4.7 Article

Durability of air-entrained shotcrete exposed to cyclic freezing and thawing effect

期刊

COLD REGIONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 164, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.coldregions.2019.05.004

关键词

Shotcrete; Durability; Air-entraining admixture; Freeze-thaw; Damage; Prediction model

资金

  1. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) [T1462, 9]
  2. Center for Environmentally Sustainable Transportation in Cold Climates (CESTiCC) at University of Alaska Fairbanks/US Department of Transportation (USDOT) [INE/AUTC 18.03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the long-term performance of air-entrained shotcrete under cyclic freezing and thawing (F-T) is investigated and predicted. The dynamic modulus of elasticity and cohesive fracture energy of shotcrete at different F-T cycles are determined following ASTM C215 and RILEM TC 50-FMC, respectively. Both the test methods are found to be capable of examining material deterioration as a result of accumulative F-T damage; however, the fracture energy property tends to be more sensitive and degrades faster than the dynamic modulus of elasticity under the same number of F-T cycles. Probabilistic damage analysis is conducted to establish the relationship between the life (i.e., the number of F-T cycles in this study) and the damage parameter using the three-parameter Weibull distribution model. An exponential trend between the degradation of dynamic modulus of elasticity and the number of F-T cycles is observed at any given damage level. The failure rate of shotcrete increases as the number of F-T cycles increases, indicating that shotcrete exhibits more potential risk of failure and becomes less reliable when undergoing more F-T actions. The predicted results based on the polynomial probability model at 50% reliability level are consistent with the experimental results. Overall, the proposed probabilistic damage model is competent in evaluating freeze-thaw durability and predicting life of shotcrete.

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