See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301958354

The allowable admixed chloride conundrum: A review of how ACI committee

documents define maximum chlorides in fresh concrete

Article  in  Concrete International · May 2016

CITATIONS READS

2 579

3 authors:

David Trejo O. Burkan Isgor

Oregon State University Oregon State University
124 PUBLICATIONS   988 CITATIONS    161 PUBLICATIONS   2,619 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

William Jason Weiss

Oregon State University
508 PUBLICATIONS   9,183 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modeling Reinforcement Corrosion in Concrete View project

Resistivity, Formation Factor and Transport View project

All content following this page was uploaded by O. Burkan Isgor on 31 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 This is an uncorrected proof for personal use only and not for distribution.
Copyright of this paper belongs to American Concrete Institute.

The final version of the article is available at the following site:

https://www.concrete.org/publications/internationalconcreteabstractsportal.aspx?m=details&ID=5168
8950

The full citation details are as follows:

Title: The Allowable Admixed Chloride Conundrum

Author(s): David Trejo, O. Burkan Isgor, and W. Jason Weiss

Publication: Concrete International

Volume: 38

Issue: 5

Appears on pages(s): 35-42

Keywords: limit, test, cement, exposure

Date: 1/1/0001

Abstract:
It is well documented that the amount of chlorides included in new concrete can influence the
service life of a structure. While many ACI documents therefore provide limits on the maximum
allowable amount of admixed chlorides, the limits are not consistent among those documents.
The various limits may be leading to higher risks and costs for contractors and/or owners. The
authors call for ACI committees to discuss this conundrum and suggest the creation of an ACI-
initiated task group to resolve it.
The Allowable Admixed
Chloride Conundrum
A review of how ACI committee documents define maximum chlorides in
fresh concrete

by David Trejo, O. Burkan Isgor, and W. Jason Weiss

T
he American Concrete Institute (ACI) is widely corrosion of the steel reinforcement. The level of “sufficient
recognized as a leading developer and distributor concentration of chlorides” is commonly termed the critical
of consensus-based standards, technical resources, chloride threshold value, CT. Research indicates that CT
and certification/educational programs for those involved exhibits a large degree of variability and is dependent on
in concrete design, construction, and materials. ACI’s many factors, including the physical conditions of the
120+ technical committees have made significant contributions steel-concrete interface, the chemistry of the pore solution at
by providing standards, specifications, reports, and guides the interface, and environmental conditions. It has also been
that are extensively used worldwide. While maintaining established that CT is a distribution of values rather than one
consistency among documents is therefore a major unique value. The literature indicates that CT is dependent
responsibility, it’s also a major challenge for the Institute. on factors associated with the constituent materials (cement,
An example of one such challenge is associated with
defining the maximum allowable amount of chlorides that can
be included in fresh concrete. During a recent review of ACI
documents on chlorides in concrete, the authors determined
that at least a dozen ACI documents address general durability
issues associated with chloride-induced corrosion. These
documents provide information on the maximum allowable
amount of admixed chlorides—herein termed CA limits—that
can be included in fresh concrete. The review revealed that
several of the ACI publications report different CA limits.
Reasons for these differences were not clearly evident and
described in the documents. However, it is clear that these
different limits can lead to confusion and potentially higher
risks and costs for contractors and/or owners.
The first objective of this article is to highlight inconsistencies
in CA limits published in ACI documents. The second objective
is to generate discussions that can hopefully lead to a consistent
approach throughout ACI’s committees on defining CA limits
for conventionally reinforced concrete structures made with
portland cement and supplementary cementitious materials
(SCMs). Due to space limitations, this article does not address
prestressed or post-tensioned systems.

Background
Much research has been performed and published on how
chlorides can lead to corrosion of steel reinforcement. It
has been well-documented that sufficient concentrations of
chlorides must be present within the concrete to cause active Bridge column being repaired due to corrosion

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | MAY 2016 1

sand, coarse aggregate, water, SCMs, chemical admixtures,
and reinforcement), proportions of constituent materials, the
quality of construction, and structure exposure conditions.1,2
Chlorides can be naturally present in many of the constituent
materials that are used to make concrete. To prevent early
corrosion of steel reinforcement, the admixed or background
chlorides included in the fresh mixture, Ci, must be significantly
lower than CT. In fact, the objective of specifying a CA limit is
to ensure that Ci is sufficiently low to result in a very low risk
of active corrosion and a low risk of reduced service life (that
is, Ci < CA << CT). However, because chlorides naturally occur
in many constituent materials, setting CA too low may make
it difficult to produce economical and sustainable concrete.
Alternatively, a CA value that is too high could increase the
potential for early corrosion initiation, reducing the economic
viability and sustainability of the overall structure. The industry
needs a CA limit that is reasonable for producers and does not
result in early corrosion of the reinforcement or significant
reductions in service lives.
Several different ACI committees have been struggling
with setting CA limits for many years. This struggle is due in
part to not having a defined protocol to justify CA limits. A
method for justifying CA limits, likely based on owner risk
preference or reliability, should be developed. Several ACI
committees emphasize the need for a simple requirement to
provide clarity on CA limits and most would surely agree that
a simple and clear requirement would be more beneficial
than one that is complex and difficult to implement and use.
Unfortunately, at the current time, the ACI documents that
address CA limits are anything but clear. The previously
mentioned review, summarized in Table 1, shows that ACI
Corroded pier for highway overpass
2 MAY 2016 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com
publishes at least five different requirements for addressing
CA limits in 12 documents (six codes and specifications, and
six guides and reports). The table lists types of materials or
structures addressed in each document; the tests that are
allowed to assess Ci; if CA limits are dependent on structure
exposure conditions and if so, the limits for each exposure
type; and whether the published CA limits are based on cement
content or total cementitious materials content.
Four key points can be deduced from Table 1:
•• CA limits may be dependent on structure type because
documents for different structure types publish different
limits;
•• ACI documents allow different test methods to assess Ci
and different CA limits are provided for the different tests;
•• ACI documents specify CA limits based on exposure
conditions; and
•• ACI documents provide limited clarity on whether the CA
limit should be based only on portland cement content or
on total cementitious materials content.
Should CA Limits be Dependent on
Structure Type?
ACI documents 301-10, 318-14, 329R-14, 332-14, and
349-13 all require the same CA limits—1.00% for dry conditions
(C0 or RC0), 0.30% for wet conditions (C1 or RC1), and
0.15% for wet conditions containing chlorides (C2 or RC2),
all by mass or weight of cement for water-soluble testing
of the chlorides. Because these documents have the same
requirements, they will be referred to herein as the “318 group.”
ACI 350-06 (Table 4.4.1) limits CA to 0.10% by weight
of cement (water-soluble testing) for all exposure conditions.
ACI 362.1R-12, Section 4.2.5, specifies that “admixtures
should not contain more than trace amounts of chlorides so
the concrete mixture meets the chlorides limits of ACI 318-08.”
However, ACI 362.1R-12, Section 4.2.7 on mixture proportions,
states that “the maximum water-soluble chloride content
should…be limited to 0.06 percent by weight of cementitious
material.” In the same section, the document also notes that
mixture proportions “should comply with ACI 301-10,
ACI 318-11, and ASTM C94/C94M-11.”18
ACI 222R-01 also publishes different CA limits based on
water-soluble testing: 0.08 and 0.15% of cement content when
exposed to wet or dry conditions, respectively. ACI 201.2R-08
refers to ACI 222R for CA limits. In addition, ACI 212.3R-10
limits CA to 0.15% by weight of cement when “exposed to
chlorides in service” and 1.00% when dry. This wording is
vague and does not specifically refer to moisture exposure
conditions. Lastly, ACI 221R-96 limits allowable chlorides
from the aggregates but refers the reader to documents
ACI 201.2R or 318, which recommend different CA limits.
There is no clear consensus on CA limits in the ACI
documents. The review seems to indicate that concrete for
parking structures (even conventionally reinforced parking
structures) has the most stringent CA limits. Environmental
structures require the next lowest CA limits, and general
structures have the highest allowable chloride limits. None
of the published CA limits from these documents have the
same limits published by ACI Committees 201, Durability of
Concrete, and 222, Corrosion of Metals in Concrete. Even so,
the ACI documents indicate that CA may be dependent on
structure type or structure importance.
What Tests Are Indicated for Assessing
Admixed Chlorides?
A review of the ACI documents shows that several test
methods are allowed or required for assessing Ci levels in
concrete. Several ACI documents publish different CA limits
for these different test methods. The test methods allowed in

Table 1:
Information on CA limits (water-soluble chlorides) for new construction in various ACI documents
(Note: “R” designates guide or report)
Published chloride
limits for CA, % by
Test method mass or weight of Binder indicated as
ACI document Topic specified Exposure classes* binder basis for CA limit
Dry: 0.15
201.2R-083 ASTM C1218/C1218M,
Durability Dry or wet Wet: 0.08 Cement
(Section 7.2.3.4) ACI 222.1†
(per ACI 222R)
Dry: 1.00
Dry, other, or exposed
212.3R-104 ASTM C1218/C1218M, Other: 0.30
Chemical to chlorides (refers to
(Section 5.8, Table ASTM C1524, and Exposed to chlorides: Cement
admixtures ACI 318-085)
5.2) ACI 222.1† 0.15
(refers to ACI 318-08)
221R-966 AASHTO T 260, ASTM Refers to ACI 201.2R Refers to ACI 201.2R
Aggregates Not applicable
(Section 2.1.8) C1218/C1218M or C1411 or 318 or 318
222R-017 ASTM C1218/C1218M, Dry: 0.15 Cement (portland
Corrosion Dry or wet
(Table 3.1) ACI 222.1† Wet: 0.08 cement in text)
C0: 1.00
301-108 Structural
ASTM C1218/C1218M C0, C1, C2 C1: 0.30 Cement
(Table 4.2.2.7.d) concrete
C2: 0.15
C0: 1.00
318-149 Structural
ASTM C1218/C1218M C0, C1, C2 C1: 0.30 Cement
(Table 19.3.2.1) concrete
C2: 0.15
Performance-
C0: 1.00
329R-1410 based
ASTM C1218/C1218M C0, C1, C2 C1: 0.30 Cement
(Table 6.2.2.2) requirements for
C2: 0.15
concrete
RC0: 1.00
332-1411 Residential
ASTM C1218/C1218M RC0, RC1, RC2 RC1: 0.30 Cement
(Table 5.3.2) concrete
RC2: 0.15
Nuclear safety-
349-1312
related concrete Refers to ACI 318-08 Refers to ACI 318-08 Refers to ACI 318-08 Refers to ACI 318-08
(Chapter 4)
structures
350-0613 Environmental
ASTM C1218/C1218M None 0.10 Cement
(Table 4.4.1) structures
Limits chlorides to
0.06
362.1R-1214 ASTM C1218/
Parking structures None (refers to ACI 301-10 Cementitious material
(Section 4.2.7) C1218M-0815
and 318-1116 for mixture
proportions)
506.2-1317
(Section 2.4.5 in
Refers to ACI 318 or Refers to ACI 318 or Refers to ACI 318 or Refers to ACI 318 or
Mandatory Shotcrete
350 350 350 350
Requirements
Checklist)
*
C0 or RC0—concrete dry or protected from moisture; C1 or RC1—concrete exposed to moisture but not to an external source of chlorides; C2 or RC2—
concrete exposed to moisture and an external source of chlorides from deicing chemicals, salt, brackish water, seawater, or spray from these sources
Withdrawn by ACI on December 31, 2007
†

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | MAY 2016 3


Corroded bridge beam
ACI documents for determining chloride concentrations in
concrete include ASTM C1152/C1152M, “Standard Test
Method for Acid-Soluble Chloride in Mortar and Concrete”;
ASTM C1218/C1218M, “Standard Test Method for Water-
Soluble Chloride in Mortar and Concrete”; ASTM C1524,
“Standard Test Method for Water-Extractable Chloride in
Aggregate (Soxhlet Method)”; AASHTO T 260, “Standard
Method of Test for Sampling and Testing for Chloride Ion in
Concrete and Concrete Raw Materials”; and ACI 222.1-96,19
which was a provisional standard for measuring water-soluble
chloride in concrete using the Soxhlet method (discontinued
by ACI on December 31, 2007). The majority of documents
require water-soluble testing per ASTM C1218/C1218M.
In general, water-soluble testing results in lower chloride
concentrations than acid-soluble testing. Section 3.2 of
ACI 222R-01 reports that the water-soluble chloride results
are typically about 75 to 80% of the acid-soluble results.
The argument for water-soluble testing is that only the
“free” chlorides contribute to corrosion and water-soluble
chloride testing is more representative of the “free” chloride
concentration. The argument for acid-soluble testing is that
some of the bound chlorides can be released at later ages,20-22
thereby contributing to the corrosion process. Reddy et al.23
reported that most bound chlorides can be released by a
relatively small reduction in the pore solution pH.
In addition to water- and acid-soluble testing, ACI 201.2R-08,
212.3R-10, and 222R-01 allow chlorides in concrete to be
quantified using ACI 222.1-96, which was proposed as a means
to measure water-soluble chloride in a minimally crushed
concrete sample using the Soxhlet method. ACI 222.1-96
4 MAY 2016 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com
was withdrawn, however, on December 31, 2007, and
therefore cannot be referenced in future editions of these
reports. However, it is still used in practice. The Soxhlet
method specified in the ASTM C1524 standard was designed
for testing aggregates only, does not require crushing or
grinding of the aggregate, and therefore will not include
the bound chlorides from the aggregate in the test results.
Using that type of test is a reasonable argument for chloride
testing of aggregates but not for concrete, as it has been
well documented that chlorides bound in hydrated paste
can become unbound. The authors recommend that ACI
documents provide better clarification on how to determine
chloride contents of concrete when the aggregates contain
bound chlorides.
The acid- and water-soluble tests (ASTM C1152/C1152M
and C1218/C1218M, respectively) are standard tests commonly
used to determine chloride contents in concrete. Whether
water- and/or acid-soluble testing is required in the ACI
documents, all documents should specify consistent testing
requirements. Alternatively, ACI could produce one document
on chloride testing for all committees to reference. If water-
soluble testing is required, the documents should provide a
note to the user of a possibility of bound chlorides becoming
unbound during the life of the structure, potentially leading to
earlier corrosion.
Should CA Limits be Dependent on Structure
Exposure Conditions?
Exposure conditions can have a significant influence on the
time to corrosion of reinforced concrete structures. When the
chlorides reach the steel reinforcement in sufficient quantities
(that is, the chloride concentration at depth x and time t, Cx,t,
meets or exceeds the CT), corrosion will initiate. If the exposure
conditions are such that the chloride concentration at the
surface, Cs, is lower than the CT, then the risk of corrosion
is significantly reduced. Because moisture is required to
transport the chlorides in concrete and is also required for
the electrochemical corrosion reactions, the presence of
moisture is a significant factor in assessing the risk of
corrosion. Reinforced concrete not exposed to moisture—or,
more specifically, reinforced concrete that will not be exposed
to moisture throughout its service life—will exhibit a very low
probability of corrosion of the steel reinforcement. However,
it is often challenging to determine the future exposure
conditions of a structure and consideration must be given to
the potential changing exposure conditions. In addition, the
designers must realize that moisture and/or chlorides can be
deposited on and be transported through concrete in areas
with high humidity, chloride-laden fog, wind-blown chlorides,
and other conditions—direct exposure to bodies of water or
chlorides is not required for corrosion initiation.
According to the 318 group of documents, the most
aggressive exposure condition, C2, is concrete “exposed to
moisture and an external source of chlorides from deicing
chemicals, salt, brackish water, sea water, or spray from these
sources.” Those documents also define concrete “exposed
to moisture but not to an external source of chlorides” as
exposure C1 and concrete “dry or protected from moisture”
as exposure C0. The commentary to ACI 318-14 notes that
C0 is assigned if “exposure conditions do not require
additional protection against the initiation of corrosion of
reinforcement.” The question then arises as to whether a
concrete surface coating would be sufficient to change the
classification from C2 or C1 to C0? If a surface coating were
used, it could be argued that the concrete itself would no
longer be directly exposed to chlorides and the concrete is
protected from moisture. The authors believe that the reference
to “protected from moisture” is vague and should be removed
from the C0 exposure condition or a better explanation of the
requirements to protect the concrete from moisture should
be provided.
ACI 362.1R-12 specifies exposure classes similar to that
of the 318 group of documents. ACI 222R-01 and 201.2R-08
specify only wet and dry exposure conditions (that is, they
do not distinguish if exposure will include chlorides).
ACI 212.3R-10 refers to ACI 318-08 but also publishes a
table (Table 5.2) with exposure conditions referred to as
“type of member”—this is different than stated in ACI 318-08.
ACI 350-06 does not define exposure classes and lists only
one allowable chloride limit for all anticipated exposure
conditions (although it could be assumed that environmental
structures would always be exposed to moisture).
Exposure conditions can have a significant influence on Repairing water intake tunnel
time to corrosion of a conventionally reinforced concrete
structure. The authors believe that ACI committees not had not defined the single term “cement” prior to 1988. This
including exposure conditions in their documents should definition for cement was later changed in ACI CT-1325 to “any
consider including the exposure classifications provided in the of a number of materials that are capable of binding aggregate
318 group of documents, possibly without the statement on particles together (See also hydraulic cement.).” This is a vague
“protection from moisture” as indicated for exposure C0. definition and problematic for the documents currently using
the term “cement” when quantifying CA limits (and likely other
Should CA Limits be Based on Percentage of documents). Existing ACI documents on chloride limits
Total Cementitious Materials? and durability seem to indicate that CA limits were based on
As shown in Table 1, most ACI documents provide limited portland cement systems. However, the current broad ACI
clarity on whether the chloride concentration in new concrete definition for cement, if used and applicable, could allow this
(Ci) should be based only on cement content or on total limit to be calculated based on a percentage of any and all
cementitious materials content. ACI 222R-01 specifically states cementitious materials, even though the original CA values
in Section 3.2 that allowable chloride limits (CA) are based on published in ACI 222R-01 were based on data from structures
“a percentage by mass of portland cement” (Table 3.1 in that made of concrete containing only portland cement as the
document uses the term “cement” only). The references that cementing material (no SCMs). It should be noted that
ACI 222R-01 used for establishing CT values (and ultimately ACI 318-14 refers to specific standards for cements (ASTM
CA values) were based on concrete containing portland cement C150/C150M, C595/C595M, C845/C845M, C989/C989M,
only (that is, no SCMs). Most other ACI documents limit and C1157/C1157M) and it is likely that only cements meeting
chlorides by mass or weight of cement—the exception being these specifications would be allowed. However, this is not
ACI 362.1R-12. Here, the definition of “cement” is important. the case for other ACI documents.
Prior to 1988, ACI documents did not provide a specific Although seemingly allowed, care should be taken when
definition for “cement.” In 1988, ACI defined “cement” making the jump from a portland cement system to another
as “hydraulic cement,” where hydraulic cement had been cement type (for example, cement + filler, cement + SCM,
and was defined as “a cement that sets and hardens by calcium aluminate cement, or calcium sulfoaluminate cements),
chemical interaction with water and is capable of doing so because limited information is available on critical chloride
underwater…”.24 The ACI Manual of Concrete Practice (MCP) thresholds and transport properties of these systems. Tables

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | MAY 2016 5

in the ACI documents should clearly state that CA is specifically
for portland cement or when applicable, portland cement +
SCM systems.
In addition to cement type, care should be taken when
considering a portland cement system compared to a system
with portland cement and SCM. Byfors26 reported that SCMs
reduce the pH of the concrete pore solution, and it has been
well established that CT is dependent on both the amount
of chlorides present in the concrete and the pH of the pore
solution. Reductions in pore solution pH lower the amount of
chlorides needed to depassivate the steel reinforcement and
decrease the binding capacity of the matrix. In fact, Trejo and
Tibbits27 and Presuel-Moreno and Moreno28 recently reported
that mortar and concrete containing fly ash exhibited significant
reductions in CT values. Presuel-Moreno and Moreno28 reported
that low replacement levels of silica fume increased the CT
but higher levels of silica fume decreased CT. Trejo and
Tibbits27 reported that although the CT value for mixtures
containing fly ash were lower than mixtures containing only
portland cement, the decrease in transport properties offset
the reduction in CT and statistically similar times to corrosion
were determined for both systems. In addition, Azad and
Isgor29 reported that the water-soluble Cl−/OH− is not
significantly affected up to a certain replacement level of
SCM; however, when replacement levels are increased
further, Cl−/OH− were shown to increase due to reduced
binding capacity—rather sharply in some cases.
The research indicates that CA limits could be reported as
a function of total cementitious materials content but caution
should be exercised. High levels of SCMs could significantly
reduce the CT and as a result of this, when determining
whether Ci is greater than CA for calculating the chloride
concentration, it is recommended that the total mass of
cementitious materials (portland cement + SCM) not exceed
two times that of the portland cement mass. That is, when
calculating Ci for compliance with the allowable chloride
limits, the total cementitious materials content should be
limited to two times the mass of portland cement even if there
are more cementitious materials in the mixture. It would be
advantageous if additional research were performed to provide
more insight on the influence of SCMs on CT.
A Need for a Unified Approach
The CA limits published by ACI vary significantly throughout
various ACI documents. These variations result in user confusion,
unnecessary risks to both contractors and owners, and the
potential for increased costs. A unified approach is needed for CA
limits to clarify ACI’s position on allowable chlorides. There are
three significant long-term needs for standardizing CA limits:
1. A standard unified definition of how to quantify corrosion
activation resulting from chlorides (for example, half-cell
potential more negative than −350 mV or 150 coulombs
passed in macrocell specimens);
2. A standardized test for determining chloride-induced
corrosion activation (associated with the definition
6 MAY 2016 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com
developed in No. 1) and for determining the amount of
chlorides that result in this corrosion activation (CT); and
3. A rational approach to selecting CA limits. The CA value
would likely be dependent on the distribution for the
critical chloride threshold (CT).
Satisfying these long-term needs will require research and
could take significant time. Meanwhile, an approach using the
best data available should be developed to standardize the
current CA limits published by ACI.
Although the 318 group of documents do not identify
structure importance/risk as being a critical and influencing
parameter, a review of ACI documents indicates that structure
type and/or importance is likely an influencing variable when
defining CA limits. Because risk of corrosion is dependent on
exposure conditions, CA limits should also be a function of
exposure conditions. In addition, ACI documents should be
consistent on chloride testing. If both water- and acid-soluble
tests are allowed, ACI documents should provide information
to the user on advantages and disadvantages, including the
potential for bound chlorides to become unbound over the
service life. Also, some research indicates that CT values
decrease with the addition of SCMs but the reduction in time to
corrosion resulting from this reduction in CT may be offset by
the reduction in chloride transport rates. As a result of this, CA
limits could be based on total cementitious materials content
(portland cement + SCM content), with some limits. Lastly, it
is important to note that several ACI documents are specifying
certain documents and clarity on allowable chlorides is essential.
Table 2 provides a summary of different CA limits that are
specified by different ACI committees. The table shows existing
published limits (as best as could be determined by the authors)
and the ACI documents produced by various committees that
currently publish these limits. It should be noted that the table
only includes recommendations for conventionally reinforced
structures with reinforcing steel meeting ASTM A615/
A615M or A706/A706M requirements embedded in portland
cement-based systems. Corrosion-resistant reinforcement or
prestressing steels are not addressed herein and limits for these
reinforcement types should likely be different than the
published limits for conventional reinforcement.
Any attempt to eliminate confusion on CA limits should
initiate discussion toward resolving the lack of clarity on
allowable admixed chlorides in ACI documents. Table 2
includes three groups of specifications, where Group 1
represents ACI documents specifying the highest CA limits
and Group 3 represents the strictest requirements. A possible
approach to accommodate all these limits without attempting
to force different committees to agree on common CA limits
is to classify them in terms of structure importance/risk.
For example, limits specified in Group 2 could be used for
structures of more importance and higher risk to the occupants
than limits specified by Group 1. Definitions for these
importance/risk levels could follow the general procedure
provided in Table 1.5-1 of ASCE/SEI 730 but will need to
be defined by collaboration between ACI committees. A
Table 2:
Summary of CA limits specified in ACI documents for conventionally reinforced concrete structures containing
reinforcement meeting ASTM A615/A615M or ASTM A706/A706M
Classification
group Exposure class and condition weight of cementitious materials*,†,‡
C0: Concrete that will remain dry
throughout its service life§
C1: Concrete that will be exposed to
Group 1
moisture
C2: Concrete that will be exposed to
moisture and chlorides
C0: Concrete that will remain dry
throughout its service life§
Group 2
C1: Concrete that will be exposed to
moisture
C0: Concrete that will remain dry
throughout its service life§
C1: Concrete that will be exposed to
Group 3
moisture
C2: Concrete that will be exposed to
moisture and chlorides
*
Values based on existing ACI documents
†
Tested following ASTM C1218/C1218M. Note that ASTM C1218/C1218M testing may not detect bound chlorides and some bound chlorides may be
released at later ages, thereby contributing to corrosion
‡
Portland cement-based systems only. When calculating Ci for compliance with the allowable chloride limits, the total cementitious materials content
should be limited to two times the mass of portland cement
§
Note that some environments with high humidity may not be considered “dry”
structure-importance/risk-based approach would allow all
committees to refer to one document to define the CA limits
determined to be appropriate by the individual committees.
In addition, such an approach would provide readers and
users of ACI documents uniform information on CA limits. One
lead committee could publish such a table and each individual
committee would then only specify structure importance and,
if necessary, environmental exposure conditions.
Summary and Recommendation
Concrete is generally a durable material. Nevertheless,
corrosion of steel reinforcement is a recurring and festering
issue within the industry. The amount of chlorides included in
new concrete can influence the service life of a structure. The
current documents published by ACI committees provide no
clear guidance on what the CA limit should be in concrete. In
fact, 12 ACI documents have five different requirements for
CA. Therefore, these limits are confusing to the user and could
result in increased risks to the concrete producer, contractor,
and/or owner, depending on the CA limit used.
An ACI-initiated task group could focus on resolving this
CA limits conundrum. Although significant research is needed
to develop information for setting these CA limits in concrete,
sufficient information is available to generate a more unified
approach within ACI documents.
Maximum water-soluble chloride
content in new concrete, CA, % by
ACI documents with CA limits
212.3R-10, 221R-96, 301-10, 318-14,
1.00
329R-14, 332-14, 349-13, 506.2-13
212.3R-10, 221R-96, 301-10, 318-14,
0.30
329R-14, 332-14, 349-13, 506.2-13
212.3R-10, 221R-96, 301-10, 318-14,
0.15
329R-14, 332-14, 349-13, 506.2-13
0.15 201.2R-08, 221R-96, 222R-01
0.08 201.2R-08, 221R-96, 222R-01
0.06 362.1R-12
0.06 362.1R-12
0.06 362.1R-12
References
1. Alonso, M.C., and Sanchez, M., “Analysis of the Variability of
Chloride Threshold Values in the Literature,” Materials and Corrosion,
V. 60, No. 8, Aug. 2009, pp. 631-637.
2. Angst, U.; Elsener, B.; Larsen, C.K.; and Vennseland, O., “Critical
Chloride Content in Reinforced Concrete—A Review,” Cement and
Concrete Research, V. 39, No. 12, Dec. 2009, pp. 1122-1138.
3. ACI Committee 201, “Guide to Durable Concrete (ACI 201.2R-
08),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 49 pp.
4. ACI Committee 212, “Report on Chemical Admixtures for Con-
crete (ACI 212.3R-10),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 2010, 61 pp.
5. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
6. ACI Committee 221, “Guide for Use of Normal Weight and Heavy-
weight Aggregates in Concrete (ACI 221R-96) (Reapproved 2001),”
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1996, 29 pp.
7. ACI Committee 222, “Protection of Metals in Concrete Against
Corrosion (ACI 222R-01) (Reapproved 2010),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2001, 41 pp.
8. ACI Committee 301, “Specifications for Structural Concrete
(ACI 301-10),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2010, 77 pp.
9. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | MAY 2016 7
Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 519 pp.
10. ACI Committee 329, “Report on Performance-Based Requirements
for Concrete (ACI 329R-14),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 2014, 46 pp.
11. ACI Committee 332, “Residential Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete (ACI 332-14) and Commentary,” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 54 pp.
12. ACI Committee 349, “Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-
Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-13) and Commentary,” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2013, 196 pp.
13. ACI Committee 350, “Code Requirements for Environmental
Engineering Concrete Structures (ACI 350-06),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2006, 485 pp.
14. ACI Committee 362, “Guide for the Design and Construction
of Durable Concrete Parking Structures (ACI 362.1R-12),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2012, 24 pp.
15. ASTM C1218/C1218M-08, “Standard Test Method for Water-
Soluble Chloride in Mortar and Concrete,” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2008, 3 pp.
16. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
17. ACI Committee 506, “Specification for Shotcrete (ACI 506.2-13),”
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2013, 12 pp.
18. ASTM C94/C94M-11, “Standard Specification for Ready-
Mixed Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2011, 12 pp.
19. ACI Committee 222, “Provisional Standard Test Method for
Water-Soluble Chloride Available for Corrosion of Embedded Steel
in Mortar and Concrete Using the Soxhlet Extractor (ACI 222.1-96),”
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1996, 3 pp.
20. Scheissl, P., “Influence of the Composition of Concrete on the
Corrosion Protection of the Reinforcement,” Concrete Durability:
Proceedings of the Katharine and Bryant Mather Symposium, SP-100,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1987, pp. 1633-1650.
21. Lee, M.K.; Jung, S.H.; and Oh, B.H., “Effects of Carbonation on
Chloride Penetration in Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 110, No. 5,
Sept.-Oct. 2013, pp. 559-566.
22. Geng, J.; Easterbrook, D.; Li, L.; and Mo, L., “The Stability of
Bound Chlorides in Cement Paste with Sulfate Attack,” Cement and
Concrete Research, V. 68, Feb. 2015, pp. 211-222.
23. Reddy, B.; Glass, G.K.; Lim, P.J.; and Buenfeld, N.R., “On the
Corrosion Risk Presented by Chloride Bound in Concrete,” Corrosion
and Corrosion Monitoring, V. 24, No. 1, Feb. 2002, pp. 1-5.
24. “ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 1—Materials and
General Properties of Concrete,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1988.
25. “ACI Concrete Terminology (ACI CT-13),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2013, 74 pp.
26. Byfors, K., “Influence of Silica Fume and Fly Ash on Chloride
Diffusion and pH Values in Cement Paste,” Cement and Concrete
Research, V. 17, No. 1, Jan. 1987, pp. 115-130.
27. Trejo, D., and Tibbits, C., “The Influence of SCM Type and
Quantity on the Critical Chloride Threshold,” presentation at The ACI
8 MAY 2016 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com
View publication stats
Concrete Convention and Exposition session on Chloride Limits and
Thresholds for Concrete Containing SCMs, Denver, CO, 2015.
28. Presuel-Moreno, F.J., and Moreno, E.I., “Effect of Fly Ash and
Silica Fume on Time to Corrosion Initiation for Specimens Exposed
Long-Term to Seawater,” presentation at The ACI Concrete Convention
and Exposition session on Chloride Limits and Thresholds for Concrete
Containing SCMs, Denver, CO, 2015.
29. Azad, J., and Isgor, O.B., “A Thermodynamic Perspective on the
Admixed Chloride Limits of Concrete Produced with SCMs,” presentation
at The ACI Concrete Convention and Exposition session on Chloride
Limits and Thresholds for Concrete Containing SCMs, Denver, CO, 2015.
30. ASCE/SEI 7-10, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2010, 608 pp.
Note: Additional information on the ASTM and AASHTO standards
discussed in this article can be found at www.astm.org and www.
transportation.org, respectively.
Received and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
David Trejo, FACI, is a Professor and Hal
Pritchett Endowed Chair in the School
of Civil and Construction Engineering at
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. He
is Chair of ACI Committee 222, Corrosion
of Metals in Concrete, and a member
of ACI Committee 201, Durability of
Concrete. His research interests focus
on corrosion of metals in cementitious
systems; durability of cementitious systems; and production of
durable, economical, and sustainable cementitious products.
ACI member O. Burkan Isgor is an
Associate Professor at Oregon State
University. He is the Secretary of ACI
Committee 222, Corrosion of Metals
in Concrete, and a member of ACI
Committees 236, Material Science of
Concrete, and 365, Service Life Prediction.
His research interests include analysis,
design, and durability of reinforced
concrete structures; corrosion of steel in concrete; and the
development of nondestructive and model-assisted test methods.
W. Jason Weiss, FACI, is the Edwards
Professor of Engineering and Head of
the School of Civil and Construction
Engineering at Oregon State University.
He is Chair of ACI Committee 231,
Properties of Concrete at Early Ages, and
a member of ACI Subcommittee 318-A,
General, Concrete, and Construction. His
research interests include fluid transport
in concrete and service-life modeling.