## 3 Results and Discussion
### Corrosion Potential (E\({}_{corr}\)) Results
In concretes with a chloride ion percentage of 2%, the presence of the inhibitor significantly reduced the corrosion rate but did not prevent corrosion rates of 1 \(\mu\)A/cm\({}^{2}\), typical of the active state, from being reached. Relationship between \(I_{corr}\) and \(E_{corr}\) in Armored Structures with and without Inhibitor  
The joint analysis of corrosion rate measurements and corrosion potential allows us to verify the validity of the latter in assessing the corrosion state of steel [57]. Figure 8 displays the values reached by the corrosion potential and corrosion rate of all armored structures at the end of the test. The combined analysis of these values allows us to determine if the qualitative assessment based on the corrosion potential, with the limits set by ASTM [57] standard, corresponds to the quantitative assessment of the corrosion process based on the corrosion rate values obtained during the tests. Figure 8a,b show the limits that define active and passive states for the corrosion rate and probabilities greater than 90% or less than 10% for the corrosion potential. These limits divide the figures into 9 quadrants, labeled from \"A\" to \"I\". Zone \"A\" corresponds to values where there is coherence between the corrosion rate and corrosion potential, indicating an active state of the armored structures. Zone \"I\" also shows coherence between the results,  
Figure 8: Comparison of (i\({}_{corr}\)) and (E\({}_{corr}\)) with different percentages of chloride in armored structures, without inhibitor (**a**) and with inhibitor (**b**). Figure 7: The average corrosion rates (i\({}_{corr}\)) reached by all armored structures at the end of the test. The filled lines represent the re-bars with inhibitor, and the unfilled ones are those without inhibitor. corresponding to the passive state. Zones \"C\" and \"G\" exhibit no coherence between the results obtained, showing a total discrepancy between qualitative and quantitative measurements. In zones \"B\", \"D\", \"E\", \"F\", and \"H\", the correlation between both types of measurements cannot be ensured [58]. The analysis of Figure 8a,b reveals a higher coherence in the results obtained in structures without inhibitors (Figure 8a), where there are numerous measurements in zones \"A\" and \"I\". However, with the inhibitor present (Figure 8b), these two zones barely have measurements, often resulting in very negative corrosion potentials and average corrosion rates. This is because the corrosion potential heavily depends on the amount of moisture present in the concrete rather than the corrosion state of the steel. Since all slabs had the same moisture level regardless of the inhibitor presence in the armored structures, a large number of measurements with very negative potentials were recorded in all cases. In the case of structures without inhibitors, these measurements were located in quadrant \"A\" for chloride ion percentages above 0.8%, while in structures with inhibitors, the corrosion rates significantly decreased, placing the measurements in zones \"D\" and \"G\". This suggests that corrosion potential measurements, taken in isolation in structures with inhibitor-containing armored structures, are not indicative of the steel's corrosion state [58]. Therefore, in concretes with reinforcement without a corrosion inhibitor, measuring corrosion potentials is an effective method of determining the corrosion process of the reinforcement. However, in concretes with reinforcement containing an inhibitor, measuring the corrosion potential is not a good method for determining the state of corrosion of the reinforcement, making it necessary to perform corrosion rate measurements. The findings obtained will serve as a basis for other researchers in studying the effectiveness of this type of inhibitors, starting directly from the premise of measuring corrosion rates, in order to determine the corrosion process of the reinforcement.