BSI PD CEN/TR 16639:2014
$198.66
Use of k-value concept, equivalent concrete performance concept and equivalent performance of combinations concept
Published By | Publication Date | Number of Pages |
BSI | 2014 | 66 |
This Technical Report provides more detailed information on the k-value concept principles of the equivalent concrete performance concept (ECPC) and the equivalent performance of combinations concept (EPCC) in accordance to EN 206:2013, 5.2.5.
PDF Catalog
PDF Pages | PDF Title |
---|---|
4 | Contents Page |
5 | Foreword |
6 | 0 Introduction 0.1 General 0.2 Task Group 5 0.3 k-value concept 0.4 ECPC and EPCC |
7 | 1 Scope |
8 | 2 k-value concept 2.1 k-values in EN 206:2013 2.2 Use of k-values in the member states |
9 | 2.3 Procedure for using the k-value concept 2.3.1 Principle of the k-value concept |
10 | 2.3.2 Method of calculation |
11 | Figure 1 — Principle of k-value determination (shown for w / (c + a)) |
12 | 2.3.3 Example for determination of k Figure 2 — Example for strength vs. water / (cement + fly ash) relationship |
13 | Figure 3 — k-value plotted as function of water/cement ratio ωo of reference concrete |
14 | 2.3.4 Further recommendations for the application of the k-value 2.3.5 Example for establishing a general concept using the k-value concept |
15 | Figure 4 — Determination of a prescriptive k-value from concrete test results [12] |
16 | 2.4 Application of k-value concept by the users 2.4.1 General 2.4.2 Example for concrete mix design applying the k-value concept |
17 | 3 Equivalent concrete performance concept (ECPC) 3.1 General 3.2 Dutch Method 3.2.1 Definitions |
19 | 3.2.2 Procedure and criteria for assessment of durability aspects |
20 | Table 1 — Reference cement types in relation to the exposure class |
21 | Table 2 — Durability aspects in relation to the exposure class Figure 7 — RCM – value after 1 year versus water/cement ratio for Portland cement (PC), slag cement (HOC) and a combination of Portland cement and fly-ash (PC+pvla) |
23 | Figure 8 — Difference versus probability of acceptance |
24 | Table 3 — Limit values d (at the population level) Table 4 — Limit values Tj 3.2.3 Test methods |
25 | Table 5 — Test methods for the different durability aspects Table 6 — Fixed limit values for cube strength 3.2.4 Quality assurance |
26 | 3.3 Recommendations for the application of ECPC |
27 | 3.4 Additional information to the use of the Dutch method Table 7 — Requirements for concrete composition NEN 8005 |
28 | Table 8 — Flow chart calculation assessment paramenter [13] 4 Equivalent performance of combinations concept 4.1 General |
29 | 4.2 UK method |
30 | 4.3 Irish method |
31 | 4.4 Portuguese method |
32 | 4.5 Recommendation for application of EPCC 4.6 Additional information the UK method 4.6.1 Annexes from BS 8500-2 relating to conformity control of combinations |
33 | Table A.1 — Requirements for the compressive strength of combinations |
35 | Table C.1 — Mass fraction of addition a in combinations for strength testing |
37 | Figure C.1 — Determination of conformity limits for combinations 4.6.2 How this works when specifying concrete to BS 8500 |
39 | Table A.3 — Cements and combinations from BS 8500–1 |
40 | Table A.4 — The XC requirements in BS 8500–1 |
41 | 4.7 Additional information to the Irish method |
42 | Table A.6 (NE.1) — Requirements for the compressive strength of combinations |
43 | 4.8 Additional information to the Portuguese method Table A.7 — Limits for the composition and the compressive strength class of the concrete under the action of chlorides, for a design working life of 50 years |
49 | Annex A (informative) Replies to the k -value questionnaire of CEN/TC 104/SC 1/TG 5 A.1 General questionnaire |
59 | A.2 Addition to answer of Finland |
61 | Tableau NA.F.1 — Valeurs limites applicables en France pour la composition et les propriétés du béton en fonction de la classe d’exposition |
62 | Bibliography |