Influence Of Material And Processing On Stress Corrosion Cracking Of Prestressing Steel Case Studies

Influence of Material and Processing on Stress Corrosion Cracking of Prestressing Steel - Case Studies

This report is a review of selected failures in concrete structures in which prestressing steels break in a brittle way due to stress corrosion cracking. Most cases are from the German experience over a period of about 30 years. Analysis of these failures shows that they are often due to an accumulation of causes such as poor design, errors during construction, careless detailing and, in some cases, use of unsuitable materials. This report will have achieved its purpose if it serves to avoid these past errors and encourages the development of new ways to protect, test and regulate prestressing steels. The report is complemented with comments on the properties and corrosion behaviour of different types of prestressing steels. The goal of the study is to provide objective arguments for the discussion of failures that have occurred due to corrosion induced failure of prestressing steel. In such a way the general regulation given in DIN with respect to reinforcement for robustness may eventually be proven inappropriate. The general building authority approval for prestressed hollow filler block floors already supports such an idea. It is well known that the hollow block floor industry works without any reinforcing steel. The regulations in the standards should not limit in particular the use of these types of prestressing steel (cold-formed wires, strands) which have proven not associated with any substantial failures cases reported in the last 35 years. The report reviews the historical development with respect to corrosion induced failure of prestressing steel. Concerning the circumstances of the failure examples, this review partly reflects a specific problem in Germany. Also reviewed are other known interregional examples of failure which are incorrectly attributed to the prestressed construction method. All cases considered are discussed and the failure reasons thoroughly evaluated, also with reference to the results of most recent research. Another question addressed is whether one should be concerned over corrosion induced retarded failure even when using new generation prestressing steel with correct corrosion protection. Finally a contribution to the following very important question is presented: Do the future prestressed structures possess enough safety against structural failure if they are constructed without reinforcement for robustness but otherwise comply completely with the design standards? To aid a better understanding of this short report on typical failure cases and their origins, the main conditions are set out for corrosion-induced failure of prestressing steel in technical applications. The properties of different types of prestressing steel and their application limits are given in a special section dealing with the influence of building materials on damage development. This report will be of interest to all involved in the construction process. Fundamental scientific discussion has been avoided by reference to well accredited detailed information in the technical literature.

Influence of Material and Processing on Stress Corrosion Cracking of Prestressing Steel

Acceptance of cable systems using prestressing steels

Cable-stayed structures have become increasingly popular over the last 30 years and have been used in all parts of the world. Modern cable-stayed bridges have a history of over 50-years and have been constructed with span lengths ranging from 15 m to over 1000 m. Many long span cable-stayed bridges have been built for railway and highway traffic applications. Stay cables have also been used on pedestrian structures, many of which are architecturally striking and have become landmark structures. There is growing use in building structures, particularly for cable-supported roofs. Most of the cable supported structures have been in the form of cable-stayed bridges; but in recent years, extradosed bridges have seen increased popularity among the designers. Led by the experience in Japan, more than 200 extradosed bridges have been constructed worldwide in the past 15 years. The first edition of these fib recommendations was published as fib Bulletin 30 in 2005 and was the first specification published by fib for stay cable systems. This new bulletin has been updated based on Bulletin 30 with the aim to reflect the current state of the art and encompass the latest knowledge in cable systems. In addition, it has been the aspiration of Commission 5 and Task Group 5.5 to harmonize the guidance in this updated bulletin with other stay cable recommendations from around the world, including those from Europe, Japan and the USA. This new bulletin is intended to supersede and replace fib Bulletin 30. It is recommended that it be used in lieu of fib Bulletin 30 for all future cable supported applications. The updated bulletin introduces several significant enhancements to the specifications: These recommendations are applicable to both stay cable and extradosed cable applications. In the past, there has been some debate over the boundary between cable-stayed and extradosed bridges. This bulletin presents a new continuous approach valid for both. A completely new testing requirement to assess the performance of cable systems under bending fatigue, including both anchorages and saddles, if applicable, has been added. Testing requirements for saddle systems have been reformulated. In addition to the bending fatigue test noted above, new testing procedures for stay cable saddles with isolated tensile elements are introduced. This includes tests for saddle axial fatigue, friction and tensile testing, and determination of the effective saddle friction coefficient. Expanded system qualification, including requirements for both stay cable and extradosed applications. Includes new provisions for MTE qualification and additional load transferring connection devices. Minimum number of tests is specified for each. A new in-situ damping measurement test has been added to verify the actual damping ratio of the damping devices installed. By testing on site, selected cables may be excited to vibrate without and with the damping devices so that the observed v vibration behaviour can be compared to the specified value. Other revisions have been made to reflect the current state of practice: Expanded quality control testing requirements Inclusion of epoxy-coated prestressing steel as a protection layer. Previous recommendations only considered zinc coatings. Specifications for epoxy coating material are given. Requirements for stainless steel components such as pipes, caps and plates Updated guidance for designing lightning protection systems Detailed recommendations for different levels of inspection of cable systems, including: initial, routine, detailed and exceptional inspections An updated list of references, relevant standards, and extended literature