4.4 Article

New Model for Estimating the Time-Variant Seismic Performance of Corroding RC Bridge Columns

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
卷 141, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001145

关键词

Corrosion; Chlorides; Time-variant performance; Model; Reliability; Structural safety and reliability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Corrosion of reinforcement is a predominant reason for reduced service lives of reinforced concrete (RC) structures exposed to aggressive environments. This deterioration process can lead to damage resulting in capacity loss or even structural failure, especially in coastal marine environments or where deicing or antiicing applications occur. Based on data from the National Bridge Inventory in 2010, the average bridge age in the country is 40years old. Thirty percent of the bridges have exceeded 50years, 7% have exceeded 75years, and 25% are deemed deficient. For bridges exposed to chlorides (coastal areas or deicing or antiicing exposure), these older bridges often experience corrosion of the reinforcement. When reinforcement corrodes, the capacity of the structure is likely reduced, although little work has been reported on quantifying the reduction in performance and reliability. In seismic areas, this reduction in capacity may be magnified due to the loading demands during a seismic event. Therefore, understanding the time-variant risks associated with corroding structures will assist engineers and decision makers in making sound decisions with respect to optimization of design, inspection, repair, strengthening, and/or replacement of RC structures. This paper develops a new deterministic corrosion rate model and then uses the new model to assess the time-variant reliability of a corroding column subjected to a seismic event. The results indicate that corrosion can significantly reduce the reliability of an existing bridge column over relatively short durations. (C) 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.

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

4.4
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