Research Article

Anticorrosive Efficiency of the AISI 316 SS in Sustainable Ecological Concrete Manufactured with SCBA-SF Exposed to Magnesium Sulphate

Brenda Paola Baltazar-García
Universidad Veracruzana, Mexico
Daniel Francisco Baltazar-Zamora
Universidad Veracruzana, Mexico
Laura Landa-Ruiz
Universidad Veracruzana, Mexico
José Reyes
Universidad Veracruzana, Mexico
David Lozano
Universidad Veracruzana, Mexico
Ce Tochtli Méndez
Universidad Veracruzana, Mexico
Francisco Estupiñan López
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Mexico
Citlalli Gaona-Tiburcio
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Mexico
Miguel Angel Baltazar-Zamora
Universidad Veracruzana, Mexico
* Corresponding author
DOI icon 10.24018/ejeng.2023.8.6.3121

Read Counter
971

Downloads
287

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2023-11-02
Published 2023-12-22

Read counter = 971 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

In this research, it was evaluated the anticorrosive efficiency of AISI 316 SS embedded in Sustainable Ecological Concrete (SEC) manufactured with partial substitutions of Portland Cement by combinations of SCBA and SF in 10%, 20%, and 30%. For the electrochemical evaluation, the Sustainable Ecological Concretes (SEC) were exposed to solution at 3.5% of MgSO4, these aggressive ions are found in soils, industrial or marine environments and that interact with the civil works that are built in these places. The dosage or proportioning of the Sustainable Ecological Concrete (SEC) mixtures was carried out as indicated by ACI 211.1. The anticorrosive efficiency of the AISI 316 SS was evaluated through the tests of the potential of corrosion (Ecorr) and corrosion rate (Icorr) during a period of 180 days of exposition to the aggressive medium. The values of Ecorr indicate in the AISI 316 SS a 10% of corrosion risk and uncertainty at the end of monitoring, according to the norm ASTM C-876-15, in all the mixtures, but the values of Icorr in the specimens manufactured with SEC indicate resistance to sulfate corrosion more than 10 times compared to conventional concrete and AISI 1018 steel.

Keywords: AISI 316 magnesium sulphate SCBA sustainable ecological concrete

Introduction

Due to its great versatility, physical and mechanical properties and low cost, hydraulic concrete is the most used material in the world in the construction area, allowing human beings in recent decades, with its technological development that began more than a century ago, build civil infrastructure of large magnitudes essential for the development of our societies [1]–[4].

The corrosion is a phenomenon that damages in a destructive way the structures of reinforced concrete, being one of the principal factors that cause the diminution or the shortening of the useful life, durability and functioning of the same [5]–[14]. This problem obeys the exposition of the structures in mediums where are found aggressive ions or dispassivation such as sulphates and chlorides [15]–[18].

When sulphates are found in different levels of concentration in nature, they are considered practically inoffensive, but as they increase their level of concentration, their presence becomes a condition of risk for concrete structures because they can produce volumetric changes in the elements in such a way that deterioration occurs in the concrete. It is noteworthy to mention that the most unfavourable condition when sulfates exist is when they are soluble in water. The sulphate ion (SO4−2) can be present in industrial wastewater in the form of a diluted solution of sulfuric acid in the subsoil waters [19]–[29].

In general, the prevention of the corrosion of reinforced steel begins from the phase of design and production of the concrete, selection of materials, preparation, compression and cured. In order to produce concrete of quality, the stipulated norms for its durability in front of aggressive mediums must be followed, which could save millions of dollars in premature maintenance [30]–[34]. The problem of corrosion of reinforcing steel is a problem of great importance worldwide, which is why various research has been carried out from various perspectives, simulating environments, concrete, special steels, the inclusion of pozzolanic materials, etc., in order to contribute to mitigating this phenomenon [35]–[41].

For everything mentioned in the previous paragraphs, the objective of the present investigation was to analized the anticorrosive efficiency of the reinforced steel AISI 316 SS in comparison to the steel AISI 1018 at being embedded in Sustainable Ecological Concrete (SEC) manufactured with partial substitutions of Portland Cement by combinations of SCBA and SF in 10%, 20%, and 30% exposed to the solution at 3.5% of MgSO4, as aggressive environment. This research contributes to the development of durability concretes and the use of agro-industrial and industrial wastes, and in the decrease of use of cement, what is going to impact the reduction of emissions of CO2 from the cement industry, which is responsible for the 6% to 8% of the emissions of CO2 at global level [42]–[46]. With the obtained results of corrosion potential (Ecorr) and corrosion rate (Icorr), of the steels of the present research, it can be identified the mixture of concrete SEC that brings a higher protection or durability against corrosion for the presence in magnesium sulphate.

Materials and Methods

Materials

Dosage and Proportion of Conventional Concretes (CC) and Sustainable Ecological Concrete (SEC)

The used method for the design of the mixtures of the Conventional Concretes (CC) and Sustainable Ecological Concrete (SEC) was the ACI 211.1 [47], which has as a base the physical characterization of the fine and thick aggregates that will be used in the elaboration of the mixtures of hydraulic concrete, due to that according to the obtained values it can be realised the dosage of the materials according to the quality of the required concrete. The tests for determining the physical properties of the aggregates were realised under ASTM standards [48]–[51]; the results are shown in Table I.

Physical properties of materials Coarse Aggregate Fine Aggregate
Bulk Density (“Unit Weight”) kg/m3 1433 1695
Absorption (%) 1.70 1.80
Relative Density 2.60 2.20
(Specific Gravity)
Module of Fineness – 2.94
Maximum Size Nominal ¾ " –
Table I. Physical Characteristics of the Aggregates

For the present research were take in consideration the next parameters for the dosage of the mixtures of the concretes CC and SEC:

  • Compressive strength, f´c = 250 kg/cm2
  • Slump of 10 cm
  • Maximum Aggregate Size of 19 mm
  • Concrete without air
  • Ratio water/cement (w/c) = 0.65
  • Portland Cement (CPC 30R)

According to the mentioned parameters and the physical properties of the aggregates (Table I), it was obtained the dosification of the mixtures is show in Table II.

Mixture Cement SCBA SF Water FA CA
CC 315 – – 205 746 881
SEC10 283.50 15.75 15.75 205 746 881
SEC20 252 31.50 31.50 205 746 881
SEC30 220.50 47.25 47.25 205 746 881
Table II. Proportion of Conventional Concrete and Sustainable Ecological Concrete kg for 1 m3

Methods

Characterization of Concretes CC and SEC on the Fresh and Hard State

According to the test of ONNCCE and ASTM standars [52]–[55], it was determined the characteristics of the concretes CC and SEC in fresh state and in hard state, the tests and the results of them are presented in Table III.

Mixture Temperature, °C Slump cm Unith weight kg/m3 Compressive strength (28 days) kg/m2
CC 24 7 2345.83 318
SEC10 23.5 6 2307.29 292
SEC20 23.5 5.5 2301.24 306
SEC30 22.5 5 2276.04 246
Table III. Physical and Mechanical Properties of the Mixtures of CC and SEC

Characteristics of the Reinforced Steel

The reinforced steels used in this investigation, according to American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) were the AISI 1018 and AISI 316 SS. The steel bars were cut in 15 cm of length. It was realised the corresponding cleaning to each one of the bars until obtaining a surface clean of any impurity, see Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. AISI 316 SS and AISI 1018 of 3/8″ of diameter.

The zones in which the primary paint and a cape of anticorrosive paint would be placed were delimited. These areas were, in the inferior part of the bar, which was painted 4 cm, then it was left uncovered a length of 5 cm in which this area will be in contact with the matrix of hydraulic concrete, after that 4 cm were painted and at the end, it left 2 uncover cm for the connection of the experimental arrangement. At the same time, it was using one bar of AISI 316 stainless steel of 1/8 cm used as an auxiliary electrode with a dimension of 15 cm of length; this arrangement has been used for the scientific community in the study of the corrosion of reinforced concrete [56], [57].

Nomenclature of CC and SEC for the Evaluation of the Corrosion

To realize an appropriate management of the results of the present investigation, it was assigned a nomenclature of the four mixtures elaborated according to their characteristics, which is summarized in Table IV.

Nomenclature Characteristics of the mixture
CC Conventional concrete – 100% CPC 30R -
SEC10 Sustainable Ecological Concrete
(90% of CPC 30R, 5% SCBA and 5% SF)
SEC20 Sustainable Ecological Concrete
(80% of CPC 30R, 10% SCBA and 10% SF)
SEC30 Sustainable Ecological Concrete
(70% of CPC 30R, 15% SCBA and 15% SF)
Table IV. Specimens of the Mixtures CC and SEC

The nomenclature used for the monitoring of corrosion potential (Ecorr) and corrosion rate (Icorr) of AISI 316 SS and AISI 1018 embedded in the CC and SEC, exposed in water (Control medium) and in solution at 3.5% of MgSO4 (aggressive medium) is shown in Table V.

Control medium-water Solution at 3.5% of MgSO4
AISI 1018 AISI 316 AISI 1018 AISI 316
CC-MC-1018 CC-MC-316 CC-SM-1018 CC-SM-316
SEC10-MC-1018 SEC10-MC-316 SEC10-SM-1018 SEC10-SM-316
SEC20-MC-1018 SEC20-MC-316 SEC20-SM-1018 SEC20-SM-316
SEC30-MC-1018 SEC30-MC-316 SEC30-SM-1018 SEC30-SM-316
Table V. Nomenclature for the evaluation of the corrosion in the exposed mediums

Results and Discussion

Corrosion Potential (Ecorr)

Table VI shows the range of Ecorr values for evaluating the risk of corrosion in reinforced concrete according to the standard ASTM C-876-15 [58], in addition, the severe corrosion range is considered according to the literature [59] to carry out an adequate interpretation of the values obtained from Ecorr.

Corrosion potentials mV vs. Cu/CuSO4
< −500 Severe corrosion
<−350 90% corrosion risk
−350 to −200 Uncertainty of corrosion risk
> −200 10% corrosion risk
Table VI. Corrosion Potential in Reinforced Concrete (Ecorr)

In Fig. 2, it can be observed the behaviour of the potentials of corrosion Ecorr of all the specimens of study when they were exposed to the control medium (water), as much as the reinforced with steel AISI 1018, CC-MC-1018, SEC10-MC-1018, SEC20-MC-1018 and SEC30-MC-1018, as well as the reinforced with AISI 316 stainless steel, CC-MC-316, SEC10-MC-316, SEC20-MC-316 and SEC30-MC-316. Like it was indicated in the last paragraphs, there are four mixtures of study, one control mixture of denominate Conventional concrete (CC) with 100% CPC 30R, and three mixtures of Sustainable Ecological Concrete in base to partial substitution of the CPC 30R in a 10%, 20%, and 30% for combinations of Sugar Cane Bagasse Ash (SCBA) and Silica Fume (SF).

Fig. 2. Ecorr of specimens exposed in the control medium (water).

What corresponds to the curing stage, the specimens with steel 1018 present values of Ecorr more negative than −200 mV, for to the passing of time reporting more positive values maintaining during all the period of monitoring of the specimen CC-MC-1018 and the SEC20-MC-1018 the nearby values to −100 mV, which according to the norm ASTM C-876-15 indicates 10% of corrosion risk. What refers to the specimens with 10% and 20% of substitution of SCBA-SF after the 150 days present more negative values to −200 mV, which, according to the norm, would indicate uncertainty of corrosion risk, but in the last monitoring, the specimen with 30% of substitution of CPC for the system SCBA-SF, specimen SEC30-1018 keeps with an Ecorr of −226 mV. For the specimen with AISI 316 SS, all present from the curing stage until the end of the monitoring had more positive potentials than −200 mV, which indicates a 10% of corrosion risk. It is not observed influence of the type of concrete in which they are embedded, either it is conventional concrete (CC) or Sustainable Ecological Concrete (SEC).

Fig. 3 shows the behavior of the Ecorr, half-cell potential after 180 days of exposure to sulphates (3.5% MgSO4 solution) of reinforced specimens with steel AISI 1018, CC-SM-1018, SEC10-SM-1018, SEC20-SM-1018 and SEC30-SM-1018, such as the reinforced with AISI 316 SS, CC-SM-316, SEC10-SM-316, SEC20-SM-316 and SEC30-SM-316. The specimens with steel AISI 1018 present a similar behaviour to the observed in the specimens exposed to the control medium from the curing stage until day 114, with a tendency to passivation only for the specimens CC-SM-1018, placing itself in a zone of 10% corrosion risk by the end of monitoring, for the specimens with 20% and 30% of SCBA-SF, SEC20-SM-1018 and SEC30-SM-1018, with values of Ecorr of −231 mV and −282 mV, respectively, indicating uncertainty of corrosion risk, according ASTM C-876-15 standard.

Fig. 3. Ecorr of specimens exposed to the aggresive medium (solution at 3.5% of MgSO4).

For the case of the specimens reinforced with AISI 316 SS, CC-SM-316, SEC10-SM-316, SEC20-SM-316 and SEC30-SM-316, the values of Ecorr present a very similar behaviour to the exposed to the control medium, with values during the curing stage that go from –141 mV to –78 mV, behave that keeps during all the time of exposition to the aggressive medium, with minor values to –100 mV in all the specimens, values of Ecorr that according to the norm ASTM C-876-15 indicates a 10% of corrosion risk, not identifying an influence of the type of concrete, but it is associated to the high protection that offers the steel AISI 316 against the corrosion for sulphates, the reported values in the present investigation agree with the reported in the literature [60].

Corrosion Rate (Icorr)

Monitoring and interpretation of the corrosion rate or Icorr was performed based on DURAR Network Specifications [61], see Table VII.

Corrosion rate (Icorr) µA/cm2 Level of corrosion
<0.1 Despicable
0.1–0.5 Moderate
0.5 to 1 High
> 1 Very high
Table VII. Level of Corrosion according to Icorr

In Fig. 4, it is observed the behaviour of the corrosion rate or intensity of current, Icorr, for the specimens reinforced with steel AISI 1018, CC-MC-1018, SEC10-MC-1018, SEC-MC-1018 and SEC30-MC-1018, as well as the reinforced with AISI 316 SS, CC-MC-316, SEC10-MC-316, SEC20-MC-316 and SEC30-MC-316, of Conventional Concrete and Sustainable Ecological Concrete immersed in a control medium (water). The specimens with steel AISI 1018 present values among 0.68 to 0.33 µA/cm2, in the curing stage, for present values between 0.18 to 0.09 µA/cm2 in the day 56, agreeing the values with the some researchs [61]. The decrease in Icorr values occurs in all four specimens, CC-MC-1018, SEC10-MC-1018, SEC-MC-1018 and SEC30-MC-1018, due to exposure to a non-aggressive medium (water), presenting all specimens at the end of monitoring, Icorr values less than 0.1 µA/cm2, which indicates, according to Table VII, a despicable level of corrosion.

Fig. 4. Icorr of specimens exposed in the control medium (water).

For the case of the specimens with AISI 316 SS, CC-MC-316, SEC10-MC-316, SEC20-MC-316 and SEC30-MC-316, the behaviour is very similar with high values of Icorr at the beginning of the curing stage, with values at day 14 in between 0.17 and 0.06 µA/cm2, but reaching in the day 28 values from 0.05 to 0.03 µA/cm2, results that are congruent due to the protection of the cape of protection of the stainless steel and more in the curing stage or non-aggressive medium, all the specimens with steel AISI 316 present smaller values to the specimens with steel AISI 1018, observing also a better development in the specimens with 20% and 30% of SCBA-SF, specimens SEC20-MC-316 and SEC30-MC-316 in comparison with the specimens of CC and SEC with 10% of SCBA-SF, CC-MC-316 and SEC10-MC-316. However, all the specimens present values of Icorr that indicate a despicable level of corrosion or no corrosion, which agrees with the reported in other research [62], when the corrosion rate in the medium of control is evaluated.

Fig. 5 shows that for the specimens CC-SM-1018, SEC10-SM-1018, SEC20-SM-1018 and SEC30-SM-1018, reported a corrosion rate, Icorr of between 0.54 and 0.13 µA/cm2, in the first 28 days (curing stage), behaviour observed in the specimens exposed to the control medium. However, upon coming into contact with the aggressive medium (3.5% MgSO4 solution), the specimens with AISI 1018 report Icorr values less than 0.1 µA/cm2, which indicates a negligible level of corrosion, an apparent protection effect of the aggressive medium, observed. in other research works [63]. Even though after day 120 of exposition, it presents a tendency of increments in the values of Icorr for the four specimens CC-SM-1018, SEC10-SM-1018, SEC20-SM-1018 and SEC30-SM-1018, which agrees with the values of Ecorr reported in Fig. 3, for mentioned specimens, the tendency to more great values of Icorr keeps until the end of the monitoring, reaching almost the activation of the system for the day 180 two specimens, the el CC-SM-1018 and the SEC30-SM-1018, with nearby values to 0.10 µA/cm2, and keeping the specimens SEC10-SM-1018, SEC20-SM-1018 at the end of the monitoring with 0.08 and 0.06 µA/cm2, respectively, which indicates that in the conditions of the present study Sustainable Ecological Concrete with 10%, 20%, and 30% of substitution of CPC for the combination of SCBA-SF presented a higher protection against corrosion at the steel AISI 1018.

Fig. 5. Icorr of specimens exposed to the aggressive medium (solution at 3.5% of MgSO4).

It has that in the specimens with Steel AISI 316, CC-SM-316, SEC10-SM-316, SEC20-SM-316 and SEC30-SM-316, it also presented in the curing stage a very similar behaviour at the analysis in the specimens exposed to the control medium, with values of Icorr between 0.036 and 0.017 µA/cm2, in the curing stage, with a tendency of diminution of the level of corrosion present in the system, reaching values among 0.019 and 0.011 µA/cm2, for the day 90 and remaining in that range until the final of the monitoring reaching values for the day 180 all the specimens with steel AISI 316 up to 0.014 and 0.010 µA/cm2, without showing some indication of increment of the corrosion rate, demonstrating the benefit of the steel AISI 316 against corrosion for sulphates, observing that the concretes SEC presented lower values than the conventional concrete, behaviour observed in the reinforced with steel AISI 1018. In summary, the specimens with steel AISI 316 present during the period of exposition at the magnesium sulphate an excellent development, reporting values of Icorr till 0.010 µA/cm2, corrosion rate or intensity of corrosion ten times lower to 0.1 µA/cm2, a boundary that indicates the Manual of the RED DURAR for considerating the presence of corrosion in the system steel-concrete-medium aggressive evaluated.

Conclusions

The Sustainable Ecological Concrete elaborated with 10%, 20%, and 30% of substitution of CPC for the combination of SCBA-SF increase the corrosion resistance of AISI 1018 steel due to sulfates compared to conventional concrete.

The protection against sulphate corrosion of Sustainable Ecological Concrete increases significantly using the AISI 316 stainless steel, so it is recommended this combination, Portland Composite Cement, Sugarcane bagasse ash and Silica Fume, until a percentage of substitution of Portland Cement of 30% for the SCBA and the SF, for elaborating structures of concrete that will be exposed for environments with high concentrations of sulphates, which could double the useful life of the structure, from 50 years to 100 years.

The use of Sustainable Ecological Concrete in the construction of civil infrastructure, in addition to increasing the durability and useful life of the structures, would contribute to a great reduction in CO2 emissions due to the manufacture of Portland Cement, which would significantly benefit reducing the global warming problem.

References

  1. Rabi M. Bond prediction of stainless-steel reinforcement using artificial neural networks. Proc ICE—Construct Mater. 2023;176(2):1–11. doi: 10.1680/jcoma.22.00098.
     Google Scholar
  2. Baltazar-Zamora MA, Márquez-Montero S, Landa-Ruiz L, Croche R, López-Yza O. Effect of the type of curing on the corrosion behavior of concrete exposed to the urban and marine environment. Eur J Eng Res Sci. 2020;5(1):91–5. doi: 10.24018/ejeng.2020.5.1.1716.
     Google Scholar
  3. Zhang C, Zhu M, Xu K, Yuan Y, Guo S, Wei G. Effect of HSO3—and alternating current on corrosion behaviour and mechanism of CoCrFeNi HEA in a simulated marine environment. Corrosion Eng, Sci Tech. 2023;58:2190443. doi: 10.1080/1478422X.2023.2190443.
     Google Scholar
  4. Baltazar-García BP, Baltazar-Zamora DF, Sánchez-Sánchez O, Balderas P, Mendoza-Rngel JM, Gaona-Tiburcio C, et al. Carbon- ation depth of sustainable concrete made with agroindustrial and industrial waste exposed to the Urban environment of the city of Xalapa, Ver; Mexico. Eur J Eng Tech Res. 2023;8(3):48–53. doi: 10.24018/ejeng.2023.8.3.3042.
     Google Scholar
  5. Volpi-León V, López-Léon LD, Hernández-Ávila J, Baltazar- Zamora MA, Olguín-Coca FJ, López-León AL. Corrosion study in reinforced concrete made with mine waste as a mineral additive. Int J Electrochem Sci. 2017;12(1):22–31. doi: 10.20964/2017.01.08.
     Google Scholar
  6. Santiago-Hurtado G, Baltazar-Zamora MA, Galván-Martínez R, López LLD, Zapata GF, Zambrano P, et al. Electro- chemical evaluation of reinforcement concrete exposed to soil type SP contaminated with sulphates. Int J Electrochem Sci. 2016;11(6):4850–64. doi: 10.24018/2016.06.31.
     Google Scholar
  7. Raczkiewicz W. Use of polypropylene fibres to increase the resis- tance of reinforcement to chloride corrosion in concretes. Sci Eng Compos Mater. 2021;28(1):555–67. doi: 10.1515/secm-2021-0053.
     Google Scholar
  8. Landa-Ruiz L, Ariza-Figueroa H, Santiago-Hurtado G, Moreno- Landeros V, López Meraz R, Villegas-Apaez R, et al. Evaluation of the behavior of the physical and mechanical properties of green concrete exposed to magnesium sulfate. Eur J Eng Res Sci. 2020;5(11):1353–6. doi: 10.24018/ejeng.2020.5.11.2241.
     Google Scholar
  9. Gaona Tiburcio C, Samaniego-Gámez O, Jáquez-Muñoz JM, Baltazar-Zamora MA, Landa-Ruiz L, Lira-Martínez A, et al. Frequency-time domain analysis of electrochemical noise of pas- sivated AM350 stainless steel for aeronautical applications. Int J Electrochem Sci. 2022;17(9):220950. doi: 10.20964/2022.09.49.
     Google Scholar
  10. Baltazar-Zamora MA, Mendoza-Rangel JM, Croche R, Gaona- Tiburcio C, Hernández C, López L, et al. Corrosion behavior of galvanized steel embedded in concrete exposed to soil type MH contaminated with chlorides. Front Mater. 2019;6:1–12. doi:10.3389/fmats.2019.00257.
     Google Scholar
  11. Jáquez-Muñoz JM, Gaona-Tiburcio C, Méndez-Ramírez CT, Baltazar-Zamora MA, Estupinán-López F, Bautista Margulis RG, et al. Corrosion of titanium alloys anodized using electrochemical techniques. Met. 2023;13(3):476. doi:10.3390/met13030476.
     Google Scholar
  12. Santiago-Hurtado G, Baltazar-Zamora MA, Olguin-Coca J, López LLD, Galván-Martínez R, Ríos-Juárez A, et al. Elec- trochemical evaluation of a stainless steel as reinforcement in sustainable concrete exposed to chlorides. Int J Electrochem Sci. 2016;11(4):2994–3006. doi: 10.20964/110402994.
     Google Scholar
  13. Gaona-Tiburcio C, Montoya-Rangel M, Cabral-Miramontes JA, Estupiñan-López F, Zambrano-Robledo P, Orozco Cruz R, et al. Corrosion resistance of multilayer coatings deposited by PVD on inconel 718 using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy technique. Coat. 2020;10:521. doi: 10.3390/coatings10060521.
     Google Scholar
  14. Baltazar-Zamora MA, Santiago-Hurtado G, Moreno LVM, Croche BR, de la Garza M, Estupiñan LF, et al. Electro- chemical behaviour of galvanized steel embedded in concrete exposed to sand contaminated with NaCl. Int J Electrochem Sci. 2016;11(12):10306–19. doi: 10.20964/2016.12.28.
     Google Scholar
  15. Sakai T, Inukai S, Inagaki M, Nakano M. Improvement in seismic resistance using replacement/counterweight fill method for existing high embankments on inclined ground constructed with various embankment materials. Soils Found. 2023;63(2):1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.sandf.2023.101284.
     Google Scholar
  16. Baltazar-Zamora MA, Ariza-Figueroa H, Landa-Ruiz L, Croche R. Electrochemical evaluation of AISI 304 SS and galvanized steel in ternary ecological concrete based on sugar cane bagasse ash and silica fume (SCBA-SF) exposed to Na2SO4. Eur J Eng Res Sci. 2020;5(3):353–7. doi: 10.24018/ejeng.2020.5.3.1852.
     Google Scholar
  17. Uthaman S, Vishwakarma V. Assessment of causes and consequences of concrete deterioration and its remediation. Journal of Building Engineering. 2023;79:107790. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107790.
     Google Scholar
  18. Zapata-Padilla JR, Juárez-Alvarado CA, Durán-Herrera A, Baltazar-Zamora MA, Terán-Torres BT, Vázquez-Leal FR, et al. Portland cement-based grouts enhanced with basalt fibers for post-tensioned concrete duct filling. Mater. 2023;16(7):2842. doi: 10.3390/ma16072842.
     Google Scholar
  19. Baltazar-Zamora MA, Landa-Ruiz L, Rivera Y, Croche R. Elec- trochemical evaluation of galvanized steel and AISI, 1018 as reinforcement in a soil type MH. Eur J Eng Res Sci. 2020;5(3):259– 63. doi: 10.24018/ejeng.2020.5.3.1789.
     Google Scholar
  20. Farhangi V, Karakouzian M. Effect of fiber reinforced polymer tubes filled with recycled materials and concrete on structural capacity of pile foundations. Appl Sci. 2020;10:1554. doi: 10.3390/app10051554.
     Google Scholar
  21. Castaneda-Robles IE, López-León LD, Moreno-Landeros VM, Baltazar-Zamora MB, Olguín-Coca FJ, Lizárraga-Mendiola LG. Electrochemical behavior of carbon steel under a continuous kerosene flow in two different kind of sections. Int J Electrochem Sci. 2018;13(9):9039–50. doi: 10.20964/2018.09.36.
     Google Scholar
  22. Cosoli G, Mobili A, Tittarelli F, Revel GM, Chiariotti P. Electrical resistivity and electrical impedance measurement in mortar and concrete elements: a systematic review. Appl Sci. 2020;10:9152. doi: 10.3390/app10249152.
     Google Scholar
  23. Landa-Gómez A, Croche R, Márquez-Montero S, Villegas Apaez R, Ariza-Figueroa HA, Estupiñan López F, et al. Corrosion behavior 304 and 316 stainless steel as reinforcement in sustainable concrete based on sugar cane bagasse ash exposed to Na2 SO4 . ECS Transact. 2018;84(1):179–88. doi: 10.1149/08401.0179ecst.
     Google Scholar
  24. Figueira RB. Electrochemical sensors for monitoring the corrosion conditions of reinforced concrete structures: a review. Appl Sci. 2017;7:1157. doi: 10.3390/app7111157.
     Google Scholar
  25. Landa-Ruiz L, Landa-Gómez A, Mendoza-Rangel JM, Landa- Sánchez A, Ariza-Figueroa H, Méndez-Ramírez CT, et al. Physical, mechanical and durability properties of ecofriendly ternary concrete made with sugar cane bagasse ash and silica fume. Cryst. 2021;11:1012. doi: 10.3390/cryst11091012.
     Google Scholar
  26. Raczkiewicz W, Wójcicki A. Temperature impact on the assessment of reinforcement corrosion risk in concrete by galvanostatic pulse method. Appl Sci. 2020;10(3):1–13. doi: 10.3390/app10031089.
     Google Scholar
  27. Landa-Sánchez A, Bosch J, Baltazar-Zamora MA, Croche R, Landa-Ruiz L, Santiago-Hurtado G, et al. Corrosion behavior of steel-reinforced green concrete containing recycled coarse aggregate additions in sulfate media. Mater (Basel). 2020;13(19):1–22. doi: 10.3390/ma13194345.
     Google Scholar
  28. Uthaman S, Vishwakarma V. Assessment of causes and consequences of concrete deterioration and its remediation. J Build Eng. 2023;79:107790. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107790.
     Google Scholar
  29. Baltazar-Zamora MA, Santiago-Hurtado G, Gaona-Tiburcio C, Maldonado-Bandala EE, Barrios-Durstewist CP, Núñez-J RE, et al. Evaluation of the corrosion at early age in reinforced concrete exposed to sulfates. Int J Electrochem Sci. 2012;7(1):588–600.
     Google Scholar
  30. Rabi M, Shamass R, Cashell KA. Structural performance of stainless steel reinforced concrete members: a review. Constr Build Mater. 2022;325:126673. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126673.
     Google Scholar
  31. Baltazar-García BP, Baltazar-Zamora DF, Landa-Ruiz L, Méndez CT, Solorzano R, Estupiñan López FH, et al. Eco-friendly concrete made with system CPC-SCBA-SF as a protector against sulfate corrosion of reinforcing steel AISI 1018. Eur J Eng Tech Res. 2022;7(6):14–20. doi: 10.24018/ejeng.2022.7.6.2911.
     Google Scholar
  32. Xiao T, Du C, Liu Y. Electrochemical evaluation on corrosion behavior of SAF, 2507 duplex stainless steels in blended concrete with metakaolin and ultrafine slag admixtures. Int J Electrochem Sci. 2021;16:210642. doi: 10.20964/2021.06.15.
     Google Scholar
  33. Landa-Ruiz L, Croche R, Santiago-Hurtado G, Moreno-Landeros V, Cuevas J, Méndez CT, et al. Evaluation of the influence of the level of corrosion of the reinforcing steel in the moment-curvature diagrams of rectangular concrete columns. Eur J Eng Tech Res. 2021;6(3):139–45. doi: 10.24018/ejeng.2021.6.3.2423.
     Google Scholar
  34. Raczkiewicz W, Bacharz M, Bacharz K, Teodorczyk M. Rein-forcement corrosion testing in concrete and fiber reinforced concrete specimens exposed to aggressive external factors. Mater. 2023;16(3):1174. doi: 10.3390/ma16031174.
     Google Scholar
  35. Baltazar-Zamora MA, Maldonado-Bandala E, Loya Tello MU, Santiago-Hurtado G, Olguín Coca FJ, Ortiz-Cedano A, et al. Efficiency of galvanized steel embedded in concrete previously contaminated with 2%, 3% and 4% of NaCl. Int J Electrochem Sci. 2012;7(4):2997–3007.
     Google Scholar
  36. Burtuujin G, Son D, Jang I, Yi C, Lee H. Corrosion behavior of pre-rusted rebars in cement mortar exposed to harsh environment. Appl Sci. 2020;10:8705. doi: 10.3390/app10238705.
     Google Scholar
  37. Hassi S, Menu B, Ebn TM. The use of the electrochemical impedance technique to predict the resistance to chloride ingress in silica fume and fly ash-reinforced blended mortars exposed to chlo- ride or chloride—sulfate solutions. J Bio Tribo Corros. 2022;8(1):13. doi: 10.1007/s40735-021-00609-1.
     Google Scholar
  38. Baltazar-García BP, Baltazar-Zamora DF, Landa-Ruiz L, Méndez CT, Santiago-Hurtado G, Moreno-Landeros V, et al. Electrochem- ical corrosion in bars of AISI 304 embedded in concrete immersed in marine-sulfated environment. Eur J Eng Tech Res. 2023;8(1):13– 8. doi: 10.24018/ejeng.2023.8.1.2942.
     Google Scholar
  39. Ormellese M, Berra M, Bolzoni F, Pastore T. Corrosion inhibitors for chlorides induced corrosion in reinforced con- crete structures. Cement Concrete Res. 2006;36(3):536–47. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2005.11.007.
     Google Scholar
  40. Xu P, Jiang L, Guo M, Zha J, Chen L, Chen C, et al. Influ- ence of sulfate salt type on passive film of steel in simulated concrete pore solution. Constr Build Mater. 2019;223:352–9. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.06.209.
     Google Scholar
  41. Baltazar-Zamora MA, Landa-Ruiz L, Landa-Gómez AE, Santiago-Hurtado G, Moreno-Landeros V, Méndez Ramírez CT, et al. Corrosion of AISI 316 stainless steel embedded in green concrete with low volume of sugar cane bagasse ash and silica fume exposed in seawater. Eur J Eng Tech Res. 2022;7(1):57–62. doi: 10.24018/ejeng.2022.7.1.2716.
     Google Scholar
  42. Ewa DE, Egbe EA, Ukpata JO, Etika A. Sustainable subgrade improvement using limestone dust and sugarcane bagasse ash. Sustain Tech Entrepreneurship. 2022;2:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.stae.2022.100028.
     Google Scholar
  43. Landa-Ruiz L, Márquez-Montero S, Santiago-Hurtado G, Moreno-Landeros V, Mendoza-Rangel JM, Baltazar-Zamora MA. Effect of the addition of sugar cane bagasse ash on the compaction properties of a granular material type hydraulic base. Eur J Eng Tech Res. 2021;6(1):76–9. doi: 10.24018/ejeng.2021.6.1.2335.
     Google Scholar
  44. Nikhade H, Birali RRL, Ansari K, Khan MA, Najm HM, Anas SM, et al. Behavior of geomaterial composite using sugar cane bagasse ash under compressive and flexural loading. Front Mater. 2023;10:1–17. doi: 10.3389/fmats.2023.1108717.
     Google Scholar
  45. Ojeda-Farías O, Mendoza-Rangel JM, Baltazar-Zamora MA. Influence of sugar cane bagasse ash inclusion on compacting, CBR and unconfined compressive strength of a subgrade granular material. Revista ALCONPAT. 2018;8(2):194–208. doi: 10.21041/ra.v8i2.282.
     Google Scholar
  46. Hassi S, Menu B, Javanmardi A, Lai Z, Huang F. Investigating the possibility of PCCP mortar coating leaching and the impact on drinking water quality. Clean Soil Air Water. 2023;51(10):2200370. doi: 10.1002/clen.202200370.
     Google Scholar
  47. ACI. Provision of Mixtures, Normal Concrete, Heavy and Massive ACI 211, 29th ed. Mexico: IMCYC; 2004. pp. 1.
     Google Scholar
  48. ASTM. C29/C29M–07–Standard Test Method for Bulk Density (“Unit Weight”) and Voids in Aggregate. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2007. www.astm.org.
     Google Scholar
  49. ASTM. C127–15–Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate. West Con- shohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2015. www.astm.org.
     Google Scholar
  50. ASTM. C128–15–Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption of Fine Aggregate. West Con- shohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2015. www.astm.org.
     Google Scholar
  51. ASTM. C136/C136M –14–Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2014. www.astm.org.
     Google Scholar
  52. NMX-C-156-ONNCCE-2010. Determinación del Revenimiento en el Concreto Fresco. México: ONNCCE S.C; 2010.
     Google Scholar
  53. ASTM. C1064/C1064M—08 Standard, (2008). Standard Test Method for Temperature of Freshly Mixed Hydraulic-Cement Con- crete. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2008. www. astm.org.
     Google Scholar
  54. NMX-C-162-ONNCCE-2014. Determinación de la Masa Unitaria, Cálculo del Rendimiento y Contenido de aire del Concreto Fresco por el Método Gravimétrico. México: ONNCCE S.C; 2014.
     Google Scholar
  55. NMX-C-083-ONNCCE-2014. Determinación de la Resistencia a la Compresión de Especímenes—Método de Prueba. México: ONNCCE S.C.; 2014.
     Google Scholar
  56. Baltazar-García BP, Baltazar-Zamora DF, Landa-Ruiz L, Méndez CT, Solorzano R, Reyes J, et al. Corrosion behavior of AISI, 1018 reinforcing steel in sustainable concrete made with sugar cane bagasse ash and recycled aggregates exposed in seawater. Eur J Eng Tech Res. 2022;7(6):101–7. doi: 10.24018/ejeng.2022.7.6.2930.
     Google Scholar
  57. Troconis de Rincón O, Montenegro JC, Vera R, Carvajal AM, de Gutiérrez RM, Del Vasto S, et al. Reinforced concrete durability in marine environments DURACON project: long-term exposure. Corrosion. 2016;72(6):824–33. doi: 10.5006/1893.
     Google Scholar
  58. ASTM. C 876-15, Standard Test Method for Corrosion Potentials of Uncoated Reinforcing Steel in Concrete. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2015. www.astm.org.
     Google Scholar
  59. Song HW, Saraswathy V. Corrosion monitoring of reinforced con- crete structures—a review. Int J Electrochem Sci. 2007;2(1):1–28.
     Google Scholar
  60. Baltazar-Zamora MA, Bastidas DM, Santiago-Hurtado G, Mendoza-Rangel JM, Gaona-Tiburcio C, Bastidas JM, et al. Effect of silica fume and fly ash admixtures on the corrosion behavior of AISI 304 embedded in concrete exposed in 3.5% NaCl solution. Mater (Basel). 2019;12(23):1–13. doi: 10.3390/ma12234007.
     Google Scholar
  61. Wang D, Zhao X, Meng Y, Chen Z. Durability of concrete con- taining fly ash and silica fume against combined freezing-thawing and sulfate attack. Constr Build Mater. 2017;147:398–406. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.172.
     Google Scholar
  62. Landa-Ruiz L, Baltazar-Zamora MB, Bosch J, Ress J, Santiago- Hurtado G, Moreno-Landeros VM, et al. Electrochemical corrosion of galvanized steel in binary sustainable concrete made with sugar cane bagasse ash (SCBA) and silica fume (SF) exposed to sulfates. Appl Sci. 2021;11:2133. doi: 10.3390/app11052133.
     Google Scholar
  63. Ariza-Figueroa HA, Bosch J, Baltazar-Zamora MA, Croche R, Santiago-Hurtado G, Landa-Ruiz L, et al. Corrosion behavior of AISI 304 stainless steel reinforcements in SCBA-SF ternary ecolog- ical concrete exposed to MgSO4. Mater (Basel). 2020;13(10):1–16. doi: 10.3390/ma13102412.
     Google Scholar


Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>