45

CONCRETE DURABILITY

Return To T.O.C

G K MOIR
1. CEMENT RELATED ASPECTS OF CONCRETE DURABILITY

Concrete is promoted as a low maintenance construction material, which offers reduced

ownership costs compared with steel or timber structures, which require the regular renewal of
protective coatings. In recent years the durable image of concrete has been damaged by well
publicised problems with:-

b the pre-fabricated reinforced concrete houses built immediately before and afler the last
war

b
the industrialised building products of the 1960’s

b the corrosionof steel reinforcement in motorway and trunkroad bridges, as a result of the
application of deicing salt

b
alkfll silica reaction.

The proportion of concrete structures which is seriously affected is still relatively small, but the
adverse publicity damages the image of concrete, and thus sales of cement. It has to be
rememberedthat there is no market as such for cement, but rather a market for concrete. Hence,
the continued commitment of the cement industry to work with customers, specifiers and
engineersto promotethe good long-term image of concrete. This is achieved by direct links with
users and specifiers, support of the British Cement Association and considerable involvement
on both UK and European Standard Committees.

The four maindurabiity aspects which threaten the long-term petiormance of concrete structures
in the UK are

1. protection of reinforcing steel

2. freeze-thaw damage

3. sulfate attack

4. alkali-silica reaction.

Figure 1 summarises the main measures which should be taken to prevent deterioration, as a
result of these phenomena. Problems 1-3 are caused by external attack, and can be minimised
by ensuring that concrete is produced with

b an adequate content of cementitious material

k an adequate depth of cover to the reinforcement

b is cured adequately to prevent premature drying

is comt)acted adequately.
FIGURE 1

MEASURES TO ENSURE SATISFACTORY CONCRETE DURABILITY

POTENTIAL PREVENTATIVE MEASURES

DURABILllY
PROBLEM
.. .,,,,,.,,,
..........
.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,
STEEL Adequate [@-~ontent and sufficiently low w/c ratio
CORROSION as specified by BS 8110
~##~~,concrete
.’.’.
D .,..... to prevent premature drying, particularly
if concrete contains slag
.........
Full-concrete
................
Adequate depth of-s specified byBS8110
Protect against penetration b~~~de-icing salt)

FREEZE-THAW Ensure. adequate cement content, curing and compaction

DAMAGE Entrain an appropriate level of air bubbles into the
.—
concrete

Use sulphate resisting cement, or, for less severe :

SULPHATE
A1’TACK conditions, composite cement concrete containing -
70 to 90% slag or 25 to 40% pfa.
Ensure adequate cement content, curing and ‘compaction

ALKALI Use unreactive aggregates

SILICA or
REACTION Maintain concrete alkali content below 3kg/m3
taking into account
- total cement alkalis’
- ~ slag total alkalis

‘6p~ fa total alkalis

or

Use composite cement concrete with more than 50% slag.

2
Guidance tables for minimum cement contents and depths of cover are contained in the Guide
to Speci@ing Concrete (BS 5328) and the Standard for Structural Concrete
(13S8110). These speci~ minimum cement contents, water cement ratios, depth of cover and
curing periods for different environments. Many of the concretes which are now showing
distress would not have met the requirements of these standards.

The protection of reinforcing steel in concrete requires that an alkaline environment is

maintained, and that chloride (from deicing salt) does not exceed a threshold of- 0.3°/0chloride
by weight of cement. Atmospheric C02 is acidic and reduces the alkalinity of concrete allowing
rusting to start. Once rusting commences, the layer of iron oxide formed on the surface of the
steel exerts sufficient pressure to crack the concrete; these cracks allow water and air to enter
the concrete and greatly accelerate the rusting process. Figure 2 illustrates the influence of
concrete cementcontent and depth of concrete cover on the time for the depth of carbonation or
chloride penetration to reach embedded reinforcing steel. The actual rate of carbonation or
chloride ingress is strongly influenced by environmental factors such as humidity.

It can be seen that even with a relatively high cement contentof350 kg m-3,a depth of cover to
the reinforcement of 15 mm is inadequate for concrete structures.

Initialconcrete curing is also important, particularly in the case of slag concretes which can show
depths of carbonation of 30 mm in less than 5 years.

Although following the Codes with respect to cement content and depth of cover will give
adequate protection in most situations, steel will not be adequately protected if the concrete is
periodicallydousedwith salt solution. This is the situation with most concrete motorway bridges
in Europe and North America. The corrosion of reinforcing steel, as a result of chloride
penetration, is the single greatest durability problem facing concrete structures in the UK.

In the case of sulfate attack, greatly improved resistance is obtained by speciijing sulfate
resistantPortlandcement (SRPC to BS 4027), or by using composite cement concrete containing
more than 70?/oslagor more than 25°/0pfa. Our own tests, undertaken over many years, confirm
the superior sulfate resistant properties of SRPC, to that of slag and ash blends.

Improved resistance to freezing and thawing damage is obtained by entraining tiny air bubbles
into the concrete, using a suitable organic admixture. The bubbles are able to accommodate the
expansion which occurs when water freezes.

Alkali silica reaction (asr) differs from the other potential durability problems, in that increasing
the cement content increases t-helikelihood of the problem occurring. The reaction takes place
between alkalis within the concrete, and certain forms of reactive silica found in some
aggregates.

An alkali silica gel is formed which is able to take up water, expand and crack the concrete.
Current guidelines issued by the British Cement Association and included in the Building
Research Digest 330 “Alkali Aggregate Reactions in Concrete”, recommend that the alkali
content of the concrete is maintained below 3 kg m-3and that when slag or pfa are included in
the mix, then respectively 1/2and 1/6of their total alkali content should be taken into account.

3
FIGURE 2

INFLUENCE OF CEMENT CONTENT AND DEPTH OF

COVER ON PROTECTION OF STEEL REINFORCEMENT

.-
SATISFACTORY
A

INSUFFICIENT

*-*”
B

COVER

*.a?
PERMEABLE
c
CONCRETE

1=
-
--”
IliB-* --- 9-- ---’
49 “*

L )
---

●---
--- -o m-

1 week *

.W.
“9 i.
*
“ * “-.9.
● “- :
L*
“-- * --’
.-. *
-
ma-
0
-* ”.-e
m- - 0 -’ e- a
m

* -*
0
*, )* -* ..-

1 steel reinforcement I
I depth of carbonation
1 or chloride penetration I

a
-*”.
e-
o *
m

--- --”-

-m-,
mm

5 years * “. 9 0“
.- .-*’
o---
m
- 4B
..

---
I
I
I
I Iron oxide

1
causes expansion of
reinforcement and cracks
i

a
/-crete\

e 0

10 years Z”: ●“. :“”

.W. *
o- 69 n
0

cement content cement content cement content

350 kg/m3 350 kg/m3 250 kg/m3
cover to steel 35 mm cover to steel 15 mm cover to steel 35 mm

4
Figure 3 illustrates the influence of cement alkali level on the maximum safe concrete alkali
content, Clearly, cement alkali levels, and their variability, can have a considerable bearing on
cement market acceptance, particularly in areas of the country where aggregates are of proven
or suspected reactivity. Figure 4 illustrates how the highest cement alkali levels have been
reduced in response to the problems of alkali silica reaction.

The reduction in alkali levels has been achieved by means of raw material selection, including
the purchaseof low alkali sources of AlzO~such as bauxite and by discarding kiln dust from wet
process plants. Both of these measures increase the cost of production and in the case of dust
discard there is an “environmental” cost.

J\OFFICE\WP\VNCTWPAP41
.WPD
27March
1996

5
FIGURE 3

INFLUENCE OF CEMENT ALKALI CONTENT ON MAXIMUM

“SAFE” CONCRETE ALKALI LEVEL

1 ●
●
✎

‘\ .
●
.
s
s
●
UNSAFE
0.9 ●
.
●
..
s●, Concrete may crack
CEMENT b
‘.
ALKALI ‘- if aggregates contain
CONTENT 0.8 SAFE ●*

% “.qeactive silica
●.
●

‘. “.*
0.7 ‘. ●..
“.*
*.“.
“.*
%-‘..
0.6 ●...
%.-
%. ●..-

0.5
200 ‘ 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
CEMENT CONTENT (kg/m ~

FIGURE 4

BLUE CIRCLE BS 12 PORTLAND CEMENT

NazO
ALKALIS AS EQUIVALENT N~O
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

n
“71 72737475767778798081 82838485868788899091 929394
YEAR

6’