Fundamentals of durable reinforcement

Economic forces make concrete the most suitable material for the majority
of the world’s infrastructure. Concrete forms an indispensable element of
motorways, airfields, harbours, canals, wastewater treatment facilities, and
water supply schemes. High-rise buildings, once the preserve of steel, are now
being executed in both concrete and steel/concrete composite construction.

How do we determine an adequate specification for concrete,

project by project, in a manner that will achieve satisfactory performance over
the required life of the structure without squandering the earth’s resources?
Over-specification is both wasteful of resources and unjust to the clien
Under-specification, on the other hand, leads to premature and costly repair
work, often with considerable disruption to third parties, such as road users,
and ultimately a higher cost in financial and environmental terms

the achievement ofessential requirements, such as mechanical resistance and stability, over the required
life of the structure involves consideration of the implications ofdurability failure. Durable concrete is a
quality concrete. The design life of the structure or its individual elements;
• the serviceability requirement;
• a quantifiable description of the criteria that define serviceability failure;
• the acceptable level of risk;
• the permissible extent, if any, of maintenance.

The serviceability requirement may be descriptive, for example the onset of a stage in the
corrosion– spalling cycle. Serviceability failure could be quantified in a number of ways, for example a
maximum limit on the percentage of surface area in a deteriorated condition. Probability analysis is
already implicit in the routine design for structural resistance of load-bearing elements and could equally
be integrated in design for durability. Strength, however, should not be the main issue of interest to the
Concrete practitioner. Structural failures are rare but durability failure is all too common. Many studies,
such as that by Mac Craith (1985), have highlighted the potential deficiencies in concrete over its service
life, particularly inrespect of corrosion of embedded reinforcement. Nevertheless, numerous the historical
decline in the durability is partly due to high strength cement.

Earlier the achievement of durable structural concrete has traditionally been linked to cement content. The
net result was that concrete strength grades and workability requirements were maintained with lower
cement contents. Water/cement ratios were appreciably higher than a decade before and this led to higher
permeability concretes. Concern for the serious implications regarding durability was voiced by some and
the problem was addressed. An example is that of the inclusion in the United Kingdom Code of Practice
CP 110:1972 of specific durability recommendations for a range of exposure classes. The
recommendations took the form of limits on minimum cement content and maximum water/cement ratio.

Additionally the range included mixes that satisfied the designer’s intention regarding strength but not the
durability requirement. This problem was overcome by the introduction of the ‘national durability grade’
concept, as proposed by Deacon and Dewar (1982). The basis of the concept is illustrated in Figure 1.3.
The ‘national durability grade’ introduced a link between specification for durability and a measure of its
potential attainment through durability and permeability. Impermeability through by controlling W:C and
minimum cement content.
The earlier free-fall in durability level was arrested by the introduction of the durability grade concept.
Nevertheless durability grade was seen as being a contributor to durable concrete but not the final
solution. Two significant shortcomings existed. The first involved the variation of national material
properties with time and the difficulty of tracking these changes in codes
of practice. The second involved the continued use of exposure conditions categorized on the general
basis of environment rather than on specific deterioration mechanisms.

The second shortcoming was that national durability grades were introduced into an existing system of
exposure classes based, in the main, on a qualitative description of exposure condition. These qualitative
descriptions. This shortcoming is being addressed in the next phase of development prompted
by the introduction through the Committe Europeen de Normalisation

Development of standard EN 206, and the relevant parts of design

code Eurocode 2 such as cover to reinforcement, provided an opportunity
to take a more rational approach to specification and design for durability.
Durability-threatening mechanisms are considered in turn: risk of reinforcement
corrosion; and the effects of carbonation, chloride ingress, freeze/thaw,
and chemical attack. This has been framed in an exposure classification
system which has eighteen subclasses designated by alphanumeric codes
(Figure 1.6). Durability is specified either through the traditional practice of
limiting values of concrete composition or by performance-related methods

The performance-related method is quite different. It allows the durability

requirements to be determined in a quantitative way. Consideration is given to
matters such as the intended working life and the criteria that would define
Framework for durability by specification 9
Figure 1.6 Exposure classification system in European standard EN206–1
durability failure.
International research, particularly over the past two decades, has significantly
brought forward an understanding of the phenomena that influence
deterioration.
It must be
acknowledged, however, that the introduction of exposure classes based on
deterioration mechanisms, rather than environments, is a major step forward.
The development of durability-related performance tests and criteria is
progressing steadily. The primary topics being studied are carbonation,
freeze/thaw performance, and sulfate resistance.
Three main approaches may be distinguished for the specification of durable
concrete:
• all-encompassing prescriptive approach;
• deterioration-specific prescriptive approach;
• durability design method and performance testing..
The tables relating concrete quality and cover to reinforcement,
in the form of that presented in Table 1.1, is based on the concept of
the national durability grade. Control of the minimum cement content and
maximum water/cement ratio may be achieved through specification of an
appropriate minimum grade of concrete
The all-encompassing prescriptive approach is not objective. It cannot be
used in economic optimisation because it does not take account of the
required service life nor the required reliability. The method is cumbersome
in adapting to the benefits of emerging technologies in the form of new
materials and construction techniques.

Recognition that the all-encompassing prescriptive approach has failed in

certain cases in the past has resulted in more demanding values being placed
on water/cement ratio and other criteria. There is a limit however on how far
one can push the numbers without causing other problems with concrete such
as ease of placing and compaction.

However the specifier is forced to consider the most onerous condition from a
combination of deterioration mechanisms and environmental conditions in
the determination of limiting values of concrete composition. Some national
complementary standards will also allow a trade-off between concrete
quality and cover.
The third approach to the specification of durable concrete is radically
different to the foregoing. The durability design method involves consideration
of each relevant deterioration mechanism and the expected service life
of the structure in a quantitative way. Appropriate material parameters may
then be determined based on an acceptable probability of failure.

The models for carbonation, chloride ingress

and corrosion propagation are the most advanced to date but still require
refinement. Excellent progress has been made in the last few years on
adopting the probabilistic approach, commonly used in structural design, for
determination of durability parameters.
Three avenues are available for determining the appropriate parameters:
• satisfactory experience;
• performance test methods;
• predictive models

The third possibility involves the use of predictive models. Considerable

progress has been made on the mathematical modelling of deterioration
mechanisms, especially those related to corrosion initiation.

The predictive models will relate the rate of

deterioration, for a given mechanism, to key measurable parameters of the
concrete or mix constituents. Acceptable models will be calibrated against
data from the in-service behaviour of structures

The development of the models involves consideration of the often

complex chemical and physical interactions present in a deterioration
mechanism. Translation of the models into workable design aids may involve
incorporation of simplifying assumptions. This would not necessarily detract
from the integrity and sophistication of the approach since these steps would
contribute in a quantifiable way towards the factor of safety which is an
integral element of prudent design and management of risk.

The risk analysis approach will involve a significant change to specification

for durability by forcing specifiers and, significantly, clients to consider
service life in a probabilistic way. The client will get what they pay for. Indeed
the extension of the risk analysis approach to embrace life cycle costing will
be an obvious step.
At the turn of the millennium the risk of concrete failing to perform satisfactorily
over its service life should be low, given the current understanding of
deterioration, yet it remains unacceptably high. The cause of the problem lies
in the gulf that exists between simplified descriptions of exposure conditions

Durability of concrete needs to

be ensured in future works from both an economic and an environmental
viewpoint. The economic argument is a straightforward one – premature
expenditure on repair or demolition and the cost of disruption to production
reduces a client’s competitiveness and reflects badly on the concrete industry.
Equally important in modern society are the green issues. Unforeseen
maintenance involves wasteful use of the earth’s scarce resources of both
materials and energy. Demolition due to unserviceability involves production
of construction waste for which the planet has a dwindling capacity to absorb.
Future generations will not look kindly on today’s specifiers if load-bearing
frames of reinforced-concrete buildings are not durable enough to allow
building rejuvenation through facade replacement and interior re-fit.

The prospects for ensuring the durability of concrete structures over the
period of their intended service lives is now promising. The introduction of
new materials and construction techniques offer higher quality concretes with
adequate impermeability. Equally exciting, however, is an enhanced understanding
of the parameters that influence the rate of reinforced concrete deterioration. This knowledge is
introducing a new way of approaching durability through design methods based on scientific and
engineering principles.
An integral concept of specification for durability in structures is that the
material properties should meet the performance requirements over a defined
life.
Significantly,
in the quest to provide a rational basis for achieving design life, a joint
RILEM/CIB group developed a systematic methodology for service life
Prediction
Although the stage has yet to
be reached whereby codes and standards will fully embrace the concepts,
degradation models of a deterministic nature have been used on major
infrastructure projects in Denmark and a stochastic model was used to
document the required service life in a contract in the Netherlands.
For example: ‘the minimum
period for which the structure can be expected to perform its designated
function without significant loss of utility, and not requiring too much
maintenance’
The design life of a building would be determined based on the service life
expectation of the client. It is unlikely that clients will be very specific but it
should be possible for them to indicate the category of structure in descriptive
terms such as ‘temporary’, ‘normal’, or ‘major infrastructural’. The designer
can then relate this to the classification of structures in standards and codes
that contain information on service life expectation. Other than the case of
temporary structures, the choice for non-renewable elements will typically be
between a fifty-year life or a 100-year life. Even this simple choice allows
the specifier to get the client thinking about the balance between first cost and
life-cycle cost. The days are gone when clients could expect their reinforced
concrete assets to be forever maintenance-free.

Specification for durability is

amenable to mathematical analysis and design but the methods should take
account of variability. This implies the use of a statistical approach to the
problem.
The use of statistical methods is highly appropriate in durability design
because the fundamental requirement is to minimise the risk of failure. This
introduces the concept of risk analysis. Durability design can be achieved in
the context of a defined probability of failure. Equally one may refer to a
defined level of reliability. The approach is directly comparable with that used
in design for structural resistance

Harnessing the design life concept allows the selection of appropriate

materials on a rational basis. This involves the need to model the degradation
in performance with time-dependent functions in the context of an overall
approach to durability design.
The design of the beam is based on the assumption that it will fail if the maximum demand bending
moment, occurring at mid-span, exceeds the
ultimate moment of resistance of the section. Thus we may impose a
constraint:
R_S_0
To convert this relationship into a form that yields design values for the
section we formulate relationships describing the resistance of the section
based on concrete failing first, the resistance of the section based on the
reinforcement yielding first, and the maximum demand bending moment.
Thus:
R _ f ( fcomp, b, d)
and
R _ f ( fsteel, As , z)
while
S _ f (W, L)
The issue of uncertainty now enters. The intended values of width and total
depth are generally assumed to remain constant during the service life and are
readily achievable, within specified tolerances, during construction. What of
the assumed concrete strength and load, however? The actual concrete
strength that will be achieved in the structure cannot be known with certainty
at the design stage. It will depend on the materials selected by the producer,
the degree of compaction achieved by the operatives, and the curing
conditions, which will be influenced in part by the weather at the time of
construction. The load is variable also. The imposed load component in
particular will fluctuate on a daily basis to a degree that is primarily
dependent on the function of the building but what of the unexpected loads
that may arise over the lifetime of a building? Design based on the worst case
– weakest possible concrete and potentially heaviest load together with an
allowance for design and construction blunders – would unnecessarily result
in ungainly structural elements with a high moment of resistance (Rmax).
These would be uneconomic, would severely limit the technical advancement
of span, and would fail to meet the requirements of sustainable development.
On the other hand, design based on the most optimistic case – concrete
achieving its full potential strength, no unexpected load combinations, and
no allowance for blunders – would result in elements with low moments of
resistance (Rmin) which would have a high probability of failure.

It is a question of balancing economy and safety in an acceptable way. This

is achieved by the use of characteristic values of strength and load based on
probabilistic considerations and by the application of safety factors. The
characteristic values of strength and load are determined by consideration of
the mean values encountered in practice, their variability and the application
of statistical parameters. The characteristic strength is determined by
reducing the mean strength by an amount based on a chosen multiple of the
standard deviation, while the characteristic load is based on values above an
anticipated mean. These values are modified further to produce design values
through the application of partial safety factors.

Framework for durability by specification 3

Specification, performance, production and conformity represents a significant
step in raising awareness of the need to consider each potential deterioration
mechanism when specifying concrete from a durability perspective.

The exciting demands of flagship infrastructure projects, which are

literally spanning the divide between regions and countries, require further
development of our detailed understanding of deterioration mechanisms in
concrete and reinforced concrete.

Equally, the requirement that our future structures should represent significant examples of sustainable
development, demands that we get the balance right between optimum use of materials and
the costly risk of failure during a defined service life. Thus mathematical models of degradation are
required which can be used in the probabilistic analysis of durability and life cycle costing.
The mathematical solutions to the problem of design for durability are not
quite as straightforward as those presented in the structural design analogy.
Allowance for the multitude of variables and their distributions in durability
design problems can sometimes lead to complex mathematical solutions
Thus a number of approaches have been proposed, each of which may be
more readily applicable in any given case depending on the deterioration
mechanisms involved.

Once values for ‘Lifetime Safety Factors’ have been calibrated, design would involve the following steps:
• agree the target service life of the structure;
• determine the design service life based on the Lifetime Safety Factor and
the target service life;
• apply the relevant degradation model or performance model using the
design service life and select appropriate material properties, sections
sizes, and/or protective measures;
• check that the reduction in the safety margin, for example R _ S(t), from
time t _ 0 to time t _ tg is less than an allowable value;
• if the reduction in safety margin is too great, redesign using higher
performance materials, or larger sections, or introduce additional
protective measures;
• if the redesign fails to produce a satisfactory value of the minimum safety
margin consider agreement with the client of a shorter target service life