Fib Bulletin 76

This document is the intellectual property of the fib – International Federation for Structural Concrete. All rights reserved.
This PDF of fib Bulletin 76 is intended for use and/or distribution solely within fib National Member Groups.
Bulletin
Benchmarking of deemed-to-
satisfy provisions in standards:
76
Durability of reinforced concrete
structures exposed to chlorides
State-of-the-art report
Task Group 8.6
May 2015
Subject to priorities defined by the technical council and the presidium, the results of the fib’s
work in commissions and task groups are published in a continuously numbered series of tech-
nical publications called bulletins. The following categories are used:
Category: Draft to be approved by:

Technical report Task group and chairpersons of the commission
State-of-the-art report Commission
Manual / Guide to good practice / Recommendation Technical council
Model code General assembly
Any publication not having met the above requirements will be clearly identified as a preliminary draft.
fib Bulletin 76 was approved as a state-of-the-art report by Commission 8: Durability and was
drafted by Task Group 8.6: Calibration of code deemed-to-satisfy provisions for durability.
Convener: Christoph Gehlen* (TU München)
Contributors: Mike Bartholomew (CH2M, USA), Carola Edvardsen (COWI A/S, Denmark),
Miguel Ferreira (VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland), Stefanie von Greve-Dierfeld* (TU
München, Germany), Joost Gulikers* (Rijkswaterstaat GPO, Netherlands), Steinar Helland*
(Skanska Norge AS, Norway), Gro Markeset (SINTEF, Norway), Philip McKenna (CH2M, Ireland),
Frank Papworth (BCRC, Australia), Brett Pielstick (EISMAN & RUSSO, USA), Amir Rahimi*
(Federal Waterways Engineering and Research Institute, Germany)
* Members of the drafting board
Cover images:
Front cover: ‘Troll B’ by Håkon Thingstad (2010), CC BY 2.0, (flickr.com/photos/25638028@N06)
Back cover: ‘Eider Sperrwerk Ostseite’ by Richard Bartz (2013), CC BY-SA 3.0 (commons.wikimedia.
org/wiki/User:Richard_Bartz)
© Fédération internationale du béton (fib), 2015
Although the International Federation for Structural Concrete / Fédération internationale du béton (fib)
does its best to ensure that all the information presented in this publication is accurate, no liability or
responsibility of any kind, including liability for negligence, is accepted in this respect by the organization,
its members, employees or agents.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified, translated, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means - electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise - without prior written permission from the fib.
ISSN 1562-3610
ISBN 978-2-88394-116-8
Printed by DCC Document Competence Center Siegmar Kästl e.K., Germany
Preface
All over the world the system for specifying and ensuring the durability of newly built concrete
structures is based on traditional deemed-to-satisfy rules. New research findings, the overall
methodology of performance and reliability-based design and the subsequently developed
durability design tools, which were developed and matured in extensive-research flagship projects
[e.g. HETEK (Scandinavian-funded project); DURACRETE and DURANET (both European-funded
projects)], have not been taken into consideration.
At present durability is specified by limiting values (maximum w/c-ratio, air content and minimum
cement content), limits on the permitted constituents and, in some cases, additional performance
requirements, e.g. compressive strength. These empirical provisions are based on local experience
and the local availability of concrete constituents. Consequently, there is variation in requirements
between the various countries in Europe. Doubtless, concrete is and will remain a local material,
produced with local constituents, labour and traditions. It is based on local expectations and
experience in its performance. However, differences in national provisions, which are based on
standardized cements, cannot be explained on a rational basis – even within each national provision
the rules do not lead to a consistent resistance of the concrete and structures.
However, nowadays, especially when important infrastructure projects are being planned, such as
long tunnels and long-span bridges, where huge investments are involved and long target service
lives are required, the newly developed design tools are sometimes used, at least to specify
stricter limiting values beyond the present descriptive rules.
Based on the promising experience gained during the last decade it should be possible to predict
and quantify the limit-state-based performance of a structure in terms of statistical reliabilities.
fib Task Group 8.6, formerly fib Task Group 5.11, took over the task of quantifying the levels of
achievable reliability when national provisions are followed.
The quantification was made by using a commonly accepted prediction model for chloride-induced
reinforcement corrosion, which has already been introduced in some standards and guidelines.
The task group selected one of several validated applicable approaches to calculate the reliabilities
of structures. This was carried out with the database available to the group. Data were carefully
selected and documented, showing their origin, production and application.
TG 8.6 hopes that this document will provide valuable background information on the current
situation and perspective of service-life-design issues.
Lastly, the final editing of this bulletin by Marianne Fourie of the fib secretariat is greatly appreciated.
Christoph Gehlen
Convener of fib Task Group 8.6
Contents
Symbols 1
1 Introduction 3
2 Background 4
2.1 Code’s prescriptive approach for ensuring the durability of concrete
structures with respect to chloride-induced corrosion 4
2.2 Performance-based probabilistic service-life design of concrete
structures for chloride-induced corrosion 6
2.2.1 Principle 6
2.2.2 Mathematical model for chloride penetration in concrete 7
2.2.3 Methodology for prediction of a condition state (a priori) 15
2.2.4 Model parameters and data used for the benchmark task 17
3 Benchmarking 32
3.1 Selection of countries 32
3.2 Deemed-to-satisfy rules of the selected countries 35
3.3 Prediction of condition state (a priori) 39
3.3.1 Procedure 39
3.3.2 Reliability spectra (a priori) 44
3.4 Verification by assessing existing structures (a posteriori) 47
3.4.1 Methodology 47
3.4.2 Data from practical investigations 49
3.4.3 Verification of the model prediction 50
3.4.4 Verification of the a priori reliability spectra 53
4 Proposal for performance-based deemed-to-satisfy rules 56
References 59
Appendix A 64
A1 Spain 64
A2 Portugal 76
A3 Great Britain 92
A4 Netherlands 103
A5 Germany 115
A6 Denmark 131
A7 Norway 143
A8 USA 155
A9 Australia 167
Appendix B 173
Symbols
Symbol or Definition
abbreviation

α Aging exponent [–]
β Reliability index [–]
be Temperature coefficient [K]
BetaD Beta distribution
C0 Initial chloride content [wt.-%/c]
C(x,t) Time- and depth-dependent chloride content in uncracked concrete
[wt.-%/c]
Ccrit Critical, corrosion-inducing chloride content [wt.-%/c]
CS,0 Chloride content at the concrete surface [wt.-%/c]
CS,Δx Chloride content resulting from the prevailing exposure environment at
depth Δx [wt.-%/c]
C(xinsp, tinsp) Chloride content at depth xinsp at time tinsp [wt.-%/c]
CoV Coefficient of variation
c Concrete cover (in general) [mm]
cmin Minimum concrete cover [mm]
cnom Nominal concrete cover [mm]
CEM Cement
Δcdev Allowance for deviation of concrete cover [mm]
Δx Depth of the convection zone (near-surface concrete layer up to which
the process of chloride penetration differs from Fick’s 2nd law of
diffusion) [mm]
Dapp(t) Apparent chloride diffusion coefficient [m²/s]
DRCM(t0) Chloride diffusion coefficient determined at a reference age t0 by a
test method based on the electrochemical principle for rapid chloride
migration (chloride migration coefficient) [m²/s]
fx(X) Common density function for the vector of the random variable X
FA Fly ash
fib MC2010 fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010
fib MC SLD fib Bulletin 34: Model Code for Service Life Design (2006)
g(X) Limit state function
GGBS Ground granulated blast-furnace slag
ke Transfer parameter which accounts for the influence of temperature on
chloride diffusion [–]
LS Limestone
LND Lognormal distribution
μ Mean value
1
ND Normal distribution
Pf Probability of failure
R Resistance
RC Material resistance class in respect to carbonation
RSD Material resistance class in respect to seawater/de-icing salts
σ Standard deviation
S Action
SF Silica fume
t Time [s]
t0 Reference point of time (reference concrete age), often [s], but also
sometimes [d(ays)] and [years]
tSL Design service life [years]
tinsp Inspection time (age of structure at the time of inspection) [years]
Tref Reference temperature [K]
Treal Temperature of the structural element or the ambient air [K]
U0.05 5 % quantile of the Normal distributed quantity
u0.05 5 % quantile of the Normal distribution
w/c Water/cement-ratio [–]
w/b Water/binder-ratio [–]
x Depth with a corresponding content of chlorides C(x, t), mostly [mm],
sometimes [m]
xcrit(t) Depth at which a critical, corrosion-inducing chloride content is reached
at time t, mostly [mm], sometimes [m]
xinsp Corresponding depth of concrete element corresponding to a measured
chloride content, mostly [mm], sometimes [m]
XD Exposure class for corrosion induced by chlorides other than from
seawater
XS Exposure class for corrosion induced by chlorides from seawater
Z Difference between actions and resistances (condition)
2
1 Introduction
The current system in standards for specifying and ensuring the durability of new
concrete structures is commonly of a prescriptive type. In prescriptive specifications,
adequate durability is assumed to be guaranteed indirectly by ensuring compliance with
limiting values for concrete composition and construction details. These parameters
define the resistance of a concrete and construction element to withstand different
actions from the surrounding environment. The environmental action is characterized
through exposure classes.
The prescriptive rules given in the standards have typically evolved from local experience,
scientific expertise and the product standards of the locally available concrete constituents.
The national provisions are based on experience and the differences are not correlated
to a varying severity of actions. In practice, this empirical approach has resulted in a
certain variation in requirements between the various countries globally, even in Europe,
where there is close regional proximity. However, the observed significant differences
between national provisions cannot be explained on a rational basis and it is likely that
they do not lead to a consistent exposure resistance.
The aim of this work is to benchmark a number of rules for chloride-induced corrosion as
given in national codes, e.g. European, US and Australian standards. In this benchmark it is
determined which reliability ranges regarding the chloride-induced depassivation of rebar
can be expected if the deemed-to-satisfy rules of different countries are considered. This
exercise does not only involve (probabilistic) calculations using input mainly based on short-
term and rapid laboratory test data, but also on an independent assessment of existing
structures. The reliability analyses are carried out using the probabilistic design approach
for chloride-induced corrosion presented in fib Bulletin 34: Model Code for Service Life
Design (2006), fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010 and ISO 16204:2012. However,
the results obtained should be considered with caution, as the input data used for this task
are chosen from a limited number of specific investigations which do not always reflect the
wide range of concrete qualities and compositions used around the world.
The calculated reliability ranges thus determined are compared with the target reliabilities
proposed by current specifications and, based on the above comparison, a proposal for
an improvement to deemed-to-satisfy rules and specifications is made.
In this report the input data for the model parameters taken into account in this benchmark
task are presented and discussed in detail. The report also contains an extensive annexe
documenting the values of the individual parameters used in the analyses. The report
thus provides a reliable database for a performance-based probabilistic service-life design
of concrete structures exposed to chlorides (salt fog, seawater or de-icing salts).
3
2 Background
2.1 Code’s prescriptive approach for ensuring the durability of

concrete structures with respect to chloride-induced corrosion
In prescriptive specifications of codes adequate durability with respect to chloride-
induced corrosion is deemed satisfied by ensuring compliance with limiting values for all
or part of the following parameters:
• Maximum w/c-ratio
• Minimum cement content
• Permitted types of cement and their constituents
• Minimum compressive strength
• Minimum concrete cover mostly combined with an allowed tolerance
• Use of additions
• Upper limit for chloride content in the fresh concrete
• Maximum crack width
These values are dependent on the exposure class, giving the classified degree of severity
of the environmental action.
In EN 206:2013, which was first published as EN 206-1:2000 and is the governing

European standard on concrete performance, the environmental actions related to
chloride-induced corrosion are divided into exposure classes XD and XS based on the
acting medium and then are further subdivided into three classes, based on the prevailing
moisture condition as shown in Table 2-1. This classification of environmental actions is
also given in ISO 22965:2007.
Table 2-1 Exposure classes related to chloride-induced corrosion according to EN 206:2013

(and to its preceding standard EN 206-1:2000)
Class / Description of Informative example where exposure classes may

Designation environment occur
Corrosion induced by chlorides other than from seawater
(Where concrete containing reinforcement or other embedded metal is subject to contact
with water containing chlorides, including de-icing salts, from sources other than seawater)
XD1 Moderate humidity Concrete surfaces exposed to airborne chlorides
XD2 Wet, rarely dry Swimming pools, concrete exposed to industrial
waters containing chlorides
4
XD3 Cyclic wet and dry Parts of bridges exposed to spray containing chlorides,
pavements, car park slabs
Corrosion induced by chlorides from seawater
(Where concrete containing reinforcement or other embedded metal is subject to contact
with chlorides from seawater or air carrying salt originating from seawater)
XS1 Exposed to airborne salt Structures near or on the coast
but not in direct contact
with seawater
XS2 Permanently submerged Parts of marine structures
XS3 Tidal, splash and spray Parts of marine structures
zones
For each exposure class there are limits for maximum w/c-ratio, minimum cement
content and optional, minimum compressive strength. In EN 1992-1-1:2004 (Eurocode
2), the relevant European standard for design and construction, there are also limits for
minimum concrete cover. If these requirements are met, a service life of at least 50 years,
involving ordinary maintenance, is considered to have been achieved. In EN 1992-1-
1:2004 the possibility is given to design for other service lives (than 50 years) by means
of varying the minimum concrete cover.
EN 206-1 was adopted in spring 2000 and contained only framework definitions,
which meant that national supplements were possible. This has resulted in the different
specifications that can currently be found in national standards in Europe (national
annexes).
In this document references will only be made to the preceding standard EN 206-1:2000.
The current standard, EN 206:2013, contains only minor changes which are considered
irrelevant for this work.
In addition to selected European countries in which EN 206 and EN 1992-1-1 are valid,
the standards and guidelines of several other countries were also considered for the
purposes of this benchmarking.
The provisions of the selected standards are shown in Section 3.2.
5
2.2 Performance-based probabilistic service-life design of

concrete structures for chloride-induced corrosion
2.2.1 Principle
In addition to the prescriptive methodology of standards, performance-based probabilistic

design approaches are being developed. fib Bulletin 34: Model Code for Service Life Design
(2006) and, later, the fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010 and ISO 16204:2012
present a full probabilistic concept for the service-life design of uncracked concrete
structures for the case of chloride-induced corrosion. The concept is based on the
following:
• Definition of limit states

• Mathematical models which are able to describe relevant time-dependent transport
and deterioration mechanisms,
• Statistical definition of actions,
• Measurement and statistical quantification of structural element resistances,
• Assumed acceptable failure probabilities
In this concept, the limit state is set as follows: ‘The chloride content must not exceed
a “critical” chloride content at the rebar surface, which is potentially able to disrupt the
passive layer protecting rebar’. In consequence, the limit state is a maximum allowable,
‘critical’ chloride content at the rebar’s surface (see chapter 2.2.4.8). The authors are
fully aware that in practice much higher chloride contents are often required not only
to disrupt the surface layer but also to initiate corrosion. As soon as corrosion is
initiated the so-called initiation period is over. The subsequent time period, termed
the propagation period, refers to the evolution of different forms of deterioration after
corrosion has been initiated (cracking, spalling, the loss of bond between rebars and
concrete and the reduction of the rebar cross-section). Although the service life of
structures is the sum of these two time periods, for new structures, in most cases,
the initiation period is considered to define the service life because the propagation
period may comparatively be very short. Regarding the adverse effects of the corrosion
of reinforcement after its depassivation, splitting stresses in the cover zone from the
reinforcement due to the effects of other mechanical actions / loads should also be
considered. Where bond stresses at the interface between reinforcement and concrete
are present, ‘bursting stresses’ in the concrete of the same nature as those from the
expanding corrosion product will also occur, ultimately resulting in the formation of the
same type of cracking and spalling of the cover. For these reasons, service-life designs are
6
normally performed with depassivation (reaching a critical chloride content at the rebar
surface) as the relevant limit state.
The depassivation limit state is expressed through an equation (see Section 2.2.3). The
mathematical model used to assess the initiation period and its parameters are described
in the following chapters.
2.2.2 Mathematical model for chloride penetration in concrete
2.2.2.1 Evolution
Collepardi (1970) introduced Fick’s 2nd law of diffusion for modelling chloride ingress in
concrete structures in 1970 (Eq. 2-1).
∂c ∂ 2c 2-1
=D.
∂t ∂x²
The chloride diffusion coefficient used in this model was considered to be independent of
time.When used during the 1980s the researchers became aware that in many situations
this model resulted in unrealistically short service lives. In the late 1980s it was also
observed that the chloride diffusion coefficients derived from the profiling of concrete
subjected to long-term exposure to seawater were much lower than those after short-
term exposure. An example is a study by the Norwegian Road Administration of a
number of existing coastal bridges with up to 39 years of exposure (Østmosen 1993).
The chloride diffusion coefficients obtained by curve fitting the chloride profiles obtained
at the surface to Fick’s 2nd law were 5 to 60 times lower (better) than those determined
after immersing samples representing the inner parts (not contaminated by chlorides) of
the same cores for 35 days in a laboratory.
In the early 1990s it was also observed that when plotting the chloride diffusion
coefficients obtained from profiling on concrete submerged in a saline solution and curve
fitting these to the mathematical solution of Fick’s 2nd law of diffusion after different
periods of exposure, they obeyed a straight decreasing line in a double-logarithmic
diagram (Bamforth 1993, Maage 1993, Maage 1996).
Therefore, it was suggested to replace the constant diffusion coefficient with a time-
dependent material characteristic (Eq. 2-2):
Dapp(t) = Dapp(t0) · t ( t )α
0
2-2
7
with:
Dapp(t0): apparent chloride diffusion coefficient determined at a reference time t0 [m²/s]
α: aging exponent indicating the decrease over time of the apparent chloride
diffusion coefficient [–]
It should be noted that the parameter Dapp(t) always represents the diffusion coefficient
of the concrete over the entire considered time period t as an averaged constant.
The full explanation for this improvement of concrete resistance against chloride ingress
over time is still not completely understood. It is obvious that the ongoing hydration of
the binder, which results in the development of a denser microstructure of the concrete,
is one of the major contributing factors. Another important contributor is assumed
to be the environment, retarding the ingress of chlorides into concrete due to effects
like pore blocking and the partial desiccation of concrete through ion-exchange with
seawater and moisture gradient respectively (see Section 2.2.4.2).
Aging exponents derived for real marine concrete structures are reported by fib MC2010
and ISO 16204:2012 to be in the range of 0.2 to 0.8 (see Section 2.2.4.2).
A number of model modifications have been published based on this application of Fick’s
2nd law of diffusion combined with a time-dependent diffusion coefficient.
Mejlbro (1996) introduced the possibility to include a time-dependent surface chloride

content.
Frederiksen et al. (2008) have also given a mathematical solution based on the integration
of the time-dependent ‘instantaneous’ diffusion coefficient over the full exposure period,
in contrast to the ‘apparent’ approach which represents the equivalent value giving the
best curve fit at the end of the exposure period.
Probably the most widely used solution to Fick’s 2nd law of diffusion is the version
referred to in fib MC SLD and fib MC2010 based on the ‘DuraCrete’ model (DuraCrete
1998). This version, published in Gehlen (2000), introduces, among others, the possibility
to discard the convection zone Δx, i.e. the concrete layer up to which the process of
chloride penetration differs from Fick’s 2nd law (see Sections 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.4.6). This
version also introduces the possibility to replace the reference diffusion coefficient
Dapp(t0) through an empirical relationship by a chloride migration coefficient derived
from a rapid laboratory test (see Sections 2.2.2.4 and 2.2.4.1).
8
As all these modifications may give slightly different characteristics of material properties
and environmental actions, great care should be exercised when different data bases are
compared.
However, as all the approaches must be calibrated by in-field observations, the results of
their applications should also be in the same range, provided that they are calibrated on
the same in-field data.
In this particular study, the mathematical engineering model given in fib MC SLD and fib
MC2010 will be applied even if both of these documents, as well as ISO 16204:2012, state
that other alternative models may also be used for service-life design, provided they are
sufficiently validated against in-field performance.
2.2.2.2 fib Bulletin 34: Model Code for Service Life Design and fib Model Code for Concrete
Structures 2010
Equation 2-3 constitutes the mathematical model used in fib MC SLD and fib MC2010 to
estimate the time- and depth-dependent chloride content C(x, t) in uncracked concrete.
This equation is based on the error function solution of Fick’s 2nd law of diffusion in its
1-dimensional form.
[ x - Δx
C(x,t) = C0 + (CS,Δx - C0) · 1 - erf 2· √D (t)· t
app
] 2-3
with:
C0 : initial chloride content [wt.-%/c]
CS,Δx : chloride content resulting from the prevailing exposure environment at depth
Δx [wt.-%/c]
Δx: depth of the convection zone (near-surface concrete layer up to which the
process of chloride penetration differs from Fick’s 2nd law of diffusion) [m]
x: depth with a corresponding content of chlorides C(x, t) [m]
t: time [s]
Dapp(t): apparent chloride diffusion coefficient [m²/s]
erf: (Gaussian) error function
It can be concluded that the rate at which chlorides penetrate into concrete is governed by
the diffusivity and the chloride-binding capacity of the concrete (material) and concentration
of the chloride action (environment).This diffusion-controlled representation of chloride
9
ingress is only a simplification since other transport mechanisms are also involved in
the transport of chloride ions in concrete structures, in particular, capillary absorption
and permeation may play an important role. However, in structures with concrete cover
depths larger than approximately 30 mm diffusion becomes the most effective and
important mechanism related to the initiation of corrosion in concrete structures.
For structures subject to the cyclic exposure of chlorides, in particular where de-icing
salts are applied during the winter season but also in tidal and splash zones, the transport
mechanisms in the near-surface layer will significantly differ from Fick’s law of diffusion
(see Figure 2-1). Therefore, modelling is conducted with a substitute surface chloride
concentration CS,Δx discarding the data in the convection zone Δx. Although CS,Δx is
theoretically a time-dependent variable, for practical reasons it will be considered as
time-independent. The thickness of this near-surface layer will be reduced the more
impermeable the concrete is and the shorter the cycles of wetting and drying are.
Chloride content Cs [wt.-%/b]
Deviation from Fick's 2nd law of diffusion in near-surface
Substitute surface chloride concentration Cs,Δx
Chloride proﬁle using Fick's 2nd law of diffusion

Actual chloride
proﬁle
Δx
Depth of substitute surface (convection zone)
0 < Δx < 50 mm Distance from surface [mm]
Fig. 2-1 Near-surface deviation of chloride profiles from Fick’s law of diffusion in the convection
zone
Temperature affects the mobility of ions and, hence, the diffusion rate of chlorides. The
transfer parameter ke has been introduced in order to account for the impact of the
external temperature on the chloride diffusion in concrete (see Section 2.2.4.4).
10
The apparent chloride diffusion coefficient Dapp(t), which represents the material
resistance from t0 to t as a constant, is subject to considerable scatter and tends to
reduce with increasing exposure time. This implies that generally Dapp(t2) < Dapp(t1) with
t2 > t1.
Two common approaches are used to determine Dapp(t), which will be explained in
Sections 2.2.2.3 and 2.2.2.4.
A statistically quantified database is available for this model so that the model for
describing chloride penetration presented here is able to form the basis for predicting
the chloride-induced depassivation of the reinforcement. The model parameters and
their stochastic values used for benchmarking are presented in Section 2.2.4.
2.2.2.3 Determining Dapp(t) by means of chloride profiles from field data and/or a
short-term laboratory diffusion test (Approach A)
In this approach Dapp(t) is determined by means of equation 2-4.
Dapp,A (t) = ke· Dapp (t0) · ( tt )α

0 A
2-4
with:
Dapp,A(t): apparent chloride diffusion coefficient, according to Approach A [m²/s]
Dapp,A(t0): apparent chloride diffusion coefficient [m²/s] at a reference time t0 , derived
by means of an inverse analysis from measured chloride profiles from existing
structures and / or laboratory diffusion tests [m²/s] (see Figure 2-2)
t0: reference point of time which is the duration of exposure to the saline
environment [s]
αA: aging exponent, according to Approach A [–]
ke : environmental variable [–] that takes into consideration the effect of
temprature on chloride ingress in concrete (see Section 2.2.4.4)
Laboratory test methods to determine Dapp(t0) are described in NT BUILD 443:1995,

CEN/TS 12390-11:2010 and ISO 1920-11:2013.
11
1.0 Fig. 2-2 Determination of the apparent

Chloride content [% wt. of sample]
Measured chloride values

chloride diffusion coefficient by
0.8 Fitted curve to Fick's 2nd law of evaluating a chloride profile of a
diffusion using a non-linear regression
CS,0 specimen or a structural element
0.6
exposed to chlorides for a period
0.4
of t0 – example
Dapp(t0) = 7.52 · 10-12 m²/s
0.2
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Depth [mm]
In order to be able to quantify the aging exponent, the values of Dapp(t) in at least two
different points in time are required. However, for a realistic determination of the aging
exponent, the long-term behaviour of Dapp(t) has to be considered. This is possible if
data (chloride profiles) from existing structures made of comparable concrete mixes
are available. But in the case of new material compositions or a lack of field data, it is
recommended to conduct laboratory diffusion tests and determine the chloride profiles
at several points of time over at least two years (Leivestad 2014). Figure 2-3 shows the
development of the apparent chloride diffusion coefficient of a concrete in ordinary and
double-logarithmic scale. The aging exponent is quantified by a regression analysis. The
regression function (y=a· xb) and the coefficient of determination (R²) are given in the
diagrams.The exponent of the trend function b equals the aging exponent αA (in this case
αA = 0.65).
20 100
Apparent chloride diffusion coefficient
coefficient Dapp [. 10-12 m²/s]

Apparent chloride diffusion
15 Aging exponent αA
10
Dapp [. 10-12 m²/s]
Aging exponentαα
exponent
Ageing AA
10 y =y =2.3366x
2.3366x-0.652
-0.652
-0.652
y =y =2.3366x
2.3366x-0.652
2 R² = 0.94579 1 R2 =R²0.94579
= 0.94579
R = 0.94579
5
0 0.1
0 1 2 3 4 5 0.01 0.1 1 10
Time [a] Time [a]
Fig. 2-3 Deriving the aging exponent αA by regression analysis of the apparent chloride diffusion
coefficient Dapp(t). Each single Dapp(t) represents the concrete resistance for different
exposure periods (t0 = 28 d, t1 = 90 d, t2 = 365 d, t3 = 730 d) as a constant value over
the considered time period. Development of Dapp(t) over time in ordinary (left) and
double-logarithmic (right) scales
12
The higher the aging exponent is, the faster Dapp(t) will decrease with time. Thus, a high
aging exponent is favourable to achieve long-term concrete durability. In fib MC2010 and
ISO 16204:2012 it is indicated that α-values may range from 0.2 to 0.8, depending on the
type of binder and the micro environmental conditions.
2.2.2.4 Determining Dapp(t) by means of chloride profiles from field data and a
Rapid Chloride Migration test (Approach B)
In this approach the apparent chloride diffusion coefficient Dapp(t) is determined by

means of equation 2-5:
Dapp,B (t) = ke· DRCM (t0) · ( tt ) α

0 B
2-5
with:
Dapp,B(t): apparent chloride diffusion coefficient, according to Approach B [m²/s]
DRCM(t0): chloride migration coefficient at the reference point of time [m²/s]
t0: reference point of time (reference age) at which the RCM test is performed,
which is equal to the period of curing the samples in fresh water [s]
αB: aging exponent, according to Approach B [–]
ke : environmental variable [–] that takes into consideration the effect of
temprature on chloride ingress in concrete (see Section 2.2.4.4)
DRCM(t0) is simply determined by the rapid chloride migration (RCM) test method (NT
Build 492:1999, BAW Code of Practice MCL 2012). In this approach DRCM(t0) substitutes
the parameter Dapp(t0), which has to be determined by means of long duration and
costly diffusion tests. However, field data from real structures are needed to determine
the aging exponent αB for this approach. An RCM test gives the chloride migration
coefficient, which does not include the effect of the long-term interaction with the saline
solution as the CEN/TS 12390-11:2010 diffusion test does. The chloride binding is not
always produced in an RCM test and probably not produced to the same degree as in a
diffusion test.
In Figure 2-4, Approach B for determining the aging exponent αB is exemplified for
concretes with GGBS cement as the main binder type and with 0.40≤w/c≤0.60. A
regression line was drawn primarily through the Dapp(t) values obtained from field
data only. In order to determine the aging exponent using Approach B, the previously
calculated regression line has been forced (boundary) through the data (mean value)
13
of the DRCM(t0) obtained from RCM tests which were performed on new comparable
concretes (with GGBS cement and 0.40≤w/c≤0.60) at an age of t0 = 28 d (cured in fresh
water). The Dapp(t) from field data was first corrected taking into account the exposure
temperature by means of the factor ke (see Sections 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.4.4).
It should be noted that in this case the field data represents the Dapp(t) of different
structures (exposed to XS2 / XS3) with different concrete compositions with a w/c-ratio
between 0.40 and 0.60, which have only the binder type in common.
100 Fig. 2-4 Development of the
GGBS cement (CEM III/B) Dapp from field data,
apparent chloride diffusion
10-12 m²/s]
numerous concretes
diffusiondiffusion
20
coefficient
with CEM III/B and coefficient Dapp(t) over

10 0.40≤w/c≤0.60 time for concrete with
15
GGBS cement (Gehlen
app [m²/s]
Ageing exponent αA
2000). Determination of
chloride
DRCM(t0)
1
-12 .
10 aging exponent according

y = 2.3366x-0.652 to Approach B: regression
[. 10
chloride
Dapp D
R² = 0.94579
5 Approach B: regression on field data analysis on Dapp(t) from
coefficient
0.1
Apparent
and forced through DRCM(t0) field data consisting of

Apparent
0 numerous concretes with

0 1 2 3 4 5 GGBS cement and a wide
0.01 Time [a] range of w/c-ratios (0.40-
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.60) from structures in
Time [a] XS2 and XS3 exposure
classes and forced through
the chloride migration
coefficient DRCM(t0) from
laboratory RCM test
The model-parameter aging exponent is explained in more detail in Section 2.2.4.2.
Pragmatic Approach B has been developed to enable the use of both the information
about the long-term behaviour of materials from existing structures and the information
about the rapidly available characteristics of short-term or accelerated tested material,
which is supposed to be applied on site. As the chloride migration coefficient DRCM(t0)
is assumed to be equal to or lower than Dapp(t0) at early ages (t0 from 1 to 3 months)
for most concretes (Gehlen 2000, Tang 1996, Tang 2010), the aging exponent based on
Approach B (αB) will be lower than the aging exponent based on Approach A (αA).This will
result in a conservative estimate of the service life of concrete structures for Approach
B since, as can be seen in Figure 2-4 (and Figure 2-6), for time periods longer than
approximately 10 years, Dapp(t) values for Approach B are higher (more unfavourable)
than Dapp(t) for Approach A.
14
To conclude, in the case of new material compositions or if no field data are available,
Approach A should be used, i.e. when determining both Dapp(t0) and the aging exponent
αA by means of laboratory diffusion tests involving exposure for at least two years. In
cases where a considerable amount of the field data of concrete comparable to the
design concrete is available, Approach B can be applied. The aging exponent αB has to
be determined by combining Dapp(t), obtained from the field data, and the DRCM(t0) of
the design concrete from the laboratory RCM test. In special cases, where field data
represent a concrete which complies with the design concrete, Approach A can be used
to determine the aging exponent αA by means of Dapp(t) from field data and Dapp(t0) from
the laboratory diffusion test.
For the benchmark task in this work, Approach B has been used because in contrast
with laboratory diffusion tests a large database on RCM test results and field data were
available to the members of fib TG 8.6.
2.2.3 Methodology for prediction of a condition state (a priori)
Problems related to assessment and design are basically solved by contrasting actions
S and resistances R. The difference between actions and resistances is referred to as
condition Z. If the value of the condition Z is lower than zero, the member is considered
to have failed.
g(X,t) = R(t)-S(t) = Z(t) 2-6
In fact, actions and resistances are uncertain quantities, not deterministic ones. They are
therefore introduced as random variables and contrasted in a limit state function g(X).
The difference between action and resistance will then also be a random variable (see
Figure 2-5).
Fig. 2-5 Comparison of variable

Relative frequency [–]
action and variable resistance

15
In cases where both action and resistance are Normal distributed random variables,
the range in which the difference between action and resistance is lower than zero
constitutes the failure range and is defined by the probability of failure pf which can be
calculated with the aid of the n-dimensional integral (see equation 2-7):
-μZ
( )
pf = ϕ(-β) = ϕ σ = ∫g(X)<0 fx(X)dx
Z
2-7
where fx(X) is the common density function for the vector of the random variable X.
Integration is performed over the failure range g(X) < 0 (Ditlevsen 2005). Equation 2-7
is, however, valid if both resistance R and action S are considered to be normal random
variables.
Usually it is not possible to perform an analytical calculation of pf. For this purpose,
commercial computer software is required to provide simulation methods and methods
for the reliability analysis of structural systems, e.g. STRUREL. In this case, the reliability
index β can also be stated instead of the probability of failure pf. The reliability index β
and the probability of failure pf are related to a Normal distribution.
As actions and material resistances are subject to time-dependent processes in the case
of durability problems, the probability of failure and the reliability index will also be time-
dependent functions.
In the case of chloride-induced corrosion, it is assumed that the depassivation of the

reinforcement occurs as soon as a critical, corrosion-inducing chloride content (action)
has reached the depth of the reinforcement. The limit state equation is therefore as
follows:
g(X,t) = Ccrit - C(c,t) 2-8
Alternatively, it is also possible to evaluate the following limit state equation:
g(X,t) = c - xcrit(t) 2-9
with:
xcrit(t): depth at which a critical, corrosion-inducing chloride content is reached at time
t [mm]
c: concrete cover [mm]
16
The critical, corrosion-inducing chloride content Ccrit is an assumed threshold which

is controlled by the thickness and quality of the concrete cover as resistance, and the
chloride content at the level of the layer of the embedded reinforcement at time t (C(x=c, t))
is the action.
2.2.4 Model parameters and data used for the benchmark task
In this probabilistic service-life design concept all material and action parameters are
considered to be stochastic variables characterized by appropriate statistical distributions.
The model parameters and their stochastic values used for the benchmarking are
presented in the following chapters. Table 2-2 gives an overview of the model parameters
and their stochastic values. Approach B, proposed for determining the apparent chloride
diffusion coefficient Dapp(t) (see Section 2.2.2.4), is used in modelling chloride transport
in concrete for benchmarking.
Table 2-2 List of model parameters
Parameter Unit Distribution* and values Quantification

DRCM(t0) m²/s ND (μ / σ with CoV=0.20) Section 2.2.4.1
α - BetaD (μ / σ / 0 / 1) Section 2.2.4.2
Dapp(t) t0 d Constant (28) Section 2.2.4.3
be K ND (4800 / 700) Section 2.2.4.4
ke Tref K Constant (293) Section 2.2.4.4
Treal K ND (μ / σ) Section 2.2.4.4
CS,0 / CS,Δx wt.-%/c LND (μ / σ) Section 2.2.4.5
Δx mm BetaD (10 / 5 / 0 / 50) or Constant (0) Section 2.2.4.6
C0 wt.-%/c Constant (0) Section 2.2.4.7
Ccrit wt.-%/c BetaD (0.60 / 0.15 / 0.2 / 2) Section 2.2.4.8
c mm ND (μ / σ) Section 2.2.4.9
* A description of common distribution functions and statistical terms can be found in Faber (2007), among
others.
17
2.2.4.1 Chloride migration coefficient DRCM(t0)
The apparent chloride diffusion coefficient Dapp(t) is used to describe the diffusivity of
the concrete. In water-saturated concrete, the apparent chloride diffusion coefficient is
mainly controlled by the pore structure (amount, size distribution and tortuosity) and
will be less affected by ionic interactions.
As introduced in Section 2.2.2.3, Dapp(t) is usually determined through the ‘chloride

profiling method’ (Approach A). This method is described in NT BUILD 443:1995 and
CEN/TS 12390-11:2010. Chloride profiles can either be taken from existing structures
or from test specimens stored under conditions which are similar to those expected
in practice. The determination of Dapp(t0) on test specimens (for the design of new
structures) is very time consuming. Thus, Approach B (introduced in Section 2.2.2.4)
provides chloride diffusion coefficients by means of accelerated tests under different
experimental conditions. DRCM(t0) is simply determined by the Rapid Chloride Migration
(RCM) test method (NT Build 492:1999, BAW Code of Practice and MCL 2012) by
accelerating chloride transport through the application of an electric field through the
water saturated concrete specimens, where the contribution of transport by diffusion
becomes negligible. The chloride migration coefficient, DRCM(t0), is assumed to be equal
to or less than Dapp(t0) at early ages (t0 from 1 to 3 months) for most concretes (Gehlen
2000,Tang 1996 and Tang 2010). When using Approach B (see Section 2.2.2.4) Dapp(t) can
be calculated over the time from DRCM(t0) by means of equation 2-5.
Table 3 lists the common cement types given in EN 197-1:2011, which include binders that
combine Portland cement and supplementary cementitious materials. For those binders
that are considered for reliability analyses (see Section 3.3.1), the mean values used for
DRCM(t0) at t0 = 28 d are given dependent on the water/binder-ratio. It should be noted
that the values given for DRCM(t0) are obtained for individual concrete mixes from specific
studies performed in Germany. Therefore, the data in Table 3 solely represent indicative
values. For design in an individual case, the chloride migration / diffusion coefficient of the
concrete mix being considered has to be measured.
The type of binder and the water/binder-ratio are the two parameters which strongly
affect the pore structure of the concrete and, hence, its potential chloride migration
coefficient. The amount of binder, a minimum of which provides for sufficient guaranteed
compaction, as well as the type, shape and size of aggregate are less important (Lay
2007). The possible impact on the chloride migration / diffusion coefficient of air-
entrainment increasing the freeze-thaw resistance of concrete has not been investigated
comprehensively. It has been considered marginally in some studies and the conclusion
18
was that its effect is negligible (Lay 2006).
Table 3 clearly shows that chloride migration coefficients increase with increasing w/b-
ratio. However, this observation is more obvious for concretes with Portland cement and
fly ash. Concretes with ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) cement and silica
fume (SF) seem to be less affected by the w/b-ratio. At the same w/b-ratio, concretes with
high contents of GGBS (CEM III, CEM II/B-S) show low chloride migration coefficients
due to their low porosity and high chloride binding capacity. Concretes with silica fume
(CEM II/A-D, CEM I + SF) possess low chloride migration coefficients, mainly due to the
beneficial filler effect of SF. The same holds for concretes with fly ash (CEM II/A-V, CEM
II/B-V, CEM I + FA) but with less effect. The highest chloride migration coefficients are
obtained for concretes based on Portland cement and with limestone (LS) (CEM I, CEM
II/A-LL), which is due to increased porosity.
The statistical variation of chloride migration coefficients is adequately described by a

Normal distribution (Gehlen 2000). The reproducibility can be taken into account with
a constant coefficient of variation of 0.20 (Gehlen 2000).
Table 2-3 DRCM(t0) mean values at t0=28 days used for the benchmarking (indicative values)
Cement type (source) 1 DRCM(t0) [10-12 m²/s]

NormalD (μ) and σ = 0.20 · μ
w/b
0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
CEM I (Gehlen 2000) - 8.9 10.0 15.8 19.7 25.0
CEM II/A-S (6-20 % S) - 7.0 8.0 - - -
C EM II/B-S (21-35 % S) (Lay 2007) - 5.0 7.7 8.3 - -
CEM II/A-D (6-10 % D) - 4.0 4.5 4.8 5.0 -
CEM II/A-P (6-20 % P) - - - - - -
CEM II/B-P (21-35 % P) - - - - - -
CEM II/A-Q (6-20 % Q) - - - - - -
CEM II
CEM II/B-Q (21-35 % Q) - - - - - -
CEM II/A-V 2 (6-20 % V) 5.6 6.9 9.0 10.9 14.9 -
CEM II/B-V (21-35 % V) - - - - - -
CEM II/A-W (6-20 % W) - - - - - -
19
Cement type (source) 1 DRCM(t0) [10-12 m²/s]

NormalD (μ) and σ = 0.20 · μ
w/b
0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
CEM II/B-W (21-35 % W) - - - - - -
CEM II/A-T (6-20 % T) - - - - - -
CEM II/B-T (21-35 % T) (Lay 2007) - 6.3 7.7 9.7 - -
CEM II/A-L (6-20 % L) - - - - - -
CEM II CEM II/B-L (21-35 % L) - - - - - -
(cont.)
CEM II/A-LL (6-20 % LL) (Lay 2007) - 9.4 12.8 15.1 - -
CEM II/B-LL (21-35 % LL) - - - - - -
CEM II/A-M (80-88 % K) - - - - - -
CEM II/B-M (65-79 % K) - - - - - -
CEM III/A (36-65 % S) (Lay 2007) - 3.9 3.9 4.2 - -
CEM III CEM III/B (66-80 % S) (Gehlen 2000) - 1.4 1.9 2.8 3.0 3.4
CEM III/C (81-95 % S) - - - - - -
CEM IV/A - - - - - -
CEM IV
CEM IV/B - - - - - -
CEM V/A - - - - - -
CEM V
CEM V/B - - - - - -
82% CEM I + 18% FA (Gehlen 2000) 5.6 6.9 9.0 10.9 14.9 -
95% CEM I + 5% SF (Gehlen 2000) 4.4 4.8 - - 5.3 -
1
Values without a source are estimated
2
CEM II/A-V is assumed to be comparable with 82% CEM I + 18% FA
S = GGBS D = SF P = FA
2.2.4.2 Aging exponent α
While the chloride migration coefficient DRCM(t0) is a governing parameter for the
description of the material properties, in practice the aging exponent α, which introduces
the decrease of Dapp(t) over time, has a much stronger effect on the performance of
concrete (according to the used model). The aging exponent is dependent on both
material and exposure. There are several effects which may contribute to a decrease
of the diffusion coefficient with increasing exposure time and to the general time-
dependency of Dapp(t), (see DARTS 2004):
20
• The development of a denser pore structure due to the ongoing hydration process
after reference age t0
• A pore-blocking effect due to chloride ingress
• Concentration dependence of the binding capacity inherently included in the apparent
chloride diffusion coefficient
• The degree of water saturation and therefore the chloride diffusion coefficient is
depth dependent (e.g. due to self-desiccation in the inner concrete), which will cause
a time dependency of Dapp(t)
Moreover, in some cases (Mohammed 2002 [a], Mohammed 2002 [b] and Maage 2009)
investigations of the pore structure of concrete after long-term exposure to seawater
have revealed an effect of ion-exchange with the seawater and the surface layer of
the concrete resulting in a pore-blocking effect. It is also evident that concrete with
continued curing in fresh water shows considerably less improvement of the potential
diffusion coefficient than parallel samples exposed to seawater (Maage 1999).
In order to determine the aging exponent, the long-term behaviour of Dapp(t) of existing
structures has to be considered by analysing the development of chloride profiles over
time.
Although the aging exponent is dependent on the exposure conditions, binders have
characteristic aging exponents. Ordinary Portland cement concretes (CEM I), and
concretes with components like limestone (CEM II/A, B-LL), silica fume (CEM II/A-D)
or low contents of GGBS (CEM II/A-S) demonstrate the lowest aging exponents (α
~ 0.30), due to the negligible ongoing hydration and the low binding capacity. Higher
aging exponents are obtained for concretes with higher amounts of GGBS (CEM III/B)
due to the ongoing latent hydraulic reaction and the higher binding capacity (α ~ 0.45).
Concretes produced with fly ash cement (CEM II/A, B-V) show the highest aging exponent
due to the ongoing pozzolanic reaction and the high binding capacity (α ~ 0.60).The aging
exponents of concretes with the three main types of binder CEM I, CEM I + FA (f ≥
0.20· c) and CEM III/B have been quantified statistically in Gehlen (2000).
For this purpose, published chloride profiling data Dapp(t) of existing concrete structures
(field data) with each binder type (0.40 ≤ w/c ≤ 0.60) exposed in conditions submerged /
splash / tidal (XS2 / XS3) were collected and after considering the exposure temperature
(by means of the factor ke) were plotted vis-à-vis exposure time. A first regression
analysis was performed giving the aging exponent considering only the field data. In a
further step, new concrete mixes with the same binder type and of comparable quality
were tested in the laboratory by the RCM test method at a reference age of t0 = 28 d.
21
The spread of the RCM test results at the age t0 was determined; the mean value was
added into the diagram of published results.The previously calculated regression line was
forced (boundary) through the data of new concretes (RCM results).This regression line
provides the aging exponent (Approach B; see sections 2.2.2.4).
This procedure is depicted in Figure 2-6 for concretes with the above-mentioned three
main types of binder.
100 100
GGBS cement (CEM III/B) Dapp from field data, Portland cement

numerous concretes

with CEM III/B and

10 0.40≤w/c≤0.60 10
DRCM(t0)
DRCM(t0) 1
1
Approach B: regression on field data
Approach B: regression on field data and forced through DRCM(t0)
0.1 and forced through DRCM(t0) 0.1 Dapp from
field data,
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time [a] Time [a]
100
Portland cement + fly ash Fig. 2-6 Top left: Development of the apparent
chloride diffusion coefficient over time for

Dapp from
10 field data,
CEM III/B, CEM I and CEM I + FA concretes
DRCM(t0)
(Gehlen 2000)
1
Regression line through the apparent chloride
diffusion coefficient from chloride profiling
0.1 data is forced through the data of DRCM(t0) as
Approach B: regression on field data
and forced through DRCM(t0)
the starting point (Approach B)
0.01 The slope in a double-logarithmic diagram is
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time [a] equal to the aging exponent αΒ for modelling
the time-dependent reduction of Dapp(t)
The aging exponents of binders considered in the reliability analyses in this work
are shown in Table 2-4. The aging exponent α can be described adequately by a Beta
distribution (BetaD; Gehlen 2000). The values for mean μ and standard deviation σ are
given in the table; the parameters a (lower limit) and b (upper limit) are 0.0 and 1.0,
respectively (BetaD [μ / σ / 0 / 1.0]). The values shown in Table 2-4 are derived from
individual investigations. Other values can be found in Bamforth (2004), among others.
It is assumed that for the exposure classes XD2 and XD3 aging exponents apply similar
to XS2 and XS3. The exposure classes XS1 and XD1 (airborne chlorides) exhibit a
22
different age-dependent behaviour when compared with the other exposure classes
(Gehlen 2000). The aging exponents corresponding to exposure classes XS1 and XD1
are generally much higher than those to XD2, XD3, XS2 and XS3 (spray / submerged /
splash / tidal). The statistical quantification of the aging exponent for exposure classes
XD1 and XS1 used in the reliability analyses performed here is shown in Table 2-5.
Independent of binder type, a mean value of 0.65 is assumed for the aging exponent
for these exposure classes. Structural members exposed to XS1 / XD1 will usually
not be directly subjected to chloride contaminated water (only fog); often they are
even subjected to long periods of dry weather. Therefore, concrete elements will be
sufficiently saturated only in rare instances for these exposure classes so that diffusion,
especially within the first near-surface millimetres up to centimetres, may not be effective
all the time. This will lower the rate of chloride-penetration. The lower rate will lead to
a more pronounced decrease of the apparent chloride diffusion coefficient and this again
will lead to a higher ‘aging exponent’.
Table 2-4 Aging exponent α (Approach B) used for the benchmarking for exposure classes
XD2, XD3, XS2, XS3 (submerged, tidal, splash, spray zone) (indicative values)
Cement type (source) 1 Aging exponent α [–]

0.40 ≤ w/b ≤ 0.60 BetaD (μ / σ) with a = 0.0 & b = 1.0
CEM I (Gehlen 2000) 0.30 / 0.12
CEM II/A-S (6-20 % S) 0.35 / 0.16
C EM II/B-S (21-35 % S) (Lay 2007) -
CEM II/A-D (6-10 % D) 0.40 / 0.16
CEM II/A-P (6-20 % P) -
CEM II/B-P (21-35 % P) -
CEM II/A-Q (6-20 % Q) -
CEM II/B-Q (21-35 % Q) -
CEM II/A-V 2 (6-20 % V) 0.60 / 0.15
CEM II CEM II/B-V (21-35 % V) 0.60 / 0.15
CEM II/A-W (6-20 % W) -
CEM II/B-W (21-35 % W) -
CEM II/A-T (6-20 % T) -
CEM II/B-T (21-35 % T) (Lay 2007) -
CEM II/A-L (6-20 % L) -
CEM II/B-L (21-35 % L) -
CEM II/A-LL (6-20 % LL) (Lay 2007) 0.30 / 0.12
23
Cement type (source) 1 Aging exponent α [–]

0.40 ≤ w/b ≤ 0.60 BetaD (μ / σ) with a = 0.0 & b = 1.0
CEM II CEM II/B-LL (21-35 % LL) -
(cont.) CEM II/A-M (80-88 % K) -
CEM II/B-M (65-79 % K) -
CEM III/A (36-65 % S) (Lay 2007) 0.40 / 0.18
CEM III CEM III/B (66-80 % S) (Gehlen 2000) 0.45 / 0.20
CEM III/C (81-95 % S) -
CEM IV/A -
CEM IV
CEM IV/B -
CEM V/A -
CEM V
CEM V/B -
82% CEM I + 18% FA (Gehlen 2000) 0.60 / 0.15
95% CEM I + 5% SF (Gehlen 2000) 0.40 / 0.16
1
Values without a source are estimated
2
CEM II/A-V is assumed to be comparable with 82% CEM I + 18% FA
Table 2-5 Aging exponent α (Approach B) used for the reliability analyses for exposure
classes XD1 and XS1 (airborne) (indicative values)
Cement type Aging exponent α [-]

All cement types and varying concrete BetaD (μ = 0.65 / σ = 0.12 / a = 0.0 / b = 1.0)
compositions (Gehlen 2000)
2.2.4.3 Reference time t0

The reference time relates to the time (concrete age) at which the RCM test is performed
to determine DRCM(t0). This is equal to the duration of the curing (in fresh water) of the
concrete specimens. For benchmarking purposes, the reference age was taken as 28 days:
t0 = 28 [d] Constant
2.2.4.4 Parameters for temperature dependence of diffusion; ke , be , Tref , Treal

As chloride transport is a thermodynamic process, the diffusion rate of chlorides in
concrete is assumed to be affected by temperature. Numerous works confirm the
24
temperature-dependency of chloride ingress into concrete and of the apparent chloride

diffusion coefficient (see Page 1981, Nguyen 2006, Carré 2008, Yuan 2008, Dousti 2013).
The transfer parameter ke (see Eq. 2-3) is introduced in order to take the impact of the
external temperature Treal on the diffusion rate of chlorides into account. The effect of
temperature on chloride ingress into concrete can be presented in a simplified way by
using the Arrhenius equation, in line with the temperature-dependent descriptions of the
rate of corrosion and the electrolytic resistance of concrete (Page 1981, Raupach 1992):
( (
ke = exp be · T1 - T1
ref real
)) 2-10
with:
be: temperature coefficient (proportional to activation energy) [K]
Tref: reference temperature [K]
Treal: temperature of the structural element or the ambient air [K]
In Equation 2-10 the ambient temperature Treal, which may be approximately the same as the
temperature of the concrete element, the reference temperature (standard temperature
in the Rapid Chloride Migration test [RCM] ) Tref = 293 K (20 °C) and the temperature
coefficient be must all be taken into account to calculate the transfer parameter ke.
For Treal the average annual ambient temperature of the structure obtained from the
nearest weather station can be taken into consideration. The reference temperature
will be 293 K (20 °C; the standard temperature in RCM and diffusion laboratory tests)
for the case where the apparent chloride diffusion coefficient Dapp(t) is determined in
laboratory tests. For Approach A (see Section 2.2.2.3) and for the case that Dapp(t0) is
determined by means of chloride profiles from existing structures, Tref will be the average
annual ambient temperature of those structures. The correlation between Treal and ke is
illustrated in Figure 2-7 and is based on mean values. This correlation is obtained from
investigations on Portland cement pastes and assumed to apply for other binder types
and also for concretes. However, since temperature only affects the transport of chloride
ions in cement paste, the activation energy (and, with it, the temperature coefficient be)
of the concrete would be less than the activation energy obtained from the cement
paste (Dousti 2013). Furthermore, in Dousti (2013) a lower activation energy has been
obtained for concretes with blended cements than for Portland cement concrete, which
indicates a lower temperature sensitivity of the chloride diffusion in concretes with
blended cements. Maage (1999) equally observes no noticeable temperature dependency
of chloride diffusion in concretes with blended cements (CEM I + SF and GGBS).
25
Parameter ke [–] Fig. 2-7 Subfunction ke considering the

5.0 temperature dependency of
w/c=0.40
the apparent chloride diffusion
w/c=0.50
4.0 coefficient (Page 1981)
w/c=0.60
3.0 Portland cement paste
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Temperature Treal [°C]
The regression parameter can be characterized adequately by a Normal distribution

(ND) and is statistically quantified as follows (Gehlen 2000):
be : ND (μ = 4800 K / σ = 700 K)
The ambient temperature Treal is a variable input parameter (Normal distributed) which
must be based on meteorological data collected for individual regions:
Treal : ND (μ = [K] / σ = [°C])
Approximate values for the mean annual temperature in the various countries were used
for benchmarking (see Table 3-6). A constant standard deviation of 8 °C for exposure
class XD (road structures) and a smaller one of 5 °C for exposure class XS (coastal
structures) were assumed, the degree of spread in coastal areas being lower.
The reference temperature Tref is considered to be a constant value corresponding to

the temperature in the RCM test:
Tref : 293 [K] (20 °C) Constant
2.2.4.5 Chloride content at the surface CS,0 or CS,Δx
The chloride content at the exposed concrete surface CS,0 as well as the substitute surface
content CS,Δx at a depth of Δx are variables that depend on material properties and on
geometrical and environmental conditions. Material properties that need to be taken into
26
account are primarily the type of binder and the concrete composition itself. The most
important variable describing the environmental impact is the chloride concentration of
the ambient solution. In addition, the geometry of the structural element, the distance
to the chloride source and also other environmental conditions, such as wind direction,
will have a significant impact. Consequently, the chloride content at the concrete surface
CS,0 as well as the substitute surface chloride content CS,Δx will be time-dependent as
well. However, there are indications that these build-up periods are often relatively short.
For long-term predictions, this time-dependency is not included for practical reasons.
There are empirical (Nilsson 2002), analytical (Mejlbro 1996, Frederiksen 1997) and
numerical (Boddy 1999) models for the solution of Fick’s 2nd law which consider the
time-dependency of CS,0 - however, with serious limitations (CHLORTEST 2005).
The concrete composition and chloride binding isotherms of the binder used can affect
CS,0 as well as CS,Δx (Tang1996, fib MC SLD). The concrete composition and the type
of binder may have a pronounced influence on both the physical and chemical binding
capacity of the material, and the pore volume that has to be saturated to the point
where the chloride concentration in the pore solution is balanced with the exposure
environment.
The potential chloride impact depends on the chloride concentration of the chloride
source. For coastal structures, the potential chloride impact is identical with the natural
chloride concentration of seawater.
The chloride concentration of chloride contaminated water due to the application of

de-icing salt presents a significantly larger variation than that of seawater, which will
demonstrate a nearly constant chloride concentration. An adequate quantification of
the potential chloride impact turns out to be very complex, as for structures that are
subjected to chloride impact due to de-icing salt, the variables describing the amount of
de-icing salt applied are hard to quantify because of seasonal loading.
Under real exposure conditions the chloride surface content varies randomly due to the
variations in the chloride concentrations of the ambient solution, frequency of application
of de-icing salts, temporal and spatial variations in the humidity conditions of the concrete,
and so forth. The chloride surface content is considered to be adequately described with
a Lognormal distribution. For urban environments (XD1, XD2 and XD3) a CoV of 75%
is documented in DARTS (2004) because of the huge variability in frequency and amount
of de-icing salts used. For submerged conditions in marine environments (XS2) a lower
CoV of 25 % is given, which is mainly due to the inhomogeneity of concrete surfaces
and the variation in composition of the ambient solution. With increasing distance to
27
the chloride source (XS3, XS1), the random spatial variations increase to a CoV of 45 %.
Table 2-6 shows the surface chloride contents assumed for benchmarking.
Exposure class Table 2-6

Cs,0 / Cs,Δx [wt.-/b]
LND Surface chloride content dependent
XD1 0.5 ≤ μ ≤ 1.5 CoV = 0.75 on exposure class used for benchmark
XD2 2.0 ≤ μ ≤ 4.0 CoV = 0.75 task
XD3 2.0 ≤ μ ≤ 4.0 CoV = 0.75
XS1 1.0 ≤ μ ≤ 2.0 CoV = 0.45
XS2 2.0 ≤ μ ≤ 4.0 CoV = 0.25
XS3 2.0 ≤ μ ≤ 4.0 CoV = 0.45
2.2.4.6 Depth of convection zone Δx
When a structural element is intermittently exposed to a chloride-contaminated solution

as well as to dry periods of atmospheric exposure, when the water in the concrete
close to the surface evaporates, it will undergo a process of capillary suction during any
subsequent re-wetting (see Section 2.2.2.2). In contrast to diffusion processes, capillary
action leads to a rapid transport of chlorides into the concrete up to a depth Δx where
the chlorides can accumulate with time until a steady-state chloride content CS,Δx =
CS,0 is reached. The variable Δx can be described by a Beta distribution. Under splash
conditions the average depth Δx up to which chlorides can rapidly penetrate will be
limited to 6.0 mm ≤ Δx ≤ 11.0 mm (fib MC SLD). At a distance to the road surface of
more than 1.5 m (spray zone) the formation of a convection zone cannot be detected
anymore (Δx = 0). For parts of a structure which are constantly submerged, the chloride
surface content CS,0 is equal to the chloride saturation content which is developed over
a short period. Thus, for this special case, no transfer function or transfer parameter is
needed. In case the structure is exposed to tidal conditions, the depth Δx up to which
a deviation from the diffusion behaviour according to Fick’s solution exists has to be
quantified. For the benchmark task, Δx is applied as shown in Table 2-7.
Exposure Δx [mm] Table 2-7

Spray (XS1, XD1) Depth of substitute
Constant (0)
Submerged (XD2, XS2) surface Δx
Splash / tidal (XD3, XS3) BetaD (μ = 10 / σ = 5 / a = 0 / b = 50)
28
2.2.4.7 Initial chloride content C0
The initial chloride content of the concrete comprises the chloride contents of the
constituents, such as cement, aggregates, supplementary cementitious materials, additions
and water. In this benchmark C0 is assumed to be negligible:
C0 = 0 [wt.-%/b] Constant
This assumption is in agreement with new concrete mixes with an initial chloride content
of nearly 0.05 wt.-%/b. In older concrete structures the initial chloride content could
be quite high. In EN 206-1:2000 the maximum initial chloride content C0 is limited to
0.4 wt.-%/c for reinforced concrete, which is still considered too high for concretes in
exposure classes XS and XD. Some European national application documents to EN 206-
1:2000 give further limitations, e.g. in NS-EN 206-1:2007 C0 ≤ 0.10 wt.-%/c.
2.2.4.8 Critical chloride content Ccrit
The critical chloride content is the total chloride content which leads to the depassivation
of the reinforcement surface and the initiation of iron dissolution, irrespective of eventual
corrosion damage, whether visible or not on the concrete surface. The critical chloride
content depends on many parameters such as the pH value of the concrete pore solution,
concrete-steel interface, chemical composition of steel, exposure condition, and so forth
(Breit 2001, Angst 2009).
In some standards and directives, such as ÖVBB-Richtlinie (2003) and RiLi SIB (2001), the
critical chloride content for the initiation of corrosion is taken to be 0.5 – 0.6 wt.-%/c
on average. According to Gehlen (2000), the critical chloride content may be adequately
described by a Beta distribution with a mean value of 0.60 and a standard deviation of
0.15 with a lower boundary of 0.2 and an upper boundary of 2.0 [wt.-% of binder]. This
statistical distribution has been adopted in the benchmarking task:
Ccrit : BetaD (μ = 0.60 / σ = 0.15 / a = 0.2 / b = 2.0) [wt.-%/b]
2.2.4.9 Concrete cover c
Due to construction practices, the concrete cover thickness actually achieved in a real
structure will undoubtedly vary and therefore has to be considered as a stochastic variable
rather than a constant value. For large concrete covers, Normal distribution is commonly
29
used. For concrete covers with a small mean value, the Normal distribution may lead
to unrealistic results since negative values cannot be prevented by the characteristics of
Normal distribution (Gehlen 2000).
In the majority of standards and guidelines the nominal concrete cover cnom is composed
of a minimum concrete cover cmin and an allowance for deviation Δcdev during execution:
cnom = cmin + Δcdev 2-11
In addition to guaranteeing an adequate bond between the concrete and the embedded
reinforcement, the main purpose of the concrete cover is to ensure sufficient durability.
EN 1992-1-1:2004 specifies the minimum concrete cover as a function of the exposure
classes and the structural classes. The design service life of a structure is reflected in the
structural class (S-classes; S1 to S6). The structural classification and the corresponding
minimum concrete covers are defined in a national annexe for each country.
For probabilistic calculations, it is assumed that the mean cover depth is equal to the
nominal cover depth.
The allowance for deviation Δcdev takes into account the tolerances of the concrete
cover during execution and its value is also specified in the standards. Lower values may
be specified if a higher quality of workmanship, e.g. precast elements, is required and
these are also given in the standards.
The minimum concrete cover is often defined as the 5 % quantile of the Normal
distribution, which is assumed for this benchmarking. For the purposes of benchmarking,
the standard deviation of the concrete cover was determined as a function of the
allowance for deviation specified in the respective standards using the following equation:
U0.05 = μ + σ · u0.05 2-12
with:
U0.05 : 5 % quantile of the normally distributed quantity (in this case the minimum
concrete cover cmin) [mm]
μ: mean value of the normally distributed quantity (in this case the nominal cover
cnom) [mm]
σ standard deviation of the normally distributed quantity [mm]
u0.05 : 5 % quantile of the Normal distribution (= -1.64) [-]
30
The standard deviation used in the probabilistic calculations is therefore derived as

follows:
(U - μ) ∆cdev
σ = u0.05 → σ = 2-13
0.05 1.64
Thus, different concrete covers with different mean values and standard deviations have
been assumed for the countries considered for benchmarking purposes (see Table 3-6):
c: ND (μ / σ) [mm]
For example, a standard deviation of 9 mm based on an allowance for deviation Δcdev =

15 mm is assumed in Germany and Great Britain while in Denmark and the Netherlands
the standard deviation will be just 3 mm, based on an allowance for deviation Δcdev of
5 mm. It should be noted that small values for Δcdev (e.g. 3 mm) are more realistic for
precast concrete elements but not for in-situ concrete.
31
3 Benchmarking
3.1 Selection of countries
The European Standards EN 206 and EN 1992-1-1 provide the normative framework
for design and construction as well as for ensuring the durability of concrete structures.
The latter is achieved by allocating the environmental actions to exposure classes and by
specifying the requirements for concrete technology and design as a function of those
classes (see Section 2.1). However, these standards are supplemented by the national
documents, which ultimately has resulted in different rules in individual countries. For
benchmarking purposes, the normative specifications of a total of nine countries were
compared, taking the basic rules in the above European Standards into consideration.The
following three groups of countries were distinguished:
• European countries that have adopted EN 206 and EN 1992-1-1:

Portugal (P), Great Britain (GB),The Netherlands (NL), Germany (D), Denmark (DK),
Norway (N)
• European countries that have not adopted EN 206-1 and EN 1992-1-1:
Spain (E)
• Countries outside Europe:
United States of America (USA), Australia (AUS)
When selecting the countries, care was also taken to ensure that a wide range of climatic
conditions (actions) and descriptive specifications in standards (resistances) were
represented. Regarding material performance under immersed conditions (more or less
constant), the w/c-ratio and the type of binder are the decisive parameters that affect
material performance. Regarding material performance under environmental exposure
conditions, the decisive parameters are the location (distance to a chloride source, the
humidity condition and the chloride concentration of the ambient solution) to be taken
into account when selecting the countries.
Thus, for the selection of countries, i.e. the relevant national specifications, the following
was considered:
• Diversity in deemed-to-satisfy rules:

-- w/c-ratio
-- Cover
-- Types of cement
-- Diversity in construction practice given by the local availability of specific types
of cement
32
• Diversity in environmental action:

-- Exposure class definition
-- Salinity of seawater
-- Temperature conditions
-- Frequency of de-icing salt application
A significant diversity in deemed-to-satisfy rules in comparison with EN 1992-1-1:2004

and EN 206-1:2000 is noticeable when considering the selected countries.The descriptive
specifications of the individual standards are presented in chapter 3.2.
In view of the environmental action, while in P, GB, NL, D, DK and N the exposure
classes (European definition: XD and XS) are applied as defined in EN 206-1:2000, in
AUS, USA and E exposure classes are defined individually. Spain, a European country, has
not adopted EN 206-1:2000. However, the division into exposure classes for chloride
attack is comparable to the division in EN 206-1:2000. In the USA just one exposure
class is defined for chloride exposure in ACI-318-14 but in AASHTO LRFD Bridge (2012)
a distinction is made between exposure conditions (direct exposure to salt water, coastal,
exposure to de-icing salts) for minimum concrete cover (see Table 3-1). In Australia the
class definition is not quite identical to the European definition, which leads to an overlap
of the classes. Table 3-2 shows the exposure classes according to the Australian code
AS 3600:2009 and the correlation to EN 206-1:2000. Exposure classes XD1-XD3 (road
structures) do not exist in the Australian code.
Table 3-1 Exposure classes and (nominal) cover in USA
ACI-318-14 (2014) AASHTO LRFD Bridge (2012)

Exposure class Cover [in.] Exposure condition Cover* [in.]
Concrete exposed 2 (slabs and walls) Direct exposure to salt 4.0 (3.2)
to moisture and to water (XS2 / XS3)
an external source of Coastal (XS1) 3.0 (2.4)
chlorides in service 2.5 (other members) Exposure to de-icing salts (XD) 2.5 (2.0)
* Values in brackets are modified by taking into account the modification factor for w/c-ratio
(0.8 for w/c ≤ 0.40). In ACI-318-14 the maximum w/c-ratio is given to 0.40.
33
Table 3-2 Exposure classes in Australia (AS 3600:2009)
Exposure classes according to Exposure classes according to

EN 206-1:2000 AS 3600:2009
XS1 Airborne B1 1-50 km from coastline
B2 0-1 km from coastline
XS2 Fully submerged
Permanently submerged
C1 Spray
XS3 Tidal / splash / spray
C2 Splash / tidal
Table 3-3 Selected countries and respective codes taken into account
Country Specifications considered

Spain (E) EHE-08 (2008)
Portugal (P) LNEC E 464 (2007), NP EN 1992-1-1+NA (2010), NP
EN 206-1+NA (2007)
Great Britain (GB) BS 8500-1 (2006), BS 8500-2 (2006), BS EN 1992-1-
1+NA (2005), BS EN 206-1 (2000)
Netherlands (NL) NEN 8005 (2008), NEN-EN 1992-1-1/NA (2011),
NEN-EN 206-1 (2001)
Germany (D) DIN 1045-2 (2008), DIN EN 1992-1-1+NA (2013),
DIN EN 206-1 (2001)
Denmark (DK) DS 2426 (2011), DS/EN 1992-1-1 DK NA (2011), DS
EN 206-1 (2001)
Norway (N) NS-EN 1992-1-1 :2004+NA (2008), NS-EN 206-
1:2000+NA (2007)
United States of America (USA) ACI-318-14 (2014), AASHTO LRFD Bridge (2012)
Australia (AUS) AS 3600 (2009)
The salinity of oceans is similar to ~35 g/L (except for the Baltic Sea, which has a
salinity of ~17 to ~3 g/L). The mean annual temperature ranges from ~15°C (E and P
- ‘Southern Europe’, AUS), ~10°C (GB, NL and D - ‘Central Europe’; USA) to ~8°C (DK,
N ‘Northern Europe’). AUS and the USA have diverse climate zones with a broad range
of temperatures. The above mean annual temperatures are reasonable assumptions for
the benchmark task.
The nine selected countries and the respective codes are summarized in Table 3-3. In all
the countries except the USA deemed-to-satisfy rules are provided for a design service
34
life of 50 years. In EN 1992-1-1:2004 the opportunity is given to design for other service
lives (other than 50 years) by means of varying the minimum concrete cover. In this
work resistances and reliabilities derived from deemed-to-satisfy rules were analysed for
a design service life of 50 years.
3.2 Deemed-to-satisfy rules of selected countries
The variety of permitted types of cements and their combination with w/c-ratio and/or
cover are summarized in Table 3-4.
Traditionally in the Netherlands, concretes based on GGBS cements are preferred. In

Germany CEM II-concretes are preferable whereas in Norway concretes with additions
like SF or FA are favoured.
The specifications for the water/binder-ratio and the minimum concrete cover for
exposure classes XD1-XD3 (road structures) and exposure classes XS1-XS3 (coastal
structures) are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 respectively.
The specifications for the highest maximum w/b-ratios range from 0.40 (USA) to 0.60
(GB) for exposure class XD1, from 0.40 to 0.55 for exposure class XD2 and from 0.35
(GB) to 0.50 (E, GB) for exposure class XD3. A minimum concrete cover between 25 (E,
GB) and 54 mm (USA) is specified for exposure class XD1. For exposure class XD2 the
required minimum concrete cover ranges from 30 (GB) to 54 mm (USA) and for XD3
from 35 (E) to 54 mm (USA).
Portugal allows higher w/b-ratios for concretes with CEM II/B to CEM V cements. In
Great Britain, the w/b-ratio, concrete cover and type of binder cannot be selected
independently of each other. Spain allows a lower minimum concrete cover for concretes
with CEM III and CEM IV and some types of CEM II cements. For concretes with other
cement types (e.g. CEM I) higher concrete covers are required for exposure classes XS1,
XD1 and XS2 whereas for the remaining exposure classes (XD2, XD3 and XS3) the
durability has to be verified. For this verification a service-life design model is introduced
(EHE-08, annexe 9) which takes both initiation (depassivation of reinforcement) and
propagation (active corrosion of reinforcement) periods into consideration.
In most countries in which the regular use of de-icing agents can be expected the
requirements become more stringent the higher the exposure class. However, in Spain,
35
Denmark, Norway and USA exposure classes XD2 and XD3 are regarded as equivalent.
The differences in national provisions for XD exposure classes can be explained, to a large
extent, by the significant differences in the application of de-icing agents (type, amount,
frequency). This also applies to the European countries with close regional proximity.
Table 3-4 Diversity in deemed-to-satisfy rules of selected countries
Country Diversity in deemed-to-satisfy rules and permitted types of cement

Spain (E) CEM III/A, CEM III/B, CEM IV,
Others combined with a higher
CEM II/B-S, B-P, B-V, A-D cover for same w/c-ratio (for XS1,
combined with a lower cover for
XD1, XS2), for other exposure
same w/c-ratio classes a service-life design is
required
Portugal (P) CEM II/A-D, CEM II/B, CEM III/A, CEM I, CEM II/A
CEM III/B, CEM IV/A, CEM IV/B, Combined with a lower w/c-ratio for
CEM V same cover
Combined with a higher w/c-
ratio for same cover
Great Britain (GB) Groups of types of cement combined with w/c-ratio correlated with
cover
Netherlands (NL) All types of cement; same cover and w/c-ratio within each exposure
class
Germany (D) All except: CEM II/B-L, CEM II/B-LL, CEM II/A-W, CEM II/B-W,
CEM III/C*, CEM V/A
Same cover and w/c-ratio within each exposure class
Denmark (DK) XD1, XS1, XS2: XS3, XD2, XD3:
CEM I, CEM II/A-L, CEM II/A-LL CEM I and CEM II/A-V
and CEM II/A-V
Norway (N) XD1, XS1: XD2, XD3, XS2, XS3:
CEM I, CEM II/A-S, CEM II/B-S, CEM I + 4 M.% SF/c., CEM II/A-S,
CEM II/A-D, CEM II/A-V, CEM CEM II/B-S, CEM II/A-D, CEM II/A-V,
II/B-V, CEM III/A CEM II/B-V, CEM III/A
United States of All cement types have same w/c-ratio but different cover for exposure
America (USA) conditions
Australia (AUS) No recommendations on type of cement and w/c-ratio: durability is
verified with respect to compressive strength combined with cover
* Not considered in exposure classes XD2 and XS2
36
For the European countries (except Spain) the minimum concrete cover used is based
on the recommended structural class which can be found in the National Annexes to
EN 1992-1-1. The recommended structural class is S4 for most European countries. In
the probabilistic calculations no reduction has been applied for strength grade, quality
control and geometry, which is allowed in EN 1992-1-1.
It must be noted that the required concrete cover (nominal concrete cover cnom) is the
sum of the minimum concrete cover cmin and the allowance for deviation Δcdev. Other
ratings may be obtained when comparing the nominal concrete covers resulting from
the different allowances for deviation specified in national standards (5 to 15 mm). The
values of the nominal concrete cover cnom are shown in Figures 3-4 and 3-5.
w/b [–] cmin [mm]

0.7
Dependent on cover XD1 70 XD1
0.6 CEM II/B 60

Dependent on
member type
to CEM V
50
0.5 CEM I Dependent on w/b
CEM I to 40
0.4 CEM II/A
30
CEM II to
CEM V
0.3 20
E P GB NL D DK N USA AUS E P GB NL D DK N USA AUS
w/b [–] cmin [mm]
0.7
XD2 70 XD2
Dependent on binder
0.6 CEM II/B type and cover
60
Dependent on
member type
to CEM V Dependent on binder
type and w/b
50
0.5 CEM II to
CEM V
CEM I to 40
0.4 CEM II/A
30
0.3 20
w/b [–] cmin [mm]
0.7
XD3 70 XD3
Dependent on binder
0.6 Dependent on binder 60
type and w/b Dependent on
member type
type and cover
50 CEM II to
0.5 CEM II/B
CEM V
to CEM V
40
0.4 CEM I to
CEM II/A 30
0.3 20
Fig. 3-1 Maximum w/b-ratio (left) and minimum cover (right) for exposure classes XD1 to XD3
37
The specifications for the highest maximum w/b-ratios vary between 0.35 (GB) and
0.60 (AUS) for exposure class XS1, between 0.40 and 0.55 for exposure class XS2 and
between 0.35 (GB) and 0.50 (GB) for exposure class XS3. The specifications for the
minimum concrete cover range from 25 mm (E) to 54 mm (USA) for exposure class XS1,
from 30 mm (E, GB, DK) to 72 mm (USA) for exposure class XS2 and from 35 mm (E)
to 72 mm (USA) for exposure class XS3.
In Spain, in contrast to other countries, partially stricter requirements are specified for
exposure class XS1 than for class XS2 (for CEM I). However, in Denmark the exposure
classes XS1 and XS2 are regarded as equivalent. Exposure classes XS2 and XS3 are
regarded as equivalent in the Netherlands and the USA while the other countries have
more stringent requirements for exposure class XS3.
The Australian standard AS 3600:2009 only specifies requirements for the compressive
strength of concrete and concrete cover. A rough estimate of the w/b-ratio was
determined from the compressive strength during the work on this document.
w/b [–] cmin [mm]

0.7
XS1 70 XS1
Dependent on binder
0.6 type and cover Dependent on
CEM II/B 60 Dependent on binder
member type
to CEM V type and w/b
1-50 km
distance
from ocean 50 to ocean:
0.5 0-1 km CEM I
0-1 km
CEM I to 40
CEM II/A 1-50 km
0.4
30
CEM II to
CEM V
0.3 20
w/b [–] cmin [mm]

0.7
XS2 70 Dependent on XS2
Dependent on binder member type
0.6 CEM II/B type and cover
60
to CEM V Dependent on binder
type and w/b
50
0.5
CEM I
CEM I to 40
0.4 CEM II/A
30 CEM II to
CEM V
0.3 20
38
w/b [–] cmin [mm]

0.7
XS3 70 Dependent on XS3
Dependent on member type Tidal /
splash
0.6 Dependent on binder 60
binder type and w/b
type and cover

50 CEM II to
0.5 CEM II/B CEM V Spray
to CEM V
40
0.4 CEM I to
CEM II/A
30
0.3 20
Fig. 3-2 Maximum w/b-ratio (left, previous and this page) and minimum cover (right, previous
and this page) for exposure classes XS1 to XS3
A comparison of the requirements for exposure classes XD and XS shows that in

most countries these classes are regarded as equivalent. In Spain the requirements for
exposure classes XD2 and XD3 are stricter than for XS2 and XS3. The Netherlands
specify more stringent requirements for exposure class XS2 than for XD2. In Norway,
more stringent requirements are specified for exposure class XS3 than for XD3. In the
USA the requirements for exposure classes XS are stricter than for XD.
3.3 Prediction of condition state (a priori)
3.3.1 Procedure
A case study was carried out for each country and each exposure class in order to
determine the range of reliabilities obtained for designs complying with the standards
in use. Thus, there are individual case studies for each type of cement that can be used
and for each geographical location. In order to narrow down the reliabilities that can be
obtained for a descriptive design, the variables ‘material resistance’, characterized by the
selected concrete composition, and ‘action’, characterized by the geographical location,
were combined in such a way that the resulting case studies are either ‘more critical’ or
‘less critical’ with regard to the depassivation of reinforcement. The model parameters
needed for the full probabilistic prediction of the condition are derived for each case
study as a function of the exposure class, the selected geographical location, the selected
type of cement, the specified w/b-ratio, the specified minimum concrete cover and the
specified allowance for the deviation of concrete cover. Benchmarking was performed
39
with the values of the parameters presented in Section 2.2.4. It has to be noted that it is
just a simplified assumption that the values used in this benchmark for the parameters
conform to the corresponding concretes of each country. An overview of the variables
used for benchmarking is given in Tables 3-5 and 3-6.
Regarding material resistance, all prescriptive specifications offer freedom in the choice
of cement type (with some limitations; see Table 3-3). Some prescriptive specifications
offer freedom in the choice of the combined limiting values (E, P and GB). Hence, within
one exposure class a concrete composition with a lower resistance (low-resistance
concrete) or a concrete composition with a higher resistance (high-resistance concrete)
may be chosen.
Regarding the exposure within one exposure class, a high or low chloride action is
possible, as reflected in the chosen magnitude of Cs,0 or Cs,Δx (see Table 2-6).
Considering these diversities both on the resistance and action side, this benchmark will
produce different structural reliabilities (a spectrum of reliabilities in regard to durability)
within one exposure class. Therefore, the goal of this work was to determine the
spectrum of reliabilities provided by choosing ‘unfavourable’ design situations (a lower
reliability level) and ‘favourable’ design situations (an upper reliability level). Unfavourable
design situations are characterized by a low-resistance concrete composition (type of
cement and w/c-ratio) in combination with a high chloride action; favourable design
situations are characterized by a high-resistance concrete composition in combination
with a low chloride action:
• Unfavourable design situation:

Low-resistance concrete composition in combination with a high chloride action
• Favourable design situation:

High-resistance concrete composition in combination with a low chloride action
For Great Britain, Spain and the USA the favourable and unfavourable design situations
were determined with additional consideration of concrete cover as it is linked to the
chosen concrete composition.
40
Table 3-5 Variables used for benchmarking dependent on exposure class
Variable Distribution and XD1 XD2 XD3 XS1 XS2 XS3

[Unit]* values
DRCM(t0) ND (μ / σ ) No dependency (see Table 2-3)
[m²/s] with CoV=0.40
α [–] BetaD (μ / σ / 0 / 1) μ = 0.65 Table 2-4 μ = 0.65 Table 2-4
σ = 0.12 σ = 0.12
t0 [d] Constant (28) No dependency
be [K] ND (4800 / 700) No dependency
Tref [K] Constant (293) No dependency
Treal [K] ND (μ / σ) μ: Table 3-6, σ = 8 μ: Table 3-6, σ = 5
Cs,0 / Cs,Δx LND (μ / σ) μ: 0.5-1.5 μ: 2.0-4.0 μ: 2.0-4.0 μ: 1.0-2.0 μ: 2.0-4.0 μ: 2.0-4.0
[wt.-%-/c] CoV: 0.75 CoV: 0.75 CoV: 0.75 CoV: 0.45 CoV: 0.25 CoV: 0.45
Δx [mm] BetaD (10 / 5 / 0 / 0 10 / 5 0 10 / 5
50) or Constant (0)
C0 Constant (0) No dependency
[wt.-%-/c]
Ccrit BetaD No dependency
[wt.-%-/c] (0.60 / 0.15 / 0.2 / 2)
cnom [mm] ND (μ / σ) Table 3-6 and Appendix A
* When units have to be changed (due to model demands, consistency of units) values are converted, e.g. DRCM(t0) =
10 ∙ 10 -12 m2/s into 315.4 mm2/years or t0 = 28 days into 0.0767 years.
Table 3-6 Variables used for benchmarking dependent on country and exposure class
Country Treal [°C] Δcdev [mm] cmin [mm] ND (μ) Dependent on 1
cement type and

ND (μ) Constant XD1 XD2 XD3 XS1 XS2 XS3 w/c-ratio, different
E 15 10 25/45 35 35 25/45 30/40 35 covers are possible
2
In USA cmin is not
P 15 10 35 40 45 35 40 45 specified explicitly;
GB 1
10 15 35 40 50 40/45 40 50 specifications for
cover and allowance
NL 10 5 35 40 40 35 40 40 for deviation exist; i.e.
D 10 15 40 40 40 40 40 40 cmin = 41 mm derived
DK 8 5 30 40 40 30 30 40 from 50.8 mm - 9.5
mm (2” - 3/8”)
N 8 10 40 40 40 40 40 50 3 For definition of
USA 2
10 9.5 41/54 41/54 41/54 41/54 41/72 41/72 exposure classes in
Australia, see Table
AUS 3
15 5 – – – 35/40 40 45/60 3-2
41
The procedure to determine the levels of reliability is explained in detail with an example
representative for Germany, exposure class XS3. The limiting values for exposure class
XS3 as stated in DIN 1045-2:2008 are summarized in Table 3-7.
Table 3-7 Deemed-to-satisfy specifications for exposure class XS3 in Germany, according to
DIN 1045-2:2008
Environmental Material performance Constructional
action performance
Exposure class Minimum cement Maximum Type of cement Nominal concrete
content w/b-ratio cover [mm]
[kg/m³] [–] cnom = cmin + Δcdev
XS3 320 0.45 All except CEM 55 = 40 + 15
II/B-L, II/B-LL, II/A-W,
II/B-W, III/C,V/A
In Germany a ‘more critical’ case generally results for exposure class XS3 when CEM I (or
CEM II/A-LL) cement is used. Critical exposure conditions apply to structural elements
on the North Sea coast, where the highest chloride concentrations in the seawater on
German coasts will occur. A ‘less critical’ case results when CEM III/B cement is used for
a structural element in a location on the coast of the Baltic Sea where the seawater has a
low chloride concentration.The model parameters derived as a function of the exposure
class, the selected geographical location, the selected type of cement, the specified w/b-
ratio, the specified minimum concrete cover and the specified allowance for deviation
are given in Table 3-8.
Table 3-8 Diversity in deemed-to-satisfy rules of selected countries

Unfavourable (CEM I) Favourable (CEM
III/B)
Variable Symbol Unit Distribution Mean Standard Mean Standard
deviation deviation
Dapp(t) DRCM(t0) 10 m2/s Normal
-12
10.0 2.0 1.9 0.4
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0.45 0.20
a=0, b=1.0
t0 Years Constant 0.0767 – 0.0767 –
Tref K Constant 293 – 293 –
Treal K Normal 283 5 283 5
be K Normal 4800 700 4800 700
42
Table 3-8 (cont.)

Unfavourable (CEM I) Favourable (CEM
III/B)
Variable Symbol Unit Distribution Mean Standard Mean Standard
deviation deviation
Chloride Cs,Δx wt.%/b Lognormal 4.0 1.8 2.0 0.9
concentration
at depth Δx
Depth of Δx mm Beta a=0, 10 5 10 5
convection b=50
zone
Initial chloride C0 wt.%/b Constant 0 – 0 –
content
Critical chloride Ccrit wt.%/b Beta a=0.2, 0.60 0.15 0.60 0.15
content b=2.0
Cover cnom mm Normal 55 9 55 9
Design service tSL Years Constant 50 – 50 –
life
The reliability graphs for the case studies can be calculated using the limit state Equations
2-8 or 2-9 in section 2.2.3 (see Figure 3-3). The spectrum between the reliability curve
for the ‘unfavourable’ case and the curve for the ‘favourable’ case shows the range of
reliabilities for structures designed descriptively in accordance with current rules. The
lowest level of reliability at the end of the 50-year service life shows the resistance
or lack of resistance of descriptively designed structures to the depassivation of the
reinforcement under exposure class XS3. The spread between the lowest and highest
reliability shows how precise or imprecise and, as a result, how economic or uneconomic
this type of design format can be.
–4
reliability index β [–]
3
x
ed "favourable" Fig. 3-3 Reliability index versus design
n2 CEM III/B service life for the unfavoura-
y1 ble and the favourable design
reliability
b
a 0 spectrum situation; Reliability spectrum
e "unfavourable" provided when following
-1 the recommendations of
CEM I
-2 deemed-to-satisfy rules of
0 10 20 30 40 50 German specifications for XS3
time t [a] (see Table 3-7)
43
The reliability corridors obtained for the selected countries for exposure classes XD
and XS are presented in the following section.
3.3.2 Reliability spectra (a priori)
The reliabilities calculated country-by-country for exposure classes XD1–XD3 and for
exposure classes XS1–XS3 are presented in Figures 3-4 and 3-5 respectively. The graphs
also show the w/b-ratio, the cement types and the nominal concrete cover which result
in ‘favourable’ and ‘unfavourable’ design situations when the descriptive rules laid down
in the various countries are followed. In contrast to Figures 3-2 and 3-3, this comparison
shows the nominal concrete cover instead of the minimum concrete cover. This is
because the reliability analysis and the calculation of the reliability index are performed
by introducing the nominal concrete cover into the probabilistic model. The nominal
concrete covers are compared rather than the minimum covers owing to the different
allowances for deviations specified in the various bodies of rules (see section 2.2.4.9).
The reliabilities calculated using a purely a priori design are shown in the figures, along with
the maximum and minimum values of the reliability spectra. Maximum, and thus generally
less critical, reliabilities are obtained for CEM III- and CEM II-concretes while minimum,
i.e. more critical, reliabilities are generally obtained for CEM I-concretes. Countries
which do not allow CEM I-concretes for XD and XS exposures generally have a higher
minimum level of reliability (e.g. N). For Spain CEM I was not considered for exposure
classes XD2, XD3 and XS3 since, according to the Spanish standard EHE-08, a durability
verification is required for CEM I-concretes in the aforementioned exposure classes.
Hence, for Spain the reliability spectra for XD2, XD3 and XS3 do not demonstrate a
wide spread.
In Appendix A for each reliability calculation a data sheet is provided which gives
an overview of the values of the individual parameters used in the analysis and the
development of the calculated reliability index over time.
44
0.7 Reliability index β [–]

w/b [–]
'Unfavourable' CEM I
6
0.6 'Favourable' CEM III/B, II/A-V, III/A
CEM III/B
5 XD1
0.5
CEM I
4
0.4
3
0.3
2
80
cnom [mm]
Dependent on
member type
1
60 CEM I 0
40 -1
CEM III/B
20 -2

w/b [–]
'Unfavourable' CEM I, II/A-D, II/A-S

6
0.6 'Favourable' CEM III/B, II/A-V
5 XD2
0.5
4
0.4
3
0.3
2
cnom [mm]
80 Dependent on
member type
1
60 0
40 -1
20 -2

w/b [–]
'Unfavourable' CEM I, IIA-D, II/A-S

6
5 XD3
CEM III/B
0.5
CEM I
4
0.4
3
0.3
2
cnom [mm]
80 Dependent on
member type
1
60 0
40 -1
20 -2
Fig. 3-4 Favourable and unfavourable types of cement, with maximum w/c-ratio and nominal
cover (left) and reliability spectra for a design service life of 50 years (right), for
exposure classes XD1 to XD3 (calculations according to data sheet in Appendix A)
45

w/b [–]
'Unfavourable' CEM I
'Favourable' CEM III/B, II/A-V, III/A
6
0.6 CEM III/B XS1
CEM I 5
0.5 CEM I CEM III/B 4
0.4
3
0.3
2
cnom [mm]
80 Dependent on
member type
1
CEM III/B
60 CEM I
CEM I
0
CEM III/B
40 CEM I -1
CEM III/B
20 -2
0.7
w/b [–]
'Unfavourable' CEM I, II/A-S

6
5 XS2
0.5
4
0.4
3
0.3
2
cnom [mm]
80 Dependent on
member type 1
60 0
CEM I
40 CEM III/B -1
20 -2
0.7
w/b [–]
'Unfavourable' CEM I, II/A-D, II/A-S

'Favourable' CEM III/B, II/A-V
6
0.6 XS3
CEM III/B
5
0.5
4
0.4 CEM I
3
cf. Figure 3.3
0.3
2
cnom [mm]
80 Dependent on
member type CEM III/B 1
60
0
CEM I
40 -1
20 -2
Fig. 3-5 Favourable and unfavourable types of cement, with maximum w/c-ratio and nominal
cover (left) and reliability spectra for a design service life of 50 years (right), for
exposure classes XS1 to XS3 (calculations according to data sheet in Appendix A)
46
3.4 Verification by assessing existing structures (a posteriori)
By assessing existing structures some in-field performances of concretes were also

determined. In-field performances are given by measured chloride profiles and are used
to:
• analyse whether the predicted chloride contents reflect real behaviour,

• verify that the reliability spectra are determined by reliability design with field reliability.
3.4.1 Methodology
Generally speaking, predictions of developments in the condition are associated with

uncertainties. The models have to allow for simplifications as it is not usually possible to
take every influencing factor into account. In addition, uncertain assumptions regarding
future actions and material properties have to be made. However, information on actual
environmental actions or the interaction between a structure and its ambient environment
can be obtained by specific investigations of the structure and this information can
contribute towards reducing the uncertainties. As there can also be uncertainties in
inspection data the prediction is updated using a probabilistic format with the aid of
Bayes’ Theorem. The uncertain expected values (a priori model) are verified by actual
data measured on the structure and, thus, are converted into an a posteriori model.
Bayes’ theorem enables reliabilities calculated a priori and probabilities of failure to be
updated (Straub 2011).
P(F ∩ I) 3-1
P(F/I)= P(I)
The calculation is performed by evaluating the conditional probability of a failure

event F occurring for the given information I where F is the a priori probability of failure.
Information I, which can be obtained by inspecting structures, is also described as a limit-
state equation h(X) together with a failure condition. The failure condition may exist
either as an equality constraint or as an inequality constraint (Faber 2007). In this case,
the a posteriori model is not limited to a single piece of information but can easily be
extended by adding supplementary information, ∩ hi.
hi(X) = 0 Equality constraint 3-2
hi(X) < 0 Inequality constraint 3-3
47
In the structural reliability method, Equation 3-1 is solved by calculating the integrals over
the failure ranges (see Eq. 3-4).
∫ g(X)<0 ∩ h(X)≤0 fx (X)d x 3-4

P(F/I)=
(X)d x
∫ h(X)≤0 fx
The calculation of the surface integrals and thus of the reliability is performed using the
STRUREL software package. As it is not possible to calculate the equality constraint
directly in this way (Straub 2011), approximation methods are available for the first
and second reliability methods (FORM, SORM) (Faber 2007, Gollwitzer 2006). Crude
FORM is used in cases where problems are not solvable within FORM / SORM concepts.
However, this is a rather crude approximation because crude FORM rests on an individual
linearization of the failure function.
The information obtained by measuring the concrete cover and the chloride content
over the depth, as well as the potential field of the current corrosion condition, can be
used to improve the predictions for the conditions of structures in which the chloride-
induced corrosion of the reinforcement has occurred.
The concrete cover is a model parameter that can be measured directly and describes
the resistance of a structure. It can be determined non-destructively with relatively little
effort and is often measured as part of quality control procedures. The measurements
of the concrete cover should preferably be performed over a large area in order to
determine the quality of the workmanship. Electromagnetic methods are usually used for
this purpose (Maierhofer 2010). The following inequality constraint can be introduced as
a limit-state equation for information from the concrete cover (Malioka 2009).
In the case of chloride-induced corrosion, chloride contents determined as a function of the

depth enable the interconnection between the resistance and action to be reliably inferred.
As structures age, chloride profiles become increasingly important in order to improve
predictions of the condition. Borehole cuttings are usually taken from several depths to
obtain the profiles. In most cases, the chloride analysis is performed by potentiometric
or photometric titration. The uncertainty of the measurements comprises several factors.
In addition to the uncertainty regarding the depth, there is also the uncertainty in the
chemical analysis. Chloride contents are introduced into the prediction of the condition of
a structure by formulating an equality constraint for each chloride content determined as a
function of the depth.The depth is taken to be constant while the relevant chloride content
is assumed to be uncertain (due to inaccuracies in the measurements) (DARTS 2004).
48
[
hi (X) = C(xinsp,tinsp) - CS,0 • 1 - erf
x insp
2√D app (t insp )• t insp ] =0 3-5
with:
xinsp : depth from which the borehole cuttings are taken for the chloride analysis
C(xinsp,tinsp): chloride content at depth xinsp [wt.-%/c] at time tinsp
As considerable deviations from the ideal diffusion behaviour are possible when the
exposure to chlorides is intermittent, near-surface chloride contents (within the
convection zone) can only be used to a certain extent to improve the prediction of the
condition.
3.4.2 Data from practical investigations
The uncertain results of the predictions were verified using actual data for structures.
Information (cement type, age on inspection, location and exposure class) on a total of
11 structures investigated is presented in Table 3-9. Chloride profiles are particularly
suitable for verifying both the results of the model and the a priori reliabilities. They
include the information on the actual material behaviour for each type of exposure.
In order to verify the model predictions, chloride profiles at the time of inspection were
calculated using Equation 2-3 in section 2.2.2.2, taking into account the actions to which
the structure under investigation was exposed, and these profiles were compared with
the measured chloride contents. The model parameters were varied randomly to yield
chloride content distributions (mean values and 95% quantiles) at discrete depths.
In order to verify the calculated reliability spectra in Figures 3-4 and 3-5, the measured
depth-dependent chloride contents were used to calculate the reliability at the end of the
design service life (50 years) within a Bayesian update, as is well-documented in Ditlevsen
(2005). This entails that the on-site material composition fulfil the requirements stated
in the specifications.
To some extent unpublished (otherwise cited) chloride profiles from structures older than
5 years were provided by the members of fib TG 8.6. In Table 3-9 the age of the investigated
structural elements, the country, the related exposure class, the description of the location,
the concrete composition (w/b-ratio and type of binder) as well as the cover required by
the specific specification are summarized.Two structures are from exposure class XS2 and
the rest are exposed in XS3. The other exposure classes are not represented.
49
Table 3-9 Features of the structures investigated
N° Age Country Exposure Description of location Type of binder w/b- Cnom

[years] Class ratio [-] [mm]
1 5 P XS3 Setenave shipyards, Atlantic CEM I + 5 % 0.35 55
Ocean SF
2 18 NL XS3 Box girder bridge wall, CEM III/B 0.45 45
North Sea
3 6 XS2 Specimens exposed to CEM I 0.47 55
4 6 XS2 Eckernförde, Baltic Sea CEM III/B 0.47 55
(exposed specimen)
5 6 D XS3 Specimen exposed to wall CEM I 0.47 55
6 6 XS3 of Eider barrage, North Sea CEM III/B 0.47 55
(exposed specimen)
7 30, 40 XS3 Wall of Eider barrage, North CEM I + 5 % 0.45 55
Sea (Gehlen 2009) trass
8 36 XS3 Bridge pile, Baltic Sea CEM I 0.40 45
9 12 DK XS3 Bridge pile, North Sea CEM I + FA 0.38 45
10 32 XS3 Bridge pile, Baltic Sea CEM I 0.40 45
11 8 N XS3 Floating structure ‘Troll B’, CEM I +7 % SF 0.35 60
North Sea (Helland 2010)
3.4.3 Verification of the model prediction
Representative results of the analyses to verify the model prediction are shown as an
example in Figure 3-6, using the field data from the investigated structures numbered 1,
2 and 10 in Table 3-9.
In Figure 3-6 (left) the chloride profiles at the time of inspection, predicted with Equation
2-3 (mean values and 95 % quantiles), are compared with the chloride profiles obtained
by measurement. In Figure 3-6 (right) the evolution of the reliability indices is shown as
determined by the reliability designs presented a priori in Section 3.3.1. Furthermore, the
field reliabilities are given a posteriori. Here the field reliabilities are based on the measured
chloride profiles and the concrete cover required by the current national standards.
The results of the model verification for the other structures investigated are shown in
Appendix B.
50
6 5
Measured No. 1 Reliability design (a priori)
5 Calculated mean 4 Assessment of existing structures

Chloride content [wt.-%/binder]
Calculated 95 % quantile (a posteriori)

3
4
Reliability index β [–]

Comparison at t = 5years
years 2
3
1
2
0
1 -‐1
0 -‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth x [mm] Time t [a]
6 5
Measured No. 2
5 Calculated mean 4
Calculated 95 % quantile
3
4
Comparison at t = 18 years 2
3
1
2
0 Reliability design (a priori)
1 -‐1 Assessment of existing structures

(a posteriori)
0 -‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50
6 5
Measured No. 10 Reliability design (a priori)

3
4
Comparison at t = 32 years 2
3
1
2
0
1 -‐1
0 -‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50
Fig. 3-6 Left: Measured chloride contents and calculated chloride contents
Right: Reliability index versus time determined by reliability design and by assessing
existing structures
51
From Figure 3-6 and the other figures in Appendix B it can be concluded that the
measured chloride profiles agree relatively well with the calculated chloride profiles.
The agreement between the measured and calculated chloride profiles is particularly
closer for the lower depths than for the near-surface depths of the structural elements.
Furthermore, the field reliabilities (predicted for t = 50 years) are mostly higher than the
ones determined by reliability design (with the exception of cases 5, 9 and 10). In most
cases the updated β-t-run exhibits a higher value at the inspection time than for the a
priori design; however, its decreasing course is more stringent.
In cases 1 and 11 the concretes of the structures inspected exhibit water/binder-ratios

which are lower than is given in the corresponding current national specifications (0.35
instead of 0.40). In line with this the predicted reliability index at t = 50 years is very high,
in particular for case 11. Both structures are inspected at the early ages of 5 and 8 years.
Chloride profiles measured for structures at older ages generally give more realistic and
reliable information about the structures.Therefore, only chloride profiles for structures
measured after at least 5 years of exposure are considered in this study.
Using measured chloride profiles from existing structures to verify the model prediction
raises the question as to whether the measured chloride values are sufficiently
representative and accurate. The following aspects are considered relevant regarding the
reliability and validity of the measured chloride values for structures:
• Sampling:
Both the position at which the samples are taken and the sampling procedure are of great
importance. The chloride samples used to validate the model must be representative
for the prevailing exposure conditions, be taken from representative sampling locations
and must not exhibit any defects or other singularities (such as cracks). Sampling is
either carried out by drilling cores, which are subsequently sawn into discs, or by taking
samples of borehole cuttings. When sampling the latter, care must be taken to ensure
that chlorides from the upper levels do not contaminate the lower levels. Lack of care
during sampling or an inappropriate choice of sampling location will result in chloride
values that will lead to errors when assessing the structural elements and the model.
• Sample preparation and analysis:

The preparation and chemical analysis of the samples is specified in EN 14629:2007
although national provisions, such as DAfStb (1989) in Germany, are also applied.
These may differ with regard to the extraction method (hot / cold), fineness,
homogenization and the way in which the chemical characteristics are determined
(potentiometric or photometric method). Furthermore, water extraction is often
52
used for an approximate determination of the free chloride content, whereas the
considered chloride transport model deals with the total chloride content, which is
determined by acid-extraction of the chlorides in the samples.
• Initial chloride content:

As shown by Equation 2-3, the initial chloride content of the concrete is one of the
parameters in the model. The initial chloride content of the concrete comprises
the chloride contents of the constituents, such as cement, aggregates and water, but
is unknown for nearly all old structures and many recent ones; however, it may be
measured on concrete from the inner part of the structure.
• Interaction of different actions and degradation mechanisms:

Apart from chloride-induced corrosion, concrete structures are affected by other
degradation phenomena such as carbonation, an alkali-silica reaction, scaling, internal
cracks and so forth caused by different environmental actions as well as mechanical
loads. These deterioration mechanisms may interact. This aspect must be considered
when evaluating the chloride contents obtained.
3.4.4 Verification of the a priori reliability spectra
In Figure 3-7 the reliability spectra determined by the reliability design shown in Figures
3-4 and 3-5 (right) are reproduced. Here, the field reliabilities after 50 years’ exposure
(predicted) are added using dots.The ranges of all reliabilities are marked by the grey beams.
6 6 6
5 XD1 XD2 XD3
5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1
0 0 0
-1 -1 -1
-2 -2 -2
6 6 6
5 XS1 XS2 XS3
5 5 No. 11
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 No. 2 No. 6
2 No. 4 2 No. 1
1 No. 7
1 1
No. 9
0 0 0 No. 8
No. 3
-1 -1 -1
No. 5 No. 10
-2 -2 -2
E P GB NL D DK N USA AUS E P GB NL D DK N USA AUS E P GB NL D DK N USA AUS
Fig. 3-7 Spectra of reliabilities provided by deemed-to-satisfy rules for a design service life of 50 years,
determined by reliability design (bars) and by assessing existing structures (dots), with numbering of
dots based on Table 3-9. The numbers refer to study cases listed in Table 3-9 and Appendix B.
53
The graphs in Figure 3-7 clearly demonstrate that the reliability spectrum is always
broad, independently of the exposure class. The lower reliability level determined when
selecting low-resistance types of cements is confirmed by the field investigations (CEM I).
The same holds for the upper reliability level determined when selecting high-resistance
types of cement (CEM III, CEM I +SF).Therefore, it can be concluded that the wide spread
of reliability within each exposure class results from the huge differences in material
performance.
In Figure 3-7 it can also be seen that the reliability level (grey beams) is systematically
higher for the exposure classes XD1 and XS1 and systematically lower for the exposure
classes XD2, XD3, XS2 and XS3. The lowest reliability level (bottom bar) obtained for
the exposure classes XD1 and XS1 is β = 1.4 and β = 0.7 respectively, whereas for the
exposure classes XD2 and XD3 β = -0.9 is obtained and for XS2 and XS3 β = -1.5 and
β = -1.3 respectively.
In current standards and supplementary documents a variety of reliability indices β are

proposed (see Table 3-10). The reliability indices given in the standards ISO 2394:1998
and EN 1990:2002 refer to serviceability limit states but not explicitly to durability and
the depassivation of reinforcement.
Table 3-10 Target reliability indices β in standards and guidelines (for a reference period of 50
years)
Document Reliability index β Case
ISO 2394:1998 0.0 Reversible serviceability limit states
1.5 Irreversible serviceability limit states
EN 1990:2002 1.5 Irreversible serviceability limit states with
moderate consequences
fib MC SLD 2006 1.3 (1.0 – 1.5) Depassivation of reinforcement
LNEC E 465:2007 2.0 Irreversible serviceability limit states with
great consequences
1.5 Irreversible serviceability limit states with
moderate consequences
1.2 Irreversible serviceability limit states with
small consequences
NEN 6700:2005 1.8 Depassivation of reinforcement
NS-EN 206-1:2000+NA (2007)* 1.3 Depassivation of reinforcement
* Documented in Fluge (2003)
54
Except for the exposure classes XD1 and XS1, the reliability level provided by deemed-
to-satisfy rules is, at least for unfavourable design situations, lower than all the proposed
target reliabilities.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the major consequences of the current prescriptive
approach are:
• a lack of safety for specific design situations,

• a lack of economic serviceability of prescriptive designed structures.
This results mainly from the lack of reliable information on the durability properties of
the concrete (type of cement), which makes it difficult to evaluate concrete quality and
performance in the respective environmental action. In order to overcome the current
problems, an adaptation of deemed-to-satisfy rules is required where the limiting values
are derived from scientifically verified material resistances (performance based deemed-
to-satisfy rules). Therefore, a system with material resistance classes is proposed
(Leivestad 2013) and is dealt with in the next chapter.
55
4 Proposal for performance-based, deemed-to-satisfy rules

The methodological approach for ensuring durability based on material resistance classes
in analogy to the approach for ensuring load-bearing capacity based on strength classes
is shown in Figure 4-1.
Fig. 4-1
Methodological
approach for
ensuring durability
based on material
resistance classes
in comparison with
the approach for
ensuring load-
bearing capacity
based on strength
classes (RSD for
Material Resistance
Class Sea / De-
Icing Salts, RC for
Material Resistance
Class Carbonation)
As already introduced in structural (mechanical) load design (to calculate the load-bearing
capacity), the definition of the classes should be performance-based, which will allow and
promote further technological development without the need to amend the classes.
The definition of resistance classes for durability design should be related to the
exposure conditions defined in the system of exposure classes and should have realistic
requirements. This would allow experience and observations from practice to calibrate
requirements and to adjust concrete specifications in accordance with observations
from real structures under normal service conditions.
Requirements for chloride resistance classes should be related to long-term exposure

to exposure class XS2 because they are stable over time and can also be simulated
with short-term tests in laboratories. Reference exposure time should be 50 years,
corresponding to the normal service life of concrete structures. The compliance of a
specific concrete composition in its material resistance class should be tested under
standard conditions, using a particular technical specification.The class definition gives the
characteristic material performance under a specific, standardized environmental action.
56
For example, the material resistance class RSD45 stands for a concrete resistance that
prevents chlorides from penetrating concrete with a concentration of 0.5% of cement
weight in a standardized immersion test (related to XS2 exposure) any deeper than 45
mm, with a reliability of 90% after 50 years. Based on characteristic material performance,
the cover required to withstand the specific environmental action (exposure class) is
derived from (reliability) design.
This approach is completely comparable with the approach for ensuring a load-bearing
capacity based on strength classes. In such a case, material performance is classified and
characterized by strength classes. Compliance is tested under standard conditions. The
dimensions of the structural component required to withstand the actual action are
derived from (reliability) design based on the characteristic strength of the concrete.
In order to maintain a prescriptive approach, deemed-to-satisfy concrete compositions

can be determined. Deemed-to-satisfy mix compositions (with a maximum w/c-ratio,
a certain type of cement, etc.) have to be established and a reliable relationship with
a relevant material performance (in terms of material resistance, e.g. chloride ingress
depth) has to be documented.
For the relevant material performance, the different cover required to withstand the
conditions of the individual exposure classes may be given in design tables for a specified
design service life. Thus, for common design situations no (full-probabilistic) reliability
design is to be performed.
For the carbonation resistance classes (RC), deemed-to-satisfy values have been
developed and introduced in Greve-Dierfeld (2014). Those rules are also based on a
benchmark for deemed-to-satisfy rules performed for the exposure classes XC1, XC2,
XC3 and XC4 (Gehlen 2013).
The advantage of this new approach is that reliable information on the durability
properties of the concrete composition will be available. The material resistance classes
are to be defined so as to increase the reliability index for the ‘unfavourable situations’
from -1.3 to ≥ 0.5, on the one hand, and to reduce the spectrum of reliability index from
-1.3 ≤ β ≤ 3.0 to 0.5 ≤ β ≤ 1.5, on the other (exemplary for XS3; see Figure 4-2).
This results in:
• an increased safety margin for specific design situations and

• improved economic serviceability of the structures.
57
6 5
5 XS3 XS3
No. 11 4
4
3
3
No. 2 No. 6 2
2 No. 1
No. 7 1
1
No. 9
0 No. 8
0
-1 -1
No. 5 No. 10
-2 -2
Fig. 4-2 Reliability spectra provided by current deemed-to-satisfy rules (left) and when
specifying cover in dependence of material resistance class (right)
The approach of developing the material resistance classes so as to improve safety

and to lower the variability of structures and structural resistance against chloride-
and carbonation-induced corrosion is described in detail in Greve-Dierfeld (2014) and
Gehlen (2013). This approach is being elaborated by an ad hoc group under the JWG TC
250/SC2 and TC 104/SC1 (Leivestad 2013).
58
5 References
fib:
fib MC SLD fib Bulletin 34: Model Code for Service Life Design (2006). Fédération
internationale du béton (fib), Lausanne, Switzerland.
fib MC2010 fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010 (2013). Ernst & Sohn, Berlin.
Standards:
AASHTO LRFD Bridge (2012) Design specifications. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
ACI-318-14:2014 Building code requirements for structural concrete. American Concrete
Institute, United States of America.
AS 3600:2009 Concrete structures. Standards Australia GPO Box 476, Sydney, NSW 2001,
Australia.
BS 8500-1:2006 Concrete – complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1 – Part 1:
Method of specifying and guidance for the specifier. London, Great Britain.
BS 8500-2:2006 Concrete – complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1 – Part 2:
Specification for constituent materials and concrete. London, Great Britain.
BS NA EN 1992-1-1:2005 National annexe to EN 1992-1-1. Great Britain.
CEN/TS 12390-11:2010 Testing hardened concrete – Part 11: Determination of the chloride
resistance of concrete, unidirectional diffusion.
DIN 1045-2:2008 Tragwerke aus Beton, Stahlbeton und Spannbeton - Teil 2: Beton – Festlegung,
Eigenschaften, Herstellung und Konformität – Anwendungsregeln zu DIN EN 206-1.
DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA:2013 National annexe to EN 1992-1-1. Germany.
DS 2426:2011 Concrete – Materials – Rules for application of EN 206-1 in Denmark.
DS/EN 1992-1-1 DK NA:2011 National annexe to EN 1992-1-1. Denmark.
EHE-08:2008 Code on structural concrete. Ministerio de Fomento, Spain.
EN 197-1:2011 Cement – Part 1: Composition, specifications and conformity criteria for
common cements.
EN 206:2013 Concrete: Specification, performance, production and conformity.
EN 206-1:2000 Concrete – Part 1: Specification, performance, production and conformity.
EN 14629:2007 Products and Systems for the Protection and Repair of Concrete Structures –
Test Methods – Determination of Chloride Content in Hardened Concrete.
EN 1990:2002 Eurocode – basis of structural design.
EN 1992-1-1:2004 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings.
ISO 2394:1998 General principles on reliability of structures.
ISO 16204:2012 Durability – Service life design of concrete structures.
ISO 1920-11:2013 Testing of concrete – Part 11: Determination of the chloride resistance
of concrete, unidirectional diffusion.
ISO 22965:2007 Part 1: Methods of specifying and guidance for the specifier
NEN 6700:2005 Technical principles for building structures. Netherlands.
59
NEN 8005:2008 Dutch supplement to NEN-EN 206-1: Concrete - part 1: specification,

performance, production and conformity. The Netherlands.
NEN-EN 1992-1-1/NA:2011 National annexe to EN 1992-1-1. The Netherlands.
NP EN 206-1:2007 Betão – Parte 1: Especificação, desempenho, produção e conformidade.
IPQ, Lisboa, Portugal.
NP EN 1992-1-1/NA:2010 National annexe to EN 1992-1-1. Portugal.
NS-EN 206-1:2000 + NA 2007 National annexe to EN 206-1. Norway.
NS-EN 1992-1-1/NA:2008 National annexe to EN 1992-1-1. Norway.
Technical Guidelines:
BAW Code of Practice MCL (2012) Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Penetration
(MCL), Germany 2012.
LNEC E 464 (2007) Concrete: Prescriptive methodology for a design working life of 50
and 100 years. LNEC, Lisbon.
LNEC E 465 (2007) Concrete – methodology for estimating the concrete performance
properties allowing to comply with the design working life of reinforced or pre-
stressed concrete structures under environmental exposures XC and XS.
MOPTC – Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Portugal.
NT Build 443:1995 Nordtest method: Concrete, hardened: accelerated chloride penetration.
NT Build 492:1999 Nordtest method: Concrete, Mortar and Cement-Based Repair
Materials: Chloride Migration Coefficient from Non-Steady-State Migration
Experiments.
ÖVBB-Richtlinie (2003) Erhaltung und Instandsetzung von Bauten aus Beton und
Stahlbeton, Austrian society for construction technology (in German).
RiLi SIB (2001) Richtlinie für Schutz und Instandsetzung von Betonbauteilen – Teil 1:
Allgemeine Regelungen und Planungsgrundsätze. Deutscher Ausschuss für
Stahlbeton (DAfStb) (in German).
Literature:
Angst, U.;Vennesland Ø. (2009), ‘Critical chloride content in reinforced concrete – State
of the art’. Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and Retrofitting II – Alexander et al. (eds).
Bamforth, P. (1993), ‘Concrete classification for r.c. structures exposed to marine and
other salt laden environments’. Structural Faults and Repair,Vol II, Edinburgh,
June/July 1993, Engineering Technics Press, pp. 31-40.
Bamforth, P. (2004), ‘Enhancing reinforced concrete durability’. Concrete Society
Technical Publication 61: 2004.
Boddy, A.; Bentz, E.; Thomas, M.D.A.; Hooton, R.D. (1999), ‘An overview and sensitivity
study of a multi-mechanistic chloride transport model’. Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol. 29, pp. 827-837.
Breit, W. (2001), ‘Critical corrosion inducing chloride content - state of the art and new
investigation results’. Verein Deutscher Zementwerke e.V.,Verlag Bau+Technik,
60
Düsseldorf, Germany.
Caré, S. (2008), ‘Effect of temperature on porosity and on chloride diffusion in cement
pastes.’ Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 1560–1573.
CHLORTEST (2005), ‘Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ingress – From laboratory
tests to in-field performance – WP4 Report – Modelling of Chloride Ingress’.
EU Funded Research Project under 5FP GROWTH Programme.
Collepardi, M.,Marcialis, A. & Turriziani, R. (1970), ‘The kinetics of chloride ions
penetration in concrete’. Il Cemento, N°4 (1970) 157-164 (in Italian).
DAfStb (1989), ‘Anleitung zur Bestimmung des Chloridgehaltes von Beton’.
Arbeitskreis Prüfverfahren Chlorideindringtiefe des Deutschen Ausschusses für
Stahlbeton. Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Ausschusses für Stahlbeton. Beuth Verlag,
Heft 401, Berlin 1989 (in German).
DARTS (2004), ‘Durable and reliable tunnel structures’. Project with financial support
of the European Commission under the Fifth Framework Program, GROWTH
2000 Project GRD1-25633, Contract G1RD-CT-2000-00467.
Ditlevsen, 0. & Madsen, H.0. (2005), Structural Reliability Methods. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Chichester.
Dousti, A., Rashetnia, R., Ahmadi, B. & Shekarchi, M. (2013), ‘Influence of exposure
temperature on chloride diffusion in concretes incorporating silica fume or
natural zeolite’. Construction and Building Materials 49, pp. 393-399.
DuraCrete (1998), ‘Modelling of degradation; Probabilistic Performance based durability
design of concrete structures’, EU-Project (Brite EuRam III). No BE95-1347,
Report N° 4-5.
Faber, M. H. (2007), ‘Risk and Safety in Civil Engineering’. Lecture Notes. ETH Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology Zurich.
Fluge, F. (2003), ‘Marine chlorides – A probabilistic approach to derive provisions for
EN 206-I’. DuraNet, Third workshop, Tromsø, Norway, June 2001. Reported in
Betongkonstruksjoners Livsløp, Report N° 19, Norwegian Road Administration,
P.O.Box 8142, 0033 Oslo.
Frederiksen, J.M., Nilsson, L.-O., Sandberg, P., Poulsen, E., Tang, L. & Andersen, A.
(1997), ‘A system for estimation of chloride ingress into concrete’. Theoretical
background - HETEK. Danish Road Directorate Report No 83 1997.
Frederiksen, J.M., Mejlbro, L. & Nilsson, L.-O. (2008), ‘Fick’s 2nd law – Complete
solution for chloride ingress into concrete’. Report TVBM-3146, Lund Institute of
Technology, Sweden.
Gehlen, C. (2000), ‘Probability-based service life design of reinforced concrete
structures – Reliability studies for prevention of reinforcement corrosion’.
DAfStb Heft 510, Berlin, Beuth, (in German).
Gehlen, C. & Osterminski, K. (2009), ‘Zuverlässigkeit Wasserbauwerke –
Chlorideindring-widerstand’. Forschungsbericht 30-F-0019, TU München,
Germany, (in German).
61
Gehlen, C. & Greve-Dierfeld, S. von (2013), ‘Lebensdauer von Stahlbetonbauteilen -

Empfehlungen für eine modifizierte deskriptive Bemessung’ – Band 1, Kapitel
III. In Bergmeister, K., Fingerloos, F. & Wörner J.D., Beton-Kalender 2013. Ernst &
Sohn GmbH & Co. KG, pp. 223-270, (in German).
Gollwitzer, S., Kirchgäßner, B., Fischer, R. & Rackwitz, R. (2006), ‘PERMAS-RA/STRUREL’.
System of Programme for Probabilistic Reliability Analysis. Structural Safety
Vol. 28 Issue 1 and 2, pp. 108-129.
Greve-Dierfeld, S. von & Gehlen, C. (2014), ‘Performance based deemed-to-satisfy rules’.
Proceeding of the fourth International fib Congress 2014 - Improving performance
of concrete structures, Mumbai, India.
Helland, S., Aarstein, R. & Maage, M. (2010), ‘In-field performance of North Sea offshore
platforms with regard to chloride resistance’. Structural Concrete, Vol. 11, Issue 2.
Lay, S. (2006), ‘Estimation of the probability of reinforcement corrosion induced by de-
icing salts as a module for a life cycle management system’. PhD Thesis,
Technische Universität München (in German).
Lay, S. & Schiessl, P. (2007), ‘Service Life Models’. LIFECON Deliverable D3.2, Working
Party 3. Munich, Technische Universität München.
Leivestad, S. (2013), ‘Durability – exposure resistance classes, a new system to specify
durability in EN 206 and EN 1992’. Memo – durability classes, JWG 250/104 N19C.
Leivestad, S. (2014), ‘Durability – exposure resistance classes, a new system to specify
durability in EN 206 and EN 1992’. Memo – durability classes, JWG 250/104 N25.
Maage, M., Helland, S. & Carlsen, E.J. (1993), ‘Experience with chloride penetration
in concrete exposed to marine environment in Norway’. Proceedings FIP
Symposium 1993, Kyoto, Japan.
Maage, M., Helland, S., Poulsen, E.,Vennesland, O. & Carlsen, E.J. (1996), ‘Service life
prediction of existing concrete structures exposed to a marine environment’.
ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 93, November-Decemmber 1996, pp. 602-608.
Maage, M., Helland, S. & Carlsen, E.J. (1999), ‘Chloride penetration into concrete with
lightweight aggregates’. EU-Project (Brite EuRam III), Report BE96-3942/R3.
Maage, M. & Helland, S. (2009), ‘Shore Approach - 26 years performance of high
quality concrete in a marine environment’. COIN Project Report 14, SINTEF
Trondheim, Norway.
Maierhofer, C., Reinhardt, H.-W. & Dobmann, W. (2010), Non-Destructive Evaluation of
Reinforced Concrete Structures; Volume 2: Non-Destructive Testing Methods.
Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK.
Malioka,V. (2009), ‘Condition Indicators for the Assessment of Local and Spatial
Deterioration of Concrete Structures’. PhD thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology Zürich.
Markeset, G. & Skjolsvold, O. (2010), ‘Time-dependent Chloride diffusion
coefficient – field studies of concrete exposed to marine environment in
Norway’. Proceedings of 2nd International Symposium on Service Life Design for
62
Infrastructures, RILEM.
Mejlbro, L. (1996), ‘The complete solution to Fick’s second law of diffusion with
time-dependent diffusion coefficient and surface concentration’. Proceeding of
CEMENTA’s workshop on Durability of Concrete in Saline Environments, Danderyd,
Sweden.
Mohammed, T.U.,Yamaji, T. & Hamada, H. (2002), ‘(a) Chloride Diffusion, Microstructure
and Mineralogy of Concrete after 15 Years of Exposure in Tidal Environment’.
ACI Materials Journal, May - June 2002. pp. 256 - 263.
Mohammed, T.U.,Yamaji, T & Hamada, H. (2002), ‘(b), Microstructures and Interfaces in
Concrete after 15 Years of Exposure in the Tidal Environment’, ACI Materials
Journal, July – August 2002, pp. 352-360.
Nguyen, T.S., Lorente, S. & Carcasses, M. (2006), ‘Influence of the temperature on the
chloride transport through cementitious materials’. J. Phys. IV France 136, EDP
Sciences, Les Ulis, pp. 63–70.
Nilsson, L.-O. (2002), ‘Concepts in Chloride Modelling’. Key note paper at 3rd
International RILEM workshop on Testing and Modelling Chloride Ingress into
Concrete, Madrid, 9-10 September 2002.
Østmosen, T., Liestøl, G., Grefstad, K.A., Sand, B.T. & Farstad, T. (1993), ‘Chloride
durability of coastal bridges in concrete)’. Report from Norwegian Public Roads
Administration, Oslo (in Norwegian).
Page, C.L., Short, N.R. & El Tarras, A. (1981), ‘Diffusion of Chloride Ions in Hardened
Cement Pastes’. Cement and Concrete Research 11, N° 3, pp. 395-406.
Raupach, M. (1992), ‘Zur chloridinduzierten Makroelementkorrosion von Stahl in
Beton’. Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Ausschusses für Stahlbeton, N° 433, Beth,
Berlin (in German).
Straub, O. (2011), ‘Reliability Updating with Inspection and Monitoring Data.
Deteriorating Reinforced Concrete Slabs’. ICASP – 11th International
Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering,
August 1-4, 2001, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
STRUREL – A structural reliability analysis program system by RCP GmbH (Reliability
Consulting Programs), www.strurel.de.
Tang, L. (1996), ‘Chloride transport in concrete – measurement and prediction’. Ph.D.
thesis, 1996, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Tang, L., Utgenannt, P., Lindvall, A. & Boubitsas, D. (2010), ‘Validation of models and
test methods for assessment of durability of concrete structures in road
environment’. Uppdragsrapport N° P802606, Lund, Sweden.
Yuan, Q., Shi, C., Schutter, G. de & Audenaert, K. (2008), ‘Effect of temperature on
transport of chloride ions in concrete’. In: Alexander, M.G., Beushausen, H.D.,
Dehn F. & Moyo P., (Eds). Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on
concrete repair, rehabilitation and retrofitting, Cape Town, pp. 345–51.
63
Appendix A
A.1 Spain
Table A.1-1 Deemed-to-satisfy national specifications for Spain
Exposure w/c-ratio Cement type Min. cement Nominal concrete cover

[–] [–] [–] content [kg/m³] cnom = cmin+ Δcdev [mm]
XD1 0.50 CEM I 300 55 = 45+10
Table A1-2 Model parameters statistically quantified according to Section 2.2.4
Parameter Unit Distribution type Mean μ Standard a b

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 15.8 3.16 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
t a Constant 50 – – –
Tref K Constant 293 – – –
Treal K Normal 288 8.0 – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CS,Δx wt.-%/c Lognormal 1.5 1.1 – –
Δx mm Constant 0 – – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0
cnom mm Normal 55 6 – –
5 Fig. A.1-1 Development of reliability

index over time
4
Reliability index β [-]
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD1
XD1 SSpain
pain "-unfavourable"
Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
64

XD1 0.50 CEM III/B 300 35 = 25+10
Table A.1-4 Model parameters statistically quantified according to Section 2.2.4

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 2.8 0.56 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD1 Spain"favourable"
XD1 Spain - Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
65

XS1 0.50 CEM I 300 55 = 45+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 15.8 3.16 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS1 Spain
XS1 Spain - Unfavourable
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
66

XS1 0.50 CEM III/B 300 35 = 25+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 2.8 0.56 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS1
XS1 SSpain - Favourable
pain "favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
67

XD2 0.50 CEM II/A-D 325 45 = 35+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 4.8 0.96 – –
α – Beta 0.40 0.16 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD2Spain
XD2 Spain - Unfavourable
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
68

XD2 0.50 CEM III/B 325 45 = 35+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 2.8 0.56 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.2 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD2 Spain
"favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
69

XS2 0.50 CEM I 325 50 = 40+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 15.8 3.16 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS2
XS2 SSpain - Unfavourable
pain "unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
70

XS2 0.50 CEM III/B 325 40 = 30+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 2.8 0.56 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
index β [-]
3
1
Reliability
-‐1
XS2
XS2 SSpain - Favourable
pain "favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time
time tt[a]
[a]
71

XD3 0.50 CEM II/A-D 325 45 = 35+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 4.5 0.90 – –
α – Beta 0.40 0.16 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
Δx mm Constant 10 5 0 50
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD3 Spain"unfavourable"
XD3 Spain - Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
72

XD3 0.50 CEM II/A-D 325 45 = 35+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 2.8 0.56 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.2 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD3 Spain
"favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
73

XS3 0.45 CEM II/A-D 350 45 = 35+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 4.5 0.90 – –
α – Beta 0.40 0.16 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3 Spain"unfavourable"
XS3 Spain - Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
74

XS3 0.45 CEM III/B 350 45 = 35+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.9 0.38 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.2 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3Spain
XS3 Spain"favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
75
A.2 Portugal
Table A.2-1 Deemed-to-satisfy national specifications for Portugal

XD1 0.45 CEM I 360 45 = 35+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10 2.0 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
-‐1
XD1 Portugal
XD1 Portugal "unfavourable"
- Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
76

XD1 0.55 CEM III/B 320 45 = 35+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 3.0 0.60 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
-‐1
XD1 Portugal
XD1 Portugal "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
77

XS1 0.45 CEM I 360 45 = 35+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10.0 2.0 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
-‐1
XS1 Portugal
XS1 Portugal - Unfavourable
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
78

XS1 0.55 CEM III/B 320 45 = 35+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 3.0 0.60 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
-‐1
XS1 Portugal
XS1 Portugal "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
79

XD2 0.45 CEM I 360 50 = 40+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10.0 2.0 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD2 Portugal
XD2 Portugal - Unfavourable
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
80

XD2 0.45 CEM II/A-V 360 50 = 40+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 9.0 1.80 – –
α – Beta 0.60 0.15 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD2
XD2 PPortugal - Favourable
ortugal "favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
81

XD2 0.55 CEM III/B 320 50 = 40+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 3.0 0.60 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
-‐1
XD2 Portugal
XD2 Portugal - Favourable
"favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
82

XS2 0.45 CEM I 360 50 = 40+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10 2.0 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
[–]
indexββ [-]
3
2
index
reliability
1
Reliability
0
-‐1
XS2Portugal
XS2 Portugal - Unfavourable
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
time t [a]
83

XS2 0.45 CEM II/A-V 360 50 = 40+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 9.0 1.80 – –
α – Beta 0.60 0.15 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
-‐1
XS2 Portugal
XS2 Portugal "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
84

XS2 0.55 CEM III/B 320 50 = 40+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 3.0 0.60 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS2
XS2 PPortugal - Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
85

XD3 0.40 CEM I 380 55 = 45+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 8.9 1.78 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD3
XD3 PPortugal - Unfavourable
ortugal "unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
86

XD3 0.40 CEM II/A-V 380 55 = 45+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 6.9 1.38 – –
α – Beta 0.60 0.15 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD3 Portugal
XD3 Portugal "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
87

XD3 0.45 CEM III/B 340 55 = 45+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.9 0.38 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD3 PPortugal
XD3 ortugal "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
88

XS3 0.40 CEM I 380 55 = 45+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 8.9 1.78 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3
XS3 PPortugal - Unfavourable
ortugal "unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
89

XS3 0.40 CEM II/A-V 380 55 = 45+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 6.9 1.38 – –
α – Beta 0.60 0.15 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3
XS3 PPortugal - Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
90

XS3 0.45 CEM III/B 340 55 = 45+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.9 0.38 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3 PPortugal
XS3 ortugal "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
91
A.3 Great Britain

Table A.3-1 Deemed-to-satisfy national specifications for Great Britain

XD1 0.60 CEM I 300 50 = 35+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 25.0 5.0 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD1
XD1 GGreat Britain
reat Britain - Unfavourable
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
92

XD1 0.60 CEM III/B 300 50 = 35+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 3.4 0.68 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD1 GGreat
XD1 reat Britain
Britain "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
93

XS1 0.50 CEM I 340 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 15.8 3.16 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS1
XS1 GGreat Britain
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
94

XS1 0.55 CEM III/B 320 60 = 45+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 3.0 0.60 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS1
XS1 GGreat Britain
reat Britain - Favourable
"favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
95

XD2 0.55 CEM I 320 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 19.7 3.94 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD2
XD2 GGreat Britain
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
96

XD2 0.55 CEM III/B 320 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 3.0 0.60 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CS,Δx wt.-%/c Lognormal 2 1.5 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD2 GGreat
XD2 reat Britain
Britain "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
97

XD3 0.40 CEM I 380 60 = 45+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 8.9 1.78 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD3
XD3 GGreat Britain
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
98

XD3 0.45 CEM I 360 65 = 50+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10.0 2.0 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0
5
Fig. A.3-10 Development of reliability
index over time
4
[–]
indexββ[-]
3
index
2
reliability
1
Reliability
0
-‐1
XD3 Great
XD3 Great Britain
Britain - Favourable
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
time t [a]
99

XD3 0.50 CEM III/B 340 65 = 50+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 2.8 0.56 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD3
XD3 GGreat Britain
"favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
100

XS3 0.40 CEM I 380 65 = 50+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 8.9 1.78 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3
XS3 GGreat Britain
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
101

XS3 0.50 CEM III/B 340 65 = 50+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 2.8 0.56 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3 Great
XS3 G Britain
"favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
102
A.4 Netherlands
Table A.4-1 Deemed-to-satisfy national specifications for the Netherlands

XD1 0.55 CEM I 300 40 = 35+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 19.7 3.94 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD1
XD1 NNetherlands - Unfavourable
etherlands "unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
103

XD1 0.55 CEM III/B 300 40 = 35+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 3.0 0.60 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD1
XD1 NNetherlands - Favourable
etherlands "favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
104

XS1 0.50 CEM I 300 40 = 35+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 15.8 3.16 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS1
XS1 NNetherlands - Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
105

XS1 0.50 CEM III/B 300 40 = 35+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 2.8 0.56 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS1 NNetherlands
XS1 etherlands "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
106

XD2 0.50 CEM I 300 45 = 40+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 15.8 3.16 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD2
XD2 NNetherlands - Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
107

XD2 0.50 CEM III/B 300 45 = 40+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.9 0.38 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD2
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
108

XS2 0.45 CEM I 300 45 = 40+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10.0 2.0 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS2
XS2 NNetherlands - Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
109

XS2 0.45 CEM III/B 300 45 = 40+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.9 0.38 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS2
XS2 NNetherlands - Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
110

XD3 0.45 CEM I 300 45 = 40+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10.0 2.0 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0
5
index over time
4
[-]
β [–]
3
index β
reliabilityindex
2
1
Reliability
0
-‐1
XD3 Netherlands
XD3 Netherlands - Unfavourable
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
time t [a]
111

XD3 0.45 CEM III/B 300 45 = 40+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.9 0.38 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD3
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
112

XS3 0.45 CEM I 320 45 = 40+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10.0 2.0 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3 NNetherlands
XS3 etherlands "unfavourable"
- Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
113

XS3 0.45 CEM III/B 320 45 = 40+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.9 0.8 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.2 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3
XS3 NNetherlands - Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
114
A.5 Germany
Table A.5-1 Deemed-to-satisfy national specifications for Germany

XD1 0.55 CEM I 300 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 19.7 3.94 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
Treal K Normal 283 8 – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD1
XD1 GGermany - Unfavourable
ermany "unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
115

XD1 0.55 CEM III/B 300 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 3.0 0.60 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD1
XD1Germany
Germany"favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
116

XS1 0.55 CEM I 300 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 19.7 3.94 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS1 GGermany
XS1 ermany "unfavourable"
- Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
117

XS1 0.55 CEM III/B 300 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 3.0 0.60 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS1 GGermany
XS1 ermany "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
118

XD2 0.50 CEM I 320 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 15.8 3.16 – –
α – Beta 0.3 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD2
XD2 GGermany - Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
119

XD2 0.50 CEM III/B 320 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 2.8 0.56 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD2
XD2Germany
Germany"favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
120

XD2 0.50 CEM II/A-V 320 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10.9 2.18 – –
α – Beta 0.60 0.15 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD2 GGermany
XD2 ermany "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
121

XS2 0.50 CEM I 320 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 15.8 3.16 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS2 GGermany
XS2 ermany "unfavourable"
- Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
122

XS2 0.50 CEM III/B 320 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 2.8 0.56 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS2GGermany
XS2 - Favourable
ermany "favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
123

XS2 0.50 CEM II/A-V 320 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10.9 2.18 – –
α – Beta 0.60 0.15 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS2
XS2GGermany
ermany "favourable"
- Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
124

XD3 0.45 CEM I 320 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10.0 2.0 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD3 Germany
XD3 Germany - Unfavourable
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
125

XD3 0.45 CEM III/B 320 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.9 0.38 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD3 GGermany
XD3 ermany "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
126

XD3 0.45 CEM II/A-V 320 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 9.0 1.8 – –
α – Beta 0.60 0.15 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD3Germany
XD3 Germany - Favourable
"favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
127

XS3 0.45 CEM I 320 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10.0 2.0 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3
XS3GGermany
- Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
128

XS3 0.45 CEM III/B 320 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.9 0.38 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3GGermany
XS3 - Favourable
ermany "favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
129

XS3 0.45 CEM II/A-V 320 55 = 40+15

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 9.0 1.8 – –
α – Beta 0.60 0.15 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3GGermany
XS3 - Favourable
ermany "favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
130
A.6 Denmark
Table A.6-1 Deemed-to-satisfy national specifications for Denmark

XD1 0.45 CEM I 150 35 = 30+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10.0 2.0 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD1Denmark
XD1 Denmark - Unfavourable
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
131

XD1 0.45 CEM II/A-V 150 35 = 30+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 9.0 1.80 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD1
XD1Denmark
Denmark"favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
132

XS1 0.45 CEM I 150 35 = 30+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10.0 2.0 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS1 DDenmark
XS1 enmark "unfavourable"
- Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
133

XS1 0.45 CEM II/A-V 150 35 = 30+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 9.0 1.80 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS1
XS1DDenmark
enmark "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
134

XD2 0.40 CEM I 150 45 = 40+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 8.9 1.78 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD2Denmark
XD2 Denmark - Unfavourable
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
135

XD2 0.40 CEM II/A-V 150 45 = 40+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 6.9 1.38 – –
α – Beta 0.60 0.15 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD2 DDenmark
XD2 enmark "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
136

XS2 0.45 CEM I 150 35 = 30+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10.0 2.0 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0
5
index over time
4
[–]
β β[-]
3
index
index
2
reliability
1
Reliability
0
-‐1
XS2 Denmark
XS2 Denmark "unfavourable"
- Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
time t [a]
137

XS2 0.45 CEM II/A-V 150 35 = 30+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 9.0 1.80 – –
α – Beta 0.60 0.15 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0
5
index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS2 DDenmark
XS2 enmark "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
time t [a]
138

XD3 0.40 CEM I 150 45 = 40+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 8.9 1.78 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD3
XD3 DDenmark - Unfavourable
enmark "unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
139

XD3 0.40 CEM II/A-V 150 45 = 40+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 6.9 1.38 – –
α – Beta 0.60 0.15 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD3
XD3 DDenmark - Favourable
enmark "favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
140

XS3 0.40 CEM I 150 45 = 40+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 8.9 1.78 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3
XS3 DDenmark - Unfavourable
enmark "unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
141

XS3 0.40 CEM II/A-V 150 45 = 40+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 6.9 1.38 – –
α – Beta 0.60 0.15 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3 D
XS3 enmark "favourable"
Denmark - Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
142
A.7 Norway
Table A.7-1 Deemed-to-satisfy national specifications for Norway

XD1 0.45 CEM I 300 50 = 40+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10.0 2.0 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD1
XD1 NNorway - Unfavourable
orway "unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
143

XD1 0.45 CEM III/A 300 50 = 40+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 3.9 0.78 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD1 NNorway
XD1 orway "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
144

XS1 0.45 CEM I 300 50 = 40+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10.0 2.0 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS1
XS1 NNorway - Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
145

XS1 0.45 CEM III/A 300 50 = 40+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 3.9 0.78 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS1
XS1 NNorway - Favourable
orway "favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
146

XD2 0.40 CEM II/A-S 330 50 = 40+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 7.0 1.40 – –
α – Beta 0.35 0.16 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD2 Norway
XD2 Norway - Unfavourable
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
147

XD2 0.40 CEM II/A-V 330 50 = 40+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 6.9 1.38 – –
α – Beta 0.60 0.15 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD2
XD2 NNorway - Favourable
orway "favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
148

XS2 0.40 CEM II/A-S 330 50 = 40+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 7.0 1.4 – –
α – Beta 0.35 0.16 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS2
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
149

XS2 0.40 CEM II/A-V 330 50 = 40+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 6.9 1.38 – –
α – Beta 0.60 0.15 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS2 NNorway
XS2 orway "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
150

XD3 0.40 CEM II/A-S 330 50 = 40+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 7.0 1.40 – –
α – Beta 0.35 0.16 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD3 NNorway
XD3 orway "unfavourable"
- Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
151

XD3 0.40 CEM II/A-V 330 50 = 40+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 6.9 1.38 – –
α – Beta 0.60 0.15 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XD3
XD3 NNorway - Favourable
orway "favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
152

XS3 0.40 CEM II/A-S 330 60 = 50+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 7.0 1.40 – –
α – Beta 0.35 0.16 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
153

XS3 0.40 CEM II/A-V 330 60 = 50+10

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 6.9 1.38 – –
α – Beta 0.60 0.15 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3
XS3 NNorway - Favourable
orway "favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
154
A.8 USA
Table A.8-1 Deemed-to-satisfy national specifications for the USA

XD1 0.40 CEM I – 50.5 = 41+9.5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 8.9 1.78 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0
cnom mm Normal 50.5 6 – –

index over time
4
-‐1
XD1
XD1 USA
USA - Unfavourable
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
155

XD1 0.40 CEM III/B – 63.5 = 54+9.5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.4 0.28 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
2
5.26 � β � 8.74
1
-‐1
XD1 USA
XD1 USA - Favourable
"favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
156

XS1 0.40 CEM I – 50.5 = 41+9.5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 8.9 1.78 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0
5
index over time
4
-‐1
XS1 USA
XS1 USA "unfavourable"
- Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
157

XS1 0.40 CEM III/B – 63.5 = 54+9.5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.4 0.28 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
2
5.43 � β � 9.93
1
-‐1
XS1 USA
XS1 USA "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
158

XD2 0.40 CEM I – 50.5 = 41+9.5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 8.9 1.78 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CS,Δx wt.-%/c Lognormal 4 3 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
-‐1
XD2 USA
XD2 USA - Unfavourable
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
159

XD2 0.40 CEM III/B – 63.5 = 54+9.5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.4 0.28 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
-‐1
XD2 USA
"favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
160

XS2 0.40 CEM I – 50.5 = 41+9.5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 8.9 1.78 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
-‐1
XS2USA
XS2 USA - Unfavourable
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
161

XS2 0.40 CEM III/B – 81.5 = 72+9.5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.4 0.28 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
-‐1
XS2 USA
XS2 USA - Favourable
"favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
162

XD3 0.40 CEM I – 50.5 = 41+9.5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 8.9 1.78 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
-‐1
XD3 USA
XD3 USA "unfavourable"
- Unfavourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
163

XD3 0.40 CEM III/B – 63.5 = 54+9.5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.4 0.28 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0
5
index over time
4
-‐1
XD3 USA
"favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
164

XS3 0.40 CEM I – 50.5 = 41+9.5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 8.9 1.78 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
-‐1
XS3 USA
XS3 USA - Unfavourable
"unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
165

XS3 0.40 CEM III/B – 81.5 = 72+9.5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.4 0.28 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

5
index over time
4
-‐1
XS3USA
XS3 USA - Favourable
"favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
166
A.9 Australia
Table A.9-1 Deemed-to-satisfy national specifications for Australia

XS1 0.60 CEM I – 40 = 35+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 8.9 1.78 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS1 Australia - Unfavourable
XS1 Australia "unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
167

XS1 0.45 CEM III/B – 45=40+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.4 0.28 – –
α – Beta 0.65 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS1AAustralia
XS1 - Favourable
ustralia "favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
168

XS2 0.45 CEM I – 45 = 40+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 10 2.0 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS2
XS2 AAustralia - Unfavourable
ustralia "unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
169

XS2 0.45 CEM III/B – 45 = 40+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.9 0.38 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS2AAustralia
XS2 - Favourable
ustralia "favourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
170

XS3 0.40 CEM I – 50 = 45+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 8.9 1.78 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

index over time
4
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3
XS3 AAustralia - Unfavourable
ustralia "unfavourable"
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
171

XS3 0.40 CEM III/B – 65 = 60+5

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.4 0.28 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0

4
index over time
3
2
1
0
-‐1
XS3 AAustralia
XS3 ustralia "favourable"
- Favourable
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
172
Appendix B Data sheets for assessment of existing

structures (a posteriori)
B.1 Case 1 - Portugal
Exposure class: XS3 Time of inspection: 5 years
Cement type: CEM I with approx. 5%SF Binder content 521.5 kg/m³
w/c-ratio: 0.35 Position of component: Setenave shipyards (Atlantic
Ocean)
Table B.1-1 Measured chloride contents after 5 years

Measurement depth Amount of data n Chloride concentration
[mm] [–] [wt.-%/c]
μ σ
5 4 2.29 0.41
10 4 2.43 0.41
15 4 1.87 0.30
20 4 1.24 0.11
25 4 0.97 0.23
30 4 0.60 0.18
35 4 0.29 0.10
40 2 0.12 0.01
45 2 0.06 0.01
Table B1-2 Model parameters

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 4.4 0.88 – –
α – Beta 0.40 0.16 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
kt – Constant 1 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
Δx mm Beta 10 5 0 50
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0
173
Table B1-2 Model parameters (cont.)

deviation σ
C0 wt.-%/c Constant 0 – – –
6 5
Measured Reliability design (a priori)


3
4
2
3
1
2
0
1 -‐1
0 -‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
Depth x [mm]
Fig. B.1-1 Predicted and measured Fig. B.1-2 A priori probability and updated
chloride profile after 5 years probability
B.2 Case 2 - Netherlands

Cement type: CEM III/B Binder content 325 kg/m³
w/c-ratio: 0.45 Position of component: Box girder bridge wall sheltered
from rain (North Sea)

[mm] [–] [wt.-%/c]
μ σ
5 6 1.62 0.20
15 6 1.98 0.62
25 6 0.95 0.68
35 6 0.20 0.18
174
Table B.2-1 Measured chloride contents after 18 years (cont.)

[mm] [–] [wt.-%/c]
μ σ
45 6 0.07 0.02
55 6 0.06 0.02

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 1.9 0.38 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0
6 5
Measured
5 Calculated mean 4
3
4
2
3
1
2
0 Reliability design (a priori)

(a posteriori)
0 -‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
Depth x [mm]
175
B.3 Case 3 - Germany

Cement type: CEM I Position of component: Submerged (Baltic Sea)
w/c-ratio: 0.47

[mm] [–] [wt.-%/c]
μ σ
4 4 1.29 0.28
16 4 1.00 0.21

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 15.8 3.16 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
Δx mm Beta 0 – – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0
176
6 5


3
4
2
3
1
2
0
1 -‐1
0 -‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50

Cement type: CEM III/B Position of component: Submerged (Baltic Sea)
w/c-ratio: 0.47

[mm] [–] [wt.-%/c]
μ σ
4 4 1.31 0.39
16 4 0.68 0.30

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 2.8 0.56 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
177

deviation σ
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0
6 5

3
4
2
3
1
2
0
1 -‐1
0 -‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50
178

Cement type: CEM I Position of component: Quay (Baltic Sea)
w/c-ratio: 0.47

[mm] [–] [wt.-%/c]
μ σ
4 7 1.77 0.63
16 7 1.51 0.46
28 2 1.03 0.26

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 15.8 3.16 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0
179
6 5


3
4
2
3
1
2
0
1 -‐1
0 -‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50

Cement type: CEM III/B Position of component: Quay (Baltic Sea)
w/c-ratio: 0.47

[mm] [–] [wt.-%/c]
μ σ
4 8 1.64 0.26
16 8 0.80 0.14
28 2 0.10 0.02
40 2 0.19 0.14
180

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 2.8 0.56 – –
α – Beta 0.45 0.20 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0
6 5

3
4
2
3
1
2
0
1 -‐1
0 -‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50
181
Exposure class: XS3 Time of inspection: 30, 40 years

Cement type: CEM I with trass Position of component: Quay (North Sea)
w/c-ratio: 0.45

[mm] [–] [wt.-%/c]
μ σ
10 3 2.07 0.38
30 3 0.77 0.15
50 3 0.4 0.2
70 3 0.13 0.15

[mm] [–] [wt.-%/c]
μ σ
10 3 1.67 1.00
30 3 1.17 0.50
50 3 0.4 0.14
70 3 0.15 0.07

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 9.0 1.80 – –
α – Beta 0.40 0.10 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
182

deviation σ
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0
6 6
Measured Measured
Calculated mean Calculated mean

5 5
Calculated 95 % quantile Calculated 95 % quantile
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Depth x [mm] Depth x [mm]
Fig. B.7-1 Predicted and measured Fig. B.7-2 Predicted and measured
chloride profile after 30 years chloride profile after 40 years
5
Reliability design (a priori)
4 Assessment of existing structures
(a posteriori)
3
2
1
0
-‐1
-‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
Fig. B.7-3 A priori probability and updated

probability
183
B.8 Case 8 - Denmark

Cement type: CEM I Position of component: Bridge pile (Baltic Sea)
w/c-ratio: 0.35–0.5 (0.40)

[mm] [–] [wt.-%/c]
μ σ
7.5 31 0.87 0.54
22.5 19 0.86 0.33
28 2 1.03 0.26

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 8.9 3.6 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.6 0.15 0.2 2.0
184
6 5


3
4
2
3
1
2
0
1 -‐1
0 -‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50

Cement type: CEM I with FA Position of component: Bridge pile (North Sea)
w/c-ratio: 0.38 (0.40)

[mm] [–] [wt.-%/c]
μ σ
7.5 9 4.7 0.94
22.5 9 2.35 0.73

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 6.9 1.38 – –
α – Beta 0.60 0.15 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
185

deviation σ
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0
6 5

3
4
2
3
1
2
0
1 -‐1
0 -‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50
186

Cement type: CEM I Position of component: Bridge pile (Baltic Sea)
w/c-ratio: 0.35–0.5 (0.40)

[mm] [–] [wt.-%/c]
μ σ
7.5 17 1.39 0.66
22.5 17 0.83 0.39
45 17 0.59 0.24
75 17 0.36 0.20

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 8.9 1.78 – –
α – Beta 0.30 0.12 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0
187
6 5


3
4
2
3
1
2
0
1 -‐1
0 -‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time t [a]
Depth x [mm]

Cement type: CEM I + 7%SF Position of component: Troll B platform (Norwegian
w/c-ratio: 0.35 / North Sea)

[mm] [–] [wt.-%/c]
μ σ
2.5 6 1.71 0.73
7.5 6 0.94 0.80
12.5 6 0.54 0.61
17.5 6 0.23 0.34
22.5 5 0.12 0.17
188

deviation σ
DRCM.0 •10-12 m²/s Normal 4.0 0.80 – –
α – Beta 0.40 0.16 0 1.0
t0 a Constant 0.0767 – – –
be K Normal 4800 700 – –
CCrit wt.-%/c Beta 0.60 0.15 0.2 2.0
6 5
Measured
5 Calculated mean 4
3
4
2
3
1
2
0
Reliability design (a priori)
(a posteriori)
0 -‐2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50
189
The fib (International Federation for Structural Concrete - Fédération internationale du béton)
is grateful for the invaluable support of the following national member groups and sponsoring
members, which contributes to the publication of fib technical bulletins, the Structural Concrete
journal and fib-news.
National member groups
AAHES - Asociación Argentina del Hormigón Estructural, Argentina

CIA - Concrete Institute of Australia
ÖBV - Österreichische Bautechnik Vereinigung, Austria
GBB-BBG - Groupement Belge du Béton, Belgium
ABCIC - Associação Brasileira da Construção Industrializada de Concreto, Brazil
ABECE - Associação Brasileira de Engenharia e Consultoria Estrutural, Brazil
fib Group of CANADA
CCES - China Civil Engineering Society
Cyprus University of Technology
Česká Betonářská Společnost, Czech Republic
DBF - Dansk Betonforening, Denmark
SB - Suomen Betoniyhdistys, Finland
AFGC - Association Française de Génie Civil, France
DAfStb - Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, Germany
Technical Chamber of Greece
University of Patras, Department of Civil Engineering, Greece
Hungarian Group of the fib
The Institution of Engineers, India
Department of Technical Affairs, Iran
IACIE - Israeli Association of Construction and Infrastructure Engineers
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Italy
JCI - Japan Concrete Institute
JPCI - Japan Prestressed Concrete Institute
LCS - Lebanese Concrete Society
Administration des Ponts et Chaussées, Luxemburg
fib Netherlands
NZCS - New Zealand Concrete Society
NB - Norsk Betongforening / Norwegian Concrete Association
Committee of Civil Engineering, Concrete Structures Section, Poland
GPBE - Grupo Portugês de Betão Estrutural, Portugal
Polytechnic University of Timisoara, Romania
Technical University of Civil Engineering, Romania
University of Transylvania Brasov, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Romania
Association for Structural Concrete, Russia
Association of Structural Engineers / Institut za materijale i konstrukcije, Serbia
SNK fib, Slovakia
Slovenian Society of Structural Engineers, Slovenia

University of Cape Town, Department of Civil Engineering, South Africa
KCI - Korean Concrete Institute, South Korea
ACHE - Asociación Cientifico-Técnica del Hormigon Estructural, Spain
SB - Svenska Betongföreningen, Sweden
Délégation nationale suisse de la fib, Switzerland
TCA - Thailand Concrete Association
Laboratoire de Génie Civil (LGC), Université de Tunis El Manar, Tunisia
ITU - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey
NIISK - Research Institute of Building Constructions, Ukraine
fib UK, United Kingdom
ASBI - American Segmental Bridge Institute, United States of America
PCI - Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, United States of America
PTI - Post-Tensioning Institute, United States of America
Sponsoring members
Liuzhou OVM Machinery Company, China

Consolis Oy Ab, Finland
ECS - European Engineered Construction Systems Association (formerly VBBF), Germany
FBF - Betondienst, Germany
FiReP Rebar Technology, Germany
MKT - Metall-Kunststoff-Technik, Germany
Larsen & Toubro Ltd, ECC Division, India
ATP - Applications and Technologies for Polymeric composites, Italy
FUJI P. S. Corporation, Japan
IHI Construction Service Company, Japan
Obayashi Corporation, Japan
Oriental Shiraishi Corporation, Japan
P. S. Mitsubishi Construction Company, Japan
SE Corporation, Japan
Sumitomo Mitsui Construction Company, Civil Engineering Division, Japan
Hilti, Liechtenstein
PATRIOT-Engineering, Russia
BBR VT International, Switzerland
Sika Schweiz, Switzerland
VSL International, Switzerland
PBL Group, Thailand
CCL Stressing Systems, United Kingdom
fib Bulletins published since 1998
1 Structural Concrete – Textbook on Behaviour, Design and Performance; Vol. 1: Introduction, Design
Process, Materials
Manual - textbook (244 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-041-3, July 1999)
2 Structural Concrete – Textbook on Behaviour, Design and Performance; Vol. 2: Basis of Design
Manual - textbook (324 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-042-0, July 1999)
3 Structural Concrete – Textbook on Behaviour, Design and Performance; Vol. 3: Durability, Design for
Fire Resistance; Member Design, Maintenance; Assessment and Repair, Practical aspects
Manual - textbook (292 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-043-7, December 1999)
4 Lightweight aggregate concrete: Extracts from codes and standards
State-of-the-art report (46 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-044-4, August 1999)
5 Protective systems against hazards: Nature and extent of the problem
Technical report (64 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-045-1, October 1999)
6 Special design considerations for precast prestressed hollow core floors
Guide to good practice (180 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-046-8, January 2000)
7 Corrugated plastic ducts for internal bonded post-tensioning
Technical report (50 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-047-5, January 2000)
8 Lightweight aggregate concrete:
Part 1 (guide) – Recommended extensions to Model Code 90; Part 2 (technical report) –
Identification of research needs; Part 3 (state-of-art report) – Application of lightweight aggregate
concrete (118 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-048-2, May 2000)
9 Guidance for good bridge design: Part 1 – Introduction, Part 2 – Design and construction aspects
Guide to good practice (190 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-049-9, July 2000)
10 Bond of reinforcement in concrete
State-of-art report (434 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-050-5, August 2000)
11 Factory applied corrosion protection of prestressing steel
State-of-art report (20 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-051-2, January 2001)
12 Punching of structural concrete slabs
Technical report (314 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-052-9, August 2001)
13 Nuclear containments
State-of-art report (130 pages, 1 CD, ISBN 978-2-88394-053-6, September 2001)
14 Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures
15 Durability of post-tensioning tendons
Technical report (284 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-055-0, November 2001)
16 Design Examples for the 1996 FIP recommendations Practical design of structural concrete
Technical report (198 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-056-7, January 2002)
17 Management, maintenance and strengthening of concrete structures
Technical report (180 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-057-4, April 2002)
18 Recycling of offshore concrete structures
State-of-art report (33 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-058-1, April 2002)
19 Precast concrete in mixed construction

20 Grouting of tendons in prestressed concrete
21 Environmental issues in prefabrication
State-of-art report (56 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-061-1, March 2003)
22 Monitoring and safety evaluation of existing concrete structures
State-of-art report (304 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-062-8, May 2003)
23 Environmental effects of concrete
State-of-art report (68 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-063-5, June 2003)
24 Seismic assessment and retrofit of reinforced concrete buildings
25 Displacement-based seismic design of reinforced concrete buildings
26 Influence of material and processing on stress corrosion cracking of prestressing steel – case studies
27 Seismic design of precast concrete building structures
28 Environmental design
State-of-art report (86 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-068-0, February 2004)
29 Precast concrete bridges
State-of-art report (83 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-069-7, November 2004)
30 Acceptance of stay cable systems using prestressing steels
Recommendation (80 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-070-3, January 2005)
31 Post-tensioning in buildings
Technical report (116 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-071-0, February 2005)
32 Guidelines for the design of footbridges
Guide to good practice (160 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-072-7, November 2005)
33 Durability of post-tensioning tendons
Recommendation (74 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-073-4, December 2005)
34 Model Code for Service Life Design
Model Code (116 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-074-1, February 2006)
35 Retrofitting of concrete structures by externally bonded FRPs
Technical Report (224 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-075-8, April 2006)
36 2006 fib Awards for Outstanding Concrete Structures
Bulletin (40 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-076-5, May 2006)
37 Precast concrete railway track systems
State-of-art report (38 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-077-2, September 2006)
38 Fire design of concrete structures – materials, structures and modelling
39 Seismic bridge design and retrofit – structural solutions
40 FRP reinforcement in RC structures

Technical report (160 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-080-2, September 2007)
41 Treatment of imperfections in precast structural elements
42 Constitutive modelling of high strength / high performance concrete
43 Structural connections for precast concrete buildings
Guide to good practice (370 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-083-3, February 2008)
44 Concrete structure management: Guide to ownership and good practice
Guide to good practice (208 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-084-0, February 2008)
45 Practitioners’ guide to finite element modelling of reinforced concrete structures
State-of-art report (344 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-085-7, June 2008)
46 Fire design of concrete structures —structural behaviour and assessment
State-of-art report (214 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-086-4, July 2008)
47 Environmental design of concrete structures – general principles
48 Formwork and falsework for heavy construction
49 Corrosion protection for reinforcing steels
50 Concrete structures for oil and gas fields in hostile marine environments
State-of-art report (36 pages, IBSN 978-2-88394-090-1, October 2009)
51 Structural Concrete – Textbook on behaviour, design and performance,Vol. 1
Manual – textbook (304 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-091-8, November 2009)
Manual – textbook (350 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-092-5, January 2010)
Manual – textbook (390 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-093-2, December 2009)
Manual – textbook (196 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-094-9, October 2010)
55 fib Model Code 2010, First complete draft – Volume 1
Draft Model Code (318 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-095-6, March 2010)
56 fib Model Code 2010, First complete draft – Volume 2
Draft Model Code (312 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-096-3, April 2010)
57 Shear and punching shear in RC and FRC elements - Workshop proceedings
58 Design of anchorages in concrete
59 Condition control and assessment of reinforced concrete structures exposed to corrosive environments
(carbonation/chlorides)
60 Prefabrication for affordable housing
61 Design examples for strut-and-tie models

Technical report (220 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-101-4, September 2011)
Manual – textbook (476 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-102-1, January 2012)
63 Design of precast concrete structures against accidental actions
64 Effect of zinc on prestressing steel
65 fib Model Code 2010, Final draft – Volume 1
Model Code (350 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-105-2, March 2012)
66 fib Model Code 2010, Final draft – Volume 2
Model Code (370 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-106-9, April 2012)
67 Guidelines for green concrete structures
Guide to good practice (56 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-107-6, May 2012)
68 Probabilistic performance-based seismic design
Technical report (118 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-108-3, July 2012)
69 Critical comparison of major seismic codes for buildings
70 Code-type models for structural behaviour of concrete
71 Integrated life cycle assessment of concrete structures
State-of-art report (62 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-111-3, December 2013)
72 Bond and anchorage of embedded reinforcement: Background to the fib Model Code for Concrete
Structures 2010
Technical report (170 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-112-0, May 2014)
73 Tall buildings: Structural design of concrete buildings up to 300m tall
State-of-the-art report (158) pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-113-7, August 2014)
74 Planning and design handbook on precast building structures
Manual – textbook (313 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-114-4, September 2014)
75 Polymer-duct systems for internal bonded post-tensioning
Recommendation (172 pages, ISBN 978-2-88394-115-1, December 2014)
76 Benchmarking of deemed-to-satisfy provisions in standards: Durability of Reinforced Concrete
Structures Exposed to Chlorides
State-of-the-art-report (ISBN 978-2-88394-116-8, May 2015)
Abstracts for fib Bulletins and lists of available CEB Bulletins and FIP Reports are available on
the fib website at www.fib-international.org/publications.

Fib Bulletin 76

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fib Bulletin 76

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This document is the intellectual property of the fib – International Federation for Structural Concrete. All rights reserved.

Category: Draft to be approved by:

Convener: Christoph Gehlen* (TU München)

© Fédération internationale du béton (fib), 2015

2.1 Code’s prescriptive approach for ensuring the durability of

In EN 206:2013, which was first published as EN 206-1:2000 and is the governing

Table 2-1 Exposure classes related to chloride-induced corrosion according to EN 206:2013

Class / Description of Informative example where exposure classes may

The provisions of the selected standards are shown in Section 3.2.

2.2 Performance-based probabilistic service-life design of

In addition to the prescriptive methodology of standards, performance-based probabilistic

• Definition of limit states

2.2.2 Mathematical model for chloride penetration in concrete

Mejlbro (1996) introduced the possibility to include a time-dependent surface chloride

Deviation from Fick's 2nd law of diffusion in near-surface

Substitute surface chloride concentration Cs,Δx

Chloride proﬁle using Fick's 2nd law of diffusion

0 < Δx < 50 mm Distance from surface [mm]

In this approach Dapp(t) is determined by means of equation 2-4.

Dapp,A (t) = ke· Dapp (t0) · ( tt )α

Laboratory test methods to determine Dapp(t0) are described in NT BUILD 443:1995,

1.0 Fig. 2-2 Determination of the apparent

Measured chloride values

coefficient Dapp [. 10-12 m²/s]

In this approach the apparent chloride diffusion coefficient Dapp(t) is determined by

Dapp,B (t) = ke· DRCM (t0) · ( tt ) α

with CEM III/B and coefficient Dapp(t) over

10 aging exponent according

and forced through DRCM(t0) field data consisting of

0 numerous concretes with

The model-parameter aging exponent is explained in more detail in Section 2.2.4.2.

2.2.3 Methodology for prediction of a condition state (a priori)

g(X,t) = R(t)-S(t) = Z(t) 2-6

Fig. 2-5 Comparison of variable

In the case of chloride-induced corrosion, it is assumed that the depassivation of the

g(X,t) = Ccrit - C(c,t) 2-8

Alternatively, it is also possible to evaluate the following limit state equation:

g(X,t) = c - xcrit(t) 2-9

The critical, corrosion-inducing chloride content Ccrit is an assumed threshold which

Table 2-2 List of model parameters

Parameter Unit Distribution* and values Quantification

2.2.4.1 Chloride migration coefficient DRCM(t0)

As introduced in Section 2.2.2.3, Dapp(t) is usually determined through the ‘chloride

was that its effect is negligible (Lay 2006).

The statistical variation of chloride migration coefficients is adequately described by a

Cement type (source) 1 DRCM(t0) [10-12 m²/s]

Cement type (source) 1 DRCM(t0) [10-12 m²/s]

2.2.4.2 Aging exponent α

coefficient Dapp [. 10-12 m²/s]

Apparent chloride diffusion

with CEM III/B and

chloride diffusion coefficient over time for

Cement type (source) 1 Aging exponent α [–]

Cement type (source) 1 Aging exponent α [–]

Cement type Aging exponent α [-]

2.2.4.3 Reference time t0

2.2.4.4 Parameters for temperature dependence of diffusion; ke , be , Tref , Treal

temperature-dependency of chloride ingress into concrete and of the apparent chloride

Parameter ke [–] Fig. 2-7 Subfunction ke considering the

3.0 Portland cement paste

The regression parameter can be characterized adequately by a Normal distribution

Treal : ND (μ = [K] / σ = [°C])

The reference temperature Tref is considered to be a constant value corresponding to

2.2.4.5 Chloride content at the surface CS,0 or CS,Δx

1 -‐1 Assessment of existing structures