatment to delay the propagation of corrosion in the carbonated concrete, (f) application of electrochemical treatments

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

www.matcorr.com

Materials and Corrosion 2011, 62, No. 2

Corrosion assessment of reinforced concrete buildings

153

provided by the repair mortar; this can be useful when the original concrete cover thickness is rather low and it cannot be increased during the repair. The steel bar may be protected with a primer coating made of polymer-cement grout, possibly incorporating a corrosion inhibitor; such a coating may also have some beneficial effect on the adhesion of the grout to the rebar. Corrosion inhibitors [14] may also be added to repair mortar, although the real advantages of corrosion inhibitors added to repair mortars are not clear yet. A coating may be applied on the surface of the mortar in order to delay the penetration of aggressive species and increase the service life of the repair. Nevertheless, of large interest in the field of protection of structures in the cultural heritage are those protections or those techniques that may provide long-term protection to the steel embedded in the original concrete that underwent carbonation. Such techniques allow saving the amount of sound but carbonated concrete that has to be removed. It should, however, be clearly understood that all the techniques which will be described below have no effect on the cracked concrete and do not restore the steel that was lost by corrosion. Cracked and spalled concrete cover (Fig. 2) has in any case to be repaired with the conventional technique and the reinforcing bars that have lost their cross-section have to be replaced or integrated by new bars. Consequently, these techniques may be especially useful in those cases where the repair work is carried out in an early stage of the propagation phase of corrosion, when cracking of concrete and consumption of the steel bars are negligible. Protection of bars in carbonated concrete may be based on the reduction of the moisture content of the concrete. This can be achieved by means of design details that reduce the contact of the concrete with rain. Surface treatments on the original concrete may also reduce the amount of water absorbed by the concrete. In order to reduce the moisture content of the concrete, hydrophobic treatments [15] are quite useful; these may prevent suction of liquid water in the concrete pores, but allow evaporation of water, leading to a decrease in time of the average moisture content of the concrete [1]. For instance, Fig. 8 shows the effect of a hydrophobic treatment applied on building Q [6]. The application of

Figure 8. Comparison of corrosion potential in building Q in zones protected with a hydrophobic treatment and in non-treated areas. Black dotted lines indicate artificial wetting and their duration; grey dotted line indicates application of hydrophobic treatment [6]

hydrophobic treatment is indicated by a grey dotted line. In order to study the effect of the treatment on corrosion of steel, artificial wettings of different durations were carried out. It can be seen that hydrophobic treatment could not completely avoid the wetting of the concrete in contact with the steel, as it is shown by the potential decrease 24 h after artificial wetting. However, the steel potential after 24 h of wetting progressively increased, and it was always higher than the potential in the non-treated areas, indicating some effect of the surface treatment. It should be reminded that water repellent treatments, as any other coating, need to be replaced in time (e.g. after 810 years). Protection of the bars could also be provided by chemical substances that are applied on the surface of the concrete and penetrate the concrete cover, reaching the steel surface and promoting its passivity. These substances, called migrating inhibitors [14], would be quite attractive in the repair of RC of historical buildings, since they could promote the repassivation of steel without requiring the removal of the original concrete. Unfortunately, in the literature, there are many research works that show the inability of the products now on the market to provide a long-term protection, which implies that the inhibitors may reach the steel surface, protect the steel and remain effective for a reasonably long time [1]. Repassivation of steel in carbonated concrete may be achieved by means of electrochemical techniques, i.e. cathodic protection [16], electrochemical realkalisation [1719] and desalination. These methods require the application of a cathodic current to the steel bars, by means of an anode laid on the concrete surface. Cathodic protection is a permanent technique, while realkalisation and desalination are temporary treatments; this implies that the anode is removed after the treatment and the original surface of the concrete can also be saved. Applicability and convenience of these techniques, however, depend on the conservation state of the structure at the time of the repair and the residual service life required for the structure after the repair. The application of electrochemical realkalisation to buildings B and Q and the results obtained are described in ref. [4, 6]. For instance, Fig. 9a shows an overview of two columns of the bell tower of building B, which were subjected to electrochemical realkalisation. The treatment of realkalisation involved the application of the anodic system; an activated titanium mesh, applied on the surface of the column covered with a layer of cellulose pulp soaked with a solution of sodium carbonate, was used as anode (Fig. 9b). After the application of the treatment of realkalisation, phenolphthalein tests were carried out in some spots of the columns; Fig. 9c shows a wide alkaline region (about 10 mm thick) around a previously corroding rebar, produced by the cathodic reaction that occurred at the steel surface due to electrochemical realkalisation. A recent development of electrochemical temporary techniques consists in the addition of a corrosion inhibitor [14], such as ethanolamine and guanidine, in the anodic solution in order to promote their ingress into the concrete cover up to the rebar (electrochemical inhibitor injection, EII) [20]. Laboratory tests showed a stronger reduction of the corrosion rate of steel reinforcement compared to the ordinary electrochemical realkalisation treatment, however, no practical applications exist presently.

www.matcorr.com

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

154

Bertolini, Carsana, Gastaldi, Lollini and Redaelli

Materials and Corrosion 2011, 62, No. 2

of study, for combining the need for immediate preservation of the material with the aim to ensure lasting protection of the structures and the materials themselves.

Acknowledgements: This paper is dedicated to the memory of Prof. Pietro Pedeferri, our maestro.

6 References
[1] L. Bertolini, B. Elsener, P. Pedeferri, R. B. Polder, Corrosion of Steel in Concrete: Prevention, Diagnosis, Repair, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2004. [2] L. Bertolini, M. Carsana, M. Gastaldi, P. Pedeferri, E. Redaelli, presented at Convegno: Architettura e materiali del novecentoConservazione, restauro, manutenzione, Bressanone, 1316 July 2004, 917. [3] L. Bertolini, M. Manera, F. Anselmi, presented at CNSI/ RILEM Workshop, Madrid, 1516 March 2004. [4] L. Bertolini, M. Carsana, E. Redaelli, J.cult. herit. 2008, 9, 4. [5] L. Bertolini, F. Lollini, E. Redaelli, presented at Prohitech Conference, Rome, 2124 June 2009. [6] L. Bertolini, E. Redaelli, D. Lattanzi, M. Mapelli, Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2010, 14, 411. [7] C. Di Biase, Il degrado del calcestruzzo nellarchitettura del novecento, Maggioli Editore, 2009, ISBN 978-88-387-5145-5. [8] C. Alonso, C. Andrade, in: Progress in understanding and prevention of corrosion, J. M. Costa, A. D. Mercer, Eds., Institute of Materials, London, 1994, p. 624. [9] K. Tuutti, Corrosion of Steel in Concrete, Swedish foundation for concrete research, Stockholm, 1982. [10] C. Alonso, C. Andrade, J. A. Gonzales, Cem. Concr. Res. 1988, 8, 687. [11] H. J. Wierig, presented at Rilem Seminar on Durability of concrete structures under normal outdoor exposure, Hannover, 2627 March 1984. [12] R. Cigna, C. Andrade, U. Nurnberger, R. Polder, R. Weydert, E. Seitz, COST Action 521, Corrosion of Steel in Reinforced Concrete Structures, Final Report, Eds. European Communities, Luxembourg, Publication EUR 20599, 2003. [13] B. Elsener, C. Andrade, J. Gulikers, R. Polder, M. Raupach, Mater. Struct. 2003, 36(7), 461. [14] B. Elsener, Corrosion Inhibitors for Steel in ConcreteState of the Art Report, EFC Publication 35, The Institute of Materials, Maney Publishing, London, 2001. [15] J. de Vries, R. B. Polder, Construction Repair 1995, 9(5), 42. [16] P. Pedeferri, Constr. Build. Mater. 1996, 10, 391. [17] CEN/TS 14038-1 Electrochemical realkalization and chloride extraction treatments for reinforced concrete Part 1: Realkalization, 2004. [18] J. Mietz, Mater. Corros. 1995, 46, 527. [19] P. F. G. Banll, Constr. Build. Mater. 1997, 11, 255. [20] J. Kubo, S. Sawada, C. L. Page, M. M. Page, Mater. Corros. 2008, 59, 107. [21] C. L. Page, G. Sergi, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2000, 1, 8. (Received: April 30, 2010) (Accepted: May 18, 2010) W5773

Figure 9. Application of electrochemical realkalisation to the columns of the temple of the bell tower of building B: (a) before treatment, (b) application of the anodic system, (c) phenolphthalein test close to an exposed rebar after treatment (the dark region is relative to an alkaline concrete) [4].

The application of traditional cathodic protection with impressed current systems and distributed anodes is usually undesired on historic buildings, due to the strong alteration of the surface. A less invasive option consists in the use of small localised sacrificial anodes [21], usually made of zinc, that can be placed inside the RC element to be protected or over small areas of its surface. Compared to distributed anode systems, a critical factor is the current distribution in the element, that has to be estimated in order to evaluate the number of anodes that is necessary to protect all the reinforcement. Such investigation has been carried out on the decorative elements of building I. Moreover, sacrificial anodes are consumed due to the current that they supply to protect the steel and therefore, their maintenance requires periodic replacements of largely oxidised anodes in order to guarantee a continuous protection to the reinforcement. The results of estimation of current distribution are also useful to estimate the rate of consumption of the anodes and, therefore, their expected duration.

5 Conclusions
Results presented in this paper show that the present conditions of RC buildings belonging to the cultural heritage may be strongly affected by the initial quality of the concrete, the thickness of the concrete cover and the environmental conditions. Proper inspection and correct diagnosis of the causes of corrosion are essential in order to select appropriate techniques for the restoration and preservation of these buildings. Inspection should be aimed at detecting the causes of corrosion of steel bars, the extension of the corroding area as well as the evaluation of the future development of the corrosion attack. Although this paper presented only a brief overview of restoration techniques now available, it was shown that there are different approaches, that should be tailored to any specific case

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

www.matcorr.com