Guide to the Design of

Concrete Structures in the

Arabian Peninsula
Appendices

Published by The Concrete Society

Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula Appendices
Published by The Concrete Society

Published October 2008

© The Concrete Society

The Concrete Society

Riverside House, 4 Meadows Business Park, Station Approach, Blackwater, Camberley, Surrey GU17 9AB
Tel: +44 (0)1276 607140 Fax: +44 (0)1276 607141 www.concrete.org.uk

Other publications in this series are available from the Concrete Bookshop at www.concretebookshop.com
Tel: +44 (0)7004 607777
All rights reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in
public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should
be addressed to The Concrete Society.

Although The Concrete Society does its best to ensure that any advice, recommendations or information it may give either in this publication or elsewhere is
accurate, no liability or responsibility of any kind (including liability for negligence) howsoever and from whatsoever cause arising, is accepted in this respect by the
Group, its servants or agents.

Readers should note that publications are subject to revision from time to time and should therefore ensure that they are in possession of the latest version.

Printed by AldenHenDi, Witney, UK.

Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the
Arabian Peninsula
Appendices

Contents
List of figures iv Appendix B – Wind design 25
List of tables v B1 Overview of wind climate in the Arabian Gulf 25
B2 Characteristics of Arabian Gulf wind systems 25
Appendix A – Seismic design 1
B2.1 Synoptic winds 25
A1 Introduction 1
B2.2 Thunderstorm downbursts 26
A2 Tectonics and seismicity of the region 1
B2.3 Arabian Peninsula shamals 27
A2.1 The Arabian Plate 1
B2.4 Cyclones (originating in north-western
A2.2 Zagros Belt 1
Indian Ocean) 28
A2.3 Makran Subduction 2
B3 Conclusions 30
A3 Regional seismic hazard studies 2
A3.1 Middle East (Mortimer-Lloyd) 3 Appendix C – Test methods for self-compacting concrete 31
A3.2 Saudi Arabia (Al-Haddad et al.) 3 C1 Slump-flow test and T500 test 31
A3.3 Iran (Tavakoli and Ghafor-Ashtiany) 4 C2 V-funnel test and V-funnel test at T 5 minutes 31
A3.4 Europe, Africa and Middle East (Grunthal et al.) 6 C3 L-box test method 32
A3.5 United Arab Emirates (Abdalla and Al-Homoud) 6 C4 J-ring test 32
A3.6 Kuwait (Sadek) 8
Appendix D – Cement, slag, pfa and silica fume properties 34
A3.7 Arabian Gulf Region (Peiris et al.) 8
A3.8 Arabian Gulf (McFarlane) 9 Appendix E – Topography and climate 37
A3.9 United Arab Emirates (Musson et al.) 12 E1 Saudi Arabia 37
A3.10 Arabian Gulf (Malkawi et al.) 12 E2 Bahrain 38
A4 Site-specific seismic hazard assessments 13 E3 Kuwait 38
A4.1 Bur Juman Mall, Dubai (2000) 13 E4 Oman 39
A4.2 Burj Dubai Tower and Mall, Dubai (2003) 14 E5 United Arab Emirates 39
A4.3 Undisclosed site in Dubai (Sigbjornsson E6 The Yemen 40
and Elnashai, 2006) 14 E7 Qatar 40
A4.4 Discussion of the site-specific seismic hazard
Appendix F – Permeability testing 41
assessments 16
F1 Permeability tests 41
A5 Discussion of the seismic hazard for the Arabian
F1.1 Introduction 41
Gulf states 17
F1.2 BS EN 12390 Part 8, Depth of penetration of
A5.1 Introduction 17
water under pressure 42
A5.2 Comparison of PGA estimates 17
F1.3 BS 1881 Part 122, Water absorption 42
A5.3 Comparison of seismic hazard spectra 18
F1.4 BS 1881 Part 208, Initial surface absorption
A5.4 Site response effects 20
test (ISAT) 42
A5.5 Proposed seismic hazard for the Arabian Gulf
F1.5 ASTM C1202/AASHTO T-277, Ability to resist
Region 21
chloride ion penetration (rapid chloride
A5.6 Proposed minimum design PGA 23
permeability test) 42
A6 Conclusions and recommendations 23
F1.6 Nordtest NT Build 443 accelerated chloride
A6.1 Summary 23
penetration 43
A6.2 Implications of the inferred UAE West Coast
F1.7 Nordtest NT Build 492 chloride migration from
Fault (WCF) 23
non-steady-state migration experiments 43
A6.3 Seismic hazard for the southern Arabian Gulf
F2 Specified values 43
Region 24
F3 Summary 43
A6.4 Recommended seismic hazard for the Arabian
Peninsula 24

iii
List of figures
Figure A1 Earthquakes in the Middle East from 1975 to 1995.
Figure A2 Seismotectonics of the Arabian Plate.
Figure A3 Seismic zones and plate boundaries.
Figure A4 Comparison of attenuation relationships.
Figure A5 Seismic hazard map for Saudi Arabia showing PGA (g) contours for a 475-year return period.
Figure A6 UBC 97 Seismic zonation map for Saudi Arabia.
Figure A7 Seismicity of Iran.
Figure A8 Seismic source regions for Iran.
Figure A9 Acceleration contours for Iran.
Figure A10 GSHAP study for the Middle East.
Figure A11 Seismic source regions for the UAE and its environs.
Figure A12 UBC 97 Seismic hazard zones and PGS (g) contours for the UAE and its environs.
Figure A13 Local seismicity of Kuwait.
Figure A14 Seismic hazard map for Kuwait showing PGA contours for a 950-year return period.
Figure A15 Seismicity catalogue and seismic source regions.
Figure A16 Comparison between UBC 97 and magnitude Mw 7.0 spectra scaled to short-period (0.4s) accelerations.
Figure A17 Comparison between UBC 97 and magnitude Mw 7.0 spectra scaled to PGA.
Figure A18 Lower bound 475-year return period PGA and UBC 97 seismic hazard zones for the Arabian Gulf.
Figure A19 Upper bound 475-year return period PGA and UBC 97 seismic hazard zones for the Arabian Gulf.
Figure A20 Seismic source regions for the UAE and its environs.
Figure A21 UBC 97 Seismic hazard zones and PGA (g) contours for the UAE and its environs.
Figure A22 Seismic source Zone I.
Figure A23 475-year return period PGA isoseismals for the Arabian Gulf.
Figure A24 Seismicity catalogue and seismic source regions for Dubai.
Figure A25 Comparison between UBC 97 and Dubai site-specific spectra.
Figure A26 Seismicity catalogue.
Figure A27 Epicentres (black dots) for the UAE. Squares show cities. Solid grey lines show faults. Solid stars mark hypothetical
epicentres and the white star marks the M 5, 2002, epicentre.
Figure A28 Site-specific hazard spectra for Dubai for return periods of (A) 2475 years and (B) 947 years.
Figure A29 2475-year return period seismic hazard spectra for Dubai.
Figure A30 Comparison between UBC 97 and Dubai site-specific spectra.
Figure A31 Attenuation of PGA and short-period (0.2s) acceleration at rock sites for an Mw 5.5 earthquake at reverse fault sources.
Figure A32 Attenuation of long-period acceleration at rock sites for an Mw 7 earthquake at reverse fault sources.
Figure A33 Comparison of 475-year return period bedrock and ground surface spectra for Dubai, 5% damping.
Figure A34 Comparison between UBC 97 and 475-year return period site response spectra for 5% damping.

Figure B1 Radar image of large-scale air mass.

Figure B2 Velocity profile of synoptic winds.
Figure B3 Typical thunderstorm downburst.
Figure B4 Separation of synoptic and thunderstorm data
Figure B5 Satellite image of shamal.
Figure B6 Shamal velocity profile.
Figure B7 Cyclone Gonu (June 2007).
Figure B8 Cyclone convective storm system.
Figure B9 Cyclone wind speed profiles.

Figure C1 Base plate for flow test.

Figure C2 V-funnel.
Figure C3 L-box test apparatus.
Figure C4 J-ring test apparatus.

iv
List of tables
Table A1 PGA and spectral accelerations.
Table A2 Comparison of PGA estimates.
Table A3 Seismic coefficients Ca and Cv, for UBC 97 Zone 1, the proposed minimum Arabian Gulf Zone, ZAG, and the interpolated
0.06g PGA design spectra.
Table A4 Comparison of PGA estimates for cities in the Arabian Gulf region.

Table D1 Mechanical and physical requirements for cement from BS EN 197-1.

Table D2 Chemical requirements for Portland cement (CEM I) from BS EN 197-1.
Table D3 Compositional requirements for common cement types from ASTM C 150.
Table D4 Physical requirements for common cement types from ASTM C 150.
Table D5 BS EN 15167 requirements for ggbs.
Table D6 BS EN 450 requirements for fly ash.
Table D7 BS EN 13263 requirements for silica fume.

Table El Climate in Saudi Arabia – Jeddah.

Table E2 Climate in Saudi Arabia – Riyadh.
Table E3 Climate in Bahrain.
Table E4 Climate in Kuwait.
Table E5 Climate in Muscat.
Table E6 Climate in Sharjah.
Table E7 Climate in Kamaran Island.
Table E8 Climate in Aden, Khormaksar Airport.

Table F1 Ranges of values for results of durability tests found in various specifications.
Table F2 Typical values for results of durability tests specified for adverse exposure conditions.

v

Appendix A – Seismic design
A1 Introduction
This appendix reviews several seismic hazard studies that have
been carried out for the Arabian Peninsula. Some of the studies
have been deemed to be unreliable and conse-quently have
not been included in the recommended level of seismic
hazard. Of those studies that are deemed to be reliable, it is
recommended that the seismic hazard map presented in
Figure A6 be used for most of the Arabian Peninsula, with the
exception of those states on the southern shores of the Arabian
Gulf. For these states, it is recommended that the seismic hazard
map shown in Figure A23 be used, provided that it is supple-
mented by the minimum design peak ground acceleration (PGA)
shown in Table A4.
A2 Tectonics and seismicity of the
region
A2.1 The Arabian Plate
Figure A1, taken from the United States Geological Survey(141),
shows that the Arabian Peninsula appears to be an area of low
seismic risk with most of the seismic activity confined to the
boundaries of the Arabian Plate.
Latitude N
Longitude
Figure A1 - Earthquakes in the Middle East from 1975 to 1995.
Appendix A – Seismic design
The Arabian Plate is bounded by several major fault systems as
shown in Figure A2, taken from Johnson(142). The western boun-
dary is the Dead Sea Transform and the eastern boundary is the
Owen Fracture Zone. The Arabian Plate is characterised as a
zone of tectonic separation from the African Plate along the
Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea to the south and south-west. This
separation results in a zone of tectonic collision with the Eurasian
Plate as the Arabian Plate moves northwards. The most signifi-
cant earthquakes in the Arabian Gulf are associated with this
tectonic collision and they occur in the Zagros Belt and the
Makran Subduction, to the north and east of the Arabian Gulf
respectively.
A2.2 Zagros Belt
The Zagros Belt is the collision zone between the Arabian and
Eurasian Plates. The main Zagros Thrust is located within Iran
and it runs parallel to the coastline extending a distance of
approximately 1500km, from Turkey in the north to Oman in
the south. A zone of severe crustal deformation known as the
Zagros Folded Belt extends approximately 200km to the west
of the Zagros Thrust. The whole of this region is very active
seismically.
1
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula
Longitude
Latitude N
Figure A2 - Seismotectonics of the Arabian Plate.
A2.3 Makran Subduction
The Makran Subduction is where the Gulf of Oman region of
the Arabian Plate subducts under the Eurasian plate. This is a
region that can produce great earthquakes. However, there is a
very distinct difference between the western and eastern parts
of the Makran. There is no substantial evidence for large earth-
quakes in the western portion during the instrumental or histo-
rical periods. Furthermore, the eastern Makran, where large earth-
quakes can happen, is so remote from the Arabian Gulf that it is
very unlikely to be the source of appreciable seismic hazard.
2
A3 Regional seismic hazard
studies
The seismic hazard studies that have been published for the Gulf
States are often contradictory. For example, Al-Haddad et al.(110)
suggest that the UAE is almost aseismic, whereas Grunthal et al.(111)
suggest that it is an area of high seismic risk. This section des-
cribes regional studies that have been carried out in the Gulf
States. Most of the historical seismicity catalogues used in these
studies are based on work carried out by Ambraseys and
Melville(143).
 Appendix A – Seismic design

A3.1 Middle East (Mortimer-Lloyd)
This study by Mortimer-Lloyd(144) appears to be based on a
previous Building Research Establishment paper by Evans(145). It
has been included for historical completeness and it tends to
have been superseded by later studies. The study considers the
seismic hazard in the Middle East, including Cyprus, Egypt and
Libya. It states that a rigorous mathematical treatment of seismic
hazard is not possible due to fragmentary evidence. Nevertheless,
it does present an indication of the overall seismic risk.
The study defines two zones of seismic risk in terms of the
Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI), instead of the more usual
peak ground accelerations (PGA). These zones are defined as:
z Zone A: Areas in which an MMI intensity of VII or greater
could occur within the life-span of a permanent building.
The return period is stated to be approximately 60 years.
z Zone B: Areas which could be affected by larger distant
earthquakes or smaller local events giving rise to MMI
intensities up to V or VI.
The two zones are based on the following attenuation relation-
ship, taken from Burton(146):
MMI = 8.0 + 1.5M – 2.5 ln(h2 + d2 + 400)0.5
where
MMI = Modified Mercalli Intensity
M = magnitude (Richter)
h = focal depth (km)
d = distance from the epicentre (km).
The resulting seismic risk is shown in Figure A3a. Zones A and B
correspond approximately to UBC 97 Zones 2A and Zone 1
respectively. It is evident that Dubai lies within Zone A, which
suggests that the Mortimer-Lloyd(144) study may have been the
source reference for the UBC 97 Zone 2A classification by Dubai
Municipality.
However, the seismic risk in the Gulf States appears to be over-
estimated for the following reasons:
1. The boundary of the Arabian Plates is shown passing
through the northern UAE, which is approximately 200km
westwards of its true position (Figure A3b).
2. The attenuation relationship seems to overestimate
intensities at short distances as indicated in Figure A4. In
this figure, the Richter magnitude is assumed to be
equivalent to the moment magnitude for ease of
comparison.
A3.2 Saudi Arabia (Al-Haddad et al.)
This study by Al-Haddad et al.(110) considers the seismic hazard
throughout most of the Arabian Peninsula. The seismic source
zones defined in this study are located mainly on the western
coast along the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba. There are no
seismic source zones defined in eastern Saudi Arabia or the other
Gulf States, all of which are considered to lack any significant
seismic activity. The only source of earthquake activity identified
by Al-Haddad et al. that could significantly affect hazard levels
in the Gulf States is their source Region 11 in southern Iran,
which is assigned a maximum magnitude, Mmax, of 7.5.
The 475-year return period accelerations are shown in Figure A5.
It is evident that the only significant areas of seismic hazard are
the coastal areas along the Red Sea, a small area in north central
Saudi Arabia, north-eastern Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Iranian
coast of the Arabian Gulf.

45
Incorrect Plate Boundary
50 55 60
30 (Mortimer-Lloyd)
+
55 60
Kuwait
+
30 35 40 45 50
+ +
+ +
+
Actual Plate
+ + +
+ +
++
+
+
CYPRUS IRAN Boundary 35
+ ++
++
+
+++
+ +
+ SYRIA
IA
A (Johnson)
B
Dhahran BAHRAIN ++ ++++ ++
+ ++
+++++ ++
+
++ ++++
++++ + LEBANON N
+
Unayzah Q
QATAR + + ++
+
ISRAEL
Hofuf +
+
+ Al Fujayrah 25
IRAQ
AD JORDAN 30
Riyadh Muscat
UAE A
SAUDI ARABIA
+ B + RA N
RAIN
BAHRAIN
EGYPT 25

SAUDI UAE
+ 20 OMAN
ARABIA
Red

OMAN 20
Se
a

(a) Earthquakes and seizmic zones (b) Discrepancy in plate boundary

Figure A3 - Seismic zones (Mortimer-Lloyd(144)) and plate boundaries (Johnson(142)).

3
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula

The choice of attenuation relationship used

in this study can be questioned. However,
the study has been published in a reputable
international journal and the principles used
appear to be generally sound. Therefore, the
hazard distribution may be considered to be
a good indication of the ground motion.
Nevertheless, the hazard assessment has
been incorporated in the Saudi Arabian
building regulations as shown in Figure A6.

A3.3 Iran (Tavakoli and Ghafor-

Ashtiany)

This study by Tavakoli and Ghafor-

Ashtiany(148) considers the seismic hazard in
Iran. The seismicity catalogue used in the
study is shown in Figure A7 and the seismic
regions used to compute the hazard are
shown in Figure A8. The resulting
acceleration values (obtained from the study
by Grunthal et al.(111) are shown in Figure A9.

Figure A4 - Comparison of attenuation relationships (Evans(145), Mortimer-Lloyd(144) and

Boore et al(147)).

34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
32 32
0.05
0.1
0.15

30 30

28 28
0.2

0.1

0.10.2 0.25
0.0

5
0.0.1

0.05
0

0.0 0.1 0.15

5
5

26 5 0.05 26
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
5

24 24
Latitude N

0.2

0.1
0.0

22 22
0.0 0.15 0.2
5

0.2

5
0.15
0.1

20 20
0.0
5
0.1

0.15
18 0.2 18
0.1
0.0
5

16 16
0.2

14 14

34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
Longitude

Figure A5 - Seismic hazard map for Saudi Arabia showing PGA (g) contours for a 475-year return period (Al-Haddad et al.(110)).

4
 Appendix A – Seismic design

Latitude N

Longitude

Figure A6 - UBC 97 Seismic zonation map for Saudi Arabia (after Al-Haddad et al.(110)).

40
17
18
38 16 20 19

14

36 15
9
Latitude N

Latitude N

8
34
4
7 6
32 13 11

3
30

12
10 5
28
2

1
26
0 400km

24
45 50 55 60

Longitude Longitude

Figure A7 - Seismicity of Iran (Tavakoli and Ghafor-Ashtiany(148)). Figure A8 - Seismic source regions for Iran (Tavakoli and Ghafor-
Ashtiany(148)).

5
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula
Latitude N
Longitude
Figure A9 - Acceleration contours for Iran (Grunthal et al.(111)).
A3.4 Europe, Africa and Middle East (Grunthal
et al.)
This study was compiled as part of the Global Seismic Hazard
Assessment Programme (GSHAP) by Grunthal et al.(111) from
individual area studies. The seismic hazard obtained from the
GSHAP study, for the Gulf States in general (Figure A9) and for the
UAE in particular (Figure A10a), is relatively high. Figures A9 and
A10a show hazard levels that reach almost 0.5g in the northern-
most part of the UAE and that are greater than 0.2g in most of the
country. The implied level for Dubai is of the order of 0.3g. This
constitutes a major seismic risk (UBC 97 Zone 3). However, the
published UBC 97 zones show the opposite. Doha, Abu Dhabi
and Dubai are all specified as Zone 0 and Muscat as Zone 2A. This
constitutes negligible and moderate seismic hazard respectively.
The probable reason for the high PGA estimate in the GSHAP
study is shown in Figure A10b. The Gulf States fell outside the
areas covered by the different sub-projects which constituted
the study. Grunthal et al. explain that
‘here the hazard was mapped by simulating the attenuated
effect of the seismic activity … in the Zagros province of Iran’.
It would appear that the effects of the major earthquakes in
Iran were not sufficiently attenuated to obtain reliable estimates
of the actual seismic risk in the Gulf States, in general, and in the
UAE, in particular. Bommer(149) suggests that these mapped
values should be rejected as having a weak scientific basis and
being very over-conservative.
6
m/s2
A3.5 United Arab Emirates (Abdalla and Al-
Homoud)
This study by Abdalla and Al-Homoud(150) considers the seismic
hazard throughout the UAE and its immediate environs. The
seismic source regions used in the study are shown in Figure A11
and the resulting acceleration values and UBC 97 zonation are
shown in Figure A12. It is possible to criticise any seismic hazard
assessment and this study is no exception. The main criticisms
are as follows:
z The seismic Regions III and VI appear to have been chosen
to maximise the risk in the northern UAE, rather than to
encapsulate areas of known seismic activity.
z The maximum earthquake magnitude in the UAE appears to
be too high for a region of relatively low seismic activity. For
example, Regions I and V, the areas of the highest seismic
activity in Iran, were allocated magnitudes of 6.5 and 6.8
respectively. This is lower than the magnitude of 7.0 allocated
to Region VII in the UAE. Consequently, the seismic risk in the
UAE appears to be overestimated by extending the Zagros
hazard levels southwards into the UAE.
The latter of these criticisms was addressed in a site-specific study
for Dubai (see Al-Homoud(151)), in which the magnitude for
Region VII was reduced to 5.5. This resulted in a reduction in the
seismic hazard for Dubai from UBC 97 Zone 2A to below Zone 1.
This estimate of seismic hazard correlates with the independent
studies carried out by Bommer(149), Wood and Irvine(152), Peiris et
al.(116), McFarlane(153) and Musson et al.(117).
 Appendix A – Seismic design

15
10

11 40

14

30

Latitude N
0 12
0

0
20
16

10
13

(a) Seismic hazard (b) Areas covered by local studies

Figure A10 - GSHAP study for the Middle East (Grunthal et al.(110)).
Latitude N

Longitude

Figure A11 - Seismic source regions for the UAE and its environs (Abdalla and Al-Homoud(150)).

7
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula

Latitude N

Longitude

Figure A12 - UBC 97 Seismic hazard zones and PGS (g) contours for the UAE and its environs (Abdalla and Al Homoud(150)).

A3.6 Kuwait (Sadek) A3.7 Arabian Gulf Region (Peiris et al.)

This study by Sadek(154) considers the seismic hazard for Kuwait.
The local seismicity used in the study is shown in Figure A13
and the resulting acceleration values are shown in Figure A14.
It should be noted that the acceleration values used are based
on a 10% probability of exceedence in 100 years. This equates
to a 950-year return period whereas the other studies in this
paper use a 475-year return period.
A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the Arabian Gulf
Region was carried out by Peiris et al.(116). Their seismicity cata-
logue and source zones are shown in Figure A15. The seismicity
catalogue included earthquakes since 0 AD, with foreshocks
and aftershocks removed.

PGA (g)
0.225g

0.200g

0.175g

0.150g

0.125g

0.100g

0.075g

0.050g

Figure A13 - Local seismicity of Kuwait (Sadek(154)). Figure A14 - Seismic hazard map for Kuwait showing PGA contours for
a 950-year return period (Sadek(154)).

8
 Appendix A – Seismic design

Figure A15 - Seismicity catalogue and seismic source regions (Peiris et al.(116)).

Peiris et al. state that the seismic hazard for most cities in the The main seismic hazard for most of the Gulf States is from
Arabian Gulf Region is similar. The sole exception is shown to earthquakes in the Zagros Belt in Iran. Therefore, the 475-return
be Kuwait City which has a higher seismic hazard. Peiris et al. period seismic hazard is adequately represented by an Mw 7.0
derived PGA and short-period (0.2s) and 1s period spectral earthquake in source region 13 (Zagros Belt) defined by Tavakoli
accelerations for several cities in the region as show in Table A1. and Ghafor-Ashtiany(148). McFarlane modelled the seismic hazard
in the Gulf States by calculating the acceleration at various
Location PGA (g) 0.2s SA (g) 1.0s SA (g) distances from region 13 to determine the appropriate isoseismals.
475-year 2475-year 475-year 2475-year 475-year 2475-year
The attenuation relationship developed by Boore et al.(147) was
used.
Abu Dhabi 0.05 0.10 0.081 0.145 0.038 0.074
Dubai 0.06 0.12 0.107 0.186 0.053 0.102
The response spectra derived using this attenuation relationship
Kuwait City 0.12 0.27 0.125 0.298 0.044 0.082
are shown in Figures A16 and A17 and they are compared with
Manama 0.06 0.12 0.089 0.167 0.039 0.071
the UBC 97 Zone 2A and Zone 1 spectra. McFarlane originally
Doha 0.05 0.10 0.081 0.147 0.035 0.065 calibrated the isoseismals to short-period (0.4s) accelerations,
Muscat 0.04 0.10 0.092 0.186 0.048 0.121 which gave a good approximation to the UBC 97 spectra as
Table A1 - PGA and spectral accelerations (after Peiris et al.(116)). shown in Figure A16. However, it is more conservative to calibrate
the seismic hazard to PGA, which results in the spectra shown
The seismic hazard derived by Peiris et al. is discussed later. in Figure A17.

The resulting seismic hazard is shown in Figure A19. The iso-

A3.8 Arabian Gulf (McFarlane)
A deterministic seismic hazard assessment was carried out by
McFarlane(153) for the southern Arabian Gulf States. This procedure is
approximate, but it is simpler and more transparent than a full
probabilistic analysis. The procedure may also be used as a check of
the results obtained from probabilistic analyses. It is similar to the
methodology suggested by Bommer et al.(155) and Bommer(149). This
method defines an earthquake scenario (magnitude and distance)
that is comparable with the seismic hazard at a site from a seismic
source region.
seismals were derived by placing Mw 7.0 events along the border
of the Tavakoli and Ghafor-Ashtiany(148) source region 13. The
PGA isoseismals for 0.15g, 0.75g and 0.05g are located at 42km,
102km and 170km from source region 13. These correspond to
UBC 97 Zone 2B, Zone 2A and Zone 1 respectively.
The seismic hazard described in Figures A18 and A19 may be
regarded as reasonable upper and lower bounds of the actual
seismic hazard.

9
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula

Figure A16 - Comparison between UBC 97 and magnitude Mw 7.0 spectra scaled to short-period (0.4s) accelerations.

Figure A17 - Comparison between UBC 97 and magnitude Mw 7.0 spectra scaled to PGA.

10
 Appendix A – Seismic design

Figure A18 - Lower bound 475-year return period PGA and UBC 97 seismic hazard zones for the Arabian Gulf (McFarlane(153)).

Figure A19 - Upper bound 475-year return period PGA and UBC 97 seismic hazard zones for the Arabian Gulf.

11
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 30
30
0.2g

0.3g
Iran
6.4 7.0
29 6.4 29
Khasab
Zone 2A
6.6 0.1g 26 N
28 28 0.
7.0 05
g Ras Al Khaimah Oman
7.1 Dibba
Umm Al Qiwen
5.7 Ajman Zone 2A
27 Doha ARABIAN GULF Sharjah Zone 1 0.1g
27 6.5 6.4
Dubai

0.0
5.4 Quatar Fujairah

5g
5.8 4.9 GULF
5.8
26 5.8 26 OF
5.1 OMAN
Abu Dhabi
4.8
Al Ain
25 25
3.8 24 N

24 24
Zone 0 Oman
5.5

23 5.5 23

Saudi Arabia
22 22 52 E 54 E 56 E
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Figure A20 - Seismic source regions for the UAE and its environs Figure A21 - UBC 97 Seismic hazard zones and PGA (g) contours for the
(Musson et al.(117)). UAE and its environs (Musson et al.(117)).

A3.9 United Arab Emirates (Musson et al.)

A probabilistic seismic analysis for the UAE and surrounding area

was carried out by Musson et al.(117). The seismic source regions
used in the study are shown in Figure A20 and the resulting
acceleration values and UBC 97 zonation are shown in Figure A21.

The seismic hazard derived by Musson et al. is discussed later.

A3.10 Arabian Gulf (Malkawi et al.)

A probabilistic analysis for the UAE and its immediate environs

was carried out by Malkawi et al.(112). They did not split the region
into specific seismic source zones based on known tectonic
features. Instead they used two mega-zones as seismic source
regions. The theoretical exactitude of using mega-zones for a
probabilistic analysis could be questioned; however, the results
from the assessment are very similar to those studies that use Figure A22 - Seismic source Zone I (Malkawi et al.(112)).
theoretically correct source-region methodology. The mega-
zones used by Malkawi et al. are Source I (which is shown in However, Source II gives results that are closer to the deterministic
Figure A22) and Source II which included Source I and extended assessment carried out by McFarlane(153) and the probabilistic
it to an area approximately 1000km from the UAE. They state assessments by Peiris et al.(116) and Musson et al.(117). Furthermore,
that the two source zones give approximately the same results, the Source II assessment gives an excellent correlation with the
but that Source I gives slightly higher PGA. They also state that site-specific assessments carried out by Wood and Irvine(152) and
this may be due to the smaller activity rate parameter for Source I. Al-Homoud(156) for Dubai, which are described in the next section.

Therefore, the Source II assessment will be used in this report.

The seismic hazard derived by Malkawi et al. from this source is
shown in Figure A23.

12

Figure A23 - 475-year return period PGA isoseismals for the Arabian Gulf (Malkawi et al.(112)).
A4 Site-specific seismic hazard
assessments
Four site-specific hazard assessments for Dubai, UAE are pre-
sented in this section. They were carried out independently by
seismologists who used different analysis methodologies and
source-zone modelling.
A4.1 Bur Juman Mall, Dubai (2000)
In Dubai, seismic design to UBC 97 Zone 2A is required for
buildings over four storeys. However, the proposed extension
to the existing Bur Juman Centre would increase the height of
the existing four-storey building to five storeys. This would entail
an upgrade of the building to comply with seismic detailing to
UBC 97 Zone 2A. Therefore, a seismic assessment was carried out
by Bommer(149) in order to obtain a relaxation in the building
regulations by reducing the seismic detailing for the upgrade
works to UBC 97 Zone 1. This would make the upgrade work
less onerous.
In the seismic hazard assessment, Bommer states that the region
surrounding Dubai is almost aseismic. He also states that the
main seismic hazard is due either to small local earthquakes
that are of little structural significance or to large seismic events
in the Zagros region on the Iranian side of the Arabian Gulf.
Appendix A – Seismic design
A deterministic approach was used in this assessment and
maximum credible earthquakes at known seismic zones were
derived from the Tavakoli and Ghafor-Ashtiany(148) study. The
earthquake scenarios used were magnitude Mw = 7.0 at 95km
from Dubai and magnitude Mw = 7.2 at 160km from Dubai in the
Zagros Folded Belt. Bommer shows that an M = 7.0 in Region 13
of the Ghafor-Ashtiany study is the critical design case for Dubai.
A typical design spectrum, derived by Bommer, is shown in
Figure A25.
The following conservative assumptions were made in the
hazard assessment:
1. The maximum credible earthquake in the seismic source
zone defined for the region was used to establish the earth-
quake scenario.
2. The spectral ordinates were calculated using an attenuation
relationship (Boore et al.(147)) that accounts for the increased
amplitude in ground motions due to reverse faulting earth-
quakes, such as those encountered in the Zagros Belt.
3. The site-specific spectra were calculated using the mean-
plus-one-standard-deviation values from the attenuation
relationship, which corresponds to the 84-percentile.
Bommer concluded that the Zone 2A spectrum is unnecessarily
conservative for the level of seismic hazard at the site. He also
recommended that the UBC 97 Zone 1 spectrum could be safely
and confidently adopted for seismic design in Dubai.
13
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula
Latitude N
Longitude
Figure A24 - Seismicity catalogue and seismic source regions for Dubai (Wood and Irvine(152)).
A4.2 Burj Dubai Tower and Mall, Dubai (2003)
Two studies were used for the seismic design of the Burj Dubai
project, namely Wood and Irvine(152) and Al-Homoud(151). Both
studies used a probabilistic approach to assess the seismic
hazard. The seismicity catalogue and the source regions used by
Wood and Irvine are shown in Figure A24. The resulting hazard
is discussed later.
An earlier study by Al-Homoud(151) used a similar seismicity
catalogue and identical source regions to the Abdalla and Al-
Homoud study(150). These studies contain the error discussed
previously, namely the use of an unrealistically large earthquake
magnitude in the Northern Emirates. Consequently, the study
was rejected by the consulting engineer as unreliable and
providing an overestimate of the seismic hazard.
A revised study was carried out by Al-Homoud(156) for the Dubai
Mall project. In this study the maximum earthquake magnitude was
reduced from 7.0 to 5.5 in source region VII shown in Figure A11.
14
This resulted in a reduction of the seismic risk from UBC 97 Zone 2A
to Zone 1. Figure A25 shows that the resulting spectrum compares
very well with the Wood and Irvine(152) spectrum. It also compares
well with the deterministic spectrum suggested by a Bommer(149).
A4.3 Undisclosed site in Dubai (Sigbjornsson
and Elnashai, 2006)
Sigbjornsson and Elnashai(157) carried out this assessment for an
undisclosed site in Dubai during April 2004. The seismicity cat-
alogue used by them is shown in Figure A26. They indicate that
they have used the seismic regions described in the Tavakoli and
Ghafor-Ashtiany(148) assessment, but they also indicate that they
have also included the Dibba Fault on the east coast of the UAE
and a fault along the west coast of the UAE. However, no details
of the seismic source regions or hazard calculations are presented
in the paper.
 Appendix A – Seismic design

Figure A25 - Comparison between UBC 97 and Dubai site-specific spectra.

The UAE West Coast Fault (WCF) is shown in the tectonic map of
30.0 N
Saudi Arabia (Johnson(142)) and the source for the fault trace on
the map appears to be Murris(158). However, there is no direct
reference to the WCF in either Johnson or Murris, but the latter
does interpret it to be part of the Dibba Fault system. Further-
27.5 N
more, the detailed regional Arabian Gulf–Gulf of Oman tectonic
study carried out by Searle(159) for the Musandam Peninsula does
not indicate any faulting system in the UAE south and west of
the Dhaid–Ras Al Khaimah axis. This would appear to cast serious
Dubai
25.0 N doubts on the existence of the WCF.

The WCF (see Figure A27) was included in an estimate of damage

caused by hypothetical seismic events in the UAE by Wyss and
22.5 N
Al-Homoud(160), but the authors stress that it is not known
whether or not the WCF is active. The inclusion of the WCF in
an estimate of damage due to hypothetical seismic events is
reasonable, but its inclusion in the Sigbjornsson and Elnashai
20.0 N
seismic hazard assessment is contentious because there is
50.0 E 52.5 E 55.0 E 57.5 E 60.0 E neither apparent associated seismicity nor geological evidence
of recent (Quaternary) seismic activity.
Figure A26 - Seismicity catalogue (Sigbjornsson and Elnashai(157)).
The hazard spectra derived by Sigbjornsson and Elnashai are
shown in Figure A28. These show hazard levels that are signifi-
cantly higher than those derived in the site-specific assessments
carried out by Bommer(149), Wood and Irvine(152) and Al-Homoud(161).
The Sigbjornsson and Elnashai hazard levels are also significantly
higher than those presented by Abdalla and Al-Homoud(150), and
they are conservative and were later reduced by Al-Homoud.

15
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula

Figure A27 - Epicentres (black dots) for the UAE. Squares show cities. Figure A28 - Site-specific hazard spectra for Dubai for return periods of
Solid grey lines show faults. Solid stars mark hypothetical epicentres and (A) 2475 years and (B) 947 years (Sigbjornsson and Elnashai(157)).
the white star marks the Mw 5, 2002, epicentre (Wyss and Al-Homoud(160)).

A4.4 Discussion of the site-specific seismic
hazard assessments
The 2003 Al-Homoud(151) assessment has been shown to be
deficient in that it used an unreasonably high earthquake in
the Northern Emirates, which led to an overestimate of the
seismic hazard. This error was also present in the Abdalla and
Al-Homoud study(150), but was later (in 2004) corrected by Al-
Homoud(156).
The 2475-year return period seismic hazard derived by Sigbjorn-
sson and Elnashai(157) for Dubai is shown in Figure A29. Their
spectrum is compared with the 2475-year spectra derived by
Wood and Irvine(152) and Peiris et al.(116). It is evident that the
Sigbjornsson and Elnashai hazard is approximately three and
five times that of Wood and Irvine and Peiris et al. respectively.

Figure A29 - 2475-year return period seismic hazard spectra for Dubai.

16
 Appendix A – Seismic design

Comparison with the hazard spectrum for an Mw 6.5 event at A5.2 Comparison of PGA estimates
20km suggests that the Sigbjornsson and Elnashai hazard is
strongly influenced by high-magnitude near-source events, The estimates of PGA for Dubai from the site-specific and
probably the inferred West Cost Fault (WCF). It has been stated regional hazard assessments are shown in Table A2.
earlier that the inclusion of the WCF in a seismic hazard assess-
ment is contentious because it is not known if the fault exists. Seismic assessment by: PGA (g)
Furthermore, there is neither apparent associated seismicity (152)
Wood and Irvine : Reverse faulting 0.078
nor geological evidence of recent (Quaternary) seismic activity. Strike-slip faulting 0.058
In addition, a study by Aldama-Bustos et al, (A1) compares Weighted average 0.072
favourably with the low seismic hazard presented by Peiris et al Al-Homoud(156) 0.075
(116)
and Musson et al (117) assessments. Therefore, the Peiris et al.(116) 0.060
Sigbjornsson and Elnashai seismic hazard assess-ment must be Musson et al.(117) 0.050
considered to be very conservative. McFarlane(153) 0.050
Malkawi et al.(112) 0.075
Figure A19 0.072

A5 Discussion of the seismic hazard Table A2 - Comparison of PGA estimates.

for the Arabian Gulf states
A5.1 Introduction
From the material presented in the previous sections of this
appendix, the hazard for the southern Arabian Gulf states is
generally low. Nevertheless, four studies suggest a higher hazard
level and these have been discounted for the following reasons:
z The assessment by Mortimer-Lloyd(144) has been included
for historical completeness and it has been superseded by
later studies.
z The Grunthal et al.(111) study has no scientific basis for the
southern Arabian Gulf states.
z The Abdalla and Al-Homoud(150) study unjustifiably extends
high seismicity from the Zagros region significantly south-
wards into the UAE.
z Sigbjornsson and Elnashai(157) obtain a high hazard by
including the inferred WCF as a major seismic source, but
there is neither apparent associated seismicity nor geological
evidence of historical seismic activity.
The Al-Haddad et al.(110) hazard assessment has been included
in the Saudi Arabian building regulations and therefore may be
used for most of the Arabian Peninsula. However, it should be
amended to include the later studies that have been carried out
for the southern Arabian Gulf states, which are described below.
Eight seismic assessments have been presented which can be
considered to be reliable. These present a relatively low seismic
hazard for the southern Arabian Gulf states. Five of the assess-
ments are regional studies and three are site-specific for Dubai.
The regional assessments are by Sadek(154), Peiris et al.(116), McFar-
lane(153), Musson et al.(117) and Malkawi et al.(112). The site-specific
assessments were carried out for Dubai by Bommer(149), Wood
and Irvine(152) and Al-Homoud(156). These assessments (regional
and site-specific) are used as the basis for discussion of seismic
hazard.
The Musson et al.(117) and McFarlane(153) assessments estimate
PGA for Dubai to be 0.05g, whereas the other assessments esti-
mate PGA to be within the 0.058g to 0.075g range. This range of
PGA estimates is not unreasonable and is probably due to the
differences in the attenuation relationship. For example, Wood and
Irvine(152) present a weighted average for PGA for the Abraham-
son and De Silva(162) attenuation relationship. This average is
based on the assumption that ground motions in Dubai from
reverse faulting are twice as likely as ground motions from
strike-slip faulting. Their PGA estimates for reverse faulting and
strike-slip faulting are 0.058g and 0.078g respectively – a not
insignificant difference for a variation of the same attenuation
relationship.
Furthermore, Figure A31a indicates that the Abrahamson and
De Silva relationship predicts higher PGA than the Ambraseys
and Melville(143) relationship for Mw 5.5 events up to a distance
of approximately 150km. The former relationship was used by
Wood and Irvine and Al-Homoud and the latter by Peiris et al.
and Musson et al.
From the foregoing, the PGA estimates for Dubai are in reason-
able agreement and range from 0.05g to 0.075g. The differences
in the PGA estimates would appear to be due to the choice of
attenuation relationship.
The 950-year return period PGA of 0.125g to 0.15g derived by
Sadek(154) for Kuwait City compare reasonably well with the
PGA values of 0.12g and 0.27g derived by Peiris et al. for return
periods of 475 years and 2475 years respectively. Consequently,
either estimate may be used for design, but the Peiris et al. values
are based on more common return periods and therefore are
more useful for design.

17
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula
A5.3 Comparison of seismic hazard spectra
Peiris et al.(116) derived seismic hazard spectra for several major
cities in the Arabian Gulf Region and Musson et al.(117) derived
seismic hazard spectra for seven major cities in the UAE. The
hazard derived by Peiris et al. for the cities is similar, with the
exception of Kuwait City, which has a higher seismic hazard
(see Table A1). Furthermore, Peiris et al. provide greater details
regarding the hazard in Dubai and consequently their data for
Dubai is used to discuss matters relating to the regional seismic
hazard.
The seismic hazard spectra for Dubai from the pertinent site-
specific and regional hazard assessments are shown in Figure A30.
It is evident that the UBC 97 Zone 1 spectrum for soft rock sites
provides a reasonable estimate of the Wood and Irvine(152) and
Al-Homoud(156) spectra. It is also evident that the UBC 97 Zone 1
spectrum for rock sites provides a reasonable envelope of the
Peiris et al. and Musson et al. spectra at periods greater than 1s.
Nevertheless, despite the PGA estimates derived by Peiris et al.
and Musson et al. being in reasonable agreement with those
derived by Wood and Irvine and Al-Homoud, the spectral
accelerations at periods greater than zero are not in good agree-
ment. Part of the discrepancy can be explained by the Peiris et al.
and Musson et al. spectra being based on bedrock values (shear
wave velocity, Vs > 760m/s), whereas the Wood and Irvine and
Al-Homoud spectra are based on soft rock values (shear wave
velocity, 360m/s < Vs < 760m/s). This would reduce the PGA
estimates by approximately 20% and the short-period spectral
ordinates even further.
Figure A30 - Comparison between UBC 97 and Dubai site-specific spectra.
18
Furthermore, another difference in the response spectra is
probably due to the attenuation relationships used. Peiris et al.
used different relationships for different source regions and they
used the attenuation equations by Ambraseys and Melville(143)
and Sadigh et al.(163) for the Zagros region and the Makran region.
Musson et al. also used the Ambraseys and Melville relationship,
whereas Wood and Irvine and Al-Homoud used the Abraham-
son and De Silva(162) relationship.
Wood and Irvine explain that they used the Abrahamson and
De Silva relationship because this relationship is based on strong
motion date recorded out to 300km. They note that the four
attenuation relationships considered by them show reasonable
agreement for distances up to 60km. They also note that the
spectral accelerations in the 100–300km range are significantly
higher for the Abrahamson and De Silva relationship when com-
pared with the other relationships in general and the Sadigh et al.
relationship in particular.
Therefore, it would be informative to compare the Abrahamson
and De Silva attenuation relationship used by Wood and Irvine
and Al-Homoud with the Ambraseys and Melville relationship
used by Peiris et al. and Musson et al.
Figure A31 shows the PGA and short-period (0.2s) spectral acce-
leration for an Mw 5.5 earthquake. This magnitude of earthquake
is only likely to have structural implications for near-source events.
It is evident from Figure A31 that the Abrahamson and De Silva
relationship predicts higher short-period accelerations for dis-
tances up to 120km. Furthermore, at 30km and 50km the Abra-
hamson and De Silva 0.2s spectral accelerations are 50% and 30%
greater than the corresponding Ambraseys and Melville values.
 Appendix A – Seismic design

(a) PGA (b) Spectral acceleration at T = 0.2s

Figure A31 - Attenuation of PGA and short-period (0.2s) acceleration at rock sites for an Mw 5.5 earthquake at reverse fault sources.

(a) Spectral acceleration at T = 1s (b) Spectral acceleration at T = 2s

Figure A32 - Attenuation of long-period acceleration at rock sites for an Mw 7 earthquake at reverse fault sources.

Figure A32 shows the long-period (1 and 2s) spectral acceleration
for an Mw 7 earthquake. An Mw 7 earthquake is likely to have
structural implications for distant-source events. It is evident
that the Abrahamson and De Silva relationship predicts higher
long-period accelerations for distances greater than about 100km.
Furthermore, for distances of 200– 300km the Abrahamson and
De Silva spectral accelerations are 40–80% greater than the
corresponding Ambraseys and Melville values.
From the foregoing, it is evident that the Abrahamson and De
Silva attenuation relationship tends to predict higher spectral
accelerations than the Ambraseys and Melville relationship for
the small-magnitude near-source events and large-magnitude
distant-source events pertaining to the southern Arabian Gulf
states. This probably explains the higher spectral accelerations
derived by the Wood and Irvine and Al-Homoud response spectra
when compared with those derived by Peiris et al. and Musson et
al., as shown in the response spectra presented in Figure A30.

19
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula
Therefore, until generally agreed attenuation relationships are
available for the Arabian Gulf Region, it would be prudent to
include the Abrahamson and De Silva(162) relationship in seismic
hazard assessments. It would also be prudent to give it more
weight than other relationships that are generally in use.
A5.4 Site response effects
Seismic hazard in the southern shores of the Arabian Gulf Region
is due to either small-magnitude local earthquakes that are not
associated with known tectonic features or large-magnitude
distant events that are associated with known tectonic features.
Peiris et al.(116) modelled these site response scenarios by scaling
their bedrock motions for Dubai to the October 2001, Melton
Mowbray, UK, Earthquake (Ms 3.9 at 15km) and the September
1985 Mexico City Earthquake (Mw 8.1 at 400km). The Melton
Mowbray record was selected to represent a low-magnitude near-
source earthquake scenario and the Mexico City record was
selected to represent a large-magnitude distant-source earth-
quake scenario. The Peiris et al. spectra are shown in Figure A33.
Figure A33a shows the very dense soil response spectra. There
is a significant amplification of the ground surface response for
(a) Very dense soil and stiff rock spectra,
UBC 97 soil type SC
(b) Soft soil spectra, UBC 97 soil type SE
Figure A33 - Comparison of 475-year return period bedrock and ground surface spectra for Dubai, 5% damping (Peiris et al.(116)).
20
the near-source (Melton Mowbray) earthquake scenario in the
short-period range up to 0.3s. Conversely, the distant-source
(Mexico City) earthquake scenario shows the ground surface
response spectrum to be similar to the bedrock spectrum.
Figure A33b shows the soft soil response spectra. The near-
source (Melton Mowbray) earthquake scenario was not amplified
in the short-period range. However, the distant-source (Mexico
City) earthquake scenario shows significant amplification of the
ground surface response spectrum in the medium to long
period range.
The Peiris et al. PGA of 0.6g and bedrock spectrum shown in
Figure A33 would place Dubai and most of the other Arabian
Gulf cities in UBC 97 Zone 0, for which no seismic design is
required. Nevertheless, it is proposed to allow for the near-source
and distant-source earthquake scenarios by specifying a minimum
Arabian Gulf Earthquake, Zone ZAG (the suffix AG meaning
Arabian Gulf ). Eurocode 8 specifies a minimum reference PGA of
0.05g for seismic design. Therefore, it is reasonable to base the
Zone ZAG spectrum on a PGA of 0.05g. The spectrum is derived
by linear extrapolation of the UBC 97 coefficients, Ca and Cv, as
shown in Table A3. These coefficients can also be used to derive
appropriate International Building Code (IBC) and Eurocode 8
coefficients as shown in the design section of this report.
 Appendix A – Seismic design

Spectrum Seismic Soil profile type

classification coefficient SA SB SC SD SD
UBC 97 Zone 1 Ca 0.060 0.075 0.090 0.120 0.190
(0.075g PGA)
Cv 0.060 0.075 0.125 0.180 0.260
Interpolated Ca 0.048 0.060 0.072 0.100 0.168
(0.060g PGA)
Cv 0.048 0.060 0.100 0.152 0.212
Zone ZAG Ca 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.087 0.153
(0.05g PGA)
Cv 0.040 0.050 0.083 0.133 0.180

Table A3 - Seismic coefficients Ca and Cv, for UBC 97 Zone 1, the proposed minimum Arabian Gulf Zone, ZAG, and the interpolated 0.06g PGA design
spectra.

The applicability of the Zone ZAG spectrum is checked by com-
parison with the near-source and distant-source scenarios sug-
gested by Peiris et al. These are summarised in Figure A34a to c.
The Peiris et al. bedrock spectrum is included in each of these
figures to allow scale comparison.
Furthermore, in order to allow a correct comparison with the
Peiris et al. data, interpolated spectra based on the Peiris et al.
PGA of 0.06g are used for the comparison. The seismic coeffi-
cients for the interpolated spectra are shown in Table A3. These
coefficients are based on linear interpolation of the UBC 97
Zone 1 and the proposed Zone ZAG coefficients for each of the
soil profile types.
Figure A34a compares bedrock response spectra for UBC 97 soil
type SB and it shows that the near-source (Melton Mowbray)
earthquake scenario exhibits large amplification at short period.
However, it is evident that the interpolated spectrum provides a
good estimate of this short-period amplification and that it also
provides an excellent correlation with the equivalent Peiris et al.
spectrum at long period. Figure A34a also shows that the Zone
ZAG spectrum provides a safe envelope for the equivalent Musson
et al.(117) spectrum at short period and a slight underestimate at
long period.
Figure A34b compares surface response spectra for UBC 97 soil
type SD. It should be noted that Peiris et al. used UBC 97 soil type
SC for their calculated average shear wave velocity , Vs = 455m/s.
This is technically correct; however, UBC 97 specifies soil type
SD for Vs = 360m/s, which is closer to 455m/s than the 760m/s
upper range for soil type SC. Therefore, soil type SD is used for the
comparison in Figure A34b. The near-source (Melton Mowbray)
earthquake scenario exhibits large amplification at short period.
However, it is evident that the interpolated spectrum provides
a good estimate of this amplification
Figure A34c compares surface response spectra for UBC 97 soil
type SE. The distant-source (Mexico City) earthquake scenario
exhibits large amplification of the ground surface response in
the medium- to long-period range. However, it is evident that
the Zone ZAG spectrum and the interpolated spectrum provide
a safe envelope of this amplification.
The Eurocode 8 and IBC spectra were also compared with the
earthquake scenarios shown in Figure A34, by using the spectral
accelerations described in Table A1. The Eurocode 8 spectra give
similar estimates of the ground surface amplifications to those
derived by the interpolated spectra for all periods. However, the
IBC spectra underestimate the amplifications at short period
and overestimate them at long period.
From the foregoing, it is evident that the proposed Zone ZAG
classification allows a very good correlation with the near-source
and distant-source ground surface amplification scenarios sug-
gested by Peiris et al. Therefore it would be prudent to use the
Zone ZAG classification to replace UBC 97 Zone 0 in areas of low
seismicity in the Arabian Gulf Region. This would allow for site
response amplification effects that are not modelled by Zone 0
but which are particular to the region, namely small-magnitude
near-source and large-magnitude distant-source earthquake
scenarios. Linear interpolation between the UBC 97 Zone 1 and
Zone ZAG coefficients may be used where appropriate.
A5.5 Proposed seismic hazard for the Arabian
Gulf Region
The PGA isoseismals from the probabilistic seismic assessments
shown in Figures A20 and A23 (Musson et al.(117) and Malkawi
et al.(112) respectively) show a similar shape of seismic hazard. How-
ever, the Malkawi et al. hazard assessment, with the isoseismals
extending further southwards, is generally more conservative
than the Musson et al. assessment. The only major exception to
this is that Musson et al. show a higher hazard between Dibba
and Fujeirah on the east coast of the UAE. This is probably due
to their more detailed study of the seismotectonics of this area.
Furthermore, the shape and distribution of the seismic hazard
derived by these probabilistic assessments is consistent with
the deterministic assessments presented in this appendix. The
McFarlane(153) assessment shown in Figure A18 shows a good
correlation with the Musson et al. assessment, while Figure A19
depicts a similar agreement with the Malkawi et al. assessment.

21
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula

(a) Melton Mowbray, UBC 97 and other bedrock spectra, soil type SB

(b) Melton Mowbray and UBC 97 stiff soil spectra, soil type SD

(c) Mexico City and UBC 97 soft soil spectra, soil type SE

Figure A34 - Comparison between UBC 97 and 475-year return period site response spectra for 5% damping (after Peiris et al.(116)).

22
 Appendix A – Seismic design

Country City Peiris et al.(116) (g) Musson et al.(117) (g) Malkawi et al.(112) (g) Proposed minimum
design PGA (g)
Bahrain Manama 0.060 – – 0.060
Kuwait Kuwait City 0.120 – – 0.120
Oman Muscat 0.050 – – 0.050
Qatar Doha 0.040 – 0.030 0.050
Saudi Arabia Dammam – – – 0.050
Al Khobar – – – 0.050
UAE Abu Dhabi 0.060 0.035 0.060 0.060
Dubai 0.060 0.050 0.075 0.075
Fujeirah – 0.080 0.065 0.080
Umm Al Quain – 0.065 0.080 0.080
Ras Al Khaimah – 0.800 0.100 0.100

Table A4 - Comparison of PGA estimates for cities in the Arabian Gulf region.

From the foregoing, it would be reasonable to consider the seis-
mic hazard maps prepared by Malkawi et al. and Musson et al.
as upper and lower bounds respectively for the seismic hazard
in the Arabian Gulf Region. However, for design purposes, it
would be prudent to supplement these hazard maps by using
the conservative design assumptions discussed in the following
sections.
A5.6 Proposed minimum design PGA
The Peiris et al.(116) and the Musson et al.(117) estimates of PGA
are shown in Table A4. These are compared with the estimates
of PGA derived from the Malkawi et al.(112) isoseismals shown in
Figure A23 and the proposed minimum Zone ZAG classification
(PGA of 0.05g) for areas of low seismicity in the Arabian Gulf
Region.
Inspection of Table A4 indicates that the proposed minimum
design values provide conservative, but not excessively high,
estimates of PGA.
A6.2 Implications of the inferred UAE West
Coast Fault
Sigbjornsson and Elnashai(157) obtain a high hazard by including
the inferred UAE West Coast Fault (WCF) as a major seismic
source. However, there is neither apparent associated seismicity
nor geological evidence of historical seismic activity to prove
the existence of the WCF. Therefore, its inclusion in the
Sigbjornsson and Elnashai seismic hazard assessment is difficult
to justify. The WCF is shown in the tectonic map of Saudi Arabia
(see Johnson(142)) and the source for the fault trace on the map
appears to be Murris(158). However, there is no direct reference
to the WCF in Murris, but he does interpret it to be part of the
Dibba Fault system. Furthermore, the regional tectonic study
carried out by Searle(159) does not indicate any faulting system
in the UAE south and west of the Dhaid–Ras Al Khaimah axis.
This would appear to cast serious doubt on the existence of
the WCF.
The inclusion of such a fault structure in a seismic assessment
should be based on a detailed seismotectonic study being
carried out to prove its existence. This should include:

a review of oil industry seismic and well data

A6 Conclusions and recommen- z

z geomorphic mapping
dations z paleoseismic studies.

A6.1 Summary
Several seismic hazard assessments have been presented and it
is generally shown that the seismic hazard in the southern
states of the Arabian Gulf is relatively low. Those assessments
that show a higher seismic hazard have been disregarded as
having a weak scientific basis, with the exception of the study
by Sigbjornsson and Elnashai(157) which is discussed below.
If the existence of the WCF were to be proved by such a study, and
the degree of seismicity established, then it should be included
in seismic hazard assessments. This could significantly increase
the seismic hazard along the entire west coast of the UAE. For
example, the 2475-year return period spectrum presented by
Sigbjornsson and Elnashai(157) scales to a 475-year spectrum
that is equivalent to UBC 97 Zone 4. This seismic hazard level
appears to be excessively high and it equates to the worst areas
of California. This high hazard level would run for nearly the
entire length of the UAE and would extend for several tens of
kilometres inland from its western coastline.

23
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula
A detailed discussion of the hazard posed by the inferred WCF
is presented by Aldama-Bustos et al (A1) and we concur that
including the WCF in probabilistic assessments would be
excessively conservative.
A6.3 Seismic hazard for the southern Arabian
Gulf Region
The regional probabilistic seismic assessments presented in this
appendix that are deemed to be reliable show a low seismic
hazard for the southern Arabian Gulf Region. The probabilistic
assessments are reasonably consistent with their level of hazard
and these hazard levels are corroborated by two regional deter-
ministic assessments. Furthermore, there is a reasonable corre-
lation between the PGA estimates derived from the regional
assessments and those that are derived from the site-specific
assessments for Dubai. Yet, these assessments use different
methodology, source zones and attenuation relationships. This
indicates that their prediction of seismic risk may be treated
with a high degree of confidence.
It is suggested that Figures A23 and A20 may be treated as upper
and lower bounds of the seismic hazard in the Arabian Gulf
Region. It is concluded that Figure A23 may be used for seismic
design, if supplemented by the minimum design PGA shown
in Table A4. Furthermore, a minimum Zone ZAG classification
(PGA of 0.05g) for areas of low seismicity in the Arabian Gulf
Region is shown to be more appropriate than UBC 97 Zone 0.
However, although there is a reasonable correlation between
the PGA estimates from the various assessments, there is not a
good agreement between their hazard response spectra. It is
shown that the major difference in the response spectra is due to
the attenuation relationships used and their differing definition
of shear wave velocity at bedrock.
24
It is apparent that the Abrahamson and De Silva(162) attenuation
relationship produces higher spectral accelerations for the par-
ticular conditions pertaining to the southern Arabian Gulf Region,
namely small-magnitude near-source and large-magnitude
distant-source earthquake scenarios. Therefore, until generally
agreed attenuation relationships are available for the region, it is
recommended that the Abrahamson and De Silva relationship be
included in seismic hazard assessments. Consideration should
also be given to assigning a higher weighting to this relation-
ship than other relationships generally in use.
A6.4 Recommended seismic hazard for the
Arabian Peninsula
It is recommended that the Al-Haddad et al.(110) hazard map
shown in Figure A6 may be used for seismic design in most of
the Arabian Peninsula, but it should be amended to include
the seismic hazard data described below:
z The Malkawi et al.(112) hazard map shown in Figure A23 may
be used for seismic design in the southern Arabian Gulf
Region provided it is supplemented by the minimum design
requirements shown in Table A4 and summarised as follows.
z The minimum seismic hazard in the southern Arabian Gulf
Region should be classified as Zone ZAG, which has a minimum
PGA of 0.05g.
z The minimum seismic hazard response spectrum should be
based on the Zone ZAG classification. Adaptations of the UBC 97
seismic coefficients, Cs and Cv, for Zone ZAG spectra are pre-
sented in Table A3. Linear interpolation between the Zone 1
and ZAG coefficients may be used where appropriate. The
resulting coefficients, Cs and Cv, may also be used to derive
appropriate IBC and Eurocode 8 coefficients as shown in the
design section of this report.
The above recommendations represent a conservative estimate
of the seismic hazard for the Arabian Peninsula, based on current
evidence. However, the use of alternative seismic data is not
precluded. Examples of less conservative hazard levels are pre-
sented by Peiris et al.(116) Musson et al.(117) and Aldama-Bustos et
al (A1). An example of a significantly higher hazard level is that
presented by Sigbjorn-sson and Elnashai(157).
Additional reference
A1. ALDAMA-BUSTOS, G, BOMMER, JJ, FENTON, CH AND
STAFFORD, PJ, Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for rock
sites in the cities of Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Ra’s Al
Khaymah, United Arab Emirates, Georisk: Assessment and
Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards,
pp 1-29, Vol 2, September 2008
 Appendix B – Wind design

Appendix B – Wind design

B1 Overview of wind climate in

the Arabian Gulf
The wind climate of the Arabian Gulf described in this appendix
is based on research carried out by Davids(118,119). The structure
and organisation of natural wind over the region is characterised
by four different types of air movement:

1. synoptic winds over a large scale

2. thunderstorm downburst winds over a small scale
3. unique regional winds, called shamals
4. cyclonic events originating in the north-western Indian
Ocean.
Figure B1 - Radar image of large-scale air mass.
Each of these types of systems produces strong winds near
ground level, but their effects upon buildings are quite different. A typical synoptic velocity profile is shown in Figure B2, which
This is due to their different characteristics of scale, profile energy, shows the increase in wind speed with height within the boun-
directionality and duration, as discussed below. dary layer. This variation of mean speed with height is usually
described by various power law profiles.

B2 Characteristics of Arabian Gulf 1000

wind systems
800

B2.1 Synoptic winds

600
Height (m)

Description
400
Synoptic winds are produced by large-scale air masses which
move from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure.
200

Scale
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Synoptic winds are typically 1000km or more in extent. For
Vmean/Vmean (600m)
example, a radar image of a typical large-scale air mass moving
over the south-eastern United States is shown in Figure B1. This Figure B2 - Velocity profile of synoptic winds (from Aurelius(164)).
image shows an intense low-pressure cell centred on northern
Florida, with associated strong winds and cloud arcing on a front Direction
all the way into Canada.
Winds blow from areas of high pressure to areas of low
Profile pressure. The pre-dominant direction is from W–NNW.
However, winds in coastal areas tend to exhibit a diurnal pattern,
A large mass of air flowing over the earth’s surface is slowed down with onshore winds during daylight hours changing to offshore
and made turbulent by the roughness of the surface. This tur- at night. Refer to the design section of this report for more
bulent layer is known as the boundary layer. As the distance information on wind direction in the Arabian Peninsula.
from the surface increases, the surface roughness has less effect
and wind speed slowly increases with height until a height is Energy
reached where the influence of the surface roughness is negli-
gible. This height is referred to as the gradient height. Low to high.

25
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula

Duration Profile

Ranging from diurnal variations to durations of several days. A typical velocity profile of a thunderstorm downburst is
shown in Figure B3c.
Frequency
Direction
Many times per year; the predominant wind system in the
Arabian Gulf. Direction is 360° from point of impact of downburst; therefore
any direction.

B2.2 Thunderstorm downbursts Energy

Description Medium to high.

A well-developed thunderstorm cloud is shown in Figure B3a. Duration

Such clouds typically have a cloud base at a height of 1000–
2000m, and rise to perhaps 5000m. Such thunder clouds are Several minutes.
created by a column of warm air several hundred metres in
diameter which rises and cools rapidly. This rapid cooling creates Frequency
strong currents which circulate vertically within the cloud, further
fuelling the process. These local cells quickly become unstable, Typically five or six per year.
and often collapse in the late afternoon, releasing a sudden
burst of high-velocity air downwards as the cloud collapses Thunderstorms contaminate the synoptic wind data set and
through its own base. therefore thunder-days should be separated from the synoptic
data, otherwise higher estimates of mean wind speed result as
Scale shown in Figure B4.

Small-area local events.

(a) Typical thundercloud (b) Computer simulation (c) Profile (from Mason et al.(165))

Figure B3 - Typical thunderstorm downburst.

26
 Appendix B – Wind design

Figure B4 - Separation of synoptic and thunderstorm data (from Aurelius(164)).

B2.3 Arabian Peninsula shamals Profile

Description
The wind climate in the Arabian Gulf includes a unique regional
flow called the shamal, which is the Arabic word for northern.
These winds tend to occur in late summer as a result of tempe-
rature inversions over the Arabian Desert. They come from a
north-westerly direction and travel down the Arabian Gulf.
Satellite images of the Gulf during a normal day and during a
shamal are shown in Figure B5.
Scale
Large-scale Arabian Gulf-wide events.
The velocity profiles of typical shamals are shown in Figure B6.
The peak velocity tends to occur at heights of approximately
150–400m. The velocity profile of a shamal is significantly
different from the synoptic profile and consequently a typical
anemometer at 10m height would not be a good indicator of
the shamal strength at height.
Direction
Typically from the north-west.
Energy
Medium to high.

(a) Normal conditions (b) During shamal

Figure B5 - Satellite image of shamal.

27
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula
Figure B6 - Shamal velocity profile (from Membery(166)).
Duration
Usually several days, but can last up to 40 days.
Frequency
Typically one shamal season per year, in late summer.
B2.4 Cyclones (originating in north-western
Indian Ocean)
Description
A typical well-developed cyclone is shown in Figure B7a. A
cyclone is a convective storm system which develops over a
large area of warm ocean surface. The term cyclone is used to
describe the cyclonic nature of the storm; cyclones rotate anti-
clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the
southern hemisphere. Depending on the geographical location,
cyclones may also be called hurricanes or typhoons.
Cyclones are characterised by a low-pressure centre (eye) which
is surrounded by rain bands (see Figure B8). The primary energy
source of the cyclone is the release of condensation at high
altitude. The condensation leads to higher wind speeds because
some of the released energy is converted into mechanical energy.
The higher wind speeds and lower associated pressures lead to
increased surface evaporation, which leads to more condensation.
This provides the convective system with enough energy to be
self-sufficient and maintain the positive feedback loop. However,
to continue to maintain the positive feedback loop the cyclone
must remain over warm water. When a cyclone passes over land,
it is cut off from the heat source and its strength diminishes rapidly.
28
Scale
The size of a cyclone is usually determined by measuring the
distance from the centre to the outermost closed isobar. Very
small cyclones have a radius less than 200km, but cyclones
typically have a radius of 700–900km.
Profile
The wind speed of a cyclone is low at the eye; it is highest at
the eye wall (see Figure B9a) and it decreases thereafter, with
increasing distance from the eye. The wind speed at the eye
wall is relatively constant with height (see Figure B9b).
Direction
The movement of cyclones is dictated by large-scale (synoptic)
winds. Cyclones generally originate on the eastern side of
oceans and tend to move westwards, intensifying as they
move (see Figure B7b).
Energy
Large-scale systems which can generate enormous energy.
Ten-minute sustained wind speeds are greater than 34m/s for
cyclones and estimated at 85m/s for severe cyclones.
Duration
Usually many days.
Frequency
Relatively infrequent and tend only to affect the eastern shores
of the Arabian Peninsula. However, two cyclones made landfall
in Oman during 2007.
 Appendix B – Wind design

(a) Satellite image (b) Route and strength

Figure B7 - Cyclone Gonu (June 2007).

Figure B8 - Cyclone convective storm system.

(a) Wind speed profile at 10m level (b) Vertical wind speed profile
(Typhoon York passing over Waglan Island, 1999) (Hurricane Erika, 1997)
Figure B9 - Cyclone wind speed profiles.

29
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula

B3 Conclusions
The main conclusion is that the wind climate in the Arabian
Peninsula is a ‘mixed-climate’ with a particular emphasis on
shamals, which are unique to the region. The climate is a complex
mix of events that are generated by different physical conditions.
It is evident that the strength, direction, duration, probability of
occurrence and, in particular, the velocity profiles of the various
wind events are significantly different.

30

Appendix C – Test methods for self-compacting
concrete
C1 Slump-flow test and T500 test
The slump-flow test is used to assess the horizontal free flow of
self-compacting concrete (SCC) in the absence of obstructions. It
was first developed in Japan for use in assessment of
underwater concrete. The test method is based on the test
method for determining the slump. The diameter of the
concrete circle is a measure for the filling ability of the concrete.
The apparatus consists of a mould in the shape of a truncated
cone with the internal dimensions 200mm diameter at the base,
100mm diameter at the top and a height of 300mm, conforming
to Part 2 of BS EN 12350, Testing fresh concrete(167). The base plate
(see Figure C1) is formed from a stiff non-absorbing material, at
least 700mm square, marked with a circle indicating the central
location for the slump cone, and a further concentric circle of
500mm diameter. In addition a trowel, scoop, ruler and stop-
watch (optional) are required.
Figure C1 - Base plate for Slump-flow test.
The test procedure is as follows:
z About 6 litres of concrete is needed to perform the test,
sampled normally.
z Moisten the base plate and inside of slump cone.
z Place base plate on level stable ground and the slump cone
centrally on the base plate and hold down firmly.
z Fill the cone with the scoop. Do not tamp; simply strike off
the concrete level with the top of the cone using the trowel.
z Remove any surplus concrete from around the base of the
cone.
z Raise the cone vertically and allow the concrete to flow out
freely.
z Simultaneously, start the stopwatch and record the time
taken for the concrete to reach the 500mm spread circle.
(This is the T500 time.)
z Measure the final diameter of the concrete in two perpen-
dicular directions.
Appendix C – Test methods for self-compacting concrete
z Calculate the average of the two measured diameters. (This
is the slump-flow in mm.)
C2 V-funnel test and V-funnel test
at T 5 minutes
The V-funnel test, which is used to determine the filling ability
(flowability) of the concrete with a maximum aggregate size of
20mm, was developed in Japan. The equipment consists of a V-
shaped funnel, shown in Figure C2.
Figure C2 - V-funnel.
The additional equipment required consists of a bucket (about
12 litres capacity), trowel, scoop and stopwatch.
The procedure for the V-funnel test is as follows:
z About 12 litres of concrete is needed to perform the test,
sampled normally.
z Set the V-funnel on firm ground.
z Moisten the inside surfaces of the funnel.
z Keep the trap door open to allow any surplus water to drain.
z Close the trap door and place a bucket underneath.
z Fill the apparatus completely with concrete without com-
pacting or tamping; simply strike off the concrete level with
the top using the trowel.
z Open within 10s after filling the trap door and allow the
concrete to flow out under gravity.
z Start the stopwatch when the trap door is opened, and record
the time for the discharge to complete (the flow time). This is
taken to be when light is seen from above through the funnel.
z The whole test has to be performed within 5 minutes.
31
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula
The procedure for the V-funnel test at T 5 minutes is as follows:
z Do not clean or moisten the inside surfaces of the funnel again.
z Close the trap door and refill the V-funnel immediately after
measuring the flow time.
z Place a bucket underneath.
z Fill the apparatus completely with concrete without compac-
ting or tapping, simply strike off the concrete level with the
top using the trowel.
z Open the trap door 5 minutes after the second fill of the
funnel and allow the concrete to flow out under gravity.
z Simultaneously start the stopwatch when the trap door is
opened, and record the time for the discharge to complete
(the flow time at T 5 minutes). This is taken to be when light is
seen from above through the funnel.
C3 L-box test method
This test, which is based on a Japanese design for underwater
concrete, assesses the flow of the concrete, and also the extent to
which it is subject to blocking by reinforcement. The apparatus
is shown in Figure C3.
Figure C3 - L-box test apparatus.
32
The additional equipment required consists of a trowel, scoop
and stopwatch.
The procedure for the test is as follows:
z About 14 litres of concrete is needed to perform the test,
sampled normally.
z Set the apparatus level on firm ground; ensure that the
sliding gate can open freely and then close it.
z Moisten the inside surfaces of the apparatus; remove any
surplus water.
z Fill the vertical section of the apparatus with the concrete
sample.
z Leave it to stand for 1 minute.
z Lift the sliding gate and allow the concrete to flow out into
the horizontal section.
z Simultaneously, start the stopwatch and record the times
taken for the concrete to reach the 200mm and 400mm
marks.
z When the concrete stops flowing, the distances ‘H1’ and ‘H2’
are measured.
z Calculate H2/H1; this is the blocking ratio.
The whole test has to be performed within 5 minutes.
C4 J-ring test
The J-ring test, developed at the University of Paisley, is used to
determine the passing ability of the concrete. The apparatus is
shown in Figure C4 and consists of the J-ring mounted on a base
plate of a stiff non-absorbing material, at least 700mm square,
marked with a circle showing the central location for the slump
cone, and a further concentric circle of 500mm diameter.
100
300
200
300
d1
d2
Figure C4 - J-ring test apparatus (all dimensions in mm).
 Appendix C – Test methods for self-compacting concrete

The additional equipment required consists of a trowel, scoop

and ruler.

The procedure for the test is as follows:

z About 6 litres of concrete is needed to perform the test,

sampled normally.
z Moisten the base plate and inside of slump cone.
z Place base plate on level stable ground.
z Place the J-ring centrally on the base plate and the slump-
cone centrally inside it and hold down firmly.
z Fill the cone with the scoop. Do not tamp, simply strike off
the concrete level with the top of the cone using the trowel.
z Remove any surplus concrete from around the base of the
cone.
z Raise the cone vertically and allow the concrete to flow out
freely.
z Measure the final diameter of the concrete in two perpen-
dicular directions.
z Calculate the average of the two measured diameters, in mm.
z Measure the difference in height between the concrete just
inside the bars and that just outside the bars.
z Calculate the average of the difference in height at four
locations, in mm.
z Note any border of mortar or cement paste without coarse
aggregate at the edge of the pool of concrete.

33
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula

Appendix D – Cement, slag, fly ash and silica fume

properties

It is important that all ingredients used in concrete comply with
a recognised standard and this is particularly important in the
case of cements and similar materials. Requirements from a
number of different national standards are given in the tables
which follow. Tables D1 and D2 give the mechanical, physical and
chemical requirements from BS EN 197-1(8). The requirements
are given in terms of characteristic values. Many of the property
requirements depend on the cement strength class. Within each
strength class there are two early strength classes. The class with
ordinary early strength class is indicated by N and the class with
high early strength is indicated by R.
Compositional and physical requirements for cement from
ASTM C 150(10) are given in Tables D3 and D4.
Requirements for ground granulated blastfurnace slag, fly ash
and silica fume from European Standards are given in Tables D4
to D6.

Property Strength class Requirement

Compressive strength: Early 32.5N ≥16.0MPa at 7 days
32.5R, 42.5N ≥10.0MPa at 2 days
42.5R, 52.5N ≥20.0MPa at 2 days
52.5R ≥30.0MPa at 2 days
Standard (28 days) 32.5N, 32.5R 32.5 to 52.5MPa
42.5N, 42.5R 42.5 to 62.5MPa
52.5N, 52.5R ≥52.5MPa
Initial setting time 32.5N, 32.5R ≥75min
42.5N, 42.5R ≥60min
52.5N, 52.5R ≥45min
Soundness All ≤10mm

Table D1 - Mechanical and physical requirements for cement from BS EN 197-1(8).

Property Strength class Requirement (%)

Loss on ignition All ≤5.0
Insoluble residue All ≤5.0
Sulfate content 32.5N, 32.5R, 42.5N ≤3.5
42.5R, 52.5N, 52.5R ≤4.0
Chloride content All ≤0.10

Table D2 - Chemical requirements for Portland cement (CEM I) from BS EN 197-1(8).

Property Type
I II V
Silicon dioxide (SiO2), min: % – 20.0 –
Aluminium oxide (Al2O3), max: % – 6.0 –
Ferric oxide (Fe2O3), max: % – 6.0 –
Magnesium oxide (MgO), max: % 6.0 6.0 6.0
Sulphur trioxide (SO3), max: %
When C3A is 8% or less 3.0 3.0 2.3
When C3A is more than 8% 3.5 N/A N/A
Loss on ignition, max: % 3.0 3.0 3.0
Insoluble residue, max: % 0.75 0.75 0.75
Tricalcium aluminate (C3A), max: % – 8 5
Tetracalcium alumino ferrite plus twice tricalcium aluminate [C4AF + 2(C3A)] – – 25

Table D3 - Compositional requirements for common cement types from ASTM C 150(10).

34
 Appendix D – Cement, slag, pfa and silica fume properties

Property Type
I II V
Air content of mortar, volume %, max 12 12 12
Fineness, specific surface m2/kg, min
Turbidimeter 160 160 160
Air permeability 280 280 280
Autoclave expansion, max: % 0.80 0.80 0.80
Compressive strength, MPa, min
3 days 12.0 10.0 8.0
7 days 19.0 17.0 15.0
28 days – – 21.0
Time of setting, min
Gilmore
Initial, min 60 60 60
Final, max 600 600 600
Vicat
Time of setting, min 45 45 45
Time of setting, max 375 375 375

Table D4 - Physical requirements for common cement types from ASTM C 150(10).

Property Required value

Loss on ignition 3.0% max (corrected for oxidation of sulfide)
Chloride content 0.10% max
SO3 2.5% max
Sulfide 2.0% max
MgO 18.0% max
Fineness 275m2/kg min
Activity index 45% min of Portland cement concrete strength at 7 days
70% min of Portland cement concrete strength at 28 days
Initial set Not more than twice as long as test cement on its own

Table D5 - BS EN 15167(49) requirements for ggbs.

Property Required value

Loss on ignition Category A – 5.0% max
Chloride content 0.10% max
SO3 3.0% max
Free CaO 1.0% max – soundness test not required
2.5% max but soundness test also required
Total CaO 10.0% max
Fineness Category S – less than 12% retained on 45μm sieve
Water requirement 95% max
Activity index 75% min of Portland cement concrete strength at 28 days
85% min of Portland cement concrete strength at 90 days
Soundness 10mm max
Particle density Not more than 200kg/m3 deviation from declared value

Table D6 - BS EN 450(47) requirements for fly ash.

35
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula

Property Required value

Loss on ignition 4.0% max
Chloride content 0.30% max
SO3 2.0% max
SiO2 85% min
Elemental silicon 0.4% max
Free CaO 1.0% max
Specific surface 15.0m2/g min; 35.0m2/g max
Dry mass of slurry Within ± 2% of declared value
Activity index 100% min of OPC concrete strength at 28 days

Table D7 - BS EN 13263(69) requirements for silica fume.

36
 Appendix E – Topography and climate

Appendix E – Topography and climate

Note: Temperatures in the tables are shade temperatures. In the
sun, these may be as much as 10–15°C higher in calm weather
(possibly less in wind). During the hottest summer weather in
almost all lowland areas of the Peninsula there is danger of heat
exhaustion or heatstroke.
E1 Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia forms the greater part of the Arabian Peninsula. It
is a large country, most of which is hot desert. It is bordered on
the north by Jordan and Iraq. To the east of Saudi Arabia there
is a short coastline on the Arabian (Persian) Gulf but there are
land borders with the Gulf states of Kuwait, Qatar, the United
Arab Emirates and Oman. There is a long land border with Oman
and in the south-west of the Peninsula it borders Yemen, to the
north of which it has a long coastline on the Red Sea and the
Gulf of Aqaba. Details of the climate in Jeddah, on the coast of
the Red Sea, and in Riyadh, in the centre of the Peninsula, are
given in Tables E1a and E1b.

Month Temperature (°C) Relative humidity (%) Precipitation

Highest Average daily Lowest 0800 hours 1400 hours Average Ave No. days
recorded Maximum Minimum recorded monthly (mm) with 1mm +
January 33 29 19 9 58 54 5 0.8
February 35 29 18 11 52 52 0 0.3
March 38 29 19 13 52 52 0 0.3
April 40 33 21 12 52 56 0 0.5
May 42 35 23 13 51 55 0 0
June 47 36 24 19 56 55 0 0
July 42 37 26 21 55 50 0 0
August 42 37 27 23 59 51 0 0
September 42 36 25 21 65 61 0 0
October 41 35 23 20 60 61 0 0
November 41 33 22 17 55 59 25 2
December 34 30 19 10 55 54 31 1

Table El(a) - Climate in Saudi Arabia – Jeddah, 6m, 21° 28’N 39°WE, 5 years.

Month Temperature (°C) Relative humidity (%) Precipitation

Highest Average daily Lowest 0500 hours 1600 hours Average Ave No. days
recorded Maximum Minimum recorded monthly (mm) with 1mm +
January 30 21 8 –7 70 44 3 1
February 33 23 9 –2 63 37 20 1
March 38 28 13 1 65 36 23 3
April 40 32 18 2 64 34 25 4
May 43 38 22 15 51 31 10 1
June 45 42 25 19 47 31 0 0
July 45 42 26 19 33 19 0 0
August 44 42 24 17 35 19 0 0
September 44 39 22 17 42 24 0 0
October 38 34 16 10 47 25 0 0
November 34 29 13 2 60 33 0 0
December 31 21 9 0 75 52 0 0

Table E1(b) - Climate in Saudi Arabia – Riyadh, 590m, 24° 39’N 46° 42’E, 3 years.

37
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula

E2 Bahrain
Bahrain consists of one large island and a number of smaller
ones lying off the coast of Saudi Arabia and west of the Qatar
Peninsula. Its climate is similar to that of the Gulf coast of Arabia
but somewhat modified as Bahrain is an island. Humidity is high
throughout the year except when hot, dry winds blow off the
mainland. The high temperatures between April and October
are rendered particularly uncomfortable by the humidity.
Annual rainfall is low and this primarily falls between the months
of November and March. Winter temperatures are mild and it is
only rarely cold, when northerly winds blow from Iran.
Details of the climate of Bahrain are given in Table E2.
E3 Kuwait
Kuwait has land borders with Iraq and Saudi Arabia and a coast-
line on the Arabian Gulf. It is a low-lying hot desert country
where the average annual rainfall is about 125mm. Most rain
falls between November and March and there are very few wet
days. Winter temperatures are mild and only occasionally is it
cold, when northerly or north-westerly winds bring cold air
from Iran or Iraq. Summers are uniformly hot and temperatures
can soar when hot winds blow from the heart of Arabia.
On the coast temperatures are lower than inland but the heat
is made more uncomfortable by the high humidity. Occasional
sandstorms occur when strong winds blow from the interior.
Details of the climate of Kuwait are given in Table E3.

Month Temperature (°C) Relative humidity (%) Precipitation

Highest Average daily Lowest 0730 hours 1530 hours Average Ave No. days
recorded Maximum Minimum recorded monthly (mm) with 2.5mm +
January 29 20 14 5 85 71 8 1
February 34 21 15 7 83 70 18 2
March 35 24 17 11 80 70 13 1
April 41 29 21 13 75 66 8 1
May 42 33 26 19 71 63 0 0
June 44 36 28 21 69 64 0 0
July 44 37 29 24 69 67 0 0
August 45 38 29 24 74 65 0 0
September 44 36 27 22 75 64 0 0
October 39 32 24 19 80 66 0 0
November 36 28 21 14 80 70 18 1
December 31 22 16 9 85 77 18 2

Table E2 - Climate in Bahrain – 6m, 26° 129’N 50° 30’E, 16 years.

Month Temperature (°C) Relative humidity (%) Precipitation

Highest Average daily Lowest 0530 hours 1430 hours Average Ave No. days
recorded Maximum Minimum recorded monthly (mm) with 1mm +
January 28 16 9 1 77 61 23 2
February 26 18 11 2 68 61 23 2
March 32 22 15 4 72 61 28 2
April 39 28 20 12 67 55 5 0.9
May 43 34 25 16 67 55 0 0.3
June 48 37 28 22 62 49 0 0
July 48 39 30 26 45 41 0 0
August 46 40 30 20 50 46 0 0
September 47 38 27 19 52 51 0 0
October 41 33 23 14 64 60 3 0
November 38 25 17 6 66 59 15 1
December 26 18 12 2 76 65 28 3

Table E3 - Climate in Kuwait – 5m, 29° 21’N 48° 00’E, 14 years.

38
 Appendix E – Topography and climate

E4 Oman E5 United Arab Emirates

Oman is situated to the north-east of the Arabian Peninsula, with
coastlines on the Gulf of Oman to the north and the Arabian Sea
to the south. Inland it is bordered by the United Arab Emirates,
Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Yemen. The Jebel Akhdar moun-
tain range in the north of Oman rises to over 3000m where the
annual rainfall on the higher parts exceeds 400mm. In the rest
of Oman the annual rainfall is below 125mm except in the hills
of Dhofar in the south. On the south coast the wet season is
between June and September, but in the Jebel Akhdar and the
lowlands of the north, rain may fall at any time. Occasionally a
tropical cyclone in the Arabian Sea brings very wet, windy
weather to the coast of Oman which may cause damage through
wind and flood. Climate details for Muscat are given in Table E4.
Temperatures and humidity are high throughout the year on
the coast; May to September is the hottest season. Temperatures
rise inland towards the Rub al Khali, where humidity is lower so
the high temperatures are more tolerable and the nights cooler.
This territory consists of a union of seven sheikhdoms on the
southern shore of the Arabian Gulf between Qatar on the west
and Oman and the Gulf of Oman on the east. They have a boun-
dary with Saudi Arabia to the north of the Rub al Khali. Much of
the country is flat and consists of sand or rocky desert. Rainfall
is very low and mostly occurs between November and March.
Temperatures are very high between May and September and
warm to mild for the rest of the year. Winters are warmer than
in Kuwait or the interior of Saudi Arabia. Humidity is high on
the coast in the summer. Table E5 for Sharjah is representative
of conditions on the coast.
Conditions only a few miles inland can be significantly less
humid than at the coast. Hourly readings from Dubai
International Airport during 2005 indicate an average relative
humidity of 55% over the year compared with an average for
Sharjah coast of 67% from the results given in Table E5.

Unless precautions are taken there is a danger of heat exhaustion

or even heatstroke during the hottest weather. Sunshine amounts
are high all year.
Month Temperature (°C) Relative humidity (%) Precipitation
Highest Average daily Lowest 0800 hours 1600 hours Average Ave No. days
recorded Maximum Minimum recorded monthly (mm) with 0.25mm +
January 31 25 19 11 72 71 28 2
February 32 25 19 12 73 73 18 1
March 42 28 22 17 71 70 10 1
April 41 32 26 19 64 68 10 1
May 44 37 30 24 58 60 0 0
June 47 38 31 26 72 72 3 0
July 45 36 31 25 77 77 0 0
August 42 33 29 24 82 80 0 0
September 42 34 28 23 75 77 0 0
October 41 34 27 21 69 74 3 0
November 36 30 23 17 69 72 10 1
December 33 20 20 16 70 71 18 2

Table E4 - Climate in Muscat – 5m, 23° 37’N 58° 35’E, 24 years.

Month Temperature (°C) Relative humidity (%) Precipitation

Highest Average daily Lowest 0730 hours 1530 hours Average Ave No. days
recorded Maximum Minimum recorded monthly (mm) with 2.5mm +
January 29 23 12 3 81 61 23 2
February 33 24 14 8 81 63 23 2
March 40 27 16 8 74 61 10 1
April 39 30 18 12 66 63 5 0.3
May 43 34 22 16 61 63 0 0
June 44 36 25 19 64 65 0 0
July 47 38 28 23 64 64 0 0
August 48 39 28 23 66 64 0 0
September 45 37 25 21 73 64 0 0
October 40 33 22 18 77 62 0 0
November 36 31 18 12 78 59 10 0.2
December 31 26 14 8 82 62 36 2

Table E5 - Climate in Sharjah – 5.5m, 25° 20’N 55° 24’E, 11 years.

39
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula

E6 The Yemen
The Yemen occupies the south-western portion and the extreme
south of the Arabian Peninsula. In the south-western corner of the
Peninsula it has a narrow coastal plain on the Red Sea with the
land rising steeply to a mountainous interior over 3600m high.
This is an exceptional part of Arabia as the mountains receive
moderate to abundant rainfall between March and September.
In the higher regions temperatures are much lower than else-
where in Arabia. Here the climate is quite pleasant with mild
winters and warm, moist but generally sunny summers. No
reliable climatic data are available for this, higher, part of the
country. In the lowland along the Red Sea coast the climate is
hot and humid for most of the year and similar to that of the
rest of the Red Sea coast of Saudi Arabia. Conditions here are
represented by Table E6 for Kamaran Island off the Red Sea coast
of the Yemen and Table E1a for Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. In this
lowland rainfall is low, averaging about 100mm a year and may
occur in winter or summer.
Away from the coast, in the mountains, much higher levels of
rainfall in winter supply water for reservoirs and irrigation systems.
On the southern edge of the Peninsula the Yemen has a long
coastline on the Arabian Sea. Here the interior includes a small
portion of the great sand desert of the Rub al Khali which is
mainly in Saudi Arabia. Between this desert and the coast are
ranges of hills within which runs a broad valley, the Wadi Hadhra-
maut. This area receives rather more rainfall and is settled and
more densely populated.
Climatic conditions along the coast are represented by Table E7
for Khormaksar, Aden’s airport. Rainfall is low throughout the year
and most of the coastal plain consists of hot desert. Temperatures
and humidity are high throughout the year and between June
and September midday temperatures regularly rise to near 38°C
with high humidity. Daily sea breezes help to mitigate the heat
on the coast. Inland in the hills, temperatures and humidity are
a little lower. Here, rainfall is a little more plentiful and mostly
falls between May and September.
E7 Qatar
No separate table for the climate of Qatar has been included,
as details of its climate are very similar to those shown in the
tables for Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.

Month Temperature (°C) Relative humidity (%) Precipitation

Highest Average daily Lowest 0900 hours 1500 hours Average Ave No. days
recorded Maximum Minimum recorded monthly (mm) with 1mm +
January 31 28 23 19 79 69 5 0.6
February 32 28 23 19 77 65 5 0.9
March 34 30 25 21 75 65 3 0.6
April 37 32 26 23 74 61 3 0.3
May 39 35 28 23 70 56 3 0.2
June 40 36 29 24 67 55 0 0.1
July 41 37 29 22 63 52 13 2
August 39 36 29 22 67 55 18 1
September 40 36 29 23 71 58 3 0.5
October 39 34 28 23 67 57 3 0.5
November 34 31 26 20 74 63 10 0.8
December 32 28 24 20 77 68 23 2

Table E6 - Climate in Kamaran Island – 6m, 15° 20’N 42° 37’E, 26 years.

Month Temperature (°C) Relative humidity (%) Precipitation

Highest Average daily Lowest 0300 hours 1500 hours Average Ave No. days
recorded Maximum Minimum recorded monthly (mm) with 1mm +
January 30 28 22 16 78 63 5 1
February 31 28 23 17 79 65 0 0.5
March 35 30 24 19 82 66 5 0.3
April 37 32 25 20 83 66 0 0
May 39 34 27 24 83 66 0 0
June 41 37 29 26 76 51 0 0
July 40 36 28 23 76 49 5 1
August 38 36 28 23 78 50 3 0.7
September 38 36 28 25 78 56 0 0.2
October 38 33 24 19 77 58 0 0.2
November 33 30 23 18 77 61 0 0.2
December 31 28 23 17 76 62 5 2

Table E7 - Climate in Aden, Khormaksar Airport – 7m, 12° 50’N, 45° 01’E, 6 years.

40
 Appendix F – Permeability testing

Appendix F – Permeability testing

F1 Permeability tests The limitations of the tests in terms of accuracy and repeatability
lead to the conclusion that in most cases they may not suitable
as routine quality control measures. It would be preferable to
F1.1 Introduction specify these tests for use at mix development stage and try to
link them to a more easily measured parameter (say strength)
The requirements for these tests were introduced into specifi-
for use in routine production quality control.
cations in the mid-1980s in an effort to improve the durability
of reinforced concrete structures. The thinking behind the
Basic precautions need to be included in specifications such as
introduction was that many deterioration processes involve the
always testing at least three samples from the same batch and
movement of liquid or gas through concrete. Hence if the
taking the average as the result. If any one value is markedly
concrete is less permeable or less absorptive, it should be more
different to the other two, discard that value and take the average
durable. The principal difficulty with the approach is that the
of the other two as the result.
conditions in the specified tests are not necessarily directly
comparable with the environment to which the concrete will
It is unrealistic to expect the results of routine tests during pro-
be exposed in service. A further difficulty is that there are few, if
duction to attain the same values as those obtained in tests for
any, theoretical models of deterioration processes which use
initial acceptance. Similarly, it is unrealistic to expect results from
the properties which are measured under the specifications.
cored site samples to produce the same value as those for tests
Other than for the Nordtest 443(168), neither is there any way of
on samples undertaken in the laboratory. This is because of
calculating the parameters required by the models from the
differences in curing, particularly for samples taken at or near the
measured values. On the other hand, it cannot be claimed that
surface; differences in compaction; sedimentation associated
the specified values are based on experience as insufficient
with concrete depth; and temperature stresses and internal
practical experience has been gained since the widespread
movements. Values specified for routine tests should be less
introduction of these tests. This means that the values which
onerous than values specified for initial acceptance testing.
have to be attained under the specifications are mainly specu-
lative and there is no way of assessing whether they will or will
The tests which are commonly specified are as follows:
not lead to a structure which attains the required design life. In
addition, the same requirements are often set for all concrete
z BS EN 12390, Testing hardened concrete, Part 8, Depth of
on a project even when there are different exposure conditions
penetration of water under pressure(169)
for different elements.
z BS 1881, Testing concrete, Part 208, Recommendations for the
determination of the initial surface absorption of concrete(170)
Even though the introduction of tests related to durability does
z BS 1881 Part 122, Method for determination of water absorp-
not have a particularly sound technical basis, it has had the
tion(170)
positive benefit that it has forced concrete producers into the
z Rapid chloride permeability test to either ASTM C1202,
more widespread use of cement combinations. Materials such
Standard test method for electrical indication of concrete’s
as silica fume, ground granulated blastfurnace slag and fly ash
ability to resist chloride ion penetration(24) or AASHTO T-277(25).
have been shown to improve the durability of concrete in other
parts of the world. The use of durability testing in specifications
More recent additions are Nordtest NT Build 443(168) and Nordtest
rather than a prescriptive approach would allow concrete pro-
NT Build 492(171). Values specified for routine tests should be set
ducers the freedom to develop their own solutions to the problem
on a statistical basis. As an example, in the case of water pene-
of producing a concrete to meet a particular value of absorption
tration to Part 8 of BS EN 12390:
or permeability.
1. average of any four consecutive results not greater than
Despite the limitations of these tests, there has been a gradual
15mm
tightening of specifications over the years in terms of the values
and
to be achieved. Recent research has shown that some of the
2. no single result greater than 20mm.
tests give variable results with poor repeatability. This has meant
that concrete suppliers have had to aim at even more stringent
In both cases, a result is the average value from a set of three
targets to reduce the risk of non-compliant results during pro-
samples from the same batch of concrete.
duction testing. There is a real danger of overspecification and
the unnecessary increases in cost which this entails.

41
Guide to the Design of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula
Each of the above tests was developed for a specific purpose
(sometimes for research) and it is probably true to say that none
was originally intended to be a quality control tool for production
of concrete. Conditioning of specimens or concrete surfaces prior
to test is an influencing factor as, for example, dry surfaces are
much more absorbent than damp surfaces. Another important
consideration is the age of the sample at test as the pore structure
and hence also the absorption and permeability of concrete
change with time. Much of what follows is based on the papers
by Pocock and Corrans(22) and Krieg(23).
F1.2 BS EN 12390 Part 8, Depth of penetration
of water under pressure
In the test method given in BS EN 12390 Part 8, water under a
pressure of 500kPa (5 bar) is applied to an area of one surface
of the specimen for a period of 72 hours. The sample is then
split open and the maximum depth of water penetration is
measured.
The depth of penetration can be difficult to interpret and its
measurement is probably accurate only to around ± 5mm. High
variability has also been reported even within a single specimen
and for different specimens made from the same load of concrete.
Laboratories are inconsistent with respect to the choice of the
surface to be tested, preparation of the surface and age at test.
Very low penetration limits are often specified and the short-
comings with the test can make them very difficult to apply.
F1.3 BS 1881 Part 122, Water absorption
This test is carried out on 75mm cores at an age around 28 days.
The cores are dried for a period of 3 days at 105°C and then
immersed in water. Absorption is measured by the increase in
weight over a period of 30 minutes.
One difficulty with this test is that the specimen may have both
a cast face and cut faces and possibly a broken face which will
each have different absorption characteristics. These differences
could mask the effect of any changes in the cast and cured face
which it would be useful to be able to detect.
The results are more reliable than other durability tests and the
test could be used for routine quality control but is probably not
sufficiently sensitive to pick up anything but major variations in
concrete quality.
F1.4 BS 1881 Part 208, Initial surface
absorption test (ISAT)
The test uses a cap sealed against the concrete surface. The rate
of absorption is measured by monitoring the movement of the
meniscus along a capillary tube connected to the cap while
the water in the cap is maintained at a low constant pressure
42
head. Test results show good reliability but initial moisture
condition or the presence of curing membrane can have a
significant effect on results. It is the only durability test which
can be used as a non-destructive test at site and can be used
relatively easily on both top and side surfaces of members. It
measures the properties of the surface zone and hence can
give an indication of increased absorption where curing has
been deficient.
F1.5 ASTM C1202/AASHTO T-277, Ability to
resist chloride ion penetration (rapid
chloride permeability test)
This test measures the passage of electric current through a 50mm
thick sample of saturated concrete. The sample is positioned at
the centre of a cell with sodium chloride solution on one side
and sodium hydroxide solution on the other. An electrical
potential of 60V is applied across the concrete sample and the
total current passed over a period of 6 hours is measured.
The test is slightly less unreliable than the BS EN 12390 Part 8
test in terms of repeatability but has several severe limitations.
Most of these limitations are set out in the test standard itself
which considers the test as only a general guide to durability.
The test can show high variability. The test standard advises
that differences of 40% can be expected when two samples
from the same concrete batch are tested by the same operator.
The test is also sensitive to age and to the type of cement used in
the concrete. Testing at an age earlier than 28 days is unreliable
and it may be better to test at 56 or even 90 days when more
consistent results are likely to be obtained.
Shi(172) has reported that the test results can be influenced by
the type of binder because of alterations in the pore solution
chemistry. Hence the criteria given in ASTM C1202 for assessing
concrete containing Portland cement do not apply when fly
ash, ggbs or silica fume form part of the cement. Shi proposes
that a very similar test, namely Nordtest NT Build 492(171) which
uses the same test set-up as ASTM C1202, is more reliable and
is not affected by the presence of other cementitious materials.
At the end of the test period the sample is split and the depth
of chloride penetration is determined by spraying with silver
nitrate solution. Unfortunately, there is little or no experience of
this test in the Gulf region.
Krieg(23) undertook a review of the ASTM C1202 test and con-
cluded that the poor precision associated with the test and the
fact that the test solution does not have any influence on the
test results effectively invalidates the rapid chloride permeability
test as an instrument for quality control.
The ASTM C1202 test is convenient in that it is quick to carry out
but its fatal drawback is that its results are unreliable. In addition,
its results are not in a form which can be used in chloride ingress
modelling to predict the rate at which chlorides are likely to
enter concrete in service.
 Appendix F – Permeability testing

F1.6 Nordtest NT Build 443 accelerated From these, typical values specified for adverse exposure condi-
chloride penetration tions are set out in Table F2. Note that these are typical values
and not recommended values.
The principle of this test is that a saturated concrete specimen is
exposed to a chloride solution for at least 35 days. After exposure, Property Test method Specified limit at 28 days
samples are taken from the exposed face at successive depths Water absorption BS 1881 Part 122 2%
by grinding. The individual samples are tested for acid-soluble Water penetration BS EN 12390 10mm
chloride content. The results are analysed by fitting them to a Rapid chloride ASTM C 1202 2000 coulombs
Fick’s law diffusion equation curve using a least-squares tech- Table F2 - Typical values for results of durability tests specified for
nique. The result is expressed as an effective chloride transport adverse exposure conditions.
coefficient or a ‘penetration parameter’. This test is unique among
those documented here in that it provides a chloride transport
parameter which can be used in durability models.
F3 Summary
F1.7 Nordtest NT Build 492 chloride None of the permeability test methods which are commonly
used in the region has sufficient precision or reliability for use
migration from non-steady-state
as a routine quality control test during concrete production.
migration experiments The best approach, if they are to be used, is to use them at mix
development stage. Once a mix has been developed which
The test is a development of the ASTM C1202 rapid chloride per- meets the necessary requirements, its performance can be
meability test. The concrete sample is exposed to sodium chloride monitored during production by strength tests and by checking
solution on one side and to calcium hydroxide solution on the the ingredients and their quantities from the batching plant
other. An initial voltage of 30V is applied across the specimen. records. The ASTM rapid chloride permeability test could be
This voltage is adjusted according to the initial current passed. used as a coarse screen during production, for example as a
The test duration varies between 6 and 96 hours depending on check that silica fume has been included in a mix, but not as
the initial current. At the completion of this part of the test, the part of the overall compliance requirement.
specimen is split open and the depth of chloride penetration is
determined by spraying the fractured face with silver nitrate.
The non-steady-state migration coefficient is calculated from
the applied voltage and the average chloride penetration depth.

F2 Specified values
A wide range of values has been observed in concrete specifi-
cations from the region as shown in Table F1. These are not to
be considered as recommendations.

Type Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

ASTM C 1202 BS EN 12390
Charge passed (coulombs) Penetration (mm)
All 700 3500 5 50
Ordinary 700 3500 10 50
Substructure 1000 1000 10 15
Silica fume 800 2500 5 10
ggbs 800 1200 5 20
BS 1881 Part 208 BS 1881 Part 122
10 min flow (ml/m2/s) Absorption (%)
All 0.05 0.30 1.0 3.0
Ordinary 0.05 0.30 1.5 3.0
Substructure 0.15 0.15 1.5 2.0
Silica fume 0.05 0.30 1.0 3.0
ggbs 0.15 0.15 1.5 2.0

Table F1 - Range of values for results of durability tests found in various

specifications.

43