Premium
Performance based durability design, carbonation part 1 – Benchmarking of European present design rules
Author(s) -
GreveDierfeld Stefanie,
Gehlen Christoph
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
structural concrete
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.912
H-Index - 34
eISSN - 1751-7648
pISSN - 1464-4177
DOI - 10.1002/suco.201600066
Subject(s) - carbonation , probabilistic logic , limit state design , benchmark (surveying) , durability , benchmarking , service life , reliability (semiconductor) , rebar , computer science , reliability engineering , environmental science , engineering , civil engineering , structural engineering , business , database , geography , artificial intelligence , power (physics) , physics , geodesy , marketing , chemical engineering , quantum mechanics
The paper reports on a benchmark of European deemed‐to‐satisfy rules for exposure class XC (carbonation exposed structural members). The benchmark of the descriptive rules was carried out following the probabilistic design approach for carbonation‐induced corrosion developed in [1] and adopted in fib bulletin 34: Model Code for Service Life Design (2006) [2] and fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010 [3], respectively. To perform a representative study, three groups of European countries were selected, representing different parts of Europe, south (Spain, Portugal), middle (Netherlands, Great Britain and Germany) and northern Europe (Denmark, Norway). Reliability ranges for carbonation‐induced depassivation of rebar were calculated for ”favourable“ and ”unfavourable“ design situations in exposure classes XC2, XC3 and XC4 [4]. In each design situation the deemed‐to‐satisfy rules of selected countries were followed. The probabilistic calculations were mainly based on short‐term carbonation data. However, some calculations were also based on long‐term observation. The latter was implemented for independent validation purposes. The calculated reliability ranges are very broad and in some ”unfavourable“ situations, the deemed‐to satisfy requirements do not guarantee the required limit state (LS) arget reliabilities for the particular exposure. In ”favoura‐ble“ situations less stringent demands would have been sufficient.