Brime D8

Deliverable D8
Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring
Status (P)
BRIME
PL97-2220
Project
Coordinator:
Dr R J Woodward, Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)
Partners:
Bundesanstalt fuer Strassenwesen (BASt)

Centro de Estudios y Experimentacion de Obras Publicas (CEDEX)
Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausses (LCPC)
Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA)
Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute (ZAG)
Date:
January 2001
PROJECT FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN
COMMISSION UNDER THE TRANSPORT
RTD PROGRAMME OF THE
4th FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring
by
A Blankvoll, F Fluge, C K Larsen , I Markey - NPRA

A Raharinaivo - LCPC
L Bevc, M Capuder, I. Peru - ZAG
Deliverable D8
PL97-2220
D8: Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring
CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................iii
1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
2
OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH ................................................................................................... 2

CHLORIDE INGRESS MODELS ............................................................................................ 3
2.1
FICKS SECOND LAW (REFERENCE MODEL) .................................................................................. 4
2.1.1
The physical condition of diffusion........................................................................................ 4
2.1.2
The mass balance of diffusion ............................................................................................... 5
2.1.3
The diffusion coefficient ........................................................................................................ 6
2.1.4
The initial condition .............................................................................................................. 7
2.1.5
The boundary condition......................................................................................................... 7
2.1.6
Solutions to Ficks laws......................................................................................................... 7
2.1.6.1
2.1.6.2
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
2.2.6
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.3.6
2.3.7
2.4
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.4.5
2.4.6
2.4.7
2.5
3
Steady-state diffusion the diffusion-cell technique ................................................................. 7

Non steady-state diffusion the concentration-profile technique .............................................. 8
LIGHTCON MODEL....................................................................................................................... 9
Theoretical background......................................................................................................... 9
Environmental load ............................................................................................................. 10
Values for the -parameter ................................................................................................. 10
Diffusion coefficient............................................................................................................. 10
Effect of Maturity on Diffusion............................................................................................ 11
Values selected for LightCon calculations .......................................................................... 11
THE HETEK-MODEL................................................................................................................. 11
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 11
Assumed available information ........................................................................................... 12
Assumptions of the HETEK-model ........................................................................................ 12
Mass balance of chloride in an element volume of concrete............................................... 13
Achieved chloride diffusion coefficient................................................................................ 13
Boundary condition ............................................................................................................. 14
Plotting the chloride profiles............................................................................................... 16
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HETEK AND LIGHTCON MODELS ..................................................... 17
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 17
The LIGHTCON-model and the HETEK-model ....................................................................... 17
Comparison of solutions...................................................................................................... 18
Comparison of chloride profiles.......................................................................................... 18
Differences in the predicted initiation period of time.......................................................... 19
Example ............................................................................................................................... 20
Summing up ......................................................................................................................... 22
CONDITIONAL AVERAGE ESTIMATOR - HYBRID NEURAL NETWORK ......................................... 22
CONDITION SURVEY DATA.................................................................................................. 25
3.1
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 25
3.2
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES .................................................................................................... 26
3.2.1
Norway ................................................................................................................................ 26
3.2.1.1
3.2.1.2
3.2.2
Collecting the samples ............................................................................................................. 26

Determination of the chloride content...................................................................................... 27
Slovenia ............................................................................................................................... 27
3.2.2.1
3.2.2.2
Collecting the samples ............................................................................................................. 27

Determination of the chloride content...................................................................................... 28
3.2.3
France ................................................................................................................................. 29
3.3
DESCRIPTION OF BRIDGES.......................................................................................................... 29
3.3.1
French Bridge A11 PS 12-10 ........................................................................................... 29
3.3.2
Norwegian Bridges.............................................................................................................. 30
3.3.2.1
Gimsystraumen Bridge........................................................................................................... 30
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE i

3.3.2.2
3.3.2.3
3.3.3
Slovenian Bridges................................................................................................................ 33
3.3.3.1
3.3.3.2
3.3.3.3
3.3.3.4
3.3.3.5
Hadsel Bridge........................................................................................................................... 32
Sandhornya Bridge................................................................................................................. 33
Viaduct kedenj 1 .................................................................................................................... 34
Viaduct Preloge........................................................................................................................ 35
Viaduct Slatina......................................................................................................................... 37
Viaduct epina......................................................................................................................... 37
Viaduct Ivanje Selo.................................................................................................................. 39
CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS .......................................................................................... 41
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
CALCULATION PARAMETERS ..................................................................................................... 41

RESULTS NORWEGIAN BRIDGES ............................................................................................. 42
RESULTS SLOVENIAN BRIDGES ............................................................................................... 44
RESULTS FRENCH BRIDGE ...................................................................................................... 45
PREDICTION OF CURRENT CHLORIDE CONTENT .......................................................................... 46
DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................... 47
PROBABILISTIC APPROACH TO SERVICE LIFE ............................................................ 49
MONITORING AND BRIDGE MANAGEMENT .................................................................. 53
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.6.1
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 53
GIMSYSTRAUMEN BRIDGE REPAIR PROJECT ........................................................................... 53
WHY INSTALL A COMPUTERISED MONITORING SYSTEM?......................................................... 54
WHAT SHOULD BE MONITORED?.............................................................................................. 55
WHERE TO INSTRUMENT? ......................................................................................................... 58
BMS, MONITORING AND CHLORIDE INGRESS MODELS ............................................................. 58
Routines for new and existing structures............................................................................. 59
6.6.1.1
Method of Inverse Cores.......................................................................................................... 62
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 65
FUTURE WORK ........................................................................................................................ 67
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 69
Annexe A: Condition Survey Data

Annexe B: Results from the Chloride Ingress Models
Annexe C: Results from the Predicted Chloride Ingress
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SCOPE
Europe has a large capital investment in the road network including bridges, which are
the most vulnerable element. As bridges age, deterioration caused by heavy traffic and
an aggressive environment becomes increasingly significant resulting in a higher
frequency of repairs and possibly a reduced load carrying capacity.
The purpose of the BRIME (Bridge Management in Europe) project is to develop a
framework for the management of bridges on the European road network that enables
bridges to be maintained at minimum overall cost i.e. taking all factors into account
including condition of the structure, load carrying capacity, rate of deterioration, effect
on traffic, life of the repair and the residual life of the structure.
SUMMARY
This report presents the results of one of the eight work packages of the European
funded project BRIME. In brief, the report deals with modelling chloride ingress in
concrete bridges and monitoring corrosion within a bridge management system. Further
details concerning the project BRIME are given in the other project deliverables and a
brief overview is given on the TRL web-site (http://www.trl.co.uk/brime/index.htm).
Prediction of deterioration is an important aspect of bridge management for estimation
of remaining service life and planning future maintenance tasks. The objective of the
work package was to consolidate and improve existing knowledge concerning the
modelling and surveillance of chloride penetration into concrete. Chloride ions are
considered the primary cause of corrosion in concrete bridges. The results of this work
package will help public authorities establish investigative procedures to monitor the
danger of and predict corrosion of their concrete structures. As such it will be an
important tool in:
increasing the durability of new concrete structures by allowing the identification

of and ranking in order of importance the predominate factors affecting corrosion;
deciding the optimal time to carry out preventative maintenance or repair;
assisting in long term budget planning.
The work package had the following three main tasks:

1. Creation of a databank of condition parameters for several concrete bridges
including local exposure conditions (micro-climates). Some extra investigations
were performed to confirm/confute the predictions made by the models selected in
Task 2.
2. Selection, use and assessment of several chloride ingress models. The models
investigated were: Ficks 2nd law (used as reference model); Selmer - Poulsen
model (LightCon model) with improvements by Mejlbro (Hetek model). The use
of neural network models was also evaluated.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE iii
3. Investigate the requirements of a bridge management system that incorporates

prediction models, condition surveys and monitoring. Assessment of residual
service life and a probabilistic approach is also addressed.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE iv
BRIDGE MANAGEMENT AND CONDITION MONITORING
INTRODUCTION
The report presents the results of the Work Package 4 (WP4). The work package has limited
itself to dealing with modelling chloride ingress (initiation phase only) and monitoring corrosion
within a bridge management system (BMS). This was due to the fact that the project had a
limited time scale and that corrosion of reinforcement is the most serious and widespread type
of damage for bridges. As such the work package has not investigated other types of damage
e.g. freeze/thaw, carbonation, sulphate attack which were treated to a certain extent in Work
Package 3 [22]. Most deterioration types are described by one or more models [18] and the
majority are under continuous development. The models differ in their accuracy and complexity
and frequently dont take more than one damage mechanism into account. In fact, quantification
of real damage to the structure or reduction to the bearing capacity is usually an extrapolation,
based on engineering judgement, of the results of models and investigations rather than a direct
result of a model.
Figure 1.1 Bridge in exposed marine climate

The benefits of being able to predict the future condition of an element, or of the entire
structure, are discussed in Work Package 7 [26] and can be briefly summarised as:
allow the right maintenance/repair operation to be performed at the right moment in time
thereby optimising the maintenance budget for that structure
optimise the long term budget of the bridge stock
forecast the safety index of individual structures and of the bridge stock
see the effect of non-optimal budget strategies
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 1

As mentioned, this report does not cover all these topics. Similarly, where monitoring is
concerned, the report confines itself to the subject of corrosion monitoring of concrete bridges
where the corrosion is initiated by chloride ions. To ensure that the reader does not spend
unnecessary time, the report does not treat:
corrosion propagation
other damage types, or combination of other damage types with reinforcement corrosion
deterioration of structure
deterioration of bridge stock
1.1
Objectives of the research
Prediction of deterioration is an important aspect of bridge management for estimation of

remaining service life and planning future maintenance tasks. The objective of the work
package is to consolidate and improve existing knowledge concerning the modelling and
surveillance of chloride penetration in concrete. Chloride ions are considered the primary
cause of corrosion in concrete bridges. The results of this work package will help public
authorities establish investigative procedures to monitor the danger of and predict corrosion
of their concrete structures. As such it will be an important tool in:
increasing the durability of new concrete structures by allowing the identification of and
ranking in order of importance the predominate factors affecting corrosion;
deciding the optimal time to carry out preventative maintenance or repair;
assisting long term budget planning.
Work package 4 had the following three main tasks:

1. Creation of a databank of condition parameters for several concrete bridges including
local exposure conditions (micro-climates). Extra investigations are performed to
confirm/confute the predictions made by the models selected in Task 2.
2. Selection, use and assessment of several chloride ingress models. The models investigated
are: Ficks 2nd law (used as reference model); Selmer - Poulsen model (LightCon model)
with improvements by Mejlbro (Hetek model). The use of neural network models is also
evaluated.
3. Investigate the requirements of a bridge management system that incorporates prediction
models, condition surveys and monitoring. Assessment of residual service life and a
probabilistic approach is also addressed.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 2
CHLORIDE INGRESS MODELS
Chloride penetration is mainly due to a combination of chemical and physical processes. The
most important processes are:
Diffusion; a process due to a gradient of chloride concentration in the concrete. Gradient

means that the chloride concentration is higher at one location than at another. This is
shown in figure 2.1 for the typical case where the concrete surface has a higher
concentration than in its core. As chloride is dissolved in water, diffusion process occurs
only in pore solution inside concrete,
Capillary suction of chloride contaminated water; a process that takes place in empty or
partly filled concrete pores. It means that water (moisture) content and concrete porosity
are the main parameters that influence capillary suction.
Some chloride binding reactions occur between cement components (chloroaluminates, etc.)
and chloride ions. These reactions are either physical adsorption, chemical reaction, or a
combination of the two. Chloride binding is strongly influenced by climatic conditions. All
the prediction models, which were applied in BRIME project, are based on the diffusion
process but they include several supplementary assumptions. The models are :
Fick's law describes a pure diffusion process. Any diffusion law is valid only in concrete
which is permanently saturated with water. It means that it is not valid in the concrete
surface layer which sometimes can be dry. So, climatic conditions and concrete porosity
determine how thick this concrete layer is where the diffusion law does not apply.
LightCon and Hetek models are based on the diffusion process. However, boundary
conditions that are constant in Ficks law may be time dependent, e.g. chloride content on
concrete surface. Concrete porosity and cement type are important parameters in this
model.
Conditional Average Estimator - Hybrid Neural Network (CAE-HNN). In this model,
determination of the whole chloride profile at a certain location is based on a set of
measured data with similar features using neural networks. The ingress of the chlorides is
based on diffusion. For this reason a substitute diffusion coefficient is calculated between
the measured points. As there is currently not enough data available of chloride profiles at
the same locations at different times, Fick's law is used to make time prediction.
It should be noticed that the diffusion coefficient is determined for a given substance
(chloride ion, etc.) entering a given material. If this material changes, for example, after
ageing, this coefficient also changes.
It was initially planned to use two other models: Vesikari and Steen. However, the analysis
tool for the Steen model was not obtained and the time necessary to develop an equivalent
tool outweighed the possible benefits of its use. The Vesikari model is based on a feature of
diffusion law, which states that a relationship exists between times t and depths L, for which
chloride content has a given value (t = K.L2). According to this model, factor K depends on
concrete water-cement ratio and on the environment. This model can be used in the design
phase for concrete bridge decks, but not with condition survey data. As such it was not
pursued in this project.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 3

Extensive investigations on chloride ingress in concrete form the basis for the research on
chloride induced rebar corrosion. In this project, observations are taken from real structures
made of different concrete grades, and subjected to different environmental conditions and
exposure times.
Chloride Content
Cs
Cmax
Cs :Computed chloride content

on the concrete surface
Cmax :Maximum recorded

chloride content
Ct :Chloride threshold
value
Ct
xt
Depth of Chloride Ingress
Figure 2.1 Simplified model for chloride ingress in concrete

The chloride profile, figure 2.1, is a simple illustration of some of the essential parameters
when modelling chloride ingress in concrete and hence, also the service life of the structure.
As a simplification the design service life is frequently taken as the initiation period and the
propagation period is conservatively neglected.
2.1
Ficks second law (reference model)
In 1855 Adolf Eugen Fick (1829-1901) formulated the laws of diffusion by direct analogy
with the equation of heat conduction presented by J. B. J. Fourier in 1822. However, the
application of Ficks laws to chloride ingress into concrete appears many years later when
presented by Collepardi et al in the early seventies. Thus the study of chloride diffusion
processes in concrete technology is still fairly young.
2.1.1
The physical condition of diffusion
A. E. Fick defined the fundamental concept of the flux J (here for the transport of chloride in
concrete) as the transport (of chloride) through a unit area of a section (of the concrete) per
unit of time, and he formulated the physical condition for diffusion in analogy with Fouriers
work. This condition, called Ficks first law of diffusion, says (for concrete) that - the flux (of
chloride) is proportional to the concentration gradient (of chloride) measured normally to the
section, i.e.:
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 4
J = D
C
x
(1)
Where:
J is the flux of chloride per unit area

C is the concentration of chloride at the abscissa x [mol/m3]
D is the chloride diffusion coefficient [m2/s] (the factor D, which A. E. Fick called: the
constant depending on the nature of the substances).
The negative sign in Eq (1) arises because diffusion of chloride occurs in the direction
opposite to that of increasing concentration of chloride. Eq (1) is the simplest possible
relation between flux and gradient. In words the flux of chloride is proportional to the
diffusion coefficient D and the gradient C/x of the chloride profile at the abscissa x and the
chloride tends to diffuse against localities having less chloride concentration.
There are cases where such simple relation as Eq (1) should not be applied. The diffusion
process may be irreversible or has a history-dependence. In such cases more complicated
relations have to be applied. However, for normal chloride ingress into concrete no tests have
proved that Ficks first law of diffusion is not valid.
2.1.2
The mass balance of diffusion
When chloride diffuse into concrete a change of the chloride concentration C occurs at any
time t in every point x of the concrete, i.e. a non-steady state of diffusion.
Consider a small volume of the concrete. At time t this volume contains a concentration of
dissolved chloride (in pore liquid) and bound chloride (chemically bound to the hydration
products of the cement and physically bound to the surface of the cement gel). During a small
time interval the concentration of chloride will change, an amount of chloride will diffuse
into the volume and another (smaller) amount will diffuse out of the volume. Formulating
that the change of (the total) chloride concentration of the volume is the difference between
the flow of chloride into the volume and the flow of chloride out of the volume the following
relation is obtained:
C
J
dx =
dx
t
x
where
C
t
(2)
is the rate of change in concentration of the solute [mol/m3s]
This equation of mass balance will be valid for all properties of concrete. Where Ficks first
law Eq (1) is valid, the relation
C
C
= D
t x
x
BRIME PL97-2220
(3)
PAGE 5

is obtained. Eq (3) is called Ficks general law of diffusion, and is valid where Ficks first law
is assumed.
In the case where the diffusion coefficient D is independent of the locality x (but may e.g. be
dependent of the time t), Eq (3) obeys the following simple form:
C
2C
= D 2
t
x
(4)
known as Ficks second law for a diffusion coefficient independent of x.

Important assumptions in Ficks second law are:
1. D is independent of the distance x
2. Diffusion occurs in one dimension only, i.e. along the x-axis
3. D is independent of the time t
2.1.3
The diffusion coefficient
Concrete is a non-homogeneous material living material. Its properties vary through the
concrete, and changes with the macro structure as well as the microstructure. Therefore, the
diffusion coefficient in general is dependent on the parameters of the diffusion equation, i.e.
time t, abscissa x and the chloride concentration C. The variation of D is not known in all
details and thus approximations are applied. The most common approximations use are listed
below:
The general case. The diffusion coefficient depends on the variables of the differential
equation x, t and C, i.e. D = D(x, t, C). Ficks second law has the form Eq(3).
Location-dependent diffusion coefficient. The chloride diffusion coefficient depends on

the location x, i.e. D = D(x). In this case Ficks second law of diffusion yields:
C
C
= D( x)
t x
x
Time-dependent diffusion coefficient. The chloride diffusion coefficient of the concrete

depends on the time t, i.e. D = D(t). This condition is used in the LIGHTCON-model and
the HETEK-model. In these cases, Ficks second law of diffusion yields:
C
2C
= D(t ) 2
t
t
(5)
(6)
Concentration-dependent diffusion coefficient. The chloride diffusion coefficient of the

concrete depends on the chloride concentration C, i.e. D = D(C). In this case Ficks
second law of diffusion yields:
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 6

C
C
= D(C )
t x
x
(7)
Constant chloride diffusion coefficient. The chloride diffusion coefficient of the concrete
is independent of location x, time t and chloride concentration C, i.e. D = D0. This
condition is e.g. used in Collepardis equation and when the chloride diffusion coefficient
is determined by testing. In these cases, Ficks second law of diffusion yields:
C
2C
= D0 2
t
t
(8)
This form Eqn (8) of the diffusion equation is often erroneously called Ficks second law
of diffusion. However, Eqn (8) is only a special case of Ficks general law of diffusion, cf.
Eqn (3).
2.1.4
The initial condition
The initial condition of the concrete is often taken as C(x,0) = Ci = a constant, which is
equally distributed through the concrete. This may not be correct but it is convenient, since it
makes the solution simpler. The condition is not important and in many cases just Ci = 0 is
substituted.
2.1.5
The boundary condition
The boundary condition is of great importance to the solution, since it has a great influence on
the solution (the chloride profile). The main difference between the LIGHTCON-model and the
HETEK-model is that the surface chloride content is constant when applying the LIGHTCONmodel, while the surface chloride content is time dependent when applying the HETEK-model.
Section 2.4 deals with the difference between HETEK and LIGHTCON in detail.
2.1.6
Solutions to Ficks laws
2.1.6.1 Steady-state diffusion the diffusion-cell technique

C
= constant
x
C x C1 x
=
C2 C1 l
C1
C2
0
l
x
Cx is the concentration of the diffusant at depth x

C1 is the concentration of the diffusant at the up-stream surface
C2 is the concentration of the diffusant at the down-stream surface
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 7
The diffusion coefficient may be determined by plotting against time how much diffusant, Qt,
(e.g. chloride) diffuses through a sample of thickness l :
Qt =
l2
D C1
t
l 6D
Qt
C1 l
c
D t
l2
1/6
Time lag
2.1.6.2 Non steady-state diffusion the concentration-profile technique

C x,t C0
x
= erfc
or
C s C0
4D t
Cs
x
C x,t = C0 + (Cs C0 ) erfc
4D t
Cx,t
x
C x,t
C0
Cs
erfc(..)
is the concentration of the diffusant at depth x at time t

is the initial concentration of the diffusant in the sample
is the concentration of the diffusant at the surface
is the error-function complement
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 8

The diffusion coefficient (and the surface concentration) is determined by fitting the
concentration profile to the equation.
Necessary data for the model are:
Concentration profile, i.e. the concentration in the sample at various depths
Exposure time
Initial concentration in the sample, i.e. C0 = Cx,0 (often zero)
Surface concentration (often not known, and estimated from the

concentration profile and the equation)
2.2 LightCon model

2.2.1
Theoretical background
It is assumed that chloride ingress into concrete obeys Fick's second law of diffusion for a
semi-finite medium with constant exposure, and that there is a critical value of the chloride
content in the concrete, C = Ccr, leading to the corrosion of steel.
The service lifetime tLT in this model is defined as the age of the structure when the chloride
concentration Ca(c,tLT) at the depth of the rebar with cover c reaches the critical (threshold)
chloride concentration Ccr for initiating corrosion. The development of the mathematical
model is presented in detailed in [14, 28]. The result of the development is the equation:
t LT = t c (
where tLT
tc
c
Dac
c
t c Dac
( 2 /(1 - ))
is the service lifetime

is the time when the structure is inspected
is the concrete cover
is the diffusion coefficient calculated from the chloride profile in the structure
at time t0
is a parameter expressing the exposure dependency of the diffusion coefficient
Da as given by equation 3.
is a parameter given by the equation
= 2 erfc-1( C cr C i )
C sa - C i
where erfc
Ccr
Ci
Csa
(1)
(2)
is the error function in Fick's second law of diffusion

is the critical (threshold) chloride concentration
is the background chloride content
is the chloride content on the exposed surface (the "load")
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 9

Based on this theoretical background, a number of different situations may be handled as
discussed in [30].
2.2.2
Environmental load
The effect of the environment is represented by the Csa. This parameter identifies the
representative chloride concentration at the concrete surface during the time of exposure. The
value of Csa depends both on the salinity of the water, the porosity of the surface layer (and
thus the amount of saline pore water) and the length of wetting versus drying in the splash
zone.
In calculating the value of Dsa from a measured chloride profile according to least-squares
curve fitting, the parameter Csa is represented as the chloride concentration at the surface.
The microclimate is of great importance. The parameter Csa depends very much on height
above sea level and the wind direction (the windward/leeward-effect), most probable due to
washing off chlorides by rain water on the exposed side.
2.2.3
Values for the -parameter
The achieved or in-situ chloride diffusivity for the skin concrete exposed to sea water, Da(t),
is a time dependant parameter varying with concrete composition and environmental
conditions. It has been shown that Da(t) can be expressed as a function of the maturity age of
the concrete t as:
t0
D a (t) = D a0 ( )
t
(3)
Where Da0 is the achieved chloride diffusion coefficient at the maturity age t0 of the concrete,
normally taken as the age when the exposure starts. Dac at concrete age tc is determined from
the actual chloride profile on a drilled core from the structure according to APM 207 or
equivalent. The parameter depends both on the material and the environment (reduced
permeability in the concrete skin due to beneficial interaction with the sea water).
The exponent represents the decrease in the achieved diffusion coefficient with age due to
the combined effect of hydration and all other mechanisms due to ion-exchange with the
seawater that might reduce the porosity of the concrete skin.
2.2.4
Diffusion coefficient
The chloride diffusion coefficient, Da, is decreasing with age, represented by the -parameter
according to equation 3. To compare Da for different concrete mixtures, the curing time
before exposure to seawater should be the same and Da should be calculated for a certain
exposure time.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 10

The parameter is calculated according to least-squares curve fitting, based on Da values for
different exposure times. When Da and are known for a certain mix, Da values may be
calculated for any times. This technique is used to compare Da for different types of mixtures,
curing times etc. The Da at 28 days, D28, is calculated based on Da and according to
equation 3.
The parameter will normally be affected by the water-binder ratio and curing times. A short
curing time before exposure to seawater will result in a somewhat higher compared to a
long curing time. This means that Da will be reduced faster with age compared to the
situation when the curing time is long. The consequence of this is that Da will come closer to
each other after long time of exposure independent of curing time. However, the high Da at
the beginning of the exposure will result in higher chloride content in the concrete compared
to the situation when the curing time is long.
2.2.5
Effect of Maturity on Diffusion
The chloride diffusion coefficient varies with the maturity t of the concrete. Test results [15]
fit well to a hypotheses supposing that the chloride diffusion coefficient is decreasing with
increasing curing time. In a double logarithmic system, this correlation is a straight with
inclination expressed by the parameter . This means that a mathematical model may be
expressed as:
D(t) = Do (to/t)
(4)
Here D(t) is the time dependent chloride diffusion coefficient, t is the maturity age of the
concrete, to is a reference maturity age typical of the concrete (e.g. 28 days), and Do and are
parameters to be determined by a regression analysis of test results.
2.2.6
Values selected for LightCon calculations
As mentioned above, and are calculation parameters that can be varied in the ingress
models. For the purposes of this study and based upon the findings in [15], their values are
fixed for all calculations as follows:
= 0.6
= 0.15
2.3 The HETEK-model

2.3.1
Introduction
A complete description and documentation of the HETEK-model Version 1997 is in [14]. The
entire series of HETEK-reports are recommended when a detailed study of the model is
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 11

wanted. There, a more detailed description is given than by this short note. Here, the
necessary formulae for the estimation of future chloride ingress are presented for a concrete
with types of binders like Portland cement, silica fume and fly ash and having a known w/cratio as well as a chloride profile observed at an inspection test and no further information.
2.3.2
Assumed available information
In order to estimate the future chloride ingress into concrete this note assumes that at least the
following information is available:
The age tin of the concrete structure at the time of inspection

The age tex of the concrete structure at the time of first chloride exposure
The composition of the concrete, i.e. the type of binder, and the w/c-ratio
The environment of the concrete, i.e. atmosphere, splash or submerged (ATM, SPL or
SUB)
The chloride profile of the concrete obtained at an inspection time tin >> tex, e.g. by the
chloride diffusion coefficient and the chloride content of the concrete surface.
When it is not possible to obtain reliable information from the specification of the concrete
structure, the inspection must be supplied with a thin section analysis of the concrete in
question.
Testing the concrete by NT Build 443 and/or by the method of inverse cores (see section
6.6.1.1) may supply the estimation of the future chloride ingress into the concrete.
2.3.3
Assumptions of the HETEK-model
The HETEK-model for chloride ingress into concrete is based on the following assumptions:
Chloride C in concrete is defined as the total, acid soluble chloride
Transport of chloride in concrete takes place by diffusion. There is an equilibrium of the
mass of ingress of (free) chloride into each element of the concrete, the accumulation of
(free and bound) chloride in the element and an ongoing diffusion of (free) chloride in the
element towards a neighbour element, and so on
C
The flow of chloride F is proportional to the gradient of chloride
. The factor of
x
proportionality is the achieved chloride diffusion coefficient Da
The achieved chloride diffusion coefficient Da depends on time, the composition and
environment of the concrete
The boundary condition Cs is time-dependent of time t, and the composition and
environment of the concrete
The initial chloride content of the concrete Ci (per unit element of the concrete) is
uniformly distributed at time tex
The relations used for the environmental determinative parameters (ATM, SPL and SUB),
the time and the composition of the concrete are documented at the Trslvslge Marine
Exposure Station on the west coast of Sweden (south of Gothenburg) [14].
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 12
2.3.4
Mass balance of chloride in an element volume of concrete
The equation of mass balance (equilibrium) for chloride in concrete is expressed by Ficks
general law of diffusion:
C C
= D
t x x
(1)
where C is the chloride content at the locality x at time t and D is the chloride diffusion
coefficient which may depend on the time t, the locality x, the chloride content C, and the
composition and environment of the concrete. However, it is an assumption of the HETEKmodel that the chloride diffusion coefficient D is independent of the locality x and the
chloride content.
2.3.5
Achieved chloride diffusion coefficient
Diffusion coefficient after 1 year of exposure. The study of observations from the
Trslvslge Marine exposure Station, cf. [15], has led to the conclusion that the chloride
diffusion coefficient after (exactly) 1 year of exposure with suitable accuracy may be
expressed as (see [14], p. 114 Table 13.2.4:1):
10
mm2/yr
D1 = k D 25,000 exp
{
}
eqv
w/b
D
(2)
where the equivalent water/binder-ratio (ratio by mass) with reference to diffusion is (see
[14], p. 114 Table 13.2.4:2):
eqv{w/bD } =
MW
PC + FA + 7 SF
(3)
Here
MW
PC
FA
SF
= concretes content of mixing water

= concretes content of portland cement
= concretes content of fly ash
= concretes content of silica fume.
The factor kD, cf. (3), depends on the concretes environment in the following way:
0.4 for concrete exposed to marine atmosphere (ATM)
k D = 0.6 for concrete exposed to marine splash zone (SPL)

1.0 for concrete submerged in seawater (SUB)
BRIME PL97-2220
(4)
PAGE 13

NT Build 443. When testing according to NT Build 443 is carried out determining Dpex at an
exposure of 14 to 28 days, it is possible to write, cf. [14], p. 116:
D1
k D D pex
(5)
where kD is given by (4). Equation (5) may substitute or supplement equation (2). However, if
the testing is carried out at the time of inspection a correction is needed, cf. [28].
Method of inverse cores. If a determination of D1 has been made according to the method of
inverse cores, [27], this determination may substitute or supplement equation (2). This
method is described in section 6.6.1.1.
Development of the achieved chloride diffusion coefficient. The time-dependency of the
achieved chloride diffusion coefficient Da can be expressed mathematically by the power
function, cf. [14], p.10, (3.2.1:2):
t
Da = Daex ex
t
or especially Dain
1 + tex
= D1
(6)
where t denotes the time (origin equal to the mixing of the concrete), tex is the time of first
chloride exposure, Daex is a factor, which may be explained as the value of the the achieved
chloride diffusion coefficient at time tex, and is an exponent, which depends on the
composition and environment of the concrete.
Achieved diffusion coefficient at time of inspection. At the inspection, carried out at the time
(unit: year) tin >> tex the achieved chloride diffusion coefficient Dain is determined. From the
time-dependency of the diffusion coefficient, cf. (6), the exponent is determined as:
=
ln (D1 / Dain )
ln (tin ) ln (1 + tex )
(7)
where the unit of tin and tex must be in years. Finally, Daex, cf. (6), yields
Daex
2.3.6
t
= Dain in
tex
(8)
Boundary condition
Chloride content of the concrete surface after 1 year of exposure. The HETEK-model
assumes, that the achieved chloride content of the exposed concrete surface after 1 year of
exposure yields, cf. [14], pp.110-111:
C1 = k b eqv{w/bb } % mass binder
(9)
The equivalent water/binder-ratio (ratio by mass) with respect to binding is, cf. [14], p. 111:
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 14
eqv{w/bb } =
MW
PC + 0.75 FA 1.5 MS
(10)
Here
MW
PC
FA
SF
= concretes content of mixing water

= concretes content of portland cement
= concretes content of fly ash
= concretes content of silica fume.
The factor kb, cf. (3), depends on the concretes environment in the following way:
2.20 for concrete exposed to marine atmosphere (ATM)
k b = 3.70 for concrete exposed to marine splash zone (SPL)

5.15 for concrete submerged in seawater (SUB)
(11)
NT Build 443. When testing according to NT Build 443 is carried out determining Csp at an
exposure of 14 to 28 days, C1 is proportional to Csp, cf. [14], p. 112. Therefore, it is possible
to write:
C1
k b C sp
(12)
15.45
where kb is given by (11). Equation (12) may substitute or supplement equation (9). However,
if the testing is carried out at the time of inspection a correction is needed, cf. [28].
Method of inverse cores. If a determination of C1 has been made according to the method of
inverse cores, cf. [27], this determination may substitute or supplement equation (12).
Development of the chloride content of the concrete surface. The achieved chloride content of
the exposed concrete surface Csa versus time obey the following relation, cf. [14], p. 12,
(3.2.2:3):
C sa = C i + Sp p
(13)
Here Ci is the initial (uniformly distributed) chloride content of the concrete. The time
parameter is defined as cf. [14], p. 12, (3.2.2:5):
t
t t
= ex 1 =
t tex
tex
t
ex
t
(14)
The exponents and p and the factor Sp depend on the composition and environment of the
concrete.
The chloride content of the concrete surface at the time of inspection. By inspecting and
testing (determination of a representative chloride profile) at time of inspection (unit: years)
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 15

tin >> tex the achieved chloride content of the exposed concrete surface Csin and the initial
chloride content of the concrete Ci are determined. Thus, the exponent p cf. (13), yields
p=
ln (C sin C i ) ln (C1 C i )
ln in ln 1
(15)
Finally the factor Sp yields

Sp =
2.3.7
C1 C i
p
in
(16)
Plotting the chloride profiles
As describes above the four determining parameters , Daex, p and Sp of the mathematical
expression of the HETEK-model describe the chloride profiles and their development versus
time unambiguously. Thus, from the following equation cf. [14], p. 14, (3.2.3:3) and p. 12,
(3.2.2:3):
0.5 x
C = Ci + Sp p p
t D
ex aex
(17)
the chloride profiles can be calculated at any time wanted.

The plotting of the chloride profiles through , Daex, p og Sp to a given time is available from
the computer programme HETEKDES by the AEClaboratory (Denmark). However, this subject
is beyond the scope of this report. However, while the application of the tables is dealt with.
Tables. Leif Mejlbro, cf. [16], has tabulated the functions p(u) in the interval 0 p 1 for
p = 0.05 and the interval 0.05 u 2.00 for u = 0.05. These tables are used in the
Example of the appendix. The application of these tables is as follows:
When , Daex, p og Sp are given or determined by testing, the chloride profiles of the concrete
to a given time (age) tn is easily determined by the use of a spread sheet. First the abscissas
and the ordinates of the function, u and p(u) respectively. If p is not a multiple of 0.05
interpolation (linear or parabolic) may be used. However, the nearest value for p to the
multiple of 0.05 may be used, since the problem is not sensitive for small changes in p.
At time t = tn the chloride content C = C(xn, tn) at location x is calculated from:
C = C i + S p n p (u )
p
(18)
where
t t
n = ex n 1
tn tex
(19)
Then the corresponding abscissas xn are determined from:
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 16

x n = u 4 n tex Daex
(20)
2.4 Difference between HETEK and LIGHTCON models

2.4.1
Introduction
The difference between the two models for predicting chloride ingress into concrete, the
LIGHTCON-model, cf. [15] and [28], and the HETEK-model, cf. [14], lies mainly in how the
boundary condition is taken into account:
The LIGHTCON-model assumes that the achieved chloride content Csa of the exposed
concrete surface remains constant through the initiation period of time, except a period of
approx. 2 years, cf. [28]
The HETEK-model assumes that the achieved chloride content Csa of the exposed concrete
surface depends on time t. It is assumed that Csa increases from the time of first exposure
to chloride tex, cf. [15].
This chapter deals with the effect of this difference. It is assumed that the reader is familiar
with the notation of the HETEK-model, cf. [28].
2.4.2
The LIGHTCON-model and the HETEK-model
The LIGHTCON-model and the HETEK-model may be described mathematically by the

following equation:
C ( x, t ) = C i + (C sa C i ) f (u )
(1)
where
C 0 is a constant when t 2 years and LIGHTCON is applied
C sa =
t
t ex
p
,
where
1
C
S
p
i
t
t for t t ex and HETEK is applied
ex
(2)
As a consequence of these boundary conditions the function f(u) yields
erfc(u ), when LIGHTCON is applied

f (u ) =
p (u ), when HETEK is applied
(3)
where
u=
0.5 x
tex Daex
(4)
For identical composition of two concretes exposed to the same type of environment the other
parameters, i.e. , tex and Daex of the LIGHTCON-model and the HETEK-model are the same.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 17
2.4.3
Comparison of solutions
Under identical conditions the difference between the chloride content of concrete at the level
of the steel reinforcement bars with a concrete cover c yields:
C (c, t ) = (C 0 C i ) erfc(u c ) S p p p (u c )
(5)
where
uc =
0.5 c
tex Daex
(6)
The chloride content of the exposed concrete surface C0 has to be chosen when the
LIGHTCON-model is applied. Magne Maage et al, cf. [15], recommends that C0 is chosen so
that C0 is greater than or equal to the achieved chloride content of the exposed concrete
surface during a required time less than the initiation period of time, i.e. tobs = tcr. If so, we
have
C 0 C i S p p for all p > 0 and t ex t t obs
(7)
Since
erfc(u ) > p (u ) for all p > 0 and all u > 0
(8)
cf. [28, 29], it is seen that C(c, t) > 0 for all p > 0 and all tex t tobs. This means that the
chloride content at the level of the reinforcement is greater when applying the LIGHTCONmodel compared with the HETEK-model, all other parameters kept equal.
However, in most cases Csa for the LIGHTCON-model is chosen equal to the value found by an
inspection carried out when the concrete has reached an age of about 10 to 20 years. In such
cases it is not possible to say if the chloride content of the concrete next to the reinforcement
is greater or smaller when found by means of the LIGHTCON-model compared with the
HETEK-model.
2.4.4
Comparison of chloride profiles
The shape of the graph of the error function complement erfc(u) and the shape of the graph of
the p(u) function are different for p > 0. In fact the error function complement is identical
with the p function for p = 0, i.e.
erfc(u ) = 0 (u ) for all u 0
(9)
Chloride profiles determined by the LIGHTCON-model and the HETEK-model for p > 0 yield
slightly different shapes.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 18

2.4.5
Differences in the predicted initiation period of time
The LightCon-model
The initiation period of time tcr according to the LIGHTCON-model may be determined from
the equation:
C cr = Ci + (C 0 Ci ) erfc
0.5c
cr tex Daex
(10)
Introducing the term
L = 2 inv erfc
C cr C i
C 0 Ci
(11)
Equation (10) may be written as
c
cr =
t D
ex aex
L
(12)
Since
t
t
t
cr = cr 1 ex cr
tex
tcr
tex
(13)
when tcr >> tex (which normally is the case) Equation (12) may be written as
c
t cr = t ex
t D
ex
aex
L
(14)
The Hetek-model
The initiation period of time tcr according to the HETEK-model may be determined from the
equation, introducing the p-function, cf. [16]:
C cr = Ci + S p p
p
0.5c
0.5c
= Ci + S p
t D
cr tex Daex
ex aex
2p
0.5c
p
t D
cr ex aex
(15)
Introducing the term

C C t D
i
H = 2 inv p cr
ex aex
0.5 c
Sp
2p
(16)
Equation (15) may be written as
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 19
0.5 c
cr =
t D
ex aex
H
(17)
Since
t
t
t
cr = cr 1 ex cr
tex
tcr
tex
(18)
when tcr >> tex (which is normally the case) Equation (17) may be written as
0.5c
t cr = t ex
t D
ex
aex
H
(19)
Initiation period
The threshold value of chloride content in concrete Ccr applied in Equations (11) and (16)
may be found by the following equation:
C cr = k cr exp( 2.4 eqv{w/c}) unit: % mass binder
(20)
where the equivalent w/c ratio with respect to the threshold value of chloride in concrete
yields:
eqv{w/c} =
W
C F 3 .5 S
(21)
Here W, C, F and S denote mixing water, Portland cement, fly ash and silica fume
respectively. The environmental factor kcr is found to be:
2.0 when concrete is exposed to a marine atmosphere (ATM)
k cr = 2.0 when concrete is exposed to marine splash (SPL)

5.2 when concrete is submerged in seawater (SUB)
2.4.6
(22)
Example
In [28] and [29] examples of predicting the chloride ingress were calculated for a specified
concrete exposed to an environment of marine splash. The data were:
Concrete
The binder of the concrete is ordinary Portland cement
The water/binder-ratio is w/c = 0.48 by mass
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 20

The chloride content of the concrete in unit % mass binder is 6.11 times the chloride
content in unit % mass concrete
The concrete is exposed to chloride for the first time at tex = 0.027 year
Inspection
The concrete has the age of tin = 18 years on the inspection
Achieved diffusion coefficient Dain = 32.9 mm2/yr was determined at time tin = 18 years
Achieved chloride content of the chloride exposed concrete surface was determined by
testing to Csin = 0.333 % by mass concrete at time tin = 18 years. This corresponds to a
chloride content of 0.333 6.11 = 2.035 % by mass binder
Initial chloride content of the concrete Ci = 0.008 % mass concrete = 0.008 6.11 = 0.049
% mass binder was determined
Environment
The exposure is marine splash.
The chloride profiles at 2 yr, 10 yr, 20 yr, 50 yr and 100 yr are calculated and their graphs are
shown in Figure 2, cf. [28] and [29].
Initiation period
The threshold value of chloride content in the concrete yields, cf. (20):
C cr = k cr exp( 2.4 eqv{w/c}) = 2.0 exp( 2.4 0.48) = 0.63 % mass binder
since eqv{w/c} = w/c = 0.48 because the binder is 100 % Portland cement. Applying the
LIGHTCON-model L, cf. (13), is determined as:
L = 2 inv erfc
0.63 0.049
= 1.509
2.035 0.049
Hence, the initiation period yields, cf. (14):
50
t cr = 0.027
1.509 0.027 1131
4.386
= 70 years
Applying the HETEK-model H, cf. (13), is determined as:

0.63 0.049 0.027 1131 0.208
= 1.463
H = 2 inv 0.1

1.459
0.5 50
Hence, the initiation period yields, cf. (14):
50
t cr = 0.027
1.463 0.027 1131
BRIME PL97-2220
4.386
= 80 years
PAGE 21
2.4.7
Summing up
The initiation period and the chloride ingress into concrete exposed to the marine splash or
submerged in seawater may be predicted by the HETEK-model as well as the LIGHTCONmodel. At first the LIGHTCON-model looks simpler than the HETEK-model. However, while all
the parameters of the HETEK-model are functions of the eqv{w/c} and the environment, an
application of the LIGHTCON-model involves a subjective estimate of the chloride content of
the near-to-surface layer of the exposed concrete surface. This does not make the LIGHTCONmodel unambiguous to apply.
When applying the HETEK-model and LIGHTCON-model through a spreadsheet like Excel 5 or
a computer programme like the AECs program HETEKDES the numerical work and the time
consumed are of the same order of magnitude.
2.5
Conditional Average Estimator - Hybrid Neural Network

(CAE - HNN)
A hybrid neural network-like approach (CAE - HNN) was developed by ZAG and involves
an empirical treatment of the phenomena. This is very suitable for problems where models are
based on the experimental data. It was shown elsewhere [7] that such an approach
corresponds to the use of the intelligent systems.
We assume, that the complete phenomenon, in our case in-depth chloride ion penetration, is
characterised by a sample of the measurements on N testing specimens that are described by a
finite set of so called model vectors:
{X1 , X 2 , ..., X N }
... /Eq. 1/.
Such a finite set of model vectors will be called a database in the subsequent text.
In formulating the modeler of the phenomenon Cl- = Cl-(x, h, o, wt, c) we further assume that
one particular observation of a phenomenon can be described by a number of variables, which
are treated as components of a vector:
X = x, h, o, wt , c, Cl
... /Eq. 2/,
where x is depth, h height above sea level, o orientation, wt wetting, c variable which
describes concrete cracks and Cl- chloride ion concentration at depth x.
Vector X can be composed of two truncated vectors:
P = {x, h, o, wt , c; #} and R = {# ;Cl }
... /Eq. 3/,
where # denotes the missing portion. Vector P is complementary to vector R and therefore
their concatenation yields the complete data vector X. The problem now is how an unknown
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 22

complementary vector R can be estimated from a given truncated vector P and sample vectors
{X1, X2, ..., XN}. By using the conditional probability function the optimal estimator for the
given problem can be expressed as [7-9]:
N
rk = Ak rnk
... /Eq. 4/
n =1
where
Ak =
an
and
j =1
L
2
( pi pni )
a n = exp i =1
2w2
... /Eq. 5/.
rk is the k-th output variable (e.g. Cl-; k is equal to 1 in a given problem), rnk is the same
output variable corresponding to the n-th model vector in the data base, N is the number of
model vectors in the data base, pni is the i-th input variable of the n-th model vector in the
data base (e.g. x, h, o, wt, c), pi is the i-th input variable corresponding to the model vector
under consideration, and L is the number of input variables. w describes the average distance
between the specimens in the sample space and is called smoothing parameter.
A general application of the method does not include any prior information about the
phenomenon. Because in some cases there is still lack of data, a priori information is needed
to better fit a particular phenomenon. By a relatively simple improvement [10], the method
can be effectively used for the modelling of many problems in civil engineering. Furthermore,
CAE (conditional average estimator) stems from a probabilistic approach and phenomena are
not treated just deterministic.
For the application of the CAE-HNN a database is needed. It consists of model vectors, what
can be presented in general case in matrix form as:
mv1 =
mv2 =
...
...
mvN =
p11
p21
...
...
pN1
p12
p22
... p1L
... p2L
pN2
...
pNL
r1
r2
...
...
rN
... /Eq. 6/.
The main task in the first step is therefore to represent the measured data and, if necessary, a
priori knowledge about the phenomenon in vector or matrix form. Finally, in the second step
the choice of appropriate value of smoothing parameter is needed. The parametric study has
shown that the appropriate value for modelling chloride ion penetration into concrete is w =
0.15. Due to the lack of experimental data on time dependence of chloride ion penetration,
Ficks 2nd law is used for time prediction.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 23
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 24
3
3.1
CONDITION SURVEY DATA

Introduction
Data from Slovenia, Norway and France were collected and analysed. Even though chloride
analysis has been performed on a large proportion of all concrete bridges, only a limited
number of structures could be retained for further analysis. This was done to limit the number
of calculations but also because there is only a limited number of bridges where there is a
complete set of data. The project was also primarily interested in structures with good
chloride profiles (accurate and measurements at several depths), taken from several locations
on the structure and taken at several ages at the same location.
All the Slovenian structures included in the case studies are placed on highways. The bridges
are situated in a continental climate environment with hot summers and cold winters. During
the winter, de-icing salts are used to provide suitable traffic conditions. The French bridge is
located about 50 km south-west of Paris and has similar conditions. The Norwegian structures
are all coastal bridges which cross a fjord or a sound. They all have piers placed in the sea.
The Slovenian bridges are: kedenj 1, Preloge, Slatina, epina and Ivanje Selo. The Norwegian
bridges are :Gimsystraumen (bridge chosen for the method of inverse cores), Hadsel and
Sandhornya bridge. The French bridge is: A11 PS12-10.
Table 1: Example of chloride data. Note that in this case three profiles were determined for
the same location and age.
Norway
Height
above
Chlorides at Gimsystraumen Bridge

Location
code
Depth
mm
Cl weight
% of cement
Factor
Cl weight
mconc/mcem % of concrete
Age
Location
at time of
inspection
sea level
m
3.6
Column 3
(Cl.3.07)
3.6
Column 3
(Cl.3.08)
3.6
Column 3
(Cl.3.09)
BRIME PL97-2220
7.5
22.5
40.0
62.5
87.5
7.5
22.5
40.0
62.5
87.5
7.5
22.5
40.0
62.5
87.5
2.05
2.05
1.38
0.49
0.25
1.47
1.54
0.93
0.51
0.27
1.34
0.93
0.58
0.22
0.14
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
0.3200
0.3200
0.2150
0.0760
0.0390
0.2300
0.2400
0.1450
0.0800
0.0420
0.2100
0.1450
0.0900
0.0340
0.0220
12
West side
12
West side
12
West side
PAGE 25
In addition to chloride data, see Table 1, certain information about the structures was also
collected. This was based on a Norwegian database [19] and categorised as follows:
General information about the structure

county, commune, name, number, length, etc
Description of superstructure
type of element, specified cover, specified concrete quality, w/c ratio, quantity of cement,
entrained air, curing regime, etc
Description of columns/piers
method of construction (sliding, climbing, ...)
In-situ measurements
location, structural element, axis or span, shape (circular, square, ..), distance from land,
height above water, orientation (north, south, ..), micro-climate
chloride measurements, depth of carbonation, cover, electro chemical potential, relative
humidity
Damage/rating in measurement locations
type of damage, degree of damage, chiselled concrete away to inspect rebar (y/n)
It should be noted that it was not possible to complete all the above fields for the all bridges.
3.2
Measurement techniques
Provided water and oxygen are freely available, the chloride content of a concrete element is
the most important parameter when evaluating the risk of reinforcement corrosion. There are
several different methods available to determine this chloride content and the results are
usually presented as a chloride profile (variation of chloride concentration with depth). In
addition, the chloride concentration is usually reported as a percentage concentration of
cement weight or of concrete weight.
3.2.1
Norway
Generally speaking, there are two common techniques in use to determine the chloride
content of concrete powder. To collect the powder, two methods are used. Which method and
technique that are used, depends of the accuracy of the investigation.
3.2.1.1 Collecting the samples
For detailed investigations (special inspections), concrete cores are taken from the structure
and sent to the laboratory. The cores are typically between 50 and 100 mm in diameter and up
to 100 mm long. They are wrapped in plastic before they are sent to the laboratory. In the
laboratory, a profile-grinder is used to produce powder in small intervals (typically 1-2 mm)
in depths between 25 and 50 mm. For less accurate investigations, drill powder is collected
on-site by using an ordinary drill. Dependent on the diameter of the bore (typically 20-25
mm), three or four holes are drilled per sample. Typical depths are 25-50 mm in 5-mm
increments.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 26
3.2.1.2 Determination of the chloride content

Potentiometric titration
This method is the standard method in the laboratory. 5 gram dried powder is dissolved in
10 ml distilled water, allowed to boil for one minute, and then 10 ml 10% nitric acid is added.
The solution is boiled and stirred for another minute. 10 ml distilled water is the added, and
the solution is allowed to cool down. The solution is filtrated and distilled water is added up
to 100 ml. This extract is then titrated using automatic potentiometric titration with 0.01
molar AgNO3 and a chloride sensitive electrode.
RCT Rapid Chloride Test

This method is also used in some of the county laboratories, and as a field-method on site.
The RCT is commercially available (German Instruments, Denmark), and comes with a
complete suitcase with acid, calibration solutions, beakers, voltmeter, etc. A small amount of
powder (about 1.5 gram) is placed in a special beaker, compacted, and transferred into a
plastic flask with a weak acid (ready to use). The flask is shaken for about 5 minutes, and
allowed to stand for another 5 minutes. A chloride sensitive electrode is then placed in the
solution, and the potential is noted after it has stabilised. The chloride concentration is
determined by using a calibration-curve.
3.2.2
Slovenia
The procedures described here those used at National Building and Civil Engineering Institute
(ZAG), Slovenia.
Chloride content in the concrete is determined in the laboratory either by the potenciotitration method or by the photometric method. The latter is also suitable for use on site for
the quick determination of the chloride content by weight of concrete. The chloride profiles,
which were used within WP4 were determined in the laboratory by the photometric method.
The LASA-Chlorid-System equipment of the German manufacturer Dr.Lange was used. The
procedure to determine the chloride content has several steps, which are briefly described in
the following sections.
3.2.2.1 Collecting the samples

During detailed inspection of a bridge, 50 mm diameter cylinders are taken from the concrete
structural elements by core bore drilling. During the boring, a constant flow of the water is
supplied for cooling the drilling cylinder. The length of the cores is up to 200 mm, but mainly
around 100 mm. Each cylinder is put into a plastic bag, marked and delivered to the
laboratory the same day as it is taken.
During next few days the concrete powder is obtained from the extracted cores by drilling
holes with a 6mm diameter drill at a certain depths (fig. 3.1). The depth, at which the dust for
the determination of the chloride content is obtained, depends on the cylinder length, its
integrity and on the depth of the reinforcement.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 27
3.2.2.2 Determination of the chloride content

Photometric measurement
Procedure for the determination of the chloride content is basically executed at the room
temperature around 20C. In a small plastic or glass beaker, which is laid on a very precise
balance, exactly 2.0 g of the concrete powder is weighted into the beaker.
In the next step, the weighted powder is transferred into a 100 ml plastic or glass beaker. With
a dispenser, exactly 25 ml (five times of 5 ml) of 18% nitrogen acid is poured over the
powdered concrete sample in the beaker. Immediately afterwards the beaker is shaken for a
few times and then left to stand for about ten minutes.
In the next step, about 5 to 6 ml of the acid dissolved solution of concrete powder sample is
sucked from the beaker by the plastic syringe. After the suction a membrane filter is put on
the syringe end and the solution is filtered into another plastic or glass beaker.
With the automatic pipette 1 ml of the filtered solution is sucked from the beaker and poured
into the kivette with prepared solution, which reacts with the dissolved solution of the
sample. The kivette is closed with the screw cap, shaken few times and left to stand for 3
minutes. After 3 minutes the reference kivette is put into the photometer (zero reading)
followed by the kivette which contains the dissolved solution of the sample. The display
shows the concentration of the chlorides by weight of concrete. If the reading is outside the
first range (0 to 0.08% by weight of the concrete), than the additional steps must be taken.
With a new pipette, 0.2 ml of the filtered solution is taken and poured into a new kivette. The
kivette is closed with the screw cap, shaken a few times and left to stand for 3 minutes. After
3 minutes, the same reference kivette is put into the photometer (zero reading) followed the
kivette with the dissolved solution of the sample. The display shows the concentration of the
chlorides in the range of 0.08 to 0.30% by weight of the concrete. If the reading is outside this
range, an additional measurement is performed by the potencio-titration method.
The two methods mentioned were compared several times against each other using the same
sample specimens. Comparisons were also made on test powder, which was obtained from
concrete cubes prepared with the known weight of salt. The difference between the two
methods was from 0.01 to 0.03% by weight of concrete.
After each procedure the beakers and syringe are thoroughly cleaned with distilled water. The
pipettes and filter membranes are discarded (one use only).
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 28

5
15
20
40 mm
50 mm
100 mm
Figure 3.1 Scheme of drilling the core to obtain the dust for determination of chloride
profiles where the thickness of the concrete cover is about 20 mm
3.2.3
France
The procedures used in France are similar to those used in Norway.
3.3
3.3.1
Description of bridges
French Bridge A11 PS 12-10
The PS 12-10 bridge was built in 1972 and crosses Highway A11 about 50 km south-west of
Paris, France. It has four spans of reinforced concrete and its columns measure
4.50x0.50x0.60 m. Every winter, de-icing salt are spread on the highway pavement and car
wheels made it splash onto the bridge columns. Under such aggressive conditions, some
cracks and spalling of concrete cover were observed after only a few years of service.
According to the results of rebar half-cell potential, steel was corroding on the lower parts
(about 1.90 m high) of columns, where de-icing salt solution was splashed. Carbonation depth
ranged between 9 and 23 mm and the concrete cover was about 30 mm thick. Some chloride
profiles were determined. The results were used for comparative calculations.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 29

The conditions of these piles were suitable for a chloride removal treatment, by applying a
method with galvanic anode. However, before this treatment, repairs were made for replacing
spalled concrete (with patches) and filling (by injection) cracks in the concrete.
Figure 3.2 Columns of A11 PS 12-10 bridge. Chloride removal treatment was performed
during the summer of 1997.
3.3.2
Norwegian Bridges
3.3.2.1 Gimsystraumen Bridge

The Gimsystraumen Bridge was constructed between 1979 - 1981, the bridge is a posttensioned, balanced cantilevered box construction. The nine span bridge has a total length of
840 m. The box height varies from 2.2 m to 7.4 m. The designed concrete strength is grade
C 35 for foundations and columns and grade C 40 for the superstructure. Concrete cover was
specified to 50 mm and 30 mm for columns and superstructure respectively. The bridge is
exposed to severe climatic conditions with strong winds and salt spray from the sea. The
environmental exposure changes along the bridge as the bridge deck level varies from 4 m to
36 m above sea level.
An extensive condition survey including visual inspection, analysis of chloride profiles,
potential mapping and rebar inspection was carried out. More than 4500 chloride analyses
were performed and concrete cover was measured at more than 900 locations. In addition,
condition survey and material testing has been performed. The extensive condition survey
detected that the most serious reinforcement corrosion had occurred in the lowest part of the
superstructure where the chloride load is very high and the concrete cover is low. The
specified concrete cover was only 30 mm. In addition, fixing bars used to assemble the
reinforcement cage were allowed in the concrete cover. No serious corrosion had started on
the columns where the specified concrete cover was 50 mm. Consequently, the condition of
the bridge was very much influenced by the prevailing requirements at the time the bridge
was built. The bridge is illustrated in figures 3.3 and 3.4.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 30
Figure 3.3 The Gimsystraumen Bridge.
Figure 3.4 Photo of the eastern part of Gimsystraumen Bridge (axis 1 - 6).
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 31
3.3.2.2 Hadsel Bridge

The Hadsel Bridge was constructed between 1976 - 1978. The bridge has a total length of
1010 m composed of a main section of 300 m and two side sections of 355 m each. The main
section consists of a main span which is 150 m and two side spans of 75 m. The main section
is build after the balanced cantilevered method with a post-tensioned box construction. The
box height varies from 1.85 m to 7.90 m. The two side sections are divided into 12 spans
each. The bridge is illustrated in figure 3.5.
The designed concrete strength is grade C 30 for foundations and columns and grade C 40 for
the superstructure. Concrete cover was specified to 50 mm and 30 mm for columns and
superstructure respectively.
The bridge is exposed to severe climatic conditions with strong winds and salt spray from the
sea. The condition of the bridge is strongly effected of the windward / leeward effect. This
means that the leeward side of structure parts which are close to the sea level are exposed to
very high chloride loading. The bridge type with side sections with short spans and more than
20 columns standing in the has resulted in huge areas of concrete exposed to extreme high
chloride loads. This has caused heavy corrosion in the lower part of the columns.
Figure 3.5 Photo of the main section (balanced cantilever) and side spans of Hadsel Bridge.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 32
3.3.2.3 Sandhornya Bridge

The Sandnornya Bridge was constructed during 1988 - 1989. The bridge is a post-tensioned,
balanced cantilevered box construction. The bridge has a total length of 374 m divided into
three spans. The main span is 154 m and both side spans are 110 m. The box height varies
from 2.3 m to 7.7 m. The designed concrete strength is grade C 35 for foundations, grade
C 45 for columns, C 45 for the main span (superstructure) and LC 55 for the side spans
(superstructure). Concrete cover was specified to 50 mm and 40 mm for columns and
superstructure respectively. The bridge is exposed to coastal climate with winds and salt spray
from the sea. No serious corrosion has been detected on any part of the structure.
The bridge is illustrated in figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6 Photo of the main span of Sandhornya Bridge.
3.3.3
Slovenian Bridges
Data of chloride profiles from the Slovenian bridge structures were obtained during in-depth
inspections, which were carried out between 1994 and 1996. All structures included in the
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 33

case studies are located on Slovenian highways. The bridges are situated in continental
climate environment with hot summers and cold winters. During the winter, de-icing salt is
used to provide suitable traffic conditions. In the following chapters a short description of
structures with some photos of the structures is given. There are also included some photos of
typical damages and their cause.
3.3.3.1 Viaduct kedenj 1

Viaduct kedenj 1 was built in 1976. The total length of the viaduct is 466 m. It is made of
three units. The first unit is a five span simply supported structure. The length of the spans are
40 m. A superstructure is totally made of pre-cast elements. Three longitudinal girders of
height 2.20 m are linked up with two transverse end-beams and one transverse mid-span
beam. The deck is made of pre-cast elements, which are interconnected with other
superstructure elements by cast-in-situ joints of width 0.20 m. The outer girders are
prestressed with 12 tendons of 167 mm wires and middle girder with 10 tendons of 167
mm wires.
Figure 3.7 Longitudinal view on the viaduct Skedenj 1

The second unit is a box girder structure with the spans of 60.5+120.0+60.5 m. It was built by
free cantilever construction. The cantilever deck of the box girder was additionally supported
by skewed pre-cast elements. The superstructure was prestressed with tendons of 367 and
167 mm wires.
The third unit is a single span simply supported structure with the span length of 25 m. The
type of the superstructure is the same as of the first unit. The designed concrete strength was
40 MPa. The average concrete strength established on cylinder cores at the time of in-depth
inspection was 52.3 MPa.
The shape of piers is a rectangular hollow cross section. The height of the piers varies from 9
to 27 m.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 34
The average concrete cover depth over the stirrups of pre-cast longitudinal beams is 22 mm
and over the main reinforcement 35 mm. The average concrete cover depth of the box girder
structure is 35 mm and main reinforcement 51 mm.
Figure 3.8 Deterioration of the column concrete surface due to damaged expansion - joint
The main source of concrete deterioration was due to water leakage in the presence of deicing salts through damaged cast-in-situ joints on cantilever parts of the deck. The same
source of deterioration was present on the first and third unit. On the second unit the main
source of deterioration was wetting of the concrete surface around the outlets of the drainage
pipes. Due to the damaged sealing of the expansion joint between the first and second unit a
pier had suffered a severe deterioration of the concrete surface. In the area of heavy wetting
the corrosion of the ordinary reinforcement was observed. In some places of the box girder
structure a light corrosion of a few tendons was also detected.
3.3.3.2 Viaduct Preloge

Viaduct Preloge was built in 1976. It is 558 m long 14 span simply supported structure
divided into three units (5+4+5 spans). Each span is 40 m long. The superstructure is totally
made of pre-cast elements. Four longitudinal girders of height 2.20 m are linked up with two
transverse end-beams and one transverse mid-span beam. The deck is made of pre-cast
elements, which are interconnected with other superstructure elements by cast-in-situ joints of
width 0.20 m.
The designed concrete strength was 40 MPa. The average concrete strength established on
cylinder cores at the time of an in-depth inspection was 58.7 MPa.
The shape of piers is an octagonal hollow cross section. The height of the piers varies from 8
to 26 m.
Average concrete cover depth on the bottom side of the deck is 11 mm. The pre-cast
longitudinal beams have 27 mm average concrete cover depth over stirrups and 38 mm over
the main longitudinal reinforcement.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 35
The main source of concrete deterioration is water leakage in the presence of de-icing salts
through damaged cast-in-situ joints in the cantilever parts of the superstructure's deck. The
piers under damaged expansion joints between the units have severe deterioration of the
concrete surface. Some joints between the segments of the pre-cast girders were open on the
bottom side of the bottom flange and superficial corrosion of the tendon wires was observed.
Some outer girders had in the area of heavy wetting up to 20% corroded tendons.
Figure 3.9 Longitudinal view on the viaduct Preloge
Figure 3.10 Wetting of the concrete surface of the edge beam under the damaged joint of the
deck's pre-cast elements
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 36

3.3.3.3 Viaduct Slatina
Viaduct Slatina was built in 1976. It is 440 m long eleven span simply supported structure
divided into two units (6+5 spans). Each span is 40 m long. the superstructure is totally made
of pre-cast elements. Four longitudinal girders of height 2.20 m are linked up with two
transverse end-beams and one transverse mid-span beam. The deck is made of pre-cast
elements, which are interconnected with other superstructure elements by cast-in-situ joints of
width 0.20 m. The outer girders are prestressed with 12 tendons of 167 mm wires and
middle girders with 10 tendons of 167 mm wires. The designed concrete strength was
40 MPa. The average concrete strength established on cylinder cores at the time of an indepth inspection was 67.1 MPa.
The shape of piers is an octagonal hollow cross section. The height of the piers varies from 13
to 38 m.
Figure 3.11 Longitudinal view of the viaduct Slatina

The pre-cast longitudinal girders have 27 mm average concrete cover depth over stirrups and
39 mm over the main longitudinal reinforcement.
The main source of deterioration of the concrete is water leakage in the presence of de-icing
salts through damaged cast-in-situ joints on the cantilever parts of the deck cross section. The
pier under the damaged expansion joint between the units has severe deterioration of the
concrete surface. A few outer girders have in the area of heavy wetting up to 15% corroded
tendons.
3.3.3.4 Viaduct epina

Viaduct epina was built in 1975. It is 140 m long five span simply supported structure. Each
span is 28 m long. The superstructure is made of five pre-cast post-tensioned girders and castin-situ deck. Longitudinal girders of height 1.80 m are linked up with two transverse endbeams and three transverse beams situated at a quarter of the span length. Outer girders are
prestressed with 10 tendons of 127 mm wires. The designed concrete strength was 40 MPa.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 37

The average concrete strength established on cylinder cores at the time of an in-depth
inspection was 48.9 MPa.
The piers are multi column type structure. The height of the piers is about 5 m.
Figure 3.12 View on the Zepina viaduct

The girders have 35 mm average concrete cover depth over stirrups and 43 mm over the main
longitudinal reinforcement in the web and bottom flange.
Figure 3.13 Corroded tendon with broken wires

salts around damaged drain pipes and outlets. A few outer girders had up to 20% corroded
tendons in areas of heavy wetting.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 38
Figure 3.14 Heavily wetted surface of the outer girder
Figure 3.15 Source of the wetting - the outlet of the drainage pipe does not lead surface
drainage water away from the structure
3.3.3.5 Viaduct Ivanje Selo

Viaduct Ivanje Selo was built in 1972. It consists of two parallel structures, one for each
direction of traffic flow. It is 225 m long nine span simply supported structure divided into
three units (3+3+3 spans). Each span is 25 m long. The superstructure is made of seven precast post-tensioned girders and cast-in-situ deck. Longitudinal girders of height 1.60 m are
linked up with two transverse end-beams and three transverse beams situated at quarter and
mid-span. Outer girders are prestressed with 9 tendons of 127 mm wires and the rest of the
girders with 8 tendons of 127 mm wires. The designed concrete strength was 50 MPa. The
average concrete strength established on cylinder cores at the time of an in-depth inspection
was 70.6 MPa.
The shape of piers is rectangular solid cross section. The height of the piers varies from 5.5 to
13 m.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 39
Figure 3.16 View of the Ivanje Selo viaduct

The girders have 35 mm average concrete cover depth over the main longitudinal
reinforcement in the web and bottom flange.
salts around the drainage outlets and damaged drain pipes. A few outer girders had in areas of
heavy wetting up to 44% corroded tendons.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 40
4
4.1
CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS

Calculation parameters
The models are to calculate the time to corrosion initiation for three different cover depths
and three different threshold values (critical chloride content). These are:
Cover depths: 25, 30 and 50 mm
Threshold values: 0.4, 0.7 and 1.0 % of cement weight.
The results for one location on one Norwegian, one Slovenian and one French bridge are given
in sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. It should be noted that the Hetek model is the only
model of the four that can take into account two or more chloride profiles. All the other models
have based their calculations on the last (most recent) profile. For the nine bridges, a total of 63
chloride profiles, representing 44 locations, were collected and judged fit for further
investigation. Predicted chloride ingress was calculated at all 45 locations with all the models.
The results of these calculations, 44 pages, are presented in annexe B in a manner similar to
Figs 4.2- 4.4.
When interpreting the results, it should be remembered that chloride content is normally
determined to an accuracy of 0.01 % of concrete weight (approx. 0.07 % of cement weight).
To illustrate the effect that errors in raw data can have on the predicted time to corrosion
initiation, a simple example is taken. Using chloride concentrations from a real bridge, an
optimistic and pessimistic profile are made by varying the chloride concentration by 0.01 %
of concrete weight and depth by 2.5 7 mm. Fick's 2nd law is then used to calculate the time
to corrosion for a critical chloride content of 0.1% by concrete weight (0.7 % by cement
weight) at 30 mm depth. As can be seen from Fig. 4.1, there is a factor greater than four
between the times to corrosion initiation for the pessimistic and optimistic profiles.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 41
Measured chloride profile after 27 years

Depth (mm)
2.5
10
Cl (% conc.)
0.45
0.23
Depth (mm)
5
15
Cl (% conc.)
0.46
0.24
Depth (mm)
7.5
20
Cl (% conc.)
0.47
0.25
Time to corrosion initiation(years)
15
0.05
22.5
0.06
30
0.07
30
0
37.5
0.01
45
0.02
45
0
52.5
0
60
0.01
Optimistic profile
Measured profile
Pessimistic profile
Optimistic Measured Pessimistic

105
49
25
Calculated D (mm /yr)

Calculated Cs (% concr.)
2
0.55
5
0.61
9
0.65
Cover depth (mm) = 30 mm

Critical chloride content = 0.7 (% cement)
Total chloride content (% concr.)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Cl-crit
0.1
0.0
0
10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Depth from concrete surface (mm)
90
Figure 4.1 Influence of errors in the determination of chloride profiles on time to corrosion
4.2
Results Norwegian bridges
From the three Norwegian coastal bridges, 16 locations with a total of 36 chloride profiles
have been investigated. The estimated time to corrosion, taking all the Norwegian results into
account, varied from about two days to more than 1000 years. This indicates that there is a
large variation in chloride exposure, a large variation in concrete quality, a large variation in
how the various models handle different sets of data, or a combination of the three factors.
Fig. 4.2 shows an example from Gimsystraumen Bridge. The Norwegian results are given in
Annexe B, pages B-3 To B-18.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 42

Gimsystraumen bridge; Column 5 West; Heigth 3.8 m
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0.1
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
0.1
60
CAE_HNN
1000
Time to corrosion initiation (yr)
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
Measured chloride profile

Depth (mm)
7.5
22.5
40
62.5
87.5
Cl (% conc.)
0.278
0.207
0.039
0.01
0.012
12 years
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
5
0.342
15
0.286
25
0.216
40
0.087
62.5
0.024
18 years
Time to corrosion initiation (years)

Cl_crit
(% cement) Ficks 2. HETEK LightCon CAE_HNN
25
0.4
4.7
0.5
1.5
25
0.7
10.4
1.7
2.2
25
11
18.9
3.5
30
0.4
7.9
1.3
3.2
30
0.7
10
16.9
4.6
7.5
30
16
29.8
13
50
0.4
17.5
36.2
17
19
50
0.7
28
70
52
27.9
50
43
114.4
160
45.4
33
25.5
29
0.44
0.485
0.44
Calculated D (mm2/yr)

Cover depth
(mm)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 4.2 Example of result page for a Norwegian bridge from chloride ingress models
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 43
4.3
Results Slovenian bridges
From the five Slovenian bridges, 26 locations with a total of 28 chloride profiles have been
investigated. The estimated time to corrosion, taking all the Slovenian results into account,
varied from less that a month to more than 1000 years.
Fig. 4.3 shows an example from Zepina Bridge. The Slovenian results are given in Annexe B,
pages B-19 To B-43.
Zepina, profile 1
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
60
CAE_HNN
1000
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
5
0.21
20
0.1
40
0.05
80
0.01
22 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
25
0.4
10
13
0.6
25
0.7
23
29
4.2
44
25
62
67
50
480
30
0.4
10
18
1.3
24
30
0.7
33
42
11
70
30
90
93
125
766
50
0.4
41
55
18
44
50
50
0.7
1
92
230
118
240
130
1600
127
1385
24
0.24
38.7
0.26
15
0.24
15

Cover depth
(mm)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 4.3 Example of result page for a Slovenian bridge from chloride ingress models
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 44
4.4
Results French bridge
From the French bridge, 3 locations with a total of 3 chloride profiles have been investigated.
The estimated time to corrosion, taking all the French results into account, varied from about
three years to more than 1000 years.
Fig. 4.4 shows an example from the PS12-10 Bridge. The French results are given in Annexe
B, pages B-44 To B-46.
A11 PS12-10, Col. 1
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0.1
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
0.1
60
CAE_HNN
1000
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
2.5
0.198
7.5
0.17
12.5
0.108
17.5
0.123
22.5
0.083
27.5
0.065
24 years
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
25
0.4
18
21.8
2.7
25
0.7
45
56.6
28
29.9
69.9
25
155
210
710
314.8
30
0.4
25
31.4
6.6
40
30
0.7
68
81.5
70
93.6
30
230
303
1800
421.8
50
0.4
72
87.4
86
124.1
50
50
0.7
1
170
690
227
841
890
10000
290
1000
16
0.21
13
0.21
10
0.21

Cover depth
(mm)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 4.4 Example of result page for the French bridge from chloride ingress models
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 45
4.5
Prediction of current chloride content
Chloride profiles taken from the same location, separated by several years of service, were
used to examine the accuracy of the models. This was done by using the data from an early
profile to predict the chloride ingress at the time of the later profile. Unfortunately none of the
bridges investigated during the course of this project had a set of three profiles, separated by a
sufficient number of years of service, taken from the same location. This meant the inherent
advantage of the Hetek model, where two or more chloride profiles can be taken into account
in predicting future chloride ingress, couldnt be examined. In total seven locations from four
different bridges are used.
Fig. 4.5 shows an example from Sandhornya Bridge, where the chloride ingress after 7.5
years have been predicted based on chloride ingress data after 3.5 years exposure. The rest of
the results are presented in Annexe C. As can be seen from Annexe C, no one model can be
0.50
0.50
Chloride profile after 7.5 years
0.45
0.45
Predicted - HETEK
Predicted - Fick's 2.law

0.40
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15

0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
20
30
Concrete cover (mm)
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Concrete cover (mm)
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.45
Predicted - LightCon
0.40
0.35

Predicted - CAE HNN
0.45
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10

0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Concrete cover (mm)

Concrete cover (mm)
Figure 4.5
Example of results page from chloride ingress models
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 46
90
100
4.6
Discussion
It is difficult to say which of the models gives the best prediction of future chloride ingress. This
is primarily due to the lack of data from the same location over an extended time scale with
which to calibrate and verify the various models. In addition to the predictions given by the
various models, the time, data required and complexity involved in using them is also taken into
account in their evaluation.
It must be pointed out that chloride ingress in concrete is not a well-understood phenomenon.
Concrete by its nature is a heterogeneous material and chloride ingress in laboratory samples, in
well-controlled conditions, will vary for apparently identical test specimens. Thus it should be
no surprise to find that chloride ingress in real constructions will vary for every metre, either in
the horizontal or vertical direction. This is due on one hand to the changing material properties
and on the other to the changing climatic conditions (environmental loading). In addition, there
is the method of measurement. Different methods have different degrees of complexity and
accuracy in addition to price. However, most of these methods, if performed correctly, will
produce results of an adequate quality.
While the raw data for all the models was the same, the calculated input data for the
prediction algorithms differed. As can be seen in Annexe B, the diffusion coefficient differs
from model to model and the LightCon model gives consequently the lowest diffusion
coefficient. This in turn has serious implications on the predicted time to corrosion initation
regardless of model. In addition, these calculated input data are for some of the models
operator dependent. This is principally done by adding in raw data help-points in order to
achieve a visually correct chloride profile.
None of the calculation programs for the models used in this research are commercially
available products but are in fact primarily the result of previous R&TD projects. This led to
certain complications in their installation and use.
Finally, it must be stated that when the threshold value for corrosion initiation is only 7-10
times the resolution and minimum measurable value of chloride concentration, then the
degree accuracy of any time to corrosion prediction must be low.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 47
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 48
PROBABILISTIC APPROACH TO SERVICE LIFE
Predictions of chloride ingress at one point of a structure are of little value and a more global
approach is needed. The approach described here uses data obtained during the OFU
Gimsystraumen Bridge Repair project[3, 4] and the Durable Concrete Structures project [6].
The chloride load for Norwegian bridges is mainly a function of the height above sea level.
Figure 5.1 from [6] shows maximum measured chloride content in the concrete, representing
1200 chloride profiles sampled from 30 bridges, all more than 15 years old. The recordings
are obtained at different heights above the sea level, from all sides of the cross-sections and
from bridges exposed to different environmental conditions. On the basis of these findings the
exposure conditions, represented by the maximum measured chloride content near the
concrete surface, have been classified in four exposure zones, mainly governed by the height
above sea level:
I
II
III
IV
0-3 m
3-12 m
12-24 m and
above 24 m.
This kind of classification based on in-situ data is a very important brick in future durability
design standards.
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
II
0.5
0.4
III
0.3
0.2
IV
0.1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Height above sea level [meter]
Figure 5.1 Coastal bridges. Max. recorded chloride content in the concrete versus height
above sea level
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 49

The chloride load is to some degree time and material dependant. However, for structures
more than 10-15 years old, there is no indication that the recorded chloride loads are
significantly influenced by the time of exposure. Also, any influence by the material concrete
on the measured chloride loads was in this context negligible. Hence, for all practical
purposes the chloride loads as defined above can be taken as a function of the environmental
conditions only (i.e. time and material independent). This is the first step in determining a
durability load that can be used in design.
The inspections on Gimsystraumen bridge, performed after 12 years in service also consisted
of measurements of concrete cover, chloride analyses and visual observations in more than
200 locations distributed over the 21 investigated cross-sections along one section - a 126
meter long post-tensioned box-girder. The height above sea level of the bridge deck in this
section varies from 10.4 to 18.4 meters.
The design concrete strength was grade C40 for the superstructure. Cement content was 375
kg/m3 OPC and no silica fume was used. Obtained strength varied between 36.5 and 54.0
MPa with a mean of 43.2 MPa. Concrete of grade C40 normally corresponds to a bulk
diffusion coefficient of 12-1510-12 m2/s when tested according to NT Build 443 after 28 days
hardening.
The concrete cover was specified at minimum 30 mm. The average concrete cover was
determined at 29 mm with a standard deviation of 5.5 mm. This implies that approximately
50% of the rebars have concrete cover less than the specified 30 mm and 10% less than
22 mm. The statistical distribution of the concrete cover, based on more than 3500
independent readings, is shown in figure 5.3.
The in-situ diffusion coefficient for the bridge section was computed based on chloride
analysis of samples of concrete powder drilled from 4 holes at each location. The average in
situ diffusion coefficient after 12 years of exposure was determined to 1.110-12 m2/s with a
standard deviation of 0.25 10-12 m2/s.
Height above sea level: 11.9 m
SOUTH
NORTH
0.315 %
3.01 m
0.080 %
0.055 %
0.590 %
5.4 m
0.625 %
0.080 %
0.365 %
0.410 %
0.410 %
Figure 5.2 Chloride content on the concrete surface Cs, computed from measurements on
the cross-section 11.9 m above sea level, Gimsystraumen bridge.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 50

The bulk diffusion coefficient for a 12 year old chloride free concrete sample, drilled from
the middle of the superstructure and tested according to NT Build 443, was determined to
7.010-12 m2/s. Taking the ages of concrete hardening into consideration this value
corresponds roughly to a bulk diffusion coefficient of approximately 14 10-12 m2/s after 28
days of hardening.
The maximum chloride content obtained on the cross-section 11.9 meters above sea level
varied between 0.07% Cl- and 0.38% Cl- of concrete mass on the windward and the leeward
side respectively. Curve fitting of the measured values gave a maximum computed chloride
content Cs on the leeward concrete surface of 0.625% Cl- of concrete mass, figure 5.2, and an
in-situ diffusion coefficient of 1.4 10-12 m2/s .
On the basis of the investigations referred to and summarised below, the chloride ingress and
critical depth in the concrete after 10-12 years exposure, i.e. the age of the bridge when
inspected, has been computed using the following values.
Chloride load:
Cs = 0.625 % ClCs = 0.010 % Cl-
- Leeward side
- Windward side
Material resistance:
- In situ diffusion coefficient after 12 years exposure
D = 1.1 10-12 m2/s
- standard deviation
= 0.25 10-12 m2/s
The critical depth was computed on the basis of a threshold value of 0.07% Cl- of concrete
mass.
100
90
80
Chloride ingress
Chloride ingress
70
t = 10 years
t = 10 years
60
Cs = 0.1%
Cs = 0.625%
50
40
30
Concrete cover
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Depth in mm
Figure 5.3 Statistical distribution of concrete cover and critical depth.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 51
The most probable critical depths after 10 years of exposure are shown in figure 5.3 for the
windward and the leeward side of the structure respectively. Figure 5.3 shows clearly that the
probability for rebar corrosion on the windward side is negligible. However, on the leeward
side, the probability for depassivation and rebar corrosion exceeds 90 percent. These results
concur with the visual observations of no signs of corrosion on the windward side and active
corrosion on the leeward side.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 52
MONITORING AND BRIDGE MANAGEMENT
Monitoring the durability of concrete bridges has become relatively common in the last
decade. The objectives and potentials of this monitoring have not always been
comprehensively stated or understood and this has frequently lead to projects that have not
satisfied the client The chapter presents some recommendations concerning the place of
durability monitoring in a bridge management system.
6.1
Introduction
Corrosion is a serious problem for concrete structures. This has resulted in a large amount of
measurement instruments appearing on the marketplace that are supposedly to help the
engineer/specialist diagnose the condition of a structure. Many of these instruments are
imprecise, unsuitable, expensive and time demanding. However, the biggest disadvantage for
owners or managers of these structures is that the obtained results have a short-term aspect.
There is a need for long-term surveillance where the durability condition is followed up over
several decades and a reliable prognosis of future corrosion activity can be made. There has
been considerable development in this area in the last decade and much progress has been
made. However, further progress and development is required before durability monitoring
becomes a routine activity within a bridge management system.
The recommendations presented in this chapter are primarily based on the conclusions of the
OFU Gimsystraumen Bridge Repair Project [3, 4] and the project - Durable concrete
structures [5]. However, experience from other BRIME partners, is also contained.
6.2
Gimsystraumen Bridge Repair Project
Gimsystraumen Bridge as described in section 3.3.2.1, is a concrete box girder bridge

located on the coast of Northern Norway. It consists of 9 spans having a total length of 840 m
and is exposed to a severe marine environment. The bridge was built from 1979 - 81 and a
condition survey of the bridge after only ten years of service revealed severe deterioration.
This was typical of several bridges in Norway and a research project, which concentrated on
the repair of one single bridge, was initiated. The bridge was the Gimsystraumen bridge and
the project was named the OFU Gimsystraumen Bridge Repair Project. The project focused
on the problem of obtaining durable reparation of damage caused by chloride-initiated
corrosion. During the five-year project, more than 20 man-years, 5 of these on
instrumentation, have been invested in the project. In 1997, an international conference was
held to present the results from the project together with results from similar projects from
around the world [1].
The IDV-method [23] (Instrumentation, Documentation and Verification) was applied for
monitoring the response of material properties and to investigate how these factors influenced
the durability of the structure. A system for monitoring the durability condition of concrete
bridges was tested. Both electrochemical and non-electrochemical techniques were used, e.g.,
corrosion potential of reinforcing steel, polarisation resistance of reinforcing steel, oxygen
transport in the concrete (oxygen limiting current), electrical resistance of the concrete,
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 53

relative humidity in the concrete and temperature in the concrete. However, the project
identified that measurement techniques are only one aspect of a successful monitoring
programme. Other aspects of importance are:
clearly defined objectives

strategy plan
installation
data acquisition
data processing
verification and reliability
documentation
presentation of results for end-user
6.3
Why Install A Computerised Monitoring System?
A computerised monitoring system should meet specifically defined objectives and not only
be a "nice to have" installation. These objectives can be one or several of the following:
ensure a structures load bearing capacity and serviceability during its planned lifetime
optimise repair and maintenance costs
verify design rules
research and development
It is important to note that a computerised monitoring system is not a project or an objective

in its own right, but rather a tool within a project. Therefore, in general, all data should be
processed and analysed together with results from condition surveys before conclusions about
the state of the structure can be drawn.
Several of the above-mentioned objectives may be applicable for a particular monitoring
project dependent on the type of construction, the likelihood and consequence of damage.
Applications where a computerised monitoring system can be particularly interesting are:
i)
individual structures that are representative of a section of the bridge stock due to
similarities in design, loading and/or construction material
ii) special or prototype structures
iii) structural elements that are difficult to access or inaccessible
iv) structures in a particularly aggressive environment
v)
structures where damage has been detected and monitoring is used to gather further
information before repair is carried out
vi) individual structures that have been repaired where the type of repair is typical for a
large number of bridges
vii) structures where substantial repair work has been carried out
The principal objectives and applications of a computerised monitoring system for durability
are summarised in Table 1. In addition, it is important to recognise that a strategy for
computerised monitoring will require input from a multi-disciplined task group.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 54

Results from a condition survey carried out at a specific point in time are of limited value,
particularly when future development of condition is to be predicted. Through long-term
monitoring, can this development with time be documented and a much better basis for
interpreting condition surveys and material investigations obtained. An example of this can be
the measurement of electro-chemical potential of reinforcing steel in concrete. By registering
the potential at regular intervals, e.g., every hour, over a prolonged duration, will long-term
trends be found. Random and short-term variations are hence eliminated in this fashion. If the
trend of the measurements suddenly change, e.g. due to the onset of corrosion, this will be
registered. The monitoring has therefore established a good basis for the assessment of the
condition of the bridge. The quality of the condition assessment is thus improved and a more
optimal maintenance plan can be attained. It is here that the real benefit of durability
surveillance lies.
6.4
What Should Be Monitored?
On the Gimsystraumen Bridge many types of sensors and measuring techniques were
applied. Some of the data and information gathered was quite complicated to interpret and of
little practical value. In this section, a short evaluation is given of the different measurements
carried out and whether or not these methods are recommended as a part of a permanently
installed durability surveillance system of a real structure. How readily results can be
interpreted is an important factor when selecting sensors for durability surveillance as the
quantity of data will just grow with time. The measurements performed on Gimsystraumen
bridge fall into two main categories:
Measurements associated with the behaviour/corrosion of the embedded steel
Measurements related to changes in the concrete and its "corrosivity"
The evaluation given in Table 2 reflects the recommendations of Gimsystraumen bridge
repair project and therefore also the type of sensors used. However, personal experience of
the project participants, other projects and sources have also influenced these
recommendations [24, 25]. Every effort was taken to ensure that only good equipment was
used and, in fact, similar sensors from different producers were used. This was primarily done
to evaluate robustness and reliability of the sensors, but value for money was also a concern.
For example, for corrosion potential monitoring of reinforcement steel, a total of 64
embedded reference electrodes were tested (MnO2, Ag/AgCl, graphite and lead). Some of the
need development measuring techniques in Table 2 have been improved substantially and
are becoming suitable for long term durability surveillance.
It is important to note that the selection of sensors and measuring techniques can be quite
different for new and existing constructions. Gimsystraumen bridge is an existing structure
and the recommendations in Table 2 reflect this.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 55
Table 1
Principal objectives and applications of computerized monitoring system for

durability
Individual structures that are representative of a

section of the bridge stock due to similarities in
design, loading and/or construction material
ii) Special or prototype structures

iii) Structural elements that are difficult to access
or inaccessible
iv) Structures in a particularly aggressive
environment
v) Structures with damage
vi) Individual structures that have been repaired
l
l
l
l
where the type of repair is typical for a large

number of bridges
vii) Structures where substantial repair work has
been carried out
Verify design rules *
i)
Optimise repair and

maintenance costs
Possible applications
Ensure a structures load

bearing capacity and
serviceability during its
planned lifetime
Objectives
*Verification can have three results: that the design codes

- are too conservative
- are correct
- should be revised to give better durability
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 56
Table 2
Evaluation of different sensors and measuring techniques for a durability

monitoring system in an existing bridge (based on experience from
Gimsystraumen Bridge Repair Project)
Recommended
Need development1
l
Linear polarization
l
Potensiostatic polarization (oxygen
transport)
l
Potential measurements
l
AC impedance
l
Electrochemical noise
l
Concrete resistance
l
Relative humidity
l
Temperature measurements
1
This need development evaluation of can be modified in the future if new sensors are
developed which give more stable and reliable long-term measurements.
Figure 6.1 What is the best location for sensors - the most exposed area, the most critical
area from a safety point of view, or the area most expensive to repair?
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 57
6.5
Where to Instrument?
This is not an easy question to answer. In fact, the answer must be firmly based upon the
strategy of the monitoring system and on the expected results from the sensors. If, for
example, the only guidelines given are: obtain a warning of impending corrosion , then this is
frequently not sufficient to design a system that will satisfy a client in the long run. It does not
indicate which of the following areas of the structure are to be monitored (see Fig. 6.1):
the most exposed,
the most critical, from a safety point of view, or
the most expensive to repair.
Given that the thickness of concrete cover varies according to the degree of exposure, one
should be able to assume that the durability or resistance to reinforcement corrosion should be
approximately equal throughout the entire structure. However, a bridge with equal amounts of
corrosion throughout its structure has yet to exist. This is a clear indication of our lack of
understanding and control of durability.
6.6
BMS, Monitoring and Chloride Ingress Models
This section will recommend reference zones and modified inspection routines to be
established in order to improve the measured data and thereby increase the reliability of the
models. In addition, how data collection from all bridges can be systematised to facilitate future
exploitation is also mentioned.
In [5] are problems and possibilities associated with condition monitoring discussed with the
objective of identifying the role of condition monitoring within an operating bridge
management system. This is a very important topic for owners with responsibility for
operating and maintaining constructions, as they need continuous, reliable and understandable
information concerning the condition of these constructions.
Traditionally, condition monitoring has been associated with instrumentation and choice of
sensor. Attention has to a much lesser degree been focused on exploitation of these
measurements. Sections 6.3 6.5 identifies applications for which condition monitoring is
suitable in addition to how the results and operation can be incorporated into the bridge
management system. Experience has shown that results from a condition survey carried out at
one point in time, e.g. in connection with an inspection, can be of limited value as it is often
difficult to evaluate and assess the consequences of such single measurements. By monitoring
the condition of a certain number of chosen points on a construction over an extended period,
is it possible to establish a better basis for interpreting condition surveys and material
investigations. This allows the results to be examined in relation to the observed development
over time of the condition of the chosen points. As the decision-making basis is improved,
this can lead to an economically optimal maintenance programme.
While corrosion monitoring is frequently an R&D project where bridges are concerned, it is
becoming more and more commonplace. As much effort is devoted to technical
developments, it is important to remember the management side: i.e. the operating costs, the
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 58

usefulness of the results and that it must be a defined/operational part of a management
system.
Experience from completed instrumentation projects formed the basis for two sample tender
specification documents for a corrosion monitoring system that are given in [5]: one for a new
bridge and one for an existing bridge. The specifications are characterised by a simple design
and an early but sure corrosion warning by placing some sensors in the cover zone in addition
to have overlapping measurements (redundancy). The main types of sensors used are:
reference electrodes; electrical resistance sensors, galvanic sensors and temperature sensors.
The proposed locations of the measurement points for the case of the new bridge are given in
Fig. 6.2.
Data
acquisition
enclosure
Area 4
+ 34m
2
4
Area 3
+6m
1
2
Area 2
+3m
3
4
Area 1
10m
Sundy Bridge - Axis 3
Figure 6.2 Proposal for location of measurement areas and points for durability
surveillance. Height above sea-level is also indicated.
6.6.1
Routines for new and existing structures
As previously mentioned, reference zones should be established. While it is unrealistic to do

this for all bridge structures, structures representative of a large number of similar structures
can be identified. In this way, a few structures can be properly investigated and the results
causiously applicable to a large number of structures. Categories for similar structures will
vary from country to country and the following list is meant as an example:
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 59
age
climate
use of de-icing salts
distance from the sea
production methods
material (silica fume, fly ash, lightweight aggregate, etc)
Once a structure has been selected, section 6.1 gives a good introduction into the problem of
selecting the location of these reference zones. The overall objective of these reference zones
must be kept in mind, i.e. minimise service life cost. This can be attained, for chloride
ingress, by
greater knowledge of actual chloride ingess

improved ingress models and estimate of remaining service life
optimising maintenance both in timing and in extent of repair
This improved knowledge of the service performance of the material concrete may also lead
to more durable concrete mix specifications and structural design for new constructions.
Before selecting reference zones for a particular bridge, we must identify the:
different climatic zones of the structure

distribution of cover in these zones
distribution of concrete durability parameters in these zones
When this information is available, three five reference zones can be selected. It must be
pointed out that factors such as height above sea water, aspect (south facing etc) and changes
in structrual geometry all contribute to the delimitation of the different climates zones.
Reference zones should therefore be defined comfortably within identified climatic zones so
as avoid later discussions of "climatic contamination".
Certain practicalities should also be taken into consideration when selecting the reference
zones. Firstly, a zone should be sufficiently large to be able to provide enough sample
material for chloride determination for decades. Secondly, due to the increased number of site
visits, access to the reference zones should not be too difficult as this will increase costs.
Chloride profiles at these locations should be determined more frequently than for other
structures generally. For new structures, profiles after 2, 5 and 10 years of service should give
a good basis for any prediction models. These intervals should also give relatively large and
measurable changes in chloride concentration. These intervals must be increased for existing
structures so as to provide measurable differences.
Caution must be exercised in determining the correct exposure time when using profiles
obtained after a relatively short service interval of, for example less than 10 years, as different
parts of the structure may have significantly different ages. This is particularly true for large
bridges which frequently have a construction period of 2-4 years. This implies that for a main,
in-depth inspection performed after five years of service (i.e. open to traffic for 5 years), the
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 60

superstructure may have been exposed to chlorides for 5 - 6 years while the columns
exposed for 6 - 8 years.
As with any long term project, documentation of performed activities and decisions should be
complete so as to provide a solid basis for future interpretation.
For new structures, the selection of reference structures is a good opportunity to install some
durability surveillance equipment which can be controlled at the same time as the chloride
profiles are determined. This instrumentation may used to compare "similar refenence zones"
in addition to providing valuable continuous information allowing seasonal and
environmental trends to be quantified.
Test slabs may also be cast and exposed at the structure in order to allow a large quantity of
samples to extracted and analysed. Micro climate, concrete and casting conditions for these
test slabs should be as similar as possible to the actual structure. Reinforcement can also be
placed with reduced and varying cover so as to detect when conditions for corrosion are
attained. Electrical connections to the reinforcement should be established so that electrochemical measurements can be performed.
A bridge management system is an important and essential tool for the success of this
monitorng as it can:
provide links to the similar structures

generate inspection plans which specify chloride profile determination
provide continuity to this long-term durability surveillance as employees frequently
of change area of responsibility every five years
In addition to the above mentioned modified inspection routines, a method know as the
inverse core method can be implemented to facilitate the determination chloride ingress over
time. This method is briefly presented below and a more complete description can be found in
[27]. Within the framework of the BRIME project, the method was partially implemented.
Three parallel cores were taken in October 1998 from an abutment of Sortland Bridge, a 23
year old coastal bridge. As the method requires one year of exposure, the results should have
been ready before the completion of the BRIME project. Unfortunately, the chloride content
of the cores was so low that one year of exposure would only have resulted in chloride levels
close to the accuracy of the measurement techniques. This made application of the method
uncertain and these cores were abandoned. It should be noted that an abutment was chosen
due to its ease of access as the method required repeated visits, which can be a non-negligible
cost. However, interest within the work package group was such that a new attempt was made
on a column of the Gimsytraumen Bridge during summer 1999, axis 3, 4 meters over sea
level. Again, as one year of exposure is required the results cannot be presented here.
Nevertheless, certain practicalities concerning the implimentation of the methods were
learned. In addition the chloride profiles obtained could be used by the chloride ingress
models.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 61

6.6.1.1 Method of Inverse Cores
A typical problem is that the chloride profile of an RC member is known at one point in time,
but its further development is not known. In order to solve the unknown parameters it is
necessary to know a chloride profile at the same location of the structure at another point in
time. To overcome this, it is proposed that mature previously unexposed concrete situated
deeper within the structure be exposed to chlorides at exactly the same position of the
construction as the determined profile. By doing this for one year, the chloride profile is
obtained from one years exposure. Exactly one year is chosen in order to take the seasonal
variability of one year into account. This should be increased to two or three years for
structures where road de-icing salts are the main source of chlorides.
It can be argued that this unexposed concrete is not the same as if the concrete were immature
(green) and that is true. On the other hand it can also be argued that it is the best
approximation possible if no other information exists. A correction factor may be looked for
in the near future.
Chloride profile determined
on this length on the core
Core to be rotated 180, reinserted in

cored hole and exposed for one year
Concrete surface
Core is divided in two
Surface is cut and exposed

to atmosphere for one year
Figure 6.3 Principle of the inverse core method

The procedure is as follows: at least three cores 75 mm are drilled from the structure.
These cores must be placed so that they represent the local environment in question, i.e. they
must have the same horizontal position and a distance of 200 mm between the centres of the
cores. Reinforcement bars in cores should be avoided. After drilling the cores they are
divided in two, rinsed in fresh water, dried and wrapped in plastic sheets in order to prevent
evaporation. The chloride profiles of the exposed side of the concrete cores are determined on
site or sent to a laboratory for inspection and testing.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 62
Then the unexposed cores are painted with an epoxy or polyurethane membrane in order to
protect them from chloride ingress through the surface. The painted cores are cut
approximately 50 mm from the virgin part and placed into the original holes so that the virgin
part of the cores are exposed to the chloride laden environment for one year. The 50 mm of
the virgin parts of the cores are tested according to the test method NT Build 443
Accelerated Chloride Penetration. This test yields the potential chloride diffusion
coefficient and the calculated surface chloride concentration. After one year of exposure, the
inverse cores are extracted from the structure and the chloride profiles determined.
A slightly modified version of the HETEK-model [27], described in section 2.3, is then used to
predict chloride ingress into the concrete.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 63
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 64
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Todays chloride ingress models are too precarious to automatically initiate a maintenance
repair. An understanding of the corrosion process, the limitations of the models and the
uncertainty surrounding the measured data are all necessary before any reliable decision can
be made. As such, only experienced engineers or corrosion experts should be allowed to act
upon the results generated by a chloride ingress model. In addition, engineering judgement
will still play an important role in assessing the extent of the damage, the associated
maintenance/repair cost and in combining different maintenance tasks from different
elements/bridges in order to optimise the limited resources available.
It is important to understand the limitations and possibilities a chloride ingress model can
have in a bridge management system (BMS). The model cannot predict how much
reinforcement will corrode every year nor can it predict with any certainty when corrosion
will initiate. However, it can predict when there will be a certain danger of corrosion
initiation. As such, chloride ingress models should be used for assessing possible future
maintenance, but not for assessing structural capacity or deterioration.
To fully exploit the possibilities of chloride ingress models, inspection routines should be
modified. This will allow reference zones to be established, test slabs to be cast and exposed at
the bridge, improve the measured data and increase the reliability of the models. In addition,
data collection from all bridges needs to be systematised to facilitate future exploitation. This
will greatly benefit neural network models but also allow for new models to be developed.
As a final note, durability surveillance must be based upon and compliment the existing
inspection programme of the bridge stock.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 65
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 66
FUTURE WORK
There are currently two main fundamental weaknesses when trying to predict the time to
corrosion initiation. The first is the accuracy of the input data (chloride concentration and the
depth at which it is determined). The second is the accuracy of the threshold values for
corrosion initiation for real structures. Note that one structure will have several threshold
values. Both of these weaknesses must be improved in the future if reliable predictions are to
be made.
Based on the results of case studies, further study of different parameters that affect the
chloride penetration into the concrete structures is needed. Further improvement of chloride
ion ingress models into the concrete structures due to the marine environment, de-icing salts
and air pollution is also needed. For this reason a large amount of data concerning the
structure, its quality of construction and environmental load must be collected and put into a
database. Further research is also needed on prediction and correlation of chloride ion
diffusion coefficient based on the measurements on site and in the laboratory. Test methods
and models for durability that reflect an actual structure in its environment must also be
developed.
Research is also needed concerning the application of different types of concrete surface
protection coatings against penetration of chlorides, other aggressive ions and gases. Further
studies of the effectiveness of these coatings with respect to the time of the first application
and period of application are needed. Further research is also needed in on site detection of
the stress corrosion cracking in pre-stressed and post-tension structures. A research of using
corrosion inhibitors and their application is going on world-wide and further studies are
needed to find out the most suitable application and time stability of the corrosion inhibitors
concentrations.
Further studies and research work of modelling the remaining service life of structure and/or
structural elements, at the project and network level, based on available data are needed
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 67
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 68
9
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
REFERENCES
Project: BRIME (Bridge Management in Europe) RO-97-SC.2220 Final Report.
European Commission under the Transport RTD Programme of the 4th Framework
Programme. 2001.
Poulsen E., Frederiksen J. M. The method of inverse cores. Private communication
1998. (to be published).
Proceedings. Int. Conf. Repair of concrete structures: From theory to practice in a
marine environment. Ed. A. Blankvoll. Svolvr, Norway, May 1997.
OFU Gimsystraumen bru. "Climatic loads and condition assessment, final report" (in
Norwegian). Publication no. 85, Norwegian Public Roads Administration (Statens
vegvesen), Oslo, Norway. 248 p. 1998.
Bestandige betongkonstruksjoner (Durable Concrete Structures). Instrumentert
tilstandsovervking - Ett skritt videre ( Project report "Condition monitoring - one step
further" (in Norwegian). NBI, Oslo, Report no. 4.1. 1999.
Something Concrete about Durability. Fluge F, Jakobsen B. 5th International
Symposium on Utilization of High Strength / High Performance Concrete, Norway, 20
24 June 1999.
Grabec I., Sachse W., Synergetics of Measurement, Prediction and Control, SpringerVerlag, Heidelberg, 1997.
Grabec I., Self-organization of neurons described by the maximum entropy principle,
Biol. cybern. 63 (1990) 403-409.
Peru I., Fajfar P., Grabec I., Prediction of the seismic capacity of RC structural walls
by non-parametric multidimensional regression, Earthquake Engng & Struct. Dyn. 23
(1994) 1139-1155.
Fajfar, P. & Peru, I., A non-parametric approach to attenuation relations, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, 1 (1997) 319-340.
Raharinaivo A., Grimaldi G. "Methodology for monitoring and forecasting the
condition of a reinforced concrete structure, under corrosion". IABSE Symposium
Expanding the lifespan of structures. San Francisco (USA) August 23 - 25, 1995.
Baroghel-Bouny (V.), Chaussadent (T.), Raharinaivo (A.) "Experimental investigations
upon binding of chloride and combined effects of moisture and chloride in cementitioud
materials". RILEM International Workshop on chloride penetration into concrete, SaintRmy-ls-Chevreuse, Oct. 15 - 18 1995.
Francy O., Bonnet S., Francois R., Perrin B., "Modeling of chloride ingress into
cement-based materials due to capillary suction". Proceedings 10th International
Congress of the Chemistry of Cement, H. Justnes, ed., Gothenburg, Sweden, June 1997,
Vol. 4, Paper 4iv078, 8pp.
J.M. Frederiksen (EDT.), L.-O. Nilsson, P. Sandberg, E. Poulsen, L. Tang, A. Andersen:
HETEK. A System for Estimation of Chloride Ingress into Concrete, Theoretical
background. Danish Road Directorate Report No. 83. 1997 Denmark.
Maage M., Helland S., Carlsen J.E.: Chloride penetration into concrete with light
weight aggregates. Report FoU Lightcon 3.6, STF22 A98755 SINTEF. Trondheim,
Norge 1999.
Mejlbro L.: The complete solution to Ficks second law of diffusion with timedependent diffusion coefficient and surface concentration. Proceedings of CEMENTAs
Workshop on Durability of Concrete in Saline Environment. Danderyd, 1996 Sweden.
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 69

[17] NT Build 443 (1995-11) Nordtest method: Concrete hardened; accelerated chloride
penetration. Published by Nordtest, ISSN 0283-7153.
[18] Sarja A, Vesikari E. Durability Design of Concrete Structures. RILEM report 14.
Report of the RILEM Technical Committee 130-CSL. E & FN Spon, 1996.
[19] Bestandige betongkonstruksjoner (Durable Concrete Structures). Final report (in
Norwegian). NBI, Oslo, 2000.
[20] Roelfstra, G., B. Adey, R. Hajdin and E. Brhwiler, "Condition evolution of concrete
bridges based on a segmental approach, non-destructive testing and deterioration
models", Proceedings, 8th International Bridge Management Conference,
Transportation Research Board - U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Denver, April
26-28, 1999.
[21] Brhwiler E., Mivellaz P. From corrosion of existing to durability of new concrete
structures. Int. Conf.: Structures for the future - The search for quality. IABSE
Symposium Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August 25-27, 1999.
[22] Deliverable D11, A F. Assessment of deterioration in bridges. . Project BRIME (Bridge
Management in Europe) RO-97-SC.2220 European Commission under the Transport
RTD Programme of the 4th Framework Programme, 1999.
[23] stlid, H. "Instrumentation, documentation and verification, the IDV system: A system
for planning and using data from instrumentation to ensure factual experience to be
understood and used for future projects" Proceedings 3rd Symposium on Strait
Crossings, lesund, Norway. Ed J. Krokeborg. Balkema, 1994. pp. 197-200.
[24] Myrdal, R. "Evaluation of Electrochemical Techniques for Assessing Corrosion of Steel
in Concrete". PhD. Thesis, University of Oslo, Norway. 1997.
[25] Vennesland, ., Austnes, P., Odegrd, O. "Corrosion monitoring of concrete pillars in
marine environment". Proceedings Fourth Int. Sym. Corrosion of Reinforcement in
Concrete Construction. Ed. C.L. Page, P.B. Bamforth and J.W. Figg. Cambridge, 1996.
[26] Deliverable D13: Outline framework for a bridge management system. Project BRIME
(Bridge Management in Europe) RO-97-SC.2220 European Commission under the
Transport RTD Programme of the 4th Framework Programme, 2001.
[27] Poulsen E., M. Frederiksen J.M. The Method of Inverse Cores. AEClaboratory,
Denmark. 1998.
[28] ERVIN POULSEN, J.M. FREDERIKSEN: Estimation of Chloride Ingress into Concrete by
Inspection, and application of an updated Ligthcon-model. AECnote 1999.
[29] ERVIN POULSEN, J.M. FREDERIKSEN: Estimation of Chloride Ingress into Concrete by
Inspection, and application of the HETEK-model Version 1997. AECnote 1999.
[30] Maage M., Poulsen E., Vennesland . and Carlsen J.E.; "Service Life Model for
Concrete Structures exposed to Marine Environment. Initiation period," SINTEF report
STF 70 A94082. Trondheim, Norway 1995
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE 70
ANNEXE A: CONDITION SURVEY DATA

Condition survey data from the following bridges has been used to calculate the time to
corrosion initiation by the chloride ingress models:
Norway
Gimsystraumen Bridge
Hadsel Bridge
Sandhornya Bridge
Slovenia
Viaduct kedenj 1
Viaduct Preloge
Viaduct Slatina
Viaduct epina
Viaduct Ivanje Selo
France
Bridge A11 PS12-10
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE A - 1

Blank
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE A - 2
BRIME D8: Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring
Annexe A : Condition Survey Data
Chlorides at Gimsystraumen:
Norway
Height
above
sea level
m
Location
code
Depth
mm
Cl- weight
Factor
% of cement
mconc
% of concrete at time of
mcem
inspection
3,6
Column 3
(Cl.3.07)
3,6
Column 3
(Cl.3.08)
3,6
Column 3
(Cl.3.09)
3,6
Column 5
(Cl.5.13)
3,6
Column 5
(Cl.5.14)
3,6
Column 5
(Cl.5.15)
3,95
Column 3
X=2.7
7,5
22,5
40,0
62,5
87,5
7,5
22,5
40,0
62,5
87,5
7,5
22,5
40,0
62,5
87,5
7,5
22,5
40,0
62,5
87,5
7,5
22,5
40,0
62,5
87,5
7,5
22,5
40,0
62,5
87,5
5
15
25
40
62,5
2,05
2,05
1,38
0,49
0,25
1,47
1,54
0,93
0,51
0,27
1,34
0,93
0,58
0,22
0,14
1,34
1,28
0,29
0,07
0,06
2,30
1,73
0,19
0,06
0,07
1,66
0,96
0,27
0,06
0,10
1,286
1,628
0,905
0,332
0,187
Bridge: Gimsoystraumen
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
Cl- weight
0,3200
0,3200
0,2150
0,0760
0,0390
0,2300
0,2400
0,1450
0,0800
0,0420
0,2100
0,1450
0,0900
0,0340
0,0220
0,2100
0,2000
0,0460
0,0105
0,0088
0,3600
0,2700
0,0300
0,0092
0,0115
0,2600
0,1500
0,0420
0,0098
0,0160
0,201
0,254
0,141
0,052
0,029
Age
Location
12
West side
12
West side
12
West side
12
West side
12
West side
12
West side
18
West side
PAGE A-3

3,95
Column 3
X=2.2
3,95
Column 3
X=3.2
3,8
Column 5
X=2.6
3,8
Column 5
X=3.1
3,8
Column 5
X=3.6
Bridge: Gimsoystraumen
5
15
25
40
62,5
5
15
25
40
62,5
5
15
25
40
62,5
5
15
25
40
62,5
5
15
25
40
62,5
1,601
2,06
1,467
1,025
0,449
1,756
1,594
1,129
0,584
0,222
2
2,37
1,472
0,584
0,268
2,61
1,034
1,052
0,469
0,09
1,949
2,094
1,63
0,614
0,096

6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
0,25
0,322
0,229
0,16
0,07
0,274
0,249
0,176
0,091
0,035
0,313
0,37
0,23
0,091
0,042
0,408
0,162
0,164
0,073
0,014
0,305
0,327
0,255
0,096
0,015
18
West side
18
West side
18
West side
18
West side
18
West side
PAGE A-4
Chlorides at Hadsel bridge:
Norway
Height
above
sea level
m
Location
code
Depth
mm
Cl- weight
Factor
% of cement
mconc
mcem
inspection
3,5
Column 16
A16N+3,5
6,5
Column 16
A16N+6,5
3,5
Column 18
A18N+3,5
6,5
Column 18
A18N+6,5
3,5
Column 16
A16N+3,5
6,5
Column 16
A16N+6,5
3,5
Column 18
A18N+3,5
6,5
Column 18
A18N+6,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
40,0
62,5
87,5
7,5
22,5
40,0
62,5
87,5
7,5
22,5
40,0
62,5
87,5
7,5
22,5
40,0
62,5
87,5
2,75
3,58
2,37
1,98
1,38
1,06
1,78
1,54
0,96
0,67
2,56
3,33
2,62
1,66
0,76
2,62
3,58
2,62
1,60
1,38
2,31
3,17
3,15
2,31
1,60
1,19
1,62
1,90
1,34
0,96
2,74
2,64
2,26
1,76
1,73
1,71
1,81
1,83
2,03
1,46
Bridge: Hadsel
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
Cl- weight
0,4300
0,5600
0,3700
0,3100
0,2150
0,1650
0,2780
0,2400
0,1500
0,1040
0,4000
0,5200
0,4100
0,2600
0,1180
0,4100
0,6600
0,4100
0,2500
0,2150
0,3610
0,4960
0,4920
0,3610
0,2510
0,1860
0,2540
0,2970
0,2090
0,1500
0,4280
0,4120
0,3530
0,2740
0,2700
0,2670
0,2820
0,2860
0,3170
0,2280
Age
Location
14
North side
14
North side
14
North side
14
North side
22
North side
22
North side
22
North side
22
North side
PAGE A-5
Chlorides at Sandhornya:
Norway
Height
above
sea level
m
Location
code
3,6
NP A2, , t1
3,6
NP A2, , t2
3,6
NP A2, V, t1
3,6
NP A2, V, t2
3,6
NP A3, , t1
3,6
NP A3, , t2
3,6
NP A3, V, t1
3,6
NP A3, V, t2
Bridge: Sandhornoya
Depth
mm
Cl- weight
Factor
% of cement
mconc
mcem
inspection
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
1,12
0,28
0,04
0,05
0,05
1,29
0,78
0,24
0,06
0,00
0,55
0,17
0,02
0,00
0,00
1,04
0,50
0,25
0,23
0,05
2,75
0,20
0,03
0,00
0,04
2,96
3,28
0,68
0,01
0,00
0,68
0,83
0,03
0,02
0,03
1,71
1,35
0,31
0,06
0,02
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
Cl- weight
0,175
0,044
0,006
0,008
0,008
0,202
0,122
0,037
0,010
0,000
0,086
0,026
0,003
0,000
0,000
0,162
0,078
0,039
0,036
0,008
0,430
0,032
0,004
0,000
0,006
0,462
0,512
0,106
0,001
0,000
0,106
0,130
0,005
0,003
0,004
0,267
0,211
0,048
0,010
0,003
Age
Location
3,5
East side
7,5
East side
3,5
West side
7,5
West side
3,5
East side
7,5
East side
3,5
West side
7,5
West side
PAGE A-6

3,6
SP A2, , t1
3,6
SP A2, , t2
3,6
SP A2, V, t1
3,6
SP A2, V, t2
3,6
SP A3, , t1
3,6
SP A3, , t2
3,6
SP A3, V, t1
3,6
SP A3, V, t2
Bridge: Sandhornoya
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
0,57
0,14
0,04
0,00
0,03
0,58
0,20
0,12
0,01
0,00
0,52
0,15
0,03
0,00
0,00
0,80
0,25
0,15
0,10
0,03
0,59
0,07
0,02
0,00
0,00
2,94
1,51
0,36
0,04
0,00
0,40
0,12
0,00
0,00
0,00
1,28
0,64
0,11
0,00
0,00

6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
0,089
0,022
0,006
0,000
0,004
0,090
0,031
0,018
0,002
0,000
0,082
0,024
0,004
0,000
0,000
0,125
0,039
0,023
0,015
0,004
0,092
0,011
0,003
0,000
0,000
0,459
0,236
0,057
0,006
0,000
0,063
0,019
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,200
0,100
0,017
0,000
0,000
3,5
East side
7,5
East side
3,5
West side
7,5
West side
3,5
East side
7,5
East side
3,5
West side
7,5
West side
PAGE A-7
Chlorides at Skedenj:
Slovenia
Height
above
sea level
m
Location
code
Profile 1
Profile 2
Profile 3
Profile 5
Profile 6
Profile 7
Profile 8
Depth
mm
Cl- weight
Factor
% of cement
mconc
mcem
inspection
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
5,0
20,0
40,0
3,20
2,75
0,58
0,13
2,18
2,56
0,64
0,19
0,90
0,38
0,13
6,4
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
100,0
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
100,0
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
1,98
1,28
0,38
0,13
0,64
0,77
0,32
0,32
0,30
0,64
0,51
0,38
0,26
0,22
0,96
0,38
0,26
0,19
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
Cl- weight
Age
0,500
0,430
0,090
0,020
0,340
0,400
0,100
0,030
0,140
0,060
0,020
20
0,310
0,200
0,060
0,020
0,100
0,120
0,050
0,050
0,040
0,100
0,080
0,060
0,040
0,030
0,150
0,060
0,040
0,030
20
Location
20
20
20
20
20
exposed to de-icing salts
Bridge: Skedenj
PAGE A-8
Chlorides at Preloge:
Slovenia
Height
above
sea level
m
Location
code
Profile 1
Profile 2
Profile 3
Depth
mm
Cl- weight
Factor
% of cement
mconc
mcem
inspection
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
1,98
0,83
0,09
0,06
1,47
0,19
0,06
0,06
1,60
2,05
0,45
0,06
6,4
6,4
6,4
Cl- weight
0,310
0,130
0,014
0,010
0,230
0,030
0,010
0,010
0,250
0,320
0,070
0,010
Age
Location
20
20
20
Bridge: Preloge
PAGE A-9
Chlorides at Slatina:
Slovenia
Height
above
sea level
m
Location
code
Profile 1
Profile 2
Profile 5
Profile 6
Profile 7
Depth
mm
Cl- weight
Factor
% of cement
mconc
mcem
inspection
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
5,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
180,0
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
0,51
1,66
0,83
0,32
1,79
1,54
0,64
0,51
1,98
1,22
0,26
0,13
0,30
1,41
1,66
0,51
0,06
1,66
2,88
0,32
0,19
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
Cl- weight
0,080
0,260
0,130
0,050
0,280
0,240
0,100
0,080
0,310
0,190
0,040
0,020
0,040
0,220
0,260
0,080
0,010
0,260
0,450
0,050
0,030
Age
Location
19
19
19
19
19
Bridge: Slatina
PAGE A-10
Chlorides at Zepina:
Slovenia
Height
above
sea level
m
Location
code
Profile 1
Profile 2, t1
Profile 2, t2
Profile 3
Profile 5, t1
Profile 5, t2
Profile 6
Profile 7
Profile 8
Depth
mm
Cl- weight
Factor
% of cement
mconc
mcem
inspection
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
10,0
30,0
60,0
5,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
10,0
30,0
60,0
10,0
30,0
60,0
5,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
10,0
30,0
60,0
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
1,34
0,64
0,32
0,06
5,06
3,90
1,86
3,52
3,71
3,71
3,84
3,33
2,11
1,79
1,02
1,79
0,28
2,30
2,18
0,70
1,66
2,05
2,05
1,92
1,92
1,09
0,51
1,15
0,38
0,19
2,05
0,51
0,19
0,13
0,64
0,32
0,19
0,13
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
Cl- weight
0,210
0,100
0,050
0,010
0,790
0,610
0,290
0,550
0,580
0,580
0,600
0,520
0,330
0,280
0,160
0,280
0,043
0,360
0,340
0,110
0,260
0,320
0,320
0,300
0,300
0,170
0,080
0,180
0,060
0,030
0,320
0,080
0,030
0,020
0,100
0,050
0,030
0,020
Age
Location
22
18
22
18
18
22
18
22
22
Bridge: Zepina
PAGE A-11
Chlorides at Ivanje Selo:
Slovenia
Height
above
sea level
m
Location
code
Profile 1
Profile 2
Profile 3
Profile 4
Depth
mm
Cl- weight
Factor
% of cement
mconc
mcem
inspection
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
5,0
20,0
40,0
80,0
5,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
80,0
5,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
80,0
1,28
1,47
0,06
0,06
1,22
0,90
0,51
0,13
2,24
1,54
0,38
0,06
0,00
0,06
2,37
0,90
0,38
0,13
0,06
0,06
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,4
Cl- weight
0,200
0,230
0,010
0,010
0,190
0,140
0,080
0,020
0,350
0,240
0,060
0,010
0,010
0,010
0,370
0,140
0,060
0,020
0,010
0,010
Age
Location
26
26
26
26
Bridge: Ivanje Selo
PAGE A-12
Chlorides at PS12-10:
France
Height
above
sea level
m
Location
code
Column P1
Column P2
Column P3
Depth
mm
Cl- weight
Factor
% of cement
mconc
mcem
inspection
2,5
7,5
12,5
17,5
22,5
27,5
2,5
7,5
12,5
17,5
22,5
27,5
2,5
7,5
12,5
17,5
22,5
27,5
1,27
1,09
0,69
0,79
0,53
0,42
0,70
0,66
0,56
0,24
0,00
0,00
1,04
0,64
0,74
0,50
0,24
0,07
6,4
6,4
6,4
Cl- weight
0,198
0,170
0,108
0,123
0,083
0,065
0,110
0,103
0,088
0,038
0,000
0,000
0,162
0,100
0,116
0,078
0,037
0,011
Age
Location
24
24
24
Bridge: PS12-10
PAGE A-13

Blank
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE A - 14
ANNEXE B: RESULTS FROM THE CHLORIDE INGRESS MODELS
Condition survey data in Annexe A has been used to calculate the time to corrosion initiation by the
following chloride ingress models:
Fick's 2nd law
LightCon model
Hetek model
Conditional Average Estimator - Hybrid Neural Network (CAE-HNN).
The results for all four models are presented on one page for each location in the following order:
Norway
Gimsystraumen Bridge (4 locations)
Hadsel Bridge (4 locations)
Sandhornya Bridge (8 locations)
Slovenia
Viaduct kedenj 1 (7 locations)
Viaduct Preloge (3 locations)
Viaduct Slatina (5 locations)
Viaduct epina (6 locations)
Viaduct Ivanje Selo (4 locations)
France
Bridge A11 PS12-10 (3 locations)
BRIME PL97-2220
Page B - 1

blank
BRIME PL97-2220
Page B - 2
Annexe B : Results from Models

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
60
CAE_HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
40
62,5
87,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,253
0,235
0,15
0,063
0,034
Depth (mm)
15
25
40
62,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,242
0,275
0,182
0,101
0,045
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
12 years
18 years
4,5
2,6
0,5
1,8
3,5
25
0,7
5,4
1,4
25
17
10
11
11
30
0,4
3,9
1,9
3,9
30
0,7
11
7,9
4,9
7,5
30
29
15
60
23
50
0,4
12
12
6,2
23
50
0,7
17
23
17
45
50
47
41
200
137
35
56,3
30
0,4
0,361
0,4

Ficks 2. HETEK LightCon CAE_HNN
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 3

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
0,1
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
0.7%
100
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
40
62,5
87,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,278
0,207
0,039
0,01
0,012
Depth (mm)
15
25
40
62,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,342
0,286
0,216
0,087
0,024
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
12 years
18 years
4,7
0,5
1,5
2,2
25
0,7
10
1,7
25
11
19
3,5
30
0,4
7,9
1,3
3,2
30
0,7
10
17
4,6
30
16
30
13
7,5
50
0,4
18
36
17
19
50
0,7
28
70
52
28
50
43
114
160
45
33
25,5
29
0,44
0,485
0,44

1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 4
Gimsystraumen bridge; Superstructure R1; Heigth 9.9 m

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000,0
1%
0.7%
100,0
20
0.4%
10,0
1,0
0,1
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
0.7%
100
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
15
25
40
62,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,35
0,38
0,29
0,12
0,03
12 years
Depth (mm)
15
24
40
62,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,264
0,509
0,497
0,373
0,22
0,065
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
25
0,7
0,3
25
7,4
0,5
30
0,4
3,2
4,2
0,3
30
0,7
4,5
6,9
0,6
30
6,4
10
1,4
50
0,4
12
3,2
50
0,7
14
18
7,8
50
17
25
18
49
50,2
42
0.68
0,672
0,68
18 years
2,3
2,9
0,1

1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 5
Gimsystraumen bridge; Superstructure R4; Heigth 14.6 m

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000,0
1%
0.7%
100,0
20
0.4%
10,0
1,0
0,1
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
0.7%
100
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
15
25
40
62,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,21
0,18
0,1
0,04
0,02
12 years
Depth (mm)
15
24
40
62,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,275
0,519
0,486
0,382
0,198
0,049
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
25
0,7
3,2
4,8
0,3
25
4,5
7,1
0,4
30
0,4
3,5
4,1
0,3
30
0,7
6,7
0,7
30
6,6
9,7
1,6
50
0,4
10
11
3,7
50
0,7
14
17
50
19
24
11
46
52
40
0,69
0,68
0,69
18 years
2,3
2,9
0,1

1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 6
Hadsel bridge; Column 16 North; Heigth 3.5 m

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
60
CAE_HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,43
0,56
0,37
0,31
0,215
Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
40
62,5
87,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,361
0,496
0,492
0,361
0,251
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
0,6
1,9
0,1
25
0,7
0,9
2,7
0,1
25
1,2
3,6
0,2
30
0,4
0,9
2,3
0,3
30
0,7
1,3
3,3
0,4
30
1,7
4,4
0,7
50
0,4
2,5
4,5
4,5
50
0,7
3,5
6,1
0,2
6,1
50
14 years
22 years
4,6
7,7
0,4
7,7
169
259,2
145
0,77
0,78
0,77

1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 7

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000,0
1%
0.7%
100,0
20
0.4%
10,0
1,0
0,1
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
0.7%
100
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,165
0,278
0,24
0,15
0,104
Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
40
62,5
87,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,186
0,254
0,297
0,209
0,15
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
1,1
25
0,7
1,7
3,4
0,3
25
2,5
5,5
0,1
2,2
30
0,4
1,6
2,7
0,5
30
0,7
2,4
4,5
0,1
1,3
30
3,5
7,2
0,2
8,6
14 years
22 years
0,1
50
0,4
4,2
6,2
0,4
8,4
50
0,7
6,5
10
22
50
9,6
15
2,8
100
128
146,9
110
0,5
0,40
0,5

1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 8

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
0.7%
100
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,4
0,52
0,41
0,26
0,118
Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
40
62,5
87,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,428
0,412
0,353
0,274
0,27
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
0,8
0,1
25
0,7
1,3
3,1
0,1
25
1,8
4,3
0,1
30
0,4
1,2
2,6
0,3
30
0,7
1,8
3,9
0,4
30
2,5
5,4
0,1
0,5
14 years
22 years
50
0,4
3,1
5,4
0,2
4,2
50
0,7
4,8
7,8
5,6
50
7,7
11
1,4
165
173,9
142
0,52
0,59
0,52

1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 9

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000,0
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100,0
0.4%
10,0
10
1,0
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
0.7%
100
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,41
0,66
0,41
0,25
0,215
Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
40
62,5
87,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,267
0,282
0,286
0,317
0,228
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
0,5
1,9
0,1
25
0,7
0,7
2,9
0,2
25
1,0
4,1
0,3
30
0,4
0,7
2,4
0,4
30
0,7
1,0
3,6
0,6
30
1,5
5,1
1,3
50
0,4
1,8
4,8
6,3
50
0,7
2,8
0,1
11
50
14 years
22 years
3,8
9,4
0,3
22
275
231,1
236
0,57
0,55
0,57

1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 10
Sandhornya, NP A2, East

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
40
60
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0,1
0
0.7%
100
20
40
60
0.4%
20

Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,175
0,044
0,006
0,008
0,008
Depth (mm)
15
25
37,5
52,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,202
0,122
0,037
0,01
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
3.5 years
7.5 years
19
CAE HNN
25
0,7
19
270
12
2,2
25
47
5270
120
8,9
30
0,4
12
71
4,8
30
0,7
27
986
30
4,6
30
68
19290
280
19
50
0,4
34
2694
60
12
50
0,7
73
37400
400
28
50
170
700000
3500
114
26
22,7
16
0,26
0,27
0,26

Ficks 2. HETEK LightCon
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 11
Sandhornya, NP A2, West

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
0,1
60
CAE HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,086
0,026
0,003
Depth (mm)
15
22,5
37,5
52,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,162
0,078
0,039
0,036
0,008
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
3.5 years
7.5 years
13
9,4
CAE HNN
1
25
0,7
35
16
60
3,6
25
140
25
2400
302
30
0,4
19
12
11
2,2
30
0,7
50
20
150
7,9
30
210
30
6200
653
50
0,4
51
25
140
14
50
0,7
130
39
1300
49
50
620
54
10000
4039
24
44,6
15
0,20
0,20
0,20

1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 12
Sandhornya, NP A3, East

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
0,1
60
CAE_HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,43
0,032
0,004
0,006
Depth (mm)
15
22,5
37,5
52,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,462
0,512
0,106
0,011
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
4,5
25
0,7
6,4
25
30
0,4
3.5 years
7.5 years
4,5
0,7
0,6
0,8
7,4
1,5
6,3
1,1
1,3
30
0,7
9,3
8,3
2,2
1,7
30
11
10
2,2
50
0,4
20
16
14
7,8
50
0,7
24
21
30
10
50
32
25
50
13
17
22,9
10
1,22
1,15
1,22

Ficks 2. HETEK LightCon CAE HNN
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 13
Sandhornya, NP A3, West

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
0.4%
10
0,1
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
CAE_HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,106
0,13
0,005
0,003
0,004
Depth (mm)
15
22,5
37,5
52,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,267
0,211
0,048
0,01
0,003
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
8,5
3,9
1,6
0,7
25
0,7
14
14
6,2
1,1
25
22
65
20
2,2
30
0,4
12
7,4
4,2
1,4
30
0,7
20
26
15
2,4
30
31
107
50
4,8
50
0,4
33
46
56
8,8
50
0,7
57
161
200
15
50
90
654
650
30
18
41,5
11
0,40
0,27
0,40
3.5 years
7.5 years

CAE HNN
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0
20
40
60
80
PAGE B - 14
Sandhornya, SP A2, East

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
0,1
60
CAE HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,089
0,022
0,006
0,004
Depth (mm)
15
22,5
37,5
52,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,09
0,031
0,018
0,002
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
50
52
105
4,9
25
0,7
2171
25
30
0,4
63
83
300
11
30
0,7
3462
30
50
0,4
180
308
63
50
0,7
12800
50
3.5 years
7.5 years
CAE HNN
21
20,1
13
0,11
0,13
0,11

1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 15
Sandhornya, SP A2, West

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
0,1
60
CAE HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,082
0,024
0,004
Depth (mm)
15
22,5
37,5
52,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,125
0,039
0,023
0,015
0,004
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
25
0,7
25
30
0,4
30
30
3.5 years
7.5 years
29
30
1,5
115
94
1000
25
1000
322
37
43
70
3,3
0,7
150
136
2400
53
14000
440
50
0,4
110
137
950
21
50
0,7
420
390
33000
329
50
41000
1097
16
18,8
10
0,16
0,16
0,16
25
CAE HNN

1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 16
Sandhornya, SP A3, East

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
0,1
60
CAE HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,092
0,011
0,003
Depth (mm)
15
22,5
37,5
52,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,459
0,236
0,057
0,006
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
7,3
7,5
0,6
25
0,7
12
10
19
0,8
25
15
13
42
1,1
30
0,4
11
9,6
17
1,3
30
0,7
15
14
47
1,7
30
21
18
105
2,2
50
0,4
30
24
230
7,9
50
0,7
43
33
600
10
50
60
41
14
15
26,6
0,63
0,59
0,63
3.5 years
7.5 years
CAE HNN

1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 17
Sandhornya, SP A3, West

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
0,1
60
CAE HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
7,5
22,5
37,5
52,5
67,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,106
0,13
0,005
0,003
0,004
Depth (mm)
15
22,5
37,5
52,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,267
0,211
0,048
0,01
0,003
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
8,5
3,9
1,6
0,8
25
0,7
14
14
6,2
1,9
25
22
65
20
30
0,4
12
7,4
4,2
1,8
30
0,7
20
26
15
4,1
30
31
107
50
17
50
0,4
33
46
56
11
50
0,7
57
161
200
25
50
90
654
650
108
18
41,5
11
0,40
0,27
0,40
3.5 years
7.5 years
CAE HNN

1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 18
Skedenj, profile 1
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
60
CAE_HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,5
0,43
0,09
0,02
20 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4

3,2
0,5
CAE_HNN
1,8
25
0,7
6,5
1,2
25
7,3
30
0,4
4,9
1,2
5,9
30
0,7
10
7,6
8,6
30
13
11
13
50
0,4
17
16
16
23
50
0,7
26
24
40
34
50
37
35
92
53
25
29,5
15
0,63
0,61
0,63
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 19
Skedenj, profile 2
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
60
CAE_HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,34
0,4
0,1
0,03
20 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4

4
2,6
0,4
CAE_HNN
0,7
25
0,7
6,5
4,4
1,1
25
9,6
7,1
30
0,4
5,5
3,8
0,9
9,8
30
0,7
6,5
2,7
17,0
30
13
11
37
50
0,4
16
12
11
18,0
50
0,7
24
19
34
31
50
38
31
100
66
35
48,9
21
0,46
0,44
0,46
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 20
Skedenj, profile 3
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
60
CAE_HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
Cl (% conc.)
0,14
0,06
0,02
20 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
33
CAE_HNN
27
60
1,9
9
25
0,7
110
42
1500
25
58
30
0,4
42
33
145
3,7
30
0,7
160
51
4000
18
30
68
50
0,4
120
63
2000
41
50
0,7
450
91
202
50
117
12
22,1
0,17
0,18
0,17
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 21
Skedenj, profile 5
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
60
CAE_HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,31
0,2
0,06
0,02
20 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
6,2
25
0,7
10
25
17
30
0,4
30
30
CAE_HNN
11
12
19
23
15
44
9,5
2,3
19
0,7
15
18
10
35
26
35
39
80
50
0,4
23
32
30
35
50
0,7
41
61
125
62
50
72
116
490
143
29
22,7
18
0,35
0,36
0,35
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 22
Skedenj, profile 6
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
60
CAE_HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
180
Cl (% conc.)
0,1
0,12
0,05
0,05
0,04
20 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
7,1
7,2
1,6
25
0,7
70
162
470
25
30
0,4
10
10
30
0,7
100
233
1100
30
50
0,4
29
29
50
0,7
280
648
50
CAE_HNN
82
99,5
50
0,13
0,12
0,13
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 23
Skedenj, profile 7
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
60
CAE_HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
100
Cl (% conc.)
0,1
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,03
20 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
8,4
3,3
25
0,7
25
30
0,4
11
12
7,6
30
0,7
30
50
0,4
32
34
69
20
50
0,7
50
CAE_HNN
150
145,7
91
0,10
0,10
0,10
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 24
Skedenj, profile 8
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
60
CAE_HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,15
0,06
0,04
0,03
20 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
16
CAE_HNN
20
14
21
346
25
0,7
74
30
400
25
39
30
0,4
23
24
30
30
481
30
0,7
110
34
900
30
44
50
0,4
65
39
41
50
0,7
300
53
664
50
66
27
42,2
16
0,16
0,18
0,16
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 25
Preloge, profile 1
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
60
CAE_HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,31
0,13
0,014
0,01
20 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
17
15
25
0,7
26
25
45
30
0,4
30
30
CAE_HNN
7,6
30
13
59
24
26
23
25
13
0,7
38
49
18
22
62
94
60
45
50
0,4
64
93
62
46
50
0,7
105
185
220
77
50
180
357
800
156
10
9,8
0,39
0,39
0,39
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 26
Preloge, profile 2
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
60
CAE_HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,23
0,03
0,01
0,01
20 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
25
25

44
91
0,7
75
140
30
0,4
30
30
CAE_HNN
20
11
188
95
22
350
480
63
60
152
51
19
0,7
105
309
230
39
200
566
1100
112
50
0,4
170
650
660
48
50
0,7
300
1263
3000
96
50
560
2206
280
3,2
0,32
0,36
0,32
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 27
Preloge, profile 3
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
60
CAE_HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,25
0,32
0,07
0,01
20 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4

5
3,4
0,1
CAE_HNN
0,6
25
0,7
6,5
0,5
25
15
13
30
0,4
0,3
4,1
30
0,7
13
9,6
1,2
8,0
30
22
19
22
50
0,4
20
15
25
50
0,7
36
29
15
49
50
63
56
61
136
33
46,5
21
0,35
0,33
0,35
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 28
Slatina, profile 1
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
0.4%
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
CAE_HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,08
0,26
0,13
0,05
19 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4

3
7,7
0,3
CAE_HNN
3,0
25
0,7
11,7
25
15,6
52
30
0,4
4,5
9,1
0,6
8,3
30
0,7
13,5
21,7
30
12
17,7
146
50
0,4
12
15,2
22,9
50
0,7
21
21,2
28
60
50
34
26,8
90
403
45
94,6
39
0,42
0,44
0,42
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0
50
100
PAGE B - 29
Slatina, profile 2
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
40
60
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0
0
0.7%
100
20
40
60
0.4%
20

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,28
0,24
0,1
0,08
19 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
3,5
25
0,7
25
30
CAE_HNN
8,1
0,3
0,7
6,5
12
1,3
11
15,7
0,4
9,4
0,7
3,7
7,2
30
0,7
9,3
13,7
3,1
30
17
17,7
16
20
50
0,4
13
15,2
17,8
50
0,7
25
20,9
42
35
50
49
26,1
200
98
47
101,2
29
0,32
0,39
0,32
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 30
Slatina, profile 5
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
40
60
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0
0
0.7%
100
20
40
60
0.4%
20

Depth (mm)
20
40
60
180
Cl (% conc.)
0,31
0,19
0,04
0,02
0,04
19 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
11
25
0,7
12
25
21
30
0,4
30
30
CAE_HNN
1,7
8,8
16
17
21
25
41
10
13
17,0
0,7
17
19
16
31,0
31
25
64
77
50
0,4
28
25
54
47
50
0,7
50
35
210
87
50
85
44
810
217
23
41,1
14
0,36
0,38
0,36
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 31
Slatina, profile 6
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
0.7%
100
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,22
0,26
0,08
0,01
19 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4

5
5,5
0,9
CAE_HNN
4,6
25
0,7
9,1
2,6
25
13
14
8,1
14
30
0,4
8,3
10
30
0,7
12
14
6,5
17
30
20
20
20
33
50
0,4
21
26
25
26
50
0,7
34
41
83
43
50
54
61
250
83
28
21,5
17
0,43
0,55
0,43
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 32
Slatina, profile 7
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
0.7%
100
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,26
0,45
0,05
0,03
19 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
8,6
6,8
2,5
25
0,7
11
9,3
4,6
25
12
12
9,5
30
0,4
11
11
6,2
30
0,7
15
15
11
30
18
19
19
50
0,4
33
40
81
30
50
0,7
42
54
145
50
50
51
69
230
97
8,8
1,49
1,79
1,49
CAE_HNN
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 33
Zepina, profile 1
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
0.7%
100
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,21
0,1
0,05
0,01
22 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
10
13
0,6
25
0,7
23
29
4,2
44
25
62
67
50
480
30
0,4
10
18
1,3
24
30
0,7
33
42
11
70
30
90
93
125
766
CAE_HNN
15
50
0,4
41
55
18
44
50
0,7
92
118
130
127
50
230
240
1600
1385
24
38,7
15
0,24
0,26
0,24
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 34
Zepina, profile 2
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
0,1
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
0.7%
100
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
10
30
60
Cl (% conc.)
0,79
0,61
0,29
18 years exp.
Depth (mm)
10
20
30
40
60
Cl (% conc.)
0,55
0,58
0,58
0,6
0,52
0,33
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
1,1
25
0,7
25
30
80
0,28
22 years exp.

CAE_HNN
1,2
< 0.1
1,6
< 0.1
2,9
< 0.1
0,4
1,7
1,6
< 0.1
0,1
30
0,7
2,1
2,6
< 0.1
0,1
30
2,9
3,7
< 0.1
0,2
50
0,4
4,8
3,7
< 0.1
5,9
50
0,7
6,3
5,6
0,2
7,9
50
8,1
7,5
0,3
11
73
166,9
45
1,07
1,02
1,07

1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 35
Zepina, profile 5
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
0,1
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
0.7%
100
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
10
30
60
Cl (% conc.)
0,36
0,34
0,11
18 years exp.
Depth (mm)
10
20
30
40
60
Cl (% conc.)
0,26
0,32
0,32
0,3
0,3
0,17
Cover depth
(mm)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
80
0,08
22 years exp.
1,4
1,5
CAE_HNN
0,2
25
0,7
2,3
2,4
0,1
0,2
25
3,5
0,3
0,4
30
0,4
2,1
2,2
0,1
0,2
30
0,7
3,3
3,5
0,2
0,3
30
5,5
0,6
0,6
50
0,4
5,8
6,3
12
50
0,7
9,2
10
2,9
18
50
14
14
8,4
29
96,5
88
54
0,47
0,47
0,47

1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 36
Zepina, profile 6
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
0.7%
100
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
10
30
60
Cl (% conc.)
0,18
0,06
0,03
18 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
13
25
0,7
18
29
38
25
50
64
43
1353
30
0,4
11
19
18
30
0,7
25
42
59
30
73
90
110
2095

0,4
CAE_HNN
11
50
0,4
30
58
12
40
50
0,7
72
122
105
134
50
200
241
2000
4744
32
19,4
20
0,23
0,26
0,23
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 37
Zepina, profile 7
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
0.7%
100
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,32
0,08
0,03
0,02
22 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
22
28
25
0,7
40
44
80
44
25
65
61
240
480
30
0,4
31
40
56
24
30
0,7
53
61
195
70,0
30
75
83
610
766
50
0,4
90
113
720
44
50
0,7
130
163
2500
127
50
220
213
8000
1385
7,6
0,41
0,46
0,41

22
CAE_HNN
15
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 38
Zepina, profile 8
Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
60
CAE_HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,1
0,05
0,03
0,02
22 years exp.
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
34
28
10
25
0,7
2400
43
25
59
30
0,4
48
31
26
30
0,7
3500
49
30
65
50
0,4
48
320
50
0,7
71
50
CAE_HNN
92
26
51,1
16
0,12
0,12
0,12
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 39
Ivanje Selo, profile1

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
0,1
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
0.7%
100
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,2
0,23
0,01
0,01
26 years
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
9,4
0,2
0,6
25
0,7
19
20
0,8
1,6
25
43
46
11
30
0,4
14
14
Ficks 2. HETEK LightCon Neural Netw.
30
0,7
28
28
12
30
60
66
63
66
50
0,4
36
38
14
28
50
0,7
72
79
35
69
50
300
183
460
365
24
23,8
15
0,27
0,26
0,27
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 40
Ivanje Selo, profile 2

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
0,1
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
0.7%
100
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
20
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,19
0,14
0,08
0,02
26 years
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
6,8
8,1
0,2
25
0,7
18
21
1,8
25
70
81
55
5,4
30
0,4
10
12
0,4
5,1
30
0,7
24
31
4,2
9,9
30
100
116
130
28
50
0,4
25
32
4,8
24
50
0,7
70
85
53
48
50
280
323
1800
133
44
35,4
27
0,21
0,21
0,21
CAE_HNN
1
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 41

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
0,1
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
0.7%
100
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
10
20
30
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,35
0,24
0,06
0,01
0,01
0,01
26 years
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
34
25
0,7
25
30
0,4
30
30
CAE_HNN
47
14
52
83
25
25
80
138
70
57
45
76
21
25
0,7
76
133
64
45
110
221
170
104
50
0,4
130
283
270
45
50
0,7
210
499
830
81
50
310
827
2200
185
3,2
0,49
0,51
0,49
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 42

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
40
60
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0,1
0
0.7%
100
20
40
60
0.4%
20

Depth (mm)
10
20
30
40
80
Cl (% conc.)
0,37
0,14
0,06
0,02
0,01
0,01
26 years
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
25
25

50
85
0,7
80
110
30
0,4
30
30
CAE_HNN
26
15
122
67
30
166
195
88
75
122
68
26
0,7
120
176
190
52
170
239
470
156
50
0,4
210
339
880
42
50
0,7
320
489
2300
85
50
470
664
6100
255
1,3
0,54
0,68
0,54
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 43
A11 PS12-10, Col. 1

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
40
60
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0
0
0.7%
100
20
40
60
0.4%
20

Depth (mm)
2,5
7,5
12,5
17,5
22,5
27,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,198
0,17
0,108
0,123
0,083
0,065
24 years
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4
25
0,7
45
57
28
70
25
155
210
710
315
30
0,4
25
31
6,6
40
30
0,7
68
82
70
94
30
230
303
1800
422
50
0,4
72
87
86
124
50
0,7
170
227
890
290
50
690
841
10000
1000
16
13
10
0,21
0,21
0,21

18
22
2,7
CAE_HNN
30
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 44
A11 PS12-10, Col. 2

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1000
HETEK
1000
1%
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
10
0,1
0.4%
0,1
0
20
40
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
20
0.4%
10
0,1
40
60
CAE_HNN
1000
0.7%
100
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
2,5
7,5
12,5
17,5
22,5
27,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,11
0,103
0,088
0,038
24 years
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4

94
CAE_HNN
89
115
75
25
0,7
300
389
2100
1000
25
2300
10800
1000
30
0,4
130
134
300
101
30
0,7
400
583
5500
1000
30
3300
16200
1000
50
0,4
370
415
4000
312
50
0,7
1300
1810
1000
50
9800
50000
1000
4,9
0,18
0,17
0,18
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 45
A11 PS12-10, Col. 3

Ficks 2. Law - erf
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
LightCon
1000
1%
0.7%
100
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
0.4%
10
0,1
60
CAE_HNN
1000
HETEK
1000
1000
1%
0.7%
100
0.4%
10
0,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60
10
20
30
40
50
Concrete cover (mm)
60

Depth (mm)
2,5
7,5
12,5
17,5
22,5
27,5
Cl (% conc.)
0,162
0,1
0,116
0,078
0,037
0,011
24 years
Depth (mm)
Cl (% conc.)
Cl_crit
(% cement)
25
0,4

60
53
32
CAE_HNN
37
25
0,7
130
176
300
133
25
400
1552
6000
1000
30
0,4
74
76
81
50
30
0,7
190
253
740
178
30
600
2236
14000
1000
50
0,4
210
211
1000
154
50
0,7
530
702
9800
551
50
1800
6210
1000
6,7
0,22
0,18
0,18
Cover depth
(mm)
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PAGE B - 46
ANNEXE C: RESULTS FROM THE PREDICTED

CHLORIDE INGRESS
Condition survey data in Annexe A has been used to predict the current chloride
ingress by the following chloride ingress models:
Fick's 2nd law
LightCon model
Hetek model
Conditional Average Estimator - Hybrid Neural Network (CAE-HNN).
The results for all four models are presented on one page for each location in the
following order:
Norway
Gimsystraumen Bridge (2 locations)
Hadsel Bridge (2 locations)
Sandhornya Bridge (2 locations)
Slovenia
Viaduct epina (1 location)
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE C - 1

blank
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE C - 2
1,0
Chloride profile after 18 years
0,9
Predicted - Fick's 2. law
0,8
Predicted - HETEK
0,8

1,0
0,9
Annexe C : Predicted Chloride Ingress
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,2
0,1
0,1
0,0
0,0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
20
30
0,9
0,8
50
1,0
60
70
80
90
100
0,9
Predicted -CAE HNN
0,8
1,0
40
Concrete cover (mm)
Concrete cover (mm)
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,2
0,1
0,1
0,0
0,0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Concrete cover (mm)
Bridge: Gimsystraumen Column 3 West
90
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Concrete cover (mm)
PAGE C - 3
1,0
0,9
Predicted - Fick's 2. law
0,8
Predicted - HETEK
0,8

1,0
0,9
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,2
0,1
0,1
0,0
0,0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
20
30
50
60
70
80
90
1,0
1,0
0,9
0,9
Predicted -CAE HNN
0,8
0,8
40
100
Concrete cover (mm)
Concrete cover (mm)
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,2
0,1
0,1
0,0
0,0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Concrete cover (mm)
Bridge: Gimsystraumen Column 5 West
90
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Concrete cover (mm)
PAGE C - 4
1,00
1,00
0,90
Predicted - HETEK
0,80
0,70
0,90
0,80
0,60
0,50
0,40
0,30
0,70
0,60
0,50
0,40
0,30
0,20
0,20
0,10
0,10
0,00
0,00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
20
30
50
60
70
80
90
100
1,00
1,00

0,80
Predicted - CAE HNN
0,80
0,70
0,90
0,90
40
Concrete cover (mm)
Concrete cover (mm)
0,60
0,50
0,40
0,30
0,70
0,60
0,50
0,40
0,30
0,20
0,20
0,10
0,10
0,00
0,00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Concrete cover (mm)
Bridge: Hadsel A16 3.5m
70
80
90
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Concrete cover (mm)
PAGE C - 5
1,00
1,00

0,90
0,90

Predicted - HETEK
0,80
0,80
0,70
0,60
0,50
0,40
0,30
0,70
0,60
0,50
0,40
0,30
0,20
0,20
0,10
0,10
0,00
0,00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
20
30
50
60
70
80
90
100
1,00
1,00

0,80
Predicted - CAE HNN
0,80
0,70
0,90
0,90
40
Concrete cover (mm)
Concrete cover (mm)
0,60
0,50
0,40
0,30
0,70
0,60
0,50
0,40
0,30
0,20
0,20
0,10
0,10
0,00
0,00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Concrete cover (mm)
Bridge: Hadsel A18 3.5m
70
80
90
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Concrete cover (mm)
PAGE C - 6
0,50
0,50

0,45
0,45
Predicted - HETEK
0,40
0,40


0,35
0,30
0,25
0,20
0,15
0,35
0,30
0,25
0,20
0,15
0,10
0,10
0,05
0,05
0,00
0,00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
20
30
Concrete cover (mm)
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Concrete cover (mm)
0,45
0,40

0,50
0,50
0,35
0,30
0,25
0,20
0,15
0,45
0,40
Predicted - CAE HNN
0,35
0,30
0,25
0,20
0,15
0,10
0,10
0,05
0,05
0,00
0,00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Concrete cover (mm)
Bridge: Sandhornya SP A3
70
80
90
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
Concrete cover (mm)
70
80
90
100
PAGE C - 7
0,18
0,18

0,16
0,16
Predicted - HETEK
0,14
0,14
0,12
0,10
0,08
0,06

0,12
0,10
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,04
0,02
0,02
0,00
0,00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
20
30
40
50
70
80
90
100
0,18
0,18

0,16
0,16
Predicted - CAE HNN
0,14
0,14
60
Concrete cover (mm)
Concrete cover (mm)
0,12
0,10
0,08
0,06

0,12
0,10
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,04
0,02
0,02
0,00
0,00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Concrete cover (mm)
Bridge: Sandhornya NP A2 V
70
80
90
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Concrete cover (mm)
PAGE C - 8
0,60
0,60

0,50
Predicted - HETEK
0,50
0,40
0,30
0,20

0,40
0,30
0,20
0,10
0,10
0,00
0,00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
20
30
40
60
70
80
90
100
0,60
0,60
Predicted - CAE HNN
0,50
0,50
50
Concrete cover (mm)
Concrete cover (mm)
0,40
0,30
0,20

0,40
0,30
0,20
0,10
0,10
0,00
0,00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Concrete cover (mm)
Bridge: Zepina 5
70
80
90
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Concrete cover (mm)
PAGE C - 9

blank
BRIME PL97-2220
PAGE C - 10

Brime D8

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Brime D8

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Deliverable D8

Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring

Dr R J Woodward, Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)

Bundesanstalt fuer Strassenwesen (BASt)

Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring

A Blankvoll, F Fluge, C K Larsen , I Markey - NPRA

D8: Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring

OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH ................................................................................................... 2

Steady-state diffusion the diffusion-cell technique ................................................................. 7

CONDITION SURVEY DATA.................................................................................................. 25

Collecting the samples ............................................................................................................. 26

Collecting the samples ............................................................................................................. 27

D8: Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring

CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS .......................................................................................... 41

CALCULATION PARAMETERS ..................................................................................................... 41

PROBABILISTIC APPROACH TO SERVICE LIFE ............................................................ 49

MONITORING AND BRIDGE MANAGEMENT .................................................................. 53

Method of Inverse Cores.......................................................................................................... 62

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 65

FUTURE WORK ........................................................................................................................ 67

Annexe A: Condition Survey Data

D8: Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring

increasing the durability of new concrete structures by allowing the identification

The work package had the following three main tasks:

D8: Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring

3. Investigate the requirements of a bridge management system that incorporates

D8: Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT AND CONDITION MONITORING

Figure 1.1 Bridge in exposed marine climate

D8: Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring

Objectives of the research

Prediction of deterioration is an important aspect of bridge management for estimation of

Work package 4 had the following three main tasks:

D8: Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring

CHLORIDE INGRESS MODELS

Diffusion; a process due to a gradient of chloride concentration in the concrete. Gradient

D8: Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring

Cs :Computed chloride content

Cmax :Maximum recorded

Figure 2.1 Simplified model for chloride ingress in concrete

Ficks second law (reference model)

The physical condition of diffusion

D8: Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring

J is the flux of chloride per unit area

The mass balance of diffusion

is the rate of change in concentration of the solute [mol/m3s]

D8: Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring

known as Ficks second law for a diffusion coefficient independent of x.

The diffusion coefficient

Location-dependent diffusion coefficient. The chloride diffusion coefficient depends on

Time-dependent diffusion coefficient. The chloride diffusion coefficient of the concrete

Concentration-dependent diffusion coefficient. The chloride diffusion coefficient of the

D8: Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring

The initial condition

The boundary condition

Solutions to Ficks laws

2.1.6.1 Steady-state diffusion the diffusion-cell technique

Cx is the concentration of the diffusant at depth x

D8: Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring

2.1.6.2 Non steady-state diffusion the concentration-profile technique

is the concentration of the diffusant at depth x at time t

D8: Bridge Management and Condition Monitoring

Necessary data for the model are: