Eighteen-Year Performance of Epoxy-Coated Rebar in a Tunnel Structure Subjected to a Very Aggressive Chloride-Contaminated Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased use of deicing salts during winter is the major cause of corrosion of offshore reinforced concrete structures. Research in the early 1970s suggested that epoxy-coated reinforcing bars might be the solution to this problem. Epoxycoating reinforcement (ECR) was well received by designers until concern about the effectiveness of the coating arose when bars in several bridges built in Florida in the early 1980s began to corrode after only a few years of service. The occurrence of this problem resulted in extensive research on the durability of structures built with ECR. This paper describes a corrosion study aimed at gaining a better understanding of the service life of ECR exposed to a chloride-contaminated environment. Corrosion monitoring has been periodically conducted on a roof of a tunnel structure built in 1984 to replace the roof made with uncoated bars that failed after 17 years of service. The present study summarizes the results of visual inspection and electrochemical testing carried out during the life of the new structure. Results indicate that after 18 years in a very aggressive environment, considering the combined action of chlorides and extreme changes in temperature, the structure is still in good condition and only a few locations show rust staining and cracking, presumably caused by corrosion of the steel reinforcement. Based on the results it would appear that fusion-bonded epoxy coating subjected to a chloride-laden environment does not provide total protection to the steel reinforcing. However, epoxy coatings have significantly extended the corrosion initiation period as compared to uncoated bars for structures subjected to a chloride environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".