DURABILITY OF CONCRETE IN SOIL OR GROUNDWATER

This material was compiled in January 2011 as a contribution to proceedings within the
Concrete Institute of Australia, developing a series of Recommended Practice documents
relating to durability.

Concrete having strength grade 50 MPa or above is practically impermeable and highly
resistant to carbonation, with the result that for this type of concrete most natural soil
conditions do not result in any kind of deterioration either of the concrete itself or the steel
reinforcement. Attack on the concrete, if it occurs at all, is due to aggressive groundwater - if
the concrete is dry, it does not deteriorate. Potentially harmful materials are identified by
analysis of groundwater or water extracts from soil samples.

The most common aggressive components of groundwater in natural environments are acids,
dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfates and chlorides. Other types of aggressive, not dealt
with here, can result from soil contamination by industrial waste.
Acids and Dissolved Carbon Dioxide
The aggressiveness of water containing dissolved CO2 is usually characterised by the
concentration of “aggressive CO2”, calculated from total “free” CO2 and calcium
(Attachment 1). This is a measure of the amount of calcium which a given volume of the
water will dissolve. To indicate the aggressiveness of water containing acids (other than
carbonic acid which is CO2 in solution), it is common to quote the pH value. While this is a
useful measure of the threat of attack by acid the rate of deterioration is not uniquely
determined by the pH, as other factors such as solubility or otherwise of the calcium salts of
the particular type of acid will also have an influence.

In Attachment 2, examples are plotted of rates of attack from acid v. the pH, and from
aggressive CO2 , v. the concentration, over various periods of time. These apply to high
quality concrete and are the basis of limits applicable to concrete having minimum cover
determined from other criteria. For higher concentrations of the aggressive, the life can be
extended by increasing the cover to reinforcing steel (Attachment 3).
There are no marked differences in the resistance to attack by acid between the various types
of portland or blended cements (Attachment 4). Higher acid resistance may be conferred by
high alumina cement, supersulfated cement and geopolymer but the use of these cements is
outside the scope of this account.
Sulfate
The mechanism of sulfate attack is quite different from that of acid or aggressive CO2.
Sulfate reacts with calcium hydroxide and tricalcium aluminate in the hardened concrete, to
form reaction products which are greater in volume than the reactants, and, depending on the
concentration of sulfate and the amounts of these compounds in the hardened concrete, the
concrete is distorted or disrupted.
Good quality concrete made with sulfate resisting cement will withstand very high levels. In
Attachment 5, results are described of 20 years’ exposure of cast concrete specimens to water
containing sodium and magnesium sulfates, the sulfate content totalling 4%. Specimens made
with sulfate resisting cement had suffered only minimal attack. Samples from the test series
having results shown in Fig. 3 of Attachment 6, with sulfate concentration 10,000 ppm,
continued for 24 years and those containing fly ash showed very little effect at the end of the
exposure period. This result was better than that obtained in parallel tests using sulfate
resisting cement but no fly ash; ie there was a significant benefit from removal of the free
lime by the fly ash, beyond that obtainable just from a low level of tricalcium aluminate.
Chloride
Chlorides are widespread in groundwaters. In Australia, high concentrations are likely to be
found near the sea, in ground periodically flooded by sea water. In regions where water
evaporates very quickly from the soil, high chloride concentrations build up and become
dangerous when the soil is re-wet.
Immersed in water of neutral pH containing oxygen dissolved from the atmosphere,
reinforcing steel will corrode rapidly at low levels of chloride, whereas in the same situation
at the pH conferred by cement it will remain passive at chloride levels three times that of sea
water (Attachment 7). Similar immunity to very high levels of chloride has been found in
concrete (Attachments 7 & 8), though much of the literature also reports corrosion at much
lower values. There is no satisfactory explanation of the wide discrepancies, by a factor of
more than 10, of threshold concentrations of chloride, though it is acknowledged
(Attachment 7) that a very dense cement matrix, achievable only with low w/c and therefore
high strength grade, could inhibit the initiation of corrosion. The BRE publication “Concrete
in Aggressive Ground” encompasses chloride levels approaching those found in sea water
(about 2% chloride) but makes no allowance in its concrete specifications, except as a
possible indicator of acid resulting from industrial waste. In this publication resistance to
aggressive ground conditions is addressed through specification of the concrete, without
reference to cover, and so there is no suggestion of increased cover to promote resistance to
chloride.
It can be concluded that reinforcing steel will remain passive in the presence of groundwater
having a chloride concentration at least up to that in sea water, provided only that alkalinity is
maintained at reinforcement depth.
Unlike above-ground environments it is possible to permanently protect concrete from
chloride underground by means of a paint coating or other physical barrier, which may be the
most economical option where high levels of chloride in the soil are encountered.
Specifications for Concrete & Cover; Exposure Classifications
Acid and aggressive CO2:
In Attachment 2, the lines drawn to correspond with the data points have rates of attack
10 mm per 100 years for acid at pH 5.0, or aggressive CO2 at (approximately) 75 ppm. On
this basis limits for 100 years life at 10 mm cover were proposed as set out in Table 1, which
includes a somewhat arbitrary allowance for the effect of the soil in favouring or impeding
renewal of the aggressive at the surface of the concrete. These were adopted by the pipe
industry in Australia from the early 1980s.
Table 1. Limits for Acidity & Aggressive CO2

Soil Classification
Constituent
Clay/stagnant Medium Sandy/flowing
Acid, pH min. 4.5 5.0 5.5
Aggressive CO2 , ppm max. 150 50 15

From the analysis in Attachment 3, the time for the concrete to be affected to a given depth is
proportional to a power of the depth at least as high as three, and as the data points from
which the limits of aggressives in Table 1 were set are based on much shorter periods of time
than 100 years, they are likely to be conservative. This was tested, including some updated
data (Attachment 9) confirming the expectation, and further verification obtained by the
conclusion of a long term test, Attachment 10. However by this time it was clear that the
Table 1 limits were serviceable in the sense that higher levels were unusual in natural
environments of undisturbed soil, and so there was little if anything to be gained by adjusting
the values.
The tabulated values may be taken as applicable for concrete strength grade 50 MPa and
above, straight portland or blended cement and at least 10 mm cover. The exposure
classification is non-aggressive.
Slopes of lines shown in Attachment 2 correspond to rates of attack proportional to the
concentration of the aggressive. Where the pH is lower or the concentration of aggressive
CO2 higher than the limiting value from Table 1, the required amount of cover can be
calculated using this and the depth cubed relationship mentioned previously. For example –
in a “sandy/flowing” soil condition with pH 4.0, 1.5 units of pH below the limit and therefore
a hydrogen ion concentration 10^1.5 = 32 times larger, the required cover for 100 year life
would be 10*32^(1/3) = 32 mm. Depending on the method of construction, 32 mm minimum
could require nominal cover in the range 35-40 mm, corresponding to exposure classification
B2 per AS 3600. However it’s just as easy and makes more sense to adjust cover per the
simple calculation illustrated above, rather than trying to link it to an exposure classification
originally designed for a quite different purpose.
The cubic relationship between time and depth of attack depends on affected concrete
remaining in place and so slowing access of the aggressive. In the immersion tests which
were the subject of the analysis in Attachment 3, the lowest value of pH was 3.5 and in all
cases the affected concrete remained firmly in place. However it has been observed that at
lower pH (round 2), affected material is lost from the surface. In the extreme case of severe
H2S in sewers (pH down to 1), mortar is progressively removed leaving coarse aggregate
protruding from the surface, unless this is itself of an acid-soluble type. The coarse aggregate
is lost or dissolved as the attack continues.
Sulfate:
Unlike attack by acid or aggressive CO2, there is no basis for attempting to extend the life of
a structure subject to sulfate attack by specifying increased cover to reinforcement. High
strength grade plus a suitable choice of cement will ensure immunity to practically any
naturally occurring level of sulfate. In extreme conditions, for example due to industrial
waste, the concrete should be isolated by a coating or other type of physical barrier.
Again limiting the strength grade to 50 MPa or greater, the specification is required to set
upper limits for the concentration of sulfate where any cement complying with AS 3972 can
be used, where the cement must comply with Type SR, and where this by itself is inadequate
and an SCM must be included to remove calcium hydroxide.
Table 2. Maximum Concentration of Sulfate Ion

Type SR,
Cement (AS 3972) Any Type SR
blended
SO4-
ppm in groundwater, or soil extract 2:1 1000 3000 10,000
water to soil by mass
Cover is determined by other criteria.
Chloride:
Adopting the premise that the high pH in concrete will maintain steel in a passive condition
for exposure to chloride up to the concentration found in sea water, it is proposed that for
 strength grade 50 MPa and above,
 concentration of chloride ion not greater than 2% and
 no mechanism which will increase the concentration above this level,
the condition should be regarded as non-aggressive and will not influence either the cover or
concrete specification.
For higher concentrations either:
 Isolate the concrete using a coating or other physical barrier.
 Specify the concrete and cover to limit diffusion of chloride to the reinforcing steel, so
that a critical level is not reached at reinforcement depth within a time interval to related
to the required service life of the structure.
Design by Exposure Classification
The above description identifies classes of exposure as follows:
 Three levels of pH
 Three levels of aggressive CO2
 Three soil classifications applicable to pH and aggressive CO2
 Three levels of sulfate
 One level of chloride
As pH below 4.5 (the lowest value in Table 1) can be encountered in areas where sulfide
oxidises when the soil is disturbed, it is proposed that another two levels, down to pH 3.5,
should also be included.
Combinations of the above for acid, aggressive CO2 and sulfate amount to 405 separate
conditions of exposure. However if combinations of different types of aggressive are
excluded, this number is reduced to 28, and the single condition of chloride less than 2%
brings the total to 29. Grouping the classifications to situations requiring a separate
specification for the concrete or cover, the number is reduced to 8, as illustrated in the table
below.
However I am not proposing confidently that the classifications shown in the table should be
adopted. With any grouping of actual conditions of exposure there is inevitably a tendency to
lock together different types in a way which may not be appropriate in all circumstances. For
example, as pointed out previously, the distinctions among the AS 3600 groupings A1-B1 are
relevant for lower grades of concrete but not 50 MPa or above. In the present context, levels
of acid and aggressive CO2 can be grouped on the basis of their rates of attack, but it’s at least
possible that more data would show the correspondence so made to be in error. The
alternative should at least be considered of using a diagnostic approach, with input comprised
of parameters defining the prevailing situation, and output consisting of one or more pre-
classified combinations of concrete strength grade, cement type and cover.
 Soil/groundwater environment
Maximum level of aggressive 1 Cover or Exposure
Cement 3
coating 4 Classification 5
pH CO2 Soil 2 SO4-
5.5 CS NA
5.0 CS NA
4.5 CS NA
4.0 CS N+5 A5
3.5 CS N+15 A15
5.5 M NA
5.0 M NA
4.5 M N+5 A5
4.0 M N + 15 A15
3.5 M N + 25 A25
5.5 SF NA
5.0 SF N+5 A5
4.5 SF N + 15 A15
4.0 SF N + 25 A25
3.5 SF Coat AC
15 CS NA
50 CS NA
150 CS NA
450 CS N+5 A5
15 M NA
50 M NA
150 M 15 A15
15 SF NA
50 SF N+5 A5
150 SF N + 10 A10
1000 NA
3000 SR AS
SR,
10,000 ASB
blended

Plus one for chloride to 2%, NA.

Notes on table:
1. Aggressive CO2 or sulfate ion in ppm. Blank cell indicates concentration less than the
lowest level tabulated.
2. CS = clay/stagnant, SF = sandy/flowing, M = medium.
3. Blank cell indicates any portland or blended cement to AS 3972
4. N = nominal cover, unaffected by the ground exposure classification; N + number is
cover depth in mm. Coat = protective coating eg epoxy, which is always an alternative to
increased cover.
5. NA = non-aggressive.
 Attachment 1

F M Lea, “The Chemistry of Cement and Concrete”, Third Edition, Arnold, 1970
Attachment 2

Humes report 771124 “External Corrosion & Protection of Buried Concrete”

Attachment 3

Humes report 800222

Attachment 4

ACI Monograph No. 4, “Durability of Concrete Construction”, American Concrete Institute,

1968.
BRE (UK) Special Digest 1:2005, “Concrete in Aggressive Ground”
 OII|,B
ReferenceRW/Gw0588

''FREELIME''ANDDURABILITY.
REINFORCED CONCRETE,AC ANDFRCPIPE
l.SUMMARY
pozzolan is substituted for partof thec6msnl,the rateof
attackis increased becausethe alkalinityis decreased
Samplesol concretepipeandautoclaved pipe(asbestos (Ref. 2.). The absenceof free lime in autoclaved
cementand cellulose), exposedto a variety of acid asbestospipesdoes nol prevenlthem beingattacked
e n v i r o n m e n l sh,a v e s h o w ns i m i l a rr e s i s t a n c et so ( R e f3. ) .
chemical attack.
W e a k e rg r a d e s o f c o n c r e t e ,f o r e x a m p l ew i t h
P i p e c o n c r e t e sm a d e w i t h b l e n d e d( f l y a s h ) a n d characteristic strength lessthan30 MPa,arepermeable
unblended c e m e n ta l s o s h o w s i m i l a rr e s i s t a n cteo to water,andin suchconcretes thepresence of freelime
chemicals, evenlhoughthe blendedcementconcre,u c o u l d b e o l c o n c e r nb e c a u s ei t i s w a t e r s o l u b l e .
contains muchlessfreelime. However, inthehighstrength concrete (atleast50 MPa)
It is concluded thatlreelimehasno significant effecton typicalof Australian pipe manufacture, watercannot
the chemical resistance of cementin pipes. Removing permeate throughthe binder(Ref.4), and the surface
thefreelimedoesnotprovideanyworthwhile benefit. layer is almostinevitablycarbonaled Or convertedto
someotherwater-insoluble form. In theaeSilUatenS,
there is no reasonto expectthat the presenceor
2.INTRODUCTION otherwise of freelimein theconcrete urillhayeanyelfect
on chemical resistance.
Thebinderin asbestos cementandcellulose FRCpipes In the testsdescribedin the followingseclions,lhe
consisls of a mixture of cementandfinelygroundsilica, r e s i s t a n c eo f c o n c r e t ep i p e i n a r a n g e o f a c i d
whichreacttogether whenthepipeis steamcuredunder environments is comparedwith the resistances of
pressure (autoclaved). The resulting material contains autoclaved (ACandFRC)pipes.
l i t t l e " f r e e l i m e " ,w h i c h i s o f t e nc l a i m e dt o b e t h e
componentof ordinaryconcretemost susceptible to A furthertestisdescribed inwhichordinary concrete pipe
chemical attack.lf thiswasthecase.autoclaved cement is compared with pipemadefromblendedcement.
would show betterchemicalresistance than cement
c u r e di n t h eu s u a l w a y . 3. COMPARATIVE TESTSON AC, FRC
Thereappearsto be littledirectevidence to showthat A N D C O N C R E TPEI P E
free limeis any moresusceptible to attackthanother 3.1SewerEnvironment - HzS
components of hydrated cement. Sewerssubjectto HzSattackareamongthemostsevere
Likethe ground silicain autoclaved cement,a pozzolan environments in whichconcreteor autoclaved asbestos
suchas f ly ashblended withPortland cementandcured cementpipesmayberequired to operate.To investigate
in the usualway consumes lhe free limeliberated by the performance ol thesepipesandothersagainstHeS
hydration of thecement(Ref. 1). Thoughtheremaybe attack,a 375mmdiametertest line was inslalledat
somedifference. in chemicalresistance compared with Walsh'sOfftake,MMBWSewerage Farm,Werribee, in
ordinarycement,there have been no eflectsreported 1966. Afteroperatingfor overeightyearsthe linewas
commensurate withthe differences in freelimecontent. dismantled to enablea detailedinspection of the pipes
Forinstance, in sewerssubjectto H2Sattack,addition ol to be made. Boththeconcreteandautoclaved asbestos
pozzolanic materialto thecementhasno effect,andif a cemenlsampleswereheavilyattacked.An indication of

Non-reinf
orcedConcretePioe AutoclavedAsbestosCementPioe
Fig. 1 Profilesofconcrete and autoclavedasbesloscementpipes afterexposureto HzSconditions for 81/2years,

HlJlvfE ffi m lu E
[@ x{* d=
 OlIBB

theextentof the attacksuffered by thesepipesis given Aninspectionofthebeamsatthisstagerevealeda slight

i n F i g . 1 , s h o w i n gt y p i c a lp r o f i l e so f t h e r e m a i n i n g surfaceetching
oftheconcrete whiletheasbestos
beams
unaf{ected material.Thedepthof attack,expressed as exhibited
softeningto a depthof lmm.
a percentage of original wallthickness, is greater forthe 3.5Acid lmmersion, pH2
asbestos cementpipethanfor the concrele pipe(a0%
and30%respectively). Beamscut from concreteand autoclaved asbestos
cementpipesshowed depthsof attackof 2mmand3mm
Withconcrete pipes,corroded material waslostf romthe in an acidsolution
respectively,
afterbeingimmersed
surfaceprogressively as corrosion proceeded, whereas at pH2fo( 4'12years.
maintained
w i t h a s b e s t o sc e m e n ta n e x p a n d e df ,i b r o u sm a t
remained overthesurfaceof thesoundmaterial.
4. CONCRETE MADEWITHORDINARY
3.2DiluteSulphuricAcid A N DB L E N D E D
CEMENT
Thecorrosion resulting fromHzSattackis in factdueto
theconversion of theHzSintosulphuric acidby bacteria T h e t e s t p i e c e sw e r e c o n c r e t eb e a m sc u t f r o m
onthewallol thepipe. To monitor theeflectof sulphuric non-reinforced spunpipes. Thetestswerenotset up
acid on concrele,autoclaved asbestoscementand specif icallyto compare blended andordinary cement but
cellulose FRC, beamsamples werecutfromeachtype to determine the effecton durability (if any)of reducing
of pipeandplacedin a 5% w/wsulphuric acidsolution. thecement content inspunpipe.lntheleanmixes, either
At varyingtimesone beamof eachtypewas removed f ly ashor silicaf lour(to25"/"ol thecementin eachcase)
andbroken. An inspection of the cross-section at the wasaddedto lhe mixto enabletheboreof thepipeto be
breakof eachbeamrevealed thatthepenetration of the trowelled to theusualsmoothfinish.
acidthroughthe uncutsudaceswas to all intentsand
purposes the samefor each materialafterthe same Thetestpieceswereimmersed in chemical solutions -
e x p o s u rpee r i o d(ss e eF i g .2 ) . acid (pH 3.5 and 5.0),carbondioxide(> 200 ppm),
sulphate (2 000and l0 000ppm)- for liveyears.Only
The asbestos cementand cellulose samplesretained t h e a c i d a n d c a r b o nd i o x i d es o l u t i o n sc a u s e da n y
theircorrosion products while(aswithHeSattack) a loss significant reduction in strength, andthereweresimilar
of fineswasapparent withtheconcrete beams. reductions withandwithoutfly ashin the mix.
3.3AggressiveGroundwater
A corrosionpool simulating aggressive groundwater 5. CONCLUSION
conditions was builtfor the purpose of testingdifferent
pipe materialsand protection systems. Acid water Freelime has no effectof any consequence on the
(pH3.5) flowsthrougha layerof gravelin whichthepipe chemicalresistance
of highstrength
concrete.
specimens are embedded.Thesespecimens include
both concreteand autoclaved asbestoscementpipe Autoclavingandthe consequentabsenceof "freelime"
fromwhichringshavebeencut. in asbestoscementor celluloseFRC pipe does not
conferonthemanygreater resistance
chemical thanthal
Relative towallthickness, concrete andasbestos cement highqualityconcrete
of normal, pipe.
samples areshowing similarratesof attack(Fig.3).
ln both casesthe corrosionproductshave remained REFERENCES
attached to thepipes,forminga layerthrough whichthe
aggressive materialmust first diffusebeforefurther
attackcanoccur. l. "Useof FlyAshin Concrete", Commitlee Report,
A C I C o m m i t t e e2 2 6 , A C I M a t e r i a l sJ o u r n a l ,
Concreteand autoclaved cellulose FRC beamswere September-October 1987, pp 3Bl- 409.
alsoplacedin the pooland havenowbeenexposed to
tl-1eaggressive groundwater conditions for a periodof 2."Process Design Manualfor SulfideControl inSanitary
2'lz years.Afterthis periodof exposure the cellulose SewerageSystems",U.S. Environmental Protection
cementexhibits corrosion to a depthof approximately 1.5 Agency, October, 1974, p 6 - 14.
mm on all surfaces, whichis slightlymorethan that 3 . J . C r e n n a nJ,. S i m p s o nC, . P a r k e r", l n f l u e n coef
exhibited bytheconcrete, whereonlythef ineshavebeen CementComposition on the Resistance of Asbestos
affected. C e m e n tS e w e r P i p e st o H z S C o r r o s i o nA " ,n n u a l
3.4Acid Neutralisation Conference, Australasian Corrosion Association, 1978.
S a w n b e a m so f c o n c r e t ea n d a u t o c l a v eads b e s t o s 4. N.L.Harrison, "Properties of HighStrength Concrete",
cementwere placedin two separatecontainers and CIA/lEAust Technical Meeting , "Concrete at itsLimits",
immersedin waler. The pH in eachcontainer was Melbourne, l5thOctober 1986.
maintained at approximately 3.5usinghydrochloric acid.
A recordof theadditions waskeptwhichallowed theacid Further
detailsof thetestsdescribed
in thisBulletin
mav
usageperunitareaof surfaceto becalculated.Overa be obtained
lromHumesConcrete.
lwo yearperiod,lhe concrete neutralised lessacidper
unitareathantheasbestos cement(Fiq.4).

Hrrr\rEs-+,f.r,ilifffifiil#jitr#"ffiffi
 UIBB

Asbestos cement
Depthof attack(mm) : 3.5-4

Cellulose FRC
Depthof attack(mm) : 3.5-4

x;i
:lX'

Concrele
Depthof attack(mm) : 3.5-4

- :: : .::. : ri:: ::t'i:::::l:iiit:i.:t:i:::t=:::i:ijit: ?::::;::r;:.]J:i;::;,::iiti:::;:r::it;:i:;rii:ii::t:::::.::

Fig.2 Cross-seclion of concrete, autoclaved asbeslos

cemenl and celluloseFRC beamsafter lmmerslonln a
5o/owlwHzSOcsolution for four weeks.

Fig 3. Autoclavedasbestoscementand concretepipe, 150mm

diameter,exposedto simulatedaggressivegroundwater
(pH3.5)for approximately12 years.

HIJ
 UIBB

Acid Usageper UnitAreaof Surface

Asbeslos Cemnt

U
tr
u
u
cr

U 12
o
I
z

u
(I
F
)

40 50

PERTOO ( wNE E K S )
0 F TMMERSTO

Fig.4 Acid UsagePer Unit Area of Surface

\+",C

Registercd Office State Offices Tasmania

HUMESLIMITED(lnc.in Vic.)
New SouthWales
HumesConcrete ParkRoad,FegentsPark.2143
WorldTradeCentre Telephone (02)U4 2351
Cnr.Flinders& SpencerStreets
Fax(02)6453104
Melbourne,Vrc3005
PO Box31 Melbourne. Vrc..3005 Victoria
'17
Telephone(03)6113311 RaglanStreet, SouthMelbourne3205
Telex38015Fax (03)6146397 Telephone (03)6113611
Fax(03)69628Ba
Queensland
9 Euchanan
SouthErrsbane,
Street,
Telephone (07)8445BB1
Fax (07)8442963
11 LamptonAve,DerwentPark,7009
Telephone(m4731422
Fax(002)727M8
SouthAustralia
39-43f"4axrvell
Fd, Pooraka5095
Telephone(08)3494544
Fax(08)3494992
WesternAustralia
89 SalvadoRoad.Wembley6014
Telephone(09)3BZ2311
4101
Fax(09)3878032
NorthernTerritory
1606RerchardtRd,Wrnnellre,
5789.
Telephone(089)84 3388
Attachment 5

ACI Monograph No. 4, “Durability of Concrete Construction”, American Concrete Institute, 1968.
ACI Monograph No. 4, “Durability of Concrete Construction”, American Concrete Institute, 1968.
Attachment 6
GP 400 kg/m3 , GP+FA 330 kg/m3 total cementitious (20% FA), in all tests.

10

Flexural Strength - MPa 8

6
Series1
Type GP
Series2
GP+FA
4

0
Init
0 1 mnth 1 6 mnth 1 yr 2 4 yr 24
3 yr (Log scale)
Time of Immersion

Fig. 1. Strength of Concrete Beams Immersed in Water

6
Flexural Strength - MPa

4
Series1
Type GP
Series2
GP+FA
2

0
0Init 1 mnth 1 6 mnth 1 yr 2 4 yr 24
3 yr (Log scale)
Time of Immersion

Fig. 2. Strength of Beams in pH 5

12

10
Flexural Strength - MPa

8
Series1
Type GP
6
Series2
GP+FA
4

0
Init
0 1 mnth 1 6 mnth 1 yr 2 4 yr 243 yr (Log scale)
Time of Immersion

Fig. 3. Strength of Beams in 10,000 ppm Sulfate

2
Attachment 7
CPAA - Technical Report

Protection of steel in concrete and the effect of chloride

The mechanism by which steel in concrete is protected from corrosion, even in the presence of moisture and oxygen,
and how the presence of chloride can allow corrosion to take place, is explained as follows (4):

Steel embedded in hydrating cement rapidly forms a thin passivity layer of oxide which strongly adheres to the
underlying steel and gives it complete protection from reaction with oxygen and water. - Maintenance of
passivity is conditional on an adequately high pH of the pore water in contact with the passivating layer. -
However, chloride ions destroy the film and, in the presence of water and oxygen, corrosion occurs.

Passivation depends on high pH provided by the cement, and is destroyed by a sufficiently high concentration of
chloride. If the chloride level in the water is below the concentration required to destroy the passivity layer, the steel will
not corrode.

Relationships between pH and salt (sodium chloride) levels to allow corrosion of reinforcing steel were investigated by
Shalon and Raphael (5), and to induce stress corrosion cracking in high tensile steel by McGuinn and Griffiths (6). Both
test series involved immersing samples in solutions of sodium chloride and either cement extract or calcium hydroxide,
the main agent of alkalinity in concrete. The solutions remained in contact with the atmosphere, providing oxygen if the
condition was such as to allow any corrosion. For the corrosion series, assessment was by weight loss, allowing each
example to be classified as passive or active, and for the cracking series by stability or extension of previously induced
cracks.

Results are shown in Fig. 1, and while cracking of high tensile steel is not relevant to concrete pipes used in salt water
conditions it is of interest that a similar pattern is shown by both sets of data – for low salt levels a dependence on pH but
at higher levels, to the maximum investigated, a threshold pH above which there is no effect. For ordinary reinforcing
steel this is below the minimum level of pH 12.6 provided in the concrete by saturated calcium hydroxide. Alkali in
cement, in addition to the calcium hydroxide, will usually result in pH above 12.6, giving a further margin,

Active - Passive Response of Fracture of High Tensile Steel

Reinforcing Steel
10 10

8 8

6 6
% NaCl
% NaCl

4 4

2 2

0 0
11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 12.2 12.4 12.6 12.8 13.0
pH pH

Active Passive Cracking No cracking

Fig. 1. Effect on steel of alkaline solutions containing sodium chloride

Page 2
CPAA - Technical Report

and passivity is maintained at salt levels well above the typical value for sea water, which contributes chloride equivalent
to sodium chloride at about 3%. The effect is further illustrated by photographs of samples of reinforcing steel used for
pipes, set up for the purpose of demonstration, in Fig. 2.

Minimum cover to reinforcement

In view of these data it is no surprise that concrete pipes underground exposed to levels of chloride as great as the level
found in sea water show no deterioration even after very long periods of service. The rate of chloride penetration, given
so much emphasis in investigation of above-ground structures, is just about irrelevant – the reinforcing steel in concrete in
equilibrium with environments containing moderate levels of chloride, whether from sea water or groundwater, is not
subject to corrosion provided only that alkalinity is maintained at reinforcement depth – salty water is no more able than
fresh water to corrode the reinforcement. This puts the onus squarely on maintaining alkalinity at reinforcement depth – ie
the concrete at this depth is not carbonated; but in terms of required cover this is no greater than would be necessary in
a normal environment. Some extra cover for marine exposure may be justified on the basis that the greater the specified
cover, the less the risk of reinforcement accidentally being placed at too shallow a depth. However there is no
correspondence with high levels of cover required for the most severe open-air environments.

Fig. 2. Samples of reinforcing steel in salt solution

REFERENCES

D Baweja, H Roper, V Sirivivatnanon, “Specification of Concrete for Marine Environments”, ACI Materials Journal 96, No.
4, July-August 1999, pp 462-470.
“Durability of Concrete Pipe in a Marine Environment”, Concrete Pipe Association of Australasia, 2000. Available on
CPAA website www.concpipe.asn.au.
M Bealey, “Durability Considerations – Precast Concrete Pipe”, The Katherine & Bryant Mather International Conference
on Concrete Durability, Atlanta, 1-7 May 1987, pp 493-508.
A M Neville, “Properties of Concrete”, 4th edition, Longman, 1995, p 498 & p 563.
R Shalon, M Raphael, “Influence of Sea Water on Corrosion of Reinforcement”, Journal of the American Concrete
Institute, June 1959, pp 1251-1268.
K F McGuinn, J R Griffiths, “Stress Corrosion Cracking of Cold Drawn Eutectoid Steel Wire”, Third Tewksbury
Symposium, 1974, pp 274-285.

Page 3
November 2007
Attachment 8
exposure to a marine environment and to investigate the concrete for service life
prediction.
Various components of the concrete pool were exposed to various types of
environments and thus the effect of environment can be studied. There were two
exterior concrete walls, which were exposed partially to the ocean. They were the
eastern retaining wall and the southern columns-wall system. The eastern wall was
facing the ocean and was subjected to the tidal and splash zone. The southern column-
wall system was in the atmospheric zone. There were also a series of pedestals
supporting two steel pipes from the pump house leading to the ocean. These pedestals
were also exposed to the tidal zone. The swimming pool was a reinforced concrete pool
lined internally with white tiles. Seawater was pumped into and filtered through a
concrete tank adjacent to the pool. The base and side wall were continuously
submerged in seawater during the swimming season.

The chloride penetration characteristics of the field concretes were studied and were
correlated to the results of the short-term testing carried out in the laboratory. Also the
critical durability properties of concrete were studied and were used in service life
prediction.

2.0 DETAILS OF THE CONCRETE

The first step in evaluating the quality of concrete was to determine the standard for
concrete and cement available in 1937, when the pool was constructed. In 1925 the first
draft Australian Standard Specification for Portland Cement was published, and it was
adopted in 19261 as Australian Standard A.2. The current standard for portland and
blended cement is the AS 3972-19972. The main differences between the portland
cement specified in AS A.2 and AS 3972 are that the latter allows it to contain up to 5%
of mineral additions. The minimum compressive strength at 28 days and maximum SO3
content are also different as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Details of Portland Cement Specified in AS A.2 and AS 3972

Setting time Soundness Magnesia SO3 Compressive strength
Type of maximum maximum content minimum, MPa
maximu
m
Cement Min. Max. mm % % 3 7 28
min h days days days
AS A.2-1926 60 12 - 4.00 2.00 - - 20.0
AS A.2-1937 - - - - 25 31.5
Type GP 45 10 5 - 3.5 - 25 40
AS 3972-97

The first published standard in Australia for concrete structures is the SAA Code for
Concrete in Buildings, CA.2-19373. In this code, mix proportions for different parts of
structure were left to be specified by the Engineer. For concrete in alkali water or
below the ground line of alkali soils, the minimum cement content was seven bags (658
lb.) of portland cement per cubic yard.
To gain more insight into concrete mix proportions, the first British Code of Practice for
reinforced concrete in buildings CP114-1948 was considered4. According to this code,
for concrete with uncrushed gravel aggregates, the water/cement ratio (by weight)
should not exceed the following values for the corresponding mix proportions;
0.43 for 1:1:2
0.51 for 1:1½:3
0.58 for 1:2:4

Without the original structural drawings and specifications of the pool, and the lack of
specific mix proportions in the standard at the time, it is not possible to establish the
mix proportions of the concretes used. However, the water/cement ratio is likely to be
much higher than 0.43 as the aggregates used were angular crushed aggregates.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE POOL

Different components of swimming pool were studied during the field evaluation.
These included:
♦ interior of the pool itself (base and side walls)
♦ back of the side walls through the inspection gallery
♦ concourses along the length and width of the pool
♦ unreinforced retaining wall facing the ocean
♦ grandstand portals and columns, and
♦ pedestals supporting the seawater inlet pipes.

Interior of the pool – There were two pools, main pool and a shallow pool for children.
Both the side-walls and the base of both pools base were fully tiled so the concrete of
the pool itself was protected from direct exposure to sea water.
Back of the side walls and the inspection gallery – As the name suggests, an inspection
gallery was built along the side and the back (towards sea) wall of the pool. This
gallery was used to take the water which overflows from pool back to sea and also used
for the inspection.
Concourses along the length and width of the pool – The walking area for the visitors of
the swimming pool.
Unreinforced retaining wall facing the ocean – This mass-concrete retaining wall
supported the part of swimming pool closest to the sea. This wall was subjected to
various levels of exposure. During high tide the base of the wall was exposed to a
limited amount direct contact with seawater but would have been constantly exposed to
splashing from large waves.
Grandstand portals and columns – These columns support the seating area of visitors
and were exposed only to sea spray and air borne salt.
Pedestals supporting the seawater inlet pipes - Pedestals supporting the twin suction
pipes which were used to bring water from sea to the pool.
4.0 METHODOLOGY OF THE FIELD STUDY

4.1 Visual Inspection

Visual inspection was performed and the mapping of the cracks was carried out.
Extensive photographs were taken and were analysed. The lighting in the inspection
gallery was not adequate to carry out visual examination. To overcome this problem,
photographs were taken with a sensitive film and the photographs were analysed.

4.2 Compressive Strength

Several cores of diameter 100 mm were obtained from various components of the pool
to evaluate the strength of the concrete and the procedure outlined in AS 1012.14-19915
was followed. All samples were sulfur capped as specified in the standard. The length
of each sample was approximately ((2 x diameter) – 10). This was done to ensure that
when capped the samples would have the desired height of 2 x diameter. A correction
factor was employed to correct the results of samples that were under the specified 2 x
diameter.

4.3 Carbonation Depth

The presence of carbonation was detected by spraying the surface of the core with a
phenolphthalein indicator solution. If carbonation was present the indicator solution
would remain clear. This is due to the change in pH of the concrete caused by the
reaction of the concrete with carbon dioxide. Concrete with no carbonation present
would turn the indicator solution pink due to its basicity. Measurements of carbonation
depth were taken on site from the holes where the cores were taken and again later back
at the laboratory from the cores themselves. This was done by measuring the width of
the carbonated band at a number of positions on the core and then taking the average.

4.4 Measure of Uniformity

The uniformity of quality of concrete was determined by the variation in Schmidt
hammer readings. Schmidt hammer measurements were taken on site before the sample
cores were drilled and on the cores themselves when the samples were brought back to
the laboratory. Some of the cores were taken from rendered concrete and therefore any
Schmidt hammer measurements that were taken from the surface would reflect the
quality of the render and not the concrete. To obtain the correct measurements the
mortar on the surface of the cores was cut off and correct measurements could be taken
directly from the surface of the concrete. Schmidt hammer measurements were then
taken by pressing the hammer against the end of the core perpendicular to its surface.
The results of the Schmidt hammer tests were correlated to the results of the
compression tests.

4.5 Chloride Penetration

Chloride profiles were established to evaluate the resistance of concrete to chloride
penetration. To obtain the chloride profile of each sample, the cores were drilled at
various depths from the exposed surface. The cores were drilled from the side surface
with a 3 mm drill bit. The powder from the first five millimeters of each drilling was
discarded to avoid contamination of the powder of the rest of the drilling. The core was
then drilled a further 35mm to a total depth of 40mm and the resultant powder obtained
was tested for chloride concentration. Chloride concentrations at various depths were
used to establish chloride profile.
5.0 VISUAL INSPECTION
The overall conditions of the pool and surrounding structures were considered to be
exceptionally good given the severity of exposure and age of the structure.
Components, which show clear wear and tear, were:
• some columns supporting the grandstand which showed some cracks,
• a number of pedestals showing severe erosion, and
• Superficial cracks and scaling of the mass concrete retaining wall.
Perhaps the most serious cracks were those found on the end sidewall (towards the
ocean) seen from the inspection gallery. The cracks were hardly observed by bare eyes
but could only be clearly seen from photos taken from highly sensitive film.

5.1 Pool Structure

The interior of the pool (both the base and sidewalls) was in good condition, showing
few signs of deterioration. The deterioration was limited to loose tiles mainly due to
exposure to the heat of direct sunlight when pool was empty. No major structural
damage was evident. The back of the pool long sidewall (from the gallery side) was in
good condition. Some deterioration was evident around the overflow holes and on the
concrete below the holes. These areas were in direct contact with seawater. The bulk
of the gallery walls was in good condition. The end sidewall showed some spalling.
Some large cracks were evident and the wall displayed rust stains and salt deposits.

5.2 Surrounding Structures

The underside of the concrete slab forming the concourse was exposed to condensation
and was in good condition. The top surface of the concourse, however, showed
deterioration in the form of cracks and worn patches. This damage would have mainly
been due to the general wear and tear caused by everyday traffic along this walkway.
The columns supporting the grandstand displayed various levels of deterioration. The
columns closest to the sea were in poor condition showing extensive cracking whereas
the columns furthest from the sea were in quite good condition showing few cracks.
The suction pipe pedestals displayed significant surface deterioration and extensive
cracking. The surface deterioration in these pedestals is caused by the eroding force of
the waves.

6.0 UNIFORMITY OF CONCRETE AND CARBONATION

6.1 Uniformity of Concrete

The uniformity of the quality of the concrete used at Port Kembla Olympic pool was
gauged by a set of Schmidt hammer readings given in Table 2. The pedestals were
numbered sequentially with number 1 closest to the sea and number 14 was closer to the
swimming pool. Measurements were taken after removing the rendering mortar and the
relationship between the rebound number and compressive strength was established and
is shown in Figure 1. A poor correlation was found with a coefficient of 74%. The
compressive strength (F’c) can be determined from the rebound number (R) as given in
an equation below:
 F’c = 0.69 R + 7.56
Due to the poor correlation between Schmidt hammer reading and compressive
strength, it is difficult to find the compressive strength from Schmidt hammer readings.
However the variations in Schmidt hammer readings can be used to estimate the
variation in compressive strength or the uniformity of quality of concrete.

Table 2 Schmidt Hammer Measurements of Various Concrete Components

Standard
Location Rebound Number Mean Deviation
σn-1
Back of end sidewall 46,44,44,45,45,50,48,50,50,50,48,50 48 2.5
Back of long sidewall 46,50,51,52,48,52,24,48,55,52,54,54 51 2.9
Pedestal No.5 44,56,46,39,56,52,38,49,40 47 7.0
Pedestal No.6 46,42,46,44,44,43,46,44,43 44 1.5
Pedestal No.7 38,44,52,43,44,45,42,48,46 45 3.9
Pedestal No.13 37,33,32,32 34 2.4
Pedestal No.14 38,39,38,39 39 0.57
Mass concrete 33,30,40,30,32,34,38,32,39,41,34,40, 39 6.4
retaining wall 40,38,36,41,40,40,38,34,42,31,34,38,
Top portion 28,29,32,39,35,36,40,38,26,41,46,41,
52,54,44,41,38,38,45,47,46,52,42,52
Mass concrete 32,32,34,33,31,28,32,30,34,32,34,44, 37 5.8
retaining wall 40,39,36,52,41,40,39,40,40,36,34,42,
Lower portion 32,32,32,32,30,26,32,40,46,46,39,42,
34,36,38,36,34,48,44,44,38,36,38,50
Mass concrete All measurements on retaining wall 38 6.1
retaining wall, all data

C o m p res s iv e S tre n g th o f C o re s (M P a )
50

40

30

20
R =74%

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
A v e ra g e S c h m id t H a m m e r R e ad in g (h o rizo n ta l)

Figure 1 - Relationship between compressive strength obtained from cores and rebound
hammer number
The only concrete surfaces of the pool that were fully exposed were those of the back of
the side-walls. The tests were carried out from the inspection gallery. The other
surfaces were fully tiled. The average rebound hammer reading range from 48-51 with
low standard deviation between 2.5 to 2.9 (or an equivalent 1.5-2.0 MPa). The quality
was clearly very uniform reflecting good workmanship.
The average readings on five pedestals range from 34-47 and a corresponding wide
range of standard deviation from 0.57 to 7.0 (equivalent 0.5-5.0 MPa) reflecting lack of
uniformity. However, the surfaces of these pedestals were varied in terms of exposed
aggregates due to high abrasion. This could have partially contributed to the apparent
wide range of variation. Readings were taken to avoid exposed aggregates.
The mass concrete retaining wall showed a wide variation in surface hardness with
standard deviation of the population of 6.1.

6.2 Carbonation of Concrete

The concrete in the pedestals and retaining wall showed no carbonation. This is
consistent with previous findings for concrete exposed to the tidal zone. Constant
wetness prevents carbonation.
Columns supporting the grandstands were exposed to atmosphere. A carbonation depth
of around 10 mm were observed for both columns closest and furthest from the ocean.

7.0 RESISTANCE OF CONCRETE TO CHLORIDE ION

PENETRATION
Figure 2 shows profiles found in the column Nos. 2 and 12 that were exposed to the
atmosphere. Column 2 was closest to the ocean and column 12 was furthest from
ocean. Figure 3 displays the various chloride profiles obtained from pedestals Nos 13
and 14 as well as the retaining wall all exposed to the tidal zone. Figure 4 shows
profiles obtained from the base slab, side and end wall of the pool that are fully
submerged during the swimming seasons.

Chloride Conce ntration (%)

1.000

C2A

C2B=28, 26.5 MPa C2B

0.500
C2A=27 MPa C12A
C12A=21 MPa
C12B=39, 32 MPa
C12B
0.000
0 40 80 120 160 200
Depth from Surface (mm)

Figure 2 - Chloride profiles of cores in atmosphere. C2 is column 2 and C12 is column

12.
 Chloride Conce ntration (%)
1.600
R1=31 MPa R2=24, 27 MPa
P13
P14
P13=38, 21.5 MPa
0.800 P14B
R1
R2
P14=44, 37.5 MPa
0.000
0 40 80 120 160 200
De pth from Surface (mm)

Figure 3 - Chloride profiles of cores in tidal zone. P13 and P14 and pedestal 13 and 14.
R1 and R2 are retaining wall next to the beach.

C h lo r id e C o n c e n tr a tio n (% b y w e ig h t o f c o n c r e te )
1
S2

B1

S 2 = 4 0 ,3 7 .5 M P a
E1
0 .5
E1

B 1 = 2 4 ,4 2 .0 M P a
0
0 50 100 150 200
D e p th fro m C o n c re te S u rfa c e (m m )
Figure 4 - Chloride profiles of cores in submerged zone during swimming seasons.
Concrete surface protected by tiles. S2 is side-wall, B1 is the base and E1 is the end
wall of the swimming pool.

7.1 Influence of exposure conditions

Despite the varied quality of concrete found in various components of the pool, the
ingress of chloride ions into the greater depths of concrete is highly dependent on the
exposure conditions. This can be observed by comparing the profiles given in Figures
2, 3 and 4. In the 100-150 mm depth zone, exposure to the tidal zone resulted in
chloride penetration to a level of 0.5-0.9 % by mass of concrete. This is significantly
higher than the levels, ranging from 0.1-0.6% found in concrete columns exposed to the
atmosphere (Figure 2) and concrete in the pool which have been submerged in sea water
(Figure 4). Similar trends are observed in the 50-100 mm depth region where most
reinforcements are placed. The finding supported the relative classification of exposure
conditions in AS 3600 of B2 for atmospheric and submerged zones and C for tidal zone.

7.2 Influence of quality of concrete

The resistance of concrete to chloride penetration depends very much on its quality.
For each exposure condition, this trend can be observed and confirmed for the 60-year
exposure. The quality of the concrete shown in Figures 2-4 is given in terms of
(rebound number, core strength). Within each exposure, concrete with higher rebound
number or strength showed better resistance than companion sample of lower rebound
number or strength.

8.0 CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ON

SERVICE LIFE
In the columns supporting the grandstand, the concrete cover measured during
demolition was 55-60 mm. The chloride at the cover depths for Column Nos. 2 and 12
are 0.4-0.5% and 0.1-0.3% by mass of concrete respectively. Column No. 2 displayed
rust stains and cracking along the steel reinforcement where as there was no sign of
steel corrosion in Column No. 12. The chloride threshold is therefore between 0.4-0.5
% by mass of concrete.
In the atmospheric zone (columns supporting grandstand), a chloride ion level of 0.4-
0.6% by mass of concrete (2.4-3.7% by mass of cement or 9.2-13.9 kg/m3) was found to
result in steel corrosion. In the sidewalls which were fully submerged, a chloride level
of 0.4 % by mass of concrete (2.4 % by mass of cement or 9.6 kg/m3) at the cover
depths did not result in any detectable corrosion. For pedestals in the tidal zone, a
chloride level of 0.4 and 0.6 % by mass of concrete (2.4 and 3.7 % by mass of cement or
9.6-14.1 kg/m3) at the cover depths did not result in any detectable corrosion in the two
pedestals investigated. However, there were rust stains found in other pedestals. It
would appear that corrosion might have initiated in the pedestals but the extent of
corrosion varied. The percentage by mass of cement was estimated by assuming a
Portland cement content of 390 kg/m3 (CA.2-1937) and the equivalent chloride-ion
contents given in kg/m3 were calculated from the measured density.
The Building Research Establishment has proposed a classification6 for assessing the
risk of corrosion in terms of acid-soluble chloride contents by mass of cement: low -
less than 0.4%; medium - 0.4-1.0%; and high - greater than 1%. A European state-of-
the-art report7 concludes that there is no consensus on the permissible levels of chloride
but indicates that corrosion will probably occur when the chloride-ion concentration
reaches 0.35-1.0% by mass based on the cement content. The Federal Highway
Administration (FWHA) recommends8 that when the chloride level of bridge decks
reaches 0.3%, for restoration the concrete must be removed to below the rebar level or
the deck must be completely replaced. The chloride-ion levels found at the steel in this
investigation were well beyond the range of the critical chloride thresholds reported.
The inconsistency in the level of chloride support the importance of recognising that
there is no unique value for a chloride threshold but a range of values with various
degrees of probability.

9.0 CONCLUSIONS
The portland cement concrete used in Port Kembla Olympic pool and its surrounding
structures has served its purpose very well for over 60 years. It is an excellent
testimony to the potential of concrete as a durable construction material. Various
components of the structure were exposed to a range of marine exposures: atmospheric,
submerged and tidal zone. The main deterioration mechanisms were chloride-induced
corrosion and erosion. Carbonation occurred to a small degree mainly in concrete
exposed to the atmospheric zone and hence did not pose any potential durability
problem.
The substantially high level and great depth of chloride penetrations into all concrete
components were to be expected. They were the result of a long-term exposure of the
relatively low strength concretes to sea water. The chloride-ion levels at cover depths
were found to be in a range of 0.4-0.6% by mass of concrete (approximately 2.4 and 3.7
% by mass of cement). It far exceeded the chloride contents associated with the risk of
steel corrosion.7,9,10 The absence of corrosion activity in the concrete pool and the
pedestals was therefore remarkable. Reinforced concrete structures can therefore last
well beyond the period of time when the permissible chloride content was first found at
the cover depths.
Given the cover depths found in the structure, current codes and standards such as
AS 3600 would have required concrete with strength grades in the range of 32 to 50
MPa (depending on specific exposure conditions) for a design life of 40-60 years. The
60-year old concrete was found to vary in strengths from 21.5 to 42.0 MPa. These are
significantly below the current standard yet the structure has performed exceptionally
well during its service life. The useful service life of many other reinforced concrete
structures may have been prematurely terminated.
The ranking of the severity of exposure, with respect to chloride penetration into
concrete of similar strength, is tidal, fully submerged and atmospheric zone. This is
similar to and confirms our findings at Iluka wharf.9 This partially support the AS 3600
ranking of exposure classes C for tidal and B2 for fully submerged and atmospheric
zone respectively. It may be worthwhile to examine the need to distinguish the
submerged and atmospheric zone. In any particular exposure, higher strength concrete
gave better resistance to chloride penetration.
As a mass concrete structure, the concrete retaining wall has performed excellently in
protecting the pool from the force of the ocean. A few cracks and surface blemishes
were the only evidences of the deterioration from 60 years exposure to the tidal and
upper tidal zone.

10.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors (RPK and VS) are grateful to Mr. Peter Tobin of Wollongong City Council,
who brought to their attention the opportunity to learn from Port Kembla Olympic Pool.
The investigation is partly funded by the Cement and Concrete Association of Australia.
 REFERENCES

1. Standards Association of Australia, ‘Australian Standard Specification for Portland

Cement’, A.2-1937.
2. Standards Association of Australia, ‘Australian Standard for Portland and Blended
Cements’, AS 3972-1991.
3. Standards Association of Australia, ‘SAA Code forConcrete in Buildings’, CA.2-
1937.
4. British Standard Institution, ‘British Standard Code of Practice CP 114 (1948).
5. Standards Association of Australia, ‘Method for Securing and Testing Cores from
Hardened Concrete for Compressive Strength’, AS 1012 Part 14, 1991.
6. Everett, L. M. and Treadaway, K. W. J., ‘Deterioration due to corrosion in
reinforced concrete’, Building Research Establishment Information Paper IP 12/80,
1980.
7. COMITÉ Euro-International du Beton, ‘Durability of concrete structures - state of
the art report’, Bulletin D’Information No. 148, Paris, 1982.
8. Locke, C. E., ‘Corrosion of steel in Portland cement concrete: fundamental studies.
Corrosion effects of stray currents and techniques for evaluating corrosion of rebars
in concrete’, ASTM STP 906, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1985, 7-8.
9. Driscoll, S., Sirivivatnanon, V. and Khatri, R.P., ‘Performance of a 25-year-old
Coastal Concrete Wharf Structure’, Proceedings of the AUSTROADS 1997 Bridge
Conference, Sydney, Australia, December 1997.
10. Everett, L. M. and Treadaway, K. W. J., ‘Deterioration due to corrosion in
reinforced concrete’, Building Research Establishment Information Paper IP 12/80,
1980.
Attachment 9
Attachment 10

Pages following Page 10 of this report are omitted to reduce the

size of file.
INDEX

Summary 1

Introduction 1

Experimental Method 2

Results 2
Coatings 2
Plastic Film Wrap 3
Uncoated Concrete Pipe 3
Autoclaved Asbestos Cement 4

Acknowledgement 4

Keywords 4

References 4

Appendix 1 - Test Details 5

Solution 5
Samples 5
Table A1.1 6
Backfills 6
Set-up and Operation 7
Inspection 7

Appendix 2 - Performance 8
Coatings - Pipes 8
Table A2.1 8
Coatings - Beams 9
Table A2.2 9
Uncoated Concrete Pipes 10
Table A2.3 10

Photo Pages 1-9

SUMMARY

An experiment simulating pipe exposed on the outside in highly acidic acid groundwater has
been completed after a test period of more than 22 years.

Paint coatings of appropriate formulation were found to be effective in preventing attack on

concrete pipe. Wrapping with plastic sheet was only partially effective.

For concrete pipes without coating or wrapping, backfills designed to inhibit movement of
water at the pipe surface reduced the rate of attack.

Even with heavy attack on the exterior of pipes, there was negligible effect on rubber ring
joints.

The tests provide further confirmation that AS 4058 advisory limits of pH for concrete pipe
with standard cover are appropriate, though somewhat conservative.

Autoclaved asbestos cement demonstrated similar durability to concrete.

INTRODUCTION

Some ground conditions are potentially aggressive to concrete pipe. It is desirable that such
conditions can be readily identified and, where appropriate, protective measures adopted to
ensure that the required service life is obtained. Humes commenced experimental
investigations in the early 1970s to supplement information which could be obtained from
literature and from field examples, concerning effects of groundwater on concrete pipe. At an
intermediate stage of the experiments, data from all sources were summarised (Ref. 1). This
review contributed information for a table of recommended limits for concentrations of
aggressives, applicable to concrete pipe made to the Australian Standard, first published in
the Concrete Pipe Association of Australasia bulletin “Designing Permanent Pipelines” and
subsequently as an advisory appendix in AS 4058.

The experimental investigations included tests on concrete pipe in high levels of sulfate, and
a simulation of acidic ground conditions. The acid groundwater simulation was set up to
determine not only the rate of attack on unprotected pipe but also effectiveness of protective
treatments, influence of different backfills, and the effect of the acid environment on rubber
ring joints. Samples of autoclaved asbestos cement pipe were included, to enable the rate of
attack to be compared with that of concrete.

The acid groundwater test was concluded in November 1997, having run for over 22 years.
At an interim stage it provided data for a reassessment of the published limits for unprotected
pipe as above, which confirmed that the limits are appropriate though somewhat conservative
(Ref. 2).

Results obtained progressively from the acid groundwater test are described in reports
RC.6240 (1976), RC.7695 (1979), RC.8537 (1980), RC.0355 (1983), RC.0916 (1984) and
RC1547 (1988). Final results are recorded in this report.

1
EXPERIMENTAL METHOD

The majority of samples under test consisted of short lengths of DN 150 spun concrete pipe,
assembled in pairs (one length with a spigot, the other with a socket) to incorporate the
standard rolling rubber ring joint. The samples stood vertically in a large, shallow tank,
backfilled with coarse river gravel (no sand component) with the spigot end downward, and
the lower end of the assembly blanked off with PVC sheet. The liquid environment consisted
of dilute hydrochloric acid buffered with sodium acetate, with the acid component adjusted to
give a pH of 3.5, circulated continuously by an electric pump via an array of pipes in the base
of the tank. The arrangement of samples, backfill and solution in the tank are shown in Photos
1, and further details are set out in Appendix 1.

To test various protective treatments, some samples had applied paint coatings or were
wrapped with polyethylene film. Some of the pipe samples had deliberate damage to the
coating, to determine whether this would lead to accelerated failure as with adhered coatings
exposed to H2S conditions in sewers.

In order to simulate different backfill environments, some uncoated samples were isolated
from the gravel backfill and surrounded instead by a test material (clay, soil or lime sand).
Separation from the gravel was maintained by PVC rings, the tops of which can be seen in the
photographs. At the lower end, the composite of sample and backfill was exposed to the
circulating solution in the same way as the samples embedded directly in the gravel.

Many of the samples were exposed for the full term of the test. Others were introduced or
removed at intermediate stages. To provide a ready test of new coatings, provision was made
to test small concrete prisms (beams) cut from spun pipes, coated with the test materials.
These samples were immersed freely in the solution, the space being separated from the
gravel by PVC rings as used for the special backfills.

RESULTS

Coatings

See Appendix 2, Tables A2.1 & A2.2, and Photos 2 & 3.

Satisfactory performance has been obtained from some but not all of the epoxy coatings
tested. Successful coatings include a water-based formulation.

The test series included many coatings containing coal tar, a material which is no longer
acceptable on account of the risk to operator health. Coal tar epoxies did not exhibit better
performance than other types.

In the samples whose coatings were deliberately damaged before exposure to the solution,
there was no evidence of progressive failure of the coating from the damaged areas.

2
Plastic Film Wrap

Two samples of the initial set (uncoated pipes including joints) were wrapped in polyethylene
film (0.25 mm thick), and installed in the gravel backfill similarly to the samples with paint
coatings. The wrappings covered the concrete surfaces but did not exclude the solution
altogether. After 8 years of exposure, areas of the concrete surfaces had significant corrosion,
and while the treatment had reduced the rate compared with unprotected samples, it was not
nearly as effective as the paint coatings. The test was not continued beyond 8 years.

Uncoated Concrete Pipe

See Table A2.3 & Photos 4-7. In gravel backfill, the concrete was corroded to 7 mm depth at
the end of the test period (22 years 8 months). Clay, black soil and lime sand backfills all
reduced the depth of attack over the same period.

For all samples, corrosion in the region of the rubber ring seal was negligible and would not
have affected joint performance.

In any given situation the depth of corrosion is not proportional to time, as adhering corrosion
products inhibit access of the aggressive medium to the unaffected concrete (Ref. 3). The net
effect approximates to a cubic relationship between depth and time (Ref. 4) - ie for a given
pH and set of ground conditions, time for the attack to reach a particular depth is proportional
to (depth)3. This relationship makes the effect of (for example) clay backfill, as determined by
the experiment, more significant than it would otherwise seem. A representative figure for the
depth of attack of pipe in the clay backfill would be 4 mm, compared with 7 mm for the
gravel. To reach 7 mm depth in clay backfill, the exposure period would have to be increased
by a factor (7/4)3 = 5.4, corresponding to a total period of 120 years.

Conversely, concrete in clay backfill, compared with gravel backfill, could tolerate a lower
level of pH (ie stronger acid concentration) for the same depth of attack after a given time. pH
is a logarithmic scale of acid concentration, a change of one unit of pH corresponding to a
tenfold change in the concentration of hydrogen ion. Reduction of pH by one unit corresponds
to a tenfold increase in hydrogen ion concentration, while reduction by 0.5 units corresponds
approximately to a threefold increase. The change in pH which would be expected to offset
the slower rate of attack in clay backfill (as above) is log (5.4) = 0.7.

This figure is of interest in relation to the advisory table in AS 4058, Appendix E for different
ground conditions, where half a unit decrease of pH is allowed for the transition
sandy/flowing to medium, and a further half unit to clay/stagnant. All things considered, the
present experiment would support allowances of this order.

If the depth of attack of 7 mm reached in this experiment is considered a reasonable limit for
a pipe in service, and the pipe is required to perform for 100 years, we would require a rate of
attack lower than that experienced in the test (of duration 22 years) by a factor of
(approximately) 100/22 = 4.5. Assuming proportionality to acid concentration as above, this
would correspond to an environment with pH 0.7 units higher than in the experiment - say
between 4.0 and 4.5. AS 4058 advises a pH limit of 5.0 for medium ground conditions, which
in the light of these results remains a conservative figure.

3
Autoclaved Asbestos Cement

Two assemblies each including a collar joint with a rubber ring seal were installed in gravel
backfill in the same way as the concrete pipes. The material was attacked to 4 mm depth after
22 years 8 months (compared with 7 mm for concrete). Considering the greater wall thickness
of concrete this represents a similar rate of attack proportionally. The result is consistent with
a wider range of tests reported in Ref. 5, demonstrating equivalent durability for the two
materials.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The test series described in this report was set up at the Humes R&D Laboratory at Westall by
Mr B Barnhill. Interim reports bear the signatures of Mr L Fudge, Mr R Haupt, Mr W
Mutsaers and Mr R Wix. Special acknowledgement is due to Mr W Mutsaers who maintained
the test from the early 1980’s until his departure from Humes in 1995.

REFERENCES

1. RC.6905, 24/11/77, “External Corrosion & Protection of Buried Concrete”.

2. RC.1525, 6/6/88, “Concrete Pipe Exposed to Acid Ground Conditions or Aggressive

Carbon Dioxide”.

3. A M Neville, “Properties of Concrete”, 4th edition, Longman, 1995. P 506.

4. RC.8212, 22/2/80, “Extension of the Life of Concrete Products by Increased Cover to

Reinforcement”.

5. Humes Technical Bulletin 01/88, “Free Lime and Durability - Reinforced Concrete, AC
and FRC Pipe” (May 1988).

12/2/99

4
 APPENDIX 1 - TEST DETAILS

Solution

The solution consisted of hydrochloric acid buffered with sodium acetate. The solution was
made up with a concentration of sodium acetate of 0.2 moles per litre and HCl was added to
maintain a pH of 3.5. The initial requirement of HCl is approximately 0.2 moles per litre.

Note: This solution in effect provides two acids to act on the concrete - hydrochloric and
acetic. The calcium salts of both these acids are highly soluble in water, and so cannot
provide a layer to inhibit corrosion as might occur with acids producing insoluble calcium
salts.

pH was monitored & corrected on a regular basis effectively from March 1975 to August
1995. The solution was renewed in 1976, 1979, 1980, 1983, 1984, and 1988, following
inspections at those times. No corrections were made from August 1995 and final samples
taken at December 1996 had pH 4.5.

Samples

All concrete samples were spun concrete. DN 150 pipes were obtained from Humes factory
stock (Melbourne). While details are not recorded, the following would have been typical of
production at the time:

Cement Type A (Type GP) at about 400 kg/m3

Aggregate Basalt coarse aggregate, silica sand
W/C < 0.4 (after spinning)

No admixture or SCM.
Curing - short steam cycle then air.

For the pipe samples, preparation of the concrete surface consisted only of wiping with a
cloth to remove dust. Coatings were applied according to manufacturers’ instructions, and
allowed a curing period of 7 days before the joints were assembled.

Coating details are per following table.

5
Table A1.1

Product Manufacturer Type Thickness

(mm)*
Beckothane A C Hatrick Polyurethane 0.05

Bildcote Dulux Filled epoxy & solvent 0.13

Carbomastic 14 Vessey Coal tar epoxy NR

DP80/10 & GY250 Ciba Geigy Coal tar epoxy NR

Epirez 304 Epirez Coal tar epoxy 0.13

Hydrepoxy 938 Hardman Australia Water based epoxy NR

K91 Ciba Geigy Water based epoxy NR

Permatar HB200 Pioneer (Wattyl) Coal tar epoxy NR

Polytar Hardman Australia Tar polyurethane NR

Thickchlor Dulux Chlorinated rubber <0.13

Vaporlock Nonporite Coal tar epoxy 0.13

* Figure shown applies to pipe samples only.

NR Not recorded

Autoclaved asbestos cement samples were obtained from James Hardie & Co.

Backfills

Most of the tank was filled with gravel consisting of pebbles 15-25 mm diameter, and no
fines. The material was determined by geological examination to be quartz or quartzite and
was visibly unaffected by the test solution.

Material for the clay backfill was obtained from Mt Waverley, Melbourne.

The black soil was dug from the R&D laboratory site at Westall.

The lime sand was packing sand obtained from David Mitchell Estates, with a stated
limestone content of 70%.

6
Set-up and Operation

The pool was constructed of concrete lined with plasticised PVC (Humes Plastiline), with
internal dimensions 3.0 m diameter and 0.75 m depth. The pipes in the base were UPVC and
were covered by broken clay tile (initially) or filter fabric (finally) to keep the dispersion area
free of the gravel or other backfill material, and the solution level was maintained above the
upper surface of the gravel (about 70 mm) to allow free flow back to the pump. A conical tent
of PVC fabric was installed over the tank to minimise evaporation and protect against
contamination.

Flow through the pump was at the rate of approximately 0.5 litres per second. Taking account
of the volume occupied by gravel, samples etc, the effective cross-section of flow was about 3
m2 , giving a mean linear flow velocity (upwards) of approximately 0.6 metres per hour.

The surrounds for special backfills consisted of rings of PVC formed from flat sheet without
welding, which would have allowed liquid interchange with the circulating solution above the
backfill level as well as at the lower surface.

Inspection

For the final inspection, loose material was removed from samples using fresh water and a
soft brush. Samples were sectioned with a rock saw to show profiles of affected and
unaffected material.

Nominal OD for the DN 150 pipes is 196.8 mm. In the photos showing sections across a pipe
diameter (semicircular profile), the spacing between the marks on the support under the
sample is equal to this distance.

7
 APPENDIX 2 - PERFORMANCE

All descriptions refer to those parts of samples fully surrounded by the test environment
(below the surface level of the solution & surrounded by the designated backfill).

Coatings - Pipes

Sample A - coating intact throughout at start of test.

Sample B - chipped to simulate field damage.
Samples not designated A or B had no deliberate damage.

Gravel backfill.

In no case did the simulated field damage lead to accelerated deterioration of the sample.

Table A2.1

Number / Type Period of Description Rating*

Exposure
1A & 1B - Beckothane 22y 8m Some failure of coating socket / F
(polyurethane) socket slope

2A & 2B - Epirez 304 22y 8m Coating flaking from spigot on P

(coal tar epoxy) 2B

3A & 3B - Vaporlock 22y 8m Large areas of general failure. P

(coal tar epoxy)

5A & 5B - Thickchlor 22y 8m Small breaks in coating. F

(chlorinated rubber)

7A & 7B - Bildcote 22y 8m Some damage to outside corners G

(epoxy with solvent) of sockets; otherwise coating
intact. See Photos 2.

Hydrepoxy 938 (water 19y 3m No visible deterioration. See G

based epoxy). Photos 3.

Permatar HB200 (coal tar 19y 3m Coating intact but many blisters F
epoxy) (unbroken) 8-10 mm dia.

DP80/10 & GY250 (coal 19y 3m No visible deterioration G

tar epoxy)

* G - Good - coating intact.

F - Fair - severe blistering or local failure of coating.
P - Poor - areas of general failure, concrete surface exposed.

8
Note - further coating types had been included at early stages - Dulux Weathershield (acrylic),
Vessey Vepox CC33 (coal tar epoxy), and Nonporite Furox, but all failed within two years.

Coatings - Beams

Cut longitudinally from spun pipe, wall thickness 50 mm or 25 mm. Length 300 mm, width
50 mm. 50x25 mm section is indicated in the table by an asterisk (*).

These samples present three different surface conditions - outside of pipe, inside of pipe, and
saw cut. Unless indicated otherwise, descriptions refer to all surfaces. Overall, there was no
detectable effect from the type of surface on the degree of adhesion achieved.

“Blisters” are surface swellings with no break in the coating, indicating separation of the
coating from the concrete.

Table A2.2

Coating Period of Description

Exposure
Carbomastic 14 (coal tar 15y 3m Coating intact. Very few small blisters.
epoxy)

DP80/10 & GY250 (coal 16y 11m Coating intact but many small blisters,
tar epoxy) especially at edges of beams.

Polytar (tar urethane) * 15y 3m Coating intact but large blisters 8-10mm
diameter.

Hydrepoxy 938 Grey 19y 7m Some failure at edges. Coating in good

(water based epoxy) condition.

K91 (water based epoxy) 16y 11m Large blisters, but coating intact.

Hydrepoxy 938 White 16y 11m Small blisters mainly inside surface. Two
(water based epoxy) * breaks in coating.

Permatar HB200 16y 11m Coating intact but blisters on all surfaces.

9
Uncoated Concrete Pipes

Table A2.3

All 22y 8m exposure

Number Backfill Depth of Photos

Attack Nos.
(mm)
12A Gravel 6 4&6
12B Gravel 7 6
9A Clay 5
9B Clay 2-3 5&7
10A Black soil 2
10B Lime sand 4 7

10