fib models for modeling of chloride ion ingress and concrete carbonation: Levels of assessment of input parameters

TECHNICAL PAPER fib models for modeling of chloride ion ingress and concrete carbonation: Levels of assessment of input parameters Martina Šomodíková 1 | Alfred Strauss 2 | Ivan Zambon 2 1 Faculty of Civil Engineering, Institute of Structural Mechanics, Brno University of Technology, Brno, Czech Republic 2 University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria Correspondence Alfred Strauss, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria. Email: [email protected].at Funding information European Cooperation in Science and Technology; Czech Science Foundation Abstract Degradation processes affecting structural materials, such as chloride ion ingress, concrete carbonation, and the subsequent corrosion of reinforcement, are limiting factors for the service life of reinforced concrete structures and/or structural elements. The objective of a structural condition assessment is to determine the current state and estimate the future performance of a structure with a maximum degree of accuracy and a minimum of effort. There is therefore a need for advanced methodologies and predictive deterioration models for the assessment of structures/structural elements over time. In the paper, the focus is on the widely accepted models for modeling of chloride ion ingress into concrete and concrete carbonation process incorporated in the fib Model Code 2010. Three levels of assessment of input parameters are presented, starting with simple quantification based on codes/literature recommendations and progressing to higher levels of assessment using design documentation and visual inspection data, additional on-site measurements, and/or laboratory tests. KEYWORDS chloride ion ingress, concrete carbonation, fib model code 2010, levels of assessment 1|INTRODUCTION The service life and durability of reinforced concrete structures and/or structural elements are affected by degradation processes which act on structural materials. Concrete carbonation, chloride ion ingress, and the subsequent corrosion of reinforcement are the most common deterioration phenomena. Within the management of structures, due to the desire to minimize overall cost, the most common type of structural evaluation is the nonformal assessment, where the condition of a structure is evaluated on the basis of visual inspections. The objective of a structural condition assessment is to determine the current state of a structure and estimate its future performance with a maximum degree of accuracy and a minimum of effort. Data collected during visual inspections should mainly provide information about the most serious problems and suggest the most suitable scheme for the extension of the performed inspection via monitoring, additional on-site measurements, and/or laboratory tests. In order to ensure the desired durability outcomes occur, modeling based on mathematical principles and measured material characteristics is seeing increased use in durability design. The fib Model Code 2010 1 has Discussion on this paper must be submitted within two months of the print publication. The discussion will then be published in print, along with the authors’closure, if any, approximately nine months after the print publication. Received: 4 October 2019 Revised: 20 January 2020 Accepted: 29 February 2020 DOI: 10.1002/suco.201900401 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2020 The Authors. Structural Concrete published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation for Structural Concrete Structural Concrete. 2020;21:1377–1384. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/suco 1377 incorporated a performance-based approach for such design. Here, the verification of limit states associated with the durability of structures may be performed using the following approaches: (a) the fully probabilistic format; (b) the partial safety factor format; (c) the deemedto-satisfy approach; and (d) the avoidance-of deterioration approach. In general, structural assessment is carried out using limit state principles with characteristic values and partial safety factors. However, only the fully probabilistic approach provides quantitative information about safety level and hence is increasingly supported if more refined methods are necessary. The aim of this paper is to describe the levels of assessment of input parameter values for the prediction of deterioration due to chloride ion ingress into concrete and concrete carbonation process for existing structures. Due to inherent uncertainties in material, technological, and environmental characteristics, stochastic models, dealing with probabilistic approaches and presenting the performancerelated design of structures for durability, are recommended creating an effective tool for the assessment and prediction of time-dependent degradation processes (see fib Model Code 2010 1 and ISO 16204:2012 2 ). Hence, the focus is on the widely accepted analytical models incorporated into the fib Model Code 2010 1 and consequently in the fib Model Code 2020 for existing structures, as well as on the fully probabilistic approach, see Strauss et al. 3,4 This paper does not primarily deal with the required adaptation of models developed for new structures to existing structures, or vice versa, which would certainly be of interest to the engineering community. It deals with the survey options on construction sites and laboratory and its applicability for processing the suggested degradation models and its input parameters. Nevertheless, the proposed categorization developed for existing structures can already be transferred to the models for the verification of the quality of new concrete structures, which will be in a next step treated in the corresponding fib commissions, for example, in Chapter 27.11 of ModelCode 2020. 2|MODELING OF CHLORIDE ION INGRESS AND CONCRETE CARBONATION ACCORDING TO THE FIB MODEL CODE 2010 The limit state associated with the durability of structures is described by the limit condition: PftD ðÞ=PRt D ðÞ−At D ðÞ≤0 fg ≤Pd,ð1Þ where R(t D ) and A(t D ) represent the resistance capacity and the cumulative degradation of the structure/ structural component at the end of its design life, t D , and P f and P d stand for the actual and design probability of failure. For the case of chloride ion ingress into concrete, the resistance capacity is replaced by the critical concentration of dissolved Cl − leading to steel depassivation and degradation is represented by the concentration of Cl − at the depth of concrete cover. Similarly, the concrete cover is compared to the carbonation depth at time when carbonation process is considered. The widely used analytical models for modeling of chloride ion ingress into concrete are based on the error function “erf.” 5 According to fib Bulletin No. 34, 6 the Cl − concentration at the depth of concrete cover at time, C(a, t) (wt%/c) is calculated as Ca,tðÞ=C0+CS,Δx−C0 ðÞ1−erf a−Δx 2ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Dapp tðÞt p "# :ð2Þ According to fib Bulletin No. 76, 7 D app (t) can be determined based on field data obtained via the chloride profiling method or the rapid chloride migration (RCM) test method. Subsequently, an aging exponent may be determined using the following approaches A or B: Dapp tðÞ=keDapp t0 ðÞt0 t  αAor Dapp tðÞ=keDRCM t0 ðÞt0 t  αB,ð3Þ where the environmental variable k e [−], which takes into consideration the effect of temperature on chloride ingress into concrete, is described as ke= exp be 1 Tref −1 Treal  :ð4Þ For meaning of the individual model input parameters, see Table 1. A simple approach to the calculation of carbonation depth at time, x c (t) [mm] can be defined, according to which xctðÞ=Affiffit p:ð5Þ The constant Ais quantified through the evaluation of carbonation depths measured on real concrete structures. Using different forms of parameter A, it is possible to cover the whole range of carbonation situations. Based on DuraCrete Project 9 and according to fib Bulletin No. 34, 6 the carbonation depth x c (t) (mm) at a certain point of time is defined as 1378 ŠOMODÍKOVÁ ET AL. xctðÞ=ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2kekcktR−1 NAC +εt  CS qWtðÞ ffiffit pð6Þ with the environmental function k e [−] and execution transfer parameter k c [−] assessed according to following formulas: ke=1−RHreal 100  fe 1−RHref 100  fe ! ge ,ð7Þ kc=tc 7  bc :ð8Þ Meso-climatic conditions due to the re-wetting of concrete surfaces caused by rain events are taken into account using the time-dependent weather function, which is defined as WtðÞ=t0 t  w 2=t0 t  pSRtw 365 ðÞ bw 2ð9Þ with w[−] being the weather exponent. Meaning of all the model input parameters is summarized in Table 2. Later, von Greve-Dierfeld and Gehlen 11–13 introduced an additional parameter—carbonation rate k NAC , which TABLE 1 List of input parameters for the modeling of chloride ingress No Parameter Notation Unit Level Source Method Material parameters 1 Cement and binder types CEM I–V—(1), 2, 3b Petrographic examination 2 Water to cement (water to binder) ratio w/c(w/b)—(1), 2, 3b EN 206:2013 Petrographic examination/chemical analysis 3 Initial Cl − content in concrete C 0 Wt%/c1, 2, 3b EN 206–1:2000, fib Bulletin 76 Chemical analysis 4Cl − migration/diffusion coefficient at time t 0 D(t 0 ) a mm 2 / years 1, 2, 3b fib Bulletin 76 EN 12390-11:2015 8 Chloride migration/diffusion tests; fitting of Equation (2) 5 Aging exponent α—1, 3b fib Bulletin 76 Chloride profiling method/Diffusion tests; fitting of Equation (3) b Environmental parameters 6 Reference temperature T ref K1,3afib Bulletin 76 7 Temperature of structural element or ambient air T real K1,3afib Bulletin 76 On-site measurements/nearest weather station 8 Temperature coefficient b e K1,3bfib Bulletin 76 9 Depth of convection zone ΔxMm 1, 3b fib Bulletin 76 Chloride profiling method 10 Surface/substitute surface cl − content in depth Δx C S,0 /C S,Δx Wt%/c1, 3b fib Bulletin 76 Chloride profiling method; fitting of Equation (2) Other parameters 11 Reference point of time t 0 Years 1, 2 fib Bulletin 76 12 ime tYears 1, 2 13 Concrete cover aMm 1, 2, 3a EN 1992-1-1:2004, fib Bulletin 76 On-site nondestructive methods (cover meters, ground penetrating radar, ultrasonic pulse echo) 14 Critical chloride content C cr Wt%/c1, 3b fib Bulletin 76 No standardized test method is available c a Migration coefficient based on RCM-test method D RCM (t 0 ) or the apparent coefficient of chloride diffusion based on the field data D app (t 0 ) can be used. b The long-term behavior of the D app (t) of existing structure has to be considered by analyzing the development of chloride profiles over time; at least two different points in time for D app (t) or combination of the D app (t) obtained from the field data and the D RCM (t 0 ) of the design concrete gained from laboratory RCM tests are required in order to be able to quantify the aging exponent α. c By measuring the corrosion current and electrode potential at different depths in the concrete cover, it is possible to predict when the chloride-based corrosion front will reach the reinforcement. The critical chloride content, C cr , can thus be assessed. ŠOMODÍKOVÁ ET AL.1379 replaced the inverse carbonation resistance R NAC−1 . Here, x c (t) is defined as xctðÞ=kNAC ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi kekcka pWtðÞ ffiffit p:ð10Þ Furthermore, function k a [−] describes the effect of CO 2 concentration in the ambient air. For a detailed overview of carbonation and chloride ingress parameters, and their implementation for condition assessment in existing structures, see Zambon et al. 14,15 3|LEVELS OF ASSESSMENT OF THE INPUT PARAMETERS Different levels of assessment of the input parameter values (‘Level’column in Tables 1, 2) can be used based on input value precision and the accompanying uncertainties. In the case of an existing structure, three levels can be distinguished (see also Figure 1): (i) Level 1—No inspection of the structure and/or onsite measurements has been carried out and the only available information about materials, loading, and the TABLE 2 List of input parameters for the modeling of concrete carbonation No Parameter Notation Unit Level Source Method Material and execution parameters: 1 Cement and binder types CEM I–V—(1), 2, 3b Petrographic examination 2 Water to cement (water to binder) ratio w/c(w/b)—(1), 2, 3b EN 206 (2013) Petrographic examination/ chemical analysis 3 Inverse effective carbonation resistance of concrete R−1 ACC,0 mm2=years kg=m31, 2, 3b DARTS (2004) EN 12390–10:2018 10 4 Period of curing t c Days 1, 2 DARTS (2004) Environmental parameters: 5 Relative humidity RH real %1,3afib Bulletin 34 RH sensors or RH probes/ nearest weather station 6CO 2 concentration of the ambient air C S Kg/m 3 1, 3a fib Bulletin 34 Chemical or infrared sensors 7 Probability of driving rain p SR —1, 3a fib Bulletin 34 Wind sock or vane/nearest weather station 8 Time of wetness t w Days 1, 3a fib Bulletin 34 Rain gauge/nearest weather station Test and other parameters: 9 Exponent of regression of parameter k c b c —1 DARTS (2004) 10 Regression parameter (influence of the ACC-test method) k t —1 DARTS (2004) 11 Error term of the ACC-test method ε t mm2=years kg=m31 DARTS (2004) 12 Reference value of relative humidity RH ref %1 fib Bulletin 34 13 Exponent f e —1 DARTS (2004) 14 Exponent g e —1 DARTS (2004) 15 Time of reference t 0 Years 1 DARTS (2004) 16 Time tYears 1, 2 17 Exponent of regression of function W(t) b w —1 DARTS (2004) 18 Concrete cover aMm 1, 2, 3a fib Bulletin 34 On-site nondestructive methods (cover meters, ground penetrating radar, ultrasonic pulse echo) 1380 ŠOMODÍKOVÁ ET AL. surrounding environment is from codes and other literature sources. Structural requirements and recommended input parameter values can be used according to the European standards (e.g., EN 1992-1-1:2004 16 ;EN 206-1:2000 17 ; EN 206:2013 18 ) and/or other literature (e.g., DARTS 19 ;fib Bulletin No. 34 6 ;fib Bulletin No. 76 7 ; fib Model Code 2010 1 ). For details see code/literature FIGURE 1 Process of the quantification of input parameters for the modeling of chloride ingress and concrete carbonation ŠOMODÍKOVÁ ET AL.1381 specifications (“Source”column in Tables 1, 2) where definitions of input parameters using appropriate statistical characteristics such as the probability density function, mean value, the coefficient of variation and limits if needed can be found. These are based on former measurements and/or experience. The definition of input values using only codes and other literature sources may not always be completely accurate. For a more precise analysis, it is recommended that higher levels of assessment be utilized in combination with the probabilistic approach. (ii) Level 2—The design documentation is available, and/or a visual inspection of the structure was carried out. When design documentation is available for the structure, and the structure is well documented, precise information about material properties can be obtained. Especially data on parameters, such as cement type, water to cement/binder ratio, carbonation resistance properties, chloride diffusion properties, period of curing, depth of concrete cover, are crucial for the realistic quantification of input variables for the modeling of the degradation processes over time. Unfortunately, in the prevailing number of cases, only basic input parameters such as the age of the structure and/or concrete cover are documented. If the required data cannot be obtained from design documentation, a visual inspection is needed. The results from a single visual inspection may be used to estimate the remaining service life, from which the timing of future inspections/maintenance can be determined based on the current level of risk, and the need to perform other testsindifferentareascanbeassessed. (iii) Level 3—Updated or realistic input values are available from on-site measurements (Level 3a) and/or supplementary laboratory tests (Level 3b). If reliable data are not available from design documentation or visual inspection, additional on-site measurements and/or laboratory tests should be carried out. Tests may be carried out directly on the structure itself (in-situ testing), or on test specimens made in the laboratory or taken from the structure. Nondestructive test methods and methods of sample analysis can be employed at intervals during the structure's life. Regarding the environmental parameters, data from the nearest weather station can also be utilized. If these are not available, on-site measurements of environmental characteristics such as temperature, relative humidity, or precipitation can be employed. Some parameters can also be obtained with sufficient accuracy using calibration processes. Individual test methods for quantifying the individual parameters are mentioned in “Method”column of Tables 1, 2; for details, see also Šomodíková et al. 20 3.1 |Suitability of each level to apply a probabilistic service life analysis In general, the probabilistic methods can be used at all three levels described above. At Level 1, it is typical that the issues to be treated are represented in models (e.g., see Equations (2)–(9)), which are accessible to a mathematical-numerical treatment. For these models, always a single value (usually a fractile value) is used for each variable. The result consequently appears in a single number. This is usually an engineering procedure used for dimensioning and evaluation problems. However, it is particularly recommended to use several different numerical values in the models presented above to test the sensitivity of the results. It is therefore already important at Level 1 to introduce those variables with their statistical distribution forms (probability density functions, PDFs) and statistical parameters (mean, standard deviation, etc.) influencing the considered assessment problem in terms of reliability theory. The transfer of the influencing variables, which are mostly defined as fractile values in standards, into distribution forms and the associated statistical parameters can be carried out according to clear statistical relationships taking into account standard background documentation, such as the Probabilistic Model Code 21 by the Joint Committee on Structural Safety. Level 2 tests are typical on-site tests at the structure. This level is associated with the updating of information on environmental and mechanical condition of the structure. Specialized specialist bodies are usually involved in this procedure. Rather, it is reasonable and cost-effective to use the Level 1 gained insights to set up a targeted and suitable examination program, as well as to determine what needs to be checked. Level 2/Level 3a tests are typical for the condition assessment of concrete structures in bridge engineering. The process step is known as information updating and is performed in general by specialized departments. The additional information obtained from these testing is included in the assessment in order to finally dispel the doubts that still exist at the end of Level 1 and to demonstrate sufficient reliability. In general, the conventional probabilistic models proposed above and the updated values will be used for these procedures. In this context, Bayesian or similar methods can be used, in order to process the additional information in the characterization of the above mentioned probability density functions and its associated statistical parameters. Based on “a priori probabilities”(e.g., from the Level 1 surveys), by adding additional information, taking into account a posteriori predictor, values for the improved probability density function are determined. 1382 ŠOMODÍKOVÁ ET AL. If the reliability achieved is received as insufficient and the general test-specific criteria show a high assessment complexity, then a structural performance at Level 3procedure is proposed. In Level 3 procedure, probabilistic models are predominantly used in the assessment. The probabilistic expert analyses in Level 3 consequently substitute the standards, which guarantee a balanced level of safety in the structural design phase. The acceptance of increased risks or a reduced safety should in principle be reserved for an expert panel. 4|DISCUSSION ON THE RELEVANCE OF THE CORROSION PROPAGATION TIME When observing the duration of service life, a rate and type of corrosion propagation is to be taken into account. In the carbonation environment, the rate of corrosion propagation after the point of initiation is expected to be very slow. Accordingly, there would be only negligible material and mechanical changes of the concrete member concerned, even at the point in time when the first cracks appear. However, there is an obvious contrast of carbonation caused corrosion in comparison with the situation where chloride induced corrosion involving pitting occurs. The process is followed with very limited amounts of corrosion products being produced, and possibly little of no cracking, depending upon the nature of the exposure environment. Furthermore, pitting corrosion can rapidly induce significant local loss of rebar area causing significant losses of member carrying capacity. The effects of pitting corrosion include a reduction of material properties such as yield strain and elongation at failure, changes in bond and anchorage, as well as associated effects such as the reduction in the confinement of the main reinforcement due to corrosion damage to stirrup reinforcement. When a possible propagation allowance is observed, it is important to mention that it would not be appropriate in cases where prestressing wires or tendons could be affected by carbonation or chloride induced corrosion, as there is a likelihood that hydrogen embrittlement of the steel could arise. Furthermore, there are similar considerations for circumstances where fatigue or fretting occur, for both reinforced and prestressed concrete members. When observing future development of codes and regulations, there is an obvious need to define how to take in account corrosion propagation development in service life design (SLD). It is necessary to recognize and differentiate a full account of different design situations where various actions and environmental effects could arise, singularly, or perhaps in conjunction. In summary, all accompanying circumstances of the corrosion propagation process have to be clarified, to define in which cases the corrosion propagation time could be implemented in SLD and within which limits, as well as under which constraints. 5|CONCLUSIONS In the paper, levels of assessment of input parameter values for modeling of chloride ion ingress into concrete and concrete carbonation process were briefly presented with the focus on the widely accepted models incorporated into the fib Model Code 2010. 1 Based on input value precision and the accompanying uncertainties, three levels can be distinguished. For the first estimation in degradation modeling, input parameters can be quantified using appropriate statistical characteristics, such as the probability density function, mean value, the coefficient of variation and limits if needed, according to codes and/or other literature sources. For many of the input parameters, these values may not be entirely accurate and realistic, and consequently their use may lead to very uncertain (and sometimes even unsafe) modeling results. Hence, higher levels of assessment using additional onsite measurements and/or laboratory tests are recommended. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work has been supported by the research project “Life-Cycle Assessment for Railway-Structures (LeCIE),” funded by Austrian ÖBB-Infrastruktur Bau AG; project No. 18-07949-S “Probabilistic Modelling of the Durability of Reinforced Concrete Structures Considering Synergic Effect of Carbonation, Chlorides and Mechanical Action,” awarded by the Czech Science Foundation (GAČR); and project COST Action TU1406 “Qualitätsspezifikationen für Straßenbrücken, Standardisierung auf europäischer Ebene (BridgeSpec),”supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). This support is gratefully acknowledged. ORCID Martina Šomodíková https://orcid.org/0000-0001-71174946 Alfred Strauss https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1674-7083 Ivan Zambon https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0705-2538 REFERENCES 1. fib Bulletins Nos. 65 and 66: Model Code 2010—Final draft, Volume 1 and 2 (bulletin). Lausanne: International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib), 2012. ŠOMODÍKOVÁ ET AL.1383 2. ISO 16204:2012 Durability—Service life design of concrete structures (International Standard). Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2012. 3. Strauss A, Bergmeister K, Novák D, Lehký D. Probabilistic response identification and monitoring of concrete structures [Stochastische Parameteridentifikation bei Konstruktionsbeton für die Betonerhaltung]. Beton-und Stahlbetonbau. 2004;99 (12):967–974. https://doi.org/10.1002/best.200490282. 4. Strauss A, Wendner R, Bergmeister K, Reiterer M, Horvatits J. Monitoring and influence lines based performance indicators [Modellkorrekturfaktoren als "performance Indikatoren" für die Langzeitbewertung der integralen Marktwasserbrücke]. Beton-und Stahlbetonbau. 2011;106(4):231–240. https://doi. org/10.1002/best.201100003. 5. Collepardi M, Marcialis A, Turriziani R. Penetration of chloride ions into cement pastes and concretes. J Am Ceram Soc. 1972;55 (10):534–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1972.tb13424.x. 6. fib Bulletin No. 34: Model Code for Service Life Design (bulletin). Lausanne: International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib), 2006. 7. fib Bulletin No. 76: Benchmarking of deemed-to-satisfy provisions in standards—Durability of reinforced concrete structures exposed to chlorides (bulletin). Lausanne: International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib), 2015. 8. EN 12390-11:2015: Testing hardened concrete—Part 11: Determination of the chloride resistance of concrete, unidirectional diffusion (European Standard). Brussels: European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2015. 9. DuraCrete-project—Probabilistic Performance Based Durability Design of Concrete Structures (Brite-Euram Project BE95-1347, Report No. 4–5). (1998). 10. EN 12390-10:2018: Testing hardened concrete—Part 10: Determination of the carbonation resistance of concrete at atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (European Standard). Brussels: European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2018. 11. von Greve-Dierfeld S, Gehlen C. Performance based durability design, carbonation Part 1—Benchmarking of European present design rules. Struct Concr. 2016a;17(3):309–328. https:// doi.org/10.1002/suco.201600066. 12. von Greve-Dierfeld S, Gehlen C. Performance based durability design, carbonation part 2—Classification of concrete. Struct Concr. 2016b;17(4):523–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco. 201600067. 13. von Greve-Dierfeld S, Gehlen C. Performance based durability design, carbonation part 3: PSF approach and a proposal for the revision of deemed-to-satisfy rules. Struct Concr. 2016c;17 (5):718–728. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201600085. 14. Zambon I, Vidovic A, Strauss A, Matos J, Friedl N. Prediction of the remaining service life of existing concrete bridges in infrastructural networks based on carbonation and chloride ingress. Smart Struct Syst. 2018;21(3):305–320. https://doi.org/ 10.12989/sss.2018.21.3.305. 15. Zambon I, Vidovic A, Strauss A, Matos J. Use of the chloride ingress model for condition assessment in bridge management. Civil Engineer (Građevinar). 2019;71(5):359–373. https://doi. org/10.14256/JCE.2411.2018. 16. EN 1992-1-1:2004: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures—Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings (European standard). Brussels: European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2004. 17. EN 206-1:2000: Concrete—Part 1: Specification, performance, production and conformity (European Standard). Brussels: European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2000. 18. EN 206:2013: Concrete—Specification, performance, production and conformity (European Standard). Brussels: European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2013. 19. DARTS—Durable and reliable tunnel structures (GROWTH 2000 project GRDI-25633). The Netherlands: European Commission, 2004. 20. Šomodíková M, Strauss A, Zambon I, Teplý B. Quantification of parameters for modeling of chloride ion ingress into concrete. Struct Concr. 2019;20:519–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/ suco.201800049. 21. Vrouwenvelder T. The JCSS probabilistic model code. Struct Safety. 1997;19(3):245–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4730(97)00008-8. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES Martina Šomodíková Brno University of Technology Brno, Czech Republic [email protected] Alfred Strauss University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Austria [email protected] Ivan Zambon University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Austria [email protected] How to cite this article: Šomodíková M, Strauss A, Zambon I. fib models for modeling of chloride ion ingress and concrete carbonation: Levels of assessment of input parameters. Structural Concrete. 2020;21:1377–1384. https://doi. org/10.1002/suco.201900401 1384 ŠOMODÍKOVÁ ET AL.