Evaluation of chloride deposition using the wet candle method: a study in the city of Cabo Frio, RJ
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X74956Keywords:
Durability, Reinforced concrete, Ambiental aggressiveness, ChlorideAbstract
In a context of durability design of reinforced concrete structures, it is necessary to establish the divisions of the aggressiveness classes of the different maritime and coastal environments, in order to contribute to the study of the classification of environmental aggressiveness. In this paper, the deposition of aggressive ions and the general climatic aspects of the coastal region of the city of Cabo Frio, RJ are evaluated. For the analysis, the wet candle method (Brazilian NBR 6211:2001) was adopted. The exhibitions were held at five different points throughout the city, each with three wet candles. To quantify the chloride content, the conductimetry method was used, which is done by measuring the electrical conductivity of an electrolyte solution, due to ion migration. The results point to a high level of chlorides in the initial range of distance from the sea and a considerable decrease from approximately 900 meters from the seashore. In this way, it was possible to verify that the city, in its interior, is under moderate to minimal aggressiveness. In the initial distances of the seashore, there is high aggressiveness. These results show the importance of considering micro exposure environments during the design phase of reinforced concrete structures.
Downloads
References
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 6211. Corrosão atmosférica: Determinação de cloretos na atmosfera pelo método da vela úmida. Rio de Janeiro, 2001.
BEUSHAUSEN, H; NDAWULA, J; HELLAND, S; PAPWORTH, F; LINGER, L. Developments in defining exposure classes for durability design and specification. Structural Concrete, 22, 2539– 2555. 2001.
BORBA Jr., J.C. Agressividade ambiental em zona de atmosfera marinha: estudo da deposição de cloretos e sua concentração em concretos na região sudeste. 2011. Tese de doutorado, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Vitória. 2011.
GARCIA, R.B; PADARATZ, I.J; SZPOGANICZ, B. “Agressividade marinha medida pela taxa de deposição de cloretos na região da grande Florianópolis”, 2007, 49º Congresso Brasileiro do Concreto, Bento Gonçalves, 420-431.
IBGE (2010), “Censo Demográfico”. Disponível em: http://www. censo2010. ibge. gov. br. Acesso em: 20 set 2022.
MEIRA, G.R. Agressividade por cloretos em zona de atmosfera marinha frente ao problema da corrosão em estruturas de concreto. 2004. Tese de doutorado, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, SC. 2004.
MEIRA, G.R.; ANDRADE, M.C.; PADARATZ, I.J.; ALONSO, M.C.; BORBA Jr, J.C. Measurements and modelling of marine salt transportation and deposition in a tropical region in Brazil. Atmospheric Environment, 40, 5596-5607. 2006. DOI 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.04.053
MORCILLO, M.; CHICO, B.; MARIACA, L.; OTERO, E. Salinity in marine atmospheric corrosion: its dependence on the wind regime existing in the site. Corrosion Science, 42, 91-104. 2000.
SOUZA, A.G.; CHAGAS, F.W.M.; GOIS, L.C.; SILVA, J.G. Determinação condutométrica e potenciométrica de ácido acetilsalicílico em Aspirina®: Uma sugestão de prática para a análise instrumental, 2018. Revista Virtual de Química, 10, 502-517. 2018.
WALLY, G.B; MAGALHÃES, F.C.; SILVA FILHO, L.C.P. From prescriptive to performance-based: An overview of international trends in specifying durable concretes, 2022, Journal of Building Engineering, 52, 104359. 2022.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Ciência e Natura
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.