Timeline for Reinforced concrete by steel, poor durability, why?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2021 at 16:46 | vote | accept | eXPRESS | ||
| Dec 16, 2021 at 16:34 | comment | added | r13 | @eXPRESS Exactly. Lower yield strength needs to be made up by enlarging the beam or adding more steel, which potentially causes other headaches even economy is not much of a concern. | |
| Dec 16, 2021 at 16:24 | comment | added | eXPRESS | Thanks r13, point a) and b) make some compelling arguments, especially the Yield Strength (which I understand essentially results in how much support it can provide) is quite different for the two variants. | |
| Dec 5, 2021 at 22:34 | comment | added | r13 | @Fred Good edit. Thanks. | |
| Dec 5, 2021 at 22:24 | history | edited | Fred | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Grammatical changes
|
| Dec 4, 2021 at 20:16 | comment | added | r13 | @ForwardEd You have good points, but I am not here to stir up the debate of the effectiveness of any method to prevent corrosion, it will be sidetracking the OP's question - why stainless steel bar is not widely accepted as a preferred replacement of rebar. All the methods you have mentioned are correct except the use of waterproofing over the rebars. Increase cover thickness, place smaller bars at closer spacing...all contribute to minimizing the "CRACK", thus prohibiting the penetration of harmful elements. All are great knowledge to know, but. IMO, not relevant to OP's question. | |
| Dec 4, 2021 at 20:00 | comment | added | Forward Ed | CONT: Deck tops are protected by waterproofing membrane and use black bars. I may be wrong on the next part but if you increase the cover by 100 mm you can use black bars on surfaces exposed to salt. I think they figure that by the time the chlorides reach the bars through the extra 100 mm of cover the structure will be scheduled for replacement or major rehabillitation. | |
| Dec 4, 2021 at 19:57 | comment | added | Forward Ed | The MTO is the government body in charge of provincial transportation. I deal with them namely for Bridges, Culverts, and Ferries. My last sentence in previous comment states they use SS rebar or GFRP rebar instead of Epoxy coated. Their structural manual goes on further to dictate where "Premium" reinforcement (SS or GFRB rebar) is used instead of black. While they could make they entire bridge out of SS, they do not and instead only place the premium rebar in high salt exposure areas such as: Barrier walls, sidewalks, expansion joints, piers adjacent to traffic, bearing seats below EJs. | |
| Dec 4, 2021 at 19:47 | comment | added | r13 | @ForwardEd The service life expectancy of every reinforced concrete structure that is open to the environment is affected by the potential of corrosion if there is the path(s) for moisture or salty water to get to the reinforcement. You are correct, there is a great debate on the effectiveness of the epoxy coated rebar, but it was an effort with some success, so it is not rare to see the continued application of it. Does Ontario require the use of stainless steel bars for bridges, parking garages, and the likes to combat corrosion? If not, why? | |
| Dec 4, 2021 at 19:25 | comment | added | Forward Ed | Corrosion of reinforcing steel steel is a problem for the longevity of bridges constructed where deicing salts are used. Where I am located in Ontario Canada, The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has issued a memo stating that Epoxy Coated Rebar is no longer to be used for bridges citing there decades of research showing that the performance between Black and Epoxy Coated is negligible and not worth the premium paid for the epoxy. In lieu of Epoxy the MTO uses either stainless steel rebar, or GFRP bars. The SS rebar has the same deformed ridges as black rebar. | |
| Dec 4, 2021 at 18:56 | history | edited | r13 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Dec 4, 2021 at 18:44 | comment | added | Solar Mike | "Doesn't the rust-resistant nature of stainless steel attractive?" "Isn't the rust-resistant nature of stainless steel attractive?" or "Doesn't the rust-resistant nature of stainless steel make it attractive?" | |
| Dec 4, 2021 at 18:42 | comment | added | r13 | @SolarMike Can you point out the problems which can be many? My mean points are two folds: 1) Explain why rebar rust. 2) Why stainless steel is not likely to be considered the alternative to rebar on most occasions. Following these points, you can edit my writing to make it more readable/representable if you wish. I'll appreciate your help. English is my weakness. | |
| Dec 4, 2021 at 18:28 | comment | added | Solar Mike | There are grammatical errors that confuse what you write - could you check what you are trying to say? | |
| Dec 4, 2021 at 18:21 | history | answered | r13 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |