4.5 Article

Material and durability study of a 10-year-old crumb rubber concrete bridge deck in Tianjin, China

期刊

MAGAZINE OF CONCRETE RESEARCH
卷 73, 期 10, 页码 499-511

出版社

ICE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1680/jmacr.19.00238

关键词

carbonation; cracks & cracking; permeability & pore-related properties

资金

  1. Housi (2014) [1489-BKJ14C011]
  2. CNSF [51708314, 50478087]
  3. TJCCT Project [2016-35]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In early August 2006, a CRC bridge deck was constructed in a suburb of Tianjin, China, marking the first reported application of such technology. More than 10 years later, the deck was found to be in good condition with little deterioration in material properties. Various tests and evaluations were carried out, showing no major issues.
In early August 2006, a crumb rubber concrete (CRC) bridge deck was constructed in a suburb of Tianjin, China. Although small, measuring 24 x 8 x 0.12 m, it was the first instance of the application of a CRC bridge deck reported in public literature. More than 10 years have passed since, and the last inspection of the deck carried out in June 2017 showed that few cracks have developed in the deck surface. Visual inspection of the bottom of the bridge deck showed no sign of stains owing to water leakage. At the same time, six samples were cored from the deck and were evaluated for split strength, density and rubber content. Four cored samples were further scanned by computerised image software to reveal the distribution of rubber crumbs. In March 2019, water permeability and carbonation tests were carried out on the deck as well as on a nearby plain concrete bridge deck. This study reports on these findings and discusses issues such as flexural strength and rubber floating, and provides recommendations for rubber content in crack-controlling CRC mix design. This study concludes that the Tianjin CRC bridge deck is in good condition, that the material properties show little deterioration and that its durability has been sustained.

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

4.5
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