Study on the Influence Mechanism of Load on the Mechanical Properties of Concrete Under Stress–Seepage–Chemical Coupling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The durability of concrete in immersed tunnels is critically influenced by the coupled effects of stress, seepage, and chemical erosion, particularly in inland water environments. However, the spatio-temporal evolution of mechanical property degradation under such multi-field coupling remains insufficiently quantified. Unlike previous studies focused on “load-ion” or “hydraulic pressure-ion” dual coupling, this work introduces a complete stress–seepage–chemical tri-coupling that incorporates the critical seepage effect, representing a fundamental expansion of the experimental scope to better simulate real-world conditions. This study investigates the degradation mechanisms of concrete in the Shunde Lungui Road inland immersed tunnel subjected to such coupled erosion. A novel aspect of our approach is the application of the micro-indentation technique to quantitatively characterize the spatio-temporal evolution of the local elastic modulus at an unprecedented spatial resolution (0.5 mm intervals), a dimension of analysis not achievable by conventional macro-scale testing. Key findings reveal that the mechanical properties of concrete exhibit an initial enhancement followed by deterioration. This behavior is attributed to the filling of pores by reaction products (gypsum, ettringite, and Friedel’s salt) in the short term, which subsequently induces microcracking as the volume of products exceeds the pore capacity. Furthermore, increasing hydro-mechanical loading significantly accelerates the erosion process. When the load increases from 1.596 kN to 3.718 kN, the influence range of elastic modulus variation expands by 9.2% (from 5.186 mm to 5.661 mm). To quantitatively describe this acceleration effect, a novel load-acceleration erosion coefficient is proposed. The erosion rate increases from 0.0688 mm/d to 0.0778 mm/d, yielding acceleration coefficients between 1.100 and 1.165, quantifying a 10–16.5% acceleration effect beyond what is typically captured in dual-coupling models. These quantitative results provide critical parameters for employing laboratory accelerated tests to evaluate the ionic erosion durability of concrete structures under various loading conditions, thereby contributing to more accurate service life predictions for engineering structures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".