4.7 Article

Influence of cracks on chloride diffusivity in concrete: A five-phase mesoscale model approach

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 197, 期 -, 页码 587-596

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.208

关键词

Concrete; Crack; Chloride diffusion; Mesoscale model; Numerical simulation; Multi-phase

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2015CB057701]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51378081]
  3. National Science Natural Science Foundation of China [51678149]
  4. Hunan Provincial Postgraduate Innovation Project [CX201513344]
  5. Natural Science foundation of Hunan Province [2018JJ2348]
  6. Guangdong Science and Technology Planning [2016A010103045]
  7. Open Fund of National-Local Joint Laboratory of Engineering Technology for Long-term Performance enhancement of Bridges in Southern District (Changsha University of Science Technology) [201809]
  8. China Scholarship Council [201603780063]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a mesoscale numerical approach to investigate the chloride diffusivity in cracked concrete. Concrete is treated as a five-phase material, including cement paste, aggregate, interfacial transition zone (ITZ), crack, and damaged zone (DZ), for its heterogeneity. In the mesoscale model, the randomly distributed aggregates were treated as impermeable, whereas all other phases are assumed permeable but with different diffusion coefficients. It is assumed that the crack is located in the middle of the DZ, and there is a liner relationship of the chloride diffusion coefficients between the DZ and the crack. The developed mesoscale model is validated by comparing the simulation results with the experimental data. Finally, the influence of the DZ, such as the chloride diffusion coefficient, the width and length of the DZ, the width and length of the crack, on the penetration of chlorides in cracked concrete is examined and discussed. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据