| Literature DB >> 35009683 |
Ismail Alj1, Marc Quiertant1, Aghiad Khadour2, Quentin Grando3, Karim Benzarti4.
Abstract
The present study investigates the environmental durability of a distributed optical fiber sensing (DOFS) cable on the market, commonly used for distributed strain measurements in reinforced concrete structures. An extensive experimental program was conducted on different types of specimens (including samples of bare DOFS cable and plain concrete specimens instrumented with this DOFS cable) that were exposed to accelerated and natural ageing (NA) conditions for different periods of up to 18 months. The instrumentation of both concrete specimens consisted of DOFS cables embedded at the center of the specimens and bonded at the concrete surface, as these two configurations are commonly deployed in the field. In these configurations, the alkalinity of the surrounding cement medium and the outdoor conditions are the main factors potentially affecting the characteristics of the DOFS component materials and the integrity of the various interfaces, and hence impacting the strain transfer process between the host structure and the core optical fiber (OF). Therefore, immersion in an alkaline solution at an elevated temperature or freeze/thaw (F/T) and immersion/drying (I/D) cycles were chosen as accelerated ageing conditions, depending on the considered configuration. Mechanical characterizations by tensile and pull-out tests were then carried out on the exposed specimens to assess the evolution of the mechanical properties of individual component materials as well as the evolution of bond properties at various interfaces (internal interfaces of the DOFS cable, and interface between the cable and the host structure) during ageing. Complementary physico-chemical characterizations were also performed to better understand the underlying degradation processes. The experimental results highlight that immersion in the alkaline solution induced a significant and rapid decrease in the bond properties at internal interfaces of the DOFS cable and at the cable/concrete interface (in the case of the embedded cable configuration), which was assigned to chemical degradation at the surface of the cable coating in contact with the solution (hydrolysis and thermal degradation of the EVA copolymer component). Meanwhile, F/T and I/D cycles showed more limited effects on the mechanical properties of the component materials and interfaces in the case of the bonded cable configuration. A comparison with the same specimens exposed to outdoor NA suggested that the chosen accelerated ageing conditions may not be totally representative of actual service conditions, but provided indications for improving the ageing protocols in future research. In the last part, an analysis of the distributed strain profiles collected during pull-out tests on instrumented concrete specimens clearly illustrated the consequences of ageing processes on the strain response of the DOFS cable.Entities:
Keywords: accelerated and natural ageing conditions; degradation kinetics; distributed optical fiber sensors; durability; pull-out tests; strain measurement; strain transfer process
Year: 2021 PMID: 35009683 PMCID: PMC8747727 DOI: 10.3390/s22010141
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Optical microscope observations of (a) the cross-section of the DOFS cable, (b) the cross-section of the central part of the cable, and (c) the cross-section of the two central OFs; (d) picture showing the external surface relief of the cable, as well as an uncoated segment.
Figure 2Schematic descriptions of the different specimens: (a) samples of bulk adhesive (b) samples of DOFS cable, (c) concrete cylinders, (d) concrete cylinders with embedded DOFS cables and (e) concrete prisms with DOFS cables bonded on the 4 lateral faces.
Figure 3Schematic descriptions of (a) a concrete cylinder instrumented with a DOFS cable embedded over a length of 9 cm; (b) a concrete prism equipped with two DOFS cables per face, bonded over lengths of 7 cm.
Figure 4Tensile tests on (a) a dumbbell sample of X120 adhesive and on (b) a steel wire reinforcement (showing the two marks used for AVE monitoring); (c) typical pull-out test setup used to determine the bond properties at the external coating/steel wire interface (showing the two marks used to measure differential displacement between adherents).
Figure 5(a) Typical tensile curve for a steel wire reinforcement, and (b) typical pull-out curve for the external coating/OF interface in the initial state (unaged sample).
Figure 6Characterization of the bond properties between the DOFS cable and the host concrete specimens: (a) pull-out tests setup, and location of the marks tracked by the AVE for (b) the embedded cable and (c) the bonded cable configurations.
Chemical composition of the alkaline solution.
| Chemical Compound | Concentration |
|---|---|
| NaOH | 0.1 mol/L (4 g/L) |
| KOH | 0.5 mol/L (28.05 g/L) |
Figure 7Conditioning in the alkaline ageing environment: (a) thermo-regulated tanks filled with the alkaline solution, and (b) instrumented concrete cylinders immersed in the solution.
Figure 8Application of cyclic conditions: (a) specimens subjected to F/T cycling in a climatic chamber and (b) Temperature/RH variations recorded in the chamber over a F/T cycle. (c) Specimens exposed to I/D cycling in a tank.
Figure 9(a) Storage of specimens on the natural ageing site, (b) geographical location of the site of the Université Gustave Eiffel (UGE) in Champs-sur-Marne, France [35] and (c) local weather data [36].
Figure 10Creep test setup: (a) Schematic description and (b) picture of the setup.
Summary of the durability test campaign, showing the characterizations performed at each test session (with the number of repeated tests in brackets).
| Test Sessions | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T0 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | ||||
| Ageing environments | Alkaline solution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| F/T cycles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| I/D cycles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Natural aging (NA) |
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| F/T, I/D, NA |
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| Creep (Cr) |
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
Mechanical properties of control concrete cylinders (diameter 11 cm, height 22 cm).
| Average | Standard Deviation | |
|---|---|---|
| Compressive strength (MPa) | 63.7 | 0.9 |
| Young’s modulus (GPa) | 40.8 | 0.2 |
| Poisson’s ratio | 0.25 | 0.02 |
Initial mechanical characteristics of the material components and internal interfaces of the DOFS cable, obtained from tensile and pull-out tests.
| Average | Standard Deviation | |
|---|---|---|
| Young’s modulus of the external coating (MPa) | 38 | 5 |
| Young’s modulus of the steel wire reinforcement (GPa) | 234 | 12 |
| Tangential stiffness of the external coating/OF (MPa/mm) | 0.21 | 0.14 |
| Tangential stiffness of the external coating/steel wire (MPa/mm) | 7.97 | 0.11 |
| Bond strength of the external coating/OF (MPa) | 0.055 | 0.004 |
| Bond strength of the external coating/steel wire (MPa) | 0.39 | 0.04 |
Figure 11Absorption curve of the bulk adhesive samples immersed in water at 20 °C.
Tensile properties of the bulk X120 adhesive after conditioning for 3 months in water or in air at 20 °C.
| Specimens Kept in Water | Specimens Kept in Ambient Air | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | Standard Deviation | Average | Standard Deviation | |
| Young’s modulus (MPa) | 882 | 138 | 1333 | 109 |
| Tensile strength (MPa) | 13.7 | 0.8 | 22.7 | 2.3 |
| Ultimate strain (%) | 6.6 | 2 | 1.8 | 0.03 |
Initial bond properties at the concrete/cable or adhesive/cable interfaces, obtained from pull-out tests on unaged concrete specimens with embedded or bonded DOFS cables.
| Tangential Stiffness (MPa/mm) | Bond Strength (MPa) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | Standard Deviation | Average | Standard Deviation | |
| Embedded configuration | 0.42 | 0.03 | 0.104 | 0.011 |
| Bonded configuration | 1.20 | 0.62 | 0.093 | 0.023 |
Figure 12Evolutions of the mechanical characteristics of concrete over exposure in the alkaline and NA environments: (a) compressive strength, (b) Young’s modulus and (c) Poisson’s ratio.
Numerical values of the mechanical properties of the various materials and interfaces, obtained from mechanical tests at sessions T0 to T6. Percentage variations compared to the initial properties at T0 are given in brackets.
| Test Sessions | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T0 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | |||
| Alkaline solution at 20 °C |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||||||||
| Compressive strength of concrete (MPa) | 63.67 | 79.11 (+24%) | 80.05 (+26%) | 81.42 (+28%) | 85.02 (+34%) | 84.85 (+33%) | 83.72 (+31%) | ||
| Young’s modulus of concrete (GPa) | 40.82 | 42.12 (+3%) | 43.69 (+7%) | 44.46 (+9%) | 45.37 (+11%) | 44.96 (+10%) | 45.22 (+11%) | ||
| Tangential stiffness (MPa/mm) | 0.42 | 0.92 (+121%) | 0.71 (+69%) | 0.45 (+8%) | 0.75 (+79%) | 0.56 (+35%) | 0.19 (−54%) | ||
| Bond strength (MPa) | 0.10 | 0.16 (+49%) | 0.09 (−9%) | 0.10 (−4%) | 0.08 (−22%) | 0.06 (−45%) | 0.03 (−69%) | ||
| Young’s modulus of the coating (GPa) | 38.29 | 42.67 (+11%) | 38.33 (0%) | 34.55 (−10%) | 33.06 (−14%) | 40.21(+5%) | 35.33 (−8%) | ||
| Young’s modulus of the Steel wire (GPa) | 234.26 | 224.56 (−4%) | 126.44 (−46%) | 154.78 (−34%) | 162.76 (−31%) | 116.86 (−50%) | 120.73 (−48%) | ||
| Tangential stiffness at OF/coating interface (MPa/mm) | 0.20 | 0.28 (+37%) | 0 (−100%) | 0 (−100%) | 0 (−100%) | 0 (−100%) | 0 (−100%) | ||
| Tangential stiffness at steel/coating interface (MPa/mm) | 7.97 | 0.93 (−88%) | 1.49 (−81%) | 3.04 (−62%) | 4.15 (−48%) | 0 (−100%) | 0 (−100%) | ||
| Alkaline solution at 40 °C |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||||||||
| Compressive strength of concrete (MPa) | 63.67 | 78.07 (+23%) | 82.89 (+30%) | 82.31 (+29%) | 85.35 (+34%) | 83.67 (+31%) | 83.17 (+31%) | ||
| Young’s modulus of concrete (GPa) | 40.82 | 41.71 (+2%) | 44.01 (+8%) | 43.39 (+6%) | 46.26 (+13%) | 46.67 (+14%) | 45.22 (+11%) | ||
| Tangential stiffness (MPa/mm) | 0.42 | 0.57 (+36%) | 0.82 (+97%) | 0.48 (+14%) | 0.96 (+130%) | 0.75 (+79%) | 0.34 (−18%) | ||
| Bond strength (MPa) | 0.10 | 0.09 (−18%) | 0.09 (−12%) | 0.10 (−8%) | 0.09 (−9%) | 0.10 (−4%) | 0.08 (−19%) | ||
| Young’s modulus of the coating (GPa) | 38.29 | 38.25 (0%) | 37.45 (−2%) | 34.76 (−9%) | 33.02 (−14%) | 42.54 (+11%) | 41.28 (+8%) | ||
| Young’s modulus of the steel wire (GPa) | 234.26 | 132.65 (−43%) | 161.58 (−31%) | 183.40 (−22%) | 183.57 (−22%) | 160.76 (−31%) | 175.63 (−25%) | ||
| Tangential stiffness at OF/coating interface (MPa/mm) | 0.20 | 0.28 (+37%) | 0 (−100%) | 0 (−100%) | 0 (−100%) | 0 (−100%) | 0 (−100%) | ||
| Tangential stiffness at steel/coating interface (MPa/mm) | 7.97 | 0.93 (−88%) | 1.49 (−81%) | 3.04 (−62%) | 4.15 (−48%) | 0 (−100%) | 0 (−100%) | ||
| Alkaline solution at 60 °C |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||||||||
| Compressive strength of concrete (MPa) | 63.67 | 67.89 (+7%) | 69.45 (+9%) | 72.6 (+14%) | 75.76 (+19%) | 71.96 (+13%) | 71.84 (+13%) | ||
| Young’s modulus of concrete (GPa) | 40.82 | 41.28 (+1%) | 43.56 (+7%) | 43 (+5%) | 44.28 (+8%) | 43.83 (+7%) | 43.75 (+7%) | ||
| Tangential stiffness (MPa/mm) | 0.42 | 0.35 (−15%) | 0 (−99%) | 0.12 (−71%) | 0.13 (−69%) | 0.06 (−86%) | 0 (−100%) | ||
| Bond strength (MPa) | 0.011 | 0.013 (+13%) | 0 (−100%) | 0.009 (−21%) | 0.008 (−26%) | 0 (−100%) | 0.003 (−72%) | ||
| Young’s modulus of the coating (GPa) | 38.29 | 42.27 (+10%) | 43.91 (+15%) | 46.49 (+21%) | 46.30 (+21%) | 54.89 (+43%) | 51.70 (+35%) | ||
| Young’s modulus of the Steel wire (GPa) | 234.26 | 142.15 (−39%) | 152.84 (−35%) | 172.61 (−26%) | 174.81 (−25%) | 182.05 (−22%) | 165.63 (−29%) | ||
| Tangential stiffness at OF/coating interface (MPa/mm) | 0.20 | 0 (−100%) | 0 (−100%) | 0 (−100%) | 0 (−100%) | 0 (−100%) | 0 (−100%) | ||
| Tangential stiffness at steel/coating interface (MPa/mm) | 7.97 | 0.80 (−90%) | 3.25 (−59%) | 0.55 (−93%) | 0 (−100%) | 0 (−100%) | 0.00 | ||
| F/T cycles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||||||||
| Tangential stiffness (MPa/mm) | 1.20 | 1.28 (+7%) | 1.45 (+21%) | 1.24 (+3%) | 1.20 (0%) | 0.99 (−18%) | 0.86 (−29%) | ||
| Bond strength (MPa) | 0.09 | 0.07 (−27%) | 0.07 (−26%) | 0.12 (+24%) | 0.11 (+14%) | 0.08 (−11%) | 0.09 (−8%) | ||
| Young’s modulus of the coating (GPa) | 38.29 | 35.41 (−8%) | 36.03 (−6%) | 50.16 (+31%) | |||||
| Young’s modulus of the Steel wire (GPa) | 234.26 | 93.60 (−60%) | 188.51 (−20%) | 203.90 (−13%) | |||||
| Tangential stiffness at OF/coating interface (MPa/mm) | 0.20 | 0.40 (+96%) | 0.72 (+252%) | 0.61 (+199%) | |||||
| Tangential stiffness at steel/coating interface (MPa/mm) | 7.97 | 3.27 (−59%) | 4.99 (−37%) | 2.99 (−62%) | |||||
| I/D cycles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||||||||
| Tangential stiffness (MPa/mm) | 1.20 | 1.76 (+46%) | 1.71 (+42%) | 2.34 (+95%) | 1.50 (+25%) | 1.20 (0%) | 0.97 (−19%) | ||
| Bond strength (MPa) | 0.09 | 0.11 (+22%) | 0.11 (+15%) | 0.11 (+20%) | 0.10 (+3%) | 0.12 (+33%) | 0.07 (−30%) | ||
| Young’s modulus of the coating (GPa) | 38.29 | 38.27 (0%) | 43.80 (+14%) | 58.43 (+53%) | |||||
| Young’s modulus of the Steel wire (GPa) | 234.26 | 256.10 (+9%) | 176.54 (−25%) | 121.47 (−48%) | |||||
| Tangential stiffness at OF/coating interface (MPa/mm) | 0.20 | 0.36 (+76%) | 0.38 (+84%) | 0.24 (+16%) | |||||
| Tangential stiffness at steel/coating interface (MPa/mm) | 7.97 | 4.28 (−46%) | 7.81 (−2%) | 5.28 (−34%) | |||||
| Natural ageing (NA) |
|
|
| ||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Compressive strength of concrete (MPa) | 63.67 | 77.08 (+21%) | |||||||
| Young’s modulus of concrete (GPa) | 40.82 | 42.45 (+4%) | |||||||
| Tangential stiffness (MPa/mm) | 0.42 | 0.35 (−15%) | |||||||
| Bond strength (MPa) | 0.10 | 0.11 (+8%) | |||||||
| Tangential stiffness (MPa/mm) | 1.20 | 0.80 (−33%) | |||||||
| Bond strength (MPa) | 0.09 | 0.07 (−20%) | |||||||
| Young’s modulus of the coating (GPa) | 38.29 | 44.25 (+16%) | |||||||
| Young’s modulus of the Steel wire (GPa) | 234.26 | 158.75 (−32%) | |||||||
| Tangential stiffness at OF/coating interface (MPa/mm) | 0.20 | 0.60 (+195%) | |||||||
| Tangential stiffness at steel/coating interface (MPa/mm) | 7.97 | 3.60 (−55%) | |||||||
| Creep (Cr) |
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||||||||
| Young’s modulus of the coating (GPa) | 38.29 | 35.97 (−6%) | 40.34 (+5%) | 57.46 (+50%) | |||||
| Young’s modulus of the Steel wire (GPa) | 234.26 | 183.21 (−22%) | 158.72 (−32%) | 128.28 (−45%) | |||||
| Tangential stiffness at OF/coating interface (MPa/mm) | 0.20 | 0.37 (+79%) | 0.38 (+84%) | 0.47 (+131%) | |||||
| Tangential stiffness at steel/coating interface (MPa/mm) | 7.97 | 1.86 (−77%) | 6.26 (−21%) | 1.87 (−76%) | |||||
Figure 13Changes in the mechanical properties of the component materials and internal interfaces of the DOFS cable over exposure in the various ageing environments: tensile Young’s moduli of (a) the cable coating and (b) the steel wire reinforcement; tangential stiffness of the (c) coating/steel wire and (d) coating/OF interfaces.
Figure 14Dimensional changes in the DOFS cable cross-section versus exposure time in the various ageing environments: (a) width and (b) thickness.
Figure 15Optical micrographs at different magnifications, of the surface of the DOFS cable in the initial state (T0) and after 6 months (T2), 12 months (T4) and 18 months (T6) of exposure in the alkaline solution at 60 °C.
Figure 16FTIR-ATR spectrum obtained for the external coating of the unaged DOFS cable (at session T0), together with the spectrum from FTIR databases providing the best match.
Figure 17FTIR-ATR spectra obtained for the unaged cable coating (T0) and after 12 months of ageing (T4) in the alkaline solution at 40 and 60 °C.
Figure 18Hydrolysis of EVA copolymers, according to [45].
Figure 19DSC thermogram of the unaged cable coating (T0).
Figure 20DSC thermograms of the cable coating conditioned for 12 months (T4) in the alkaline solution at different temperatures, and thermogram of the control sample (T0).
Figure 21DSC thermograms of the cable coating after 12 months exposure (T4) to F/T, I/D, Cr and NA conditions. The control sample (T0) is also displayed for comparison.
Figure 22Values of (a) the tensile strength and (b) Young’s modulus of the X120 adhesive before and after exposure to I/D, F/T and NA conditions for a period of 8 months (T3). The initial state corresponds to preliminary conditioning in water (or in air) for 3 months.
Figure 23MDSC thermograms obtained for X120 adhesive samples at T0, after preliminary conditioning for 3 months in water or in air: (a) reversing and (b) non-reversing heat flow signals.
Figure 24MDSC analyses of X120 adhesive samples exposed for 8 months to F/T, I/D and NA conditions: (a) Tg values and (b) non-reversing Heat flow thermograms.
Figure 25Evolutions of the coating/concrete bond properties during ageing in the alkaline solution at different temperatures or under NA condition: (a) tangential stiffness and (b) bond strength.
Figure 26Evolutions of the coating/adhesive bond properties during ageing under I/D, F/T and NA exposure conditions: (a) tangential stiffness and (b) bond strength.
Figure 27Strain profiles recorded at T0 (initial state before ageing) during the pull-out tests on control concrete specimens instrumented with (a) embedded and (b) bonded DOFS cables.
Figure 28Strain profiles recorded during the pull-out tests on concrete specimens instrumented with embedded DOFS cables after 9 months of immersion (T3) in the alkaline solution at 60 °C.
Figure 29Normalized strain profiles obtained at session T6 during pull-out tests on aged concrete specimens instrumented with embedded DOFS cables: after 18 months immersion in the alkaline solution at (a) 20 °C and (b) 40 °C, and (c) after 16 months of exposure to NA condition.
Figure 30Normalized strain profiles obtained at session T6 during pull-out tests on aged concrete specimens instrumented with bonded DOFS cables: after 18 months of exposure to (a) F/T and (b) I/D cycles, and (c) after 16 months of exposure to NA condition.