Concrete in
Coastal Areas of
Hot-Arid Climate
Zones
Extreme conditions accelerate damage to reinforced concrete structures
BY OMAR A. EID AND MARWAN A. DAYE
I n the coastal regions of the Arabian Gulf, it’s not
uncommon for concrete structures to exhibit serious
deterioration damage within 5 years of completion. Such
deterioration is normally related to the area’s climate, which
is classified as hot-arid but is often highly humid, as well as
the area’s materials, which are often of marginal quality.
Understanding and compensating for these factors is needed
to ensure that owners are provided durable, long-lived
structures. During the last 3 decades, in studies carried
out by the universities near Jubail Industrial City, a great
deal of progress has been made toward that goal. The
advancements have been reflected in the local concrete
specifications and have significantly improved the quality
of concrete construction in the region. In this article, we
provide some of our recommendations for new construction
as well as case histories documenting our experiences.
CONTEXT
The geomorphic and climatic conditions near Jubail
Industrial City, located on the eastern shoreline of the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, are characterized by relatively
shallow and highly saline groundwater as well as large
fluctuations in temperature and humidity. The depth to
groundwater is less than 2 m (6 ft) over a considerable
part of the city; the groundwater is extremely saline, with
chloride contents of up to 100,000 ppm (10%); and the
groundwater contains sulfates in quantities up to 4000 ppm
(0.40%). Sabkhas—very saline salt flats formed after the
evaporation of seasonal ponds—are widespread in the
coastal areas of the city, with typical chloride and sulfate
ion concentrations of 157,200 ppm (15.7%) and 5450 ppm
(0.55%), respectively (for comparison, Arabian Gulf
seawater has chloride and sulfate ion concentrations of
36,900 ppm [3.69%] and 5120 ppm [0.51%], respectively).1
In summer, the maximum daily air temperature
reaches up to 45 °C (113 °F), near-surface soil temperatures
reach up to 47°C (117 °F), and the surface temperatures
measured on concrete structures frequently reach 70 °C
(158 °F). Over a 24-hour period, the relative humidity can
range from 40 to 95%, and strong, gusty winds are common,
producing blowing sand and dust that settle on structures.
EFFECTS
After 3 decades of monitoring concrete structures in
the city, we’ve observed that corrosion of reinforcement
is the primary cause of concrete deterioration, and this
deterioration is predominantly found in structures in
contact with groundwater, moist soil, or seawater. Concrete
structures exposed to the atmosphere have not generally
shown signs of reinforcement corrosion.
Concrete international / September 2006 33
 This confirms research showing that the simultaneous
presence of water, sulfates, chlorides, and high temperatures
can accelerate the rate of diffusion of chlorides into the
concrete, increase their effects, and increase the reaction
kinetics of the corrosion process itself.2-7 These effects
are compounded by microcracking—leading to reduced
strength, increased permeability, and visible cracking—
caused by cycles of differential thermal expansion.
SPECIFICATIONS
To ensure durable concrete structures, projects in the city
are now constructed per specifications governing the qualities
of the constitutive materials and construction methods.
Although supplemental protection measures such as water-
proofing membranes, coatings on concrete surfaces, and
cathodic protection systems are encouraged, they are used as
additional measures only—quality concrete is the primary
corrosion protection measure. Highlights of the specifications
used in the city are provided in the following sections:
Concrete
Our experience and testing show that high-quality
concrete produced with the proper type and amount of
cementitious materials, low water-cementitious material
ratio (w/cm), and washed aggregates performs well.
Therefore, specifications for projects in the city now
require that concrete is produced with:
 ASTM C 1508 Type I cement and supplementary
cementitious materials (SCMs) comprising silica fume
or fly ash at cement replacement values of 8 or 20%
by weight, respectively, for use in belowground
structures and structures exposed to marine and
other aggressive environments;
 Type I cement (without SCMs) for use in superstructures;
 A maximum w/cm of 0.4;
 A minimum cement content for harsh exposures of
370 kg/m3 (620 lb/yd3) for mixtures made with 25 mm
(1 in.) maximum size coarse aggregate;
 A maximum acid-soluble chloride content in concrete
of 0.13% by weight of cement;
 A maximum total soluble sulfate salt of 4.0% by weight
of cement; and
 Chloride-permeability indexes, as measured in accordance
with AASHTO T 277,9 not exceeding 1000, 2000, or 3000
coulombs for concrete containing silica fume, fly ash,
or no SCM, respectively.
Reinforcement
Generally, conventional, uncoated reinforcement is
acceptable for construction of aboveground structures.
Fusion-bonded epoxy-coated reinforcement (FBECR) is,
however, required for construction of belowground and
marine structures as well as structures exposed to other
severe exposure conditions. In addition to meeting ASTM
34 September 2006 / Concrete international
A 77510 requirements, FBECR bars must:
 Have coating continuity tested on all coated bars at
the coating facility;
 Have minimum and maximum coating thicknesses of
0.15 and 0.33 mm (5.9 and 13.0 mils), respectively, with
at least 95% of the measured values between 0.18 and
0.30 mm (7.1 and 11.8 mils);
 Have no more than 5 holidays for each meter of length
(1.5 holidays per ft); and
 Satisfy job-site bend tests, with no visible cracking of
the coating on the outside radius of a bar bent through
180 degrees.
Construction
Although it’s difficult to construct structures in the
harsh environment of the city, the harsh conditions make
it critical that proper concrete construction procedures
are followed. Our specifications therefore require:
 Ongoing measurement of consistency—using slump,
air content, and unit weight tests;
 Maintaining concrete temperatures below 30 °C (86 °F)
at the time of placement;
 Avoiding placement if there is wind-borne sand;
 Fogging with potable water or shading of formwork
and reinforcement; and
 Protecting early-age concrete against contamination by
groundwater.
Perhaps the most important operation affecting future
durability is curing. Curing must commence immediately
after finishing operations are completed or after formwork
is removed. Concretes produced without SCMs must be
cured for a minimum of 7 days, and concretes produced
with SCMs must be cured, using ponding or wet burlap
covered with polyethylene sheets, for a minimum of 21 days.
DESIGN
As with any important design consideration, corrosion
control should be considered early in the design process—
corrosion engineers should be part of the project design
team. There are, however, considerations that all team
members should be aware of, and we’ve summarized
them here.
As with structures located in any environment, we’ve
found that structures constructed in Jubail Industrial City
must have adequate concrete cover to protect the
reinforcing steel from corrosion. A minimum cover of 75 mm
(3 in.) is normally specified for all belowground structures
and for aboveground structures exposed to seawater,
treated effluent, and potable water. A smaller amount of
cover may be tolerated, but it should not be less than 50 mm
(2 in.) for any exterior exposure. We’ve also found that
structures with high reinforcement ratios tend to have an
increased risk of concrete deterioration, as the associated
tight bar spacing can contribute to the presence of
honeycombing and voids in the
concrete. Designers must therefore
be careful to ensure that proper
clearance is designed into every detail.
High thermal gradients and drying
shrinkage make it critical that the
number and spacing of joints be
properly selected. Proper consideration
should also be given to designing
structures that minimize accumulation
of moisture and contaminants on
concrete surfaces. This includes not
only horizontal surfaces, but joints
as well—sealants must be resistant
to chlorides, sulfates, and high
temperatures. The application of
durable, protective coatings on
concrete surfaces should be considered
for many structures, as the coatings
can limit weathering and salt diffusion
effects. A typical coating system
that has been found to perform
satisfactorily consists of a low-
viscosity epoxy primer and two coats
of high-build, amine-cured coal tar
epoxy having a minimum dry film
thickness of 400 μm (16 mils).
To provide protection for the
concrete as well as reinforcing steel,
we recommend that underground
chambers that will come into contact
with groundwater should be made
waterproof by tanking (that is, the
surface in contact with the ground-
water should be completely sealed).
Our experience shows that
cathodic protection systems can
be highly successful in preventing
corrosion damage. Even when these
systems are not included in the initial
construction, structures should be
designed for future installation of
cathodic protection.
Our recommendations are
summarized in the following design
review checklist:
 Specify proper concrete mixtures;
 Detail and verify proper reinforcing
steel cover;
 Specify adequate curing methods
and curing periods;
 Use precast concrete to ensure
better quality control whenever
possible; CIRCLE READER CARD #18

Concrete international / September 2006 35

 Specify adequate corrosion protection, including
coated reinforcing steel, concrete coatings, cathodic
protection, and waterproofing membranes. If cathodic
protection systems are not used in the original
construction, provide provisions for future installation
of such systems whenever possible;
 Use plain, nonreinforced concrete whenever practical;
 Use proper spacing of reinforcing bars to ensure
proper concrete placement and consolidation;
 Use sufficient contraction joints to minimize shrinkage
cracking;
 Be aware that irrigated areas can cause increased
moisture in concrete and design accordingly;
 Ensure underground chambers are constructed to be
watertight and have proper ventilation; and
 Use nonmetallic reinforcement in nonstructural members.
ONGOING RESEARCH
Although a number of the more recently constructed
structures have performed surprisingly well, improvements
are still needed in certain portions of specifications for
CIRCLE READER CARD #19
36 September 2006 / Concrete international
area projects. Specifically, there is a need to ensure control
of cracking, permeability, and corrosion. Jubail Industrial
City, in association with King Fahd University of Petroleum
and Minerals (KFUPM), has therefore recently constructed
an exposure research station to study the corrosion
behavior of concrete specimens produced using local
materials. Concrete specimens (3679 in total) have been
prepared and placed in four exposure zones: tidal, splash,
buried, and atmospheric.
Over the next 20 years, samples will be periodically
retrieved and tested for physical and chemical changes.
Studies of shrinkage control of concrete, as well as
studies (using metal coupons) of corrosion rates of
metals normally used by the construction industries in
the area, are also planned.
CASE HISTORIES
Cooling canal system
Almost 30 years ago, the city constructed a canal system
for distribution of seawater used as industrial cooling
water by local plants. More than 10 km (6 miles) of canals,
generally divided into three compartments by two
reinforced concrete dividing walls (Fig. 1), were constructed.
After several years of service, the buildup of chloride ions
in the concrete caused corrosion of the reinforcing steel
at and above the water level. After extensive investigation,
cathodic protection was selected as the most cost-effective
long-term solution. Over 110 tonnes (120 tons) of aluminum
alloy anodes were installed to protect about 350,000 m2
(3,750,000 ft2) of submerged reinforced concrete surface.
Where the waterway was bounded by a reinforced concrete
wall exposed to the atmosphere, a buildup of chloride ions
was detected on the dry face. To both minimize evaporation,
which was effectively drawing water and chlorides through
the wall, and to minimize oxygen ingress, the exposed
face was sealed with an epoxy coating. More than 20,000 m2
(215,000 ft2) of wall surface was coated.
The cathodic protection system has been monitored
for the last 20 years and is considered to be completely
successful in arresting corrosion below the water level.
Because the portions of the structures projecting above
the water don’t benefit from the cathodic protection
system, these areas were treated with a sealer designed
to resist further ingress of chlorides.
Shoreline protection structure
About 10 years after being placed in service, a 2 km
(1.3 mile) long shoreline protection retaining wall (Fig. 2),
comprising steel tie-backs with sacrificial anodes, precast
concrete wall panels, and cast-in-place concrete caps and
top beams, exhibited distress. The cast-in-place and
precast concrete components were designed to have 50
and 75 mm (2 and 3 in.) cover, respectively. ASTM C 150
Type V cement and fly ash were used to produce the wall
panels, and all concrete mixtures were
produced with a target w/cm of 0.4.
Although there were no signs of
concrete deterioration in the precast
wall panels, the top beams exhibited
longitudinal cracks typical of those
caused by reinforcement corrosion.
Tests indicated that, although the
chloride front had not reached the
reinforcing steel in the precast concrete,
it had reached the reinforcing steel in
the cast-in-place concrete. The top
beams were repaired by patching, Fig. 1: Section of the seawater cooling canal (1 m = 3.28 ft)
and all exposed surfaces were Steel Rod Tie-back Precast Concrete
Cast-in-Place
Reinforced Concrete
subsequently coated with a polyamide- Primary Panel Top Beam
Ground Level +3.50 m
cured epoxy system.
Cast-in-Place
Reinforced Concrete +2.44 m High Tide
Cap Beam
Office building foundations 2.30 m

About 15 years after completion, a

+0.34 m Low Tide
five-story, reinforced concrete office Precast Concrete
Secondary Panel Precast Concrete
structure and a surrounding parking 2.60 m Concrete Deadman Secondary Panel
Concrete Deadman
garage were found to have varying Sacrificial Anode Steel Rod Tie-back
Cathodic Protection for
degrees of damage in their lower-level Steel Rod Tie-back Sacrificial Anode
Cathodic Protection for -2.50 m Sea Bed
columns. Most of the columns were Steel Rod Tie-back
300 mm
founded on spread footings with bearing
-5.00 m
elevations 2 m (6 ft) below grade. 400 mm
Although tests showed that the concrete A Precast Concrete
Primary Panel
in the columns, as well as the footings, -7.00 m
had chloride contamination exceeding Section A-A
Plan
corrosion threshold limits, surveys
indicated that only the belowgrade Fig. 2: Plan and section of the shoreline protection structure (1 m = 3.28 ft, 1 mm =
0.0394 in.)
portions of the columns suffered from
varying degrees of corrosion damage. New Fusion-Bonded Epoxy Existing Column Cover Removed and Repaired
Several repair solutions were Coated Reinforcement Cleaned and
New Fusion-Bonded Epoxy
Coated Bar
initially investigated, but only two 100 mm
Coated Reinforcing
200 mm Top of Slab on Ground
were considered attractive (Fig. 3). An
impressed-current cathodic protection New Concrete
Encasement
system comprising discrete anodes Plastic Sheet
A Existing
was used on more than 100 of the Footing
150 mm Cover
columns in the two structures. New Encasement

However, this system’s high cost, Existing Footing Plan Section A-A
potential to produce stray currents Encasement Method
that would cause further damage,
Steel Tube For Cathodic Electrical Connections
and need for periodic monitoring Cathodic Protection
Protection Anode to Foundations, Anodes Existing Column
and Power Supply
led to the adoption of a less costly Monitoring Tube

method that didn’t require periodic Steel Tube for Cathodic Protection
Cathodic Monitoring Tube
monitoring on the remaining damaged Protection Anode
columns. In this method, the column B
Excavation Limit 1m 1m Existing
portions located below grade were Footing
encased in a concrete mass reinforced Existing Column
Existing Footing
with hoop bars. Only loose concrete Plan Section B-B
was removed from the columns prior Cathodic Protection Method
to the placing of the encasement Fig. 3: Rehabilitation methods for concrete office building and parking structure
concrete. The encasement is expected foundations (1 m = 3.28 ft, 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

Concrete international / September 2006 37

to slow down future corrosion, maintain the load path,
and restrain the expansive forces of corrosion.
Buried pipelines
A pipeline system for transmission of potable and
reclaimed water, comprising 25 km (15.5 miles) of
1400 mm (54 in. nominal) diameter and 10 km (6.2 miles)
of 900 mm (36 in. nominal) diameter pretensioned concrete
cylinder pipe (CCP) per AWWA C 303,11 was completed in
1982. The pipes were factory coated with coal tar epoxy
and wrapped with polyethylene sheeting to protect the
coating during backfill operations.
After about 10 years in service, leaks were detected
and found to be the result of exterior corrosion of the
CCP’s steel cylinders and pretensioning rods. The corrosion
damage was more serious in the areas where the pipe
sections were laid in highly saline soil, soils with low
resistivity, or where exposed to groundwater.
After consideration of several rehabilitation options,
an impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) system
was installed over the entire length of the pipelines. The
selection process included extensive review of available
pipe repair data, field investigations, corrosion condition
surveys, and cathodic protection field trials on the
installed pipelines. The trials involved installation of ICCP
and sacrificial anode systems and monitoring the shifts in
potentials as well as current requirements. The pipes
remain in service today.
Bridges and culverts
Throughout the city, reinforced concrete bridges and
culverts are used in the roadways to accommodate drainage
and pipelines. These structures are affected by sulfate
attack, scaling, and reinforcing bar corrosion near grade
and in the headwalls. Depending on the extent of damage,
the concrete repairs have comprised patching with prepack-
aged polymer-modified repair mortars and nonshrink
grouts or member replacement using concrete containing
silica fume. Also, the lower portions of the substructures
were subsequently coated with an epoxy system.
References
1. Al-Amoudi, O.S.B., “Durability of Reinforced Concrete in
Aggressive Sabkha Environments,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 92, No. 3
May-June 1995, pp. 236-245.
2. Goni, S., and Andrade, C., “Synthetic Concrete Pore Solution
Chemistry and Rebar Corrosion Rate in the Presence of Chlorides,”
Cement and Concrete Research, V. 20, No. 4, July 1990, pp. 525-539.
3. Hussain, S.E.; Rasheeduzzafar; and Al-Gahtani, A.S., “Influence
of Sulfates on Chloride Binding in Cements,” Cement and Concrete
Research, V. 24, No. 1, pp. 8-24.
4. Al-Amoudi, O.S.B.; Rasheeduzzafar; Maslehuddin, M.; and
Abduljauwad, S.N., “Influence of Sulfate Ions on Chloride-Induced
Reinforcement Corrosion in Portland and Blended Cement Concretes,”
38 September 2006 / Concrete international
Cement, Concrete and Aggregates, V. 16, No. 1, June 1994, pp. 3-11.
5. Hussain, S.E., and Rasheeduzzafar, “Effect of Temperature on
Pore Solution Composition in Plain Cements,” Cement and Concrete
Research, V. 23, No. 6, Nov. 1993, pp. 1357-1368.
6. Maslehuddin, M., “The Influence of Arabian Gulf Environment
on Mechanisms of Reinforcement Corrosion,” PhD dissertation,
University of Aston, Birmingham, UK, Sept. 1994.
7. Hussain, S.E.; Al-Gahtani, A.S.; and Rasheeduzzafar, “Chloride
Threshold for Corrosion of Reinforcement in Concrete,” ACI
Materials Journal, V. 93, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1996, pp. 534-538.
8. ASTM C 150-05, “Standard Specification for Portland Cement,”
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005, 8 pp.
9. AASHTO T 277-05, “Standard Method of Test for Electrical
Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration,”
Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of
Sampling and Testing, 25th Edition, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2005.
10. ASTM A 775/A 775M-06, “Standard Specification for Epoxy-Coated
Steel Reinforcing Bars,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2006, 8 pp.
11. AWWA C 303, “Concrete Pressure Pipe, Bar-Wrapped, Steel-
Cylinder Type,” American Water Works Association, Denver, CO, 1978.
Selected for reader interest by the editors.
Omar A. Eid is a concrete specialist with the
Royal Commission in Jubail, Saudi Arabia.
He is a licensed professional engineer in
Maryland, has BS and MS degrees from
Georgia Institute of Technology, and a PhD
from Kennedy-Western University. He is a
certified corrosion specialist and a member
of several NACE International committees. He
has published technical papers on corrosion
protection and repair of concrete structures, and directed the
investigation of various corrosion condition surveys on concrete
and steel structures in the U.S. and the Middle East.
Marwan A. Daye, FACI, is the Engineering
Manager for WorleyParsons, has been an
ACI member for more than 29 years, and is a
Board member of the ACI Saudi Arabia Chapter.
He is a past Chair of ACI Committee 209,
Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete, and a
member of numerous ACI technical committees.
He has an MS in concrete technology and a
Dr. of Science degree in structural engineering.
He is a certified corrosion specialist with NACE International and a
member of the Engineering Department, Royal Commission for Jubail
and Yanbu, Jubail Industrial City, Saudi Arabia. He is also a
member of ASCE and ASTM International.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.