CI/SfB q4

February 2000

Corrosion of steel in Digest 444

dıgest concrete Part 1
Durability of reinforced
concrete structures
BRE Centre for Concrete Construction

This Digest is in three Parts. Part 1 Part 2 considers how corrosion-induced

examines the durability of steel in
concrete. With Part 2 on investigation and
assessment, and Part 3 on protection and
remedial work, it sets out the basic
principles for all those concerned with the
design and maintenance of durable
concrete structures: owners, tenants on
repairing leases, architects, surveyors,
engineers, material scientists and
contractors. It also examines existing
standards of construction and the lessons
learned from the investigation of cases of
corrosion in concrete.
This part of the Digest, Part 1, explains the
physical, chemical and electrochemical
processes involved in the deterioration of
reinforced concrete by corrosion; it
summarises the mechanisms underlying
protection, considers issues associated
with the durability management of existing
structures, and reviews best practice in
designing and specifying reinforced and
prestressed concrete for new structures to
achieve durable whole-life performance.
deterioration in existing steel reinforced
concrete structures is assessed and
diagnosed.
Part 3 describes the repair and protection
of concrete structures subject to corrosion
damage, or which are expected to need
measures to minimise future damage or
deterioration.
Concrete durability is an area which is
undergoing rapid technical development
and change; this Digest describes future
developments that are expected to have a
major influence on the approaches and
methodologies in this field.
Digests 263, 264 and 265 are withdrawn.

This Digest does not describe ...

● special techniques employed for post-tensioned
structures {falling outside of the scope of this
document};
● the problems associated with reinforcement
corrosion and high alumina cement concrete which
are dealt with in Digest 392;
● the repair of prestressed concrete structures because Figure 1 A Co-operative Wholesale Society warehouse,
they may require specialist inspections, and structural Newcastle, built in 1900. It is one of the earliest
and risk analysis procedures. The issues discussed in
examples of the use of reinforced concrete in the UK,
this Digest, though, are likely to be relevant to these
retaining its integrity despite the general deterioration
structures.
of other parts of the building over many years

constructing the future

2
Introduction
The development of reinforced concrete by
French engineers in the middle of the 19th
century was one of the major advances in the
history of construction. The introduction of
reinforcing steel dramatically improved the
tensile strength of concrete components, and
enabled slender structures with much longer
spans and higher working stresses to be built.
Most of today’s concrete construction relies on
the composite interaction of concrete and
steel, which is aided by the near equivalence of
their thermal expansion characteristics.
Fortunately the alkaline environment within
good quality concrete offers a high degree of
protection to the embedded reinforcement
against aggressive agents which promote the
corrosion of steel.
In general, reinforced concrete has proved
to be a highly successful material in terms of
both structural performance and durability.
The Co-operative Wholesale Society building
(Figure 1) in Newcastle provides an example of
the good long term performance which can be
achieved. The fabric of the building was still in
good condition when inspected after some
80 years’ service, showing little evidence of
cracking or spalling associated with
reinforcement corrosion.
Not all reinforced concrete structures have
performed this well, however. There have been
numerous examples of durability problems
arising from the corrosion of reinforcement in
concrete structures, mostly due to poor quality
concrete, inadequate cover to reinforcement,
chlorides in the concrete or combinations of
these. These have led to various forms of
corrosion-induced damage such as cracking
and spalling (Figure 2), and to reductions in
structural capacity. Indeed the scale of the
Figure 2 A ceiling showing delamination and spalling associated with
reinforcement corrosion
problem can be judged from the size of the
concrete repair industry and the number of
technical publications on the topic.
Achieving good durability in reinforced
concrete is therefore a major factor in enabling
a structure to perform its designed function for
its expected lifetime. The amount of
international research effort is an indication of
the desire to achieve long-term improvements
in economic and environmental performance.
Some research has been incorporated into
current UK Standards and Codes, some will be
introduced in Eurocodes, and some provides
the basis for more fundamental studies of
durability performance. Better prediction of
concrete performance is a vital component of
the DETR’s Durability by Intent Strategy [1],
which seeks to ensure that concrete is durable
in the environment to which it is exposed over
the planned life of the structure.
Mechanisms for protecting steel in
concrete
The pore solution in a hydrated Portland
cement system is strongly alkaline with a pH
normally exceeding 12.6. In this environment
steel is passive – a thin but dense protective
oxide film is formed on its exposed surface.
Moreover the surrounding concrete restricts
ingress of carbon dioxide and chlorides which
can promote corrosion. Consequently good
quality, well placed concrete with adequate
cover to the steel provides a high degree of
protection to the steel reinforcement. The
duration of this protection depends on a
number of factors including the retention of a
high pH to maintain the protective oxide film,
the thickness and physical integrity of the
cover concrete, and how well this concrete acts
as a barrier to the ingress of aggressive species.
Over the years there have been appreciable
changes in concrete materials and technology
brought about by a variety of driving factors.
There have been changes in the chemistry of
cements and in typical concrete mix
proportions, in material strengths, as well as
changes in design leading to increases in design
stresses. Most recently there is the advent of
European Standards. These factors are being
addressed in the proposed new and revised
standards and guidance documents for
concrete materials, design and construction
practice. A number of these documents should
be published shortly. They are expected to
advance the current state-of-the-art, introduce
new approaches to classifying aggressive
environments and to recognise a range of

concepts for achieving durability. Overall,
these changes are expected to improve practice
in the field, providing designers and
constructors with a range of options for
achieving the desired performance. In cases
where protection to steel reinforcement in a
very aggressive environment and a long service
life are required, other approaches to achieving
durable performance could be appropriate.
These could include using blended cements
and extra protection, and perhaps involving
several defence measures in combination.
Techniques and procedures need to be
developed for assessing the relative
effectiveness of the protection offered by the
alternative options, acting individually or in
combination.
Carbonated zone
Carbonation zone
Reinforcing steel
Aggregate
Cement matrix
Figure 3 Diagrammatic view of steel protected from carbonation-induced
corrosion in partially carbonated concrete
Carbonated zone
Carbonation zone
Reinforcing steel
Rust patches
Aggregate
Figure 4 Diagrammatic view of steel corroding in carbonated concrete
3
The influence of concrete pH, chlorides and the
availability of oxygen on the corrosion reaction
If the pH of the concrete adjacent to the reinforcement is
above about 9 to 10, a protective surface oxide layer
forms on the metal surface. The rate of corrosion under
these circumstances is insignificant. In Portland cement
concrete the pH is maintained at levels of above at least
12.6 due to the presence of significant amounts of
calcium hydroxide which is a product of the hydration of
the cement.
The presence of sodium and/or potassium salts can
increase the pH further, for example:
K2SO4 + Ca(OH)2 ➝ CaSO4 + 2K+ + 2OH–
However, the protective surface layer can be broken
down by Cl– ions, even at a high pH.
Removing hydroxide by the ingress of carbon dioxide
can also depassivate the reinforcement:
Ca(OH)2 ➝ Ca2+ + 2OH–
CO2 + 2OH– ➝ CO32– + H2O
Ca2+ + CO32– ➝ CaCO3.
Similar equations can be written for the
decomposition of other cement hydrates.
The pH consequently falls to a level lower than the
9 to 10 needed to maintain the protective surface oxide
layer on the reinforcement.
In concrete where the supply of oxygen is very
restricted (eg where the concrete is submerged or buried
underground), the passive film may not be maintained.
Corrosion can then theoretically occur through the
reduction of water to hydrogen. However, the kinetics of
the process are normally extremely slow.
Loss of protection
Carbonation
Hydrated cement reacts with aqueous
solutions formed by the acidic atmospheric
gases, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide, in
moist conditions. Aqueous solutions of sulfur
dioxide will tend to dissolve the surface of
concrete but usually present only a superficial
problem even in polluted atmospheres. Carbon
dioxide, however, will diffuse into the concrete
and, in the presence of moisture, react with the
hydrated cement to form calcium carbonate.
This will remove hydroxyl ions from the pore
solution and reduce the pH of the concrete (see
the box above). Carbonation penetrates the
concrete as a front from atmospherically
exposed surfaces but is not detrimental to the
integrity of a concrete component until it
penetrates to the embedded steel (Figures 3
and 4). Over time the alkalinity of the concrete
surrounding the embedded steel is reduced to a
point below a pH of about 9 to 10 where
passivation is lost and the steel will be
vulnerable to corrosion if the other necessary
components, water and oxygen, are present in
sufficient quantities.
4
The rate of carbonation depends on the
permeability of the concrete to ingress of
carbon dioxide (which is strongly influenced by
the water:cement ratio), the moisture level of
the concrete and the total alkali content of the
hydration products. Therefore, dense well-
compacted concrete with good cover will be
highly resistant to carbonation whereas a low
quality, porous concrete with low cover or
concrete that has deteriorated for other
reasons may carbonate very quickly to the
depth of the steel.
The greatest rate of carbonation occurs in the
relative humidity (RH) range 60–75%. At low
RH there is insufficient water for the reactions
to take place, and at high RH liquid water
contained in the pores reduces the rate of
diffusion of the carbon dioxide into the concrete.
Other factors that can influence the rate of
carbonation include the type of cement (eg
Portland, Portland–slag, Portland–fl y ash etc),
cement content and the porosity of the
aggregate.
Once the carbonation front has penetrated
to the steel, and moisture is present, there is a
risk of corrosion. The corrosion products
formed in these circumstances will have a
volume several times greater than the volume
of steel from which they derived. The build up
of corrosion product on the surface of the steel
creates tensile forces in the concrete. As the
tensile strength of the concrete is low, only a
relatively small build-up of corrosion products
is needed to cause cracking. The amount of
corrosion products to cause cracking will vary
with the quality of the concrete. In porous
concrete some of the corrosion products can be
absorbed into the pores of the concrete prior to
there being sufficient build-up to cause cracking.
It is often the case that, even if the carbonation
front has progressed beyond the steel
reinforcement, very little corrosion is evident.
Carbonation occurs more readily at intermediate
RH values, while corrosion of the steel in the
absence of chlorides is only significant when
the RH of the concrete exceeds 80%. This is
particularly true with building interiors.
Chlorides
Chlorides in hardened concrete are generally
considered to be either:
● fixed (ie they are chemically or physically
bound to cement minerals and hydration
products)
● free (ie they are present in the pore water of
the concrete).

The corrosion process

The corrosion of steel reinforcement arises through local structural or compositional variations within the concrete.
Consequently some areas of the steel become positively charged and others negatively charged. The anodic reaction
can be written:
Fe ➝ Fe2+ + 2e–
The cathodic reaction is:
1
/2 O2 + H2O + 2e– ➝ 2OH–
The net reaction is the production of ferrous hydroxide which, in the presence of oxygen and water, is converted to
Fe2O3.nH2O (rust).
Iron therefore dissolves at the anode, with the resultant rust being deposited nearby. The corrosion product occupies
a volume several times that of the parent metal and its formation creates internal stresses that in time will be sufficient to
exceed the tensile strength of the cover, leading to cracking and eventual spalling.
The electrical circuit is established through the movement of electrons within the metal and hydroxyl, and metal ions
through the pore solution in the concrete.
The key factors needed to support ongoing corrosion are:
● the presence of moisture on the surface of the reinforcement and in the adjacent concrete;
● the availability of oxygen.

1/2O
2
H 2O Electrolyte 1/2O
1/2O H2O 2
2 _ H2O
Cl _
_ 20H
20H
Fe2+ Fe2+
_ _ Fe2O3.nH2O Fe2O3.nH2O
(1/2O2 + H2O + 2e → 20H ) (Rust) (Rust)
Oxide film Cathode Cathode

Current Anode Current

_ _
2e 2e

Steel

Figure 5 The mechanism for pitting corrosion


The presence of oxygen and sufficient
quantities of free chloride ions in the pore
water of concrete can produce reinforcement
corrosion, even in highly alkaline conditions.
This follows from the electrochemical nature of
the corrosion process. Chlorides from the pore
electrolyte of concrete can cause localised
breakdowns at weaknesses in the protective
oxide film. Hydroxyl ions counter this process
by repairing the damaged film but, at a critical
chloride-to-hydroxyl ratio, the breakdown of
the film is irreversible and pitting corrosion
occurs (Figure 5 in the box on the opposite
page). Corrosion inside the pits (the anodes) is
driven electrolytically by cathodic reactions on
the adjacent uncorroding steel area (the
cathode). Because the cathodic area normally
exceeds the anodic area, corrosion in the pits is
intense. Under certain conditions, pits can
grow rapidly to very large depths.
A significant proportion of any chloride
introduced into the concrete at the time of
casting will tend to be bound by the hydrating
cement minerals, leading to the formation of
chloride-containing phases (eg Friedel’s salt,
3CaO.Al2O3.CaCl2.10H2O). The chlorides are
therefore partly immobilised. The remainder
will be present as free chloride ions in the pore
solution which can stimulate corrosion.
However, the amount of bound chloride that is
present will depend on the sulfate level of the
cement and any parallel carbonation as
monosulfate, ettringite, calcium carboaluminate
hydrates and calcite may form preferentially.
Similarly if some free chloride ions are
removed, the pore solution will tend to be
replenished from the bound chloride in order
to maintain equilibrium. Cements with a low
tricalcium aluminate content are considered as
having a lesser capacity to bind chlorides.
The chloride content of reinforced concrete
should therefore be limited to a level where
there is minimal free chloride. Sources of
chloride in fresh concrete include some
admixtures, some sources of aggregates (both
marine and inland), and the cement. It is
important to recognise that the introduction of
chlorides during construction is a much-
reduced problem since the restrictions in the
UK, in 1977, of the use of calcium chloride as an
admixture for reinforced concrete. With the
current limits on chloride contaminants within
concrete mix constituents, particularly
admixtures and aggregates, the risk of
corrosion from chlorides cast into current
concrete construction in the UK is very low.
The level of permitted chloride content in
concrete depends on the type of, or proposed
use of, the concrete concerned. For example,
5
Table 4 of BS 5328-1 defines recommended
limits of total chloride ion content expressed as
a percentage by mass of the total cement
content (ie the total amount of Portland
cement, pfa, ggbs etc) of the mix ranging from
0.1, for prestressed or heat-cured concrete
containing embedded metal, up to 0.4 for other
concrete containing embedded metal.
Chlorides from the environment can also
enter hardened concrete. A large proportion of
these will reside as free chlorides in the pore
water and are accordingly particularly
aggressive to embedded steel. Principal sources
in the UK are de-icing salts, seawater and
marine conditions more generally. Elsewhere
airborne salt and saline ground waters can be a
problem. Concrete exposed to such sources of
chloride may need to be specially designed and
possibly given additional protection.
The chloride content in the vicinity of the
reinforcement primarily controls the risk of its
corrosion. In a situation where chlorides are
penetrating concrete from an external source,
the chloride level at the depth of the
reinforcement, and, consequently, the risk of
corrosion, will usually increase with time. Even
if further ingress is prevented, the process of
transporting chloride ions from zones of high
to low concentration may continue for months,
possibly years, modifying the risk and potential
severity of corrosion. There is a considerable
body of literature which discusses the nature of
this problem, the mechanisms of chloride
ingress and steel corrosion, the influence of
factors such as concrete constituents, mix
design and curing, as well as methods used for
studying chloride ingress. The TRL Report,
An international review of chloride ingress into
structural concrete [2], provides a comprehensive
examination of the topic.
The risk of corrosion can also be modified by
the carbonation of the concrete, which can
result in the decomposition of hydrated
chloride salts, liberating more chloride ions and
increasing the risk of corrosion, with no change
in the total chloride content of the concrete.
Cracking
Reinforced concrete is expected to exhibit
some cracking; Part 2 of this Digest identifies a
number of potential causes. Design procedures
and codes seek to limit the width of cracks,
depending upon the exposure class the
structure is designed for. Under normal service
conditions crack widths up to about 0.3 mm
might be anticipated. The effect of cracking on
carbonation and on the corrosion of embedded
steel appears to depend upon circumstance.
There is a range of evidence and opinion as to
6
Dormant and live cracks
A crack is classified as dormant if its width does not vary appreciably with time.
Dormant cracks are often caused by physical processes (plastic or drying
shrinkage, shrinkable aggregates, long term loading etc). They may self-heal
through on-going cement hydration, precipitation of calcium carbonate or
diffusion of calcium hydroxide from the bulk of the concrete.
Cracks having width changes with time are referred to as live. They are typically
caused by on-going processes such as chemical (AAR, sulfate attack etc),
structural and thermal actions. They are less likely to self-heal.
what the effects are in different situations and
their significance. Crack width seems to be less
important to corrosion risk than crack
frequency, cover depth and concrete quality.
In an environment where the concrete is
experiencing only carbonation, cracking will
often initiate localised early corrosion, but the
corrosion is unlikely to progress significantly
(Figure 6). Greater depths of cover to
reinforcement can help inhibit the further
development of this form of localised
corrosion. Cracks coincident with a reinforcing
bar (Figure 7) will tend to expose a greater
proportion of the bar to moisture and oxygen;
cathodic and anodic areas are likely to be
reasonably equal in size and will typically lead
to generalised corrosion, with the expansive
Carbonated zone
Carbonation zone
Rust patches
Reinforcing steel
Aggregate
Cement matrix
Figure 6 Diagrammatic view of steel corroding in cracked concrete
Coincident cracks
Intersecting cracks
Reinforcing bars
Figure 7 Cracking in a reinforced concrete slab
forces potentially promoting further cracking
depending on the availability of moisture. In
the case of cracks intersecting reinforcing bars,
the anodic areas are likely to be considerably
smaller than the cathodic areas; while this
could notionally lead to localised corrosion, it
often does not.
When chloride penetrates the concrete from
an external source, corrosion can be very
severe where reinforcing bars intersect cracks
because of the relatively small size of the
anodic zones. In these situations intense
localised corrosion of affected reinforcing bars
can cause very large losses of cross-sectional
area. In extreme cases even total local loss of a
bar has been known over a length of a few
centimetres. Just outside this zone, perhaps just
a centimetre or two away, the bars concerned
may be in pristine condition.
It is probable in these conditions that cracks
coincident with reinforcement would result in
less severe loss of cross-sectional area because
the anodic and cathodic zones are likely to be
more equal in size. Clearly the loss of a large
proportion of the cross-sectional area of
adjacent reinforcing bars could seriously impair
the load carrying capacity of a structure.
Structures at risk in aggressive environments
Many types of reinforced concrete structure
are exposed to aggressive environments,
particularly where this involves depassivating
agents such as external sources of chloride.
Examples include car parks, marine facilities,
bridges and industrial effluent tanks. In these
structures the risk of corrosion will vary with
location, and depend on environmental
conditions and factors related to the design,
detailing and construction. Joints which leak
allowing chloride contaminated water to flow
over the structure and details that encourage
ponding are often sources of major durability
problems; the top horizontal surfaces of in situ
concrete are particularly vulnerable to chloride
ingress. A number of these issues are reviewed
in the section on the design of new structures.
Numerous structures built in the UK before
1977, especially those that incorporate precast
elements, contain cast-in chlorides. This
problem (described in the BRE Report, The
structural adequacy and durability of large panel
system dwellings) is found in many forms of
system-built housing.
Other forms of concrete deterioration and
damage can have a significant influence on, but
are not in themselves responsible for, corrosion
of embedded steel reinforcement. They may
contribute to the process by allowing easier
ingress of depassivating agents.
 7

Assessment of existing structures actions to mitigate the effects of deterioration.

Assessing an existing structure requires an
evaluation of information about its form and
current condition, components, service
environment and general circumstances, to
establish its adequacy for future service against
specified performance requirements (loadings,
durability and other criteria).
The process involves gathering available
archive information such as drawings, reports
of inspections, and previous assessments and
evaluation. This may be combined with
inspection and testing to establish the current
condition of the structure, and any
deterioration processes which are active and
affecting its service life. Depending on
circumstances, it may be necessary to
undertake structural and other forms of
analysis or predictive modelling. This can then
be used to make a prognosis for the current and
future performance of the structure, and to
assess the need for remedial or preventative
Similar techniques can be used for examining
the relative effectiveness and viability of
potential remedial or preventative actions.
These comparisons help in evaluating options
for extending the service life of the structure, if
first predictions do not meet the owner’s
requirements for performance or functionality.
Conventional structural assessments of the
load capacity or other performance criteria for
a deteriorating structure have tended to be
cautious, for obvious reasons. This may have
involved assuming that the highest observed
degree of loss of reinforcing bar cross-sectional
area occurs in the zones of highest stress.
While this may be conservative, it may also be
excessively restrictive in terms of the assessed
residual load capacity or performance criteria
for a deteriorated structure. Greater interest is
now being given to using probabilistically
based reliability methods of assessment. Use of
these methods, especially for major structures,
is expected to increase over the coming years.
(See also Part 2 of this Digest.)

Design and service life states

Performance based serviceability design, amongst other things, enables the point
Design of new structures
at which a particular serviceability criterion is (or is not) being achieved to be General principles
determined.
Designing a reinforced concrete structure that
Appropriate criteria can be developed from the various states or conditions
will achieve satisfactory whole-life
that might arise during the life of a structure. These criteria should recognise the
degradation processes that could affect the ability of an individual element or the
performance will depend on a number of
overall structure to perform its intended functions. The states are typically defined factors including:
in terms of key performance or functionality requirements. ● correct assessment of the environment to
For example, the serviceability criterion might be defined as the end of the which the concrete will be exposed,
technical service life of a reinforced concrete element determined by: particularly the chloride-exposure
● the point at which corrosion is initiated; conditions. The environmental factors
● the first appearance of cracking visible with magnification; include the general environment conditions
● cracking visible to the naked eye;
(macro-climate), influences such as the
● the first appearance of spalling;
location and orientation of the concrete
● the development of excessive deflection under a particular loading configuration;
● the assessed load capacity being reduced to less than a predetermined value;
surface being considered and its exposure to
● the probability of failure under the design or other specified loading exceeding prevailing winds and rainfall (meso-climate),
a predetermined value, perhaps expressed as a reliability index. and localised conditions such as surface
ponding, exposure to surface run-off and
This approach to service life design does not result in a single value, but spray (micro-climate);
recognises that it may vary depending on a number of factors; these include the ● making a rational decision on the required
type of element or structure, the associated performance requirements, and the design and service lives for the structure (see
maintenance regime that is to be adopted. In addition, environmental and
the box aside). This includes consideration
aesthetic aspects can strongly influence considerations about what comprises
of the serviceability needs of the structure
acceptable technical performance, and are parameters that may need to be
addressed.
(ie can some deterioration of the concrete
The concept of performance-based serviceability also requires: be tolerated or must it remain in first rate
● the identification of properties which are central to the design requirements; condition for the duration of the structure’s
● a means of evaluating the ability of a structure to meet the specified (minimum) intended service life? Is uninterrupted use of
standards of acceptable technical performance; the facility of paramount operational
● methods for evaluating changes in performance capability that occur over time. importance?)
● correct design and specification of the
Most of the tools required are still being developed and refined.
concrete and the structure, particularly its
Further aspects of the concepts of service life planning are given in the draft
buildability;
International Standard on service life design (HB 10141-1 [3]).
● good construction practice;
8
● regular in-service inspection, monitoring
and maintenance;
● correct and early assessment of any
deterioration, followed by effective repair or
preventative measures.
Decisions made or actions taken at different
stages in the life-cycle of a structure have vastly
different impacts upon its whole-life cost and
performance. As the life-cycle proceeds
through the concept, planning and design
phases to construction and use, and finally to
disposal, the relative influence of these
decisions and actions at particular stages
progressively diminishes as the committed
costs increase. This emphasises the importance
of the concept, the planning and design phases,
and the major influences they have upon
whole-life cost and performance (see the BRE
Report, Study on whole life costing), particularly
in relation to achieving sustainability in
construction. These cost concepts are
embodied in de Sitter’s Law of Fives (see the
box below).
It is certainly advisable to have some form of
asset management scheme for concrete
structures which defines appropriate planned
inspection and maintenance regimes. Such an
approach is compatible with the concepts of
whole-life costing. To date asset management
has most commonly been adopted where a
number of structures are held in single
ownership (eg bridges, system-built housing
and utility structures). Unfortunately many
structures are only inspected on an ad-hoc
basis, perhaps in response to the discovery of
problems or for other owner needs, such as for
change of ownership or use. Using an asset
management system should help to minimise
the total costs of ownership during the service
life of the structure.
The assessment of the environment, service
life influences, and design and construction are
dealt with in the sections that follow.
Inspection, monitoring and assessment issues
are considered in Part 2 of this Digest, and
protection and repair actions in Part 3.
De Sitter’s Law of Fives
‘De Sitter’s Law of Fives’ quantifies the effect on whole-life costs of decisions made
at different stages in the life-cycle of a structure. It could be expressed as follows.
£1 spent getting the structure designed and built correctly is as effective as £5
spent in subsequent preventative maintenance in the pre-corrosion phase while
carbonation and chlorides are penetrating inwards towards the steel reinforcement.
In addition, this £1 is as effective as £25 spent in repair and maintenance when
local active corrosion is taking place. In turn, this is as effective as £125 spent
when generalised corrosion is taking place and where major repairs are necessary,
possibly including strengthening or the replacement of complete members.
Cover, compaction and curing
The depth of the concrete cover (between the
surface and the reinforcing steel) has a major
influence on the time-to-corrosion. The depth
of cover specified on drawings, usually based
on the tabulated recommendations for
concrete strength and exposure condition, is a
target value and wide variations occur in
construction. Over the years recommended
cover depths have been progressively
increased. However actual cover achieved
varies widely, depending on the workmanship
and supervision on the construction site, and
this variation has a major effect on the actual
performance of structures.
For many years, cover has been defined as a
minimum value, or as a nominal value with a
plus-or-minus tolerance, to the main steel or
the secondary steel. However, analysis of
actual cover achieved in a number of structures
showed that the cover to steel varied widely
when compared to specifications. Clark et al [4]
have made detailed analyses of these variations.
Surveys of existing structures using a
covermeter (see also Part 2 of this Digest)
typically find:
● a random variation in cover depending on
the adequacy of the use of spacers, and the
rigidity and accuracy of the reinforcement
cage.
❏ With best practice, a range of ±5 mm of
the mean may just be achieved – seldom
with in situ construction but possibly with
good quality precast concrete.
❏ With good practice, a range of ±10 mm
will be generally found.
❏ In other cases (eg where there is little site
supervision), the range may be ±20 mm.
● specific biases: for example, low cover on
soffits of slabs and beams, and cages offset
within columns.
With new construction, accurate cover will
only be achieved by good reinforcement
detailing and rigorous quality control. Site
practice should include the recording of cover
in sample areas during construction so that
areas of low cover are identified and remedied
as construction progresses. Because of the
difficulties of achieving the tolerances on cover
specified in the codes, specifying a better grade
of concrete with normal construction
tolerances can be considered so that adequate
durability is achieved cost effectively and
without delays in construction.
Increasing specified cover can improve the
durability of a structure, but it has substantial
adverse cost and weight implications as well as
making the control of cracking more difficult.

Cost effective durability design should balance
the specified cover and achievable tolerances
with the improvements in concrete quality.
Adequate compaction and curing are
essential in ensuring the durability of concrete.
Fresh concrete must be sufficiently workable
that it can be completely compacted without
an excessive amount of work. Compaction
essentially consists of eliminating trapped air
and allowing the concrete to reach maximum
density. It should commence as soon as
possible after adding water and is achieved by
ramming the surface or by vibration. Using
water-reducing admixtures or plasticisers can
provide easier placing and compaction for a
given water content. During the curing period
the concrete should be free from physical
disturbance and protected from drying and
extremes of temperature.
Materials and methods
A number of factors can significantly affect the
achievement of corrosion protection and
concrete durability. These include:
concrete quality, achieving adequate cover to the
reinforcement, compaction of the concrete
and appropriate curing, especially of the
cover concrete;
mix design and mix constituents, particularly the
water:cement ratio, total cement content,
concrete grade, the inclusion of reactive
additions such as pfa, ggbs and silica fume,
and avoiding the inclusion of chlorides and
other contaminants;
Table 1 Exposure classes from BS 5328-1
Class Exposure conditions
Mild Concrete surfaces protected against weather or aggressive conditions
Moderate Exposed concrete surfaces but sheltered from severe rain or freezing
while wet
Concrete surfaces continuously under non-aggressive water
Concrete in contact with non-aggressive soil
Concrete subject to condensation
Severe Concrete surfaces exposed to severe rain, alternate wetting and
drying, or occasional freezing or conditions while wet
Very Concrete surfaces occasionally exposed to seawater spray or de-icing
severe salts (directly or indirectly)
Concrete surfaces exposed to corrosive fumes or severe freezing
conditions while wet
Most Concrete surfaces frequently exposed to seawater spray or de-icing
severe salts (directly or indirectly)
Concrete in seawater tidal zone down to 1 m below lowest low water
level
Abrasive Concrete surfaces exposed to abrasive action (eg machinery or metal
tyred vehicles or water carrying solids)
9
concrete surface treatments that can be used to
inhibit the ingress of moisture and
depassivating agents such as carbon dioxide
and chlorides. Coatings can provide a barrier
to liquid water and, hence, chlorides. Surface
penetrating treatments, such as silanes and
siloxanes, line the capillary pores close to the
surface of the concrete to produce a
hydrophobic finish;
using controlled permeability formwork which
allows the drainage of mix water from the
surface zone while the concrete hardens.
This greatly reduces the absorption
properties of the surface zone and the
associated risk of chloride ingress in
uncracked concrete;
providing protective coatings to reinforcement. The
principal options are epoxy coatings which
provide a barrier between the embedded
steel and an aggressive environment, and
galvanising where the zinc coating acts in a
sacrificial way. These options are discussed
in more detail in CEB Bulletin 211 [5];
using corrosion resisting reinforcement such as
austenitic stainless steel. Types 304 and 316
have been found to be very corrosion
resistant in chloride bearing concrete.
Concrete Society Technical Report No 51 [6]
provides design guidance on the use of
stainless steel reinforcement. Alternatively
fibre reinforced plastics (FRPs) may be
appropriate in certain circumstances [7].
These consist of continuous fibres, generally
of glass, carbon or aramid, set in a suitable
resin to form a rod or grid. To date the
commercial use of FRPs has been limited;
adding corrosion inhibitors to the concrete mix.
There are both organic and inorganic
inhibitive compounds commercially
available. The inorganic compounds used in
the UK tend to be based on calcium nitrite –
as they have been used for about 20 years,
there is a considerable amount of
information on their effectiveness. More
recently organic compounds, such as amino
alcohols, have become available;
cathodic prevention and protection which is being
used increasingly to achieve long service in
environments containing appreciable levels
of chlorides;
overcladding and enclosure which have been
employed occasionally to isolate parts of a
structure from an aggressive environment.
10
Guidance in current Codes and Standards
As discussed above the first requirement for
ensuring satisfactory whole-life performance is
a correct assessment of the environment
together with a decision on the design service
life and serviceability needs for the structure.
These form part of the design brief. The
following gives guidance for requirements set
down in current Standards and Codes.
Environment
The main factors to consider are the expected
moisture level and the presence of chlorides.
Currently BS 5328-1 gives five classes for
exposure conditions, from mild to most severe
(plus one further class for abrasion), as shown
in Table 1. The draft European Standard,
prEN 206, gives a much more sophisticated
system, though, classifying exposure separately
for each aggressive action (ie for corrosion
induced by carbonation, by cast-in chlorides or
by chlorides from seawater – see the box below
on the development of European standards).
The limiting requirements to ensure durable
concrete in these environments are to be
decided, however, at a national level. The UK’s
requirements will be contained in a new
complementary British Standard to prEN 206.
Concrete mix requirements
BS 5328-1 gives recommended values for
maximum free-water:cement ratio, minimum
cement content and minimum grade (ie
strength) to ensure long service life for each
condition of exposure. (However, ‘long service
life’ is not defined.) The complementary British
Standard to prEN 206 has a similar approach,
but for either 50 or 100-year design lives. This
Standard also recognises that concrete
deterioration is not subject to absolute rules
but needs a probabilistic approach. The
recommended concrete quality is considered to
give a minimal risk that corrosion will become
excessive and require significant repairs before
the end of the intended working life. In most
cases the actual working life is expected to be
significantly longer than the intended life; but it
is suggested that for some structures higher
quality concrete, increased cover or additional
protective measures, or combinations of these,
may be necessary. These structures include:
● those where premature repair during design
service life is unacceptable;
● those with a design life significantly greater
than 100 years;
● structures exposed to more severe exposure
conditions than those defi ned in the Standard.

Development of European standards, codes of practice and guidance documents

A number of current UK Standards, Codes and best practice guidance documents give recommendations for constructing durable concrete
structures. The whole subject area is, however, in transition as progress is made towards the introduction of relevant European standards.
Information Paper IP 11/97 provided an overview on progress in European standardisation for the protection and repair of concrete structures.
Guidance for design is offered by current UK standards such as BS 8110-1 and, for concrete mixes, BS 5328-1. Current recommendations are
prescriptive in nature, typically specifying a depth of cover and grade of concrete for a particular exposure class.
There are also a number of relevant European standards and codes under development, such as prEN 206 and Eurocode 2, which in due
course are expected to replace the current UK Standard and Code documents. A prescriptive approach to durability design has been adopted in
the European drafts, as in current Standards, but the treatment of exposure classes in these documents is considerably more sophisticated.
Many more environmental situations are recognised; they can be broadly summarised as follows.

No risk of corrosion or attack Corrosion induced by chlorides other Chemical attack

than from seawater ● Slightly aggressive chemical
Corrosion induced by chlorides from ● Moderate humidity. environments.
seawater ● Wet, rarely dry. ● Moderately aggressive chemical
● Exposed to airborne salt but not in direct ● Cyclic wet and dry. environments.
contact with sea water. ● Highly aggressive chemical environments.
● Submerged. Corrosion induced by carbonation
● Tidal, splash and spray zones. ● Dry or permanently wet. Freeze–thaw attack
● Wet, rarely dry. ● Classes depend on the level of water
● Moderate humidity. saturation and the presence of de-icing
● Cyclic wet and dry. agents.

The associated recommended minimum compressive strength classes and concrete mix requirements for durability in the specified exposure
condition will be defined in the complementary British Standard to prEN 206.
A series of documents deals with the assessment of existing concrete structures, their repair, and protection against deterioration.
Parts 2 and 3 of this Digest address aspects of these topics. Other documents include the report of the Concrete Bridge Development Group [8]
concerned with the testing and monitoring of the durability of concrete structures. There are other guidance documents dealing more broadly with
the management, maintenance and strengthening of concrete structures such as CEB Bulletin 243 [9]. There is also the 1504 series of European
standards that gives guidance on products and systems for protection and repair including associated testing procedures; while Parts 1 and 9
are currently available, other parts are still under development and not expected to become available for some time. This is an area that is
undergoing considerable change and the preparation of guidance is expected to continue.

Control of chlorides
All constituents of concrete may contain
chlorides; limits for the total chloride content
of concrete for different end uses are given in
BS 5328-1. Wherever possible the total
chloride content should be calculated from the
mix proportions and the measured chloride
content of each of the constituents.
Structural design of concrete
The structural design must also consider the
requirements for durability. Most fundamental
is the minimum cover to reinforcement.
Currently, recommendations for nominal
cover to meet durability requirements are given
in BS 8110-1 by which a trade-off between
cover and concrete quality is allowed. This
approach is also carried forward into the draft
complementary British Standard (to prEN 206)
which, however, also warns that fixing
reinforcement may not achieve the accuracy
assumed in the design as has been shown by
experience. (See the variations in the range of
depth of cover in the earlier section, ‘Cover,
compaction and curing’.)
Care should therefore be exercised in
specifying levels of cover in structural and
exposure conditions where performance could
be adversely affected if the specified cover is
not achieved. The structural design should also
take advantage of other factors which could
improve the protection of reinforcement.
These include ensuring that the spacing and
design of reinforcement will allow accurate
fixing and proper compaction of the concrete.
Control of moisture, and especially chloride-
laden water, is fundamental to achieving the
envisaged design service-life. Effective,
maintainable drainage, surface protection and
adequate roof overhangs on a structure can all
play a significant part.
11
Predicting service life performance
As the mechanisms producing reinforcement
corrosion are time-dependent, effective design
and specification for whole-life performance
should be based, where possible, on models of
the effects of those mechanisms on service life.
Clearly it is important to employ appropriate
models and to seek to verify that they provide
an acceptable, if not entirely realistic,
representation of the processes and effects
occurring on structures.
One basis for modelling has been given by
Tuutti [10]. This depicted corrosion as a two-
stage process. First there is an initiation period
during which carbonation or chloride ingress
occurs, starting at the surface and progressing
on a time-dependent basis to the reinforcement.
This is followed by a propagation period from
the onset of corrosion to the point at which
some threshold of deterioration in the concrete
is reached. This might be the onset of cracking
or some predetermined loss of reinforcement
cross-sectional area or perhaps some degree of
reduction in serviceability or load capacity.
Models of the initiation period are at a
comparatively advanced stage of development.
Carbonation is often assumed to follow a
simple square root relationship with time (the
actual relationship may be more complex,
particularly for outdoor exposure). Chloride
ingress is often modelled using Fick’s Second
Law of Diffusion (see the section in Part 2:
‘Prognosis’, ‘Chlorides’). The propagation
period has received less attention although
models for time-to-cracking have been
developed. More data are required to validate
models of both the initiation and propagation
periods.
Recent best practice guidance documents
have suggested that durability design might be
better undertaken using probabilistic methods
similar to those employed for structural design
purposes. This approach would recognise the
variability in the chemical and physical
properties of the concrete, as well as in its
environment. Recent technical reports
concerned with durability design and means of
achieving satisfactory in-service performance
have addressed this topic [11–14].
12

References and further reading BRE

The structural adequacy and durability of large panel system
[1] Department of the Environment. Durability by dwellings. Part 1: Investigations of construction;
intent. Strategy for DOE programme on durability of Part 2: Guidance on appraisal. BR 107
concrete and reinforced concrete. London, Department of Study on whole life costing. BR 367
the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1994.
[2] Bamforth P B, Price W F and Emerson M. An BRE Digests
international review of chloride ingress into structural 392 Assessment of existing high alumina cement
concrete. Transport Research Laboratory Contractor concrete construction in the UK
Report 359. Crowthorne, TRL, 1997.
[3] British Standards Institution. Buildings – Service life BRE Information Papers
planning. General principles. HB 10141-1. London, BSI, IP 11/97 Progress in European standardisation for the
1997. protection and repair of concrete
[4] Clark L A, Shammas-Toma M G K, Seymour D E,
Pallett P F and Marsh B K. How can we get the cover we British Standards Institution
need ? The Structural Engineer, 2 September 1997, 75 BS 5328-1:1991 Concrete. Guide to specifying concrete
(17) 289–296. BS 8110-1:1985 Structural use of concrete. Code of
[5] Comité Euro-International du Béton. Coating practice for design and construction
protection for reinforcement. State of the art report.
London, Thomas Telford, 1995. Draft European Standards
[6] The Concrete Society. Guidance on the use of prEN 206 Concrete – Performance, production and
stainless steel reinforcement. Technical Report No 51. conformity. Draft for public comment. BSI document
Slough, The Concrete Society, 1998. 97/104685 DC
[7] The Institution of Structural Engineers. Interim
guidance on the design of reinforced concrete structures European Codes of Practice
using fibre composite reinforcement. London, SETO Ltd, DD ENV 1504-1:1998 Products and systems for the
1999. protection and repair of concrete structures –
[8] Concrete Bridge Development Group. Testing and Definitions, requirements, quality control and evaluation
monitoring the durability of concrete structures. Technical of conformity – General scope and definitions
Guide No 2. Crowthorne, CBDG, to be published in 2000. DD ENV 1504-9:1997 Products and systems for the
[9] Comité Euro-International du Béton. Strategies for protection and repair of concrete structures –
testing and assessment of concrete structures. Guidance Definitions, requirements quality control and evaluation
report. Bulletin 243. Lausanne, CEB, 1998. of conformity – General principles for the use of
[10] Tuutti K. Corrosion of steel in concrete. CBI products and systems
Forskning: Research Report Fo 4.82. Stockholm, Swedish DD ENV 1992-1-1:1992 Eurocode 2. Design of concrete
Cement and Concrete Research Institute, 1982. structures. General rules for buildings
[11] Siemes A J M and Rostam S. Durability, safety and
serviceability. A performance based design. Proceedings
of IABSE Colloquium ‘Basis of design actions on
structures’, Delft, The Netherlands, 27–29 March 1996.
TNO Report No 96-BT-R0437-001, February 1996.
[12] Comité Euro-International du Béton. New
approach to durability design. An example for carbonation
induced corrosion. Bulletin 238. Lausanne, CEB, 1997.
[13] Taywood Engineering Ltd. Guidance on the
selection of measures for enhancing reinforced concrete
durability. Report No 1304/98/10349. Southall, Taywood
Engineering Ltd, 1998.
[14] Hobbs D W (ed). Minimum requirements for durable
concrete. Carbonation- and chloride-induced corrosion,
freeze–thaw attack and chemical attack. Crowthorne,
British Cement Association, 1998.

constr ucting the futur e

BRE is the UK’s leading centre of expertise on building and BRE publishes a wide range of information on all CRC Ltd, 151 Rosebery Avenue, Requests to copy any part of this
construction, and the prevention and control of fire. For information aspects of the built environment. London EC1R 4GB publication should be made to:
on BRE and its services, or for technical advice, contact: Details of all BRE publications and the Professional Tel: 020 7505 6622 CRC Ltd, PO Box 202,
BRE, Garston, Watford WD2 7JR Development Package (the subscription service that Fax: 020 7505 6606 Watford, Herts WD2 7QG
Tel: 01923 664000 supplies Digests, Good Building Guides, Good Repair email: crc@construct.emap.co.uk
Fax: 01923 664098 Guides and Information Papers as they are published), © Copyright BRE 2000
email: enquiries@bre.co.uk can be obtained from CRC Ltd – publishers for BRE – ISBN 1 86081 360 7
Website: www.bre.co.uk or from the BRE website.