You are on page 1of 53

maintenance and repair of transport infrastructure

TECHNICAL GUIDE
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
Copyright LABORATRIO NACIONAL DE ENGENHARIA CIVIL, I. P.
Diviso de Divulgao Cientfca e Tcnica
AV DO BRASIL 101 1700-066 LISBOA
e-e: livraria@lnec.pt
www.lnec.pt
Publisher: LNEC
Collection: Manuals
Series: MN 13
1
st.
edition: 2012
Printing: 100 copies
Descriptors: Transport infrastructures / Steel structure / Reinforced concrete structure /
/ Maintenance of structures / Repair of structures / Durability of structures /
/ Structural testing / Guide / Europe
Descritores: Infraestruturas de transportes / Estrutura metlica / Estrutura de beto armado /
/ Conservao de estruturas / Reparao de estruturas / Durabilidade de estruturas /
/ Ensaio de estruturas / Guia / Europa
CDU 624.05[012.4]9:625(026)(4)
624.05[014]9:625(026)(4)
ISBN 978-972-49-2237-9 (paperback)
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
PART IV
durability factors and requirements
VOL 1
Sudarshan Srinivasan
Antnio S. Silva
Sreejith V. Nanukuttan
Manuela Salta
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
Authors
Sudarshan Srinivasan
Research assistant, Queens University Belfast
Antnio Santos Silva
Research offcer, LNEC
Sreejith V. Nanukuttan
Lecture in Civil Eng., Queens University Belfast
Maria Manuela Salta
Principal researcher and head of Metallic Materials Division, LNEC
Other contributions
Karim Ait-Mokhtar
Professor, University of La Rochelle
Quirino Toms
Duratinet research fellow, LNEC
Reviewer
Arlindo Gonalves
Principal researcher and Director of Materials Department, LNEC
Final revision by Editorial Commission member
Muhammed Basheer
Professor and director of research, Queens University Belfast
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t

i
PREFACE
This is Part IV, Volume 1 of the DURATINET Technical Guide - Maintenance
and Repair of Transport Infrastructure, which contains guidelines on durability
factors and requirements in concrete structures.
The content of this volume was prepared and reviewed within DURATINET
working group WG A3 Maintenance and repair of concrete structures.
The aim of WG A3 was to harmonize the needs of maintenance and repair of
concrete structures and identify knowledge gaps in the partner countries. Within
this WG, technical guidelines were developed relating to durability factors (both
environment and material related), deterioration processes (damage
mechanisms and defects), testing techniques for inspection, repair methods for
concrete structures. All these subjects are considered in the four volumes of
Part IV of the DURATINET Technical Guide.






WG A3 Maintenance and Repair of Concrete Structures
WG Leader:
Sree V. Nanukuttan
Queens University Belfast, UK
Partners active members
Country Institution Members
Portugal
LNEC
Manuela Salta, Paula Rodrigues, Antnio S.
Silva, Elsa V. Pereira, Quirino Toms
EP Afonso Pvoa, Luis Freire
Teixeira Duarte Rita Moura
France
IFSTTAR
Xavier Drobert, Graldine Villain, Odile
Abraham, Laurent Gaillet
University of
Bordeaux
Denys Breysse, Zoubir-Mehdi Sbarta
University of Nantes Marta Choinska, Stephanie Bonnet
University of La
Rochelle
Karim Ait-Mokhtar, Ouali Amiri
Ireland NRA Albert Daly
UK
Queens University
Belfast
Muhammed Basheer, David Cleland, Sree V.
Nanukuttan, Sudarshan Srinivasan

D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
ii
DURATINET project approved by the Atlantic Area Programme and co-financed
by ERDF

CONTRACT N: 2008-1/049
PROJECT TITLE: Durable Transport Infrastructure in the Atlantic
Area Network
ACRONYM: DURATINET
LEADER: Manuela Salta
Laboratrio Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC)
Materials Department
Portugal

D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t

iii
GENERAL INDEX
Part IV Concrete Structures
Vol. 1 Durability factors
Overview of European standards for concrete structures
design
National standards or guidelines to complement EN 206-1
Comparison of the national requirements in complement to
EN 206-1
Examples of projects with performance limits for concrete
durability
Vol. 2 Deterioration
Physical / mechanical deterioration processes
Chemical deterioration processes
Biological and organic deterioration process
Classification of defects and deterioration symptoms
Vol. 3 Testing techniques
Visual Examination
Crack Index
Non-destructive testing techniques (NDT)
Destructive testing techniques (DT)
Consideration on testing selection
Vol. 4 Repair methods
Concrete surface preparation prior to repair
Methods for protection and repair of reinforced concrete
Selection of the repair methods
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
iv
CONTENTS
Part IV - Concrete Structures: Vol. 1
1 General considerations ................................................................................. 1
2 Overview of European standards for concrete structures design ................ 5
2.1 Classification of the exposure environments ........................................ 7
2.2 Durability requirements for concrete ..................................................... 9
2.2.1 Prescriptive method for concrete properties specification ............. 10
2.2.2 Performance-related concrete design methods ............................ 12
2.2.3 Concrete cover depth specification ............................................... 13
3 National standards or guidelines to complement EN 206-1 ....................... 17
3.1 United Kingdom .................................................................................. 17
3.1.1 Defining the exposure classes ....................................................... 17
3.1.2 Select the concrete strength and cover ......................................... 17
3.1.3 Selecting the intended working life, e.g., service life ..................... 17
3.1.4 Cement types and minimum cement content ................................ 18
3.1.5 Complementary requirements for constituent materials ................ 18
3.1.6 Air content ...................................................................................... 18
3.1.7 Freeze/thaw aggregates ................................................................ 18
3.1.8 Aggressive ground ......................................................................... 19
3.1.9 Consistence ................................................................................... 19
3.1.10 Chloride Class ........................................................................... 19
3.1.11 Conformity ................................................................................. 19
3.2 Ireland ................................................................................................. 21
3.3 Portugal .............................................................................................. 24
3.3.1 Prescriptive specification of concrete ............................................ 24
3.3.2 Equivalent concrete performance concept .................................... 27
3.3.3 Specification of concrete based on the performance - related
design methods with respect to durability ................................................... 28
3.4 France ................................................................................................. 29
3.5 Spain ................................................................................................... 30
4 Comparison of the national requirements in complement to EN 206-1 ...... 31
4.1 National standards or regulations ....................................................... 31
4.2 Exposure classes ................................................................................ 32
4.3 Methods for minimising risk of damage by AAR ................................. 32
4.4 Limiting values for concrete mixes ..................................................... 33
5 Examples of projects with performance limits for concrete durability ......... 36
6 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 42
7 References ................................................................................................. 44
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
1
1 General considerations
Numerous examples of premature deterioration of reinforced concrete
structures particularly in marine environments have highlighted the need to
consider durability requirements while designing concrete structures. It is now
widely accepted that the concept of designing concrete based mainly on
strength does not take into account the time-evolution of performance of the
structure or the change in environmental/structural loading.
The standard EN 206-1:2000
[1]
was introduced as an attempt to quantify the
durability requirements for concrete structures exposed to different
environments. This standard helps designers to specify or prescribe minimum
requirements for a concrete mix so that the structure will achieve a service life
of 50 or 100 years. Although this can be considered as a step in the right
direction, the prescriptive or deemed to satisfy approach does not guarantee
a service life of 50 or 100 years. Service life of a concrete structure will depend
mainly on the quality of concrete and the deterioration mechanisms that are
associated with various exposure environments. The factors that can influence
deterioration of concrete structures are presented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Main factors that can influence the deterioration of concrete
structures.
[2]


Materials
Design and
workmanship
Environmental Physical actions Maintenance
Sources of
deterioration
Potential
causes of
deterioration
Quality of
mix design
Aggregate
characteristics/
reactivity
Inadequate
water/cement
ratio
Cement type and
additions
selection
Additives and
contaminants
Poor
detailing
Insufficient
cover to
reinforcement
Poor
drainage
Inadequate
design for
creep
Poor vibration
and
compactation
Bleeding and
segregation
Poor
construction
joints
Problematic
finishes
Inadequate
repairs
CO
2
and acid
gases action
Sea water
and marine
atmosphere
Chemical
attack
Biological
growth
Thermal
actions
Fire action
Inadequate
design for
loads
Impact
Vibration
Settlement
Seismic
Change of use
increased floor
loadings
Wind
Abrasion
Non
maintenance
Inadequate
repair
methods
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
2
The deterioration of concrete structures may arise due to a number of reasons
as shown in Fig. 1, including:
poor design, specification, detailing or execution during construction;
poor planning or implementation of maintenance operations;
lack of funds for routine maintenance and lack of understanding of the
roles and responsibilities;
environmental loads and other actions on the structure;
ageing process;
increased or varying loads.
In practice, it can be considered that the level of durability achieved in concrete
structures depends on a combination of adequate design, materials selection
and execution. The sensitivity of the design concept, the structural system, the
shape of members and structural/architectural detailing are all significant design
parameters for durability.
The compatibility of materials, the construction method, the quality of
workmanship, levels of control and quality assurance are also other significant
parameters for achieving durability. Workmanship and maintenance strategies
are also vitally important in achieving durable structures. Tables 1-3 depict
some of the common causes which results in premature deterioration of
concrete structures.
Table 1. Concrete deterioration caused by inadequate or wrong design.
Causes of the problem Results
Poor reinforcement details, for example
congested or inadequate cover to
environment action, and voids around the
steel reinforcement
Cracking, poor compaction, insufficient
reinforcement or inadequate
reinforcement distribution
Poor detailing of fixings, window frames,
handrails, supports, and expansion joints
defects
Water penetration, localized cracking
and balcony
Long, slender components Excessive deformation and cracking
Inadequate design for creep
Deflection due to strain under continued
stress
Decorative finishes, such as acid etching,
bush hammering, and fluting
Varying depth of cover around the steel
and localised corrosion
Poor drainage
Water ponding and localised
corrosion/degradation
Incorrect concrete grade for purpose
Concrete with too low or too high
strength for the application
Concrete mixes with high drying shrinkage Possible cracking
Concrete mixes that are highly permeable
to chloride ions
Chloride induced reinforcement
corrosion

D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
3
Table 2. Concrete deterioration caused by the lack of workmanship or
quality control.
Causes of the problem Results
Inadequate mixing proportions facing
casting conditions
Inhomogeneous concrete, localised
weakness and reinforcement corrosion
Inadequate water/cement ratio
Variable strength, inadequate durability,
increased drying shrinkage, excessive
permeability
Inadequate compaction/vibration
Honeycombing, voids, excessively
permeable concrete, localised
reinforcement corrosion
Scattering or inadequate cover depths of
reinforcements
Localised reinforcement corrosion,
penetration of damaging substances
Poor curing techniques Shrinkage cracks, increased permeability
Premature stripping of formwork Cracking and deformation
Control of maximum temperature during
setting and hardening
Possible thermal cracks and Delayed
Ettringite Formation (DEF)
Table 3. Concrete deterioration caused by inadequate concrete
specifications by the user.
Causes of the problem Results
Low cement content
Inadequate concrete strength and low
performance to environmental actions.
High cement content
Inadequate workability, shrinkage and
cracking
High water cement ratio
Inadequate concrete strength and
increased permeability to gases and
chloride
Calcium aluminate cement
Loss of concrete strength especially in
wet environment
Finely-ground cements or binders Concrete shrinkage
Reactive aggregates
Expansive reactions (AAR) and loss of
concrete strength and stiffness
Contaminated aggregates Steel corrosion initiation
Poorly shaped and badly graded
aggregates
Poor workability, requiring extra water or
vibration and leading to segregation and
bleeding
Considering that the quality of concrete is a function of the concrete mix design,
e.g., material properties, placement and workmanship, one can start to
understand the limitations of the prescriptive or deemed to satisfy approach
which concentrates solely on the concrete mix design. An improvement to the
current practice would be to specify the expected performance further to the
prescriptive requirements (hereafter termed as prescriptive specifications).
However, specifying performance would require at the least a thorough
understanding of the concrete behaviour in different environments and of testing
techniques to assess the performance. Fig. 2 shows four different approaches
for achieving durability, with the current and simplest approaches given to the
right. The complexity of the suggested approaches increase as the practice
moves from deemed to satisfy on the right to "partial factor based" or
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
4
"probabilistic design" approach on the left. The main advantage of the latter
approaches is that they are capable of taking into account the expected
extreme scenarios during the life of a structure as design factors, for example
expected low and high temperatures acting on the structure. The probabilistic
approach would be capable of going one step further by taking into account the
daily/yearly variations in the factor itself, e.g., daily temperature fluctuations as a
design factor. In any case, it is expected that the complex design approaches
would allow users to select concrete mixes which will perform in an environment
to which they are designed. Nonetheless, even the simplest of the design
approach can be successful if all the factors influencing deterioration of a
structure is taken into account during the design process. The focus of this
volume is to introduce durability based design by reviewing the current
specifications and codes of practice across Europe. An emerging concept of
performance based specification is also introduced as a means of addressing
the shortcomings of the existing specification method as per 206-1:2000
[1]
.



Fig. 2. Different levels of durability based design approach.
[3]
The focus of this volume is to introduce durability based design by reviewing the
European standards and codes of practice for concrete structures design. An
emerging concept of performance based specification is also introduced as a
means of addressing the shortcomings of the existing specification method and
the National Documents of Application or the national standards with
requirements to compliment the EN 206-1:2000
[1]
where it is only informative. A
comparison of the National requirements for concrete durability is also done for
the countries involved in DURATINET. Examples of performance based
specifications for concrete durability used on recent projects in the UK, Ireland,
Portugal, France and in other European countries and in the world are also
presented.

Less complex More Complex
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
5
2 Overview of European standards for concrete
structures design
In order to achieve the required service life, adequate measures need to be
taken during the design phase to protect each structural element against the
relevant environmental actions. The requirements for durability need to be
considered during the following phases of a concrete structure: structural design,
concrete design, construction details, execution/workmanship, quality control,
inspection, verifications and when special measures are introduced namely to
avoid corrosion.
Last ten years at the level of CEN the standards for concrete structures have
been reviewed and significant improvements were made. Due to this evolution,
the design, specification and execution of concrete structures are supported by
the three main standards: EN 1992-1-1:2004
[4]
for design of concrete structures,
EN

206-1:2000
[1]
for concrete specifications and EN 13670:2009
[5]
for
execution of concrete structures. The flowchart presented in Fig. 3, shows the
role of the three main standards and all other subsidiary standards in concrete
production.

Fig. 3. European standards for concrete structures.
[1]

D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
6
The main three standards for concrete design cover the following subjects:
EN 1992-1-1:2004
[4]
establishes the principles and rules for design of
concrete structures and, in particular, specifies the durability
considerations regarding minimum cover for reinforcement.
EN 206-1:2000
[1]
deals with concrete requirements and specification
and it is applicable for cast in situ concrete, precast and structural
precast concrete products for buildings and civil engineering structures.
EN 13670:2009
[5]
establishes the requirements for the execution
(workmanship) of concrete structures designed according EN 1992-1-
1:2004
[4]
.
The EN 206-1:2000
[1]
standard, specifies requirements for:
the constituent materials of concrete;
the properties of fresh and hardened concrete and their verification;
the limitations for concrete mix design;
the specification of concrete;
the delivery of fresh concrete;
the production control procedures;
the conformity criteria and evaluation of conformity.
The EN 206-1:2000
[1]
standard outlines methods for selecting an appropriate
concrete mix based on the requirements for fresh and hardened concrete
properties, such as workability/consistency, density, compressive strength,
expected durability/service life and protection of embedded steel against
corrosion. The Standard also outlines guidelines for conformity and quality
control during the production process and execution/workmanship.
Where not detailed in the specification, the producer shall select types and
classes of constituent materials from those with established suitability for the
specified environmental conditions. The EN 206-1:2000
[1]
presents the
prescriptive limiting values for concrete composition to withstand the
environmental actions for the different exposure classes and taking into account
the intended working life of 50 years for the concrete structure. However, this
Standard also gives the possibility that the requirements may be derived from
performance-related design methods. The rules for this approach must be fixed
in the national normative annex prepared by each country.
Several clauses of EN 206-1:2000
[1]
, namely those related with the design of
concrete mixes and the exposure classes are concerned with the design of
concrete and it seems more appropriate to be included in the Eurocode for
concrete design. Furthermore, the durability related requirements established in
EN 13369:2004
[6]
are slightly different from those defined in EN 206-1:2000
[1]
.
Nowadays it is recognised by different countries that it is necessary to re-
analyse the methodology defined in the Standards indicated in Fig. 3, for
durability based service life design of concrete structures. For that a new
working group at European level was created - JWG TC250/SC2 in association
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
7
with the following technical committees, TC104/SC1, CEN TC229 and
ISO TC71/SC3, to:
review the durability parameters in current Standards in light of the on-
going work in TC 104/SC1 on equivalent durability;
consider various methods for predicting or designing service life based
on fib MC and ISO, work with a view to incorporate these methods as
an annex to Eurocode 2;
review all clauses of Standards related to durability to ensure their
correctness/appropriateness;
review all clauses of Standards to ensure that they are placed in the
right Standards, based on user requirements.
The following sections review the durability requirements for concrete design
based on EN 206-1:2000
[1]
.
2.1 Classification of the exposure environments
The methodology followed in EN 206-1:2000
[1]
is to classify the micro and
macro environment surrounding a concrete structure into various exposure
classes.
Table 4 shows the exposure classes and the guidance for identifying exposure
classes. The concrete may be subjected to one or more of the exposure classes
and the environmental loading to which it is subjected may thus need to be
expressed as a combination of the exposure classes. In this case the
requirements should satisfy that of the most exigent of the exposure classes.
The limiting values for aggressive chemicals from natural soil and ground water
for different exposure classes are also specified in EN 206-1:2000
[1]
as shown
in the Table 5.
Table 4. Exposure classes related to environmental conditions in
accordance with EN 206-1.
[4]
Class
designation
Description of the environment
Informative examples where
exposure classes may occur
1 No risk of corrosion or attack
X0
For concrete without reinforcement or
embedded metal: all exposures except
where there is freeze/thaw, abrasion
or chemical attack.
For concrete with reinforcement or
embedded metal: very dry
Concrete inside buildings with very low
air humidity
2 Corrosion induced by carbonation
XC1 Dry or permanently wet
Concrete inside buildings with low air
humidity
Concrete permanently submerged in
water
XC2 Wet, rarely dry
Concrete surfaces subject to long-term
water contact
Many foundations
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
8
Table 4 (cont.). Exposure classes related to environmental conditions in
accordance with EN 206-1.
[4]
Class
designation
Description of the environment
Informative examples where
exposure classes may occur
XC3 Moderate humidity
Concrete inside buildings with
moderate or high air humidity
External concrete sheltered from rain
XC4 Cyclic wet and dry
Concrete surfaces subject to water
contact, not within exposure class XC2
3 Corrosion induced by chlorides
XD1 Moderate humidity
Concrete surfaces exposed to airborne
chlorides
XD2 Wet, rarely dry
Swimming pools
Concrete components exposed to
industrial waters containing chlorides
XD3 Cyclic wet and dry
Parts of bridges exposed to spray
containing chlorides
Pavements
Car park slabs
4 Corrosion induced by chlorides from sea water
XS1
Exposed to airborne salt but not in
direct contact with sea water
Structures near to or on the coast
XS2 Permanently submerged
Parts of marines structures
XS3 Tidal, splash and spry zones
5 Freeze/thaw attack
XF1
Moderate water saturation, without de-
icing agent
Vertical concrete surfaces exposed to
rain and freezing
XF2
Moderate water saturation, with de-
icing agent
Vertical concrete surfaces of road
structures exposed to freezing and
airborne de-icing salts
XF3
High water saturation, without de-icing
agents
Horizontal concrete surfaces exposed
to rain and freezing
XF4
High water saturation, with de-icing
agents or sea water
Road and bridge decks exposed to de-
icing agents
Concrete surfaces exposed to direct
spray containing de-icing agents and
freezing
Splash zone of marine structures
exposed to freezing
6 Chemical attack
XA1
Slightly aggressive chemical
environment according to EN 206-1,
Table 2
Natural soils and ground water
XA2
Moderately aggressive chemical
environment according to EN 206-1,
Table 2
XA3
Highly aggressive chemical
environment according to EN 206-1,
Table 2


D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
9
Table 5. Limiting values for exposure classes for chemical attack from
natural soil and ground water in accordance with EN 206-1.
[1]

The aggressive chemical environments classified below are based on natural soil and ground
water at water/soil temperatures between 5 C and 25 C and a water velocity sufficiently slow to
approximate to static conditions.
The most onerous value for any single chemical characteristic determines the class.
Where two or more aggressive characteristics lead to the same class, the environment shall be
classified into the next higher class (unless a special study for this specific case proves that it is
not necessary).
Chemical
characteristic
Reference test
method
XA1 XA2 XA3
GROUND WATER
SO
4
2-
mg/L EN 196-2
200 and
600
> 600 and
3000
> 3000 and
6000
pH ISO 4316
6.5 and
5.5
< 5.5 and
4.5
< 4.5 and
4.0
CO
2
mg/L
aggressive
prEN 13577
15 and
40
> 40 and
100
> 100 up to
saturation
NH
4
+
mg/L
ISO 7150-1 or
ISO 7150-2
15 and
30
> 30 and
60
> 60 and
100
Mg
2+
mg/L ISO 7980
300 and
1000
> 1000 and
3000
> 3000 up to
saturation
SOIL
SO
4
2-
mg/kg
(1)

total
EN 196-2
(2)

2000 and
3000
(3)

> 3000
(3)
and
12000
> 12000 and
24000
Acidity ml/kg DIN 4030-2
> 200
Baumann Gully
Not encountered in practice
(1)
Clay soils with permeability below 10
-5
m/s may be moved into a lower class.
(2)
The test method prescribes the extraction of SO
4
2-
by hydrochloric acid; alternatively, water
extraction may be used, if experience is available in the place of use of the concrete.
(3)
The 3000 mg/kg limit is reduced to 2000 mg/kg, where there is a risk of accumulation of sulfate
ions in the concrete due to drying and wetting cycles or capillary suction.
2.2 Durability requirements for concrete
According to EN 206-1:2000
[1]
, specifications for designing concrete which will
be exposed to various environmental actions are based on "deem-to-satisfy"
approach, such as maximum water/cement ratio, minimum cement content,
minimum cover depth, etc. and the assumption is that if these rules are met, the
structure will achieve a service life of 50 years.
Furthermore, EN 206-1:2000
[1]
also defines the basic requirements for
constituent materials and concrete compositions. The amounts of harmful
ingredients which can be present in the constituent materials are restricted in
view of the durability of the overall structure. For example, if aggregates contain
varieties of silica susceptible to attack by alkalis (such as Na
2
O and K
2
O
present in the concrete) and the concrete is exposed to humid conditions,
actions need to be taken to prevent the occurrence of alkali-silica reaction. The
Standard also limits the initial chloride content of concrete; the maximum
permissible values based on the use of concrete are given in Table 6. It is
understood that each country may adopt its own limiting values for the
maximum permissible chloride content.
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
10
Although the prescriptive approach may work well for certain durability
mechanisms, such as alkali-silica reaction, sulfate attack or abrasion, a robust
performance-based approach is necessary for other more complex mechanisms
to guarantee the service life. Both approaches are introduced in the following
sections.
Table 6. Maximum chloride content of concrete.
Concrete use
Chloride
content class
Maximum Cl
-
content
by mass of cement
Not containing steel reinforcement or other
embedded steel metal with the exception of
corrosion resisting lifting devices
Cl 1.0 1.0 %
Containing steel reinforcement or other
embedded metal
Cl 0.20 0.20 %
Cl 0.40 0.40 %
Containing prestressing steel
reinforcement
Cl 0.10 0.10 %
Cl 0.20 0.20 %
a
For a specific concrete use, the class to be applied depends upon the provisions valid in the
place of the use of concrete
b
where type II additions are used and are taken into account for the cement content, the chloride
content is expressed as the percentage chloride ion as the mass of cement plus total mass of
additions that are taken into account.
2.2.1 Prescriptive method for concrete properties specification
The prescriptive method of specification of concrete to resist environmental
actions is given in terms of established concrete properties and limiting values
(or tolerance).
The requirements for each exposure class are presented in terms of:
permitted types and classes of constituent materials;
maximum water/cement ratio;
minimum cement content;
minimum concrete compressive strength class (optional);
minimum air-content of the concrete (if relevant).
As the limiting values only target the material properties of concrete, in order to
ensure good workmanship or adequate quality control during placement and
throughout the service life, further requirements are also specified, namely,
the concrete is properly placed, compacted and cured e.g. in
accordance with EN 13670:2009
[5]
or other relevant standards;
the concrete has the minimum cover to reinforcement in accordance
with the relevant design standard requirement for the specific
environmental condition, e.g. EN 1992-1-1:2004
[4]
;
the appropriate exposure class was selected;
the anticipated maintenance is enforced.
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
11
Furthermore, EN 206-1:2000
[1]
Annex F presents recommendations for
prescribing limiting values for a concrete structure with a service life of 50 years
(Tables 7 to 10). The recommendations are provided for CEM I cement
conforming to EN 197-1:2000
[7]
and having a cement strength class of 32.5 and
aggregate with maximum nominal upper size in the range of 20 mm to 32 mm.
The Standard recommends that the limiting values for the maximum
water/cement ratio and the minimum cement content must be applied in all
cases, but concrete strength may be specified separately if required. For shorter
or longer working life than 50 years, less onerous or more severe requirements
may be necessary, respectively.
Table 7. Minimum concrete requirements for corrosion induced by
carbonation.
Corrosion induced by carbonation
No risk of
corrosion or attack
XC1 XC2 XC3 XC4
Maximum w/c ratio - 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50
Minimum Strength
Class
C12/15 C20/25 C25/30 C30/37 C30/37
Minimum cement
content (kg/m
3
)
- 260 280 280 300
Table 8. Minimum concrete requirements for corrosion induced by chloride.
Corrosion induced by Chloride
No risk of
corrosion or
attack
Sea water
Chlorides other than
from sea water
Exposure class
XS1 XS2 XS3 XD1 XD2 XD3
Maximum w/c
- 0.50 0.45 0.45 0.55 0.55 0.45
Minimum Strength
Class
C12/15
C30/
37
C35/
45
C35/
45
C30/
37
C30/
37
C35
/45
Minimum cement
content (kg/m
3
)
- 300 320 340 300 300 320
Table 9. Minimum concrete requirements for chemical attack.
Chemical Attack
XA1 XA2 XA3
Maximum w/c ratio 0.55 0.50 0.45
Minimum Strength Class C30/37 C30/37 C35/40
Minimum cement content (kg/m
3
) 300 320 360
Other requirements - Sulfate resistant cement


D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
12
Table 10. Minimum concrete requirements for freeze/thaw attack.

Freeze/thaw attack
XF1 XF2 XF3 XF4
Maximum w/c ratio 0.55 0.55 0.50 0.45
Minimum Strength
Class
C30/37 C25/30 C30/37 C30/37
Minimum cement
content (kg/m
3
)
300 300 320 340
Minimum air content - 4.0
a
4.0
a
4.0
a

Other requirements
Aggregate in accordance with EN 12620 with sufficient
freeze/thaw resistance
a
Where the concrete is not air entrained the performance of the concrete should be tested
according to
a
appropriate test method in comparison with a concrete for which freeze/thaw
resistance for a relevant exposure class is proven
2.2.2 Performance-related concrete design methods
The EN 206-1:2000
[1]
also indicates that concrete may be specified in terms of
performance-related parameters such as the resistance to environmental
actions, e.g. scaling of concrete in a freeze/thaw test. Annex J of the Standard
provides some guidance on the use of an alternative performance-related
design method for ensuring durability. The application of this alternative method
may depend on several factors, including the knowledge and facilities to assess
the expected performance, availability of predictive models and knowledge and
skills to interpret the data. Based on the availability of resources, European
countries could develop their own methodologies for the application of the
performance-related concrete design methods.
The performance-related method should consider each relevant deterioration
mechanism, the working life of the element or structure and the criteria which
define the end of this working life quantitatively. Such a method can be based
on satisfactory experience with local practices in local environments, on data
from an established performance test method for the relevant mechanism, or on
the use of proven predictive models.
This approach can be considered to be appropriate where:
a working life significantly differing from 50 years is required according
the type and relevance of structure, Table 11;
the structure is "special" requiring a lower probability of failure;
the environmental actions are particularly aggressive, or are well
defined;
standards of workmanship are expected to be high;
a management and maintenance strategy is to be introduced, perhaps
with planned upgrading;
significant populations of similar structures or elements, are to be built;
new or different materials are to be used.

D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
13
The methods that may be used include:
The refinement of the prescriptive method, considering the minimum
requirements, based on long-term experience of local materials and
practices and on detailed knowledge of the local environment.
Methods based on approved and proven tests that are representative of
actual conditions and have approved performance criteria. The
implementation of these methods require large experience permitting to
assume that certain test results will be indicative of adequate
performance to the specific environmental action simulated in the test.
Methods based on analytical models that have been calibrated against
test data representative of actual conditions in practice.
In applying these methods, it is important to define in advance, at least the
following:
the type of structure and its form;
the local environmental and local micro-climate conditions;
the level of execution;
the required working life or service life;
the concrete composition and the constituent materials should be
closely defined to enable the level of performance to be maintained.
Table 11. Indicative design working life for structures.
[8]
Design working
life category
Indicative design
working life (years)
Examples
1 10 Temporary structures
1

2 10 to 25
Replaceable structural parts, e.g. gantry
girders bearings
3 15 to 30 Agricultural and similar structures
4 50
Building structures and other common
structures
5 100
Monumental builds structures, bridges,
and other civil engineering structures
1
Structures or parts of structures that can be dismantled with a view to being re-used should not
be considered as temporary
2.2.3 Concrete cover depth specification
Concrete cover is probably the greatest single factor that can influence the
premature corrosion of reinforcement and the performance of the structure can
be highly sensitive to defects in cover. Consequently, measures taken to control
and ensure a suitable cover can be more beneficial than any other preventative
measure. Fig. 4 demonstrates how cover depth can influence the service life,
which is ascertained by the advance of carbonation front and chloride ions
towards the reinforcement
[9]
.
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
14

Fig. 4. Influence of cover to reinforcement on carbonation and chloride
penetration.
The EN 1992-1-1:2004
[4]
establishes the following principles and rules in
relation to reinforcement cover:
the cover is the distance between surface of the reinforcement
(including links and stirrups) closest to the nearest concrete surface
(regardless it is horizontal, vertical or inclined);
the nominal cover, c
nom
, (to be specified on the drawings) is defined as
the sum of a minimum cover, c
min
, plus an allowance for deviation c
dev
.
c
nom=
c
min
+ c
dev
(1)
c
dev
= 10 mm, in the EN 13670:2009
[5]
but could be less if specific quality
control is implemented or in particular type of elements. The nominal cover shall
be guaranteed in the execution by the use of spacers separating the
reinforcement from the formwork. The minimum concrete cover, c
min
, is the
greater of a set of values never less than 10 mm, given by:
c
min
= max{c
min,b
; c
min,dur
; c
dur,y
- c
dur,st
- c
dur, add
; 10 mm} (2)
Where:
c
min,b
-minimum cover due to bond requirement
c
min,dur
- minimum cover due to environmental conditions
c
dur,y
- additive safety element
c
dur,st
- reduction of minimum cover for use of stainless steel
c
dur, add
- reduction of minimum cover for use of additional protection
In general, the c
min
intended to ensure the following:
Safe transmission of steel-concrete bond forces. For such, the
corresponding minimum cover, c
min,b
shall not be less than the bar
diameter or, in the case of bundled bars, the equivalent diameter
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
15

n
= n 55 mm, n being the number of bars limited to n 4 for
compressed bars and in joints and n 3 in the other cases (exceptions
to this rule are the bars placed one over the other).The value of c
min,b
,
shall be increased by 5 mm if the aggregate has a maximum size larger
than 32 mm. In the case of pre-tensioned and post-tensioned concrete,
EN 1992-1-1:2004
[4]
provides a few recommendations.
Suitable fire resistance (according EN 1992-1-2:2004).
Steel protection against corrosion.
The minimum cover required, c
min,dur
, for reinforced concrete based on the
exposure class is presented in Table 12. The corresponding values for pre-
stressed concrete (both pre-tensioned and post-tensioned) are given in
Table 13.
Table 12. Minimum reinforced concrete cover (mm) in EN 1992-1-1
[4]
, c
min,dur
.
Structural
class
Environmental exposure class
X0 XC1 XC2/3 XC4
XD1/
XS1
XD2/
XS2
XD3/
XS3
1 10 10 10 15 20 25 30
2 10 10 15 20 25 30 35
3 10 10 20 25 30 35 40
4 10 15 25 30 35 40 45
5 15 20 30 35 40 45 50
6 20 25 35 40 45 50 55
Table 13. Minimum prestressed concrete cover (mm) in EN 1992-1-1
[4]
, c
min,dur
.
Structural
class
Environmental exposure class
X0 XC1 XC2/3 XC4
XD1/
XS1
XD2/
XS2
XD3/
XS3
1 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
2 10 15 25 30 35 40 45
3 10 20 30 35 40 45 50
4 10 25 35 40 45 50 55
5 15 30 40 45 50 55 60
6 20 35 45 50 55 60 65
The recommended structural class for a design working life of 50 years is S4 for
the indicative concrete strengths given in EN 206-1:2000
[1]
. In a similar manner,
once a structural class is chosen for reinforced or prestressed concrete
elements, the corresponding cover values for each exposure class, c
min,dur
, can
be determined in accordance with EN 1992-1-1:2004
[4]
. The structural class can
be reduced in the following situations:
when using, as replacement for current steel, stainless steel;
if the strength class of the concrete used, in each exposure class, is
higher than the strength classes indicated;
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
16
if the surface of the concrete in contact with the aggressive agent is
coated in compliance with the requirements established;
if the steel bars, ready to be placed in formworks, are previously
covered with epoxy resins, by fulfilling the requirements defined;
if the structural concrete part is laminar (of the type slab or wall);
the recommended modifications on the structural class are given in
Table 14 for different situations.
Table 14. Recommended structural classification according to EN 1992-1-1.
[4]

Structural Class
Criterion
Exposure Class according to EN 206-1
X0 XC1
XC2/
XC3
XC4 XD1
XD2/
XS1
XD3/
XS2/
XS3
Design
working life
of 100
years
Increase
class by
2
Increase
class by
2
Increase
class by
2
Increase
class by
2
Increase
class by
2
Increase
class by
2
Increase
class by
2
Strength
Class

C30/C37
reduce
class by
1

C30/C37
reduce
class by
1

C35/C45
reduce
class by
1

C40/C50
reduce
class by
1

C40/C50
reduce
class by
1

C40/C50
reduce
class by
1

C45/C55
reduce
class by
1
Member
with slab
geometry
Reduce
class by
1
Reduce
class by
1
Reduce
class by
1
Reduce
class by
1
Reduce
class by
1
Reduce
class by
1
Reduce
class by
1
Special
quality
control of
concrete
production
ensured
Reduce
class by
1
Reduce
class by
1
Reduce
class by
1
Reduce
class by
1
Reduce
class by
1
Reduce
class by
1
Reduce
class by
1
1. The strength class and w/c ratio are considered to be related values. A special
composition (type of cement, w/c value, fine fillers) with the intent to produce low
permeability concrete may be considered.
2. The limit may be reduced by one strength class if air entrainment of more than 4 % is
applied.
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
17
3 National standards or guidelines to complement EN
206-1
3.1 United Kingdom
Anyone wishing to specify concrete to BS EN 206-1:2000
[10]
in the UK can use
BS 8500-1:2006
[11]
and BS 8500-2:2006
[12]
alongside Eurocode 2
[4]
.
BS 8500-1:2006
[11]
is the complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1:2000
[10]
.
BS 8500-2:2006
[12]
contains specifications for materials and procedures that are
outside of European standardisation but within national experience. This
Standard supplements the requirements in BS EN 206-1:2000
[10]
.
The guidelines given in BS 8500:2006
[11],[12]
for durability are based on the
latest research and therefore recommended strength, cover, cement content
and water/cement ratio for similar exposure conditions may vary compared to
guidance given in previous Standards, such as BS 8110-1:1997
[13]
. The
following sections will review the features of BS 8500:2006
[11],[12]
Standards.
3.1.1 Defining the exposure classes
BS 8500:2006
[11],[12]
exposure classes are related to the deterioration processes
of carbonation, ingress of chlorides, chemical attack from aggressive ground
and freeze/thaw similar to those specified in EN 206-1:2000
[1]
(see Table 4).
3.1.2 Select the concrete strength and cover
Further to the exposure classes, a recommended/minimum strength class and
cover to reinforcement (c
nom
) are selected to satisfy common exposure
conditions for the chosen working life (50 or 100 years typically).
BS 8500:2006
[11],[12]
uses compressive strength class to define concrete
strengths; the notation used gives the cylinder strength as well as the cube
strength.
Furthermore, the durability guidance given in BS 8500:2006
[11],[12]
is based on
the assumption that the minimum cover for durability is achieved. An allowance
should be made in the design for deviations from the minimum cover (c
dev
).
This should be added to the minimum cover to obtain the nominal cover.
Eurocode 2
[4]
recommends that c
dev
is taken as 10 mm, unless the fabrication
is subjected to a quality assurance system where it is permitted to reduce c
dev

to 5 mm. It is recommended that these values are adopted when using
BS 8500:2006
[11],[12]
. The nominal cover and permitted deviation should be
clearly stated on the drawings.

3.1.3 Selecting the intended working life, e.g., service life
The recommendations in BS 8500
[11],[12]
are for an intended working life of at
least 50 years for most exposure classes and 50 and 100 years only for
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
18
carbonation XC classes. For each of the exposure classes, the Standard
specifies nominal cover, minimum strength class, maximum water-binder ratio
(w/b), minimum cement (binder) content and allowable cement types. Table 15
presents BS 8500:2006
[11],[12]
guidelines for chloride resistance and Table 16
summarises the guidelines for carbonation resistance.
3.1.4 Cement types and minimum cement content
There are six groups of cement combinations specified in BS 8500:2006
[11],[12]
depending on the exposure classes and they are presented in Table A.17 of
BS 8500-1:2006
[11]
. Minimum cement content can also be selected from
BS 8500-1:2006
[11]
(Table A.18 of BS 8500-1:2006)
[11]
based on w/b and the
maximum aggregate size. It should be noted that the strength, water/cement
ratio and minimum cement content may vary depending on the cement type
used. In the UK, all cement/combinations are available (except SRPC),
although in most concrete production plants either ground granulated blast
furnace slag (ggbs) or fly-ash (pfa) is available; not both. When using a
designated concrete, it is not necessary to specify the types of
cement/combinations.
3.1.5 Complementary requirements for constituent materials
BS 8500-2:2006
[12]
specifies the complementary requirements to EN 206-1:2000
[1]

specification for concrete constituent materials. This section is useful where the
types and classes of constituent materials have not been specified and the
concrete producer is required to select the materials based on the designation
given in this section. The notations, conforming standard and designation for
different types of cement and their combinations, are specified in this section.
Section 4.3 of BS 8500-2:2006
[12]
emphasises on specifications for aggregates
to be used in different types of concrete. In addition to specifications and
conformity standards on normal, heavy and light aggregates described in
EN 206-1:2000
[1]
, section 4.3 of BS 8500-2:2006
[12]
describes guidelines for
use of recycled concrete aggregates (RCA). It is important to note that for
exposure classes X0, XC1, XC2, XC3, XC4, XF1 and DC1 the recycled
concrete aggregates are limited to use for a maximum strength class of C40/50.
3.1.6 Air content
Where air entrainment is required for exposure classes XF3 and XF4 the
minimum air content by volume of 5.5 %, 4.5 %, 3.5 % and 3.0 % should be
specified for 10, 14, 20 and 32/40 mm maximum aggregate size respectively.
Further details are given in Table A.14 of BS 8500-1:2006
[11]
.
3.1.7 Freeze/thaw aggregates
For exposure conditions XF3 and XF4 freeze/thaw resisting aggregates should
be specified. The producer is then obliged to conform to the requirements given
in BS 8500-2:2006
[12]
.
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
19
3.1.8 Aggressive ground
Where plain or reinforced concrete is in contact with the ground, further checks
are required to ensure durability. An aggressive chemical environment for
concrete class (ACEC class) should be assessed for the site. BRE Special
Digest 15 gives guidance on the assessment of the ACEC class and this is
normally carried out as part of the interpretive reporting for a ground
investigation. Knowing the ACEC class and the thickness of the section, a
design chemical class (DC class) can be obtained from Table A.4 in
BS 8500-1:2006
[11]
.
For designated concretes, an appropriate foundation concrete (FND designation)
can be selected using Table A11 in the code; the cover should be determined
from Table A9 in the code for the applicable exposure classes. A FND concrete
has the minimum strength class of C25/30; therefore, where a higher strength is
required, a designed concrete should be specified. Moreover, fully designed
concrete in UK need not be designed for freeze-thaw resistance. Therefore, the
specifications for designed concrete method do not take into account conditions
where chlorides are present in the soil or freeze-thaw resistance is required.
3.1.9 Consistence
The term workability has been replaced by the term consistence and a series of
consistence classes has been introduced. Table A16 in BS 8500-1:2006
[11]

gives the slump and flow classes for different applications of concrete based on
the type of concrete compaction adopted.
3.1.10 Chloride Class
Concrete that is to be prestressed or heat cured should normally be specified as
chloride class Cl 0.10. Reinforced concrete should be specified as class Cl 0.40
except for concrete made with cement conforming to BS 4027:1996 (SRPC)
[14]
,
which should be specified as class Cl 0.20.
3.1.11 Conformity
Under BS 8500:2006
[11],[12]
, the concrete producer is now required to follow a
formal procedure called conformity to verify that the concrete is in accordance
with the specification. It is, therefore, recommended that the concrete supplier
should have third party certification. Where this is not adopted, the specifier is
advised to adopt adequate identity testing to ensure the concrete is as specified.

D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
20
Table 15. Current BS 8500:2006
[11],[12]
guidelines for chloride resistance.
B
S

8
5
0
0
:
2
0
0
6
,

V
a
l
u
e
s

Minimum
cover
(mm)
25+
c
30+
c
35+
c
40+
c
45+
c
50+
c
Cement
Type
Exposure Class
XS1

C45/50
E

0.35
F

380
C35/40
E

0.45
360
C32/40
E

0.50
340
C32/40
E
0.50
340
C32/40
E
0.50
340
CEM I,
II/A, II/B-
S, SRPC

C40/50
E
0.35
F
380
C32/40
E

0.45
360
C28/35
0.50
340
C25/30
0.55
320
C25/30
0.55
320
II/B-V,
III/A

C32/40
E

0.40
380
C25/30
0.50
340
C25/30
0.50
340
C25/30
0.55
320
C25/30
0.55
320
III/B

C32/40
E

0.40
380
C28/3
0.50
340
C25/30
0.50
340
C25/30
0.55
320
C25/30
0.55
320
IVB-V
XS2

C40/50
E
0.40
380
C32/40
E

0.50
340
C28/35
0.55
320
C28/35
0.55
320
C28/35
0.55
320
CEM I,
II/A, II/B-
S, SRPC

C35/45
E
0.40
380
C28/35
0.50
340
C25/30
0.55
320
C25/30
0.55
320
C25/30
0.55
320
II/B-V,
III/A

C32/40
E

0.40
380
C25/30
0.50
340
C20/25
0.55
320
C20/25
0.55
320
C20/25
0.55
320
III/B, IVB-
V
XS3

C45/55
E

0.35
F

380
C40/50
E

0.40
380
CEM I,
II/A, II/B-
S, SRPC

C35/45
E

0.40
380
C32/40
E

0.45
360
C28/35
0.50
340
II/B-V,
III/A

C32/40
E

0.40
380
C28/35
0.45
360
C25/30
0.50
340
III/B, IVB-
V
XD1
C40/50
0.45
360
C32/40
0.55
320
C28/35
0.60
300
C28/35
0.60
300
C28/35
0.60
300
C28/35
0.60
300
All
cements
XD2

C40/50
E

0.40
380
C32/40
E

0.50
340
C28/35
0.55
320
C28/35
0.55
320
C28/35
0.55
320
CEM I,
II/A, II/B-
S, SRPC

C35/45
E

0.40
380
C28/35
0.50
340
C25/30
0.55
320
C25/30
0.55
320
C25/30
0.55
320
II/B-V,
III/A

C32/40
E
0.40
380
C25/30
0.50
340
C20/25
0.55
320
C20/25
0.55
320
C20/25
0.55
320
III/B, IVB-
V
XD3

C45/55
E

0.35
F

380
C40/50
E

0.40
380
C35/45
E

0.45
360
CEM I,
II/A, II/B-
S, SRPC

C35/45
E

0.40
380
C32/40
E
0.45
360
C28/35
0.50
340
II/B-V,
III/A

C32/40
E

0.40
380
C28/35
0.45
360
C25/30
0.50
340
III/B, IVB-
V
E
If the concrete is specified as being air entrained in accordance with the XF2 or XF4
recommendations in Table A.8, the minimum compressive strength class for corrosion induced by
chlorides may be reduced to C28/35.
F
In some parts of the UK it is not possible to produce a practical concrete with a maximum w/c ratio
of 0.35.
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
21
Table 16. Current BS 8500:2006
[11],[12]
guidelines for carbonation
resistance.
B
S

8
5
0
0
:
2
0
0
6
,

V
a
l
u
e
s

Minimum
cover
(mm)
15+
c
20+
c
25+
c
30+
c
35+
c
40+
c
45+
c
Cement
Type
Exposure Class
XC1
C20/25
0.70
240
C20/25
0.70
240

All
cements
XC2 - -
C25/30
0.65
260
C25/30
0.65
260

All
cements
XC3 -
C40/50
0.45
340
C30/37
0.55
300
C28/35
0.60
280
C25/30
0.65
260

All
cements,
not IVB-V
XC4 - -
C40/50
0.45
340
C30/37
0.55
300
C28/35
0.60
280
C25/30
0.65
260
IVB-V
3.2 Ireland
In December 2003, the Irish Standard for Concrete IS 326:1995 Part 2
[15]
was
replaced by the new European Standard IS EN 206-1:2002
[16]
. The Irish version
IS EN 206-1:2002
[16]
comprises the core text of the European standard EN
206-1:2000
[1]
, along with the Irish National Annex, currently in circulation for
comments.
Ireland, compared to other countries in Europe, has substantially more
resources per capita of the constituent materials which go into the manufacture
of concrete. For this reason concrete is produced on a local basis and generally
delivered within a radius of 30 miles.
IS EN 206-1:2002
[16]
is the only national Irish standard for concrete
specification and production since December 2003. Concrete producers are in
the process of adapting their quality and production control systems to become
fully compliant with the requirements within it. Designers and users are required
to specify concrete in accordance with the requirements of IS EN 206-1:2002
[16]
,
to ensure uniformity and clarity in the full construction process. Structural design
will continue to be guided by the existing design standards (IS 326/BS 8110 etc.)
and some disparities may occur in the interim period. Table 17 shows the
current Irish guidelines for the carbonation exposure classes outlined in
EN 206-1:2000
[1]
for a 50-year design life. As shown, the Irish National annex
guidelines do not give limits for covers < 20 mm, compared with
BS 8500:2006
[11],[12]
, which give limits for all covers. For exposure class XC1,
the Irish guidelines appear to be more conservative where a higher concrete
grade, lower w/c ratio and a higher minimum cement content is used compared
with those used in BS 8500:2006
[11],[12]
. This appears to be a general trend
throughout.
The Irish guidelines make use of trade-offs allowed in EN 206-1:2000
[1]
which
can be seen in exposure class XC2 for example. As may be observed, the
guidelines in bold are the recommended values to be used for this exposure
class using a cover of 25 mm+c. However, recognising that by decreasing the
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
22
cover (to 20+c), the recommendation is to increase the concrete grade (to
C32/40), decrease w/c ratio (to 0.50) and increase the minimum cement content
(to 340 kg/m
3
). Alternatively, by increasing the cover (to 30 mm+c), the
concrete grade may be decreased (to C25/30), the w/c ratio may be increased
(to 0.65) and the minimum cement grade may be decreased (to 280 kg/m
3
).
For exposure class XC3, all cement types except IVB-V are recommended
while for XC4, only cement type IVB-V is recommended. Cement Type CEM
IVB-V is a pozzolanic type cement with an allowable clinker content of 45-64 %,
a siliceous fly-ash content of 36-55 % and a minor constituents allowance of 0-
5 % (EN 197-1:2000
[7]
, Table A.4).
As discussed above, the main protection for reinforcement to carbonation attack
is by the cover concrete. For exposure classes XC1 and XC2, it is assumed that
nominal cover would be suitable for both classes. For Ireland and UK, exposure
classes XC3 and XC4 are most relevant. In comparing the exposures classes in
Table 16 and Table 17, XC1, XC2, XC3 and XC4 would correspond to mild,
moderate, moderate and severs respectively. The BS 8110-1:1997
[13]

guidelines are conservative, compared with both the Irish and
BS 8500:2006
[11],[12]
guidelines, particularly in terms of the concrete grade. For
example, for exposure class XC2 (or moderate exposure) for a cover of 30 mm,
the concrete grade suggested by BS 8110 is C40 concrete, compared to C28
and C25 for the Irish and BS 8500:2006
[11],[12]
guidelines respectively. However,
there is relatively little difference between the maximum w/c ratio and minimum
cement contents. Table 15 and Table 18 give the specifications for the chloride
exposures in BS 8500:2006
[11],[12]
and IS EN 206-1:2002
[16]
.
Table 17. Draft Irish guidelines for carbonation resistance (for information only).
I
r
i
s
h

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

A
n
n
e
x

V
a
l
u
e
s

Minimum
cover
(mm)
20+c 25+c 30+c 35+c 40+c
Cement
Type
Exposure Class
XC1
C25/30
0.65
280


All
cements
XC2
C32/40
0.50
340
C28/35
0.60
300
C25/30
0.65
280


All
cements
XC3
C35/45
0.50
360
C30/37
0.55
320
C28/35
0.60
300
C25/30
0.65
280

All
cements
XC4
C40/50
0.45
400
C35/45
0.50
360
C30/37
0.55
320
C28/35
0.60
300
C25/30
0.65
280
All
cements

D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
23
Table 18. Draft Irish guidelines for chloride resistance (for information only).
I
r
i
s
h

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

A
n
n
e
x

V
a
l
u
e
s

Minimum
cover (mm)
25+
c
30+
c
35+
c
40+
c
45+
c
50+
c
Cement
Type
Exposure Class
XS1

C40/50
0.45
400
C35/45
0.50
360
C30/37
0.55
320

CEMI,
CEM II/A-
L, LL, V

C35/45
0.45
400
C32/40
0.50
360
C28/35
0.55
320

CEM III/A,
CEM II/B-
V

C32/40
0.45
400
C28/35
0.50
360
C28/35
0.55
320
CEM III/B
XS2

C45/55
0.40
420
C40/50
0.45
400
C35/45
0.50
360
C32/40
0.50
340

CEM I,
CEM II/A-
L, LL, V

C40/50
0.40
420
C35/45
0.45
400
C32/40
0.50
360
C30/37
0.50
340

CEM III/A,
CEM II/B-
V

C35/45
0.40
420
C32/40
0.45
400
C30/37
0.50
360
C28/35
0.50
340
CEM III/B
XS3

C50/60
0.40
440
C45/55
0.40
420
C40/50
0.45
400
C35/45
0.50
350
CEM I,
CEM II/A-
L, LL, V

C45/55
0.40
440
C40/50
0.40
420
C35/45
0.45
400
C32/40
0.50
360
CEM III/A,
CEM II/B-
V

C40/50
0.40
440
C35/45
0.40
420
C32/40
0.45
400
C28/35
0.50
360
CEM III/B
XD1
C40/50
0.45
400
C35/45
0.50
360
C30/37
0.55
320
C28/35
0.60
300

CEM I,
CEM II/A-
L, LL, V
C35/45
0.45
400
C32/40
0.50
360
C28/35
0.55
320
C25/30
0.60
300

CEM III/A,
CEM II/B-
V
C35/45
0.45
400
C30/37
0.50
360
C25/30
0.55
320
C25/30
0.60
300
CEM III/B
XD2

C45/55
0.40
420
C40/50
0.45
400
C35/45
0.50
360
C30/37
0.55
320

CEM I,
CEM II/A-
L, LL, V

C40/50
0.40
420
C35/45
0.45
400
C32/40
0.50
360
C28/35
0.55
320

CEM III/A,
CEM II/B-
V

C35/45
0.40
420
C32/40
0.45
400
C28/35
0.50
360
C25/30
0.55
420
CEM III/B
XD3

C50/60
0.40
440
C45/55
0.40
420
C40/50
0.45
400
C35/45
0.50
360
CEM I,
CEM II/A-
L, LL, V

C45/55
0.40
440
C40/50
0.40
420
C35/45
0.45
400
C32/40
0.50
360
CEM III/A,
CEM II/B-
V

C40/50
0.40
440
C40/45
0.40
420
C32/40
0.45
400
C28/35
0.50
360
CEM III/B
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
24
3.3 Portugal
In Portugal the European standard NP EN 206-1:2005
[17]
has been
implemented since 2005 and it contains a national annex (National Document of
Application) with Portuguese requirements to compliment the EN standard in
the several aspects where EN standard is only informative. Included in the national
annex are three main specifications prepared by LNEC: LNEC E 461:2004
[18]
,
LNEC E 464:2005
[19]
and LNEC E 465:2005
[20]
.
The Portuguese annex included in NP EN 206-1:2005
[17]
considers the same
environmental actions as in the EN 206-1:2000
[1]
, except the classes XF3 and
XF4 of the freeze/thaw attack, as they are not applicable to Portugal. For
example, in the national annex, document LNEC E 461:2004
[18]
guidelines are
provided for a methodology to classify the reactivity of aggregates in concrete.
The methodology takes into consideration preventive measures for alkali-silica
reaction in concrete structures based on different levels of risk and different
humidity levels in the environment. If none of these measures are applicable, it
recommends the evaluation of the susceptibility of aggregates or compositions
of concrete to the alkali-silica reaction, using mortar and concrete expansion
tests in accordance with ASTM C 1260-01, RILEM AAR-3 or AAR-4. A similar
methodology is established for the internal sulfate attack (ISA), for which it
recommends a concrete expansion test to be carried out to confirm the
possibility of ISA.
LNEC E 464:2005
[19]
defines the suitability of cement types as concrete
constituents with informative examples of exposure classes of Table 1 of
EN 206-1:2000
[1]
. The document also deals with prescriptions on concrete
composition and strength classes for a design working life of 50 and 100 years
and some other common prescriptions on cements and mixes in combination
with the exposure classes. The general framework on the guarantee of the
design working life is introduced through performance-related design methods
taking into consideration the durability specifications given in EN 206-1:2000
[1]
.
This specification also establishes the suitability of the equivalent performance
concept, the properties to be determined and gives an example with results and
analysis
LNEC E 465:2005
[20]
specification

highlights the main principles and application
rules related to the durability of reinforced concrete stated in the EN 1990:2002
[8]
.
The general methodology of a durability design is mentioned. The minimum
reliability indexes for each of 3 reliability classes and the serviceability limit state
that corresponds to the crack initiation due to the corrosion of the steel were
also described in this document.
The specification of concrete for enhanced durability requirements are provided
by three different methods, which includes the prescriptive method, the
equivalent concrete performance concept approach and the performance-
related design methods.
3.3.1 Prescriptive specification of concrete
LNEC E 464:2005
[19]
provides guidelines for prescriptive specification for
concrete to sustain various exposure conditions mentioned in EN 206-1:2000
[1]
.
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
25
The prescriptions for maximum water-cement ratio, minimum cement content
and minimum strength class are provided in Table 19 and Table 20 for exposure
conditions leading to reinforcement corrosion and Table 21 and Table 22 for
freeze/thaw and chemical attack respectively. For the exposure classes XC and
XS, the minimum values for the nominal cover which shall be defined in the
design and implemented on site by the concrete user are also indicated in Table
19 and Table 20.
Table 19. Limits for the composition and the compressive strength class of
the concrete under the action of carbon dioxide, for a design
working life of 50 years.
[19]

Type of
cement
CEM I (Reference); CEM II/A
(1)

CEM II/B
(1)
; CEM III/A
(2)
; CEM IV
(2)
;
CEM V/A
(2)

Exposure
class
XC1 XC2 XC3 XC4 XC1 XC2 XC3 XC4
Minimum
nominal
cover (mm)
25 35 35 40 25 35 35 40
Maximum
water/
cement ratio
0.65 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.65 0.65 0.55 0.55
Minimum
cement
content, C
(kg/m
3
)
240 240 280 280 260 260 300 300
Minimum
strength
class
C25/
30
LC25/
28
C25/
30
LC25/
28
C30/
37
LC30/
33
C30/
37
LC30/
33
C25/
30
LC25/
28
C25/
30
LC25/
28
C30/
37
LC30/
33
C30/
37
LC30/
33
(1)
Not applicable to cements II/A-T and II/A-W and to cements II/B-T and II/B-W, respectively.
(2)
Not applicable to cements with a Portland clinker percentage less than 50 %, by mass.
Table 20. Limits for the composition and the compressive strength class of
the concrete under the action of chlorides, for a design working
life of 50 years.
[19]

Type of cement
CEM IV/A (Reference); CEM IV/B;
CEM III/A; CEM III/B; CEM V; CEM
II/B
(1)
; CEM II/A-D
CEM I; CEM II/A
(1)

Exposure class
XS1/
XD1
XS2/
XD2
XS3/
XD3
XS1/
XD1
XS2/
XD2
XS3/
XD3
Minimum
nominal cover
(mm)
45 50 55 45 50 55
Maximum
water/cement
ratio
0.55 0.55 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.40
Minimum
cement content,
C (kg/m
3
)
320 320 340 360 360 380
Minimum
strength class
C30/37
LC30/33
C30/37
LC30/33
C35/45
LC35/38
C40/50
LC40/44
C40/50
LC40/44
C50/60
LC50/55
(1)
Not applicable to cements II-T, II-W, II/B-L and II/B-LL.
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
26
Table 21. Limits for the composition and the compressive strength class of
the concrete under the action of freeze/thaw, for a design
working life of 50 years.
[19]

Type of cement CEM I (Reference); CEM II/A
(1)

CEM II/B
(1)
; CEM III/A; CEM IV; CEM
V/A
Exposure class XF1 XF2 XF1 XF2
Maximum
water/cement
ratio
0.60 0.55 0.55 0.50
Minimum
cement
content, C
(kg/m
3
)
280 280 300 300
Minimum
strength class
C30/37
LC30/33
C30/37
LC30/33
C30/37
LC30/33
C30/37
LC30/33
Minimum air
content (%)
____ 4.0 ____ 4.0
(1)
Not applicable to cements II/A-T and II/A-W and to cements II/B-T and II/B-W, respectively.
(2)
Not applicable to cements with a Portland clinker percentage less than 50 %, by mass.
Table 22. Limits of the composition and the compressive strength class of
concrete under a chemical attack, for a design working life of 50
years.
[19]

Type of cement
CEM IV/A (Reference); CEM IV/B;
CEM III/A; CEM III/B; CEM V; CEM
II/B
(1)
; CEM II/A-D
CEM I; CEM II/A
(1)

Exposure class XA1 XA2
(2)
XA3
(2)
XA1 XA2
(2)
XA3
(2)

Maximum
water/cement
ratio
0.55 0.50 0.45 0.50 0.45 0.45
Minimum
cement content,
C (kg/m
3
)
320 340 360 340 360 380
Minimum
strength class
C30/37
LC30/33
C35/45
LC35/38
C35/45
LC35/38
C35/45
LC35/38
C40/50
LC40/44
C40/50
LC40/44
(1)
Not applicable to cements II-T, II-W, II/B-L and II/B-LL.
(2)
When the aggressiveness results from the presence of sulfates, the cements shall fulfill the
requirements mentioned in clause 5.3, namely in Table 10, the requirements established in this
table 9 for CEM IV being applied.
For the design working life of 100 years, the requirements mentioned in Table
19 to Table 22 shall contain the following alterations:
in reinforced and pre-stressed concrete subject to the action of carbon
dioxide or of chlorides, Table 19 and Table 20, the nominal cover is
increased by 10 mm, with the requirements applicable to concrete
being maintained.
in concrete subject to freeze-thaw action or to chemical attack, Table 21
and Table 22, the maximum water/cement ratio is decreased by 0.05,
the minimum cement content is increased by 20 kg/m
3
and the
compressive strength class of concrete is increased by two classes.
In the case of environmental exposure with the risk of reinforcement corrosion,
the prescriptions established in Table 19 and Table 20 do not make it possible
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
27
to consider the influence of cover different from that defined, other concrete
mixes or designs of working life different from 50 and 100 years. Furthermore,
in class XS1, it is not possible to take into account the decrease in the
aggressive action with distance from the coast line and, in class XS2, the
influence of the increase in the aggressive action with depth. Therefore, to
accommodate them, two general frameworks must be followed:
3.3.2 Equivalent concrete performance concept
According to equivalent concrete performance concept, a reference mix has to
be prepared fulfilling the limit requirements of composition and mechanical
strength defined in Table 19 to 22, depending on the exposure class of the
equivalence study and with the reference cement indicated for that class. The
resultant reference concrete samples are tested according to the test methods
indicated in Table 23 and the results are compared with the test mix, e.g., with
the formulation of which the performance has to be assessed.
Table 23. Properties, methods and test specimens.
Exposure
class
Properties to be
determined
Test methods
Number and type of
specimens (mm)
XC1
XC2
XC3
XC4
Accelerated
carbonation
LNEC E 391
1 specimen
150 x 150 x 600
Oxygen permeability LNEC E 392
3 specimens
150
h= 50
Compressive
strength
NP EN
12390-3
3 specimens of
150 x 150 x 150
XS1/XD1
XS2/XD2
XS3/XD3
Chloride diffusion
coefficient
LNEC E 463
2 specimens
100
h= 50
Capillary absorption LNEC E 393
3 specimens
150
h= 50
Compressive
strength
NP EN
12390-3
3 specimens of
150 x 150 x 150
The materials to be used in the reference and test mixes shall have their
suitability defined as concrete constituent materials and shall be supplied by the
concrete manufacturer. Particularly, the aggregates and the corresponding
fractions shall be the same in the reference mixes as in the test mixes.
The results obtained on the reference mix are then compared with the
corresponding values of the test mix and conclusions are drawn about the
equivalence of performance of the two mixes as regards penetration resistance
to carbon dioxide or to chlorides in the concrete.
The relations presented in Table 24 should be observed between each test mix
and the corresponding reference mix.
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
28
Table 24. Properties to be observed between the concrete mix in study
and the reference mix.
Properties to be determined Relation
Accelerated carbonation depth (ACD)
AC
stud
AC
c]ccncc
1.S
Capillary absorption (CA)
CA
tcst
CA
c]cncc
1.S
Oxygen permeability (K)
K
tcst
K
c]ccncc
2.u
Chloride diffusion coefficient (D)

tcst

c]ccncc
2.u
Compressive strength (fc)

c,c]ccncc

c,tcst
1.1
Conclusions can also be drawn about the equivalence of specific binder and the
w/c ratio used in the test mix, as regards the corresponding pair of values used
for the reference concrete. When defining the cover, the recommendations
given in Table 12 and Table 13 shall be strictly followed.
3.3.3 Specification of concrete based on the performance - related
design methods with respect to durability
This Specification presents a methodology to implement the tasks and
responsibilities of the concrete specifier established in the EN 206-1:2000
[1]
,
regarding the definition, in the design of reinforced or prestressed concrete
works, of concrete performance requirements related with the resistance to the
reinforcement corrosion. It also defines the acceptance criteria to be adopted in
the control of those requirements. The models of concrete performance on
which the methodology is based have two parameters which define the
resistance to penetration of the aggressive agent and to corrosion.
The model generally accepted for the evolution with time of the deterioration of
reinforced or pre-stressed concrete by steel corrosion considers the working life
divided into two periods initiation and corrosion propagation as showned in
Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. Tutti model of reinforced concrete deterioration under the
environmental action XC or XS.
[21]

D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
29
The initiation period corresponds to the time necessary for either the carbon
dioxide or the chlorides to penetrate in the cover concrete through the system of
open pores and to create steel depassivation conditions. The period of
propagation is initiated with depassivation and ends when a certain Durability
Limit State is reached, as a result of electrochemical reactions in the concrete
pore solution which produce reinforcement corrosion (or corrosion of the metal
embedded in the concrete). Therefore, the steel corrosion and the reinforced
concrete deterioration only occur during the propagation period. Nevertheless,
as the mechanisms involved in each period are different, from a physical and
chemical point of view, detailed models are created to predict the initiation
period and the propagation period, with performance properties which consider
those mechanisms. These differences are also considered in the modelling of
environmental actions. A Serviceability Limit State is chosen, in which the
maximum admissible deterioration for reinforcement corrosion is very limited.
Therefore, the criterion used is the one consisting of estimating minimum values
for the propagation period and of characterising the concrete using the
properties related with the initiation period. The concrete directly involved in the
penetration resistance is the cover concrete of the reinforcement. In the
Specification E 465:2005
[20]
, only the minimum cover is considered (Table 12
and Table 13), which are the highest of the values, with the minimum of 10 mm,
which make it possible to ensure the transmission of steel-concrete bond forces,
the fire resistance and the protection against corrosion.
LNEC E 465:2005
[20]
applies the probabilistic method presented in the RILEM
Report 14 (1996) to the Tutti's model of the deterioration of the reinforced
concrete. Besides, it establishes the performance models for the initiation
period under carbonation and chlorides and a model for the propagation period
which permits to estimate the minimum deterministic propagation periods
satisfying the serviceability limit state. Examples are presented for each
exposure class, each values of the performance properties of these models, as
function of the minimum covers for durability, the reliability classes of concrete
structures and the design working life.
3.4 France
In France the present standard on concrete specification, performance,
production and conformity has been defined and discussed in French version of
European standard NF EN 206-1:2004
[22]
and the first edition of this standard
was adopted by French standards institute - AFNOR in February 2002. The
present second edition NF EN 206-1:2004 replaces the previously approved
standards NF EN 206-1:2002 dated February 2002, NF P 18-010 dated
December 1985 and experimental standard XF P 18-305 dated August 1996.
The French standard NF EN 206-1:2004 exactly reproduces the European
standard EN 206-1:2000
[1]
with addition of National Annex (NA), which defines
the clauses to be respected in France. The recommendations in French NA are
included in the main text of EN 206-1:2000
[1]
and the texts are differentiated by
a double frame with a grey background. The amendments made to EN 206-1:2000
[1]
have been adapted by French standard as NF EN 206-1/A1:2005
[23]
in April
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
30
2005 and NF EN 206-1/A2:2005
[24]
in October 2005. The amendments in
NF EN 206-1/A1:2005 describe modifications of specifications relating to
consistence classes, requirements for hardened concrete, concretes with
specified properties, conformity control criteria and batching requirements. The
amendments in NF EN 206-1/A2:2005 detail the requirements relating to
exposure classes according to the actions due to concrete environment and
consistence.
3.5 Spain
In Spain the National Technical Specification: EHE-08 - Instructions for
structural concrete defined the requirements for structural concrete. This
specification was approved by the Spanish Government by the law 1247/2008
published on 18 July 2008. This technical specification contains the
requirements concerning structural and fire safety and also the protection to
environment conditions which must be fulfilled by new constructions and the
maintenance of existent structures.
As it concerns the prescriptive requirements for protection to environmental
conditions, several classes of exposure are defined adopting a slight different
classification than that used in EN 206-1:2000
[1]
. Mainly, three groups of
classes are defined: for corrosion, chemical attack and erosion.
Currently, an initiative to prepare a national guideline to include the
requirements and concepts contained in the European standards EN 206-
1:2000
[1]
and also the EN 1992-1-1:2004
[4]
are being prepared in Spain.

D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
31
4 Comparison of the national requirements in
complement to EN 206-1
This section presents a summary of the regulations, standards and other
documents which form the basis of local practice developed to complement the
EN 206-1:2000
[1]
standard by the five countries involved in the DURATINET
project with particular attention to the aspects more related with the concrete
durability for the intended service life.
This comparison uses information given by the project partners and Technical
Report prepared by the CEN/TC 104/SC1
[25]
, which has the main objective to
provide a picture of how EN 206-1:2000
[1]
is being applied in practice and to
identify additional national requirements or needs for simplification.
4.1 National standards or regulations
The countries have developed in complement to EN 206-1
[1]
national standards
or regulations which form the local practice and the national requirements and
methodologies. Table 25 summarises the national documents in the five
countries.
Table 25. National standards or regulations.
Country Location of national requirements
France One standard National annex included in the NF EN 206
Ireland National Annex; published with IS EN 206-1 as a single document.
Portugal
The Portuguese requirements are in the National Annex to NP EN 206-1
and to NP EN 13670-1 and in the following National Civil Engineering
Laboratory (LNEC) specifications, referenced in the NA of NP EN 206-1.
LNEC E 461:2007: Methodology for avoiding internal expansive reactions
LNEC E 464:2005: Prescriptive methodology for a 50 and 100 years
design working life under the environmental exposures.
LNEC E 465:2005: Methodology for estimating the concrete performance
properties allowing to comply with the design working life of the reinforced
or prestressed concrete structures under the environmental exposures XC
and XS.
Spain Spain has not adopted yet EN 206-1
[1]

United
Kingdom
BS 8500: Concrete - Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1
- Part 1: Method of specifying and guidance for the specifier.
- Part 2: Specification for constituent materials and concrete.

D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
32
4.2 Exposure classes
In the classification of exposure classes, the European countries have found the
need to simplify the system and have grouped classes. The major reasons for
grouping exposure classes are: to simplify the system for local needs, in some
local environments two classes co-exist at same time; the concrete specification
is the same for different classes and it is difficult for engineers to distinguish
some classes for other. Table 26 presents the classes grouped in the countries.
Some countries have not grouped the exposure classes, but have the same
quality of concrete for several exposure classes. If they are following EN 1992-
1-1:2004
[4]
, this may lead to different minimum cover depths to reinforcement.
Table 26. Grouped exposure classes in each country.
Country Grouped exposure classes
France
(XC1, XC2)
(XC3 XC4, XD1, XF1)
(XS1, XS2)
Ireland None
Portugal (XS, XD)
United
Kingdom
(XC3, XC4)
In 2006 revision of BS 8500-1, the recommendations for resisting the
XD and XS exposures are adequate for resisting the associated XC
exposure
4.3 Methods for minimising risk of damage by AAR
EN 206-1:2000
[1]
leaves provisions to resist alkali-aggregate reaction (AAR) to
national rules. Each country developed their own methods to avoid or minimise
the damage by AAR. Table 27 summarises the national standard or
specifications with the requirements to reduce the risk of AAR in concrete.
Table 28 is a summary of the methods used to minimise the concrete damage
by AAR and for classification of reactivity of aggregates. Table 29 lists the
methods used in the different countries to evaluate the resistance of concrete to
AAR.
Table 27. National recommendations and standards for reduce the risk of AAR.
Country Location of national requirements
France
Guidelines: Recommendations for the prevention of damage by the alkali-
aggregate reaction, LCPC, 1994.
Ireland
Alkali-Silica Reaction in Concrete, published by The Institution of
Engineers of Ireland and The Irish Concrete Society, 2003. (IEI/ICS ASR
Report).
Portugal LNEC E 461:2004: Methodology for avoiding internal expansive reactions.
United
Kingdom
BS 8500-2 (see Table 1). More detailed guidance is provided in BRE
Digest 330: Alkali-silica reaction in concrete.
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
33
Table 28. Methods to minimise damage by AAR and classification of
aggregates reactivity.
Country
Methods
Aggregates reactivity Use of type II
additions
Maximum
alkali
content
Performance
method
France No
Yes; value
depends upon
cement type
and aggregate
reactivity.
Yes on the
annex G of the
French
Guidelines.
Yes, FD P 18-542:
(Criteria for the
classification of
aggregates) + XP P 18-
594 (Performance tests,
petrographic analysis,
chemical tests).
Ireland Yes
Yes; value
varies with
aggregate
reactivity.
Yes; Testing,
History of use,
for moisture
control.
Yes; IEI/ICS ASR
Report
Portugal
Yes, using silica
fume, fly ash or
slag in defined
contents for
reactive class II
and III (LNEC E
461:2004).
Yes; value
varies with
aggregate
reactivity.
Yes, in the
Specification
LNEC E 461, for
reactive classes
II and III.
Yes, given in LNEC E
461:2004: Methodology
for avoiding internal
expansive reactions.
United
Kingdom
Yes for normal
reactivity
aggregates.
Yes for
normal and
high reactivity
aggregates.
Yes for highly
reactive
aggregates.
Yes, given in BRE
Digest 330: Alkali-silica
reaction in concrete.
Table 29. Performance methods used to evaluate concrete resistance to AAR.
Country Performance method
France
NF P 18-454: (Performance test on concrete) and NF P 18-456 (Criteria
to assess the reactivity of the concrete tested in accordance with NF P
18-454).
Ireland
Reference made to test methods described in IEI/ICS ASR Report.
These may assist in making judgments but are not regarded as
necessarily definitive.
Portugal
ASTM C 1260-1 for evaluating the reactivity of aggregates class II or III or
of a reactive mixture of aggregates and RILEM AAR-3 and AAR-4 for
evaluating the reactivity of the aggregates or concrete composition.
United
Kingdom
Uses BS 812-123 test and expansion at 2 years to determine the alkali
content to give 0.08 % expansion. The limit for concrete using this
aggregate is then set at 1.50 kg/m
3
Na
2
O less than the determined alkali
content.
Described in Testing protocol for greywacke aggregates.
4.4 Limiting values for concrete mixes
EN 206-1:2000
[1]
recommends limiting values for CEM I concrete with each of
the exposure classes, but in reality limiting values for durability are given in the
national requirements. As an example, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 show the national
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
34
requirements/recommendations for maximum w/c ratio, minimum cement
content and minimum compressive strength class in exposure classes XC4 and
XS3 respectively in the four countries considered for the comparison for an
intended working life of 50 years. The data show that there is no agreed
relationship between compressive strength class, maximum w/c ratio and
minimum cement content. In few cases for a given exposure class, the use of
some blended cements is linked to a higher/lower cement content and a
lower/higher water-cement ratio, as shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7.




Fig. 6. Comparison of National Provisions to EN 206-1 for the exposure
Class XC4.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
E
N

2
0
6
-
1
F
R
I
R
P
T
U
K
Minimum cement content (kg/m
3
)
min
min
max
max
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
E
N

2
0
6
-
1
F
R
I
R
P
T
U
K
Maximum W/C ratio
min
min
max
max
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
E
N

2
0
6
-
1
F
R
I
R
P
T
P
T
U
K
Minimum compressive strength class for
cubes (MPa)
min
max D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
35






Fig. 7. Comparison of National Provisions to EN 206-1 for the exposure
Class XS3.

310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
E
N

2
0
6
-
1
F
R
I
R
P
T
U
K
Minimum cement content (kg/m3)
max max
min min
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
E
N
2
0
6
-
1
F
R
I
R
P
T
U
K
Maximum W/C ratio
min
min
max
max
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
E
N

2
0
6
-
1
F
R
I
R
P
T
U
K
Minimum compressive strength class for
cubes (MPa)
min
min
max
max
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
36
5 Examples of projects with performance limits for
concrete durability
This section will present examples of performance based specifications for
concrete durability used on recent projects in the UK, Ireland, Portugal, France
and in other European countries and in the world. The amount of literature in
this area is relatively scarce, which further highlights the needs for research into
this area.
Table 30 give examples of performance requirements for these projects
including tunnels, viaducts, bridges and marine structures.
Projects such as the Oresund-link Tunnel between Denmark and Sweden (Fig. 8)
have also specified the gas permeability, chloride diffusion coefficient and the
electrical properties of the concrete as performance requirements. Also, the
Confederation Bridge in Canada (Fig. 9) and the Rion-Antirion Bridge in Greece
(Fig. 10) specified performance criteria for the concrete in terms of the electrical
properties.

Fig. 8. Left: Oresund bridge. Right: Esquematic of the connection between
Denmark and Sweden Bridge and tunnel.

Fig. 9. Confederation Bridge in Canada.
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
37

Fig. 10. Rion-Antirion Bridge in Greece.
Table 31 outlines the tests used to assess the performance and the limit values
established for some of the projects listed in Table 30.
What has also been demonstrated by the examples of performance limits is the
need for one test to assess if the concrete has satisfied the guidelines set. A
RILEM committee TC 189
[26]
has been set up to do just this with contributions
by the various tests to assess their viability.
The RILEM Technical Committee TC 189
[26]
reported a review of common tests
that measured various concrete durability transport properties, namely gas and
liquid permeability, capillary absorption of water and chloride ion ingress. Using
a selection of frequently used methods for these properties suitable for
laboratory and on-site testing, an evaluation of the suitability and range of
applicability was made, along with proposing improvements and correlating the
measured transport parameters for durability characteristics. The transport
coefficients investigated are being used as criterion for concrete durability at an
early age (during pre-testing of concrete mixes) and routine testing in
production control, as well as on material coefficients for numerical modelling.
The Cembureau method is used for measuring the gas permeability as it was
found to be very reliable, easy to handle and produced good repeatability. The
bore methods were found to frequently fail due to leakage. In terms of capillary
absorption, the modified Fagerlund test was recommended as again it was
found to be easy to conduct and the results showed very little scatter. However,
despite the three tests used, a recommendation to measure the chloride ion
diffusion could not be made.
In Ireland, examples of performance specifications are few but recent inclusion
of ggbs in specifications by the National Roads Authority is considered as a
step to improve the durability and the life expectancy of bridges. Performance
criteria for a harbour project near Dublin are shown in Table 32, where, for the
various cements types used, the ranges of acceptable diffusion rates are
indicated. Other examples of this type of performance criteria are found in
projects including bridges, marine projects, basement structures, multi-storey
car-parks and water and wastewater plants.

D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
38

Table 30. Examples of engineering projects with performance based
criteria for durability.
[27]
Structure
Channel
Tunnel (UK-
France)
Vasco da
Gama Bridge
(Fig. 11)
(Portugal)
Medway
Viaduct
(Fig. 12)
(UK)
Millau Bridge
(Fig. 13)
(France)
Extension
of
Condamine
Port floating
dyke
(France)
Construction
Period
1987-1992 1995-1998 1998-2001 2002-2004 1999-2002
Specified
service life
120 years 120 years 100 years 120 years 100 years
Concrete Type B45 & B55
B40, B45 and
B50
C40 to C60 B60 B54, B65
Type of Binder
CEM I PM
(additions
permitted)
PM
(seawater)
cement
containing
FA
CEM I +
slag or
CEM I + FA
CEM I 52.5 N
PM ES CP2
no additions
CEM I PM
(seawater)
+ FA + SF
Max w/c ratio 0.32 0.33 to 0.42 0.45 0.50
Max. 0.45
W
eff/c
0.335
0.35
Min. Cement
(kg/m
3
)
400 for 425
requested
400 - 420 -
Min. Cement
and additions
(kg/m
3
)
- - 325 to 350 - 425
Aggregates NR NR - Class A, NR Class A, NR
Water porosity - - - 11-13 (piers)
< 12 (B54)
< 10 (B65)
Water
Permeability
(m/s)
< 10
-13
- - - -
Gas
Permeability
(m
2
)
-
< 10
-17

(at 28 days)
-
<10
-17

(at 90 days)
< 10
-16
- 10
-17

(28 days 80
C drying)
Apparent
Chloride
Diffusion
Coeff.(m
2
/s)
-
< 10
-12

(at 28 days)
< 10
-12

<10
-12

(at 90 days)
< 5 x 10
-12
(B54)
< 1 x 10
-12
(B65)
Oxygen
Diffusion
Coeff.(m
2
/s)
- - < 5 x 10
-8
- -
Quantity of
electricity
(coulombs)
-
< 1500
at 28 days
< 1000
at 90 days
- -
100-1000
(B65)
1000-2000
(B54)




D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
39

Fig. 11. Vasco da Gama bridge in Lisbon, Portugal.


Fig. 12. Medway Viaduct in UK.

Fig. 13. Millau Bridge in France.

D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
40
Table 31. Description of tests used to assess the performance and the
limits of parameters measured.
[27]

Project Property
Specified durability
property
Description of
tests
Results
Channel
Tunnel
Water
permeability
(m/sec)
< 10
-13

Water
permeability tests
measuring the
depth of ingress of
water
0.6 0.7
x 10
-13
m/s
at 50 days
1.4 x 10
-13
m/s
at 8 months
Vasco da
Gama
Bridge
Gas
Permeability
(m
2
)
< 10
-17

at 28 days
Cembureau
method
0.7 0.3
x 10
-17
m
2

between 28 and
90 days
0.01
x 10
-17
m
2

at 18 months
Vasco da
Gama
Bridge
Apparent
Chloride
Diffusion
Coeff.
(m
2
/sec)
< 10
-12

at 28 days
Migration test in
non-steady state
conditions
1.0 4.0
x 10
-12
m
2
/s
between 28 and
90 days
0.2 0.8
x 10
-12
m
2
/s
at 18 months
Quantity of
electricity
(coulombs)
<1500
at 28 days
< 1000
at 90 days
AASHTO test
(ASTM Standard
C1202.

Extension of
Condamine
Port floating
dyke
Water porosity
< 12 (B54)
< 10 (B65)
Mercury Intrusion
(water porosity).
AFPC-AFREM
procedure
(mercury porosity)
8.8 9.4

5.8 5.6
Gas
Permeability
(m
2
)
< 10
-16
- 10
-17

(28 days 80 C
drying)
AFPC-AFREM
Test procedure
5.54 x 10
-19

1.25 x 10
-18

Apparent
Chloride
Diffusion
Coeff.(m
2
/sec)
< 5 x 10
-12
(B54)
< 1 x 10
-12
(B65)
Non-steady state
(Tang Method)

Quantity of
electricity
(coulombs)
100-1000 (B65)
1000 - 2000 (B54)
AASHTO test
(ASTM Standard
C1202)
377 - 401



D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
41
Table 32. Specified diffusion limits for various concrete types in a harbour
project in Ireland. Similar limits are used for other projects such
as bridges, basements, car-parks and water and waste-water
plants.
Cement Type Diffusion Coefficient (m
2
/s)
CEM I 7 - 18 x 10
-12

CEM II/A 7 - 17 x 10
-12

CEM II/B 5 - 10 x 10
-12

CEM III/A 2 - 5 x 10
-12

CEM III/B 0.9 - 3.5 x 10
-12

In terms of the air and water permeability, the Autoclam apparatus (developed
by Queen's University Belfast) provided a quick and simple non-destructive test
that can be easily set-up on any concrete element on site where results can be
obtained for each property after 15 minutes. They have shown to give good
repeatability and the results had little scatter.
For chloride ion diffusion the PERMIT apparatus (developed by Queen's
University Belfast) is a non-destructive test which is easily conducted on site
with good repeatability. The comparative testing carried out by the RILEM
Technical Committee TC 189
[26]
was unable to recommend a suitable test to
measure the chloride ion diffusion.

D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
42
6 Conclusions
This volume has presented a review of the new concrete code EN 206-1:2000
[1]

along with a complementary specification to achieve these recommendations,
namely BS 8500:2006
[11] [12]
in the UK, Irish National annex to IS EN 206:2002
[16]

in Ireland and the Portuguese national annex to NP EN 206-1:2005
[17]
which
include the three specification LNEC E461:2004
[18]
, LNEC E464:2005
[19]
and
E 465:2005
[20]
in Portugal. These standards may prove easier for
clients/specifiers to use than EN 206-1:2000
[1]
and, particularly in the Irish code,
give recommendations or trade-offs between cover depth and cement quantities
and the use of cement replacement products like ggbs and pfa.
It is now widely accepted that the concept of designing concrete based mainly
on strength does not take into account the time-evolution of performance of the
structure or the change in environmental/structural loading.
The durability of concrete structures depends on a combination of adequate
design, materials selection and execution. The sensitivity of the design concept,
the structural system, the shape of members and structural/architectural
detailing are all significant design parameters. The compatibility of materials,
the construction method, the quality of workmanship, levels of control and
quality assurance are also significant parameters for achieving durability.
Workmanship and maintenance strategies are also vitally important in achieving
durable structures.
Actually the design, specification and execution of concrete structures are
supported by the three main standards: EN 1992-1-1:2004
[4]
for design of
concrete structures, EN 206-1:2000
[1]
specification, performance, production
and conformity of concrete and EN 13670:2009
[5]
for execution of concrete
structures.
EN 206-1:2000
[1]
was introduced as an attempt to quantify the durability
requirements for concrete structures exposed to different environments. Service
life of a concrete structure will depend mainly on the quality of concrete and the
deterioration mechanisms that are associated with various exposure
environments. The methodology followed in EN 206-1:2000
[1]
classify the micro
and macro environment surrounding a concrete structure into various exposure
classes.
The EN 206-1:2000
[1]
also indicates that concrete may be specified in terms of
performance-related parameters such as the resistance to environmental
actions, e.g. scaling of concrete in a freeze/thaw test.
Considering that the quality of concrete is a function of the concrete mix design
e.g., material properties, placement and workmanship, one can start to
understand the limitations of the prescriptive or deemed to satisfy approach
which concentrates solely on the concrete mix design.
An improvement to the current practice would be to specify the expected
performance further to the prescriptive requirements (hereafter termed as
prescriptive specifications). However, specifying performance would require at
the least a thorough understanding of the concrete behaviour in different
environments and test methods to assess the performance.
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
43
Through this approach, the recommendations in EN 206-1:2000
[1]
will be met
as they must satisfy the following requirements:
long-term experience of local materials and practices and on detailed
knowledge of the local environment;
approved and proven tests that are representative of actual conditions
and have approved performance criteria;
analytical models that have been calibrated against test data
representative of actual conditions in practice. The concrete
composition and the constituent materials should be closely defined to
enable the level of performance to be maintained.

D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
44
7 References
[1] EN 206-1:2000/A2:2005, Concrete-Part 1: Specification performance,
production and conformity.
[2] MACDONALD, S. The investigation and repair of historic concrete.
[Parramatta, Australia]: NSW Heritage Office, 2003.
[3] FIB. Model code for service life design - Bulletin 34. Lausanne: FIB, 2006.
ISBN 13: 978-2-88394-074-1.
[4] EN 1992-1-1:2004/AC:2010, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures-
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
[5] EN 13670:2009, Execution of concrete structures.
[6] EN 13369:2004/AC:2007, Common rules for precast concrete products.
[7] EN 197-1:2000, Cement - Part 1: Composition, specifications and
conformity criteria for common cements.
[8] EN 1990:2002/A1:2005/AC: 2010, Eurocode - Basis of structural design.
[9] THE CONCRETE SOCIETY. Technical report 31: Permeability testing of
site concrete - A review of methods and experience. London: Concrete
Society, 1988.
[10] BS EN 206-1: 2000, Concrete. Specification, performance, production and
conformity.
[11] BS 8500-1:2006, Concrete. Complementary British Standard to BS EN
206-1. Part 1- Method of specifying and guidance for the specifier.
[12] 8500-2:2006, Concrete. Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1.
Part 2 - Specification for constituent materials and concrete.
[13] BS 8110-1:1997, Structural use of concrete. Code of practice for design
and construction.
[14] BS 4027: 1996, Specification for sulfate-resisting Portland cement.
[15] IS 326-2-1: 1995, Concrete - part 2-1: guide to specifying concrete.
[16] IS EN 206-1: 2002: Concrete - Part 1: Specification, performance,
production and conformity (Consisting of I.S. EN 206-1:2002 and the Irish
National Annex).
[17] NP EN 206-1:2005/A1:2006, Concrete. Specification, performance,
production and conformity (Portuguese National Annex).
[18] LNEC E 461:2004, Concrete. Methodologies for avoiding internal
expansive reactions.
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t
DURABILITY FACTORS AND REQUIREMENTS
45
[19] LNEC E 464:2005, Concrete. Prescriptive methodology for a design
working life of 50 years and of 100 years under environmental actions.
[20] LNEC E 465:2005, Concrete. Methodology for estimating the concrete
performance properties allowing to comply with the design working life of
reinforced and prestressed concrete structures under the environmental
exposure XC e XS.
[21] TUTTI, K. Corrosion of steel in concrete. Swedish cement and concrete.
Stockholm: CBI, 1982.
[22] NF EN 206-1: 2004, Concrete. Part 1: Specification, performance,
production and conformity (French National Annex).
[23] NF EN 206-1/A1:2005, Concrete. Part 1: Specification, performance,
production and conformity, Amendment A1 (French National Annex).
[24] NF EN 206-1/A2:2005: Concrete. Part 1: Specification, performance,
production and conformity, Amendment A2 (French National Annex).
[25] CEN. Technical Report. Survey of national requirements used in
conjunction with EN 206-1:2000. 2007.
[26] TORRENT, R. and F. LUCO, eds. Report of RILEM Technical Committee
TC-189-NEC: Non-Destructive evaluation of the penetrability and
thickness of cover concrete. RILEM Report 40.
[27] BAROGHEL-BOUNY, V. et al. Concrete design for a given structure
service life durability management with regards to reinforcement
corrosion and alkalisilica reaction. State-of-the-art and guide for the
implementation of a predictive performance approach based upon
durability indicators. Scientific and technical documents of AFGC. Paris:
AFGC, issue in French 2004 and issue in English 2007.
D
u
r
a
t
i
N
e
t