EdStainless, I am confused on your statement about the pH of the environment being significantly lower by the time the chlorides reach the rebar. I have not heard of this... Mind you, my chemistry is pretty rudimentary but I agree with GGedge that I believed the drop in pH is due to carbonation (Carbon Dioxide) and is independent of the diffusion of chlorides. You are not the first person to tell me that 2101 is a better bang for the buck than 316. We stopped using 316 stainless steel awhile back and then started specifying 316LN. Then after some discussions with the different stainless steel rebar reps they sold us on specifying 2205 for marine applications. Most of what we do is related to neutral pH environments with chloride sources due to the ocean. No industrial applications for us.
I will have to read up on chloramines as I am not familiar with that.
GGedge, you are correct! This is for service life modeling based on Fick's Second Law of diffusion. Considers only chloride diffusion in a perfect uncracked concrete scenario. Definitely, unrealistic, but seems to be the industry standard. On a side note, I am changing the parameters in Life365 (i.e. the chloride exposure, concrete diffusion coefficient, chloride threshold, and propagation period). I have lots of great information concerning different admixtures and types of rebar and how to manually modify the inputs but currently Outokumpo has not been very helpful to me in supplying some of the test information I had requested from them. Do you know of another service life modelling program other than Life365 for reinforced concrete? I was told that there was another one that was going to be coming out of the UAE and would be able to account for sulfates and cracked concrete conditions. Thanks for the lead on Pedeferri/Bertolinni.
Your memory of it being an order of magnitude higher seems to be spot on! Black Bar threshold is 0.0005% and 316 stainless steel is at 0.0048% according to Life365 and many other independent sources.