The most important construction issue emerging to the fore at the turn of the millennium is

sustainability. Can our new structures be provided in a way that does not have a negative impact on the
balance sheet of our planet’s finite resources? How do we determine an adequate specification for
concrete, project by project, in a manner that will achieve satisfactory performance over the required
life of the structure without squandering the earth’s resources? Over-specification is both wasteful of
resources and unjust to the client. Under-specification, on the other hand, leads to premature and costly
repair work, often with considerable disruption to third parties, such as road users, and ultimately a
higher cost in financial and environmental terms. Towards the end of the twentieth century over a
quarter of a million concrete bridges in the United States of America were classified as deficient and the
number was increasing by 3500 per annum.

Durable concrete is quality concrete. A quality product is one that meets predetermined expectations.
These expectations may be set out in a specification and can vary from one project to another
depending on serviceability requirements.

e. It is also worth stating at the outset that durable concrete need not be maintenance-free concrete.
Specification of durable concrete involves a mutual understanding by both the specifier and the end-
user of what is meant by durability

the design life of the structure or its individual elements; • the serviceability requirement; • a
quantifiable description of the criteria that define serviceability failure; • the acceptable level of risk; •
the permissible extent, if any, of maintenance.

Full application of these issues to future practice will require three developments. First, development
and acceptance of mathematical models of deterioration that can be easily applied in practice. Second,
development and acceptance of universally applicable tests for properties of concrete from which the
likely future satisfactory performance of the concrete may be verified. Third, the adoption of a
probabilistic approach to durability design with agreed values of the acceptable probability of failure or
reliability index.

. Structural failures are rare but durability failure is all too common. Many studies, such as that by Mac
Craith (1985), have highlighted the potential deficiencies in concrete over its service life, particularly in
respect of corrosion of embedded reinforcement. The historical decline in durability levels lay, partly, in
the development of

. The net result was that concrete strength grades and workability requirements were maintained with
lower cement contents. Water/cement ratios were appreciably higher than a decade before and this led
to higher permeability concretes. Concern for the serious implications regarding durability was voiced by
some and the problem was addressed. An example is that of the inclusion in the United Kingdom Code
of Practice CP 110:1972 of specific durability recommendations for a range of exposure classes. The
recommendations took the form of limits on minimum cement content and maximum water/cement
ratio.
The heightened awareness among designers of the need to specify for durability as well as strength led
to anomalies. Specifications sometimes included redundant parameters with the result that the
producer was forced to endure inefficient use of materials. Additionally the range included mixes that
satisfied the designer’s intention regarding strength but not the durability requirement. This problem
was overcome by the introduction of the ‘national durability grade’ concept, as proposed by Deacon and
Dewar (1982). The basis of the concept is illustrated in Figure 1.3.

It may be seen that for any given grade of concrete within the national population one can establish an
absolute maximum water/cement ratio and a minimum cement content or deduce statistical values,
such as those applicable to a 95 per cent confidence interval.

Nevertheless durability grade was seen as being a contributor to durable concrete but not the final
solution. Two significant shortcomings existed. The first involved the variation of national material
properties with time and the difficulty of tracking these changes in codes of practice. The second
involved the continued use of exposure conditions categorised on the general basis of environment
rather than on specific deterioration mechanisms

categorised for example as ‘mild’, ‘moderate’, ‘severe’ etc., made reference to environments rather
than specific deterioration mechanisms. This may have had the effect in some instances of over-
simplifying the process for some specifiers

The development of durability-related performance tests and criteria is progressing steadily. The
primary topics being studied are carbonation, freeze/thaw performance, and sulfate resistance. Other
characteristics may prove worthy of investigation. For example, criteria for the acceptance of concrete
cover based on a statistical evaluation of the achieved cover rather than a single minimum value. Tests
for chloride ingress and abrasion resistance may soon prove applicable to more widespread practice.
There have been inevitable setbacks –

This all-encompassing methodology relies to a considerable extent on the exercise of engineering

judgement. Guidance is given on interpreting the descriptions but it cannot be exhaustive. Examples
arise