Materials and Structures (2008) 41:717–731
DOI 10.1617/s11527-007-9276-3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Concepts and requirements of durability design for concrete
structures: an extensive review of CCES01
Kefei Li Æ Zhaoyuan Chen Æ Huizhen Lian
Received: 13 October 2006 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 4 July 2007

RILEM 2007
Abstract Acquiring enough durability for concrete
structures in their design phase is a crucial step
against unexpected deterioration during their service
life. This article gives an extensive and in-depth
review of the first Chinese national guide, CCES01-
2004, destined exclusively for durability design of
concrete structures. Based on the state-of-art knowl-
edge on durability and in place experiences, this
guide formulates its durability requirements from
several fundamental concepts: environmental action,
durability limit state and structure service life. For
each environmental class and expected service life,
the guide details its requirements on raw material
constituents, concrete curing conditions, material
performance as well as structure details, in particular
the concrete cover to reinforcement steel. The
relevant quantitative requirements are compared with
those from other codes such as EuroCode2, EN206,
ACI318 and CSA. As a special case, the durability of
post-tensioned prestressed concrete structures is
treated separately and a multi-layer, environment-
based strategy is proposed for the prestress tendon
and anchorage protection. At the end, the remaining
crucial questions are brought forth for durability
design of concrete structures.
K. Li (&)
Z. Chen
H. Lian
Civil Engineering Department, Tsinghua University,
Beijing 100084, P.R. China
e-mail: likefei@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn
Keywords Durability
Design
Concrete
structure
Environmental action
Service life
1 Introduction
The durability problems of concrete structure origi-
nate from the environmental actions of aggressive
agents on concrete, they can cause premature material
deterioration, impair structural service performance
and, in extreme cases, can even induce the structural
failure. The common durability phenomena have
been relatively well defined, including steel corrosion
by concrete cover carbonation, steel corrosion by
chloride penetration, concrete damage by freeze-thaw
cycles in cold climates, concrete scaling by salt
crystallization in dry climates, long-term leaching of
concrete solid phase by soft water as well as chemical
attack of concrete by acid rain or aggressive ions in
ground water and soil [1, 2]. Some concrete internal
swelling chemical reactions, as alkali-aggregate
reaction and internal sulfate reaction, although not
necessarily induced by external environmental
agents, are also referred to as durability phenomena.
Moreover, the concrete damage due to surface
mechanical wearing is also considered as durability
problems [2, 3]. Considerable effort of laboratory
research and field investigations have been dedicated
to capture the deterioration mechanisms and damage
effects of these durability-related phenomena while
the acquired knowledge is far from complete. Among
718
these phenomena, the steel corrosion process is
relatively better understood with identified mecha-
nisms, proposed mathematical models and estab-
lished monitoring and prevention techniques [4].
However, for other processes we are not yet at this
stage. It is in this background that the durability
design for concrete structures is to be performed.
Since 1980s’ China has undergone one of the
vastest concrete infrastructure construction in the
world, which can be testified by its cement consump-
tion of 1.06 billion tons in 2005 approaching 50% of
the global cement production (2.27 billion tons).
However, recent investigations reveal a critical
situation of service conditions of the concrete infra-
structures: for civil residence buildings, 50% need
retrofit and 10% necessitate urgent intervention; the
deteriorated highway bridges amount to 9597 by
2000; 18.8% of railway bridges manifest degradation
of different extents; water infiltration failure cases are
as much as 54% for railway tunnels and 13.2% is
recorded for tunnel lining cracking. The statistics of
average service life are also alarming: 30–40 years
for civil buildings, 20–30 years for industrial build-
ings, 10–20 years for marine ports before major
interventions, 10–20 years for bridges exposed to
deicing chemicals before major retrofits [5]. Thus for
the concrete structures yet to be constructed, amelio-
rating their durability has a both technical and
economical significance. However, the durability
design of concrete structures in China has a specific
technical background, that is, such concrete practice
standard as ACI manual in US or EN206 in Europe is
not yet available in China. As a consequence, it is
necessary to create separately a concrete durability
design code giving both material and structural
requirements. This is the very origin of the national
guide CCES01-2004, which is issue from the Chinese
Civil Engineering Society (CCES) and is supposed to
be the basis for durability technical standards in more
specialized engineering sectors.
In this article, the authors review extensively the
principal employed concepts and detailed require-
ments for durability design in CCES01. Some
quantitative requirements are compared with those
from other codes or standards, including EuroCode2,
EN206, ACI318 and CSA, and the relevant com-
ments are given on their difference. Accordingly, this
article is organized in the following way: the basic
concepts for durability design are defined and
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:717–731
reviewed in Sect. 2; the material and structural
requirements are given and discussed for each
environment class in Sect. 3; in Sect. 4 the durability
of post-tensioned prestressed concrete structures is
treated and the final part of article is dedicated to
some remaining crucial questions for durability
design.
2 Basic concepts of durability design
There are basically two approaches to perform
durability design: prescription method and model-
based method. The prescription method imposes
requirements on material constituents (content and
composition), construction practice as well as struc-
ture details on the basis of the exposure environment,
expected service life and intended service condition
of structure. This qualitative approach is followed by
most design codes in use, such as EN206-1 [6],
EuroCode2 [7], ACI318 [8] and CSA [9]. The model-
based method focuses on a specific deterioration
process, describes the involved mechanisms by
mathematical models and predicts numerically the
induced degradation extent for material and structure.
At present, the model-based method is more and
more used in durability design, a detailed review of
the available models and their use in durability design
can be referred to DuraCrete documents [10], fib
Model Code [11] and RILEM TC130-CSL docu-
ments [12, 13]. It should be pointed out that the two
methods are rather complementary than opposite one
to the other. In a complete design procedure, the
prescription method determines the material constit-
uents, construction practice and structural details,
then the model-based method is employed to evaluate
the deterioration extent and check the relevant
performance criteria such as safety factor or reliabil-
ity index.
The guide CCES01 defines the term ‘‘durability’’
as the ability of a concrete structure to maintain its
service performance under environmental actions
during its expected service life [14]. Three basic
concepts of durability design are thus involved: the
environmental action describes the external solici-
tation, the expected service life defines the valid
duration and the service performance to be main-
tained is the reference limit state.
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:717–731 719

2.1 Environmental action
The environmental action is imposed on structural
concrete by external agents in environment. Broadly
speaking, these agents include all the matter possibly
inducing a deterioration process to concrete. In accor-
dance with the state-of-art knowledge of concrete
durability, the guide CCES01 takes into account the
following processes: the carbonation-induced and
chloride-induced corrosion of reinforcement steel in
concrete, concrete damage by freeze-thaw cycles,
concrete scaling by salt crystallization, concrete deg-
radation by chemicals in ground water, soil and
polluted atmosphere. Accordingly, the environmental
actions are firstly classified by the concrete deteriora-
tion mechanisms in Table 1. Other deterioration
processes, such as alkali-aggregate reaction and sulafte
reaction, the long-term leaching of concrete by soft
water and the concrete surface wearing, are considered
as special cases and not covered by this classification.
The subsequent step of environment classification is
to define the intensity of each environmental action on
concrete structures. For a model-based method, the
environmental action intensity should be quantified as
the boundary conditions for mathematical models for
the deterioration process. For the prescription method,
the intensity of a specific environmental action is
usually divided into several qualitative grades. The
guide CCES01 grades the intensity of all the environ-
mental actions from A to F with A standing for the
slightest action intensity and F the most severe one, see
Table 1. In the following the environmental class refers
to both the action type and its intensity. The durability
requirements are then to be formulated on the basis of
this classification. One should be cautious about the
same intensity for different environment types, for
example I-C and III-C. Their action intensities just
roughly correspond one to another and can have
different environment-based requirements.
2.2 Durability limit state
The durability limit state (DLS) defines the accept-
able deterioration extent of structural concrete subject
to environmental actions. From the point of view of
CCES01, it belongs, together with deformation, crack
and fatigue control, to the serviceability limit state
(SLS). Accordingly the partial safety factors or
reliability index established at SLS level should be
applicable to durability design as the model-based
method is employed. It is to be noted that, for some
authors [15], the DLS can be either defined at SLS
level or at ultimate limit state (ULS) level. The guide
CCES01 prescribes a reliability index of 1.5 for DLS,
corresponding to a failure probability about 6%. For
comparison, the fib Model Code [11] gives a
reliability index of the same order, 1.8, corresponding
to a failure probability about 4%.
Nevertheless, the DLS is dependent on the dete-
rioration process and should be defined in term of the
process in question and the acceptable extent of
deterioration. For model-based method, the DLS
should also be expressed and quantified in term of the
deterioration effects. For the aforementioned deteri-
oration processes, the guide CCES01 defines three
DLS: (1) Corrosion initiation, (2) Corrosion to an
acceptable extent and (3) Concrete damage to an
acceptable extent. The corrosion initiation state
means the initiation of electrochemical process of
steel corrosion, which corresponds to the carbonation
front transgressing concrete cover for carbonation-
induced corrosion and the Cl accumulation reaching
its critical concentration at the steel surface for
chloride-induced corrosion. The state of corrosion to

Table 1 Classification of environmental action type and intensity by CCES01

Class Environment Intensity Deterioration process

I Atmospheric A,B,C Corrosion of embedded steel in concrete by concrete cover carbonation

II Freeze-thaw C,D,E Concrete damage by internal pore water freezing due to frost in cold climate
III Marine C,D,E,F Corrosion of embedded steel in concrete by chloride penetration
IV Deicing and other salts C,D,E Same as above
V Chemicals C,D,E Concrete deterioration by aggressive agents in soil and ground water,
by industrial polluted air or by salt crystallization
720
an acceptable extent tolerates a certain degree of steel
corrosion that the corrosion depth of steel bars
remains inferior to 0.1 mm and no parallel cracking
to steel bars is created. The state of concrete damage
to an acceptable extent permits such an extent of
concrete scaling not to impair the esthetical appear-
ance and mechanical resistance of structure. These
three DLS are detailed in Table 2 for the design
application and the concerned environmental classes.
2.3 Service life
The service life represents the valid period during
which durability design should assure the structure
performance remaining within the relevant DLS. The
service life can be either prescribed by design code or
specified in construction contract. For a model-based
design, the service life can be predicted with
deterioration process modeling, quantified DLS and
environmental action intensity in either a determin-
istic or probabilistic way [10, 11]. The prescription
method considers the service life as a qualitative
parameter of structure importance and uses it to
formulate durability requirements.
The guide CCES01 prescribes service life for three
categories of civil structures: at least 100 years for
symbolic, monumental buildings, large-scale public
establishments, large-span or tall buildings, large-
scale municipal bridges, viaducts and large-scale
municipal construction; at least 50 years for residen-
tial buildings, medium and small public establish-
ments, medium and short-span bridges, normal
municipal constructions and large-scale industrial
constructions; at least 30 years for temporary build-
ings and industrial constructions.
3 Durability requirements
For a given environmental class, expected service
life and durability limit state, the guide CCES01
Table 2 Durability limit states (DLS) defined for different environmental classes
DLS Applied environments Design cases
Corrosion initiation I,III,IV
Corrosion to acceptable extent I,III,IV
Concrete damage to acceptable extent II,V
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:717–731
formulates the durability requirements at both mate-
rial and structural levels.
The material requirements include raw material
constituents (content and composition), curing con-
dition as well as material performance. Concrete raw
material constituents and the curing condition dictate
the chemical stability, the porous microstructure as
well as the mechanical resistance. For raw material
constituents, the guide imposes limitation on cement
type, binder (cementitious materials) content in
concrete mixing, binder composition, water to binder
ratio and some environment-based parameters such as
the chloride content in concrete mixing for corrosive
environments III and IV. Here, the prescription on
cement type is based on the Chinese cement classi-
fication standards [16–18], and the nomenclature of
cements and their composition are given in Appen-
dix. Due to the widely using of mineral admixture in
concrete, water to binder ratio is adopted instead of
water to cement ratio. In the guide, the reference
mineral constituents in binder include fly ash and slag
with f, s signifying respectively the fly ash and slag
contents in binder materials. The prescription on
curing condition is to assure concrete to acquire
expected performance through in field construction
practice. The guide prescribes wet curing period,
achieved strength at the end of curing and minimum
exposure age of concrete to environments. The
material performance reflects the acquired properties
in the hardened phase, including the conventional
concrete strength at 28 days through standard curing
procedure and durability index based on laboratory
tests and specific for a given deterioration process. At
structural level, the requirements pertain to the
concrete cover to reinforcement, by its thickness
correlated to the strength, and crack control adapted
to different environments. In Table 3 are noted the
requirements for environment I–V and the detailed
requirements for each environment are to be given in
the following sections.
Prestress tendon, cold-working rebars, rebars with diameter <6 mm
Reinforcement steel, other metals embedded in concrete
Plain concrete, surface of reinforced concrete
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:717–731 721

Table 3 Durability
Durability requirement Environment type
requirements for different
environments I II III IV V

Material Cement type · · · · ·

Binder content in concrete · · · · ·
Binder composition · · · · ·
Water to binder ratio · · · · ·
Environment-specific parameter · · ·
Curing condition · · · · ·
Concrete strength at 28 days · · · · ·
Durability index · · ·
Structure Concrete cover · · ·
Crack control · · · · ·

The alkali-aggregate reaction and internal sulfate
reaction, though considered as intrinsic processes,
can be greatly activated and accelerated by environ-
mental water intake. The guide gives the limitation
on soluble alkali content (equivalent Na2O) for alkali-
reaction and SO3 content for internal sulfate reaction.
A more refined environment-based control of alkali-
aggregate reaction can be referred to the latest
research result [19]. Moreover, the long-term leach-
ing, surface mechanical wearing and concrete dete-
rioration by industrial chemicals are not covered in
this guide.
3.1 Atmospheric environment
In atmospheric environment the durability design
aims to avoid the carbonation-induced corrosion of
steel embedded in concrete. Here the corrosion
process is composed of concrete carbonation and
the subsequent steel corrosion. Apart from the
intrinsic chemical composition of cement, the con-
crete carbonation process is substantially influenced
by the concrete humidity. It is shown that there exists
an optimal humidity, near 60%, for CO2 transport in
pores and the carbonation reaction between the
dissolved CO2 and the portlandite Ca(OH)2 in pore
solution. However, for the subsequent corrosion
process, low humidity makes concrete electrically
very resistant and extremely high humidity drives out
the oxygen necessary for electrochemical process, the
optimal humidity approaching 95% [4]. Accordingly
the most favorable condition for the corrosion is
exposure to drying–wetting cycles under which both
carbonation and corrosion processes can develop
easily. The action intensity of atmospheric environ-
ment is thus defined by humidity conditions, in
particular the exposure to drying–wetting cycles.
The action intensity of atmospheric environment is
divided into I-A, I-B and I-C with the detailed
exposure conditions and the corresponding typical
design cases defined in Table 4. For comparison, the
equivalent classification of EuroCode2 (EN206), if
existed, is also noted. The minimum requirements for
durability design are formulated on the basis of
structure exposure conditionfs and its expected
service life. For the sake of simplicity, only the
requirements for a service life of 50 years are
summarized in Table 5 while for other service lives
(100 and 30 years) one can refer to the guide
CCES01. For concrete curing, a minimum wet curing
period of 3 days and an accomplished strength of
50% of 28 day strength are required for construction
practice. For crack control, maximum opening widths
of 0.4 mm, 0.3 mm and 0.2 mm are prescribed
respectively for I-A, I-B and I-C exposure classes.
It is attempted to compare the requirements of
CCES01 with those from other codes. Figure 1
illustrates the required concrete cover strength (cube
specimen at 28 days) and thickness for the most
severe exposure conditions of carbonation environ-
ment defined in CCES01, EuroCode2 (EN206) and
ACI318. Normally it is difficult to compare directly
the requirements from different codes even for the
same deterioration process because different codes
base their requirements on their own environment
classification, material standards and concrete prac-
722 Materials and Structures (2008) 41:717–731

Table 4 Action classification for atmospheric environment

Class Exposure condition Design case EuroCode2

I-A Indoor, dry Indoor members exposed constantly to relative humidity <60% XC0,XC1
Immersion in water Foundation immerged permanently in water XC1
I-B Constantly humid Members burried in humid soil XC2
Outdoor without drying–wetting cycles Exposed but sheltered outdoor members none
Indoor, humid without drying–wetting cycles Indoor members exposed to relative humidity >60% XC3
I-C Drying–wetting cycles Unsheltered outdoor members exposed to rain XC4

Table 5 Minimum requirements for atmospheric environment for service life 50 years
Class Binder (Cementitious materials) w/b () Strength (MPa) Cover (mm)

Content (kg/m3) Cement type Composition

I-A (Dry) 260 PO,PI,PII f =0:2 þ s=0:3  1 0.60 C25 20

280 PO,PI,PII, SP,FP,CP 0.55 C30 15
I-A (immersion) 260 PO,PI,PII f =0:2 þ s=0:3  1 0.60 C25 20
280 PO,PI,PII,SP,FP,CP f =0:5 þ s=0:7  1 0.55 C30 15
I-B (Constantly humid) 280 PO,PI,PII f =0:5 þ s=0:7  1 0.55 C30 20
300 PO,PI,PII,SP,FP,CP 0.50 C35 15
I-B (humid, outdoor) 280 PO,PI,PII f =0:15 þ s=0:25  1 0.55 C30 20
300 f =0:2 þ s=0:3  1 0.50 C35 15
I-C 300 PO,PI,PII f =0:2 þ s=0:3  1 0.50 C35 30
320 f =0:25 þ s=0:4  1 0.45 C40 25
340 f =0:3 þ s=0:5  1 0.40 C45 20

the required strength and thickness of concrete cover

are correlated almost linearly for EuroCode2,
ACI318 and CCES01.

3.2 Freeze-thaw environment

In cold regions, the freeze-thaw cycles can induce

Fig. 1 Required strength and thickness of concrete cover for
carbonation environment from CCES01, EuroCode2 and
ACI318
tice. Moreover, the concrete cover thicknesses pre-
scribed by EuroCode2 and CCES01 are only dura-
bility requirements without construction tolerance
while the thickness of ACI318 includes both. Taking
this point into account and assuming a construction
tolerance of 5–10 mm, one can see from Fig. 1 that
phase change and flow of pore water in concrete. As
the porous space of concrete is highly saturated, these
processes can generate internal stress high enough to
rupture the material during freezing [20]. Moreover,
with the presence of salts the deterioration process
can be greatly accelerated [21]. Accordingly, the
action intensity of freeze-thaw environment is graded
by the basic factors contributing to the concrete
damage by freezing, that is, the climate frost intensity
(lowest temperature and daily temperature fluctuation
amplitude), concrete saturation degree and presence
of salts. The freeze-thaw environment is then divided
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:717–731 723

Table 6 Action classification for freeze-thaw environment

Class Exposure condition Design case EuroCode2

II-C Moderate frost climate, concrete of Members exposed to transitional zone of ground water level none
high saturation, no salt
Cold region, concrete of moderate Vertical surface exposed to rain XF1
saturation, no salt
II-D Cold region, concrete of moderate Member exposed to deicing salt spray XF2
saturation, with salt
Cold region, concrete of high Horizontal surface exposed to frequent precipitation, vertical surface XF3
saturation, no salt exposed to transitional zone of ground water level
Moderate frost climate, concrete of Surface exposed to marine tidal zone None
high saturation, with salt
II-E Cold region, concrete of high Bridge deck exposed to deicing salts XF4
saturation, with salt

into II-C, II-D and II-E, detailed exposure conditions
and design cases given in Table 6. Here the cold
region is defined as the climate of which the average
temperature of the coldest month in a year is lower
than 38C while the moderate frost climate pertains
to the case of the lowest monthly average temperature
higher than 38C. In the same table is also given the
corresponding classification of EuroCode2 (EN206).
However, this correspondence of classification is not
strictly equivalent because the frost intensity is not
taken into account in EuroCode2 and the definition of
cold region is adapted to the geological extension of
China [22].
For material requirements, the entrained air con-
tent is specific to freeze-thaw environment. It is
proven that entrained air of appropriate content can
substantially improve the freeze-thaw resistance of
concrete [23]. For concrete curing practice it is
required that at least one month should be left
between the end of curing and the first exposure to
environment. The concrete cube strength at 28 days
and the Durability Factor (DF) based on laboratory
rapid freeze-thaw test [24] are chosen as the perfor-
mance index for freeze-thaw environment. The
minimum requirements for a service life of 50 years
are summarized in Table 7. For crack control,
maximum opening widths of 0.2 mm, 0.2 mm and
0.15 mm are prescribed respectively for II-C, II-D
and II-E exposure classes.
For concrete of high saturation and exposed to
salts, CCES01, EuroCode2 and ACI318 all class it as
the most severe exposure condition in freeze-thaw
environment. In Fig. 2 it is intended to compare the
requirements on concrete strength and entrained air
content from these codes. For CCES01 two classes
are concerned: II-D (with salt in moderate frost
climate) and II-E (with salt in cold region). It can be
seen that CCES01 and ACI318 have the same air
content requirement and the strength required by
EuroCode2 is situated between the requirements of
CCES01 for moderate frost climate (II-D) and cold
region (II-E).

Table 7 Minimum requirements for freeze-thaw environment for service life 50 years
Class Binder (Cementitious materials) Air content (%) DF (%) w/b () Strength (MPa)

Content (kg/m3) Cement type Composition

II-C 320 PO,PI,PII f =0:2 þ s=0:2  1 – 50 0.45 C40

340 – 50 0.40 C45
280 f =0:3 þ s=0:4  1 4.5 50 0.55 C30
II-D (no salt) 300 PO,PI,PII f =0:3 þ s=0:4  1 6.0 70 0.50 C35
II-D (salt) 300 6.0 60 0.50 C35
II-E 320 6.0 80 0.45 C40
724 Materials and Structures (2008) 41:717–731

deicing and other salts is graded into IV-C, D, E with

Fig. 2 Required concrete strength and entrained air content for
saturated concrete in freeze-thaw environment with salts from
CCES01, EuroCode2 and ACI318
3.3 Marine and deicing salt environment
Avoiding the chloride-induced corrosion is the
objective of durability design in marine and deicing
salt environments. The chloride-induced corrosion of
reinforcement steel includes two major phases: the
progressive transport of external chloride to the steel
surface and the initiation of corrosion reaction. For a
specific concrete, the chloride transport process is
mainly influenced by the external chloride concen-
tration and concrete humidity condition while the
corrosion extent of steel is dictated by the availability
of oxygen and water as well as the electrical
resistance of concrete. Again, the drying–wetting is
the most favorable climate condition for both external
chloride transport and corrosion reaction. On the
basis of these influential factors, the action intensity
of marine environment is divided into III-C, D, E, F
with the detailed exposure conditions and design
cases given in Table 8. The environmental action of
the detailed exposure conditions and design cases
given in Table 9. The equivalent environmental
classification of EuroCode2 (EN206) is also noted in
these tables. It is observed in Table 8 that, unlike
EuroCode2, CCES01 attributes a higher class for air
borne salt exposure than for permanent immersion
condition. This classification is based on the field
investigations on steel corrosion in marine concrete
structures in China and rarely the steel corrosion was
observed for reinforcement in complete immersion
condition. For deicing and other salts, CCES01 takes
into account the ground water containing chloride
and its possible degradation effects on the reinforced
concrete members.
In addition to the conventional material require-
ments, the initial chloride content in concrete is
specific to the marine and deicing salts environment.
The chloride content is defined as the mass ratio
between the chloride and the binder materials in
concrete mixing. The guide CCES01 limits the initial
chloride content to 0.1% for reinforced concrete and
0.06% for prestressed concrete. For concrete curing,
CCES01 imposes a minimum wet curing period of
7 days and a minimum achieved strength of 70% of
standard 28 day strength. Moreover, it is recom-
mended to retard the first exposure of concrete to
salts. For concrete performance, CCES01 chooses the
standard cube strength at 28 days and the chloride
diffusion coefficient DRCM based on the rapid chlo-
ride migration (RCM) test [25]. At structural level,
the concrete cover and crack control are specified.
The detailed requirements are given in Table 10 for a
service life of 50 years and maximum opening widths

Table 8 Action classification for marine environment

Class Exposure condition Design case EuroCode2

III-C Immersion in sea water
III-D Slight air borne salt
III-E Heavy salty frog
Tidal and splash zones
in mild climate
III-F Tidal and splash zones
in hot climate
Bridge pier permanently in sea water, 1–1.5 m under lowest water level XS2
Members situated at 100–300 m from the coast line or 15 m above the XS1
sea level
Members situated under 15 m above the sea level or <100 m from the XS1
coast line
Members exposed to the tidal and splash zones of sea water, or within XS3
1.5 m under the lowest water level in a mild climate (yearly average
temperature <208C)
Members exposed to the tidal and splash zones of sea water, or within XS3
1.5 m under the lowest water level in a hot climate (yearly average
temperature near or above 208C)
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:717–731 725

Table 9 Action classification for deicing and other salts environment

Class Exposure condition Design case EuroCode2

IV-C Slight deicing frog Members at >100 m away from traffic XD1
Immersion in chloride water Foundation and basement under permanent ground water level XD2
Water with low chloride content Members exposed to transitional zone of ground water with Cl none
and drying–wetting cycles concentration between 100–500 mg/l
IV-D Deicing salt spray Viaduct retaining walls and piers XD3
Water with medium chloride content Members exposed to transitional zone of ground water with Cl none
and drying–wetting cycles concentration between 500–5000 mg/l, walls of sea water
swimming pool
IV-E Direct contact with deicing salt Bridge decks XD3
solution
Heavy spray of deicing salt Bridge barriers, viaduct piers, members situated within 10m XD3
from traffic
Water with high chloride content and Members exposed to transitional zone of ground water with Cl XD3
drying–wetting cycles concentration >5000 mg/l

Table 10 Minimum requirements of reinforced concrete(RC) and prestressed concrete(PC) for marine and deicing salts environment
for service life 50 years
Class Binder (Cementitious materials) Cl content (%) DRCM 1012 w/b () Strength Cover
(m2/s) (MPa) (mm)
Content Cement type Composition
(kg/m3)

III,IV-C 300 PO,PI,PII  0:5f =0:5 þ s=0:8  1 0.1 (RC), 0.06 (PC) – 0.50 C35 35
III,IV-D 320 10 0.45 C40 45
III,IV-E 340 6 0.40 C45 50
360 6 0.36 C50 45
III-F 360 6 0.36 C50 55
380 6 0.36 C50 50

of 0.2, 0.2, 0.15, and 0.10 mm are prescribed,
respectively, for III,IV-C, III,IV-D, III,IV-E, and
III-F exposure classes.
In Fig. 3 are illustrated the requirements on
strength and thickness of concrete cover for the most
severe chloride exposure conditions from CCES01,
EuroCode2 and ACI318. Again, it should be borne in
mind that the concrete cover thickness of ACI318
includes the construction tolerance (5–10 mm for in
place cast concrete) and not for CCES01 and
EuroCode2. It can be seen that CCES01 imposes
thicker concrete cover and higher concrete strength.

3.4 Sulfate environment

The aggressive chemicals identified for concrete

include the ions SO2 þ
4 ; H ; Mg
2þ
and NHþ 4 ; CO2
Fig. 3 Required strength and thickness of concrete cover
for chloride environment from CCES01, EuroCode2 and dissolved in ground water and soil pore water as
ACI318 well as acid rain in industrial polluted regions. The
726
resulted concrete deterioration processes can be
chemical, as concrete dissolution by acid, or purely
physical, as salt crystallization at concrete surface
in dry climate. The chemical environment is
defined by CCES01 in Table 1 as environment V.
Nevertheless, it is for these processes that the least
research and practice knowledge is available. Not
intending to detail all these processes, this section
is focused on the sulfate environment.
The research on sulfate attack of concrete can be
traced down to as early as 1945 [26], and the
subsequent laboratory research and investigations
have last for decades. Nowadays, for laboratory
research not all the involved mechanisms are
clarified and for field investigation it is difficult
to evaluate the detrimental effects of sulfate attack
in that the sulfate attack is rarely the only cause for
deterioration cases. As a consequence, most of the
available knowledge is acquired in laboratory
research and the relevant durability requirements
are rather academic than experience-based [27, 28].
It is believed today that the detrimental effect of
sulfate attack can be attributed to some chemical
processes, as formation of expansive products
(gypsum and ettringite) and dissolution of C–S–H
in concrete, as well as some physical ones, as
sulfate salt crystallization [29]. For the same sulfate
attack process, the sulfate sources can be internal,
in concrete mix constituents, or external, from
environment and transported into concrete by
moisture.
Based on this rough reasoning, the guide CCES01
prescribes a maximum SO3 content of 4% in binder to
avoid the possible internal sulfate reactions. For
external sources, CCES01 grades the sulfate action
intensity for both the chemical and physical processes
Table 11 Action classification for sulfate in ground water and soil
Class Sulfate concentration
Water (mg/l) Soil (mg/kg)
V-C 200–1000 300–1500
200–500 300–750
V-D 1000–4000 1500–6000
500–2000 750–3000
V-E 4000–10000 6000–15000
2000–5000 3000–7500
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:717–731
by sulfate concentration, ground water mobility, soil
permeability as well as environment temperature, see
Table 11. In this table, it is intended to make difference
between the expansive chemical reaction and salt
crystallization processes. According to the field inves-
tigations on structural concrete exposed to sulfate
water and soil in the northwestern China, concrete
deterioration by sulfate salt crystallization is more
common and much lower sulfate concentration is
needed to cause concrete deterioration than for chem-
ical processes, especially for concrete members
exposed partially to dry climate and partially to ground
water.
For durability design in sulfate environment, it is
of equal importance to achieve a compact concrete
and to choose the appropriate binder materials. The
detailed requirements are given in Table 12 for a
service life of 50 years. In Fig. 4 the minimum
requirements on water to binder ratio (w/b) of
concrete are illustrated in term of the ground water
sulfate concentrations prescribed by CCES01, Eu-
roCode2 (EN206), ACI318 and CSA. The differ-
ence of requirements should be interpreted
cautiously for at least three reasons: firstly, for a
specific code the classification of sulfate concen-
tration is based on its own geological conditions
and perhaps its own sulfate analysis test method, in
particular for sulfate content in soil; secondly the
sulfate resistance of concrete is greatly influenced
by its binder material constituents and composition
which can be variable to a large extent from a
region to another; at last, the water to binder ratio
(w/b) does not follow the same definition in
different codes: CCES01, ACI318 and CSA count
all mineral constituents (slag and fly ash) in binder
while EN206 discounts the mineral constituents by
Exposure condition
Direct contact, immerged in ground water (soil)
Exposed both to water (soil) and atmosphere in dry region
Direct contact, immerged in ground water (soil)
Exposed both to water (soil) and atmosphere in dry region
Direct contact, immerged in ground water (soil)
Exposed both to water (soil) and atmosphere in dry region
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:717–731
Table 12 Minimum requirements for sulfate environment for service life 50 years
Class Binder (Cementitious materials)
Content (kg/m3) Cement type
V-C 320 PO,PI,PII SR,HSR
V-D 340
360
V-E 360
Fig. 4 Required water to binder ratios in term of SO2
4 According to the field investigations on post-
concentration in ground water from CCES01, EuroCode2,
ACI318 and CSA
a coefficient k, see EN206, Chapter 5.2.5.2. Taking
this into account, one can see that roughly CCES01
imposes w/b lower than ACI318 and CSA.
CCES01 and EN206 have almost the same w/b
ratio requirements if one follows the same defini-
tion, with or without discounting mineral constitu-
ents, for the binder composition extent prescribed
in Table 12.
4 Post-tensioned concrete structure
Prestressed concrete structures are generally more
sensitive to environment-induced corrosion due to
their high stress level in prestressed tendons.
Among the prestress systems, the post-tensioned
system has more components and relies on field
operation to achieve the expected prestress on
structure, so it is more susceptible to construction
quality failure and environment-induced deteriora-
tion processes. An early investigation on service
conditions of prestressed concrete structures shows
727
w/b () Strength (MPa)
Composition
1  f =0:25 þ s=0:4 0.45 C40
f =0:3 þ s=0:5  1 0.40 C45
0:5  f =0:5 þ s=0:8  1 0.36 C50
0.36 C50
that, among all structural prestress systems, the
environment-induced service failure of post-ten-
sioned system occupies a large portion of total
failure cases [30]. The durability problem of post-
tensioned system is highlighted by its ban in bridge
engineering by British authority from 1992 to 1996
after some major structure failure cases [31].
Recently, the practice standards in world wide
scope are updated and proposed for more durable
post-tensioned prestress systems for concrete struc-
tures [32–35]. In China, the service condition of
post-tensioned concrete structures is alarming.
tensioned railway bridges, the environment-induced
failure cases amounts to nearly 10% of the total
bridges [5], appealing for more durability consid-
eration for post-tensioned prestress systems. For the
above reasons, the guide CCES01 dedicates one
individual chapter on this topic. By available
protection techniques, the multi-layer protection
concept [34] is adopted and developed into an
environment-based protection strategy for pre-
stressed tendons and anchors.
For prestressed tendons (strands and monostrands),
the available protection techniques are noted on five
layers successively from the tendon material to
concrete external surface treatment, see Table 13. In
the table, the layers PS-2a, 3a, 4a are respectively the
strengthened methods for PS-2, 3, 4. Among these
protection layers, all except PS3a concern internal
tendons and all except PS4(a) and PS5 pertain to
external tendon protection. The available protection
techniques for both buried and exposed anchors are
summarized on five layers from anchor component
material till concrete external treatment, see Table 13.
All layers except PA3a concern buried anchorage
while all layers except PA4(a) and PA5 pertain to
exposed anchorage protection.
728 Materials and Structures (2008) 41:717–731

Table 13 Available
Target Symbol Protection layer
protection techniques for
prestress tendon and Tendon PS-0 Steel material of tendon conform to standards
anchorage
PS-1 Surface isolation of tendon by grease or epoxy resin coating
PS-2 Duct or pipe filling by grease, wax or cementitious materials
PS-2a PS-2 with special admixture in filling materials
PS-3 Duct or pipe for tendons in metal or plastic
PS-3a PS3 with pipe external surface coating
PS-4 Concrete cover to prestressed tendons
PS-4a PS4 with special admixture in concrete
PS-5 Concrete external surface treatment by sealant or coating
Anchor PA-0 Steel material of anchor components conform to standards
PA-1 Anchor component surface coating
PA-2 Anchor cap filling by grease, wax or cementitious materials
PA-2a PA-2 with special admixture in filling materials
PA-3 Anchor cap by high duty materials
PA-3a PA-3 with anchor cap external surface coating
PA-4 Anchorage pocket filling by no-shrinkage concrete
PA-4a PA-4 with special admixture in concrete
PA-5 Sealant or coating treatment on filling concrete external surface

Table 14 Multi-layer protection strategy for prestress tendon and anchorage

Environment Class Tendon (PS) Anchorage (PA)

Internal External Buried Exposed

I Atmospheric I-A,B 0,2,3,4 0,2,3 0,2,3,4 0,2,3

I-C 0,2a,3,4a 0,2a,3 0,2a,3,4a 0,2a,3
II Freeze-thaw II-C,D 0,2,3,4a 0,2a,3 0,2,3,4a 0,2a,3
II-E 0,2a,3,4a,5 0,1,2a,3 0,2a,3,4a,5 –
III Marine III-D 0,2a,3,4a 0,2a,3 0,2a,3,4a 0,2a,3
III-E 0,1,2a,3,4a 0,1,2a,3 0,1,2a,3,4a –
III-F 0,1,2a,3,4a,5 0,1,2a,3a 0,1,2a,3,4a,5 –
IV Deicing salts IV-D 0,2a,3,4a 0,2a,3 0,2a,3,4a 0,2a,3
IV-E 0,1,2a,3,4a 0,1,2a,3 0,1,2a,3,4a –
IV-F 0,1,2a,3,4a,5 0,1,2a,3a 0,1,2a,3,4a,5 –
V Chemicals V-C,D 0,2a,3,4a 0,2a,3 0,2a,3,4a 0,2a,3
V-E 0,2a,3,4a,5 0,1,2a,3 0,2a,3,4a,5 –
V-F 0,1,2a,3,4a,5 0,1,2a,3a 0,1,2a,3,4a,5 –

On the basis of environmental classes, the guide 5 Final remarks

CCES01 recommends a multi-layer and environment-
based protection strategy in Table 14. In this global
strategy, it is not intended to go into the technical
details for each protection layer and the strategy is
susceptible to updating by further advancement of
post-tensioned prestressing kits as well as their
protection techniques.
In this article, the guide CCES01 is reviewed
extensively for its durability requirements in the
general background of the state-of-art of our dura-
bility knowledge. The basic concepts for durability
design are firstly introduced: environmental action,
durability limit state and service life. For each
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:717–731
environment type, the environment action intensity is
classified on the basis of the main influential factors
for the deterioration process in question, the durabil-
ity requirements are then formulated. Furthermore,
the relevant quantitative requirements are compared
with other codes such as EuroCode2 (EN206),
ACI318 and CSA. It can be seen that the durability
requirements of CCES01 are generally at the same
level with or stricter than other codes, which is
partially due to the utmost importance of the impact
of durability failure on concrete infrastructures in
China. Since its first edition in 2004, CCES01 has
served as durability guideline for the design and
construction of important infrastructures in China.
As aforementioned, CCES01 bases its reasoning
and requirements on the state-of-art knowledge of
concrete deterioration processes. Nevertheless, our
knowledge of these deterioration processes is far
from homogeneous, which surely leaves important
open questions for durability design. During the
technical writing of the guide, the following points
have been the subjects of constant arguments and
polemics, and it is expected that further research
results and field investigations could contribute to
their answers.
Crack control under environmental actions. It is
believed that cracked concrete has less resistance
against the external mass penetration, thus has a low
level durability performance. Accordingly, it is
reasonable to impose a stricter limitation on the
crack width during the service life of concrete
structure, which is also the basis of crack control
for CCES01. However, this point of view is highly
challenged for load-induced cracking. Our in field
observations shows that the corrosion at the bottom of
flexion cracks is seldom developed to an important
extent and the cracks parallel to reinforcement steel
bars due to concrete early age shrinkage can actually
accelerate the corrosion process. Relevant research
shows also [36] that the microcracking due to early
shrinkage contributes much more to the water
infiltration than concentrated load-induced cracks. If
that is true, does it make a sense for durability design
to limit the load-induced crack width?
Durability index. The guide CCES01 incorporates
durability index for freeze-thaw, marine and deicing
salts environments, and imposes quantitative limita-
tion on these durability index as a part of require-
ments. This quantitative prescription of durability
729
index is rather radical since it is still highly debated to
what extent the durability index based on accelerated
laboratory tests can tell the in field performance of
structural concrete under real environmental actions.
This question is rather problematic and can be posed
for every durability-related process. A basic reason-
ing is that, as long as the deterioration mechanisms
involved in laboratory test and in service remain the
same, the durability index can be representative for
material behavior in place. Taking this as a criterion,
one can judge with a certain confidence that DRCM
can be representative for the resistance of a saturated
concrete to chloride penetration in place, but much
less for Durability Factor (DF) in freeze-thaw envi-
ronment. For DF issue from rapid test of ASTM
C666, it is evident that the moisture, temperature and
mechanical conditions for laboratory material and in
place structural concrete are too different to ensure
the same deterioration mechanisms. This point is
already noted and treated by other rapid freeze-thaw
test [37]. But, the basic question remains the same: to
what extent can we rely on the durability index
to predict the in field performance for structural
concrete?
Durability limit state. It is stated in CCES01 that
the durability limit state belongs to the service limit
state of concrete structure design, which holds for
most durability-related deterioration processes. How-
ever, this point of view can not be easily defended for
prestressed tendons. The prestressed tendons, due to
their high service stress level, are more sensitive to
corrosion and the resulted failure can be abrupt
leaving very little safety reservation for structure.
Moreover, the consequence of prestressed tendon
failure is usually much more severe than that of
normal steel reinforcement bars, so the failure
probability or the safety factor can not be the same.
Besides further research on the corrosion process of
high stress level tendons, an appropriate design
approach is expected for this environment-induced
durability and safety coupled problem.
Sulfate concentration in soil. If the sulfate con-
centration is relatively easy to be measured for
ground water, it is not at all the case for soil.
Theoretically in soil the sulfate salts are dissolved
into the pore solution and the sulfate ions reach a
certain equilibrium concentration. It is this equilib-
rium concentration that makes a sense for evaluating
the aggressivity of soil containing sulfate. However,
730
how to get this concentration or if this concentration
can be evaluated remains very problematic. Nowa-
days, different standards use different test methods to
determine the soil sulfate content, then note the
aggressivity of soil by this test-dependent content.
The ideal analysis method of sulfate content should
adapt itself to the soil permeability, soil moisture
state as well as the sulfate salt solubility. Evidently,
this kind of test method is far from available
presently and a more reasonable methodology is
expected for soil sulfate content analysis.
Acknowledgements The relevant research is partially
supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China
(NSFC), Project No.50538060. The authors would like render
their sincere thankfulness to all the fellows in the working
group of CCES01-2004 for the fruitful and frustrating
exchanges on the durability topics that sometimes we think
would last forever.
Appendix: Chinese cement types and composition
PO Ordinary portland cement, 85–94% clinker,
6–15% mineral constituents
PI Portland cement Type I, 100% clinker
PII Portland cement Type II, 95–100% clinker, 0–5%
admixture (slag, gypsum)
SP Blast-furnace slag portland cement, 30–80%
clinker, 20%–70% slag
FP Fly ash-portland cement, 60–80% clinker,
20–40% fly ash
PP Pozzolana-portland cement, 50–80% clinker,
20–50% pozzolana
CP Composite-portland cement, 50–85% clinker,
15–50% mineral constituents
SR Sulfate resistant portland cement, C3S < 55%,
C3A < 5%, 95–100% clinker
HSR High sulfate resistant portland cement,
C3S < 50%, C3A < 3%, 95–100% clinker
References
1. Neville AM (1995) Properties of concrete, 4th edn. Pearson
Education, Harlow, UK
2. Mehta PK, Monteiro PJM (2006) Concrete microstructure,
properties and materials, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New
York, US
3. American Concrete Institute Committee 201 (2001) Guide
to durable concrete (ACI 201.2R-01). ACI, Farmington
Hills, US
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:717–731
4. Bohni H (ed) (2005) Corrosion in reinforced concrete
structures. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK
5. Chen ZY (2004) Safety and durability: sate-of-art, prob-
lems and preventions. In: Committee report on safety and
durability of engineering structures, Chinese Academy of
Engneering. Chinese Building Industry Publishing. Beij-
ing, China, pp 225–266
6. European Committee for Standardization (2000) Concrete
– Part 1: specification, performance, production and con-
formity (European standard EN206-1). CEN, Brussels,
Belgium
7. European Committee for Standardization (2002) Eurocode
2: design of concrete structures – Part 1: general rules and
rules for buildings (European standard prEN1992-1-1).
CEN, Brussels, Belgium
8. American Concrete Institute Committee 318 (2005)
Building code requirements for structural concrete and
commentary (ACI318-05, ACI318R-05). ACI, Farmington
Hills, US
9. Canadian Standard Association (2004) Concrete materials
and methods of concrete construction (A23.1-04). CSA,
Ontario, Canada
10. DuraCrete (1998) Probabilistic performance based dura-
bility design: modelling of degradation. DuraCrete Project
Document BE95-1347/R4-5, The Netherlands
11. Fédération International du Béton (2006) Model code for
service life design, fib Bulletin 34. fib, Lausanne, Swit-
zerland
12. Sarja A, Vesikari E (eds) (1996) Durability design of
concrete structures, RILEM TC130-CSL report, RILEM
Report Series 14. E & FN Spon, Chapman & Hall, UK
13. Sarja A (2000) Durability design of concrete structures –
committee report 130-CSL. Mater Struct 33(1):14–20
14. Chinese Civil Engineering Society (2005) Guide to dura-
bility design and construction of concrete structures
(CCES01-2004), 2005 edn. Chinese Building Industrial
Publishing, Beijing, China
15. Sarja A (ed) (2006) Predictive and optimizing life cycle
management of buildings and infrastructures. Taylor &
Francis, London, UK
16. Chinese Cement Standard (1999) Standard for ordinary
portland cement (GB175-1999). Chinese Standard Pub-
lishing, Beijing, China
17. Chinese Cement Standard (1999) Standard for composite
portland cement (GB12958-1999). Chinese Standard Pub-
lishing, Beijing, China
18. Chinese Cement Standard (1999) Standard for portland-
slag, portand-pozzolana and portand-fly ash cement
(GB1344-1999). Chinese Standard Publishing, Beijing,
China
19. RILEM TC 191-ARP (2006) Guide to diagnosis and
appraisal of AAR damage to concrete in structures. RILEM
Publications, Cachan, France (in press)
20. Coussy O (2005) Poromechanics of freezing materials.
J Mech Phys Solids 53:1689–1718
21. Valenza JJ, Scherer GW (2006) Mechanism for salt scal-
ing. J Am Ceram Soc 89(4):1161–1179
22. Chen RS, Kang ES, Ji XB, Yang JP, Yang Y (2006) Cold
regions in China. Cold Reg Technol 45:95–102
23. Pigeon M, Pleau R (1995) Durability of concrete in cold
climates. E & FN Spon Press, London, UK
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:717–731
24. ASTM Standard. (2003) Standard test method for resis-
tance of concrete to rapid freezing and thawing (C666/
C666M-03). ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
US
25. NT BUILD 355 (1997) Concrete, mortar and cement based
materials – chloride diffusion coefficient from migration
cell experiments. Nordtest, Oslo, Sweden
26. Lerch W (1945) Effect of SO3 content on durability of
concrete, PCA Pamphlet, No. 0285
27. Hobbs DW, Matthews JD, Marsh BK (1998) Minimum
requirements of durable concrete: carbonation- and chlo-
ride-induced corrosion, freeze-thaw attack and chemical
attack. British Cement Association, Crowthorne, UK
28. Neville A (2004) The confused world of sulfate attack on
concrete. Cement Concrete Res 34:1275–1296
29. Skalny J, Marchand J, Odler I (2002) Sulfate attack on
concrete. E & FN Spon Press, London, UK
30. Walter P Jr (1992) Corrosion of prestressing steel and its
mitigation. PCI J 5:34–55
31. British Department of Transport (1992) Standards for post-
tensioned prestressed bridges to be reviewed, 25 Septem-
ber 1992, Press Notice No. 260. London, UK
731
32. European Organization for Technical Approvals (2002)
Guideline of European technical approval of post-ten-
sioning kits for prestressing structures (ETAG 013).
EOTA, Brussels, Belgium
33. The Concrete Society (2001) Durable post-tensioned con-
crete bridge, Concrete Society Technical Report 47, 2nd
edn. Berkshire, UK
34. Florida Department of Transportation (2004) New direc-
tions for Florida post-tensioned bridges, vol 1. Florida
DOT, Tallahassee, US
35. Fédération International du Béton (2005) Durability of
post-tensioned tendons recommendations, fib Bulletin 33.
fib, Lausanne, Switzerland
36. Hearn N (1999) Effect of shrinkage and load-induced
cracking on water permeability of concrete. ACI Mater J
96(2):234–241
37. Setzer MJ, Heine P, Kasparek S, Palecki S, Auberg R,
Feldrappe V, Siebel E (2004) Test methods of frost resis-
tance of concrete CIF-test: capillary suction, internal
damage and freeze thaw test – reference method and
alternative methods A and B. Mater Struct 37(10):743–753