Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Structural Appraisal Methodology For Ageing Public Rental Housing (PRH) Buildings With Reinforcement Corrosion - Part 3

    Uploaded by

    BQ He
    2 views7 pages

    Original Title

    Structural Appraisal Methodology for Ageing Public Rental Housing (PRH) Buildings with Reinforcement Corrosion - Part 3

    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

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views7 pages

    Structural Appraisal Methodology For Ageing Public Rental Housing (PRH) Buildings With Reinforcement Corrosion - Part 3

    Uploaded by

    BQ He

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 7
    Recent measurements on new ribbed bars indicate the common phenomena that actual bar sizes (not at the ribbed portions) are less than the nominal size Measurements for high tensile bars indicate a ‘discount’ up to 7%. Apparently manufacturers tend to save on material within the tolerance allowed by the code (C82 allows a deviation of 8% for any cross-sectional dimension). Such negative deviation from the nominal bar size should not be mistaken for loss of section. However, as conclusions drawn from measurement of new bars cannot be generalized for bars made over 40 years ago, it may be considered reasonable to adopt the following approach- 1. If the bars are generally in good condition (no rust or very little rust) and the bar sizes as measured are within 8%, then no loss of area due corrosion is assumed. The nominal bar sizes are to be adopted in the appraisal. 2. If bars are found to have corrosion generally, the measured steel areas should be used. Measurements on mild steel round bars have also been made. The measured deviations range only from -3% to +4%. Therefore for mild steel round bars, the measured steel areas should be used. Apart from loss of strength due to loss of steel area, the effect on bond and shear capacity should also be checked. 7.1.4 Statistically Analysis Method For assessing the conditions at specific local locations, the average values can be used. For global integrity assessment, there is no clear or authoritative reference on the method to be adopted. A characteristic value of the average reinforcement area at 95% confidence level in accordance with BS2846 can be used. Where meaningful groupings can be made for different level of bar corrosion in the building, the characteristic values of the average bar size reduction of different grouped elements can be used. To minimize over-estimating the effect of corrosion on larger diameter bars, the actual steel corrosion in terms of linear measurement shall be used. 7.1.5 Corrosion Rate ‘The most commonly adopted model for reinforcement corrosion is the two-stage process developed by Tuutti. [7] First is the initiation period during which carbonation or chloride ingress occurs, starting at the surface and progressing on a time-dependent basis to the reinforcement. This is followed by a propagation period fiom the onset of corrosion to the point at which some threshold of deterioration in the concrete is reached. This is illustrated in the following Degree of corosion Based on this model, ifthe time of start of the propagation period and the rate of corrosion is known, the deterioration, and hence the structural conditions, at any time can be determined. This is important in predicting the remaining service life of the structure and also in determining the repair works required. Unfortunately, the corrosion rate is affected by a number of environmental factors and varies from structures to structures and even from locations to locations. Andrade [8] measured electrochemically the amount of metal loss and suggested the following equation for calculating loss of diameter: - D(t) = Di) — 0.023 x ever x t ‘Where D(t) = remaining diameter at time t, De Teo = corrosion rate in je m/year nitial diameter For negligible risk due to corrosion, Ieqris about 1 jz m/year which is equivalent to a corrosion rate of about 0.023 mmv/year. This value could be as high as 0.23 mm/year (.€. Icon is about 10 jr:m/year) for high risk locations. In a Buildings 1 : a Evtimated risk ot steel ‘carbonation, chlorides and environmental conditions for 40-year-old concrete structures Tove eaten in [owe kale edo (p10) | sy ar rena oe [Pte te ph oenonaon Tavis psed the renreenet | inthe Department's internal reference document [9], values of 0.015 mm/year of reduction in bar radius for intact or lightly cracked section and 0.3 mmv/year for bars exposed to atmosphere due to spalling or extensive cracking have been suggested. These values are considered reasonable for our use. The lower value of 0.015 mmv/year (reduction in radius) is considered justifiable as normally all concrete surfaces in PRH building are provided with finishes such as tiling, screeds, renders and paints. Since incidence of corrosion is probabilistic and the risk of corrosion increase with time, the risk of corrosion can be estimated based the age of the structure, the environment (ie. humidity), the alkalinity (i.e. carbonation) and the chloride evel. BRE Digest 444 [7] suggests the following typical risk assessment for a 40-year old conerete structure. we veri tow [Modem | ge ‘err = ‘weatge | tow | Modeate es veh = Having made an assessment of the building and allocated the building to a risk category, an appropriate repair strategy can then be formulated. This type of risk assessment however must be validated against the information collected through inspection, testing and analysis of the buildings. A sound knowledge base on the information is therefore essential for this approach to be successful. 7.2. Verification of concrete strength for appraised structures 7.2.1 Vertical structural members In planning a structural investigation of a building, the determination of the 1 actual concrete strength is one of the important tasks, If detailed structural appraisal had been carried out in the past, the concrete strength of vertical structural members should have been properly assessed based on sufficient number of test results, As it is the widely belief that concrete gains strength with age and that there is no research or report on any time-related loss of concrete strength, itis reasonable to assume that there is no significant change of strength. within the period under consideration. ‘Therefore, a simple verification may be sufficient to confirm the assumption. A. null-hypothesis test with 2-tail condition is to be adopted. Detailed procedures are as follows: - 1, Determine the mean concrete strength (m) and the standard deviation (SD) from the concrete core test results in the past structural appraisal. 2. Extract a minimum of 5 (nj) cores from the building and determine the mean value (m). 3. Determine the interval (E) that the hypothesis can be rejected based on the following equation: - te a E=z2xSDi/m ~ Mt sb = 2215 SD ‘Where z= 1.96 for 5% level of significance 4, If |m- m| E, the hypothesis has to be rejected and further investigation into the conerete strength shall have to be carried out, 6. Ifmy>'m, the concrete strength based on the past data can still be used for the initial assessment as the lower bound value, which may be refined if deficient elements are identified 7. Ifm,

    You might also like