Fusion-Bonded Epoxy Coatings: a Technology for
Rebar Corrosion Prevention
J. Alan Kehr, 3M Corrosion Protection Department, USA
Fikry F. Barouky, Consulting Services Dept., Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia
Introduction
Corrosion of steel in concrete has become a costly problem in the United States over the
last twenty-five years.1 Approximately half of the nearly six hundred thousand bridges in
the US Federal Aid Highway system have structural deficiencies or are functionally
outmoded. According to US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates, a
quarter of US bridge decks are badly deteriorated. Since the beginning of road-salt
application, expensive repairs are often required within five to ten years.
It’s a worldwide problem. Research indicates that the service life of buildings in the
Arabian Gulf may be five to fifteen years. Reinforced concrete bridges near the seashore
in Japan show rapid deterioration within ten years of construction.
The problem is caused primarily by inorganic-salt induced corrosion of steel in concrete.
The salt, primarily chloride, penetrates the concrete from sources such as road-deicing
salts or sea exposure. It can also be built in through the use of salt-contaminated
aggregate, seawater in the concrete, or chloride-based admixtures.
The chloride ion initiates and catalyzes the corrosion reaction. The iron corrosion
products resulting from the reaction occupy a much greater volume than iron and cause
tremendous pressure on the concrete. The pressure causes the concrete to crack and spall,
allowing even greater access of corrodents to the steel and accelerated deterioration of the
structure. 2
While most attention is paid to rebar, all steel components are affected as well bridge
decks, piers, pilings, and guardrails. 1 This paper addresses the protection of those
elements by describing available alternatives and providing an overview of fusion-bonded
epoxy coating materials, case histories, trends in the industry, and specific concerns about
the use of fusion-bonded-epoxy coated rebar (FBECR).
Mechanism of Reinforcing Steel Corrosion in Concrete
The traditional view of the reinforced concrete structure is that the concrete is protective
to the reinforcing steel bars through the combined effects of the chemical reactions
between the steel and the cement hydration products and the environmental barrier
provided by the concrete cover. If these conditions are maintained within the concrete
mass, the steel bars do not corrode and the structure should have the expected trouble-free
life span.
Poor quality reinforced concrete structure contributes to a faster deterioration of the steel
reinforcing bars. Low degree of compaction, excess water in the concrete mix, and the
hydration process are considered the main factors to create voids within the concrete and
make the concrete structure porous.
Porosity of concrete allows penetration and ingress of aggressive elements (e.g., chloride,
oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other materials that vary from one location to another) to the
embedded steel rebar and to initiate corrosion.
The primary factors controlling the initiation of the steel corrosion and its mechanism in
concrete are summarized in the following points:




The rate of steel depassivation
The initiation of the macrocells due to the differential aeration and chloride
absorption
The low resistivity attributed by the concrete pore water
The presence of oxygen to accelerate the corrosion process
The corrosion of steel in concrete is an electrochemical process, which results in the
formation of a corrosion cell. The following corrosion mechanism is the most likely for
steel rebar embedded in the concrete when significant variations exist in the surface
characteristics of the steel. The steel surface initiates cathodes and anodes electrically
connected through the body of the steel bar. The “half cell reaction” takes place, by
inducing an electromotive force known as standard redox potential when the metal is
connected to a hydrogen electrode – see Equation 1.
Equation 1
For iron: Fe -- Fe+2 + 2 e - (Anode)
The electrons liberated at the anode migrate to the cathode and react in various ways
dependant upon the pH value and the availability of oxygen. See Equation 2, Equation 3,
and Equation 4.
Equation 2
2e + 2H + ½ O2 ------ H2O
Equation 3
2e + H2O + ½ O2 ----- H2O
Equation 4
2e + 2H ----------------  H2
The anodic and cathodic reactions are autocatalytic and result in the transformation of
metallic iron (Fe) to rust. The rust formation is accompanied by a significant increase in
the volume, suggested as large as seven times that of the original Fe volume. The volume
increase causes concrete cracking and spalling.
Effect of Chloride Ions
When the steel is placed in a highly alkaline solution (pH >11.5), even in the presence of
oxygen, corrosion will not be initiated. In fact, slightly rusted bars will be dissipated when
placed in strong alkali. That is the reason why, during construction, slightly rusted steel
bars do not create a concern.
2
The chloride ions ingress does not lower the pH in the concrete. However, it destroys the
passive layer on the steel bars. The depassivated steel bars do not corrode in the presence
of the chloride ions only. The corrosion occurs after the presence of the carbon dioxide
lowers the pH below 11, thus contributing to corrosion initiation.
Sources of chloride are either in the concrete mix, mainly from the sand, aggregates, or
the water used, or as chloride ingress from the environment, such as in the marine
atmospheric environment.
Effect of Carbonation
Carbonation is the alkalinity loss in the concrete mass. The product of the reaction
between carbon dioxide in the normal outside air and the alkaline products, mainly the
calcium hydroxides, is calcium carbonate. In case of high water/concrete ratio,
carbonation continues to the depth where the reinforcing steel bar is embedded.
When carbon dioxide penetrates through the concrete cover in the presence of water in the
pores, it drives the pH to lower values which depassivates the steel
Other hydration products in the cement can go through the same reaction with carbon
dioxide causing a significant quality loss of the cement and faster deterioration of the
concrete mix.
Effect of other Elements
Sulfide can be found in the cement as a contaminant (more than 0.2%). The sulfide ion
has been found more destructive to the steel rebar embedded in the concrete if it goes
higher than the regulated percentage shown. Regardless of the sulfide ion source, it has
been the cause of several cases of hydrogen embrittlement – particularly in pre-stressed
rebar.
Mechanism of FBE coated steel corrosion in concrete
In the wake of the premature failure of FBE coated steel rebar in the Florida Keys bridge
substructures, many research works by users and academia investigated the performance
of FBE coated steel in various environments and service conditions. Most of the
laboratory test results confirmed that the FBE material, applied under controlled
conditions, passed successfully all qualification and service simulated tests. However, in a
few cases, field samples showed poor adhesion to the extent of delamination and
disbonding of the FBE rebar. Often times, that delamination was used as the definition for
a ‘coating failure,’ rather than corrosion or concrete distress. 2 In order to understand what
went wrong to cause premature failure of the FBE rebar, numerous data were collected
from various fields for investigation and assessment. 3
Corrosion control of the FBE coating is a function of the coating’s ability to provide a
barrier against water, oxygen, chloride, and other aggressive elements 4 that prevents
permeation through the coating film to attack the metal substrate. There are critical
properties required for corrosion protection FBE coatings that include adhesion and
wetting ability to the rebar.
Reduction in adhesive strength will increase the delamination process rate. 5, 6. An
investigation into delamination of FBE coatings in a simulated pore solution environment
suggested the following delamination mechanism: 7
3






Delay time before initiation of observable delamination processes may be a
function of water penetration through the coating to the interfacial or interphasial
coating/substrate region.
Delamination of FBE coatings from steel substrates is predominantly caused by
hydroxyl ions.
Rate of FBE delamination is controlled by transport processes from a pore in the
coating and along the delaminated coating/substrate interface to the disbondment
front.
The locality of failure of coating adhesion is in the interfacial or interphasial
coating/substrate region.
The rate of FBE delamination in near-passive conditions is controlled by hydroxyl
ion migration from the bulk external solution to the coating/substrate disbondment
front.
The rate of FBE delamination in the condition of underfilm corrosion is controlled
by hydrated cation movement to the cathode site.
Design of FBE coating powder for steel rebar coating
New technologies are under continual development to optimize the properties of the FBE
coating to improve coating utility. The stoiciometric ratio must be controlled by the
equilibrium between the curing group and the epoxy group. For example, increasing the
level of curing agent may reduce the cross-link density and increase flexibility, while
decreasing chemical resistance.
Impact resistance or hardness is a function of the cross-link density. Higher densities can
be achieved using low molecular weight curing agents that show tightly cross-linked
structures. Adding non-reactive diluents can interfere with this structure, providing the
end product with more flexibility but less toughness.
Mechanical adhesion is the gripping force that results from the roughness of the substrate,
(i.e. peaks and valleys). Changing from a round to angular surface profile and increasing
the depth of the valleys can improve this type of adhesion. Polar adhesion is the hydrogen
bonding which occurs between the substrate and epoxy coating.
Chemical bonds are formed through electron sharing by groups on the substrate and epoxy
resin. These bonds are by far the strongest and contribute most to adhesion. Groups such
as nitrogen and oxygen can bond with iron and silica.
Corrosion Protection Strategies
There are several corrosion protection strategies available. The five most prominent
approaches take advantage of properties of the corrosion cell to reduce corrosion damage
to structure steel: surface sealers, concrete barrier, chemical stabilization, electrochemical,
and steel coating. 1 A final alternative is to replace the steel with materials such as
stainless steel or fiber-reinforced plastic. 8
SURFACE SEALERS: Sealers include membranes and materials such as silanes, siloxanes,
and methacrylates that function by providing an impervious layer on or in the concrete
between external corrodents and the steel. 9 Corrosion caused by chloride already in the
concrete from contaminated aggregate or concrete additives can still occur. Damage to the
sealer allows water and chloride penetration. Practical considerations are important –
4
sealers are site applied and subject to the vagaries of weather and construction practices.
Surface preparation of the existing concrete can be an important factor. Some materials
may remain tacky after application. 10 A key element for successful implementation is for
the sealer to prevent the ingress of water but allow the passage of water vapor to prevent
blistering and peeling.
CONCRETE BARRIER: Increasing concrete depth has proven effective in slowing the ingress
of chloride to the steel. The biggest problem with this process, besides increased cost, is
an increase in cracking propensity.
In principle, concrete barriers make part or all of the concrete less permeable to water and
the associated ions. The typical procedure is to use overlays composed of latex-modified
concrete, low-slump concrete, asphalt, or polymer concrete. Problems encountered
include increased cracking, increased permeability with age, scaling, and water
entrapment. Use of silica fume can significantly reduce permeability and increase
electrical resistance of the concrete 11 but is expensive and increases the risk of higher
corrosion rates in the presence of cracks. 12 Fly ash and natural pozzolans should perform
similarly, 13, 14 but the results have varied from increased corrosion rates when used with
admixtures to reduced corrosion rates with externally applied chlorides. 15
CHEMICAL STABILIZATION: Chemical protection relies on changing the concrete
environment to reduce corrosion. Calcium nitrite, the most commonly used inhibitor, does
not reduce the permeability of the concrete, nor does it prevent corrosion. Rather, it
competes with chloride to react with the steel and reduce the corrosion rate. Two
drawbacks are that it acts as a set accelerator for concrete, and normally needs a retarder.
Second, the amount required is difficult to predict because exposure varies in different
parts of the structure. 4
Organic based inhibitors, such as amine- and ester-based admixtures work by slowing
chloride permeation and forming a protective film on the steel surface. 7
ELECTROCHEMICAL: Cathodic protection works by imposing an electric potential to
oppose the corrosion cell. It requires an anode current distribution system and a power
supply. The major drawback is that it is a technically sophisticated, expensive system that
requires trained-engineer site visits. It also requires high maintenance expenditures and an
external power supply, often in remote areas. 1 The long-term effects of cathodic
protection treatment are not well defined. 8
COATED REBAR:
Galvanizing provides protection through a zinc barrier between the steel
and the environment and by acting as a sacrificial anode for the steel.16 Zinc does corrode,
but the volume of the corrosion products is often less than that of iron products.
Therefore, corrosion takes longer to cause cracking and spalling of the concrete.
Observations from a seawater exposure evaluation showed clear evidence of progressive
corrosion of the zinc layer under natural exposure conditions. 17
Epoxy-coated reinforcement is used extensively in construction to protect steel from
corrosion. 18 Epoxy coating works by preventing chloride and moisture from reaching the
surface of the steel. Its greatest advantage lies in its applicability to existing designs
without changes in load capacity or section size, the only change is in the modification of
development length.1 FHWA’s 2003 National Bridge Inventory showed more than 54,000
US bridges contained FBECR in either the top mat or in both the top and bottom mats. 19
5
Well over one-hundred-thousand structures utilizing FBECR are now in place with only a
handful of problem applications, which will be discussed later.
Epoxy Coated Rebar—Manufacturing Process
The application of fusion-bonded epoxy to reinforcing steel is straightforward and
uncomplicated: clean the steel, heat it to the proper temperature, apply the powderedepoxy coating material, allow the coating to cure, and inspect. However, the details are
important and must be understood and implemented to assure a quality coating that will
extend the working life of a structure in a corrosive environment. 20 These same steps
apply whether the steel is fabricated before or after coating. However, the equipment
configuration and the powder coating gel and application characteristics need to be
designed to meet the coating process.
FBECR Performance
There is an overwhelming preponderance of experience that shows FBECR does what it
was originally designed to do: reduce the level of corrosion of concrete encased steel to
significantly increase the life of the structure. 21 Example surveys follow.
MINNESOTA BRIDGE DECK: Bridge number 19015, in Minnesota, has carried a heavy
volume of traffic since constructed in 1973, endured extreme seasonal temperatures as
well as freeze/thaw cycles, and received several annual doses of deicing salt for twenty
years at the time of the study. These are conditions that routinely caused bridge-deck
deterioration within ten to twelve years prior to the use of FBECR. Despite the fact that it
was constructed using coated bar only in the top mat, and the technology was new at the
time of construction (modified pipe-coating application equipment was used), it received
a rating of 8, on a scale of one to eight, on its 19th annual inspection—the same rating it
received on it’s first. No corrosion-related maintenance or repair work was required
during those years. 22
WEST VIRGINIA BRIDGES: This evaluation surveyed twelve of the earliest bridge decks
utilizing epoxy-coated rebar. A number of bridges constructed about the same time with
black bar acted as a control. The study included a visual survey, an acoustic chain drag to
determine delamination, and chloride testing when weather allowed.
Based on experience with black-bar bridges of the same vintage, the expectation was that
there would be a number of spalls, significant delamination of the concrete and cracking
extending through the deck. What was found was mathematically non-existent spalling
and a uniform absence of delamination. The use of FBECR did not eliminate concrete
cracking, but it greatly reduced the corrosion associated with black bars and cracks.
Chloride levels ranged from 2.1 to 5.3 pounds per cubic yard (1.2 to 3.2 kg/m3).
The researchers concluded, “ . . . from the data gathered in this investigation that the use
of epoxy coated reinforcement does result in dramatic reduction of delamination in bridge
decks and by inference an increase in useful life expected of the deck.” 23
WASHINGTON STATE BRIDGES: In late 1992, the Washington State DOT surveyed four
bridges constructed with epoxy coated rebar in the late seventies-early eighties—
including the Hood Canal floating concrete pontoon bridge in seawater. Weather
conditions permitted chloride sampling of only two of the bridges where the levels were
in the ten to twelve pounds per cubic yard (4.5 to 5.5 kg/ m3) range.
6
The conclusion: “ . . .the system (ECR) is doing a good job of corrosion protection so far
in the structures we tested.” 24
NORTH CAROLINA—SUBSTRUCTURES IN A MARINE ENVIRONMENT: Visual inspections,
coring, and laboratory studies were performed on three bridges constructed in 1985. No
extraordinary cracks or deterioration attributable to corrosion was observed. Despite
chloride levels ranging from one to over nineteen pounds per cubic yard (0.6 to 11.3 kg/
m3), the coated reinforcement bars were not significantly affected—very slight rusting
was detected only in areas with coating damage such as pinholes and holidays. “It is
concluded that the epoxy coating in the selected bridges is providing adequate corrosion
protection for the reinforcement steel.” 25
*
In spite of the one-hundred-thousand plus structures constructed with FBECR and only a
handful of reported problems, the effectiveness of the technology as a long-term
corrosion-protection system is currently a subject of debate. Those cases, though small in
number, have often, and frequently inaccurately, been publicized.
Part of the concern stems from the early expectations of the technology as a panacea for
all corrosion related problems in concrete. 26 Early studies showed that even nonspecification-coated rebar would provide a great improvement in reduced corrosion rates.
27
The implication of these studies was that any coated rebar would protect the structure
against corrosion and early quality control regimes reflected that misunderstanding by
providing little attention to the details important for good-quality coating application to
rebar. There was also little concern about handling damage to the coating.
More recent studies and experiments have utilized new expectations, often erroneously
referring to a debondment of the coating as an indication of coating failure. 28 However,
Sohanghpurwala and Scannell, in a study of core samples representing 3715 bridge decks
(almost 4 million m2), found that “although progressive corrosion must be accompanied
by complete adhesion loss, coating adhesion alone was not found to be a good predictor of
corrosion condition.” 29
Following are examples reporting poor performance of coated rebar.
FLORIDA KEYS: The often-cited Florida Keys bridges’ substructures provided a wake up
call for the FBECR industry. In the late 1980’s, out of five bridges, the substructures of
four showed signs of deterioration after only six to ten years. The bridges are located in a
subtropical marine environment and “are continuously subjected to salt spray in the splash
zone, combined with wetting and drying cycles, high temperatures, and chlorides and
moisture, which produce a very corrosive environment.” 19 Importantly, the discovery of
this “problem” removed the halo effect from epoxy-coated rebars: there were
circumstances where FBECR, as supplied at the time, did not solve all the problems. This
resulted in many studies sponsored by public and private sources and a much greater
understanding of the corrosion phenomenon, the importance of quality control in the
coating process, and the idea that a next generation of FBE may be required.
Follow-up work and studies of other Florida bridges have highlighted the importance of
adhesion and the effects of damage to the coating during the installation process. 30, 31
OREGON TEST PILE: In 1980, the Oregon Department of Transportation (DOT) constructed
several reinforcement concrete beams and lashed them to an existing bridge substructure
7
in the tidal zone of Yaquina Bay along the Oregon coast. Nine years later, one of the piles
was autopsied with a surprise finding: even with chloride levels in excess of twenty
pounds per cubic yard (11.9 kg/ m3), two of the longitudinal bars had light corrosion and
disbondment, but two of the bars did not show signs of distress and the coating was well
adhered. 9 Subsequent testing of the bars showed that the good performing bars had a
coating thickness of 9 to 12 mils (225 to 300 microns) compared to 4 to 6 mils (100 to
150 microns) for the distressed bars. 32
Tests of the bars with thin coating also showed inadequate blast cleaning and evidence
that the bars had been salt contaminated prior to coating. This provided further evidence
of the importance of understanding and implementing the details for coating application.
CANADIAN STRATEGIC HIGHWAYS RESEARCH PROGRAM (C-SHRP): The second phase of
this program designed to evaluate the effectiveness of FBECR for long-term (fifty year)
performance was completed in 1992. It evaluated bars from coaters and job sites, and
investigated field sites. The conclusion was that state-of-the-art coated rebars “will not be
effective in providing long-term . . . corrosion protection to reinforcement in salt
contaminated concrete.” The study postulated that the failure mechanism involved
progressive loss of coating adhesion. 25
To summarize, the problem seen in the Florida Key bridges resulted in two key changes.
The first was it raised a concern about all structures utilizing FBECR and caused many
surveys of existing structures. The results of those surveys have been very reassuring,
FBECR is performing to reduce the corrosion that damages concrete structures.
Evaluation of hundreds of structures in many different environments point to that same
conclusion. Second, it resulted in many research studies designed to understand the few
problems that were unearthed during these surveys. That understanding has caused
significant improvements and changes in industry standards, procedures, and
expectations.
Industry Trends
INDUSTRY STANDARDS: Early ASTM standards were written around the procedures
developed by the original National Bureau of Standards (NBS, now National Institute of
Science and Technology (NIST)) during the evaluation of non-metallic coating materials
for reinforcement corrosion prevention. 33 Very few changes in the specifications, none
substantive, were made until observations of the Florida Keys bridges demonstrated a
need for review.
As a result of the observations of the Oregon test pile (which showed a direct correlation
between corrosion areas and coating thickness and other studies), both AASHTO and
ASTM specifications increased the requirement for median coating thickness by about
two mils (fifty microns). The allowable holiday (microscopic holes in the coating not
visible to the unaided eye, but detectable with an electric probe) count in the application
plant was reduced. Good handling practices of FBECR were defined to minimize damage
to repair of exposed steel improve the performance of the FBECR. 34
QUALITY: As a result of the findings of the importance of the application process to the
performance of FBECR, the industry quickly responded by developing improved quality
control processes and standards. One example is the 1992 introduction of the Concrete
Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI) Voluntary Certification Program. Examples of key
8
measurements under the program include surface profile, bar cleanliness (removal of mill
scale and visible contaminants), inorganic salt detection, application temperature, and
coating thickness. Adhesion tests such as hot-water immersion and cathodic disbondment
were added. Follow up studies showed a significant improvement in the quality of the
coated rebar as applicators learned how to meet the certification requirements. 35
FBECR IN BOTH MATS: In a nine-year laboratory test sponsored by the FHWA in heavily
salt contaminated concrete, slabs with FBECR in both the top and bottom mat with 0.5%
intentional damage showed macrocell current density only slightly increased from zero.
The results were almost the same as for stainless steel bars. 19, 36
COAT AFTER FABRICATION REBAR: The US Office of Naval Research funded a study to
evaluate methods of protecting reinforcing steel in waterfront concrete structures. 37 The
76-month study exposed concrete slabs to a subtropical-marine intertidal environment.
The results suggested that in a splash zone environment, rebar should not be bent after
coating. A result was the development of FBECR designed for application to reinforcing
steel after fabrication. 38 Coating after fabrication significantly reduces the amount of
coating damage sustained during the rebar bending process. This greatly reduced the
macrocell current density when top and bottom mats were electrically connected in the
FHWA sponsored study. 19 Finally, since the coating does not have to be as flexible,
pipecoating-like technology can be used for the FBE to promote adhesion retention. 20, 39
This technology is gaining popularity in oceanfront and splash-zone concrete
construction. 40
Specific Concerns
PITTING CORROSION: In a severe corrosion environment, where coating damage penetrates
to the steel substrate, there will be corrosion. There is no exception based on size or
location of the damage. 41 This is different from pit corrosion, which is an extremely
localized attack occurring when steel passivity is destroyed only locally, forming a small
anodic area. For uncoated steel, the larger surrounding cathodic areas drive the anodic
reaction resulting in a pit. In a sense, the pit cathodically protects the surrounding metal.
In the case of coated rebar, however, the coating restricts the availability of surrounding
cathodic areas and restricts the corrosion activity, alleviating its severity. For coated steel,
an occasionally expressed concern is about macrocell pit corrosion. 18
Macrocell driven pit corrosion implies a large cathode area driving a small anode such as
in a holding tank with coated sides, but an uncoated bottom. The very nature of damage to
the epoxy coating on the rebar makes that scenario unlikely. Even in the case of uncoated
bottom mats and coated top mats, there are few, if any, reports of pit corrosion resulting in
significant loss of cross section. That is likely due to the relatively limited
interconnectivity between bars because of the insulating characteristics of the coating. 16
BONDING TO CONCRETE: In general, uncoated bars provide better bond strength than
coated bars. There are three components to bond strength: adhesion, friction, and
mechanical bearing of the concrete on the steel deformations. Both adhesion and friction
relate to roughness of the steel.(or coating) Because FBECR is smooth and concrete does
not adhere well to its surface, bond strength develops primarily through mechanical
bearing.
9
Different studies have given different results, but most give values of 65 to 90% as the
relative level of bond strength for epoxy-coated bar compared to black bar.
There are several other factors that significantly affect the bond strength of rebar – coated
or uncoated: cover, casting position, concrete slump, and degree of consolidation. There is
a nearly linear increase in bond strength with increasing concrete cover. Casting position
affects bond strength because increasing the amount of concrete below the bar increases
settlement and bleeding which lowers bond strength. Ultimate bond strength decreases
with increasing slump. Lack of vibration reduces bond strength.
In summary, while there are several other significant variables, coating on rebar does
reduce relative bond strength. That means that increased development length is required
for splice and anchorage lengths – there is no requirement for increased cross-sectional
area of the steel. 42, 43, 33
What does this mean in practical terms? Using a typical bridge design for a threethousand ft (914 m) bridge, fifty ft (15 m) wide, the added splice length would be
approximately twelve hundred ft (366 m) of additional rebar for an additional cost of
approximately six-hundred dollars on an eleven million dollar project – an approximate
0.005% increase in cost.
Because of concern raised about the effect of loss of adhesion of epoxy coating to steel on
bond strength, 44 the FHWA sponsored a study comparing pullout strength among
uncoated bars, coated bars, and debonded coated bars. Their findings showed that there
were measurable differences, but they were not large enough to constitute a structural
safety problem. The conclusion: “A 20 to 30 percent degree of disbondment between the
epoxy coating and its steel substrate for bars used as the main flexural reinforcement of a
one-way slab does not compromise the slab’s flexural capacity.” 45
Conclusion
The increasing scrutiny following the Florida Keys bridges phenomenon shows continued
successful performance of epoxy-coated rebar to protect structures from corrosion
induced deterioration. New information generated by those evaluations and the many
research studies are changing and improving the coating and construction industry.
Significantly improved attention to detail has resulted in far superior coated reinforcement
compared to only a few years ago.
10
References
“New Development in Laboratory Testing of Epoxy Coated Reinforcing Steel,” Lee, S. K., McIntyre, J. F., and
Hartt, W. H., NACE, 1994.
2
“FBEC Rebars Must not be Used,” Kar, A. K., The Indian Concrete Journal, January 2004.
3
“FBEC Rebars Must be Used,” Singha Roy, P. K., The Indian Concrete Journal, January 2004.
4
“Role of Adhesion and wetting Properties of Fusion Bonded Epoxy (FBE) Coating in Corrosion Control of
Rebars used in Bridge Decks”, Varughese, K., the International Conference on Corrosion and Rehabilitation
of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Orlando Florida – Dec. 1998.
5
“Modes and Mechanisms for the Degradation of Fusion-Bonded Epoxy-Coated Steel in a Marine Concrete
Environment,” Nguyen, T, and Martin, J. W., JCT Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, April 2004.
6
“Review of Concrete Structural Deterioration Due to Reinforcement Corrosion in Marine Environment”,
Barouky, F.F., -1st International Conference on Performance of Rebar Protection Systems, Abu Dhabi UAE,
1997.
7
“Behavior of Epoxy Powder Coatings on Mild Steel Under Alkali Condition” Darwin, A. B., Scantlebury,
J. D. - Journal of Corrosion Science & Engineering Volume 2, August 1999.
8
“Fusion-Bonded Epoxy Coated Rebar,” Strobel, R. F., 3M, April 1991.
9
“Field Evaluation of Bridge Corrosion Protection Measures,” Sherman, M. R., Carrasquillo, R. J., and
Fowler, D. W., Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, March 1993.
10
“Research Directions in Cathodic Protection for Highway Bridges,” Schell, H. C. and Manning, D. G., National
Association of Corrosion Engineers, 1989.
11
“Resistance to Chloride Ion Penetration of Concrete,” Naik, N., Sehn, A., NACE Corcon 2004, New
Delhi, India, December 2004.
12
“Effect of Chemical and Mineral Admixtures on the Corrosion of Steel in Concrete,” Nmai, C. K. and
Attiogbe, E. K., NACE International, 1992.
13
“The Role of F. k, and D in Durable Concrete Structures,” Vedalakshmi, R, Palanisamy, N, Natarajan, C.,
Jeya, S., NACE Corcon 2004, New Delhi, India, December 2004.
14
“Resistance to Chloride Ion Penetration of Concrete,” Naik, N, Sehn, A, NACE Corcon 2004, New Delhi,
India, December 2004.
15
“Concrete Durability problems in the Arabian Gulf Region,” Saricimen, H, Proceedings of the 4 th
International Conference on Deterioration and Repair of Reinforced Concrete, pp. 943-959, October 1993.
16
“Zinc Coating on Construction Bars – a Panacea to Corrosion in Reinforced Concrete Composites,”
Bhattacharyya, T, Sarkar, S, Chakrabarti, I, Bhattacharjee, D, and Maheshwari, M. D., NACE Corcon 2004,
New Delhi, India, December 2004.
17
“Performance of Epoxy Coated Rebar, Galvanized Rebar, and Plain Rebar with Calcium Nitrite in a Marine
Environment,” Burke, D., University of Sheffield, England, 1994.
18
“Corrosion Performance of Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement,” Kahhaleh, K. Z., Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, TX, May 1994.
19
“Resisting Corrosion,” Lee, S, Krauss, P. D., Virmani, Y. P., Public Roads, May-June 2005.
20
Fusion-Bonded Epoxy (FBE): A Foundation for Pipeline Corrosion Protection,” Kehr, J. A., NACE
International, 2003.
21
“Performance of Epoxy-Coated Rebars in Bridge Decks,” Smith, J. L., Virmani, Y. P., CRSI reprint from
Public Roads, 1999.
22
“Epoxy Coated Rebar Benefits Minnesota Deck,” Allen, J., Roads and Bridges, June 1993.
23
“Evaluation of Bridge Decks Using Epoxy Coated Reinforcement,” Kessler, R. R., Lipscomb, D., West Virginia
Department of Transportation Division of Highways, January 1994.
24
“Testing Bridges with Epoxy Coated Rebar—1992,” Finkle, R. G., Schultz, R. L., Washington State DOT
memorandum, December 1993.
25
“A Report on the Performance of Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Steel in Substructures of Coastal Bridges
in North Carolina,” Materials Test Unit, North Carolina DOT, October 1993.
26
“Epoxy-Coated Rebar: A Review,” Neff, T. L., Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, Review draft, 1994.
27
“Corrosion of Nonspecification Epoxy-Coated Rebars in Salty Concrete,” Clear, K. C., Virmani, Y. P.
Public Roads, Vol. 47, Number 1, 1983.
28
“Performance Evaluation of Epoxy-Coated Reinforcing Steel and Corrosion Inhibitors in a Simulated
Concrete Pore Water Solution,” Pyc, W. A., Masters thesis: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, February 14, 1997.
1
11
“Condition and Performance of Epoxy-Coated Rebars in Bridge Decks,” Sohanghpurwala, A. A.,
Scannell, W. T., Public Roads, November/December 1999.
30
“Corrosion of Epoxy Coated Rebar in Florida Bridges,” Sagüés, A. A., P.I., College of Engineering, University
of South Florida, May 1994.
31
“Corrosion Process and Field Performance of Epoxy Coated Reinforcing Steel in Marine Substructures,”
Sagüés, A. A., Powers, R. G., and Kessler, R., National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 1994.
32
“Oregon Test Pile, Log 209 Rebar Evaluation for the Oregon Department of Transportation,” 3M
Laboratory Evaluation Report, 1989.
33
“Nonmetallic Coatings for Concrete Reinforcing Bars,” Clifton, J. R., Beeghly, H. F., and Mathey, R. G., US
Department of Transportation, February 1974.
34
“Good ECRB Handling Key to Durability,” Mughrabi, Z, GulfContrtuctionOnline, Vol. XXV, No. 6,
June 2004.
35
“CRSI Quality Control Survey, Film Thickness and Holidays,” Neff, T. L., CRSI, 1992.
36
“Stainless Steel Reinforcement Rebar for Durable Structures,” Jayasankar, K. R., NACE Corcon 2004,
New Delhi, India, December 2004.
37
“Performance of Epoxy-Coated Rebar, Galvanized Rebar, and Plain Rebar with Calcium Nitrite in a
Marine Environment,” Burke, D. F., Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, July 1994.
38
ASTM A 934/A 934 M – 00, “Epoxy-Coated Prefabricated Steel Reinforcing Bars,” (West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, Reapproved 2000).
39
"External and Internal Pipeline Coatings in Arabian Gulf Area," Ward, D.K., Moore, E.M. and Hawkins,
P.J., Proceedings 5th International Conference on Internal and External Protection of Pipes, Innsbruck,
October 1983.
40
“Corrosion Control for the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge,” Hotz, E, O’Reilly, M. T., Materials
Performance, October 2003.
41
“Studies on Damage and Corrosion Performance of Fabricated Epoxy Coated Reinforcement,” Kahhaleh,
K. Z., Chao, H. Y., Jirsa, J. O., Carrasquillo, R. L., and Wheat, H. G., Center for Transportation Research,
The University of Texas at Austin, January 1993.
42
“Bond of Epoxy Coated Reinforcement to Concrete Cover: Casting Position, Slump, and Consolidation,” HadjeGhaffari, H., Choi, O. C., Darwin, D., and McCabe, S. L., The University of Kansas for Research, Inc., June
1992.
43
“Finite Element Fracture Analysis of Steel Concrete Bond,” Brown, C., Darwin, D., and McCabe, S. L., The
University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc., November 1993.
44
“Effectiveness of Epoxy Coated Reinforcing Steel—Final Report,” Clear, K. C., Canadian Strategic Highway
Research Program, 1992.
45
“Structural Effects of Epoxy Coating Disbondment,” Chase, S. B., FHWA-RD-93-055, November 1993.
29
12