Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Beton Klase Izlozenosti

    Uploaded by

    marictom
    26 views6 pages
    Beton klase izloženosti XA3

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Beton klase izloženosti XA3

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    26 views6 pages

    Beton Klase Izlozenosti

    Uploaded by

    marictom
    Beton klase izloženosti XA3

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 6
    A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE DURABILITY CRITERIA IN THE NEW EUROPEAN STANDARD (EN 206) FOR CONCRETE STRUCTURES Silvia Collepard, Luigi Coppola!, Roberto Troi’, Mario Cotlepardi* ABSTRACT ‘The present European Standard ENV 206 for performance, production and ‘conformity of concrete will be replaced by the new Europesn Standard EN 206. ‘This is presendy available as "draft prEN 206" which must be submitted to CEN members for CEN inquiry before becoming a European Standard In particular, by passing from ENV 206 to EN 206, the exposure classes related to ‘environmental conditions as well as the corresponding recommendations for durable concretes have been significantly changed. In the new EN 206, for each environmental exposure class recommendations are ‘given in terms of water-cement ratio (w/c) , air content, cement factor, and ‘srength class. The following aspects are examined in the present paper: a) moderate humidity (XD/); wet, rarely dry (XD2), eyclic wet and dry (XD4), All these subd- classes (Table 3) refer to concrete structures exposed to chlorides other than from sea water (see section 2.3), and including chlorides from de-icing salts but without freezing-thawing (for instance slabs of internal car park in winter time). There is some difficulty in understanding the reasoa why two different environmental sub- classes (XDI and XD2) were proposed ("malerate humidity” versus "wer, rarely ‘dry") with the same lists in terms of w e, strength class and cement content (0.55, 37 Nimm! and 300 ks/m’ respectively). Moreover, for concrete structures in exposure classes XCY (Table 2) and 402 (Table 3) the minimum strength class is the same (37 Nimm!) but there are different w.c requirements (0.50 and 0.55 respectively) ‘Table 3 - Exposure class XD: Corrosion of the reinforcements induced by chlorides other than from sea water Ta Erwirnment] Etnies where pase] Min] Min] Min signin: | escrpton. eases may ocr we | Sere | een Geom) Eo Modes |= Sinctures export direct 053] 37300 ui sexy containing chlorides | I x Wei ae Gy [= Sing pole oT) + Stvturesexped 0 { sta waters th Ct co Chel wet ond» Pas oF nase os as + Pmements + Corp slabs “Scube concrete sirengih class (Ninn) based on cement Of srenaih Cass 32.5 23 Exposure class XS: Corrosion of the reinforcement induced by chlorides from sea water ‘The authors of the present ceport agree with the theoretical distinction in three diferent environmental exposures as far as the consequences of the corrosion, induced by sea water, ae concerned (Table 4: XS/ for structures near to the coast ‘exposed to airborne salt, X52 for submerged pars of marine structures; XS3 for tidal, splash and spray zones for semi-immersed parts of marine structures where cowygen can feed the reinforcement cocosion more effectively than in the corresponding submerged structures. However, from a practical point of view itis very difficult to manage a job site where two concrete mixtures should be placed 1012 for the same sructure of a mare work. one mixture with exposure sub-class X52 for that part cf the siucture which is fully submerged, and an other mixture with ‘exposure sub- Pars ot wacine amuses | 03 [S| 3a and spay 00e8| “cube concrete strength class (Nim) based on cement of strength cass 32.5, 2.4 Exposure class XF: Freeze-thaw attack Theoretically the freezing-thawing effect may be more severe in slabe than in vertical surfaces due to the direct rain exposure and then to the higher water saturation before fieezing However, trom a practical goint of view, it is very difficult to organize the placing of different concrete mixtures in horizontal and vertical surfaces of the same work For instance, piers, abutments, beams and decks in the seme bridge, should be manufactured by using diffecent concretes depending on the specific exposure sub-class (Table 5) ‘+ we < 0.55 without entrained sir for vertical surfaces exposed :0 sain and freexing (XFA), ‘© we $ 0.55 with a least 4% by volume of entrained air for vertical surfaces as above but exposed to airborne deicng sats (XF2); 013 ‘+ wie $0.50 with 4% of entrained air for horizontal surfaces exposed to freezing ‘without deicing salts (XF3), ‘+ we £0.45 with 4% of entrained air for horizontal surfaces exposed to freezing and direct spray of deicing salts (XF 4). Even in this exposure class (Table 5) there are some technical contradictions between maximum w/c and minimum strength class. For instance, the different ‘maximum w/c which should be adopted in concrete mixtures for exposure sub- classes AF3 and XFY (0.50 and 0.45 respectively) does not agree with the same minimum strength class (37 N/mm’) for both the mixtures at equal entrained air (2 4%). Moreover, in the exposure class XF3 (max, wic = 0.50 and min. air volume 4%) the strength class is the same (37 Nimm*) as that of exposure class ACY (Table 2) or exposure class X42 (Table 6) where the same wic ratio should be ‘adopted in the absence of entrained air. A cube strength class of 30 Nim for the airentrained concrete in exposure class AF? would be more adequate than 37 ’Nimm’ (Table 5) in order to temove these contradictions, ‘Table S - Exposure class XF: Freeze-thaw attack Ges [eRmen | Bemaie | Nac | Min 7 Min 7 Mn raoe|decripuon | expeure cases sureigh | cement | air eee ms “poveccee | WC | “ase | coment [oie ! tem) | 00) WH [Molewiewaer[oVericalmitees | 035[ 37) satraon expesedio ain | toot dicing, | and ering ss SHY Ratenie taier”sVonieraaraecs O55 [| tarason, with |" ofead aracire ldcicing sats | exposed to freeing and i | slibore ding | t | sa ET |igh wer | elonzanat oH | Jscraton, | "suices exposed thou deicing. | to run and i als freeing 3ET High water [eorzonat | Oa | t sara. with | "sutaces of road | feicing sas | strates and ‘eral srices exposed det | Spay of ding si ‘cube concrete sivengih class (Nima) based on cement of strength class 32.5 lola However, all the above comments appear to be of negligible concem when compared with the confusion arising from the recommended limits for the same structure in exposure classes XC or XF. Think for instance about a reinforced concrete wall ia two different environments, both characterized by wet-dry cycles the only difference being the absence or the presence of freezing-thawing cycles in wintertime: the exposure sub-class should be XC¥ for the wail in Rome and XFO for the sarie wall in Stockholm. Accordingly, the w/c of the concrete should be 0.50 (Table 2) for @ wall in Rome and 0.55 (Table 5) for the cocresponding walt in Stockholm both without air-entrainnent, So, the more severe exposure in Stockholm (weating-drying cycles*freezing-thawing cycles) would require a less restrictive requirement in terms of w'c than the lest severe exposure in Rome (werting-drying eycles without freezing-thawing cycles), 2.5 Exposure class XA: che ial attack, ‘Table 6 has been rearranged and simplified on the basis of the original table as available in EN 206 for concretes exposed to chemical atack (14) coming from soil or water. This exposure class seems to be the masterpiece of complication in the new EN 205 European Standard. For instance, for an underground concrete structure (such as foundation or pipe) the following parameters should be determined ‘* sulphate content of the soil ¢o select the corresponding exposure sub-class (041, 102, 743), ‘+ water permeability to consider whether or not to the environment should be ‘moved into a lower class depending on the specific soil permeability; * acidity ofthe soil based on the German Standard test DIN 4030-2 (3) in order to move the exposure sub-class from XAJ to X42 whether the acidity is higher than 20° Baumann Gully in sol with a sulfate enoteat in the range of 2000-3000 mg/kg, The authors ofthe present report think that neither design engineers nor architects (even in Germany) will specify such a complicated durability tequicement for an underground concrete structure ‘According t0 EN 206 the exposure class VA deals with the “chemical attack which ‘occurs in naturel soils, gronnd woter al sen water”. Since a specie sea water aggression - based on chloride induced corrasian of reinforcements: exposute class XS) - has teen already examined in Table 4, one should assume that the sea ‘water attack mestioned in exposure class XA relates to the concrete sulfate attack and then deals with both plain and ceinforced structures However, there is some Concern on the confusion risk for the user of this norm: in practice he cannot find which is the specific exposure sub-class (XA/, X42 or X43) for the sea water attack on plan concrete structures and the corresponding wre (0.85, 0.50 or 0.45} ‘hich should be adopted. In other words, after mentioning the sea water attack as included in exposure class XA, the committee of the EN 206 forget to put it lors re next higher Glass Comet Min kan! Min Seong tase ” » 4s 058 050 04s wie 00 1000 $3000 23000) Nite cagt) aT 20 <0 7 WATER tO, coh Be a0 30 100 >a ss 45 3S 40 Enviroomet Spion™ 600 3500 3000 ‘S000 S000 sn00¢ i g 3 2 2 E = : 2 a 8 i i é 3 t z g 3 307 > iz007 gry caw |

    You might also like