Analyzes corrosion effects on RCC beams with brick aggregates and different curing techniques, suggesting implications for structural integrity.
The corrosion of reinforced is one of the most prominent problems faced by reinforced cement concrete (RCC) structures all over the world. This inevitable phenomenon affects the service life and reliability of the RCC structures by causing deterioration in the reinforcement steel, which causes excess internal stresses that lead to cracking. This study analyzed the effect of corrosion on M-30 grade RCC beams by partially replacing stone aggregates with brick aggregates, adopting dry and wet cyclic curing. This study also evaluates two different curing techniques (water and sulfuric acid with sodium chloride) to assess long-term corrosion behavior incorporating electrical resistivity, half-cell potential trends, and loss in weight. The stiffness and mechanical behavior (compressive and flexural strength) among all replacements and curing techniques were observed, which shows a reduction by the inclusion of brick aggregates. This study concluded that increasing brick proportion in the aggregate mix lowers both compressive strength (38.92 to 24.68 MPa) and flexural strength, with peak load reductions of up to 18.42% for 100% brick aggregate. Additionally, this study also performed multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) analysis (TOPSIS and VIKOR) to obtain a ranking of considered laboratory experimental performance. The result of MCDM techniques shows that stone aggregates with water curing (CS100) and sulfuric acid with sodium chloride (S100) placed at the top ranking. Consequently, including brick aggregates and sulfuric curing decreases the resistance to corrosion and mechanical properties. While brick aggregate can be used to substitute stone aggregate in areas where it is scarce, it reduces the structural integrity and durability of RCC structures, necessitating a thorough assessment and effective mitigation strategies to combat increased corrosion susceptibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kumar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: