by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
Concrete In Australia : September 2013
56 Concrete in Australia Vol 39 No 3 timely and cost effective preventative maintenance intervention as opposed to expensive rehabilitation. Such early detection can also allow the asset manager to pre-plan and invest in a timely manner, and thereby minimise the number of costly interventions, mobilisations and disruptions to the travelling public. e case studies presented in this paper demonstrate the value of utilising the various types of corrosion monitoring sensors to monitor the effectiveness and ongoing performance of various durability provisions incorporated in new bridge construction, as well as the effectiveness and ongoing performance of various rehabilitation and repair techniques. It is important when undertaking measurements of monitoring sensors cast in concrete or embedded in concrete repairs to take into account any potential seasonal variations and moisture conditions and the age of the concrete when assessing and interpreting test results. In addition, it is important to keep in mind that generally the resistivity of concrete and patch repair materials increases as they continue to cure and dry out, thus resulting in more positive potentials and lower corrosion rates of the steel reinforcement. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT e authors wish to thank VicRoads for permission to publish this paper. e views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of VicRoads. REFERENCES 1. Andrews-Phaedonos, F. (1994), "Rehabilitation and subsequent monitoring of Sawtells Inlet Bridge, South Gippsland Highway, Tooradin, Victoria," Proceedings 17th ARRB Conference, Part 4, pp.11-27". 2. Andrews-Phaedonos, F., Shayan, A. and Xu, A. (2004). "Rehabilitation and Monitoring of Sawtells Inlet Bridge -- 12 Years Later" AUSTROADS, 5th Bridge Eng. Conf., Hobart. 3. Andrews-Phaedonos, F., Ackland, B. (2010). "Rehabilitation and Monitoring of Sawtells Inlet Bridge -- Almost 20 Years Later", Proceedings 24th ARRB Conference, Melbourne. 4. Andrews-Phaedonos, F., Shayan, A. and Xu, A. (2009). "Performance Monitoring Of Patterson River Bridge, Nepean Highway, Melbourne -- 14 Years Later" 24th Biennial Conference, Concrete Institute of Australia, September, Sydney. 5. VicRoads Standard Specification (2009), "Section 610 -- Structural Concrete". 6. Shayan, A and Xu, A, ARRB Group (2012), "Corrosion Monitoring of Structural Elements of Project A", Contract Report No. 004767-1. 7. Shayan, A and Xu, A, ARRB Group (2012), "Corrosion Monitoring of Church Street Bridge, Contract Report No. 005666-1. 8. Shayan, A and Xu, A, ARRB Group (2012), "Corrosion Monitoring of Racecourse Road Bridge", Contract Report No. 004767-2. 9. Shayan, A and Xu, A, ARRB Group (2012), "Monitoring of Cathodic Protection System in Queen Street Bridge", Contract Report No. 005666-3. 10. Andrews-Phaedonos, F. (2011). "Geopolymer "Green" Concrete -- Reducing the Carbon Footprint -- e VicRoads Experience" AUSTROADS, 8th Bridge Eng. Conf., Sydney. 11. Shayan, A and Xu, A, ARRB Group (2012), "Monitoring of Geopolymer Concrete Retaining Walls, Bridge over Yarra River", Contract Report No. 004352-1. Table 6. Initial potential of structure against reference electrode (mV). Table 7. Potential of structure after six months against reference electrode (mV). Table 8. Potential of structure after twelve months against reference electrode (mV). Location NativeStructure 5/07/11 Energised 5/07/11 OnPotential 18/07/11 InstantOff 18/07/2011 After 24hr Off 19/7/11 Polarisation Decay S1 vs. R1 -612 -635 -667 -664 -555 109 S2 vs. R2 -478 -524 -598 -594 -395 199 S3 vs. R3 -416 -509 -603 -599 -443 156 S4 vs. R4 -322 -418 -431 -428 -284 144 Location On Potential* 13/02/12 Instant Off (see note) After 72-hr Off 16/02/12 After 7-day Off 20/02/12 Polarisation decay S1 vs. R1 -448 -439 -393 -371 65 S2 vs. R2 -292 -283 -247 -245 61 S3 vs. R3 -352 -337 -288 -261 79 S4 vs. R4 -248 -241 -198 -191 57 Location On Potential* 14/06/2012 Instant Off (see note) After 4-day Off 18/06/12 Polarisation decay S1 vs. R1 -448 -439 -393 46 S2 vs. R2 -292 -283 -247 36 S3 vs. R3 -352 -337 -288 49 S4 vs. R4 -248 -241 -198 43 Note: Potential drop was determined individually and the value was added to "On Potential" to result in "Instant Off" potential.