The University of Manchester Research

The ICCP-SS Technique for Retrofitting Reinforced

Concrete Compressive Members subjected to Corrosion
DOI:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.096

Document Version
Accepted author manuscript

Link to publication record in Manchester Research Explorer

Citation for published version (APA):

Zhu, J., Su, M., Huang, J., Ueda, T., & Xing, F. (2018). The ICCP-SS Technique for Retrofitting Reinforced
Concrete Compressive Members subjected to Corrosion. Construction and Building Materials, 167, 669-679.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.096

Published in:
Construction and Building Materials

Citing this paper

Please note that where the full-text provided on Manchester Research Explorer is the Author Accepted Manuscript
or Proof version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the
publisher's definitive version.

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Explorer are retained by the
authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and
abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Takedown policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please refer to the University of Manchester’s Takedown
Procedures [http://man.ac.uk/04Y6Bo] or contact [email protected] providing
relevant details, so we can investigate your claim.

Download date:04. Jun. 2024

Zhu, J.H., Su, M.N., Huang, J.Y., Ueda, T., Xing, F. (2018), "The ICCP-SS technique for retrofitting
reinforced concrete compressive members subjected to corrosion", Construction and Building
Materials, 167: 669-679.

The ICCP-SS Technique for Retrofitting Reinforced Concrete Compressive

Members subjected to Corrosion

Ji-hua ZHU1, Mei-ni SU2*, Jia-yi HUANG3, Tamon Ueda4, Feng XING5
1
Associate Professor, Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Durability for Marine Civil Engineering,
School of Civil Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518060, PR China.
2
Lecturer, School of mechanical, aerospace and civil engineering. University of Manchester, Manchester,
M1 7JR, UK (Corresponding author: [email protected])
3
M.Sc Candidate, Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Durability for Marine Civil Engineering,
School of Civil Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518060, PR China.
4 Professor, Laboratory of Engineering
for Maintenance System, Faculty of Engineering, Hokkaido Univ.,
Sapporo 060-8628, Japan.
5
Professor, Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Durability for Marine Civil Engineering, School of
Civil Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518060, PR China.

Abstract： Reinforced concrete (RC) stub columns are commonly featured in the

construction industry, used in structures such as buildings and bridges. In coastal areas,

bridge piers are subjected to serious corrosion damage, which may result in safety

issues and huge economic losses. Currently, one of the most widely used retrofitting

methods is the application of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) sheets. This strengthening

method can effectively improve the column capacities. However, as time goes by, the

corrosion of re-bars will continue, leading to less force resistance. Impressed current

cathodic protection (ICCP) is a well-known, efficient method to prevent further

corrosion of the re-bars. Therefore, this study uses both ICCP and structural

strengthening (SS) techniques to strengthen corroded RC columns. An experimental

program consisting of 10 stub columns was carried out, including a 100-day accelerated

corrosion process and 100-day ICCP protection and compression tests. Results show

that the proposed ICCP-SS retrofitting method is not only effective in retarding the
corrosion of steel but also capable of recovering the compression capacity of the

corroded RC columns. In addition, comparisons between the test results and the

predictions for RC column strengths by existing international design codes are made.

The existing design methods were found to be conservative for the compression design

of retrofitted columns.

Keywords：Cementitious material; carbon fiber mesh; corrosion; impressed current

cathodic protection; reinforced concrete; structural strengthening; stub columns

1 Introduction

A variety of structures can be supported by reinforced concrete (RC) columns,

including bridge decks and floor slabs. Columns may function as piers or piles, either

above or below water level. While columns may vary in shape depending on their usage,

circular-sectioned columns are typically used for ease of construction. Such columns

may be subjected to corrosion issues due to a few reasons: some of the bridges are built

by using sea-sand sea-water concrete; some are located in marine environments; some

are exposed to winter deicing salts. Structural deterioration and a shortened lifespan of

RC structures can be caused by the corrosion of embedded re-bars (Ahmad, 2003;

McLeish, 1987; Lambert and MacDonald, 1998; Rodriguez et al., 1994).

Over the past 50 years, a number of technologies have been developed to tackle the

corrosion of steel reinforcement in concrete. The most effective method of reducing or

eliminating ongoing re-bar corrosion in RC structures is through cathodic protection

(CP), especially in cases caused by chlorides (Revie and Uhlig, 2008; Bennett et al.,

1993; Clemeña and Jackson, 2000). The selection of a suitable anode for the system is an

important consideration in impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) design,

especially when it is to be used in reinforced concrete structures with their high

resistivity (Lambert et al., 2015). Conductive carbon loaded paints, coated titanium

expanded mesh or mesh ribbon in concrete overlays, and internal conductive ceramic

Titania or coated titanium ‘discrete’ anodes are among some of the anodes currently

used for CP systems. While some anodes are impractical due to their high cost, carbon

fiber mesh is found to be a promising cathodic anode from a recent feasibility study

(Zhu et al., 2014a; 2014b). However, it should be noted that the adoption of ICCP

cannot recover the strength loss due to the existing corrosion of re-bars.

One of the most widely used techniques to improve the loading resistance of RC

columns is to provide additional confinement to them. Rehabilitation of RC columns

by external strengthening material has been extensively studied in the past few decades

(Khalili and Fardis, 1982; Chai et al., 1991). One of the most popular strengthening

materials is fiber reinforced polymer (FRP). A great number of studies on FRP

strengthening have been carried out (Audenaert et al., 2005; Özcan et al., 2010;

Juntanalikit et al., 2016; Eid and Paultre, 2017) because of its ease of formation, light

weight, high strength, and relatively low cost. Previous researchers found that

strengthened RC columns could have their loading capacities enhanced significantly.

These beneficial effects are achieved because the confinement adds to the rigidity of

the concrete column by preventing lateral expansion under axial load (Silva, 2011).
 There has been only limited research into the combination of these two remedial

methods, which provide both strengthening and cathodic protection by using the

electrically conductive properties and excellent durability of carbon fiber mesh

(Lambert et al., 2015; Zhu et al., 2016a). Typical applications and most of the studies

deal with either the ICCP system (Revie and Uhlig, 2008; Bennett et al., 1993; Clemeña

and Jackson, 2000) or the strengthening of RC members (Khalili and Fardis, 1982; Chai

et al., 1991; Audenaert et al., 2005; Özcan et al., 2010; Juntanalikit et al., 2016; Eid and

Paultre, 2017). Little data (Lambert et al., 2015) exists for cases when ICCP is

combined with the structural strengthening (SS) provided by anodes of carbon fiber

mesh, while experimentation is required to study structural behavior and to optimize

design procedures. The ICCP-SS dual-functional retrofitting technique for RC columns

is a subject of ongoing research and development.

In the ICCP-SS system, both carbon fiber mesh and adhesive material have great

impacts. Feasibility studies on both materials have been conducted by the authors (Zhu

et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2017). In our previous studies, the behavior of carbon fiber mesh

in the following three environments has been investigated: (1) the actual concentrations

of the pore water components (Zhu et al., 2016a); (2) the chlorine evolution

environment (Sun et al., 2016); and (3) the oxygen evolution environment (Zhu et al.,

2016b). It was found that the degradation of carbon fiber mesh in the chlorine evolution

environment is much more serious compared to the actual concentrations of the pore

water components and the oxygen evolution environment. Furthermore, in order to

simulate real cases, the performance of carbon fiber mesh in varying chloride
concentrations has also been investigated (Zhu et al., 2017). The test results indicated

that the degradation of carbon fiber was more significant in the lower chloride content

solution with higher current density. In light of the test results and micro-structural

mechanism analysis, promising conclusions on the residual strength and the service life

of carbon fiber mesh after polarization were drawn (Audenaert et al., 2005; Özcan et

al., 2010; Juntanalikit et al., 2016; Eid and Paultre, 2017). The service life of carbon

fiber mesh can be more than 40 years even in serious polarization condition. As for the

adhesive material used for bonding carbon fiber mesh, literature can be found on both

organic and inorganic material. In the study on the ICCP-SS technique conducted by

(Revie and Uhlig, 2008), epoxy resin was initially employed as the adhesive material;

later, in order to improve the bonding behavior, a combination of geopolymer and

epoxy was proposed and used in the experimental program (Nguyen et al., 2016).

Meanwhile, in recent years, some investigations have been focused on a cement-based

composite system (Basalo et al., 2012; Ombres, 2014; Ombres and Verre, 2015).

Cementitious material provides excellent resistance to fire and high temperature, as

well as good mechanical performance. Zhu et al. (2017) also presented the ingredients

of a cementitious material, which were found to have great average bonding strength

and a favorable failure mode in single shear tests.

This study proposes a dual-functional retrofitting technique for RC columns

subjected to corrosion, which is termed as impressed current cathodic protection –

structural strengthening (ICCP-SS). Both the anodic material and the strengthening

material in the ICCP-SS system are carbon fiber mesh. A novel modified cement-based
inorganic cementitious material is adopted as the adhesive material. In this paper, an

experimental program of circular RC columns is studied in order to examine the

effectiveness of the ICCP-SS technique on RC columns. The columns were constructed

with typical internal steel reinforcement in order to simulate the practice of retrofitting

in-situ damaged columns. In addition, the beneficial effects of the ICCP-SS technique

are shown by comparison with reference columns, i.e., columns without any repairing

treatment. Finally, different design codes for confined concrete columns are used to

predict the design capacities of the experimental specimens.

2 Experimental program

An experimental program that included the testing of 10 reinforced concrete stub

columns was carried out in the structural laboratory of Shenzhen University. A certain

amount of NaCl was contained in the concrete mix to introduce accelerated corrosion

on the test specimens. The main target of the experimental program was to establish a

database compiled from the experimental results.

2.1 Test specimens

The 10 test specimens can be divided into five groups: (1) one specimen did not contain

any NaCl (i.e., a reference specimen); (2) two specimens contained NaCl but were not

subjected to any repair technique (i.e., reference specimens); (3) three specimens

contained NaCl and were repaired by the ICCP technique; (4) one specimen contained

NaCl and was repaired by the SS technique; (5) three specimens contained NaCl and
were repaired by the ICCP-SS technique. The weight of NaCl in the concrete mix was

3% of the cement mass. After the curing period, the specimens were exposed to

accelerated corrosion, followed by the ICCP. The labeling system of the specimens is

given in Table 1.

The experiment studies how effective ICCP-SS retrofitting systems are when

applied to columns with an insufficient ratio of transverse reinforcement, such as might

occur in corrosion-affected structures or older structures. The diameter of the columns

is 200 mm, and the overall height is 750 mm. The nominal diameter of the longitudinal

re-bars is 10 mm, while the nominal diameter of stirrup is 6 mm. The low amount of

stirrup (i.e., a reinforcement ratio of 1.5%) was representative of outdated building

applications that typically would need retrofitting. Note that the lower limit of the

reinforcement ratio specified in the code (China Academy of Building Research, 2015)

is 0.55%. The details of internal reinforcement and dimensions of column specimens

are shown in Fig. 1.

2.2 Material properties

The average 28-day compression strength from concrete cubic tests was found to be

53MPa (C40). The concrete mixture proportion is presented in Table 2. Two sizes of re-

bars – 6 and 10 mm were used in the specimens. The material properties of carbon fiber

mesh (see Fig. 2) were obtained through tensile tests according to the ASTM D4018

Standards (ASTM, 2017). The inorganic cementitious adhesive material was mixed

according to the ingredients in Table 3, and the material properties were also obtained
via coupon tests. A typical stress-strain curve of the carbon-fabric reinforced

cementitious matrix (C-FRCM) composite comprising one layer of carbon fiber mesh

and cementitious material obtained from the tensile coupon tests is shown in Fig. 3. The

thickness of the C-FRCM coupon is 28 mm. The average material properties of concrete

cube, re-bars, carbon fiber mesh and cementitious material are presented in Table 4.

Three tests have been conducted to obtain each material property, and the coefficient of

variation for each material property is less than 0.100.

2.3 Accelerated corrosion procedure

An accelerated technique was used to induce damage due to corrosion in the test

specimens within a reasonable period. NaCl was added so that approximately 3%

chloride by weight of cement was placed in the concrete mix to simulate the sea-sand

sea-water concrete. This amount of chloride was sufficient to cause the depassivation

of the reinforcement and initiate corrosion (Zhu et al., 2017). No NaCl was added to

the concrete mix for the control specimen (specimen CO). Afterwards, the specimens

were placed in an open-air space for 28 days of curing. All the specimens underwent

two wet-dry cycles per week, with each cycle consisting of two-and-a-half wetting days

and one drying day. The accelerated corrosion process lasted for 100 days. The

electrically accelerated corrosion technique is not used herein to avoid the influence of

the internal electric field.

2.4 ICCP
Three steps were used to attach the carbon fiber mesh. Firstly, a 3 mm thick layer of

cementitious material was pasted on the concrete surface; secondly, one layer of the

carbon fiber mesh was tightly placed on the top of the cementitious material, and lightly

pressed to improve the wettability; finally, a top 3 mm thick cementitious material layer

was applied to cover the carbon fiber mesh and slightly pressed to remove the bubbles.

Afterwards, the specimens were kept at room temperature and normal humidity

conditions for 45 days before the application of ICCP.

After the accelerated corrosion procedure, one layer of the carbon fiber mesh was

bonded to the surface of columns, except for the three reference specimens (CO, CO-

C, and CO-C-R). The columns were wrapped using transverse lap joints measuring

approximately 150 mm (Ombres, 2014). The ICCP was applied to the corroded

reinforced concrete beams by connecting the reinforcing steel to the negative terminal

and the carbon fiber mesh anode to the positive terminal of a multi-channel DC power

supply. The ICCP systems were operated in a laboratory environment for 100 days (Fig.

4). The applied currents were either 26 mA/m2 (small current density) or 80 mA/m2

(large current density) of steel area. For the specimens designed to be repaired by ICCP

only, the carbon fiber mesh was torn off after the ICCP treatment.

During the corrosion process, the corrosion activity within each test specimen was

monitored using internal probes and external instrumentation. Each column was

equipped with a reference calomel electrode placed vertically on the upper surface

during the steel cage assembly before the concrete was added. The measurement was
conducted according to the ASTM C876-91 Standard guide (ASTM, 2009). The current

was monitored, while the open circuit potential values for the embedded steel were

recorded every three days.

2.5 Stub column tests

The test setup is shown in Fig. 5. Compressed between fixed ends, the columns were

restrained against rotation, twisting, and warping. The ends of all columns were

reinforced with iron rings to prevent premature failure beyond the test region. A servo-

controlled hydraulic testing machine was used to apply the compression load. A

constant rate of 0.4 mm/min displacement control was used during testing, while the

load was recorded by using a calibrated load cell placed between the jack and the

reaction frame. The vertical deformation of the specimens was measured by three 25-

mm range LVDTs (linear variable differential transducers), located between the upper

and lower end plates. Another two LVDTs were used to measure the lateral

displacements. The precision of the LVDT is 0.2mm. Strain gauges attached at 250-mm

intervals in the lateral direction were used to measure the lateral concrete/carbon fiber

mesh strains. The applied load and readings from the strain gauges and LVDTs were

recorded at 1-second intervals by a data-logger during the tests.

3 Results

3.1 Results of ICCP

During the 100-day operation of the ICCP, the open circuit potential values of the re-
bars of all the specimens were recorded during the wet cycles and plotted in Fig. 6. In

accordance with the recommendations of Concrete Society Technical Report number

73 (the Concrete Society, 2001), if the open circuit potential value is greater than -126

mV, it demonstrates that the embedded steel has only 10% chance of being corroded;

if the open circuit potential value is less than -275 mV, it demonstrates that the

embedded steel has 90% chance of being corroded; if the open circuit potential value

is between these two values, it means the status of the re-bars is uncertain. From Fig. 6,

it can be seen that the open circuit potential values of the re-bars in the reference beam

without NaCl (specimen CO) is above the -126 mV level during the whole monitoring

period. The specimens with NaCl were generally below the level of -275 mV. When

the ICCP starts to operate, the potential increases and gets closer to the margin of -126

mV as time goes by. For the specimens that contained NaCl but hadn’t been protected

by ICCP, the potential keeps decreasing and being well below the -275 mV level. Please

note that no corrosion products or cracks were observed during the 100-day ICCP

treatment. After the compression tests, the re-bars were taken to observe the corrosion

level. According to the inspection, the noticeable corrosion of re-bars was not observed

from those columns which have been protected by ICCP, while more pronounced

corrosion of re-bars was observed from those columns without ICCP treatment. The

mass loss of the re-bars will be measured in the future work.

3.2 Results of compression tests

The applied loads and the readings of the strain gauges and LVDTs were recorded. The

load-deformation curves are plotted in Fig. 7, while results from the test are summarized
in Table 5.

For the reference column (CO), the load capacity is 1545 kN, while for corroded

specimens without any treatment (CO-C and CO-C-R), the load capacities are 1286 kN

and 1331 kN (average load = 1309 kN), respectively, which are 16.8% and 13% lower

than that of the reference beam, respectively. The reason for the lesser load capacities

might be related to the reduction of the cross-sectional area of the longitudinal re-bars.

The corresponding ultimate deformation (i.e., the deformation corresponding to the

ultimate capacity) of the reference column is 1.1 mm, which is less than all other

columns.

The ultimate strength of the column strengthened with carbon fiber mesh without

ICCP (CO-C-F1) is 1687 kN, which is 28.9% higher than the average ultimate strength

of un-strengthened columns (CO-C and CO-C-R). This shows that carbon fiber mesh

can effectively improve the compression capacity of corroded columns. Moreover,

column CO-C-F1 showed more ductile behavior (larger deformation) than the corroded

columns.

Three corroded columns were protected by only ICCP after accelerated corrosion.

Two values of current densities used in ICCP were chosen, i.e., a small current density

of 20 mA/m2 (CO-C-IS and CO-C-IS-R) and a large current density of 80mA/m2 (CO-

C-IL). The compression strengths of these columns were found to be 1605 kN, 1520

kN, and 1597 kN for CO-C-IS, CO-C-IS-R, and CO-C-IL, respectively, which are 16.1%

- 22.6% higher than the unstrengthened columns (CO-C and CO-C-R). This

demonstrates that ICCP can effectively impede the further corrosion of re-bars. It
should also be noted that the capacities of the two columns protected by ICCP treatment

(1605 kN and 1597 kN) are even higher than the reference column CO (1545 kN). This

might be explained by the discreteness of the concrete material.

A total of three corroded columns retrofitted by the ICCP-SS method (CO-C-F1-

IS, CO-C-F1-IL, and CO-C-F1-IL-R) were tested. The compressive strengths of these

columns were found to be 1801 kN, 1969 kN, and 1664 kN, which have 37.6%, 50.4%,

and 27.1% increases, respectively, compared to the unstrengthened columns. In

comparison with the columns repaired by only SS, it is found that the ICCP-SS

technique showed a slight advantage (with up to a 16.7% increase in compression

capacity). The reason for this is because the ICCP-SS technique impedes further

corrosion of re-bars once the ICCP method is adopted, and also recovers the strength

loss of the corroded specimens; while for the specimens repaired by the SS technique,

corrosion of re-bars continues. However, it should be also noted that the duration of the

accelerated corrosion and cathodic protection is relatively short compared to the

application in practical cases, which would range from 50-70 years. The effectiveness

of the ICCP-SS technique should be investigated for a longer duration.

3.3 Failure modes

Sudden failure in the unconfined columns was due to concrete crushing between the

upper part and the mid-span of the columns (see Fig. 8(a)). Apart from the columns

strengthened by FRP with epoxy resins, the failure of the columns confined with carbon

fiber mesh and cementitious material occurred in a more gradual manner. A main
vertical crack in the cementitious material propagated slowly at the top of the column

surface, and the confined column failed when the crack became wider and the carbon

fiber mesh ruptured in the hoop direction. (see Fig. 8(b)). Upon occurrence of major

cracks in the cementitious material, the stiffness of the confining jackets changed and

became nonlinear even before the peak loads of the columns were reached (see Fig. 3).

At failure, both transversal and longitudinal cracks were observed. The hoop strain and

lateral displacement became greater when cracks occurred. Two typical series of load-

strain and load-displacement curves for unconfined and confined columns are shown in

Fig. 9. The loading behaviors of other columns are similar to these two typical

specimens.

4 Result comparisons and discussion

4.1 Discussion on loading capacities

As summarized in Table 5，the corroded columns not subjected to any repair methods

(CO-C and CO-C-R) have the lowest compression capacities. It can be seen that the

accelerated corrosion process is effective, and the corrosion of re-bars has caused the

deterioration of the RC columns. For all repaired columns, an increase in the load-

carrying capacity was observed compared to the unrepaired corroded ones. However,

the effects of different current densities are not distinct in the experimental findings in

this study, which is mainly attributed to the relatively short duration of the ICCP

treatment. The loading capacities of the columns repaired by the SS technique and the

ICCP-SS technique showed greater improvement compared to the columns repaired by

the ICCP treatment, and also displayed greater compression capacity than the reference
column CO. In practice, the common service life of RC structures is generally 50-70

years, or even longer than 100 years in many cases, which is much longer than the

accelerated corrosion and the ICCP procedure in this study (i.e. equivalent to around 4

months for the small current density protection case and 13 months for the large current

density protection case). Even in this short testing period, the ICCP-SS technique has

shown its superiority over either the ICCP or the SS techniques; the ICCP-SS technique

will be more beneficial in real applications in operations of longer duration.

4.2 Comparison with design codes

The ultimate compression capacities obtained from the test (Nexp) are now compared

with the nominal compression design strengths predicted by the Code for design of

strengthening concrete structures GB 50367-2013 (2013) (NGB), the Guide for the

Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening

Concrete Structures ACI440.2R – 08 (2002) (NACI), the ISIS Design Manual No. 4:

Strengthening reinforcing concrete structures with externally-bonded fiber reinforced

polymers (2001) (NISIS), and the Technical Report on the Design and Use of Externally

bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures (2001) (Nfib). The design formulas of

different design codes are presented in Table 6. The comparisons were undertaken using

the measured material geometries and properties, and setting all safety factors to unity.

The comparisons of all specimens are presented in Fig. 10, and summarized in Table 7.

The compression resistance of columns basically consists of three parts: the strength of

concrete, carbon fiber mesh and re-bars.

The Chinese GB 50367 (2013) (NGB) generally provides conservative predictions

compared to the resistance of the stub columns obtained from tests (mean value of

Nexp/NGB = 1.19 and the coefficient of variation (COV) = 0.086). The fib code (2001)

provides a mean value of 1.15 with a corresponding COV of 0.089 for the experimental-

to-predicted compression loading ratios Nexp/Nfib. Similarly, the ACI code (2002) has a

mean value of Nexp/NACI of 1.20 and a COV of 0.088. The predictions by the Canadian

ISIS code (2001) also underestimate the compression capacity of the tested columns

with a mean value of Nexp/NISIS of 1.12 and a COV of 0.104. Predictions for three of the

four design codes produced a similar scatter level, the exception being the ISIS code.

Results also show that the four design codes are all conservative compared to the newly

generated experimental results. The calculation of the loading capacity specified in

these codes follows a similar approach, a combination of the compression resistance

provided by the confined concrete and the longitudinal re-bars. The main difference

between these calculation methods is the prediction of the ultimate strength of the

confined concrete. The conservativeness of these four design codes could be largely

attributed to the following two reasons.

The first reason could be an underestimation of the confinement effect of the carbon

fiber mesh and the bonding performance of the cementitious material. The ICCP

treatment might cause the degradation of the anodic surface (Zhu et al., 2017), which

is the bond between the confining jacket and the RC column, resulting in more uniform

strain development in the confining jacket. The better bonding may cause local strain

concentration, resulting in an earlier carbon fiber mesh fracture. Thus, the poorer

bonding may delay the fiber fracture, resulting in the better confinement effect. This
explanation can also be proven by the test data. The effective strains of carbon fiber

mesh measured at ultimate loads (i.e., fe = 0.0134 and 0.0051 for CO-C-F1-IL and CO-

C-F1-IL-R) are presented in Table 5, while the strains of carbon fiber used in the

predictions specified in different design codes (i.e. fe = 0.0035 and 0.004 for GB 50367

(2013) and ACI (2002) are shown in Table 7. The differences between the effective

strains of carbon fiber mesh obtained from tests and codified in design codes show that

the design codes have underestimated the effective hoop strain and confinement effect

achieved by the carbon-fabric reinforced cementitious matrix (C-FRCM) composite

jacket due to the anodic polarization effect caused by the ICCP treatment. By using the

measured effective strains of the confining jacket in the predictions for CO-C-F1-IL and

CO-C-F1-IL-R, the predicted strengths were found to be closer to the test results (see

Table 8). Therefore, this indicates that the fracture criteria and effectiveness prediction

in the design codes are not precise for this studied case.

The second reason could be related to the nonlinear behavior of the jacketing

carbon-fabric reinforced cementitious matrix (C-FRCM) composite. The strain

distribution of carbon fiber mesh in C-FRCM depends on the bonding property at the

interface between the carbon fiber mesh and the surrounding cementitious material, as

well as at the interface between the cementitious material and the substrate concrete

column. However, the current confining models in the design codes were proposed and

calibrated based on carbon fiber sheets using epoxy resin, which is different from the

stiffness and confining behavior of a C-FRCM jacket. The stiffness of carbon fiber

sheets using epoxy resin increases linearly, while that of a C-FRCM jacket increases
nonlinearly. It is well known that the constant for the hoop stress term in the case of a

steel jacket, which would yield, is different from the case of a CFRP-epoxy jacket,

which has no yielding point. Similarly, the empirical constants for the hoop stress term

in the codified prediction equations of the confined concrete strength, such as kc in

GB50367, f3.3ka in ACI440.2, pc in ISIS, as well as the constant values of 2.254,

7.94, 2, and 1.254 in fib, are not appropriate for our studied case with the C-FRCM

jacket and ICCP treatment (Triantafillou et al., 2006). These empirical constant terms

might be greater in the C-FRCM jacket with ICCP treatment because of the nonlinearity

of the C-FRCM jacket after the first crack occurs (Di Ludovico et al., 2010); thus, the

existing prediction equations have underestimated the confined concrete strength.

However, the modification of these values needs much more careful investigation and

extensive test/numerical data. The reliable values for these terms cannot be propose

based at the moment, but it will be one of the key tasks in the future work.

To summarize, the underestimation of the effectiveness and stiffness of the

confining jacket (C-FRCM composite) might be the two key reasons leading to the

conservative predictions of the compression loading capacity of repaired RC columns

using the ICCP-SS technique. Further investigation of the effective ultimate strain and

the stress-strain relationship of the proposed carbon-fabric reinforced cementitious

matrix (C-FRCM) composite jacket after long-term ICCP treatment are still needed in

the future work.

5 Conclusions
This study tested 10 axially loaded RC columns with/without carbon fiber mesh

external confinement in order to investigate the performance of columns repaired by

ICCP, SS or ICCP-SS techniques. The experimental program included the accelerated

corrosion procedure, the ICCP operation, and the compression tests. Carbon fiber mesh

acted as both the anode and strengthening material in the impressed current cathodic

protection – structural strengthening (ICCP-SS) system. Experimental results showed

improvement in the strength capacity as the result of ICCP-SS application. The applied

current density of 20mA/m2 was found to be effective for cathodic protection. In

addition, a comparison between test results and predictions by the GB, ACI, ISIS, and

fib design guidelines were made. All design codes were found to be slightly

conservative. The poorer bond of C-FRCM may be the reason of underestimation of

the code formulas, which were obtained from FRP jacket. The exiting design codes for

RC columns repaired by the ICCP-SS technique should consider the level of corrosion

and the duration of ICCP. The application of the ICCP-SS technique will provide a

solution to sea-sand sea-water reinforced concrete structures. In the future work, more

efforts are needed to optimize the applied current density and the amount of

strengthening material, and a longer period for the corrosion and ICCP should be

considered to determine the durability performance of RC structures.

Acknowledgements

The research work described in this paper was supported by the National Natural

Science Foundation China (Project No.: 51538007, 51478269, 51508336) and the
Natural Science Foundation of SZU (grant no. 2016068).

Notations
Acor = The area of confined concrete;

Ag = Column gross cross-sectional area;

As = Total area of longitudinal steel reinforcement;

A’so, Ast = The area of longitudinal re-bars;

D, Dg = Gross column diameter;

dj = Diameter of FRP jacket;

Ef , Ej = Elastic modulus of FRP;

f’c, fco = Unconfined concrete compressive strength;

fcc , f'cc = Compressive strength of confined concrete;

ffrpu = Ultimate strength of FRP;

fl, l = Maximum confining stress due to FRP;

flfrp = Lateral confining pressure exerted by the FRP at ultimate;

fy = Yield strength of steel re-bars

f’yo = Yield stress of re-bars;

ka = Efficiency factor for FRP reinforcement in determination of f cc' ;

kc = Coefficient considering effective confinement

ke = Strength reduction factor;

NACI = Nominal compressive strength predicted from ACI440.2R – 08

Nb, n, nf = Number of layers of FRP;

Ndesign = Design strengths of columns

Nexp = Experimental strengths of columns

Nfib = Nominal compressive strength predicted from fib

NGB = Nominal compressive strength predicted from GB50367-2013;

NISIS = Nominal compressive strength predicted from ISIS;

tf = Nominal thickness of one ply of FRP;

tfrp , tj = Total thickness of FRP;

1 = Ratio of average stress in rectangular compression block to the specified

concrete compressive strength

pc = Performance coefficient for FRP confined concrete;

c = Coefficient considering concrete strength

fe,j = Effective strain level in FRP reinforcement attained at failure;

 = Strength reduction factor

c = Resistance factor for concrete

frp = Resistance factor for FRP;

s = Resistance factor for steel reinforcing bars

f, j = Volumetric ratio of FRP jacket in circular columns;

w = Volumetric confinement ratio;

f = FRP strength reduction factor;

References
ACI (2002), Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP systems for
strengthening concrete structures, ACI 440.2R-08, American Concrete Institute, United States.

Ahmad S (2003). “Reinforcement corrosion in concrete structures, its monitoring and service
life prediction––a review”, Cement and Concrete Composites, 25(4-5):459-71.
ASTM (2009). Standard Test Method for Half-Cell Potentials of Uncoated Reinforcing Steel
in Concrete, C 876-09, United States.

ASTM (2017). Standard test methods for properties of continuous filament carbon and graphite
fiber tows, D4018-17, United States.

Audenaert, K., Toutanji, H. and Matthys, S. (2005). “Axial Load Behavior of Large-Scale
Columns Confined with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites”, ACI Structural Journal,
102(2):258-267.

Basalo, F. D. C., Matta, F. and Nanni, A. (2012). “Fiber reinforced cement-based composite
system for concrete confinement”. Construction & Building Materials, 32(7):55-65.

Bennett, J. E., Bushman, J. B., Clear, K. C., Kamp, R. and Swiat, W. J. (1993). Cathodic
protection of concrete bridges: a manual of practice. SHRP-S-372, National Research Council,
Washington DC.

Chai Y. H., Priestley, M. J. N. and Seible, F. (1991). Flexural retrofit of circular reinforced
concrete bridge columns by steel jacketing: experimental studies, RTA-59G267, Federal
Highway Administration.

China Academy of Building Research (2015), Concrete Structural Design Code GB50010-2010,
China Architecture & Building Press.

Clemeña, G. G. and Jackson, D. R. (2000). Final report cathodic protection of concrete bridge
decks using titanium-mesh anodes. VTRC 00-R14, Virginia Department of Transportation,
Virginia.

Di Ludovico, M.; Prota, A.; and Manfredi, G., (2010),“Structural upgrade using basalt fibers
for concrete confinement”, Journal of Composites for Construction, 14( 5): 541-552.

Eid, R. and Paultre, P. (2017). “Compressive behavior of FRP-confined reinforced concrete

columns”. Engineering Structures, 132:518-530.

Fang CQ, Lundgren K, Chen LG, Zhu, C. (2004), “Corrosion influence on bond in reinforced
concrete”, Cement & Concrete Research,34:2159–67.

Fib (2001), Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures, Technical report bulletin
14, the International Federation for Structural Concrete, Switzerland.

GB50367-2013 (2013). Code for design of strengthening concrete structures, China.

Han-Seung Lee, Noguchi T, Tomosawa F. (2002), “Evaluation of the bond properties between
concrete and reinforcement as a function of the degree of reinforcement corrosion”, Cement &
Concrete Research 32:1313–8.

ISIS Canada (2001). ISIS Canada Design Manual No. 4: Strengthening reinforced concrete
structures with externally-bonded fiber reinforced polymers, Winnipeg, Canada.

Juntanalikit P, Jirawattanasomkul T and Pimanmas A (2016). “Experimental and numerical

study of strengthening non-ductile RC columns with and without lap splice by Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) jacketing”, Engineering Structures, 125:400-18.
Khalili, H. H. and Fardis, M. N. (1982). “FRP-encased concrete as a structural material”,
Magazine of Concrete Research. 34(121):191-202.

Lambert, P. and MacDonald, M. (1998). Reinforced Concrete–History, Properties &

Durability. Corrosion Prevention Association.

Lambert P., Nguyen, C. V., Mangat P S, O’Flaherty, F. and Jones, G. (2015). “Dual function
carbon fibre fabric strengthening and impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) anode for
reinforced concrete structures”. Materials and Structures, 48(7):2157-2167.

McLeish, A. (1987). Structural assessment, manual for life cycle aspects of concrete in
buildings and structures. Taywood Engineering Limited, UK.

Nguyen, C. V., Lambert, P., Mangat, P. S., O’Flaherty, F. and Jones, G. (2016). “Near-surface
mounted carbon fibre rod used for combined strengthening and cathodic protection for
reinforced concrete structures”. Structure & Infrastructure Engineering, 12(3):356-365.

Ombres L (2014). “Concrete confinement with a cement based high strength composite
material”, Composite Structures, 109(6):294-304.

Ombres, L. and Verre, S. (2015). “Structural behaviour of fabric reinforced cementitious matrix
(FRCM) strengthened concrete columns under eccentric loading”. Composites Part B
Engineering, 75:235-249.

Özcan, O., Binici, B. and Özcebe, G. (2010). “Investigation of FRP strengthening design rules
for insufficient RC columns”. Clinical & Experimental Immunology, 21(4):5219-39.

Revie, R. W. and Uhlig, H. H. (1963). Corrosion and corrosion control: an introduction to

corrosion science and engineering. Wiley, 7(3): 98.

Rodriguez, J., Ortega, L. and Casal, J. (1994). “Corrosion of reinforcing bars and service life
of reinforced concrete structures: corrosion and bond deterioration”. International conference
on concrete across borders, pp. 315-26, Odense, Denmark.

Silva, M. A. G. (2011), “Behavior of square and circular columns strengthened with aramidic
or carbon fibers”. Construction & Building Materials, 2011, 25(8):3222-3228.

Sun, H., Wei, L., Zhu, M, Han, N. and Zhu, J. H.(2016). “Corrosion behavior of carbon fiber
reinforced polymer anode in simulated impressed current cathodic protection system with 3%
NaCl solution”, Construction & Building Materials, 112:538-546.

The Concrete Society (2001). Cathodic protection of steel in concrete. Technical Report 73.

Triantafillou, T. C., Papanicolaou, C. G., Zissimopoulos, P., and Laourdekis, T. (2006),

“Concrete confinement with textile-reinforced mortar jackets.” ACI Structural Journal, 103(1):
28–37.

Zhu, J. H., Zhu, M. C., Han, N. X., Liu, W. and Xing F. (2014a). “Electrical and mechanical
performance of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer used as the impressed current anode material”.
Materials. 7(8):5438-53.

Zhu, J. H., Zhu, M. C., Han, N. X., Xing, F., Liu, W. and Bertolini, L. (2014b). “Behavior of
CFRP plate in simulated ICCP system of concrete structures”, Proceeding of the 4th
International Conference on the Durability of Concrete Structures, pp. 363-368, 24-26 July
2014, Purdue University, USA.

Zhu, J. H., Guo, G., Wei, L., Zhu, M. and Chen, X.(2016a). “Dual function behavior of carbon
fiber-reinforced polymer in simulated pore solution”. Materials, 9(2):103.

Zhu, J. H., Wei, L., Guo, G. and Zhu, A. (2016b). “Mechanical and electrochemical
performance of carbon fiber reinforced polymer in oxygen evolution environment”. Polymers.
8(11):393.

Zhu, J. H., Wei L. L., Moahmoud, H., Redaelli, E., Xing F. and Bertolini, L. (2017),
“Investigation on the dual-functions of CFRP in the varying chloride-contained environments”.
Construction and Building Materials, 151:127-137.

ZHU Ji-hua, LIN Wei-hao, CHEN Pi-yu, UEDA Tamon, XING Feng, WEI Liang-liang, ZHU
Miaochang, SU Mei-ni, (2017). “The bond behavior between C-FRCM composite and concrete
under the impressed current cathodic protection”, Proceeding of 6th Asia-Pacific Conference
on FRP in Structure. (Singapore, 19-21 July, 2017)
Fig. 1 Detailed dimensions of column specimens (all dimensions in mm)
Fig. 2 A typical roll of carbon fiber mesh
 2.0

1.5

Load(kN)
1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deformation (mm)

(a) Test set-up (b) Typical load-deformation curve

Fig. 3 Test set-up and a typical load-deformation curve of the C-FRCM composite
Fig. 4 Schematic ICCP application to the corroded reinforced concrete columns
Fig. 5 Set-up of stub column tests and the arrangement of LVDT and strain gauges
 0
Open Circuit Potential of Steel (mV) vs (SCE) CO

-100
CO-C
-126mV
-200
CO-C-F1
-275mV
-300 CO-C-IS

-400 CO-C-IS-R

CO-C-IL
-500

CO-C-F1-IS
-600

CO-C-F1-IL
-700
Accelerated corrosion process ICCP process CO-C-F1-IL-R
-800
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time (Days)

Fig. 6 Potential of re-bars using ICCP application

 2100 2100

1800 1800
CO
1500 1500

Load (kN）
Load (kN）
CO-C-IL
1200 1200
900 900
CO-C-IL-R
CO-C-R CO-C 600
600
CO-C-IS
300 300
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deformation (mm) Deformation (mm)

(a) Specimens without any treatment (b) Specimens protected by ICCP

2100
1800 CO-C-F1

1500
Load (kN)

1200
900
600
300
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deformation (mm)

(c) Specimens repaired by SS (d) Specimens protected by ICCP-SS

Figure 7: Load-deformation curves of columns

(a) Specimen without carbon fiber mesh (b) Specimen with carbon fiber mesh
strengthening strengthening

Fig. 8 Typical failure modes of stub column tests

 1800
1800
1600
1600 Bottom 1400
1400
1200

Load (kN)
1200
1000
Load (kN)

1000 Upper 800

800 600
600 Mid-height 400
400 200
200 0
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 Lateral displacement (mm)
Strain (%)
(a) Specimens without carbon fiber mesh strengthening (specimen CO-C-R)

1800
1600 Mid-height 1800
1600
1400
1400
1200
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
Upper 1200
1000
1000
800 800
600 Bottom
600
400 400
200 200
0 0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Strain (%) Lateral displacement (mm)
(b) Specimens with carbon fiber mesh strengthening (specimen CO-C-F1)

Fig. 9 Load – carbon fiber mesh strain and load - lateral displacement (at mid-height) curves.
Fig. 10 Comparison between the experimental compressive capacities and the design strengths
 Table 1. Details of test program
NaCl Repair method
Specimens
(%) Carbon fiber mesh strengthening ICCP
CO 0 None None
CO-C 3 None None
CO-C-R 3 None None
CO-C-F1 3 Yes None
CO-C-IS 3 None IS
CO-C-IS-R 3 None IS
CO-C-IL 3 None IL
CO-C-F1-IS 3 Yes IS
CO-C-F1-IL 3 Yes IL
CO-C-F1-IL-R 3 Yes IL
Note: CO stands for column, C means the column was subjected to corrosion, F1 means
the column was strengthened by one layer of FRP; IS and IL represent applied current
densities of 26mA/m2 and 80mA/m2 respectively; R means repeated tests.
 Table 2. Ingredients of concrete mix

Fine Coarse Superplasticizer

Cement Water
aggregate aggregate
(kg) (kg)
(kg) (kg) (ml)

1 1.29 2.88 0.39 0.01

 Table 3. Ingredients for the cementitious material

By the mass of cement

Composition
(%)

Cement 100

Silica fume 11.11

Polymer 22.22

Defoamer 0.53

Superplasticizer 1.2

Water 50

Carbon fiber 1
 Table 4. Material properties of concrete, re-bars, carbon fiber net and cementitious
material

Thickness/ Yield Tensile Flexure Compression Young’s Fracture

Material Diameter stress strength strength strength Modulus strain
(mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa) (%)

Concrete --- --- --- --- 53.0^ --- ---

Re-bars
6 536 638 --- --- 198 ---
(HRB400)

Re-bars
10 380 545 --- --- 200 ---
(HRB400)

Carbon fiber
0.207 --- 3519 --- --- 223 1.58
mesh
Cementitious
--- --- --- 21 32.8 --- ---
material
Note: ^ Test results are from concrete cubic tests
 Table 5. Compression capacity and deformation of columns

Increase in strength
Increase in strength
compared to
Hoop strain of compared to control
Ultimate Ultimate corroded columns
carbon fiber column
Columns load deformation (CO-C and CO-C-R)
mesh measured (CO)
(kN) (mm) (average load =
at ultimate loads (load = 1545 kN)
1309 kN)
(%)
(%)
CO 1545 1.1 --- --- 18.0
CO-C 1286 1.9 --- -16.8 ---
CO-C-R 1331 1.9 --- -13.0 ---
CO-C-F1 1687 2.5 0.0027* 9.2 28.9
CO-C-IS 1605 2 --- 3.9 22.6
CO-C-IS-R 1520 1.7 --- -1.6 16.1
CO-C-IL 1597 1.7 --- 3.4 22.0
CO-C-F1-IS 1801 3.7 0.0018* 16.6 37.6
CO-C-F1-IL 1969 2.7 0.0134 27.4 50.4
CO-C-F1-IL-R 1664 2 0.0051 7.7 27.0

* These data were obtained when the strain gauges failed, before the ultimate loads were
reached.
 Table 6: Design approaches in different design codes
Codes GB50367 ACI440.2R – 08 ISIS fib
(2013) (2002) (2001) (2001)
Design N GB  [( f co  4 l ) Acor  f yo' Aso' ] N ACI  0.85[0.85 f cc' ( Ag  Ast )  f y Ast ] N ISIS  1 f cc' ( Ag  As )  f y As N fib  f cc ( Ag  As )  f y As
formula

Notations Acor is the area of confined concrete; Ag is the gross area of concrete section; Ag is cross-sectional area; Ag is gross area of concrete;
'
A so is the area of longitudinal re-bars; Ast is the total area of longitudinal As is area of longitudinal reinforcing steel; As is total area of longitudinal steel
D is diameter of the column; reinforcement; Dg is gross concrete diameter; reinforcement;
E f is the elastic modulus of FRP; D is diameter of the column; d j is diameter of FRP jacket;
E f is the Modulus of FRP; f c' is the unconfined concrete compressive
f co is the axial compression strength strength; E j is modulus of FRP jacket;
f cc' = f c'  f 3.3ka fl , is compressive
f cc' = f c (1   pcw ) , is the ultimate
of unconfined concrete; '
f cc =
f yo' is the yield stress of re-bars; strength of confined concrete;
strength of the confined concrete; fl f
kc = 0.95 is the coefficient considering f c' is the axial compression strength of f co (2.254 1  7.94  2 l  1.254) ,
f frpu is ultimate strength of FRP; f co f co
unconfined concrete;
effective confinement; 2 Nb frp f frpu t frp is confined concrete strength;
nf is the number of FRP layers; f lfrp = , is lateral
tf is the thickness of one ply of FRP 2 E f nt f  fe Dg f co is unconfined concrete strength;
reinforcement; fl = , is maximum confining 1
D confining pressure exerted by the FRP at f l =  j E j  ju , is the maximum
l = 0.5 c kc  f E f  fe , is the pressure due to FRP jacket; ultimate; 2
effective confined stress; f y is specified yield strength of f y is yield stress of re-bars; confining stress;
 c is the coefficient considering nonprestressed steel reinforcement. N b is number of layers of FRP; f y is the steel yield strength.
concrete strength； k a is efficiency factor for FRP reinforcement t frp is total thickness of FRP; t j is thickness of FRP jacket;
 fe = 0.0035, is the effective strain in determination of f ;
'
 ju is circumferential strain in FRP
cc 1 is ratio of average stress in rectangular
level in FRP reinforcement attained at n is the number of plies of FRP jacket. (Since no recommended value
failure; compression block to the specified concrete
reinforcement; is specified in fib, this parameter is
compressive strength;
4n f t f t f is nominal thickness of one ply of FRP taken as 0.004 as recommended in
f = , is the volumetric  pc =1.0, is the performance coefficient; ACI);
D reinforcement;
2 f lfrp 4t j
confinement ratio  fe = 0.004 ≤ kfu, is the effective strain w = , is volumetric confinement j = is volumetric ratio of FRP
level in FRP reinforcement attained at failure;  f
c c
'
dj
 f is FRP strength reduction factor; ratio; jacket in circular columns.
c is resistance factor for concrete;
 frp is resistance factor for carbon FRP;
Table 7. Summary of comparisons between compressive bearing capacity test
results and design strengths

Specimen Nexp/NGB Nexp/Nfib Nexp/NACI Nexp/NISIS

CO 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22
CO-C 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02
CO-C-R 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
CO-C-F1 1.16 1.05 1.17 0.99
CO-C-IS 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27
CO-C-IS-R 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
CO-C-IL 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27
CO-C-F1-IS 1.24 1.12 1.25 1.05
CO-C-F1-IL 1.36 1.22 1.37 1.15
CO-C-F1-IL-R 1.15 1.03 1.15 0.97
Mean 1.19 1.15 1.20 1.12
COV 0.086 0.089 0.088 0.104

Note:
The ultimate carbon fiber mesh strain used in the prediction is taken as
0.0035 for GB code, as specified in GB50367 (2013)
The ultimate carbon fiber mesh strain used in the prediction is taken as
0.004 for ACI (2002) and fib (2001) codes, as specified in ACI 440.2R -
08 (2002).
The resistance factors ( c ,  frp ) in ISIS (2001) are all set to equal to unity

for calculating the nominal loading capacities.

Table 8. Comparisons between compressive bearing capacity test results and design
strengths using measured effective ultimate strain

Specimen Nexp/NGB Nexp/Nfib Nexp/NACI Nexp/NISIS

CO-C-F1-IL 1.00 0.91 1.06 1.15
CO-C-F1-IL-R 1.08 0.99 1.12 0.97