Concrete Durability of Structures

Durability of Concrete
Bridges and Viaducts

Anil K Kar, B.Sc CE, MSCE, Ph.D

Engineering Services International, Salt Lake City, Kolkata

lot of concrete bridges, railway overbridges, flyovers

and viaducts were constructed in recent years and
many more are under construction. Such constructions
got boosts from the golden quadrilateral highway projects,
east-west north-south corridor and dedicated freight corridor
railway projects, the metro rail projects in the metro cities and
the need for elevated expressways/carriageways within or
between metro cities.

life span of modern concrete structures in Canada is

thirtyseven years, the average life span of such structures
in India is estimated to be twentyseven years. This is in
the face of much longer theoretical or design life spans of
bridges, tunnels and such other infrastructures.

The nature of materials of construction (Fig.1) of such

structures suggests that not much thought has been or is
being given to the real possibility that the structures may
not be available for their intended use a few decades after
their construction.
This suggestion is made not only because of what is clearly
visible (e.g. extensive corrosion in rebars even before
concreting) or known (e.g. very high C3S/C2S ratios and
inadmissible content of water soluble alkalis in cement)17 but also because of observations all over the world that
concrete structures, built in recent decades, have shown signs
of decay and distress fairly early in life. This phenomenon
of concrete structures reaching states of distress early in
life is in stark contrast to concrete structures, built before
the decade of the 1960s, which have proved to be durable,
requiring no or little repair even 60 or 70 years after their
construction.
Among abounding examples of old concrete structures with
good performance, one could cite the concrete bridges which
were built in the 1940s over the highly polluted canals of
Calcutta. None of these heavily travelled and overloaded
concrete bridges in relatively corrosive environments has
required any repairs till now whereas most of the concrete
structures, built in recent decades, to carry todays traffic,
have required minor to major repairs (Fig.2).
In this context, it may be noted here that whereas the average

110 The Masterbuilder - July 2012 www.masterbuilder.co.in

Fig.1 : Corroded rebars in pier under construction for flyover; products of

corrosion streaking down faces of pier

Concrete Durability of Structures

It can no longer be overlooked that though concrete

structures, built up to the decade of the 1960s, have
generally proved to be durable, the picture has changed
over the years since that time. It is not uncommon for
todays concrete structures to show signs of distress even
during the construction stage (Fig. 3). The writer recalls a
particular day some years ago when prestressed concrete
girders for railway bridges at half a dozen sites were found
to have developed cracks. Though the girders, many of
which were yet to be launched, were constructed by
different contractors with different brands of cement, the
result was the same.

built structures, including concrete bridges and viaducts,

are required to be durable. Such structures are required to
provide service over long periods of time, that is variably
set at 60 to 120 years.
This article is on durability aspects of concrete bridges
and elevated viaducts. The principal causes for the lack
of durability of concrete bridges, viaducts and such other
structures of recent vintage are identified and solutions
to the problem of early distress are recommended. Much
of the contents of this article is applicable for concrete
structures of all types.
Consequences of Not Doing Things Right
In a search for durability, a question could naturally arise.
In order that bridges and viaducts may be durable, will it be
sufficient to have a proper design for strength, to limit crack
widths under service load conditions through conventional
methods of design, to specify large cover to rebars and
to maintain good workmanship while building bridges,
viaducts and other structures ?
The answer would be in the negative. It will be seen in this
paper that it will not be sufficient merely to have a good
design and to maintain good workmanship in the case of
bridges, viaducts and other concrete structures if such
structures are to be durable.

Fig. 2 : A view of the deck of the Jogeswari flyover in Mumbai seven years
after construction

Fig. 3 : Cracks in reinforced concrete shear walls for tall buildings in

Calcutta even before a floor was completed (project has top designer,
proof design consultant, top contractor and quality monitoring agent) in
2011

Though many may pretend not to see, the signs of decay in

newly built bridges, elevated viaducts and other concrete
structures of recent periods have become a matter of concern to many others.
It has thus become imperative to focus on durability, as

A corollary would be the case of buildings (Fig. 4). On

the evidence of durable concrete structures it was earlier
considered sufficient to prevent visible water leakages
through concrete roofs, water reservoirs, tunnels, etc. In
contrast, it is seen in the case of concrete structures, built
with todays cement and rebars, that the mere arresting
of visible water leakages is
not sufficient for making such
structures reasonably durable.
As in the case of steel structures,
all surfaces of todays concrete
structures, which may be
exposed to the atmosphere,
more particularly structures,
which might be intermittently
exposed to water, need be
given surface protection, i.e.
made waterproof. If this surface
protection will not be provided,
situations like those shown in
Figs. 5 - 7 are likely to arise. This Fig. 4 : This is why people used
proposition is studied in this to waterproof structures; in the
case of todays concrete strucarticle.
tures, it will no longer be sufThe distressed conditions,
depicted in Figs. 5 7, are

ficient to make merely the roof

waterproof; there is a greater
purpose to waterproofing than to
arrest visible water leakages

www.masterbuilder.co.in The Masterbuilder - July 2012 111

Concrete Durability of Structures

including bridges and viaducts which may be exposed to

weather, to the atmosphere.
Could the provision of surface protection systems have
really helped ?
It has been a common experience to see that waterproofed
containers of overhead water reservoirs may not show
any water leakage or signs of distress but it is a different
story with the unprotected staging (Fig. 7).

Fig. 5 : Abandoned hospital building in the new township of Salt Lake City,
Kolkata - a stigma on society

Fig. 7 : Distress in staging of overhead water reservoir due to corrosion in

rebar

The same decaying process, that must have contributed to

the conditions, as shown in Figs. 5-7, continues unabated
in the case of unprotected concrete bridges and viaducts.

Fig. 6 : Distress in underside of deck slab of Buckland Bridge (Bankim

Setu) over the platforms at Howrah Station near Calcutta prior to major
repair and surface protection in the year 2005

due to corrosion in rebars. It is easily perceived that this

corrosion was possible because of the availability of moist
environments around rebars and the absence (due to
carbonation or chloride penetration) of the protective layers
of passivation on the surfaces of rebars. Moist environments
could have been avoided had the structures been given
surface protection in the form of waterproofing treatment.
Surface protection systems could have also prevented
chloride intrusion and prevented or minimized carbonation
and ingress of oxygen to facilitate corrosion.
The state of the structures in Figs. 5 7 would suggest that
even though there may not be visible water leakages, one
need to waterproof all surfaces of concrete structures,

112 The Masterbuilder - July 2012 www.masterbuilder.co.in

But because of good experiences in the past with concrete bridges and viaducts, engineers, in the absence
of visible water leakages of the type shown in Fig. 4, have
been slow to realize and recognize the fact that the innate
resistance of todays concrete structures to the elements
of nature is very different from such inherent properties of
concrete structures of earlier periods.
The inadequate resistance of recent concrete structures to
the causes of corrosion has resulted in the early development
of conditions of distress in concrete structures of recent
vintage, and this has become the norm today.
It is observed in Technical Circular 1/99 of Central Public
Works Department, Government of India that : while work
as old as 50 years provide adequate service, the recent
constructions are showing signs of distress within a couple
of years of their completion.8
Though todays concrete structures in India have a pronounced

Concrete Durability of Structures

susceptibility to early decay and distress, this lack of

durability in the case of todays concrete structures is a
global phenomenon, and the occurrence of early distress
started showing up in structures which were built since the
1970s by which time rebars with surface deformations had
come into the market and the constituents of cement had
undergone some changes.
Papadakis, et al wrote in their paper, published in ACI
Materials Journal in March-April 1991, The last two decades
have seen a disconcerting increase in examples of the unsatisfactory durability of concrete structures, specially
reinforced concrete ones.9
In a paper, published in 2007, Swamy too observed that
The most direct and unquestionable evidence of the last
two/three decades on the service life performance of our
constructions and the resulting challenge that confronts
us is the alarming and unacceptable rate at which our
infrastructure systems all over the world are suffering from
deterioration when exposed to real environments.10

all connections should have provided continuity through

thru-thickness groove welded joints so that the shock
pulses could travel and the impact load get distributed and
shared by the structural members over larger areas of the
structures.
With welded connections, there could have been damages
to the facial elements of the towers, but the fuel laden wings
could have fallen on the ground below. The towers could
have survived.
It is thus seen that there may be a gap between what
we profess to know and what we really know. In such a
scenario, more specifically, in an environment of tall claims
of more durable constructions with newer cement and
rebars, engineers have not only taken time to recognize
the problem of early distress in concrete structures, they
have also failed to understand its causes, and in the
meantime the problem grew bigger and bigger.
And the consequences have been grave

Swamy further recorded that What is most surprising is

that this massive and horrendous infrastructure crisis has
occurred in spite of the tremendous advances that have
been made in our understanding of the science engineering
and mechanics of materials and structures.10

It is not only that concrete structures of recent construction

develop early signs of distress (Figs. 2, 3 and 5 - 7),
todays new constructions, may exhibit signs of distress at
the construction stage itself even when such constructions
may be carried out with utmost care (Fig. 3).

Matters have come to this pass and engineers are surprised

because they failed to see or they refused to hear and
admit the truth (Fig. 8).

The situation being as it is, it cannot be disputed that

structures perform the way they do, structures show signs
of distress as early as they do, because these are built to
do so.

It is known that there can be surprises only in the absence

of knowledge. The absence of knowledge was exemplified
in the case of aircrafts hitting the World Trade Center
Towers (Fig. 9), which were required to be and claimed
to have been designed for aircraft impact, and yet the
aircrafts, wings and all, pierced through the columns and
spandrel plates on the faces of the structures to land inside
the buildings and start the big fires which ultimately led to
the collapse of the towers.

The way, even major structures (Fig. 10) are built, can be
seen in Figs. 1 and 11 - 14.

The segmented facial elements of the World Trade Center

towers had bolted connections whereas high speed
aircraft impact being a postulated loading condition,

Fig. 8 : Like the proverbial three monkeys, engineers are in the denial mode

114 The Masterbuilder - July 2012 www.masterbuilder.co.in

Fig. 9 : A plane, wings and all, disappeared into one tower of World Trade
Centre; another plane on its way to enter the other WTC tower

Concrete Durability of Structures

Fig. 10 : An elevated viaduct under construction

Fig.13 : Corroded rebars to be covered in concrete for construction of viaduct

rebars will be coated, and if such coatings will even be

fusion bonded following prescribed surface preparation,
the result is likely to be any of those shown in Figs. 2, 3, 5
- 7 and 1511.
Is it possible that the cases depicted in Figs. 1-3, 5-7
and 15, could have arisen only because of a nonchalant
approach to construction, as depicted in Figs. 1 and 1114, or is it possible that inherent shortcomings in materials
of construction, viz., cement and rebars of recent periods,
could have a role ?
Fig. 11 : Rebars stacked at site for construction of viaduct

It cannot be denied that properties of cement and rebars

have changed very considerably over the years.
Thus, in the context of durability of concrete structures, one
may be on the wrong track if in the face of incontrovertible
evidence of early distress in concrete structures of recent
vintage one will continue to depend on ones experiences
with durable concrete structures of the past and treat
todays materials at par with materials of the past and
todays concrete structures at par with concrete structures
of yesteryears in terms of durability. If one does, the result
can be like that depicted in Fig. 2 or like any other in Figs.
3 and 5 -7.

Fig. 12 : Casing with corroded rebars at site to be concreted for viaduct

Causes of Early Distress

The first course in reinforced concrete teaches one that
rebars should be free from loose mill scale, rust, dust and
oil. But the way construction is carried out under expert
eyes (Fig. 3) is reflected in Figs. 1 and 11 to 14. And that is
part of the reason why structures reach distressed states
(Figs. 3 and 5-7) early in life.
If in attempts to mitigate the problem of corrosion the

118 The Masterbuilder - July 2012 www.masterbuilder.co.in

So, if one will agree that something has gone wrong

with todays concrete structures, a question would arise
: what could have gone wrong with todays concrete
construction ?
The effect of any possible design flaw or change in
aggressiveness of the environment can be discounted in
the context of inadequate durability of concrete structures
for the reasons that
- the examples shown in Figs. 1-3, 5-7 and 10-15 have
nothing to do with design flaws

Concrete Durability of Structures

concrete structures started with constructions in the 1960s,

when high strength rebars with surface deformations (HSD)
started arriving in the market, engineers have overlooked
the possible effects of using such rebars with surface
deformations, whether cold twisted (CTD) or thermo
mechanically treated (TMT), and the result is evident in
(Figs. 5-7). Also, may be if the bars were not as rusted as
evident in Fig. 14, may be the cracks in shear walls (Fig.
3) due to excessive shrinkage in concrete with high alkali
cement could have been arrested.
The changes in cement and rebars are results of various
permissive provisions in the IS 45612 and other codes and
guides in India and in other countries.

Fig. 14 :Rusted rebar in the construction of the structure in Fig. 3 where an

outside agency monitors quality and the contractor is a top name in India - a
stain on profession

- old and new constructions in the same city or even

on the same plot of land present strikingly different
scenarios in terms of time dependent performance;
older constructions performing better.
Engineers have overlooked the devastating effects of using
modern cement. One of many such effects can be seen in
Fig. 3. It is worth recognizing here that, unlike in the case
of rebars, which underwent very significant changes in their
properties virtually overnight, the constitution of cement has
undergone significant changes gradually over the years.
Similarly, even though a close look at the observations
of CPWD8, Papadakis et at9 and Swamy10 would have
revealed that the problem of early distress in reinforced

Furthermore, it is or it should have been common knowledge

that rebars and cement, supplied and supported with
manufacturers certificates of compliance with codal requirements, frequently fail to meet codal requirements (Fig. 16
and Table 1) when these are put to test at independent
laboratories.
In the particular case of the rebars in Fig. 16, the manufacturer
claimed conformance of the billets with requirements of
the relevant BIS code at the time of supplying the rebars.
When provided with failed pieces of rebars, the supplier (a
leading manufacturer of rebars and other steel products)
produced for the rebars a certificate of compliance with the
relevant BIS code for rebars whereas tests by the author
had shown that the bars did not meet the requirements
of the specific code. Representatives of the steel maker
visited the construction site and when bars of their choice
were tested in their presence, they had no option but to
agree that the bars of all the different sizes (8 mm to 32 mm
dia) were unfit for construction.
A casual approach with cement
Except for the period of curing, the concrete code IS
456:200012 permits, without any differentiation, the use
of ordinary Portland cement (OPC), Portland slag cement
(PSC) and fly ash or Portland pozzolana cement (PPC), as
if cement, capable of hydration, were inert; as if all types of
cement were equal; as if any cement is quality cement.

Fig.15 : Concrete easily separates from epoxy coated rebars under vibratory loading conditions; all structures are required to resist vibratory loads due
to earthquakes

120 The Masterbuilder - July 2012 www.masterbuilder.co.in

It is known to all that tests for conformance of cement with

the requirements, set in the relevant codes, are performed
after cement will have been used in construction and
that cement manufacturers routinely come up with
test certificates declaring all cements to have met all
requirements of codes. This is in the face of knowledge
that cement, when tested at independent laboratories, is
occasionally found to be deficient.

Concrete Durability of Structures

Table 1 gives test results on some cements of well known

brands in India.
OPC in India today may contain highest amounts of harmful
water soluble alkalis.
In this particular case % Na2Oeq is 2.37 which is much in
excess of quantities that could be considered safe,
whare % Na2Oeq = % Na2O + 0.658 (% K2O)
In comparison, in the year 2000, 140 samples of OPC in the
USA yielded on an average:
Na2O (%) by mass of cement.... 0.173
K2O(%) by mass of cement ..... 0.571
i.e., % Na2Oeq = 0.55, compared to 2.37 in the above
sample of OPC in India.
Fig. 16 :Brittle failures in 8-32 mm dia cold twisted rebars with surface
deformations - supplied by a leading manufacturer of rebars and other steel
products in India

And yet no one has ever heard of any cement manufacturer

having ever found anything wrong with cement it had made
and sold.
No one has ever heard of any cement manufacturer having
ever dumped cement it had manufactured.
It is easily perceived that cement manufacturers enter into
routine contracts with fossil fuel power plant authorities
for the procurement of flyash. Neither this procurement of
flyash is based on any check for suitability of the flyash as
a raw material for the making of cement, nor has anyone
ever heard of any cement manufacturer having dumped or
disposed of any unsuitable fly ash.
Furthermore, it is most likely for Indian cements to fail
tests for requirements on limits of water soluble alkali as
set in the Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice,
IS 456:200012. The code requires, as many other foreign
codes do, that the equivalent Na2O content in cement must
not exceed 0.60%. Knowing very well that Indian cements
of recent periods might not meet this requirement, the
requirements for a limit on the content of water soluble
alkali in cement have been withdrawn from latest versions
of codes of the Bureau of Indian Standards on cement.
Chemical Content

OPC

PSC

PPC

CaO (%) by weight of cement

56.8

43.27

46.59

K2O (%) by weight of cement

1.03

0.89

0.86

Alkali as (Na2O)(%) by weight of cement

1.69

1.17

1.07

Table 1. Contents of Cao and Soluble Alkalis in Typical Cements Available

in Kolkata, Year 2006

122 The Masterbuilder - July 2012 www.masterbuilder.co.in

Note :
OPC ordinary portland cement
PSC portland slag cement
PPC portland pozzolana cement (generally, flyash
cement)
One consequence of the withdrawal of limits on water
soluble alkalis from Indian codes on cement can be seen
in Fig. 3.
Thus, it cannot be suggested here that the satisfaction
of codal requirements on cement in India would have
automatically guaranteed concrete structures with long life
spans.
A casual approach with rebars
Since corrosion in rebars is a problem in a majority of
cases of reinforced concrete structures of recent vintage (Figs. 5-7), rebars of recent vintage must have
a role in the context of durability of such structures.
As in the case of cement, IS 456:200012 permits equally
the use of all types of bars and other steel elements
as if strength alone was all that mattered and as if these
materials were inert even when it is evident that corrosion
in such elements is the cause of early distress in most
or many cases of concrete structures.
In essence, the code IS 456:200012 suggests that the
susceptibility of the different reinforcing elements to corrosion
need not be a consideration. Manufacturers of rebars,
engineers and constructors got the cue and no one bats
an eyelid when bridges and viaducts may be constructed
with corroded rebars (Figs. 1, 11-14 and 17)
If all bars were or are indeed equally suitable for use as
rebars, a few questions could arise, viz.,

Concrete Durability of Structures

- why have the cold twisted HSD (high strength with

surface deformations) rebars of steel, e.g., torsteel
and other HYSD (high yield strength with surface
deformations) rebars of steel (Fig. 18) yielded to TMT
bars (HSD also denotes HYSD)
- what was the need to develop TMT-CRS (TMT-Corrosion
Resistant Steel) bars
- what was the need to develop TMT-HCR (TMT-High
Corrosion Resistant) bars
- what was the need to use stainless steel rebars
- what prompted recent efforts at increasing the ductility
of rebars and that too as a tokenism ?
And why was it considered necessary to galvanize HSD
rebars or to provide epoxy coatings or other surface treatments to HSD rebars at extra cost ?

Familiarity breeds contempt

The ease of handling rebars, the easy availability of the
ingredients (irrespective of the quality) of concrete and the
easy formability of such concrete, coupled with the casual
approach of IS 456:200012 and such other codes, have
encouraged many to take liberty (Figs. 1 and 11-14) with
the construction of concrete structures, more particularly
with reinforced concrete structures. The consequences
can be seen in Figs. 2, 5-7 and 15.
The Problem with HSD Rebars
What could have gone wrong with HSD rebars ?
In the case of rebars, all the emphasis is on strength. To
have strength is good (Fig. 20).

Or why was it considered necessary to both galvanize

and provide epoxy coating on the same bar (Fig. 19) at
large additional expenses, if it were not a recognition, if not
an admission, that HSD rebars (Fig. 18), without additional
aid, could not give durable concrete structures ?

Fig.18 : Hot rolled - HYSD rebars of steel

Fig. 17 : Bridge under construction with corroded rebars

Figure 19 shows an advertised rebar with surface deformations

that was galvanized as well as provided with an epoxy
coating. The advertiser is a leading manufacturer of rebars
in the USA.
No suggestion is made here that the costly protection to
rebars, as shown in Fig. 19, would make concrete structures,
constructed with such rebars, any more durable than a
concrete structure with uncoated rebars. The structure in
Fig. 15, showing easy separation of concrete from epoxy
coated rebars, is a case in point.

Fig.19 : Rebar, which because of its susceptibility to corrosion is given double

protection; but the result, specially under vibratory load conditions, may be no
different than that shown in Figs. 2 and 15

www.masterbuilder.co.in The Masterbuilder - July 2012 123

Concrete Durability of Structures

But in the case of rebars, the emphasis has been on brute

strength (Fig. 21) and nothing else.
Similar to a false feeling that a muscular body will necessarily
lead to a long life, it was and it continues to be overlooked
in the case of concrete structures that high strength of
rebars alone may not guarantee durability of reinforced
concrete structures.

Fig. 20 : It is good to have strength

Fig. 21 : The emphasis in the case

of rebars has been on brute strength
alone and almost on nothing else

and 24. Bend locations and the cut ends of the rebars in
Fig. 23 show that if the strains/stresses will reach or cross
the yield strain or stress levels, the rate of corrosion will
increase uncontrollably. Figure 24 demonstrates it more
vividly. The cold twisted deformed bars (e.g. Torsteel),
where the surface strains/stresses crossed the yield levels
at the manufacturing stage, corroded all over the surface
whereas pieces from the same bar, which were not twisted,
developed minor signs of corrosion at the roots of some
of the surface protrusions. All the pieces of the bars were
from the same rod and these were stored bundled together
inside a polybag inside a room for about a month before
inspection.
The writer13-15 has explained why stresses, and thus strains,
in HSD rebars inside concrete are more likely, than plain
bars, to reach or cross yield strain/stress levels and thus
corrode early, thereby leading to distressed conditions in
concrete structures early.

Stronger and stronger rebars were introduced and continue

to be used. Token improvement in ductility is a belated
thought.
Besides the differences in metallurgical compositions,
todays high strength rebars, compared to plain round bars
of mild steel of yesteryears, are made to have surface
deformations. Presumably, the need for the provision of
surface deformations arose from the desire to lessen the
anchor or development/overlap lengths of high strength
bars (Fig. 18)
But such high strength rebars with surface deformations,
compared to plain round bars of earlier periods, have
greater susceptibility to corrosion13-15 (Figs. 1, 12-14).
In fact, HSD rebars are so highly prone to corrosion that
even epoxy coatings, which may protect steel plates and
other elements, fail to protect such rebars with surface
deformations (Fig. 22). While this writer13-15 has explained
why the presence of lugs on the surface of HSD rebars
make such bars highly susceptible to early corrosion,
Alekseev16, citing Russian work, stated that the durability
of concrete structures with HSD rebars of steel was an order
of magnitude less than the durability of structures with plain
round bars of steel. A very damning observation indeed on
the performance of rebars with surface deformations
Besides the inherent or chronic susceptibility of HSD
rebars to early and accelerated rates of corrosion, the
problem becomes more acute if the stress levels will be
higher, particularly if the strains /stresses will reach or
cross the yield limits. Examples can be found in Figs. 23

124 The Masterbuilder - July 2012 www.masterbuilder.co.in

Fig. 22 : Corrosion in HSD rebars shows through epoxy coating

Fig. 23 : Fresh TMT bars (strain/stress beyond yield at bends and cut ends
invite corrosion) with surface deformations on way to delivery at site

Concrete Durability of Structures

Over the period of the last five decades, the C3S/C2S ratios
have increased from 0.3 to 3.0.17
A dramatic change indeed
It is known that C3S, responsible for early strength of
concrete, readily reacts with water, producing greater heat
of hydration at the initial stages after concreting.
Thus, the increase in C3S at the cost of C2S, though
beneficial in countries with colder climates, is generally
harmful for concrete structures in most areas of India.
In addition, alkali content in todays cement in India is far
too high (Table1) for concrete structures to be durable
(Fig. 3).
Fig. 24 : Fresh CTD bars (with strain/ stress beyond yield invite corrosion all
over the surface) and untwisted bars with surface deformations

Simply stated, todays high strength rebars with surface

deformations (Figs. 18, 23 and 24), which are susceptible
to early corrosion, cannot give durable concrete structures,
at least not without costly pretreatment or use of corrosion
inhibiting cement or without other aids, e.g., waterproofing
treatment to the surface of the concrete structures.
Pretreatment to HSD rebars can be costly and cumbersome.
Furthermore, any pretreatment, if provided at the construction
site, may not be reliable, and the pretreatment can get
damaged during construction, thereby encouraging corrosion,
and nullifying any claimed benefits of coatings. A negative
aspect of a particular type of pretreated HSD bars is shown
in Fig. 15.
As at or beyond yield the surface of a rebar becomes
unstable, nullifying thereby the benefits of any layer of
passivation (as is provided by Ca(OH)2 inside concrete
with the right type of cement) or protective coating and
since surface elements of HSD rebars inside concrete
structures are likely to reach yield stress/strain levels under
service load conditions, tests for effectiveness of corrosion
inhibiting cement need to duplicate this condition of the
HSD test sample by making repeated excursion beyond
the yield strain threshold with varying loads.
Thus, the state of reinforced concrete structures of recent
decades, constructed with HSD rebars, begs for a solution.
The problem with todays cement
Cement is an important ingredient of concrete and the
constituents of cement have changed over the years.
The main oxide compounds in cement include C3S and
C2S.

126 The Masterbuilder - July 2012 www.masterbuilder.co.in

For OPC in the USA, % Na2Oeq = 0.55 (average)17; for

the particular sample of OPC (Table 1) in India, % Na2Oeq
= 2.37, robbing OPC of its virtues of the capability to
produce copious quantities of Ca(OH)2 and the ability to
seal cracks through a process of autogenous healing.
In India, with Na2O at percentages of about 1.17 and 1.07,
and with K2O at percentages of about 0.89 and 0.86, i.e. %
Na2Oeq of 1.76 and 1.64 for PSC and PPC, respectively,
alkali contents in slag and flyash cement too are pretty
high (Table 1).
Indian cement is thus not likely to meet the standards in
other countries. In fact, Indian cement may also not satisfy
the limit of 0.60% which has been set in IS 456:200012 for
water soluble alkali content in cement.
The increased fineness of cement, including high C3A,
the dramatic rise in C3S/C2S ratio and the unacceptably
high alkali content have proved to be detrimental to
concrete and concrete constructions (Fig. 3).
Besides the type of consequences of using cement of
the type, available in India today, as can be seen in Fig.
3, high alkali cement makes concrete thirsty for water.
This absorbed water, when passed on to rebar regions,
makes the rebars corrode early, thereby making structures
distressed early unless such structures will have been
provided with surface protection systems, i.e., unless such
structures will have been given waterproofing treatment to
prevent any ingress of water.
Causes of the Problem
CPWD8 Papadakis, et al9 and Swamy10 have expressed
their findings on the lack of durability of concrete structures
which were built during recent decades. Alekseev16 put it
bluntly when he observed that the durability of concrete

Concrete Durability of Structures

structures with HSD rebars of steel was an order of

magnitude less than the durability of structures with plain
round bars of steel.
Obviously there is something wrong with HSD rebars. The
writer found out in constructing a building that whether it
were rebars or cement or/bricks, the basic materials of
construction would most likely be found to be unfit for
(durable) concrete construction6.

waterproofing treatment, conditions like those depicted

in Figs. 5-7 could happen, as unprotected concrete will
absorb moisture and water, and corrosion prone HSD
rebars will corrode.

On the basis of the preceding, more particularly on the

basis of information provided in Figs. 1, 12-14, 16 and Table
1, some factors, which play important roles in causing early
distress in concrete bridges, viaducts and other structures
of recent periods, can be identified as
- the use of cold worked high strength rebars with surface
deformations
- the use of high strength rebars with surface deformations
- the use of cement with high C3S/C2S ratios
- the permitting of excessive quantities of water soluble
alkalis in cement
- the permitting of use of cement with high C3A contents
- the making of the grain sizes of ordinary portland
cement too fine
- the lowering of the period of curing of concrete
The Solution
The best solution to the problem of early distress in concrete
structures ought to include taking a step backward and
using plain round bars of mild steel as rebars and ordinary
portland cement with properties matching those of OPC of
periods prior to 1970, or even 1960, and curing concrete
over longer periods of time as in the past.
Another solution, involving additional expenditure, would
be to improve the chemistry of rebars so that such bars
would be less susceptible to early corrosion.
Another solution would be the use of high strength rebars
with a plain surface but a deformed axis (Fig. 25)15 that can
lessen the propensity of rebars for corrosion and enhance
the durability of concrete structures without any added
cost.
Yet another solution is to provide surface protection to
concrete structures so as to prevent a moist environment
inside concrete and/or ingress of CO2 and O2, thereby
preventing carbonation of concrete and corrosion in steel
elements inside concrete.
If the surfaces of concrete structures, exposed to the
atmosphere, would not be given surface protection by

Fig. 25 : C-bar with a plain surface but a deformed axis as a solution to the
problem of early corrosion at no additional cost

If concrete bridges, viaducts and other structures are to be

made durable, particularly if improved rebars will not be
used, and cement of the right constitution will not be used,
one must then provide surface protection to all exposed
surfaces. In other words, waterproofing can be a solution
to the problem of early corrosion in HSD rebars that can
be invited by the use of high strength rebars with surface
deformations and cement with high C3S/C2S ratios as
well as large contents of water soluble alkalis.
Engineers are waking up to the reality of todays concrete
structures slowly but surely. They have started learning that
there is a greater purpose to waterproofing than to arrest
visible water leakages (Fig. 4).
The writer has written extensively during the last two
decades advocating this concept of achieving durability
of concrete bridges and other structures through surface
protection in the form of waterproofing treatment. It has
been suggested that similar to steel structures, concrete
structures can benefit from surface protection.
The effectiveness of surface protection systems in making
concrete structures durable is not merely a theoretical
proposition. This writer is privy to many structures where
the worsening of structural conditions appeared to have
stopped after the provision of effective waterproofing
treatment.
In todays scenario, any failure to take steps to prevent the
ingress of water or moisture or alternatively carbon dioxide
and oxygen through the provision of protective treatment
on the surface of concrete structures can thus be a folly.
Today, Central Public Works Department, Bureau of Indian

www.masterbuilder.co.in The Masterbuilder - July 2012 127

Concrete Durability of Structures

Standards, Indian Roads Congress and Indian Railways

are among the organisations who have agreed and issued
their guides, standards and circulars on enhancement of
the life span of concrete structures through the provision
of surface protection systems in the form of waterproofing
treatment. The Bureau of Indian Standards too recognized
the effectiveness of surface protection systems in enhancing
the life span of concrete structures.12 Unfortunately, the
engineering community appears to have overlooked the
requirements set in these documents, and concrete bridges
and viaducts, old and new, remain largely unprotected.
Waterproofing of Bridges & Viaducts

Fig. 28 : Waterproofing treatment for bridge deck

surface protection in line with specifications as detailed in

Figs. 26 and 27, are shown in Figs. 29 and 30.

As in the case of steel bridges, concrete bridges and their

supports require protection against corrosion in the steel
elements.
Indian Railways and several other organisations have adopted
specifications for specific systems of waterproofing which
were developed by the writer. Figures 26-28 show three
such items of waterproofing of concrete bridges which
were developed by the writer. The detailed specifications
can be found in Ref. 18.
The three specifications cover most cases of surface
protection required for reinforced concrete bridges and
viaducts.
The details in Figs 26-28, originally developed by the writer,
relate to specification Nos. 22.14.1, 22.14.2 and 22.14.3 in
the Indian Railways Unified Standard Specifications (Works
& Materials) & S.O.R.18 A couple of typical bridges, given

Fig. 29 : Katakhali Bridge over the

Fig. 30: Bankim Setu (Buckland
Goureswar River at Barunhat on
Bridge) over the platforms at Howrah
Hasnabad-Hingalganj Road, North 24 Station, protected as in Fig.27
Parganas, West Bengal, protected as
in Figs. 26 and 27

Concluding Remarks
Compared to concrete bridges and viaducts of earlier
periods, such structures, built during recent decades, have
suffered from early decay and distress.
In most cases, this decay is due to corrosion in high
strength steel rebars with surface deformations. Prominent
signs of corrosion in such rebars can be seen even before
concreting.
Inside concrete, because of very high strains and stresses,
rebars with surface deformations, compared to rebars
without surface deformations, can fall prey to corrosion
more easily or earlier.

Fig. 26 : Waterproofing treatment for substructure below water line and for
sidewalks

Fig. 27 : Waterproofing treatment for superstructure and substructure above

water line

128 The Masterbuilder - July 2012 www.masterbuilder.co.in

The constituents of todays cement, with high C3S/C2S

ratios, high C3A and large alkali contents, make todays
concrete less capable of protecting steel rebars than
concrete with cement of earlier periods was. Todays
concrete develops more cracks and such concrete also
has greater capacity to absorb water.
The greater rate and depth of penetration of the carbonation
front in concrete with todays blended cement make rebars
in such concrete more vulnerable to corrosion compared
to rebars in concrete with OPC of earlier periods when
alkali contents in cement were limited and C3S/C2S ratios
were low.

Concrete Durability of Structures

As solutions to the problem of early distress in todays

reinforced concrete structures several options are suggested
in the following. Implementation of any one or more of
the steps will lead to an enhancement in the life span of
bridges, viaducts and other concrete structures.
- using plain round bars of mild steel as rebars and OPC
having constituents as in the pre nineteen sixty era
- Using rebars of steel with improved chemistry/metallurgy
that would be more resistant to corrosion
- Using C-bars (whether of low, medium or high yield
strength) with plain surface and deformed axis as
rebars instead of rebars with surface deformations
- Providing surface protection in the form of waterproofing
treatment to all exposed surfaces of concrete structures
instead of providing any coatings to rebars
- Improving the quality of concrete through the addition
of admixtures, using low water cement ratios, achieving
greater compaction and lengthening the period of moist
curing.
The importance of waterproofing systems in making
concrete structures durable can be found in Refs. 5, 7,
8, 12 and 17. Reference 17 suggests, If water can be
kept out of the system after curing, then the potential for
durability related problems will be reduced markedly.
whereas Ref. 12 recommends, The life of the structures
can be lengthened by providing extra cover to steel, by
chamfering the corners or by using circular cross-sections
or by using surface coatings which prevent or reduce the
ingress of water, carbon dioxide or aggressive chemicals.
References
1. Kar, Anil K., The Ills of Todays Cement and Concrete
Structures, paper No. 534; Journal of the Indian Roads
Congress, Vol. 68, Part 2, July-September, 2007, New Delhi,
www.irc.org.in.
2. Kar, Anil K., Woe Betide Todays Concrete Structures, New
Building Materials & Construction World; New Delhi, Vol.
13, Issue-8, February, 2008, New Delhi; and Woe Betide
Todays Concrete Structures Part II, New Building Materials &
Construction World, Vol. 13, Issue-9, March, 2008, New Delhi,
www.nbmcw.com.
3. Kar, Anil K., Concrete Structures : A Tale of Reverse
Technology, RITES Journal, RITES Ltd., Vol. 10, Issue 2, July,
2008, New Delhi.
4. Kar, Anil K., and Vij, Satish K., Yearnings of a Reinforced
Concrete Structure, New Building Materials & Construction
World; New Delhi; Vol. 14, Issue-12, June, 2009, www.nbmcw.
com.
5. Kar, Anil K., and Vij, Satish K., Enhancing the Life Span of

130 The Masterbuilder - July 2012 www.masterbuilder.co.in

Concrete Bridges, New Building Materials & Construction

World, Vol. 15, Issue 6, December 2009, New Delhi, www.
nbmcw.com.
6. Kar, Anil K., Construction Materials : Products of Our
Education, New Building Materials & Construction World;
New Delhi; Vol. 15, Issue-8, February, 2010, www.nbmcw.
com.
7. Kar, Anil K., and Vij, Satish K., Waterproofing of Structures
for Durability, New Building Materials & Construction World;
New Delhi; Vol. 15, Issue-10, April, 2010, www.nbmcw.com.
8. Durability of Concrete Construction, Technical Circular
1/99, Central Designs Organisation, Central Public Works
Department, Government of India, No. CDO/SE(D)/G-29
dated 18.02.1999, New Delhi.
9. Papadakis, V. G., Vayenas, C. G., and Fardis, M. N., Physical
and Chemical Characteristics Affecting the Durability of
Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, American Concrete Institute,
March - April, 1991.
10. Swamy, R. N., Infrastructure Regeneration : the Challenge of
Climate Change and Sustainability - Design for Strength or
Durability, The Indian Concrete Journal, The ACC Ltd., Vol.
81, No. 7, July 2007, Mumbai, www.icjonline.com.
11. Kar, Anil K., FBEC rebars must not be used, The Indian
Concrete Journal, ACC Ltd. Vol. 78, No. 1, January 2004,
pp. 56-62, www.icjonline.com.
12. IS 456:2000 Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete,
Fourth Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, July
2000.
13. Kar, Anil K., Concrete Structures - the pH Potential of Cement
and Deformed Reinforcing Bars, Journal of the Institution of
Engineers (India), Civil Engineering Division, Vol. 82, June
2001, Calcutta, www.ieindia.info.
14. Kar, Anil K., Deformed Reinforcing Bars and Early Distress
in Concrete Structures, Highway Research Bulletin, No. 65,
Indian Roads Congress, December 2001, New Delhi, www.irc.
org.in.
15 Kar, Anil K., A Rebar for Durable Concrete Construction,
The Masterbuilder; Vol. 13, No. 7, Chennai; July, 2011, www.
masterbuilder.co.in.
16. Alekseev, S. N., Corrosion of Steel Reinforcement, Chapter
7 in Moskvin, V. (edited by), translated from the original
by V. Kolykhmatov, Concrete and Reinforced Concrete
Deterioration and Protection, 1990, English translation,
Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, 1993, original
Mir Publishers, Moscow 1990.
17. Johansen, Vagn C., et al, Effect of Cement Characteristics on
Concrete Properties, Portland Cement Association, Skokie,
Illinois, USA, 2005
18. Indian Railways Unified Standard Specifications (Works
& Materials) & S.O.R., Indian Railway Board, Ministry of
Railways, Government of India, 2010.