Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CITATION
READS
100
4 authors:
An Duan
Ye Tian
Zhejiang University
Zhejiang University
6 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS
34 PUBLICATIONS 62 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Jian-Guo Dai
Zhejiang University
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
1 Introduction
Frost damage is an important concern for concrete
infrastructures built in cold regions. There are two major
types of frost-induced concrete damage [7]: (1) the
internal micro-cracking and disruption of concrete
caused by frozen moisture, and (2) surface scaling,
which is local flaking or peeling of a finished surface as a
result of exposure to freeze and thawing [32]. The latter
is normally limited to the surface, whereas the former
leads to a substantial reduction in the mechanical
properties of concrete in terms of both its strength and
stiffness [24]. As a consequence, increasing attention
has been paid to the internal deterioration of concrete
due to frost damage over the past two decades. One of
the foci has been the modeling of the internal damage
evolution of concrete exposed to freezethaw action.
Attempts have been made to assess the frostinduced internal damage of concrete using both
empirical [21, 22] and theoretical [3, 8] approaches.
In all of these models, however, the internal damage is
expressed in terms of the loss of dynamic modulus of
elasticity. Fagerlund [8] developed his model based on
the critical degree of saturation theory, whereas Cai
[3] deployed a hydraulic hypothesis and fatigue
damage theory to describe the damage process.
Nevertheless, most of these existing models are
deterministic, and as such they cannot reflect the
highly stochastic nature of concrete.
Concrete is, by nature, a heterogeneous material,
mainly because of its composite components. Such
H t Tx; yds
3
Dt
A0 A0
X
(
FT t
n
o
1 exp gt cb
tc
0
t\c
A0
0
H t sfT s ; x; ydsds
c1
g0 c 2 x
b )
10
Combining Eqs. (7) and (10), the expected value of
the damage can be obtained as follows:
2
lD t 1 2
a
(
Za
0
c1
x exp g0 c2 xt c1 H t
g 0 c2 x
b )
dx
11
Let
G x x
(
exp g0 c2 xt c1 H t
c1
g0 c 2 x
b )
12
Then
2
lD t 1 2
a
Za
Gxdx
0
13
14
ZZ
X
H t s1 H t s2 ds1 ds2
X
fT s1 ; s2 ; s1 ; s2 ds1 ds2
15
ZZ
ZZ
X
FT t; t; s1 ; s2 ds1 ds2
16
18
F t1 ; t2 PT1 t1 ; T2 t2
n
o
1 exp g1 t1 c1 H t1 c1 b
n
o
exp g2 t2 c2 H t2 c2 b
n n
exp g1 t1 c1 H t1 c1 b=r
or o
g2 t2 c2 H t2 c2 b=r
19
Substituting Eqs. (5) and (19) into (17) leads to
r2D t
ZZ
ZZ
n n
exp g1 t c1 H t c1 b=r
X
X
or o
g2 t c2 H t c2 b=r
ds1 ds2 1 lD t2
1
A20
20
3.1 Freezethaw tests
G x
G i
21
n
2
n
i1
0
2 a G0 Ga X
a
lD t 1 2
22
G i
a n
2
n
i1
Similarly, the variance of the damage parameter
can be obtained as
r2D t
n X
n
1X
Kij 1 lD t2
n4 i1 j1
23
24
Group code
F40
F45
F55
F60
w/c
0.40
0.45
0.55
0.60
Cement
Fine
aggregate
Coarse
aggregate
Water
466
653
1089
187
433
587
360
1139
647
305
1201
720
1196
195
198
183
D
D1
D2
D3
25
0.049
0.057
0.046
50
0.134
0.191
0.138
75
0.140
0.211
0.168
100
0.207
0.305
0.225
125
0.254
0.344
0.269
150
0.317
0.444
0.331
200
0.521
0.659
0.539
225
0.550
0.664
0.580
250
0.554
0.699
0.636
25
0.073
0.054
0.056
50
0.141
0.095
0.106
75
0.235
0.143
0.186
100
0.412
0.281
0.336
125
0.515
0.377
0.440
150
10
0.648
0.038
0.506
0.047
0.544
0.029
20
0.134
0.200
0.149
30
0.204
0.237
0.183
40
0.257
0.335
0.266
50
0.403
0.493
0.370
60
0.425
0.539
0.407
70
0.462
0.607
0.437
80
0.551
0.697
0.510
10
0.112
0.092
0.146
20
0.406
0.347
0.429
30
0.463
0.443
0.540
35
0.486
0.529
0.605
45
0.676
0.750
0.802
50
0.749
0.772
0.843
SiO2
Al2O3
Fe2O3
CaO
MgO
SO3
Cl-
Loss on ignition
Cement
28.28
5.42
3.11
55.95
1.63
2.06
0.014
2.5
Ed
E0
25
g0
c1
c2
0.40
0.0043
1.2
0.081
0.01
0.98
0.45
0.0049
1.2
0.061
0.01
0.98
0.55
0.0116
1.2
0.030
0.01
0.98
0.60
0.0261
1.2
0.027
0.01
0.98
26
c1 0:98 exp6:208w/c
27
Fig. 6 Evolution of the standard deviation of D: experimental data versus model prediction
(2)
(3)
[27]
[12]
[3]
w/c
0.5
0.5
0.45
0.60
[21]
0.48
Fine
aggregate
Coarse
aggregate
Water
383
663
1154
193
N/A
444
333
360
N/A
555
636
737
lDtest
lDmodel
lDmodel/lDtest
25
0.15
0.081
0.54
50
0.18
0.209
1.16
75
0.28
0.332
1.19
100
0.38
0.443
1.17
10
0.008
0.012
1.50
17
0.029
0.042
1.45
28
0.054
0.096
1.77
41
0.151
0.162
1.07
76
0.428
0.336
0.79
205
0.727
0.764
1.05
305
25
0.843
0.075
0.905
0.039
1.07
0.52
50
0.130
0.133
1.02
75
0.200
0.229
1.15
100
0.325
0.321
0.99
125
0.475
0.407
0.86
N/A
1200
1230
1106
N/A
200
200
172.8
0.20
0.070
0.35
25
0.31
0.452
1.46
35
0.41
0.598
1.46
50
0.10
0.170
1.70
100
0.27
0.382
1.41
150
0.78
0.556
0.71
[35]
0.5
360
769
1061
180
25
0.080
0.081
1.01
50
0.122
0.209
1.71
[34]
0.6
300
699
1191
180
10
0.15
0.171
1.14
[36]
0.4
360
700
1143
144
25
50
0.50
0.14
0.452
0.098
0.90
0.70
100
0.24
0.270
1.13
150
0.39
0.427
1.09
235
0.55
0.636
1.16
25
0.074
0.017
0.23
50
0.095
0.098
1.03
[19]
[33]
0.4
0.4
408
525
788
525
1043
1139
163.2
210
75
0.124
0.185
1.49
100
0.187
0.270
1.44
125
0.331
0.352
1.06
150
0.488
0.427
0.88
175
0.639
0.496
0.78
200
0.745
0.559
0.75
25
0.069
0.017
0.25
50
0.123
0.098
0.80
75
0.149
0.185
1.24
w/c
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
[5]
[6]
Reference
[28]
0.48
0.42
w/c
0.45
0.55
Fine
aggregate
456
660
390
1077
693
345
1131
714
308
1164
732
406
1194
630
N/A
Coarse
aggregate
1169
N/A
N/A
lDtest
lDmodel
lDmodel/lDtest
100
0.179
0.270
1.51
125
0.246
0.352
1.43
150
0.303
0.427
1.41
175
0.345
0.496
1.44
190
0.398
0.534
1.34
Water
200
0.458
0.559
1.22
25
0.072
0.039
0.54
40
0.140
0.094
0.67
50
0.192
0.133
0.69
60
0.315
0.171
0.54
75
25
0.439
0.086
0.229
0.081
0.52
0.94
50
0.200
0.209
1.05
75
0.253
0.332
1.31
100
0.329
0.443
1.35
115
0.404
0.503
1.25
205
195
125
0.467
0.540
1.16
15
0.121
0.095
0.79
25
0.174
0.185
1.06
40
0.326
0.315
0.97
50
0.430
0.396
0.92
10
0.072
0.171
2.38
15
0.224
0.271
1.21
25
0.363
0.452
1.25
30
0.479
0.530
1.11
40
25
0.691
0.075
0.659
0.060
0.95
0.80
50
0.325
0.170
0.52
75
0.430
0.280
0.65
25
0.12
0.025
0.21
50
0.17
0.108
0.64
75
0.26
0.198
0.76
100
0.36
0.284
0.79
125
0.47
0.366
0.78
190
185
195
N/A
Cement
Fine aggregate
Coarse aggregate
Water
427
499
1284
192
360
611
1241
198
lDtest
lDmodel
lDmodel/lDtest
25
0.077
0.039
0.51
50
0.216
0.133
0.62
75
0.380
0.229
0.60
25
0.259
0.185
0.71
50
0.532
0.396
0.74
5 Conclusions
In this study, a stochastic damage model for concrete
subjected to freezethaw action has been developed. It
Z t ZZ
0
ZZ
1
A0
ZZ
1
A0
ZZ
1
A0
ZZ
1
A0
H t sfT s; x; ydsds
X
H t s
fT s; x; ydsds
0
X
Z t
fT s; x; ydsds
X 0
FT t; x; yds
X
FT t; x; ydxdy
X
Ht
dx
g 0 c2 x
(
Z a
Z a
2
b
xdx
x exp g0 c2 xt c1 gdx
2
a
0
0
b ) !
c1
Ht
dx
g0 c2 x
Z a
2
1 2
x exp g0 c2 xt c1
a 0
c1
Ht
g0 c2 x
lD t
11
The derivation of Eq. (16) is as follows:
E D2 t
ZZ
1
2
A0
ZZ
1
2
A0
Z t Z
ZZ
X
ZZ
fT s1 ; s2 ; s1 ; s2 ds1 ds2 ds1 ds2
FT t; t; s1 ; s2 ds1 ds2
X
16
References
1. Adnadevic B, Jankovic B, Kolar-Anic LJ et al (2007)
Normalized Weibull distribution function for modeling the
kinetics of non-isothermal dehydration of equilibrium
swollen poly (acrylic acid) hydrogel. Chem Eng J 130(1):
1117
2. Allison PD (1999) Multiple regression: a primer. Pine Forge
Press, Thousand Oaks
3. Cai H (1998) Prediction model of concrete freeze-thaw
durability. Ph.D. dissertation, Tsinghua University, Bejing,
China (in Chinese)
4. Ciampoli M (1999) A probabilistic methodology to assess
the reliability of deteriorating structural elements. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 168(14):207220
5. Cheng HQ, Gao DY (2011) Experimental study on damage
of polypropylene fiber concrete in freeze-thaw cycles.
J Southeast Univ (Natural Science Edition) 40(supII):197200 in Chinese
6. Cheng HQ, Zhang LS, Li PX (2003) The influence of
freezethaw to concrete strength. Henan Sci 21(2):214216
in Chinese
7. Fagerlund G (1997) Internal frost attack: State of the art.
Frost Resistance of Concrete. In: 2nd International RILEM
Workshop on Frost Resistance of Concrete, Essen, Germany, pp 157172